fifty-two, by twice joining together two short sec- | municating their Scriptures to strangers; despising tions. Till the persecution of Antiochus Epipha- and shunning the Gentiles, they would not disclose nes, they read only the law; but the reading to them any of the treasures concealed in the Bible. of it being then prohibited, they substituted in the We may add, that the people bordering on the room of it fifty-four sections out of the prophets; Jews, as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Arabs, &c. and when the reading of the law was restored by were not very curious to know the laws or his the Maccabees, the section which was read every tory of a people, whom in their turn they hated sabbath out of the law served for their first lesson, and despised. Their first acquaintance with and the section out of the prophets for their se- these books was not till after the several captivicond. These sections were divided into verses; ties of the Jews, when the singularity of the Heof which division, if Ezra was not the author, it brew laws and ceremonics induced several to was introduced not long after him, and seems to desire a more particular knowledge of them. Johave been designed for the use of the Targumists, sephus seems surprised to find such slight footor Chaldec interpreters; for after the return of steps of the Scripture history interspersed in the the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, when Egyptian, Chaldean, Phoenician, and Grecian the Hebrew language ceased to be their mother history; and accounts for it hence, that the sacred tongue, and the Chaldee grew into use instead of books were not as yet translated into Greek or it, the custom was, that the law should be first other languages, and consequently not known to read in the original Hebrew, and then interpre- the writers of those nations. The first version ted to the people in the Chaldee language; for of the Bible was that of the Septuagint into which purpose these shorter sections were very Greek, by order of that patron of literature, Ptolemy Philadelphus; though some maintain that the whole was not then translated, but only the Pentateuch; between which and the other books in the Septuagint version, the critics find a great diversity in point of style and expression, as well as of accuracy.

convenient.

II. BIRLE, History of. It is thought that Ezra published the Scriptures in the Chaldee character, for, that language being generally used among the Jews, he thought proper to change the old Hebrew character for it, which hath since that time been retained only by the Samaritans, among whom it is preserved to this day. Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra made additions in several parts of the Bible, where any thing ap peared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the work; in which he appears to have been assisted by the same Spirit in which they were first written. Among such additions are to be reckoned the last chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses seems to give an account of his own death and burial, and the succession of Joshua after him. To the same cause our learned author thinks are to be attributed many other interpolations in the Bible, which created difficulties and objections to the authenticity of the sacred text, no ways to be solved without allowing them. Ezra changed the names of several places which were grown obsolete, and, instead of them, put their new names by which they were then called, in the text. Thus it is that Abraham is said to have pursued the kings who carried Lot away captive as far as Dan; whereas that place in Moses's time was called Laish, the name Dan being unknown till the Danites, long after the death of Moses, possessed themselves of it. The Jewish canon of Scripture was then settled by Ezra, yet not so but that several variations have been made in it. Malachi, for instance, could not be put in the Bible by him, since that prophet is allowed to have lived after Ezra; nor could Nehemiah be there, since that book mentions (chap. xii. v. 22.) Jaddua as high priest, and Darius Codomanus as king of Persia, who were at least a hundred years later than Ezra. It may be added, that, in the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down for so many generations as must necessarily bring it to the time of Alexander; and consequently this book, or at least this part of it, could not be in the canon in Ezra's days. It is probable the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi, were adopted into the Bible in the time of Simon the Just, the last of the men of the great synagogue. The Jews, at first, were very reserved in com

III. BIBLE, modern Divisions of. The di vision of the Scriptures into chapters, as we at present have them, is of modern date. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the true author of the invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardina lis, because he was the first Dominican that ever was raised to the degree of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about A. D. 1240: he wrote a comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first concordance, which is that of the vulgar Latin Bible. The aim of this work being for the more easy finding out any word or passage in the Scriptures, he found it necessary to divide the book into sec tions, and the sections into sub-divisions; for till that time the vulgar Latin Bibles were without any division at all. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible hath ever since been divided; but the subdivision of the chapters was not then into verses, as it is now. Hugo's method of subdividing them was by the letters, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, placed in the margin, at an equal dis tance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. The subdivision of the chapters into verses, as they now stand in our Bibles, had its original from a famous Jewish rabbi named Mordecai Nathan, about 1415. This rabbi, in imitation of Hugo Cardinalis, drew up a concordance to the Hebrew Bible, for the use of the Jews. But though he followed Hugo in his division of the books into chapters, he refined upon his inventions as to the subdivision, and contrived that by verses: this being found to be a much more convenient method, has been ever since followed. And thus, as the Jews borrowed the division of the books of the Holy Scriptures into chapters from the Christians, in like manner the Christians borrowed that of the chapters into verses from the Jews. The present order of the several books is almost the same (the Apocrypha excepted) as that made by the council of Trent,

