BAP 



BAP 



reipn of king Edward, the eflabliilicd cliiirch prsiiifed in 

 ordinal")' cales trine immerfion ; and pouring or fprinitliiig 

 was allowed, only in cafes of dangei, in private. It is fiirtlur 

 ars^ucd by thofe who mai:^tnin that in the primitive church 

 there is no mentjon of baptizing by ponring, that the ad- 

 rninillration of baptifm by fprinkling was firft invented in 

 Africa in the third century, in favour of clinics, or bed- 

 ridden people ; but that even African C.itholics, the leaft 

 cnhghtentd and the moft depraved of all Catholics, derided 

 it, and reputed it no baptifm. See Jo. Andreoe Bofii de 

 Clinicis exercit. Hill. Jens, cited by Robinfon in his " Hif- 

 tory of Baptifm," p. 449. In the liturgy of the Englilh 

 church at Frankfort, king Edward's fervice book was ufed, 

 and baptifm was adminillered by trine immerfion. In the 

 JScots church at Geneva, the minifter was direftcd to take 

 water in his hand, and lay it upon the child's forehead, 

 which was called pouring. Abo-.it 100 years after, in the 

 affembly of divines. Dr. Lightfoot caufed dipping to be ex- 

 cluded, and fprinkling declared fufficient. In the Eailern 

 and Greek churches, dipping is faid to have been the inva- 

 riable mode of adminiftering baptifm from the firft intro- 

 duAion of it to this day. See Dr. King's Rites of the 

 Greek church. 



There are many ceremonies delivered by ecclefia- 

 ftical writers, as ufed in baptifm, which were introduced 

 after the acre of [uilin Martvr, bat which ail: now difufed ; 

 as the giving; milk- and honcv to the baptized, in the Eaft ; 

 •wine and milk in the Weft, &c. They alfo added uiiftion 

 and the impofition of hands. TertulHan is the firft who 

 mentions the figning with the fign of the crofs, but only as 

 tifed in private, and not in pubhc worfhip ; and he particu- 

 larly defcribes the cuftom of baptizing without mentioning 

 it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been ufed in baptifm 

 till the latter end of the fourth or fifth century ; at which 

 time great virtue was afcribed to it. Ladantius, who lived 

 •in the beginning of the fourth century, fays (Inft. 1. iv. 

 c. 27. p. 439.), the devil cannot approach thofe who have 

 the heavenly mark of the crofs upon them, as an impregna- 

 ble fortrefs to defend them ; but he does not fay it was ufed 

 in baptifm. After the council of Nice, Chriftians added 

 to baptifm the ceremonies of exorcilm ar.d adjurations, to 

 ■make evil fpirits depart from the perfons to be baptized. 

 They made feveral fignings with the crofs, they iifed to light 

 candles, thev gave fait to the baptized perfon to tafte, and 

 the prieft touched his mouth and cars with fpittle, and 

 alfo blew and fpat upon his face. At that time alio bap- 

 tized perfons wore white garments till the Sunday follow- 

 ing. They had alfo various other ceremonies ; fome of 

 which are now abolilhed, though others of them remain in 

 the church of Rome to this day. 



The Qiiakcrs (fee Quakers) affert, that water baptifm 

 was never intended to continue in the church of Chrilt any 

 longer than while Jewith prejudices made fuch an external 

 ceremony neceffary ; v.hich they argue from that paffage, 

 in which one baptifm is fpoken of as neceffary to Chriftians ; 

 Ephcf. iv. 5. which, as they fay, muft be a baptifm of the 

 fpirit. But from comparing the texts that relate to this 

 inftitution, which have been already cited, it will plainly 

 appear that water baptifm. was inftituted by Chrift in more 

 general terms than will agree with this explication. That 

 it was adnt'niftcred to all the Gentile converts, and not con- 

 fined to the Jews, appears from Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. com- 

 pr^rcd with Acts, x. 47 ; and that the baptifm of the fpirit 

 did not fuperfede water baptifm, appears to have been the 

 judgment of Peter and of thofe that were with him ; fo 

 that the one baptifm fpoken of fecms to have been that 

 of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being 



only called baptifm in a figurative fenfe. As for any objec- 

 tion which could be drawn from i Cor. i. 17. it is fufficiently 

 anfvvered by the preceding verfes, and all the numerous 

 texts, in which, in epiftles written long after this, the 

 apoftle fpeaks of all Chriftians as baptized ; and argues 

 from the obligation of baptifm, in fuch a manner as we 

 can never imagine he would have done, if he had appre- 

 hended it to have been the will of Gcd that it ihould 

 be difcontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi. 3, &c. 

