tures read in the church; but they were not allowed to be present at the prayers. AUGUSTINS, a religious order, who observed the rule of St. Augustin, prescribed them by pope Alexander IV. AUGSBURGH or AUGUSTAN, in 1256. This rule was to have all CONFESSION, a celebrated confes- things in common; the rich who enter sion of faith drawn up by Luther and among them to sell their possessions, Melancthon on behalf of themselves and and give them to the poor; to employ other ancient reformers, and presented the first part of the morning in labourin 1550 to the emperor Charles V. ating with their hands, and the rest in the diet of Augusta, or Augsburgh, in reading: when they go abroad, to go the name of the evangelic body. This always two in company; never to eat confession contains twenty-eight chap-but in their monastery, &c. ters, of which the greatest part is emAUSTERITY, a state of rigid morployed in representing with perspicuity tification. It is distinguished from seand truth the religious opinions of the verity and rigour thus: Austerity relates Protestants, and the rest in pointing out to the manner of living; severity to the the errors and abuses that occasioned manner of thinking; rigour to the mantheir separation from the church of ner of punishing. To austerity is opRome. The leading doctrines of this posed effeminacy; to severity, relaxaconfession are, the true and essential tion; to rigour, clemency. A hermit divinity of the Son of God; his substi-is austere in his life; a casuist severe tution, and vicarious sacrifice; and the in his application of religion or law; a necessity, freedom, and efficacy of Di-judge rigorous in his sentences. vine grace. A civil war followed this diet that lasted upwards of twenty years, but which only spread the new opinions, instead of extirpating them. AUTOCEPHALI BISHOPS. This denomination was given to such bishops in the primitive church as were exempted from the jurisdiction of others. and SLANDER. B. BACKBITING. See DETRACTION || quences of this awful state are-loss of character; loss of comfort; loss of useBACKSLIDING, the act of turning fulness; and, as long as any remain in from the path of duty. It may be con- this state, a loss of a well-grounded hope sidered as partial when applied to true of future happiness. To avoid this state, believers, who do not backslide with the or recover from it, we should beware of whole bent of their will; as voluntary, the first appearance of sin; be much when applied to those who, after pro-in prayer; attend the ordinances; and fessing to know the truth, wilfully turn unite with the people of God. We from it, and live in the practice of sin; should consider the awful instances of as final, when the mind is given up to apostacy, as Saul, Judas, Demas, &c.; judicial hardness, as in the case of Judas. the many warnings we have of it, Matt. Partial backsliding must be distinguish- xxiv. 13. Heb. x. 38. Luke ix. 62.; ed from hypocrisy, as the former may how it grieves the Holy Spirit; and how exist where there are gracious inten-wretched it makes us; above all things, tions on the whole; but the latter is a studied profession of appearing to be what we are not. our dependence should be on God, that we may always be directed by his Spirit, and kept by his power. See APÓSTACY. The causes of backsliding are-the cares of the world; improper con- BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, nexions; inattention to secret or closet so called from Bangor, or the bishop duties; self-conceit and dependence; thereof. Bishop Hoadley, the bishop of indulgence; listening to and parlying that diocese, preaching before George with temptations. A backsliding state 1. asserted the supreme authority of is manifested by indifference to prayer Christ, as king in his own kingdom; and self-examination; trifling or unpro-and that he had not delegated his powfitable conversation; neglect of public er, like temporal lawgivers during their ordinances; shunning the people of God; absence from their kingdom, to any associating with the world; thinking persons, as his vicegerents or deputies. lightly of sin; neglect of the Bible; and This important sermon may be seen often by gross immorality. The conse-reprinted in the Liverpool Theological Repository, vol. 5. p. 301. In 1717, he also published his Preservative, in which he advanced some positions contrary to temporal and spiritual tyranny, and in behalf of the civil and religious liberties of mankind: upon which he was violently opposed, accused, and persecuted, by the advocates for church power: but he was defended and supported by the civil powers, and his abilities and meekness gained him the plaudits of many. BANIANS, a religious sect in the empire of the Mogul, who believe a Metempsychosis; and will therefore eat no living creature, nor kill even noxious animals, but endeavour to release them when in the hands of others. The name Banian is sometimes extended to all the idolaters of India, as contradistinguished from the Mahometans. BAPTISM, the ceremony of washing, or the application of water to a person, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by which he is initiated into the visible church. Baptism exhibits to us the blessings of pardon, salvation through Jesus Christ, union to and communion with him, the out-pouring of the Spirit, regeneration, and sanctification. From baptism results the obligation of repentance, love to Christ, and perpetual devotedness to his praise. Baptism does not constitute a visible subject, but only recognizes one. Ministers only have a right to administer it; and have a negative voice in opposition to all claims. It is an ordinance binding on all who have been given up to God in it; and to be perpetuated to the end of the world. It is not, however, essential to salvation; for mere participation of sacraments cannot qualify men for heaven: many have real grace, consequently in a salvable state, before they were baptized: besides, to suppose it essential, is to put it in the place of that which it signifies. Baptism has been supposed by many learned persons to have had its origin from the Jewish church; in which, they maintain, it was the practice, long before Christ's time, to baptize proselytes or converts to their faith, as part of the ceremony of their admission. "It is strange to me," says Dr. Doddridge "that any should doubt of this, when it is plain, from express passages in the Jewish law, that no Jew who had lived like a Gentile for one day could be restored to the communion of this church without it. Compare Num. xix 19 and 20. and many other precepts relating to ceremonial pollutions, in which may be seen, that the Jews were rendered in capable of appearing before God in the tabernacle or temple, till they were washed either by bathing or sprinking. Others, however, insist, that the Jewish proselyte baptism is not by far so ancient; and that John the Baptist was the first administrator of baptism among the Jews. The baptism of John, and that of our Saviour and his apostles, have been supposed to be the same; because they agree, it is said, in their subjects, form, and end. But it must be observed, that though there be an agreement in some particulars, yet there is not in all. The immediate institutor of John's baptism was God the Father, John i. 33; but the immediate institutor of the Christian baptism was Christ, Matt. xxviii. 