Volume 3 — [E-Text Edition of Volume III - Part 1 of 2, Slice 3 of 3 - BANKS to BASSOON] (continued 4)

Certain features of baptism as used during the earlier centuries must now be noticed. They are the following:—(1) Use of fonts; (2) Status of baptizer; (3) Immersion, submersion or aspersion; (4) Exorcism; (5) Baptismal formula and trine immersion; (6) The age of baptism; (7) Confirmation; (8) Disciplina arcani; (9) Regeneration; (10) Relation to repentance; (11) Baptism for the dead; (12) Use of the name; (13) Origin of the institution; (14) Analogous rites in other religions.

1. Fonts.—The New Testament, the Didachē, Justin, Tertullian and other early sources do not enjoin the use of a font, and contemplate in general the use of running or living water. It was a Jewish rule that in ablutions the water should run over and away from the parts of the body washed. In acts of martyrdom, as late as the age of Decius, we read of baptisms in rivers, in lakes and in the sea. In exceptional cases it sufficed for a martyr to be sprinkled with his own blood. But a martyr's death in itself was enough. Nearchus (c. 250) quieted the scruples of his unbaptized friend Polyeuctes, when on the scaffold he asked if it were possible to attain salvation without baptism, with this answer: "Behold, we see the Lord, when they brought to Him the blind that they might be healed, had nothing to say to them about the holy mystery, nor did He ask them if they had been baptized; but this only, whether they came to Him with true faith. Wherefore He asked them, Do ye believe that I am able to do this thing?"

Tertullian (c. 200) writes (de Bapt. iv.) thus: "It makes no difference whether one is washed in the sea or in a pool, in a river or spring, in a lake or a ditch. Nor can we distinguish between those whom John baptized (tinxit) in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber." The custom of baptizing in the rivers when they are annually blessed at Epiphany, the feast of the Lord's baptism, still survives in Armenia and in the East generally. Those of the Armenians and Syrians who have retained adult baptism use rivers alone at any time of year.

The church of Tyre described by Eusebius (H.E. x. 4) seems to have had a font, and the church order of Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem (c. 311-335), orders the font to be placed in the same building as the altar, behind it and on the right hand; but the same order lays down that a font is not essential in cases of illness for "the Holy Spirit is not hindered by want of a vessel."

2. Status of Baptizer.—Ignatius (Smyrn. viii.) wrote that it is not lawful to baptize or hold an agapē (Lord's Supper) without the bishop. So Tertullian (de Bapt. xvii.) reserves the right of admitting to baptism and of conferring it to the summus sacerdos or bishop, Cyprian (Epist. lxxiii. 7) to bishops and priests. Later canons continued this restriction; and although in outlying parts of Christendom deacons claimed the right, the official churches accorded it to presbyters alone and none but bishops could perform the confirmation or seal. In the Montanist churches women baptized, and of this there are traces in the earliest church and in the Caucasus. Thus St Thekla baptized herself in her own blood, and St Nino, the female evangelist of Georgia, baptized king Mirian (see "Life of Nino," Studia Biblica, 1903). In cases of imminent death a layman or a woman could baptize, and in the case of new-born children it is often necessary.

3. Immersion or Aspersion.—The Didachē bids us "pour water on the head," and Christian pictures and sculptures ranging from the 1st to the 10th century represent the baptizand as standing in the water, while the baptizer pours water from his hand or from a bowl over his head. Even if we allow for the difficulty of representing complete submersion in art, it is nevertheless clear that it was not insisted on; nor were the earliest fonts, to judge from the ruins of them, large and deep enough for such an usage. The earliest literary notices of baptism are far from conclusive in favour of submersion, and are often to be regarded as merely rhetorical. The rubrics of the MSS., it is true, enjoin total immersion, but it only came into general vogue in the 7th century, "when the growing rarity of adult baptism made the Gr. word βαπτίζω) patient of an interpretation that suited that of infants only."^[2] The Key of Truth, the manual of the old Armenian Baptists, archaically prescribes that the penitent admitted into the church shall advance on his knees into the middle of the water and that the elect one or bishop shall then pour water over his head.

4. Exorcism.—The Didachē and Justin merely prescribe fasting, the use of which was to hurry the exit of evil spirits who, in choosing a nidus or tenement, preferred a well-fed body to an emaciated one, according to the belief embodied in the interpolated saying of Matt. xvii. 21: "This kind (of demon) goeth not forth except by prayer and fasting." The exorcisms tended to become longer and longer, the later the rite. The English prayer-book excludes them, as it also excludes the renunciation of the devil and all his angels, his pomps and works. These elements were old, but scarcely primitive; and the archaic rite of the Key of Truth (see Paulicians) is without them. Basil, in his work On the Holy Spirit, confesses his ignorance of how these and other features of his baptismal rite had originated. He instances the blessing of the water of baptism, of the oil of anointing and of the baptizand himself, the use of anointing him with oil, trine immersion, the formal renunciation of Satan and his angels. All these features, he says, had been handed down in an unpublished and unspoken teaching, in a silent and sacramental tradition.

5. The Baptismal Formula.—The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (Ep. x.) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in baptizing omitted one or more persons of the Trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858-867), in the Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum, allowed baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in the Acts. Basil, in his work On the Holy Spirit just mentioned, condemns "baptism into the Lord alone" as insufficient. Baptism "into the death of Christ" is often specified by the Armenian fathers as that which alone was essential.

Ursinus, an African monk (in Gennad. de Scr. Eccl. xxvii.), Hilary (de Synodis, lxxxv.), the synod of Nemours (A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid. The formula of Rome is, "I baptize thee in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." In the East, "so-and-so, the servant of God, is baptized," &c. The Greeks add Amen after each person, and conclude with the words, "Now and ever and to aeons of aeons, amen."

We first find in Tertullian trine immersion explained from the triple invocation, Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur: "Not once, but thrice, for the several names, into the several persons, are we dipped" (adv. Prax. xxvi.). And Jerome says: "We are thrice plunged, that the one sacrament of the Trinity may be shown forth." On the other hand, in numerous fathers of East and West, e.g. Leo of Rome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylactus, Cyril of Jerusalem and others, trine immersion was regarded as being symbolic of the three days' entombment of Christ; and in the Armenian baptismal rubric this interpretation is enjoined, as also in an epistle of Macarius of Jerusalem addressed to the Armenians (c. 330). In Armenian writers this interpretation is further associated with the idea of baptism into the death of Christ.

Trine immersion then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his ignorance, must be older than either of the rival explanations. These are clearly aetiological, and invented to explain an existing custom, which the church had adopted from its pagan medium. For pagan lustrations were normally threefold; thus Virgil writes (Aen. vi. 229): Ter socios pura circumtulit unda. Ovid (Met. vii. 189 and Fasti, iv. 315), Persius (ii. 16) and Horace (Ep. i. 1. 37) similarly speak of trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast Acro remarks: "He uses the words thrice purely, because people in expiating their sins, plunge themselves in thrice." Such examples of the ancient usage encounter us everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity.

6. Age of Baptism.—In the oldest Greek, Armenian, Syrian and other rites of baptism, a service of giving a Christian (i.e. non-pagan) name, or of sealing a child on its eighth day, is found. According to it the priest, either at the door of the church or at the home, blessed the infant, sealed it (this not in Armenia) with the sign of the cross on its forehead, and prayed that in due season (ἐν καιρῷ εὐθέτῳ) or at the proper time (Armenian) it may enter the holy Catholic church. This rite announces itself as the analogue of Christ's circumcision.