 Col. ii. 12. Gal. iii. 27. 



Baptifm was alfo wholly rejected by the Valentinians, 

 Manichees, Pauliciar.s, and many other fe£ts. 



Several of the Socinians have maintained, that baptifm 

 was only to be iifed by thofe who are converted to Chrif- 

 tianity from a different proftffiou ; and that though the 

 children of fuch profclytes were to be baptized with their 

 parents, all who dcfcended from them were to be confidtred 

 as baptized in them ; and tliey urge the praftice of profclyte 

 baptifm among the Jev>'s in fnpport of this opinion. (See 

 Emlyn's Previous Quellion, ubi fupra). However, it has 

 been alleged in reply, that the antiquity of this practice of 

 profclyte baptifm among the Jews has been doubted, and 

 evcir difaliowed by many ; and if it be admitted, all the rules 

 and circumftances relating to it might not be known even to 

 the apoftlcs themfclves ; and it is alfo probable, that fome 

 of the rules of profclyte baptifm did not prevail among 

 them fo early, particularly that which fuppofed that all na- 

 tural relations were arnuUrd by it.' Befides, although it be 

 acknowledged that no inftance occurs in the earlicil primi- 

 tive antiquity, in which the baptilm of any child of Chrif- 

 tian parents, v.diether infant or adult, is exprcfsly mentioned ; 

 yet it is certain that Chriftians in general have always been 

 fpoken of by the moft ancient fathers as baptized perfons ; 

 and the apoiflcs, when writing to Chriftian churches planted 

 many years before the date of their refpeftivc epiftles, argue 

 with the members oi them from the obligation which their 

 baptifm brought upon them, in fuch a manner as would 

 lead us to conclude, that they were baptized in their own 

 perfons ; and it is alfo certain, that as far as our knowledge 

 of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized perfon re- 

 ceived the Lord's fupper, which, neverthelefs, was an ordi- 

 nance none will deny that the delcendants of Chriftians par- 

 ticipated. It is added, that on this fuppofition, genealogies 

 would be of great importance in religion, contrary to what St. 

 Paul intimates ; nor can it be reafonably thought that our 

 right to Cliriilian communion (lionld reft on a facf, the evi- 

 dence of which might fometimes be fo obfcure, as the baptifm 

 of fome remote anceftor. See Gale's Serm. vol. ii. N° 9. 

 Benfon on 2 Tim. p. 134 — 136. Whift. Life, vol. i. p. 367, 



Theological authors diftinguifh three kinds of baptifm : 

 I. Water baptifm, which is that above-mentioned. 2. B;ip- 

 tifm of fire, which is the perfect love of God, joined with 

 an earneft defire to be baptized ; called alfo the baptifm of 

 the Holy Ghnjl : on occafion this may fupply the place of 

 water baptifm. 3. Baptifm of blood, which is the martyr- 

 dom of a catechumen. 



Baptifm, in the primitive times, was only admiuiftered at 

 Eafter and Whitfuntide, except in cafes of necefTity. 

 Adult perfons were prepared for baptifm by abftinence, 

 prayer, and other p'ous exercifes. It was to anfwer for 

 them, fays Moflieim (Eccl. Hift. vol. i. p. ll\.\ that fpon- 

 fors, or godfathers, were firft inftituted in the fecond cen- 

 tniy, though they were afterwards admitted alfo in the bap- 

 tifm of infants. This, accord'iig to M. Daillc, was not 

 done till the fourth centuiy. Wall (Hiil. Inf. Bapt. vol. i. 

 p. 49-) refers the origin of fponfois, or godfathers, on the 

 ' authority 