19. John's baptism was a preparatory rite, referring the subjects to Christ, who was about to confer on them spiritual blessings, Matt. iii. 11. John's baptism was confined to the Jews; but the Christian was common to Jews and Gentiles, Matt. iii. 5, 7. Matt. xxviii. 19. It does not appear that John had any formula of administration; but the Christian baptism has, viz. "In the name," &c. The baptism of John was the concluding scene of the legal dispensation, and, in fact, part of it; and to be considered as one of those "divers washings" among the Jews; for he did not attempt to make any alteration in the Jewish religion, nor did the persons he baptized cease to be members of the Jewish church on the account of their baptism; but Christian baptism is the regular entrance into, and is a part of, the evangelical dispensation, Gal. iii. 27. It does not appear from the inspired narrative (however probable from inferential reasoning) that any but John himself was engaged as operator in his baptism; whereas Christ himself baptized none; but his disciples, by his authority, and in his name, John iv. 2. Baptism has been the subject of long and sharp controversy, both as it respects the subject and the mode. To state all that has been said on both sides, would be impossible in a work of this kind. An abstract, however, of the chief arguments, I think it my duty to present to the reader, in order that he may judge for himself. As to the subject. The ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because Christ's commission to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught. BAP or made disciples; and that consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught are to be excluded. It does not appear, say they, that the apostles, in executing Christ's commission, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it. They contend that infants can receive no benefit from it. and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre-requisites. As to the mode. 41 They observe that the meaning of the word Barr signifies immersion, or dipping only that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. That the terms washing, purifying, burying in baptism, so often inentioned in Scripture, alludes to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the apostles and the first Christians, and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of our climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument to sup-port them. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor, and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previous abrogated rites, is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule. PÆDOBAPTISTS. are expressly commanded; that if in- That infants are to be received into Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infans, yet this is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it would be hard to believe were not to be members of the Gospel hat such received his blessing, and yet church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive them in his name, how can it be reconciled to keep them out of the visible church? Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it None of the Jews had any apprehension would have been expressly forbidden. must have had, if infants had been reof the rejection of infants, which they The Padobaptists, however, are of a As to the subject, different opinion. they believe that qualified adults who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but, then, they think also that infants are not to be excluded. They believe that, as thejected. As whole households were bapAbrahamic and the Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii 7. Heb. viii. 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children had a right to the seal of circumcision under the law. Acts ii. 39. Rom. iv. 11. That if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for women should not the same reason come to the Lord's supper; we should not keep the first day of the week, nor attend public worship, for none of these tized, it is probable there were children baptism, it is observed, that cannot agree to infants: faith goes before bap. tism; and, as none but adults are capa of baptizing infants was received from || Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers (held about the year 254) no less than sixty-six in num-ble of believing, so no others are capaber, unanimously agreed that children ble of baptism, but it is replied, if inmight be baptized as soon as they were fants must not be baptized because born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 something is said of baptism that does years from the apostles, declares that not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. then the baptism of infants had been the infants must not be saved, because somepractice of the apostles themselves, and thing is said of salvation that does not of the church, till that time. The ca agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. As none tholic church every where declared, but adults are capable of believing, so, says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, by the argument of the Baptists, none that infants should be baptized; and but adults are capable of salvation: for Augustin affirmed that he never heard he that believeth not shall be damned. nor read of any Christian, catholic. or But Christ, it is said, set an example of sectarian, but who always held that in-auldt baptism. True; but he was bapfants were to be baptized. They far-tized in honour to John's ministry and ther believe, that there needed no men- to conform himself to what he appointtion in the New Testament of receiving ed to his followers; for which last reainfants into the church, as it had been son he drank of the sacramental cup: once appointed. and never repealed. but this is rather an argument for the The dictates of nature, also, in parental Pædobaptists than against them; since feelings the verdict of reason in favour it plainly shows, as Doddridge observes, of privileges; the evidence in favour of that baptism may be administered