On the fortieth day from birth another rite is prescribed, of churching the child, which is now taken into the church with its mother. Both are blessed by the clergy, whose petition now is that God "may preserve this child and cause him to grow up by the unseen grace of His power and made him worthy in due season of the washing of baptism." As the first rite corresponds to the circumcision and naming of Jesus, so does the second to His presentation in the temple. These two rites really begin the catechumenate or period of instruction in the faith and discipline of the church. It depended on the individual how long he would wait for initiation. Whenever he felt inclined, he gave in his name as a candidate. This was usually done at the beginning of Lent. The bishop and clergy next examined the candidates one by one, and ascertained from their neighbours whether they had led such exemplary lives as to be worthy of admission. In case of strangers from another church certificates of character had to be produced. If a man seemed unworthy, the bishop dismissed him until another occasion, when he might be worthier; but if all was satisfactory he was admitted, in the West as a competens or asker, in the East as a φωτιζόμενος, i.e. one in course of being illumined. Usually two sponsors made themselves responsible for the past life of the candidate and for the sincerity of his faith and repentance. The essential thing was that a man should come to baptism of his own free will and not under compulsion or from hope of gain. Macarius of Jerusalem (op. cit.) declares that the grace of the spirit is given in answer to our prayers and entreaties for it, and that even a font is not needful, but only the wish and desire for grace. Tertullian, however, in his work On Baptism, holds that even that is not always enough. Some girls and boys at Carthage had asked to be baptized, and there were some who urged the granting of their request on the score that Christ said: "Forbid them not to come unto Me" (Matt. xix. 14), and: "To each that asketh thee give" (Luke vi. 30). Tertullian replies that "We must beware of giving the holy thing to dogs and of casting pearls before swine." He cites 1 Tim. v. 22: "Lay not on thy hands hastily, lest thou share in another's sins." He denies that the precedents of the eunuch baptized by Philip or of Paul baptized without hesitation by Simon (to which the other party appealed) were relevant. He dwells on the risk run by the sponsors, in case the candidates for whose purity they went bail should fall into sin. It is more expedient, he concludes, to delay baptism. Why should persons still in the age of innocence be in a hurry to be baptized and win remission of sins? Let people first learn to feel their need of salvation, so that we may be sure of giving it only to those who really want it. Especially let the unmarried postpone it. The risks of the age of puberty are extreme. Let people have married or be anyhow steeled in continence before they are admitted to baptism. It would appear from the homilies of Aphraates (c. 340) that in the Syriac church also it was usual to renounce the married relation after baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catecheses, insists on "the longing for the heavenly polity, on the goodly resolution and attendant hope" of the catechumen (Pro. Cat. ch. 1.). If the resolution be not genuine, the bodily washing, he says, profits nothing. "God asks for nothing else except a goodly determination. Say not: How can my sins be wiped out? I tell thee, by willing, by believing" (ch. viii.). So again (Cat. 1. ch. iii.) "God gives not his holy treasures to the dogs; but where he sees the goodly determination, there he bestows the seed of salvation.... Those then who would receive the spiritual saving seal have need of a determination and will of their own.... Grace has need of faith on our part." In Jerusalem, therefore, whither believers flocked from all over Christendom to be buried, the official point of view as late as A.D. 350 was entirely that of Tertullian. Tertullian's scruples were not long respected in Carthage, for in Cyprian's works (c. 250.) we already hear of new-born infants being baptized. In the same region of Africa, however, Monica would not let her son Augustine be baptized in boyhood, though he clamoured to be. She was a conservative. In the Greek world thirty was a usual age in the 4th century for persons to be baptized, in imitation of Christ. It is still the age preferred by the Baptists of Armenia. But it was often delayed until the deathbed, for the primitive idea that mortal sins committed after baptism were sins against the Holy Spirit and unforgivable, still influenced men, and survived among the Cathars up to the 14th century. The fathers, however, of the 4th century emphasized already the danger of deferring the rite until men fall into mortal sickness, when they may be unconscious or paralysed or otherwise unable to profess their faith and repentance, or to swallow the viaticum. Gregory Theologus therefore (c. 340) suggests the age of three years as suitable for baptism, because by then a child is old enough, if not to understand the questions put to him, at any rate to speak and make the necessary responses. Gregory sanctions the baptism of infants only where there is imminent danger of death. "It is better that they should be sanctified without their own sense of it than that they pass away unsealed and uninitiated." And he justifies his view by this, that circumcision, which foreshadowed the Christian seal (σφραγίς), was imposed on the eighth day on those who as yet had no use of reason. He also urges the analogue of "the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the first-born by things that have no sense." On such grounds was justified the transition of a baptism which began as a spontaneous act of self-consecration into an opus operatum. How long after this it was before infant baptism became normal inside the Byzantine church, we do not exactly know, but it was natural that mothers should insist on their children being liberated from Satan and safeguarded from demons as soon as might be. The change came more quickly in Latin than in Greek Christendom, and very slowly indeed in the Armenian and Georgian churches. Augustine's insistence on original sin, a doctrine never quite accepted in his sense in the East, hurried on the change.

7. Confirmation.—In the West, however, the sacrament has been saved from becoming merely magical by the rite of confirmation or of reception of the Spirit being separated from the baptism of regeneration and reserved for an adult age. The English church confirms at fifteen or sixteen; the Roman rather earlier. The catechetic course, which formerly preceded the complete rite, now intervenes between its two halves; and the sponsors who formerly attested the worthiness of the candidate and received him up as anadochi out of the font, have become god-parents, who take the baptismal vows vicariously for infants who cannot answer for themselves. In the East, on the contrary, the complete rite is read over the child, who is thus confirmed from the first. The Roman church already foreshadowed the change and gave a peculiar salience to confirmation as early as the 3rd century, when it decreed that persons already baptized by heretics, but reverting to the church should not be baptized over again, but only have hands laid on them. It was otherwise in Africa and the East. Here they insisted in such cases on a repetition of the entire rite, baptism and confirmation together. The Cathars (q.v.) of the middle ages discarded water baptism altogether as being a Jewish rite, but retained the laying on of hands with the traditio precis as sufficient initiation. This they called the spiritual baptism, and interpreted Matt. xxviii. 19, as a command to practise it, and not water baptism.

8. Disciplina arcani.—The communication to the candidates of the Creed and Lord's Prayer was a solemn rite. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his instruction of the catechumens, urges them to learn the Creed by heart, but not write it down. On no account must they divulge it to unbaptized persons. The same rule already meets us in Clement of Alexandria before the year 200. In time this rule gave rise to what is called the Disciplina arcani. Following the fashion of the pagan mysteries in which men were only permitted to gaze upon the sacred objects after minute lustrations and scrupulous purifications, Christian teachers came to represent the Creed, Lord's Prayer and Lord's Supper as mysteries to be guarded in silence and never divulged either to the unbaptized or to the pagans. And yet Justin Martyr, Tertullian and other apologists of the 2nd century had found nothing to conceal from the eye and ear of pagan emperors and their ministers. In the 3rd century this love of mystification reached the pitch of hiding even the gospels from the unclean eyes of pagans. Probably Mgr. Pierre Battifol is correct in supposing that the Disciplina arcani was more or less of a make-believe, a bit of belletristic trifling on the part of the over-rhetorical Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries.^[3] It is in them that the atmosphere of mystery attains a maximum of intensity. They clearly felt themselves called upon to out-trump the pagan Mystae. Yet it is inconceivable that men and women should spend years, even whole lives, as catechumens within the pale of the church, and really remain ignorant all the time of the Trinitarian Epiclesis used in baptism, of the Creed, and above all of the Lord's Prayer. Wherever the Disciplina arcani, i.e. the obligation to keep secret the formula of the threefold name, the creed based on it and the Lord's Prayer, was taken seriously, it was akin to the scruple which exists everywhere among primitive religionists against revealing to the profane the knowledge of a powerful name or magic formula. The name of a deity was often kept secret and not allowed to be written down, as among the Jews.

9. Regeneration.—The idea of regeneration seldom occurs in the New Testament, and perhaps not at all in connexion with baptism; for in the conversation with Nicodemus, John iii. 3-8, the words "of water and" in v. 5 offend the context, spiritual re-birth alone being insisted upon in vv. 3, 6, 7 and 8; moreover, Justin Martyr, who cites v. 5, seems to omit them. Nor is there any mention of water in ch. i. 13, where, according to the oldest text, Christ is represented as having been born or begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

In 1 Pet. i. 3, it is said of the saints that God the Father begat them anew unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus, and in v. 23 that they have been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible through the word of God. But here again it is not clear that the writer has in view water baptism or any rite at all as the means and occasion of regeneration. In the conversation with Nicodemus we seem to overhear a protest against the growing tendency of the last years of the 1st century to substitute formal sacraments for the free afflatus of the spirit, and to "crib, cabin and confine" the gift of prophecy.

The passage where re-birth is best put forward in connexion with baptism is Luke iii. 22, where ancient texts, including the Gospel of the Hebrews, read, "Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten Thee." These words were taken in the sense that Jesus was then re-born of the Spirit an adoptive Son of God and Messiah; and with this reading is bound up the entire adoptionist school of Christology. It apparently underlies the symbolizing of Christ as a fish in the art of the catacombs, and in the literature of the 2nd century. Tertullian prefaces with this idea his work on baptism. Nos pisciculi secundum ΙΧΘΥΝ nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur. "We little fishes, after the example of our Fish Jesus Christ, are born in the water." So about the year 440 the Gaulish poet Orientius wrote of Christ; Piscis natus aquis, auctor baptismatis ipse est. "A fish born of the waters is himself originator of baptism."

But before his time and within a hundred years of Tertullian this symbolism in its original significance had become heretical, and the orthodox were thrown back on another explanation of it. This was that the word ΙΧΘΥΣ is made up of the letters which begin the Greek words meaning "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour." An entire mythology soon grew up around the idea of re-birth. The font was viewed as the womb of the virgin mother church, who was in some congregations, for example, in the early churches of Gaul, no abstraction, but a divine aeon watching over and sympathizing with the children of her womb, the recipient even of hymns of praise and humble supplications. Other mythoplastic growths succeeded, one of which must be noticed. The sponsors or anadochi, who, after the introduction of infant baptism came to be called god-fathers and god-mothers, were really in a spiritual relation to the children they took up out of the font. This relation was soon by the canonists identified with the blood-tie which connects real parents with their offspring, and the corollary drawn that children, who in baptism had the same god-parent, were real brothers and sisters, who might not marry either each the other or real children of the said god-parent. The reformed churches have set aside this fiction, but in the Latin and Eastern churches it has created a distinct and very powerful marriage taboo.

10. Relation to Repentance.—Baptism justified the believer, that is to say, constituted him a saint whose past sins were abolished. Sin after baptism excluded the sinner afresh from the divine grace and from the sacraments. He fell back into the status of a catechumen, and it was much discussed from the 2nd century onwards whether he could be restored to the church at all, and, if so, how. A rite was devised, called exhomologesis, by which, after a fresh term of repentance, marked by austerities more strict than any Trappist monk imposes on himself to-day, the persons lapsed from grace could re-enter the church. In effect this rite was a repetition of baptism, the water of the font alone being omitted. Such restoration could in the earlier church only be effected once. A second lapse from the state of grace entailed perpetual exclusion from the sacraments, the means of salvation. As has been remarked above, the terror of post-baptismal sin and the fact that only one restoration was allowable influenced many as late as the 4th century to remain catechumens all their lives, and, like Constantine, to receive baptism on the deathbed alone. The same scruples endured among the medieval Cathars. (See Penance and Novatianus.)