IV. BIBLE, rejected Books of. The apocry phal books of the Old Testament, according to the Romanists, are the books of Enoch (see

15. BIBLE, Samaritan. At the head of the oriental versions of the Bible must be placed the Samaritan, as being the most ancient of all (though neither its age nor author have been yet ascertained), and admitting no more for the Holy 4. BIBLE, Gaelic. A few years ago, a ver- Scripture but the five books of Moses. This sion of the Bible in the Gaelic or Erse language translation is made from the Samaritan Hebrew was published at Edinburgh, where the Gospel is text, which is a little different from the Hebrew preached regularly in that language in two text of the Jews: this version has never been chapels, for the benefit of the natives of the High-printed alone, nor any where but in the Polyglots

16. BIBLE, Swedish. In 1534, Olaus and Laurence published a Swedish Bible from the German version of Martin Luther: it was revised in 1617, by order of king Gustavus Adolphus, and was afterwards almost universally received.

6. BIBLE, Gothic. It is generally said that 17. BIBLE, Anglo Saxon. If we inquire into Ulphilas, a Gothic bishop, who lived in the fourth the versions of the Bible of our own country, we century, made a version of the whole Bible, ex-shall find that Adelm, bishop of Sherburn, who cept the book of Kings, for the use of his coun- | Lved in 709, made an English Saxon version of

BAPTISM

BAPTISM

Judas. Partial backsliding must be distinguish- | not, however, essential to salvation; for mere pared from hypocrisy, as the former may exist where ticipation of sacraments cannot qualify men for there are gracious intentions on the whole; but heaven: many have real grace, and are consethe latter is a studied profession of appearing to quently in a salvable state, before they were hapbe what we are not. tized: 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 Numb. xix. 19 and 20, and many other precepts relating to ceremonial pollutions, in which it may be seen, that the Jews were rendered incapable of appearing before God in the tabernacle or temple, till they were washed either by bathing or sprinkling." 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 causes of backsliding are-the cares of the world; improper connexions; inattention to secret or closet duties; self-conceit and dependence; indulgence; listening to and parleying with temptations. A backsliding state is manifested by indifference to prayer and self-examination; trifling or unprofitable conversation; neglect of public ordinances; shunning the people of God; associating with the world; thinking lightly of sin; neglect of the Bible; and often by gross immorality. The consequences of this awful state are-loss of character; loss of comfort; loss of usefulness; and, as long as any remain in this state, a loss of a well-grounded hope of future happiness. To avoid this state, or recover from it, we should beware of the first appearance of sin; be much in prayer; attend the ordinances; and unite with the people of God. We should consider the awful instances of apostacy, as Saul, Judas, Demas, &c.; the many warnings we have of it, Matt. xxiv. 13. Heb. x. 38. Luke ix. 62; how it grieves the Holy Spirit; and how wretched it The baptism of John, and that of our Saviour makes us; above all things, our dependence should and his apostles, have been supposed to be the be on God, that we may always be directed by his same; because they agree, it is said, in their subSpirit, and kept by his power. See APOSTACY. jects, form, and end. But it must be observed, BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY, so call- that though there be an agreement in some pared from Bangor, or the bishop thereof. Bishop ticulars, yet there is not in all. The immediate Hoadley, the bishop of that diocese, preaching be-institutor of John's baptism was God the Father, fore George L., asserted the supreme authority of John 1. 33; but the immediate institutor of the Christ, as king in his own kingdom; and that he Christian baptism was Christ, Matt. xxviii. 19. had not delegated his power, like temporal law-John's baptisin was a preparatory rite, referring givers during their absence from their kingdom, the subjects to Christ, who was about to confer to any persons, as his vicegerents or deputies. on them spiritual blessings, Matt. iii. 11. John's This important sermon may be seen reprinted in baptism was confined to the Jews; but the the Liverpool Theological Repository, vol. v. p. Christian was common to Jews and Gentiles, 301. In 1717, he also published his Preservative, Matt. iii. 5. 7. xxviii. 19. It does not appear in which he advanced some positions contrary to that John had any formula of administration; temporal and spiritual tyranny, and in behalf of but the Christian baptism has, viz. "In the the civil and religious liberties of mankind: upon | name," &c. The baptism of John was the conwhich he was violently opposed, accused, and per- cluding scene of the legal dispensation, and, in secuted, by the advocates for church power; but fact, part of it; and to be considered as one of he was defended and supported by the civil pow-those "divers washings" among the Jews; for ers, 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 idolators of India, as contradistinguished from the Mahometans.