to children being sharers of the seals of those who are not capable of all the grace, in common with their parents, purposes for which it was designed; for the space of 4000 years; and espe-since Jesus Christ, not being a sinner, cially the language of prophecy, in re- could not be capable of that faith and ference to the children of the Gospel repentance which are said to be neceschurch, make it very probable hat they sary to this ordinance. were not to be rejected. So far from confining it to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years. That infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance. they deny. This objection falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism since they are as capable, or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. It is generally acknowledged, that, if infants die (and a great part of the human race do die in infancy,) they are saved: if this be the case, then, why refuse them the sign in infancy, if they are capable of enjoying the thing signified? Why," says Dr. Owen, is it the will of God that unbelievers should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If God, therefore, denies the sign to the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it and then all the children of believing parents (upon these principles) dying in their infancy, must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so who are not baptized; but all must be so whom God would not have baptized." Something is said of As to the mode. They believe that the word Bat signifies to dip or to plunge; but that the term BTT, which is only derivative of Barr, and consequently must be somewhat less in its signification, should be invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging, is not so clear. It is therefore doubted whether dipping be the only meaning, and whether Christ absolutely enjoined immersion, and that it is his positive will that no other should be used. As the word Barriga is used for the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c. Heb. ix. 10; for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c.; it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done; tha is, washing, or the application of water in one form or other. Dr. Owen observes, that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order to washing or cleansing and, according to others, he mode of use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the supper of the Lord, the time of the day, the number and posture of communicants, the quality and quantity of bread and wine, are circumstances BAP 43 not accounted essential by any party of || of his being immersed, as the Greek Christians. As to the Hebrew word term are often signifies from; for inTabal, it is considered as a generic stance, "Who hath warned you to flee term; that its radical, primary, and from, not out of, the wrath to come," proper meaning is, to tinge, to die, to with many others which might be menwet, or the like; which primary design tioned. Again: it is said that Philip and the is effected by different modes of applieunuch went down both into the water. cation. If in baptism also there is an expressive emblem of the descending To this it is answered, that here is no influence of the Spirit, pouring must proof of immersion; for if the expres be the mode of administration; for that sion of their going down into the water is the Scriptural term most commonly necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The and properly used for the communication of divine influences. There is no preposition (c) translated into, often object whatever in all the New Testa- signifies no more than to or unto. See ment so frequently and so explicitly Matt. xv. 24. Rom. x. 10. Acts xxviii. signified by baptism as these divine in 14. Matt. xvii. 27. Matt. iii. 11. So that, fluences. Mat. iii. 11. Mark i. 8, 10. from all these circumstances, it cannot Luke iii. 16 to 22. John i. 33. Acts i. be concluded that there was a single 5. Acts ii. 38, 39. Acts viii. 12, 17. Acts person of all the baptized who went xi. 15, 16. The term sprinkling, also, into the water ankle deep. As to the is made use of in reference to the act apostle's expression, "buried with him in baptism," they think it has no force; of purifying, Is. lii. 15. Heb. ix. 13, 14 Ezek. xxxvi. 25, and therefore cannot and that it does not allude to any cusbe inapplicable to baptismal purifica-tom of dipping, any more than our baption. But it is observed that John bap- tismal crucifixion and death has any tized in Jordan: to this it is replied, such reference. It is not the sign but to infer always a plunging of the whole the thing signified that is here alluded As Christ was buried and rose body in water from this word, would, to. in many instances, be false and absurd: again to a heavenly life, so we by bapthe same Greek preposition is used tism signifying that we are cut off trom when it is said they should be baptized the life of sin, that we may rise again with fire while few will assert that to a new life of faith and love. To conclude this article, it is observed they should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he against the mode of immersion, that, as came not () by water only, but (v) by it carries with it too much of the apwater and blood. There the same word pearance of a burdensome rite for the is translated by, and with justice and Gospel dispensation; that as it is too inpropriety, for we know no good sense decent for so solemn an ordinance; as in which we could say he came in wa-it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, ter. It has been remarked, that is more than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered "at," and in a hundred and fifty others, it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, "John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof from thence that he plunged his disciples in it. It is urged that John's choosing a Jesus, it is said, came up out of the often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body would in all probability be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable for want of a sufficient quantity of water, it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism. See Gale, Robinson, Stennett, Gill, and Booth, on Antipedobaptism; and Wall, Henry, Bradbury, Bostwick, Towgood, Addington. Williams, Edwards, Miller, Evans, &c. on the other side. BAPTISM OF THE DEAD, a custom which anciently prevailed among some people in Africa, of giving baptism to the dead. The third council of Carthage speaks of it as a thing that ignorant Christians were fond of: Gregory Nazianzen also takes notice of the same superstitious opinion. The practice seems to be grounded on a vain |