11. Baptism for the Dead.—Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 29, glances at this as an established practice familiar to those whom he addresses. Three explanations are possible: (1) The saints before they were quickened or made alive together with Christ, were dead through their trespasses and sins. In baptism they were buried with Christ and rose, like Him, from the dead. We can, therefore, paraphrase v. 29 thus: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for their dead selves?" &c. It is in behalf of his own sinful, i.e. dead self, that the sinner is baptized and receives eternal life. (2) Contact with the dead entailed a pollution which lasted at least a day and must be washed away by ablutions, before a man is re-admitted to religious cult. This was the rule among the Jews. Is it possible that the words "for the dead" signify "because of contact with the dead"? (3) Both these explanations are forced, and it is more probable that by a make-believe common in all religions, and not unknown in the earliest church, the sins of dead relatives, about whose salvation their survivors were anxious, were transferred into living persons, who assumed for the nonce their names and were baptized in their behalf, so in vicarious wise rendering it possible for the sins of the dead to be washed away. The Mormons have this rite. The idea of transferring sin into another man or into an animal, and so getting it purged through him or it, was widespread in the age of Paul and long afterwards. Chrysostom says that the substitutes were put into the beds of the deceased, and assuming the voice of the dead asked for baptism and remission of sins. Tertullian and others attest this custom among the followers of Cerinthus and Marcion.

12. Use of the Name.—In Acts iv. 7, the rulers and priests of the Jews summon Peter and inquire by what power or in what name he has healed the lame. Here a belief is assumed which pervades ancient magic and religion. Only so far as we can get away from the modern view that a person's name is a trifling accident, and breathe the atmosphere which broods over ancient religions, can we understand the use of the name in baptisms, exorcisms, prayers, purifications and consecrations. For a name carried with it, for those who were so blessed as to be acquainted with it, whatever power and influence its owner wielded in heaven or on earth or under the earth. A vow or prayer formulated in or through a certain name was fraught with the prestige of him whose name it was. Thus the psalmist addressing Jehovah cries (Ps. liv. 1): "Save me, O God, by Thy name, and judge me in Thy might." And in Acts iii. 16, it is the name itself which renders strong and whole the man who believed therein. In Acts xviii. 15, the Jews assail Paul because he has trusted and appealed to the name of a Messiah whom they regard as an overthrower of the law; for Paul believed that God had invested Jesus with a name above all names, potent to constrain and overcome all lesser powers, good or evil, in heaven or earth or under earth. Baptism then in the name or through the name or into the name of Christ placed the believer under the influence and tutelage of Christ's personality, as before he was in popular estimation under the influence of stars and horoscope. Nay, more, it imported that personality into him, making him a limb or member of Christ's body, and immortal as Christ was immortal. Nearly all the passages in which the word name is used in the New Testament become more intelligible if it be rendered personality. In Rev. xi. 13, the revisers are obliged to render it by persons, and should equally have done so in iii. 4: "Thou hast a few names (i.e. persons) in Sardis which did not defile their garments." (See Consecration.)

13. Origin of Christian Baptism.—When it is asked, Was this a continuance of the baptism of John or was it merely the baptism of proselytes?—a distinction is implied between the two latter which was not always real. In relation to the publicans and soldiers who, smitten with remorse, sought out John in the wilderness, his baptism was a purification from their past and so far identical with the proselyte's bath; but so far as it raised them up to be children unto Abraham and filled them with the Messianic hope, it advanced them further than that bath could do, and assured them of a place in the kingdom of God, soon to be established—this, without imposing circumcision on them; for the ordinary proselyte was circumcised as well as baptized. For the Jews, however, who came to John, his baptism could not have the significance of the proselyte's baptism, but rather accorded with another baptism undergone by Jews who wished to consecrate their lives by stricter study and practice of the law. So Epictetus remarks that he only really understands Judaism who knows "the baptized Jew" (τὸν βεβαμμένον). We gather from Acts xix. 4, that John had merely baptized in the name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The apostolic age supplied this identification, and the normal use during it seems to have been "into Christ Jesus," or "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," or "of Jesus Christ" simply, or "of the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul explains these formulas as being equivalent to "into the death of Christ Jesus," as if the faithful were in the rite raised from death into everlasting life. The likeness of the baptismal ceremony with Christ's death and resurrection ensured a real union with him of the believer who underwent the ceremony, according to the well-known principle in sacris simulata pro veris accipi.

But opinion was still fluid about baptism in the apostolic age, especially as to its connexion with the descent of the Spirit. The Spirit falls on the disciples and others at Pentecost without any baptism at all, and Paul alone of the apostles was baptized. So far was the afflatus of the Spirit from being conditioned by the rite, that in Acts x. 44 ff., the gift of the Spirit was first poured out upon the Gentiles who heard the word preached so that they spoke with tongues, and it was only after these manifestations that they were baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ at the instance of Peter. We can divine from this passage why Paul was so eager himself to preach the word, and left it to others to baptize.

But as a rule the repentant underwent baptism in the name of Christ Jesus, and washed away their sins before hands were laid upon them unto reception of the Spirit. Apollos, who only knew the baptism of John (Acts xviii. 24), needed only instruction in the prophetic gnosis at the hands of Priscilla and Aquila in order to become a full disciple. On the other hand, in Acts xix. 1-7, twelve disciples, for such they were already accounted, who had been baptized into John's baptism, i.e. into the name of him that should follow John, but had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, are at Paul's instance re-baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Paul himself lays hands on them and the Holy Ghost comes upon them, so that they speak with tongues and prophecy. Not only do we hear of these varieties of practice, but also of the laying on of hands together with prayer as a substantive rite unconnected with baptism. The seven deacons were so ordained. And this rite of laying on hands, which was in antiquity a recognized way of transmitting the occult power or virtue of one man into another, is used in Acts ix. 17, by Ananias, in order that Paul may recover his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Saul and Barnabas equally are separated for a certain missionary work by imposition of hands with prayer and fasting, and are so sent forth by the Holy Ghost. It was also a way of healing the sick (Acts xxviii. 8), and as such accompanied by anointing with oil (Jas. v. 14). The Roman church then had early precedents for separating confirmation from baptism. It would also appear that in the primitive age confirmation and ordination were one and the same rite; and so they continued to be among the dissident believers of the middle ages, who, however, often dropped the water rite altogether. (See Cathars.) More than one sect of the 2nd century rejected water baptism on the ground that knowledge of the truth in itself makes us free, and that external material washing of a perishable body cannot contribute to the illumination of the inner man, complete without it. St Paul himself recognizes (1 Cor. vii. 14) that children, one of whose parents only is a believer, are ipso facto not unclean, but holy. Even an unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by a believing partner. If we remember the force of the words ἅγιος ἁγιάζω (cf. 1 Cor. i. 2), here used of children and parents, we realize how far off was St Paul from the positions of Augustine.

The question arises whether Jesus Himself instituted baptism as a condition of entry into the Messianic kingdom. The fourth gospel (iii. 22, and iv. 1) asserts that Jesus Himself baptized on a greater scale than the Baptist, but immediately adds that Jesus Himself baptized not, but only His disciples, as if the writer felt that he had too boldly contradicted the older tradition of the other gospels. Nor in these is it recorded that the disciples baptized during their Master's lifetime; indeed the very contrary is implied. There remain two texts in which the injunction to baptize is attributed to Jesus, namely, Mark xvi. 16 and Matt. xxviii. 18-20. Of these the first is part of an appendix headed "of Ariston the elder" in an old Armenian codex, and taken perhaps from the lost compilations of Papias; as to the other text, it has been doubted by many critics, e.g. Neander, Harnack, Dr Armitage Robinson and James Martineau, whether it represents a real utterance of Christ and not rather the liturgical usage of the region in which the first gospel was compiled. The circumstance, unknown to these critics when they made their conjectures, that Eusebius Pamphili, in nearly a score of citations, substitutes the words "in My Name" for the words "baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," renders their conjectures superfluous. Aphraates also in citing the verse substitutes "and they shall believe in Me"—a paraphrase of "in My Name." The first gospel thus falls into line with the rest of the New Testament.

14. Analogous Rites in other Religions (see also Purification).—The Fathers themselves were the first to recognize that "the devil too had his sacraments," and that the Eleusinian, Isiac, Mithraic and other mystae used baptism in their rites of initiation. But it is not to be supposed that the Christians borrowed from these or from any Gentile source any essential features of their baptismal rites. Baptism was long before the advent of Jesus imposed on proselytes, and existed inside Judaism itself.

It has been remarked that the developed ceremony of baptism, with its threefold renunciation, resembles the ceremony of Roman law known as emancipatio, by which the patria potestas (or power of life and death of the father over his son) was extinguished. Under the law of the XII. Tables the father lost it, if he three times sold his child. This suggested a regular procedure, according to which the father sold his son thrice into mancipium, while after each sale the fictitious vendee enfranchized the son, by manumissio vindicta, i.e. by laying his rod (vindicta) on the slave and claiming him as free (vindicatio in libertatem). Then the owner also laid his rod on the slave, declaring his intention to enfranchise him, and the praetor by his addictor confirmed the owner's declaration. The third manumission thus gave to the son and slave his freedom. It is possible that this common ceremony of Roman law suggested the triple abrenunciatio of Satan. Like the legal ceremony, baptism freed the believer from one (Satan) who, by the mere fact of the believer's birth, had power of death over him. And as the legal manumission dissolved a son's previous agnatic relationships, so, too, the person baptized gave up father and mother, &c., and became one of a society of brethren the bond between whom was not physical but spiritual. The idea of adoption in baptism as a son and heir of God was almost certainly taken by Paul from Roman law.