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 aocount 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 haptism; whereas Christ himself baptized none; but his discipies, 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.

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 subjec, but only recognizes one. Ministers only have a right to administer it, and have a negative voice in opThe ANTIPÆDOBAPTISTS hold the position to all claims. It is an ordinance binding belief that adults only are proper subjects, beon all who have been given up to God in it; and cause Christ's commission to baptize appears to to be perpetuated to the end of the world. It is ❘ them to restrict this ordinance to such only as

As to the subject.

BAPTISM

are taught, 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, are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as pre-requisites.

As to the mode.

BAPTISM

That infants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii. Isa. xliv. 3. Matt xix. 13. Luke ix. 47, 48. Mark ix. 14. Acts ii. 38, 39. Rom. xi. 17, 21. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants, yet this is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it would be hard to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ receiv ed 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 would have been expressly forbidden. None of the Jews had any apprehension of the rejection of infants, which they must have had, if infants had been rejected. As whole households were baptized, it is probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of 750

They observe that the meaning of the word a. 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 mentioned in Scripture, allude 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 cold-years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to ness 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 support them. Further, 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 baptisin ought to be our rule.

PEDOBAPTISTS.

baptize infants; and still nearer the time of cur Saviour, there appears to have been scarcely any one that so much as advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, declares expressly that the church learned from the apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirmed that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers (held about the year 254), no less than sixtysix in number, unanimously agreed that children The Pedobaptists, however, are of a different might be baptized as soon as they were born. opinion. As to the subject, they believe that quali- Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the fied adults who have not been baptized before apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had are certainly proper subjects; but, then, they think been the practice of the apostles themselves, and also that infants are not to be excluded. They of the church, till that time. The catholic believe that, as the Abrahamic and the Christian church every where declared, says Chrysostom, covenants are the same, Gen. xvii. 7. Heb. viii. in the fifth century, that infants should be bap 12; that as children were admitted under the tized; And Augustin affirmed that he never former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, heard nor read of any Christian, catholic, or or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as sectarian, but who always held that infants were great a right to it as the children had a right to to be baptized. They further believe, that there the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts i. 39. needed no mention in the New Testament of reRom. iv. 11. That if children are not to be ceiving infants into the church, as it had been baptized because there is no positive command once appointed and never repealed. The dictates for it, for the same reason women should not come of nature, also, in parental feelings; the verdict to the Lord's Supper; we should not keep the of reason in favour of privileges; the evidence in first day of the week, nor attend public worship, favour of children being sharers of the seals of for none of these are expressly commanded; that grace, in common with their parents, for the space if infant bap.ism had been a human invention, of 4000 years; and especially the language of prohow would it have been so universal in the first phecy, in reference to the children of the Gospel 300 years, and yet no record left when it was in-church, make it very probable that they were not troduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it? Some bring it to these two ideas: 1. That God did constitute in the Jewish church, the membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious ordinance, Gen. xvii. Gal. iii. 14, 17. 2. That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away. This being the case, infants must be received, because God has instituted it; and, since infants must be received, it ruust be either without baptism or with it: but none must be received without baptism, therefore infants must, of necessity, be baptized. Hence, it is clear, that under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church, in which they were originally placed under the former dispensation.