The ceremony of turning to the west three times with renunciation of the Evil One, then to the east, is exactly paralleled in a rite of purification by water common among the Malays and described by Skeat in his book on Malay magic. If the Malay rite is not derived through Mahommedanism from Christianity, it is a remarkable example of how similar psychological conditions can produce almost identical rites.

The idea of spiritual re-birth, so soon associated with baptism, was of wide currency in ancient religions. It is met with in Philo of Alexandria and was familiar to the Jews. Thus the proselyte is said in the Talmud to resemble a child and must bathe in the name of God. The Jordan is declared in 2 Kings v. 10 to be a cleansing medium, and Naaman's cure was held to pre-figure Christian baptism. Jerome relates that the Jew who taught him Hebrew communicated to him a teaching of the Rabbi Baraciba, that the inner man who rises up in us at the fourteenth year after puberty (i.e. at 29) is better than the man who is born from the mother's womb.

In a Paris papyrus edited by Albr. Dieterich (Leipzig, 1903) under the title of Eine Mithrasliturgie, an ancient mystic describes his re-birth in impressive language. In a prayer addressed to "First birth of my birth, first beginning (or principle) of my beginning, first spirit of the spirit in me," he prays "to be restored to his deathless birth (genesis), albeit he is let and hindered by his underlying nature, to the end that according to the pressing need and spur of his longing he may gaze upon the deathless principle with deathless spirit, through the deathless water, through the solid and the air; that he may be re-born through reason (or idea), that he may be consecrated, and the holy spirit breathe in him, that he may admire the holy fire, that he may behold the abyss of the Orient, dread water, and that he may be heard of the quickening and circumambient ether; for this day he is about to gaze on the revealed reality with deathless eyes; a mortal born of mortal womb, he has been enhanced in excellence by the might of the All-powerful and by the right hand of the Deathless one," &c.

This is but one specimen of the pious ejaculations, which in the first centuries were rising from the lips of thousands of mystae, in Egypt, Asia Minor, Italy and elsewhere. The idea of re-birth was in the air; it was the very keynote of all the solemn initiations and mysteries—Mythraic, Orphic, Eleusinian—through which repentant pagans secured pardon and eternal bliss. Yet there is not much evidence that the church directly borrowed many of its ceremonies or interpretations from outside sources. They for the most part originated among the believers, and not improbably the outside cults borrowed as much from the church as it from them.

Authorities.—The following ancient works are recommended: Tertullian, De Baptismo (edition with introd. J. M. Lupton, 1909); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses; Basil, De Spiritu Sancto; Constitutiones Apostolicae; Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 40; Gregory Nyss., Oratio in eos qui differunt baptismum; Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis; Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas; Jac. Goar, Rituale Graecorum (gives the current Greek rites); F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (the oldest forms of Armenian and Greek rites); Gerard G. Vossius, De Baptismo (Amsterdam, 1648); Edmond Martene, De Ant. Ecclesiae Ritibus (gives Western rites) (Bassani, 1788). The modern literature is infinite; perhaps the most exhaustive works are W. F. Höfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe (Erlangen, 1859): Jos. Bingham's Antiquities (London, 1834), and W. Wall, On Infant Baptism (London, 1707); J. Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen (Göttingen, 1894), details the corresponding rites of the Greek mysteries, also A. Dieterich, Eine Mithras Liturgie (Leipzig, 1903); J. C. Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce βάπτισμα; Ad. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg im Br. 1894); L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1898); Mgr. P. Batiffol, Etudes historiques (Paris, 1904); J. C. W. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten (Leipzig, 1829-1831); Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica by Dom Cabrol and Dom Leclercq (Paris, 1902) (a summary of all liturgical passages given in the early Fathers); Corblet, Histoire du sacrement de baptême (2 vols. Paris, 1881-1882).

(F. C. C.)

BAPTISTE, NICOLAS ANSELME (1761-1835), French actor, was born in Bordeaux on the 18th of June 1761, the elder son of Joseph François Anselme, a popular actor. His mother played leading parts in tragedy, and both his parents enjoyed the protection of Voltaire and the friendship of Lekain. It was probably under the auspices of the latter that Nicolas Anselme made his first appearance as de Belloy in Gaston et Bayard; and shortly afterwards, under the name of Baptiste, he made a contract to play young lover parts at Arras, where he also appeared in opera and even in pantomime. From Rouen, where he had three successful years, his reputation spread to Paris and he was summoned to the new theatre which the comedian Langlois-Courcelles had just founded, and where he succeeded, not only in making an engagement for himself, but in bringing all his family, father, mother, wife and brother. They were thus distinguished in the playbills: Baptiste, aîné, Baptiste père, Baptiste cadet, Madame Baptiste mère, Madame Baptiste bru. This resulted in the pun of calling a play in which they all appeared une pièce de baptistes. Nicolas soon obtained the public favour, specially in La Martellière's mediocre Robert, chef de brigands, and as Count Almaviva, in Beaumarchais' La Mère coupable. His success in this was so great that the directors of the Théâtre de la République—who had already secured Talma, Dugazon and Madame Vestris—hastened to obtain his services, and, in order to get him at once (1793), paid the 20,000 francs forfeit which he was obliged to surrender on breaking his contract. Later he, as well as his younger brother, became sociétaire. Nicolas took all the leading parts in comedy and tragedy. As he grew older his special forte lay in noble fathers. After a brilliant career of thirty-five years of uninterrupted service, he retired in 1828. But, after the revolution of 1830, when the Théâtre Français was in great straits, the brothers Baptiste came to the rescue, reappeared on the stage and helped to bring back its prosperity. The elder died in Paris on the 1st of December 1835. The younger brother, Paul Eustache Anselme, known as Baptiste cadet (1765-1839), was also a comedian of great talent, and had a long and brilliant career at the Comédie Française, where he made his début in 1792 in L'Amour et l'intérêt.

BAPTISTERY (Baptisterium, in the Greek Church φωτιστήριον), the separate hall or chapel, connected with the early Christian Church, in which the catechumens were instructed and the sacrament of baptism administered. The name baptistery is also given to a kind of chapel in a large church, which serves the same purpose. The baptistery proper was commonly a circular building, although sometimes it had eight and sometimes twelve sides, and consisted of an ante-room (προαύλιος οἶκος) where the catechumens were instructed, and where before baptism they made their confession of faith, and an inner apartment where the sacrament was administered. In the inner apartment the principal object was the baptismal font (κολυμβήθρα, or piscina), in which those to be baptized were immersed thrice. Three steps led down to the floor of the font, and over it was suspended a gold or silver dove; while on the walls were commonly pictures of the scenes in the life of John the Baptist. The font was at first always of stone, but latterly metals were often used. Baptisteries belong to a period of the church when great numbers of adult catechumens were baptized, and when immersion was the rule. We find little or no trace of them before Constantine made Christianity the state religion, i.e. before the 4th century; and as early as the 6th century the baptismal font was built in the porch of the church and then in the church itself. After the 9th century few baptisteries were built, the most noteworthy of later date being those at Pisa, Florence, Padua, Lucca and Parma. Some of the older baptisteries were very large, so large that we hear of councils and synods being held in them. It was necessary to make them large, because in the early Church it was customary for the bishop to baptize all the catechumens in his diocese (and so baptisteries are commonly found attached to the cathedral and not to the parish churches), and also because the rite was performed only thrice in the year. (See Baptism.) During the months when there were no baptisms the baptistery doors were sealed with the bishop's seal. Some baptisteries were divided into two parts to separate the sexes; sometimes the church had two baptisteries, one for each sex. A fireplace was often provided to warm the neophytes after immersion. Though baptisteries were forbidden to be used as burial-places by the council of Auxerre (578) they were not uncommonly used as such. Many of the early archbishops of Canterbury were buried in the baptistery there. Baptisteries, we find from the records of early councils, were first built and used to correct the evils arising from the practice of private baptism. As soon as Christianity made such progress that baptism became the rule, and as soon as immersion gave place to sprinkling, the ancient baptisteries were no longer necessary. They are still in general use, however, in Florence and Pisa. The baptistery of the Lateran must be the earliest ecclesiastical building still in use. A large part of it remains as built by Constantine. The central area, where is the basin of the font, is an octagon around which stand eight porphyry columns, with marble capitals and entablature of classical form; outside these are an ambulatory and outer walls forming a larger octagon. Attached to one side, towards the Lateran basilica, is a fine porch with two noble porphyry columns and richly carved capitals, bases and entablatures. The circular church of Santa Costanza, also of the 4th century, served as a baptistery and contained the tomb of the daughter of Constantine. This is a remarkably perfect structure with a central dome, columns and mosaics of classical fashion. Two side niches contain the earliest known mosaics of distinctively Christian subjects. In one is represented Moses receiving the Old Law, in the other Christ delivers to St Peter the New Law—a charter sealed with the X P monogram.

Another baptistery of the earliest times has recently been excavated at Aquileia. Ruins of an early baptistery have also been found at Salona. At Ravenna exist two famous baptisteries encrusted with fine mosaics, one of them built in the middle of the 5th century, and the other in the 6th. To the latter date also belongs a large baptistery decorated with mosaics at Naples.

In the East the metropolitan baptistery at Constantinople still stands at the side of the mosque which was once the patriarchal church of St Sophia; and many others, in Syria, have been made known to us by recent researches, as also have some belonging to the churches of North Africa. In France the most famous early baptistery is St Jean at Poitiers, and other early examples exist at Riez, Fréjus and Aix. In England, a detached baptistery is known to have been associated with the cathedral of Canterbury.

See Hefele's Concilien, passim; Du Cange, Glossary, article "Baptisterium"; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. x. 4; Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xi.

(W. R. L.)

BAPTISTS, a body of Christians, distinguished, as their name imports, from other denominations by the view they hold respecting the ordinance of baptism (q.v.). This distinctive view, common and peculiar to all Baptists, is that baptism should be administered to believers only. The mode of administration of the ordinance has not always been the same, and some Baptists (e.g. the Mennonites) still practise baptism by pouring or sprinkling, but among those who will here be styled modern Baptists, the mode of administration is also distinctive, to wit, immersion. It should, however, be borne in mind that immersion is not peculiar to the modern Baptists. It has always been recognized by Paedobaptists as a legitimate mode, and is still practised to the exclusion of other modes by a very large proportion of paedobaptist Christendom (e.g. the Orthodox Eastern Church). We shall distinguish here between two main groups of Baptists in Europe; the Anabaptists, now practically extinct, and the modern Baptists whose churches are in nearly every European country and in all other countries where white men reside.

I. The Anabaptists

The great spiritual movement of the 15th and 16th centuries had for its most general characteristic, revolt against authority. This showed itself not merely in the anti-papal reformation of Luther, but also in the anti-feudal rising of the peasants and in a variety of anti-ecclesiastical movements within the reformation areas themselves. One of the most notable of these radical anti-ecclesiastical movements was that of the Zwickau prophets, (Marcus Stübner, Nikolaus Storch and Thomas Münzer): the most vigorous and notorious that of the Münster Anabaptists. Although they have been called the "harbingers" of the Anabaptists, the characteristic teaching of the Zwickau prophets was not Anabaptism. (See, however, Anabaptists.) For although Münzer repudiated infant baptism in theory, he did not relinquish its practice, nor did he insist on the re-baptism of believers. The characteristic teaching of the Zwickau movement, so closely linked with the peasant rising, was the great emphasis laid upon the "inner word." Divine revelation, said Münzer, was not received from the church, nor from preaching, least of all from the dead letter of the Bible; it was received solely and directly from the Spirit of God. It is this daring faith in divine illumination that brings the Zwickau teachers most nearly into touch with the Anabaptists. But if they are not typical of Anabaptism, still less are the later representatives of the movement in the last sad months at Münster.

The beginnings of the Anabaptist movement proper were in Zürich, where Wilheld Reubli (1480-1554), Konrad Grebel (d. 1526), Felix Manz (d. 1527) and Simon Strumpf separated from Zwingli and proposed to form a separate church. They repudiated the use of force, advocated a scriptural communism of goods, and asserted that Christians must always exercise love and patience towards each other and so be independent of worldly tribunals. But their most radical doctrine was the rejection of infant baptism as unscriptural. They rapidly gained adherents, among whom was Hans Brödli, pastor of Zollikon. Their refusal, however, to baptize infants, and the formation of a separate church as the outcome of this refusal, brought upon them the condemnation of Zwingli, and a number of them were banished. This act of banishment, however, drove Jörg Blaurock, Konrad Grebel and others to take the step which definitely instituted "Anabaptism": they baptized one another and then partook of the Lord's Supper together. This step took them much farther than the repudiation of paedobaptism. It formed a new religious community, which sought to fashion itself on the model of primitive Christianity, rejecting all tradition and accretions later than New Testament records. Its members claimed to get back to the simple church founded on brotherly love. The result was that their numbers grew with astonishing rapidity, and scholarly saints like Balthasar Hubmaier (ca. 1480-1528) and Hans Denck (ca. 1495-1527) joined them. Hubmaier brought no new adherents with him, and in 1525 himself baptized 300 converts. This baptism, however, was not immersion. Blaurock and Grebel baptized each other, and many adherents, kneeling together in an ordinary room. Hubmaier baptized his 300 from one bucket. The mode was sprinkling or pouring. In all this the Anabaptists had maintained one central article of faith that linked them to the Zwickau prophets, belief in conscience, religious feeling, or inner light, as the sole true beginning or ground of religion; and one other article, held with equal vigour and sincerity, that true Christians are like sheep among wolves, and must on no account defend themselves from their enemies or take vengeance for wrong done. Very soon this their faith was put to fiery test. Not only were Catholics and Protestants opposed to them on doctrinal grounds, but the secular powers, fearing that the new teaching was potentially as revolutionary as Münzer's radicalism had been, soon instituted a persecution of the Anabaptists. On the 7th of March 1526 the Zürich Rath issued an edict threatening all who were baptized anew with death by drowning, and in 1529 the emperor Charles V., at the diet of Spires, ordered Anabaptists to be put to death with fire and sword without even the form of ecclesiastical trial. A cruel persecution arose. Manz was drowned at Zürich and Michael Sattler (ca. 1495-1527) burned to death after torture in 1527; Hubmaier was burned in 1528 and Blaurock in 1529, and Sebastian Franck (1499-1542) asserts that the number of slain was in 1530 already about 2000.

Two results followed from this persecution. First, the development of a self-contained and homogeneous community was made impossible. No opportunity for the adoption of any common confession was given. Only a few great doctrines are seen to have been generally held by Anabaptists—such as the baptism of believers only, the rejection of the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith as onesided and the simple practice of the breaking of bread. This last, the Anabaptist doctrine of the Lord's Supper, was to the effect that brothers and sisters in Christ should partake in remembrance of the death of Christ, and that they should thereby renew the bond of brotherly love as the basis of neighbourly life. In the second place, the persecution deprived the Anabaptists of the noble leaders who had preached non-resistance and at the same time provoked others to an attitude of vengeance which culminated in the horrors of Münster. For Melchior Hofmann (ca. 1498-1543 or 1544) having taken the Anabaptist teaching to Holland, there arose in Haarlem a preacher of vengeance, Jan Matthisson or Matthyszoon (Matthys) (d. 1534) by name, who, prophesying a speedy end of the world and establishment of the kingdom of heaven, obtained many adherents, and despatched Boekebinder and de Kniper to Münster. Here the attempt was made to realise Matthisson's ideals. All who did not embrace Anabaptism were driven from Münster (1533), and Bernt Knipperdolling (ca. 1495-1536) became burgomaster. The town was now besieged and Matthisson was killed early in 1534. John (Johann Bockelson) of Leiden (1510-1536) took his place and the town became the scene of the grossest licence and cruelty, until in 1535 it was taken by the besieging bishop. Unhappily the Anabaptists have always been remembered by the crimes of John of Leiden and the revelry of Münster. They should really be known by the teaching and martyrdom of Blaurock, Grebel and Hubmaier, and by the gentle learning and piety of Hans Denck—of whom, with many hundred others, "the world was not worthy."

For the teaching of the Anabaptists, see Anabaptists.

Reference has already been made to the reason why a common Anabaptist confession was never made public. Probably, however, the earliest confession of faith of any Baptist community is that given by Zwingli in the second part of his Elenchus contra Catabaptistas, published in 1527. Zwingli professes to give it entire, translating it, as he says, ad verbum into Latin. Whatever opinion may be held as to the orthodoxy of the seven articles of the Anabaptists, the vehemence with which they were opposed, and the epithets of abuse which were heaped upon the unfortunate sect that maintained them, cannot fail to astonish those used to toleration. Zwingli, who details these articles, as he says, that the world may see that they are "fanatical, stolid, audacious, impious," can scarcely be acquitted of unfairness in joining together two of them,—the fourth and fifth,—thus making the article treat "of the avoiding of abominable pastors in the church" (Super devitatione abominabilium pastorum in Ecclesia), though there is nothing about pastors in the fourth article, and nothing about abominations in the fifth, and though in a marginal note he himself explains that the first two copies that were sent him read as he does, but the other copies make two articles, as in fact they evidently are. It is strange that the Protestant Council of Zürich, which had scarcely won its own liberty, and was still in dread of the persecution of the Romanists, should pass the decree which instituted the cruel persecution of the Anabaptists.

After Münster had fallen the harassed remnants of the Anabaptists were gathered together under Menno Simonis, who joined them in 1537. His moderation and piety held in check the turbulence of the more fanatical amongst them. He died in 1561 after a life passed amidst continual dangers and conflicts. His name remains as the designation of the Mennonites (q.v.), who eventually settled in the Netherlands under the protection of William the Silent, prince of Orange.

Of the introduction of Anabaptist views into England we have no certain knowledge. Fox relates that "the registers of London make mention of certain Dutchmen counted for Anabaptists, of whom ten were put to death in sundry places in the realm, anno 1535; other ten repented and were saved." In 1536 King Henry VIII. issued a proclamation together with articles concerning faith agreed upon by Convocation, in which the clergy are told to instruct the people that they ought to repute and take "the Anabaptists' opinions for detestable heresies and to be utterly condemned." Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) tells us from Stow's Chronicles that, in the year 1538, "four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bare faggots at Paul's Cross, and three days after a man and woman of their sect was burnt in Smithfield." In the reign of Edward VI., after the return of the exiles from Zürich, John Hooper (bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, d. 1555) writes to his friend Bullinger in 1549, that he reads "a public lecture twice in the day to so numerous an audience that the church cannot contain them," and adds, "the Anabaptists flock to the place and give me much trouble." It would seem that at this time they were united together in communities separate from the established Church. Latimer, in 1552, speaks of them as segregating themselves from the company of other men. In the sixth examination of John Philpot (1516-1555) in 1555 we are told that Lord Riche said to him, "All heretics do boast of the Spirit of God, and every one would have a church by himself, as Joan of Kent and the Anabaptists." Philpot was imprisoned soon after Mary's accession in 1553; and it is very pleasing to find, amidst the records of intense bitterness and rancour which characterized these times, and with which Romanist and Protestant alike assailed the persecuted Anabaptists, a letter of Philpot's, to a friend of his, "prisoner the same time in Newgate," who held the condemned opinions. His friend had written to ask his judgment concerning the baptism of infants. Philpot in a long reply, whilst maintaining the obligation of infant baptism, yet addresses his correspondent as, "dear brother, saint, and fellow-prisoner for the truth of Christ's gospel"; and at the close of his argument he says, "I beseech thee, dear brother in the gospel, follow the steps of the faith of the glorious martyrs in the primitive church, and of such as at this day follow the same."