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 baptisma 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," my

BAPTISM

BAPTISM

Dr. Owen, "is it the will of God that unbelievers | the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of adininisshould not be baptized? It is because, not grant-tration; for that is the Scriptural term most ing them the grace he will not grant them the commonly and properly used for the communicasign. If God, therefore, denies the sign to the tion of divine influences. There is no object infant seed of believers, it must be because he de- whatever in all the New Testament so frequently nies them the grace of it; and then all the chil- and so explicitly signified by baptism as these dren of believing parents (upon these principles) divine influences. Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 8, 10. dying in their infancy, must, without hope, be Luke iii. 16 to 22. John i. 33. Acts i. 5. ii. 38, The term sprinkling, eternally damned. I do not say that all must be 39. viii. 12, 17. xi. 15, 16. so who are not baptized; but all must be so whom also, is made use of in reference to the act of puGod would not have baptized." Something is rifying, Isa. lii. 15. Heb. ix. 13, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. said of baptism, it is observed, that cannot agree 25, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to bapto infants: faith goes before baptism; and, as tismal purification. But it is observed that John none but adults are capable of believing, so no baptized in Jordan: to this it is replied, to infer others are capable of baptism; but it is replied, if always a plunging of the whole body in water infants must not be baptized because something from this word, would, in many instances, be is said of baptism that does not agree to infants, false and absurd: the same Greek preposition Mark xvi. 16, then infants must not be saved, is used when it is said they should be baptized because something is said of salvation that does with fire; while few will assert that they should not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. As none be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of but adults are capable of believing, so, by the ar- Christ, says, he came not (v) by water only, but gument of the Baptists, none but adults are capa- (v) by water and blood. There the same word ble of salvation: for he that believeth not shall be is translated by, and with justice and propriety, damned. But Christ, it is said, set an example for we know no good sense in which we could It has been remarked, of adult baptism. True; but he was baptized in say he came in water. honour to John's ministry, and to conform him- that is more than a hundred times, in the New self to what he appointed to his followers; for Testament, rendered "at," and in a hundred and which last reason he drank of the sacramental fifty others it is translated with. If it be rendered cup: but this is rather an argument for the Pæ- so here, "John baptized at Jordan," or with the dobaptists than against them; since it plainly water of Jordan, there is no proof from thence shows, as Doddridge observes, that baptism may that he plunged his disciples în it. be administered to those who are not capable of all the purposes for which it was designed; since Jesus Christ, not being a sinner, could not be capable of that faith and repentance which are said to be necessary to this ordi

nance.

As to the mode.

It is urged that John's choosing a place where there was much water is a certain proof of immersion. To which it is answered, that as there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, that by choosing a place where there were many streams or rivulets, it would be much more expeditiously performed by pouring; and that it seems in the nature of things highly improbable that John should have baptized this vast multitude by immersion, to say nothing of the indecency of both sexes being bap tized together.

They believe that the word a signifies to dip or plunge; but that the terms, which is only a derivative of BT, and consequently must be somewhat less in its signification, should be invariably used in the New Testament to ex- Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water; but press plunging, is not so clear. It is therefore this is said to be no proof of his being immersed, doubted whether dipping be the only meaning, as the Greek term a often signifies from; for and whether Christ absolutely enjoined immer-instance, "who hath warned you to flee from," sion, and that it is his positive will that no other not out of, "the wrath to come," with many should be used. As the word Bar is used for others which might be mentioned. the various ablutions among the Jews, such as Again: it is said that Philip and the eunuch To this it is sprinkling, pouring, &c. Heb. ix. 10; for the went down both into the water. custom of washing before meals, and the washing answered that here is no proof of immersion; for of household furniture, pots, &c.; it is evident if the expression of their going down into the from hence that it does not express the manner water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip of doing, whether by immersion or affusion, but was dipped as well as the eunuch. The prepo only the thing done, that is, washing, or the appli-sition () translated into, often signifies no more cation of water in one form or other. Dr. Owen than to or unto. 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, the 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 not accounted essential by any party of Christians. As to the Hebrew word Tabal, it is considered as a generic term; that its radical, primary, and proper meaning is to tinge, to dye, to wet, or the like: which primary design is effected by different modes of application. If in baptism also there is an expressive emblem of the descending influence of

See Matt, xv. 24. Rom. x. 10. Acts xxviii. 14. Matt. xvii. 27. iii. 11. So that, from all these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there was a single person of all the baptized who went into the water ankle deep. Ás to the apostle's expression, "buried with him in baptism," they think it has no force; and that it does not allude to any custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign but the thing signified that is here alluded to. Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are cut off from the life of sin, that we may rise again to a new life of faith and love.

As

To conclude this article, it is observed against