Many Anabaptist communities existed in England toward the end of the 16th century, particularly in East Anglia, Kent and London. Their most notable representative was Robert Cooke, but they were more notorious for heretical views as to the Virgin Mary (see Anabaptists) than for their anti-paedobaptist position. It was for these views that Joan Boucher of Kent was burnt in 1550. There is no doubt that these prepared the way for the coming of the modern Baptists, but "the truth is that, while the Anabaptists in England raised the question of baptism, they were almost entirely a foreign importation, an alien element; and the rise of the Baptist churches was wholly independent of them."

II. The Modern Baptists

1. Great Britain and Ireland.—If the Anabaptists of England were not the progenitors of the modern Baptist church, we must look abroad for the beginnings of that movement. Although there were doubtless many who held Baptist views scattered among the Independent communities, it was not until the time of John Smith or Smyth (d. 1612) that the modern Baptist movement in England broke away from Brownism. Smyth was appointed preacher of the city of Lincoln in 1600 as an ordained clergyman, but became a separatist in 1605 or 1606, and, soon after, emigrated under stress of persecution with the Gainsborough Independents to Amsterdam. With Thomas Helwys (ca. 1560-ca. 1616) and Morton he joined the "Ancient" church there, but, coming under Mennonite teaching in 1609, he separated from the Independents, baptized himself (hence he is called the "Se-baptist"), Helwys and others probably according to the Anabaptist or Mennonite fashion of pouring. These then formed the first English Baptist Church which in 1611 published "a declaration of faith of English people remaining at Amsterdam in Holland." The article relating to baptism is as follows:—"That every church is to receive in all their members by baptism upon the confession of their faith and sins, wrought by the preaching of the gospel according to the primitive institution and practice. And therefore churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons, are not according to Christ's testament. That baptism or washing with water is the outward manifestation of dying unto sin and walking in newness of life; and therefore in no wise appertaineth to infants." They held "that no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other"; and that "the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience nor compel men to this or that form of religion." This is the first known expression of absolute liberty of conscience in any confession of faith.

Smyth died in Holland, but in 1612 Helwys returned to England with his church and formed the first Baptist church worshipping on English soil. The church met in Newgate Street, London, and was the origin of the "General" Baptist denomination. Helwys and his followers were Arminians, repudiating with heat the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. They thus differed from other Independents. "They also differed on the power of the magistrate in matters of belief and conscience. It was, in short, from their little dingy meeting house ... that there flashed out, first in England, the absolute doctrine of Religious Liberty" (Prof. Masson). Leonard Busher, the author of "Religious Peace: or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience," was a member of this church.

The next great event in the history of the Baptists (though it should be mentioned that the last execution for heresy in England by burning was that of a Baptist, Edward Wightman, at Lichfield 1612) is the rise of the first Calvinistic or Particular Baptist Church. This was the Jacob church in Southwark, which numbered among its members John Lothropp or Lathrop (d. 1653), Praise-God Barbon (ca. 1596-1679), Henry Jessey (1601-1663), Hanserd Knollys (ca. 1599-1691) and William Kiffin (1616-1701). It was originally Independent but then became Baptist. From this six other churches sprang, five of which were Baptist. Before the Jacob church, however, had itself become Baptist, it dismissed from its membership a group of its members (the church having grown beyond what was regarded as proper limits) who, in 1633, became the first Particular Baptist Church.

Thus there were now in existence in England two sets of Baptists whose origins were quite distinct and who never had any real intercourse as churches. They differed in many respects. The General Baptists were Arminian, owing to the influence of the Mennonite Anabaptists. The Particular Baptists were Calvinist, springing as they did from the Independents. But on the question of Baptism both groups, while they utterly rejected the baptism of infants, were as yet unpledged to immersion and rarely practised it. The development of their doctrine as to baptism was marked along three lines of dispute:—(1) who is the proper administrator of baptism? (2) who are the proper subjects? and (3) what is the proper mode? Eventually agreement was reached, and in 1644 a Confession of Faith was published in the names of the Particular Baptist churches of London, now grown to seven, "commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptist."

The article on baptism is as follows:—"That baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament given by Christ to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are disciples, or taught, who, upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized." "The way and manner of dispensing this ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water." They further declare (particularly in order that they may avoid the charge of being Anabaptists) that "a civil magistracy is an ordinance of God," which they are bound to obey. They speak of the "breathing time" which they have had of late, and their hope that God would, as they say, "incline the magistrates' hearts so for to tender our consciences as that we might be protected by them from wrong, injury, oppression and molestation"; and then they proceed: "But if God withhold the magistrates' allowance and furtherance herein, yet we must, notwithstanding, proceed together in Christian communion, not daring to give place to suspend our practice, but to walk in obedience to Christ in the profession and holding forth this faith before mentioned, even in the midst of all trials and afflictions, not accounting our goods, lands, wives, children, fathers, mothers, brethren, sisters, yea, and our own lives, dear unto us, so that we may finish our course with joy; remembering always that we ought to obey God rather than men." They end their confession thus: "If any take this that we have said to be heresy, then do we with the apostle freely confess, that after the way which they call heresy worship we the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets and Apostles, desiring from our souls to disclaim all heresies and opinions which are not after Christ, and to be stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, as knowing our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord." The "breathing time" was not of long continuance. Soon after the Restoration (1660) the meetings of nonconformists were continually disturbed and preachers were fined or imprisoned. One instance of these persecutions will, perhaps, be more impressive than any general statements. In the records of the Broadmead Baptist Church, Bristol, we find this remark: "On the 29th of November 1685 our pastor, Brother Fownes, died in Gloucester jail, having been kept there for two years and about nine months a prisoner, unjustly and maliciously, for the testimony of Jesus and preaching the gospel. He was a man of great learning, of a sound judgment, an able preacher, having great knowledge in divinity, law, physic, &c.; a bold and patient sufferer for the Lord Jesus and the gospel he preached."

With the Revolution of 1688, and the passing of the Act of Toleration in 1689, the history of the persecution of Baptists, as well as of other Protestant dissenters, ends. The removal of the remaining disabilities such as those imposed by the Test and Corporation Acts repealed in 1828, has no special bearing on Baptists more than on other nonconformists. The ministers of the "three denominations of dissenters,"—Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists,—resident in London and the neighbourhood, had the privilege accorded to them of presenting on proper occasions an address to the sovereign in state, a privilege which they still enjoy under the name of "the General Body of Protestant Dissenting Ministers of the three Denominations." The "General Body" was not organized until 1727.

The Baptists, having had a double origin, continued for many years in two sections—those who in accordance with Arminian views held the doctrine of "General Redemption," and those who, agreeing with the Calvinistic theory, held the doctrine of "Particular Redemption"; and hence they were known respectively as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. In the 18th century many of the General Baptists gradually adopted the Arian, or, perhaps, the Socinian theory; whilst, on the other hand, the Calvinism of the Particular Baptists in many of the churches became more rigid, and approached or actually became Antinomianism. In 1770 the orthodox portion of the General Baptists, mainly under the influence of Dan Taylor (b. 1738), formed themselves into a separate association, under the name of the General Baptist New Connection, since which time the "Old Connection" has gradually merged into the Unitarian denomination. By the beginning of the 19th century the New Connection numbered 40 churches and 3400 members. The old General Baptists "still keep up a shadowy legal existence." Towards the end of the 18th century many of the Particular Baptist churches became more moderate in their Calvinism, a result largely attributable to the writings of Andrew Fuller. Up to this time a great majority of the Baptists admitted none either to membership or communion who were not baptized, the principal exception being the churches in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, founded or influenced by Bunyan, who maintained that difference of opinion in respect to water baptism was no bar to communion. At the beginning of the 19th century this question was the occasion of great and long-continued discussion, in which the celebrated Robert Hall (1764-1831) took a principal part. The practice of mixed communion gradually spread in the denomination. Still more recently many Baptist churches have considered it right to admit to full membership persons professing faith in Christ, who do not agree with them respecting the ordinance of baptism. Such churches justify their practice on the ground that they ought to grant to all their fellow-Christians the same right of private judgment as they claim for themselves. It may not be out of place here to correct the mistake, which is by no means uncommon, that the terms Particular and General as applied to Baptist congregations were intended to express this difference in their practice, whereas these terms related, as has been already said, to the difference in their doctrinal views. The difference now under consideration is expressed by the terms "strict" and "open," according as communion (or membership) is or is not confined to persons who, according to their view, are baptized.

In 1891, largely under the influence of Dr John Clifford, a leading General Baptist, the two denominations, General and Particular, were united, there being now but one body called "The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland." This Union, however, is purely voluntary, and some Baptist churches, a few of them prosperous and powerful, hold aloof from their sister churches so far as organization is concerned.

There are other Baptist bodies outside the Baptist Union beside certain isolated churches. Throughout England there are many "Strict" Baptist churches which really form a separate denomination. For the most part they are linked together according to geographical distribution in associations, such as the "Metropolitan Association of Strict Baptist Churches," and the "Suffolk and Norfolk Association of Particular Baptist Churches." In the latter case the name "Particular" is preferred, but the association holds aloof from other Baptist churches because its principles are "strict." There is, however, no national Union. Indeed, the Strict Baptists are themselves divided into the "Standard" and "Vessel" parties—names derived from the "Gospel Standard" and "Earthen Vessel," the organs of the rival groups.

The general characteristic of the Strict Baptists is their rigorous adherence to a type of Calvinistic theology now generally obsolete, and their insistence upon baptism as the condition of Christian communion. Their loose organization makes it impossible to obtain accurate statistics, but the number of their adherents is small. There is a strict Baptist Missionary Society (founded 1860, refounded 1897) which conducts mission work in South India. The income of this society was £1146 in 1905. It comprises 730 church members and 72 pastors and workers.

The Baptists early felt the necessity of providing an educated ministry for their congregations. Some of their leading pastors had been educated in one or other of the English universities. Others had by their own efforts obtained a large amount of learning, amongst whom Dr John Gill was eminent for his knowledge of Hebrew, as shown in his Exposition of the Holy Scriptures, a work in 9 vols. folio, 1746-1766. Edward Terrill, who died in 1685, left a considerable part of his estate for the instruction of young men desiring to be trained for the ministry, under the superintendence of the pastor of the Broadmead Church, Bristol, of which he was a member. Other bequests for the same purpose were made, and from the year 1720 the Baptist Academy, as it was then called, received young men as students for the ministry among the Baptists. In 1770 the Bristol Education Society was formed to enlarge this academy; and about the year 1811 the present Bristol Baptist College was erected. In the north of England a similar education society was formed in 1804 at Bradford, Yorkshire, which has since been removed to Rawdon, near Leeds. In London another college was formed in 1810 at Stepney; it was removed to Regent's Park in 1856. The Pastors' College in connexion with the Metropolitan Tabernacle was instituted in 1856, and in 1866 the present Baptist College at Manchester was instituted at Bury in the interests of the "Strict" Baptist views. Besides these, which were voluntary colleges not under denominational control, the General Baptists maintained a college since 1797, which, since the amalgamation of the two Baptist bodies, has become also a voluntary institution, though previously supported by the General Baptist Association. It is called the "Midland Baptist College," and is situated in Nottingham. There is also a Baptist theological college in Glasgow, and there are two colleges in Wales and one in Ireland. The total number of students in these institutions is about 210.

The Baptists were the first denomination of British Christians to undertake in a systematic way that work of missions to the heathen, which became so prominent a feature in the religious activity of the 19th century. As early as the year 1784 the Northamptonshire Association of Baptist churches resolved to recommend that the first Monday of every month should be set apart for prayer for the spread of the gospel. Shortly after, in 1792, the Baptist Missionary Society was formed at Kettering in Northamptonshire, after a sermon on Isaiah lii. 2, 3, preached by William Carey (1761-1834), the prime mover in the work, in which he urged two points: "Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God." In the course of the following year Carey sailed for India, where he was joined a few years later by Marshman and Ward, and the mission was established at Serampore. The great work of Dr Carey's life was the translation of the Bible into the various languages and dialects of India. The society's operations are now carried on, not only in the East, but in the West Indies, China, Africa (chiefly on the Congo river), and Europe.

In regard to church government, the Baptists agree with the Congregationalists that each separate church is complete in itself, and has, therefore, power to choose its own ministers and to make such regulations as it deems to be most in accordance with the purpose of its existence, that is, the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. A comparatively small section of the denomination maintain that a "plurality of elders" or pastors is required for the complete organization of every separate church. This is the distinctive peculiarity of those churches in Scotland and the north of England which are known as Scotch Baptists. The largest church of this section, consisting of approximately 500 members, originated in Edinburgh in 1765, before which date only one Baptist church—that of Keiss in Caithness, formed about 1750—appears to have existed in Scotland. The greater number of the churches are united in association voluntarily formed, all of them determined by geographical limits. The associations, as well as the churches not in connexion with them, are united together in the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, formed in 1813 by the Particular Baptists. This union, however, exerts no authoritative action over the separate churches. One important part of the work of the union is the collection of information in which all the churches are interested. In 1909 there were in the United Kingdom: Baptist churches, 3046; chapels, 4124; sittings, 1,450,352; members, 424,008; Sunday school teachers, 58,687; Sunday scholars, 578,344; local preachers, 5615; and pastors in charge, 2078.

At the beginning of the 20th century the Baptist Union collected a "Twentieth Century Fund" of £250,000, which has largely assisted the formation of new churches, and gives an indication of the unity and virility of the denomination. A still stronger evidence to the same effect was given by the Religious Census taken in 1904. While this only applied to London, its results are valuable as showing the comparative strength of the Baptist Church. These results are to the effect that in all respects the Baptists come second to the Anglicans in the following three particulars:—(1) Percentage of attendances at public worship contributed by Baptists, 10.81 (London County), 10.70 (Greater London); (2) aggregate of attendances, 54,597; (3) number of places of worship, 443.

2. The Continent of Europe.—During the 19th century what we have called the modern Baptist movement made its appearance in nearly every European country. In Roman Catholic countries Baptist churches were formed by missionaries coming from either England or America: work in France began in 1832, in Italy missions were started in 1866 (Spezia Mission) and in 1884 (Baptist Missionary Society, which also has a mission in Brittany), and in Spain in 1888. In Protestant countries and in Russia the Baptist movement began without missionary intervention from England or America. J. G. Oncken (1800-1884) formed the first church in Hamburg in 1834, and thereafter Baptist churches were formed in other countries as follows:—Denmark (1839), Holland and Sweden (1848), Switzerland (1849), Norway (1860), Austria and Rumania (1869), Hungary (1871), and Bulgaria (1884). Baptist churches also began to be formed in Russia and Finland in the 'fifties and 'sixties.

3. British Colonies.—In every colony the Baptists have a considerable place. There are unions of Baptist churches in the following colonies:—New South Wales, Victoria, S. Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, New Zealand, Tasmania, Canada (four Unions) and S. Africa. The work in S. Africa is assisted by the Baptist South African Missionary and Colonial Aid Society, having its seat in London.

The Baptist World Alliance was formed in 1905, when the first Baptist World Congress was held in London. The preamble of the constitution of this Alliance sufficiently indicates its nature: "Whereas, in the providence of God, the time has come when it seems fitting more fully to manifest the essential oneness in the Lord Jesus Christ, as their God and Saviour, of the churches of the Baptist order and faith throughout the world, and to promote the spirit of fellowship, service and co-operation among them, while recognizing the independence of each particular church and not assuming the functions of any existing organization, it is agreed to form a Baptist alliance, extending over every part of the world." This alliance does in fact include Baptists in every quarter of the globe, as will be seen from the following statistics:—

Churches. Members.

United States—

National Baptist Convention 16,996 2,110,269

Southern Baptist Convention 20,431 1,832,638

"Disciples of Christ" 11,157 1,235,798

Thirty-five Northern States 8,894 986,821

Fourteen other Bodies 7,921 414,775

Australasia 270 23,253

Canada 985 103,062

S. Africa 52 4,865

United Kingdom 2,934 426,563

Austria Hungary 37 9,783

Denmark 29 3,954

Finland 43 2,301

France 28 2,278

Germany 180 32,462

Italy 53 1,375

Mexico and Central America 58 1,820

Netherlands 22 1,413

Norway 39 2,849

Rumania and Bulgaria 5 374

Russia and Poland^[1] 131 24,136

S. America 63 3,641

Spain 7 245

Sweden 567 43,305

Switzerland 8 796

West Indies 318 42,310

Ceylon 25 1,044

China 137 12,160

India 1,215 121,716

Japan 40 2,326

Palestine 1 106

Philippines 4 425

Congo 21 4,673

West Africa 10 629

Total 72,681 7,454,165

In 1909 the comparative totals were roughly:—72,988 churches; 7,480,940 members. In both sets of figures the Disciples of Christ (U.S.A.) are included.

Literature.—Thomas Crosby, The History of the English Baptists (4 vols. London, 1738-1740); D. Masson, Life of John Milton in Connexion with the History of his Time (6 vols. 1859-1880, new ed. 1881, &c.); B. Evans, The Early English Baptists, i. ii. (1862-1864); H. C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (London, 1897); A. H. Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia, 1900-1903); R. Heath, Anabaptism (1895); C. Williams, The Principles and Practices of the Baptists (1903); E. C. Pike, The Story of the Anabaptists (1904); J. H. Shakespeare, Baptist and Congregational Pioneers; J. G. Lehmann, Geschichte der deutschen Baptisten (1896-1900); G. Tumbült, Die Wiedertäufer (Bielefeld, 1899); The Baptist Handbook (annually); The Baptist World Congress, 1905; The Religious Census of London (1904).

(N. H. M.)

4. United States of America.—The first Baptist Church in America was that founded in the Providence settlement on Narragansett Bay under the leadership of Roger Williams (q.v.). Having been sentenced to banishment (October 1635) by the Massachusetts Court because of his persistence in advocating separatistic views deemed unsettling and dangerous, to escape deportation to England he betook himself (January 1636) to the wilderness, where he was hospitably entertained by the natives who gave him a tract of land for a settlement. Having been joined by a few friends from Massachusetts, Williams founded a commonwealth in which absolute religious liberty was combined with civil democracy. In the firm conviction that churches of Christ should be made up exclusively of regenerate members, the baptism of infants appeared to him not only valueless but a perversion of a Christian ordinance. About March 1639, with eleven others, he decided to restore believers' baptism and to form a church of baptized believers. Ezekiel Holliman, who had been with him at Plymouth and shared his separatist views, first baptized Williams and Williams baptized the rest of the company. Williams did not long continue to find satisfaction in the step he had taken. Believing that the ordinances and apostolic church organization had been lost in the general apostasy, he became convinced that it was presumptuous for any man or company of men to undertake their restoration without a special divine commission. He felt compelled to withdraw from the church and to assume the position of a seeker. He continued on friendly terms with the Baptists of Providence, and in his writings he expressed the conviction that their practice came nearer than that of other communities to the first practice of Christ.

In November 1637 John Clarke (1609-1676), a physician, of religious zeal and theological acumen, arrived at Boston, where, instead of the religious freedom he was seeking, he found the dominant party in the Antinomian controversy on the point of banishing the Antinomian minority, including Mrs Anne Hutchinson (q.v.) and her family, John Wheelwright (c. 1592-1679), and William Coddington (1601-1678). Whether from sympathy with the persecuted or aversion to the persecutors, he cast in his lot with the former and after two unsuccessful attempts at settlement assisted the fugitives in forming a colony on the island of Aquidnek (Rhode Island), procured from the Indians through the good offices of Williams. By 1641 there were, according to John Winthrop, "professed Anabaptists" on the island, and Clarke was probably their leader. Robert Lenthall, who joined the Newport company in 1640 when driven from Massachusetts, probably brought with him antipaedobaptist convictions. Mrs Scott, sister of Mrs Hutchinson, is thought to have been an aggressive antipaedobaptist when the colony was founded. Mark Lucar, who was baptized by immersion in London in January 1642 (N.S.) and was a member of a Baptist church there, reached Newport about 1644. A few years later we find him associated with Clarke as one of the most active members of the Newport church, and as the date of the organization is uncertain, there is some reason to suspect that he was a constituent member, and that as a baptized man he took the initiative in baptizing and organizing. At any rate we have in Lucar an interesting connecting link between early English and American Baptists.

The Providence church maintained a rather feeble existence after Williams's withdrawal, with Thomas Olney (d. 1682), William Wickenden, Chad Brown (d. 1665) and Gregory Dexter as leading members. A schism occurred in 1652, the last three with a majority of the members contending for general redemption and for the laying on of hands as indispensable to fellowship, Olney, with the minority, maintaining particular redemption and rejecting the laying on of hands as an ordinance. Olney's party became extinct soon after his death in 1682. The surviving church became involved in Socinianism and Universalism, but maintained a somewhat vigorous life and, through Wickenden and others, exerted considerable influence at Newport, in Connecticut, New York and elsewhere. Dexter became, with Williams and Clarke, a leading statesman in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The Newport church extended its influence into Massachusetts, and in 1649 we find a group of Baptists at Rehoboth, with Obadiah Holmes as leader. The intolerance of the authorities rendered the prosecution of the work impracticable and these Massachusetts Baptists became members of the Newport church. In 1651 Clarke, Holmes and Joseph Crandall of the Newport church made a religious visit to Lynn, Mass. While holding a meeting in a private house they were arrested and were compelled to attend the church services of the standing order. For holding an unlawful meeting and refusing to participate quietly in the public service they were fined, imprisoned and otherwise maltreated. While in England on public business in 1652, Clarke published Ill News from New England, which contained an impressive account of the proceedings against himself and his brethren at Lynn, and an earnest and well-reasoned plea for liberty of conscience.

Henry Dunster (1612-1659), the first president of the college at Cambridge (Harvard), had by 1653 become convinced that "visible believers only should be baptized." Being unwilling to hold his views in abeyance, he relinquished in 1654, under circumstances of considerable hardship, the work that he greatly loved.

In 1663 John Myles (1621-1683), a Welsh Baptist who had been one of Cromwell's Tryers, with his congregation, took refuge in Massachusetts from the intolerance of the government of Charles II. They were allowed to settle in Rehoboth, Mass., and even after they were discovered to be Baptists they were allowed to remain on condition of establishing their meeting-place at a considerable distance from that of the standing order. Myles did much to promote the growth of the Baptist Church in Massachusetts, and was of service to the denomination in Boston and elsewhere. Thomas Gould of Charlestown seems to have been in close touch with President Dunster and to have shared his antipaedobaptist views as early as 1654. Some time before 1665 several English Baptists had settled in the neighbourhood of Boston and several others had adopted Baptist views. These, with Gould, were baptized (May 1665) and joined with those who had been baptized in England in a church covenant. The church was severely persecuted, the members being frequently imprisoned and fined and denied the use of a building they had erected as a meeting-house. Long after the Act of Toleration (1689) was in full force in England, the Boston Baptists pleaded in vain for the privileges to which they were thereby entitled, and it required the most earnest efforts of English Baptists and other dissenters to gain for them a recognition of the right to exist. A mandate from Charles II. (July 1679), in which the Massachusetts authorities were sharply rebuked for denying to others the liberty to secure which they themselves had gone into exile, had produced little effect.

In 1682 William Screven (1629-1713) and Humphrey Churchwood, members of the Boston church, gathered and organized, With the co-operation of the mother church, a small congregation at Kittery, Me. Persecution led to migration, Screven and some of the members making their way to South Carolina, where, with a number of English Baptists of wealth and position, what became the First Baptist church in Charleston, was organized (about 1684). This became one of the most important of early Baptist centres, and through Screven's efforts Baptist principles became widely disseminated throughout that region. The withdrawal of members to form other churches in the neighbourhood and the intrusion of Socinianism almost extinguished the Charleston church about 1746.

A few Baptists of the general (Arminian) type appeared in Virginia from 1714 onward, and were organized and fostered by missionaries from the English General Baptists. By 1727 they had invaded North Carolina and a church was constituted there.

From 1643 onward antipaedobaptists from New England and elsewhere had settled in the New Netherlands (New York). Lady Deborah Moody left Massachusetts for the New Netherlands in 1643 because of her antipaedobaptist views and on her way stopped at New Haven, where she won to her principles Mrs Eaton, the wife of the governor, Theophilus Eaton. She settled at Gravesend (now part of Brooklyn) having received from the Dutch authorities a guarantee of religious liberty. Francis Doughty, an English Baptist, who had spent some time in Rhode Island, laboured in this region in 1656 and baptized a number of converts. This latter proceeding led to his banishment. Later in the same year William Wickenden of Providence evangelized and administered the ordinances at Flushing, but was heavily fined and banished. From 1711 onward Valentine Wightman (1681-1747) of Connecticut (General Baptist) made occasional missionary visits to New York at the invitation of Nicolas Eyres, a business man who had adopted Baptist views, and in 1714 baptized Eyres and several others, and assisted them in organizing a church. The church was well-nigh wrecked (1730) by debt incurred in the erection of a meeting-house. A number of Baptists settled on Block Island about 1663. Some time before 1724 a Baptist church (probably Arminian) was formed at Oyster Bay.

The Quaker colonies, with their large measure of religious liberty, early attracted a considerable number of Baptists from New England, England and Wales. About 1684 a Baptist church was founded at Cold Spring, Bucks county, Pa., through the efforts of Thomas Dungan, an Irish Baptist minister who had spent some time in Rhode Island. The Pennepek church was formed in 1688 through the labours of Elias Keach, son of Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), the famous English evangelist. Services were held in Philadelphia under the auspices of the Pennepek church from 1687 onward, but independent organization did not occur till 1698. Several Keithian Quakers united with the church, which ultimately became possessed of the Keithian meeting-house. Almost from the beginning general meetings had been held by the churches of these colonies. In 1707 the Philadelphia Association was formed as a delegated body "to consult about such things as were wanting in the churches and to set them in order." From its inception this body proved highly influential in promoting Baptist co-operation in missionary and educational work, in efforts to supply the churches with suitable ministers and to silence unworthy ones, and in maintaining sound doctrine. Sabbatarianism appeared within the bounds of the association at an early date and Seventh-day Baptist churches were formed (1705 onward).

The decades preceding the "Great Awakening" of 1740-1743 were a time of religious declension. A Socinianized Arminianism had paralysed evangelistic effort. The First Church, Providence, had long since become Arminian and held aloof from the evangelism of Edwards, Whitefield and their coadjutors. The First Church, Boston, had become Socinianized and discountenanced the revival. The First Church, Newport, had been rent asunder by Arminianism, and the nominally Calvinistic remnant had itself become divided on the question of the laying on of hands and showed no sympathy with the Great Awakening. The First Church, Charleston, had been wrecked by Socinianism. The General (Six Principles) Baptists of Rhode Island and Connecticut had increased their congregations and membership, and before the beginning of the 18th century had inaugurated annual associational meetings. But the fact that the Great Awakening in America was conducted on Calvinistic principles was sufficient to prevent their hearty co-operation. The churches of the Philadelphia Association were organized and engaged to some extent in missionary endeavour, but they showed little interest in the Edwards-Whitefield movement. And yet the Baptists ultimately profited by the Great Awakening beyond almost any of the denominations. In many New England communities a majority in the churches of the standing order bitterly opposed the new evangelism, and those who came under its influence felt constrained to organize "Separate" or "New Light" churches. These were severely persecuted by the dominant party and were denied even the scanty privileges that Baptists had succeeded in gaining. As the chief objection of the "Separates" to the churches of the standing order was their refusal to insist on personal regeneration as a term of membership, many of them were led to feel that they were inconsistent in requiring regenerate membership and yet administering baptism to unconscious infants. In several cases entire "Separate" churches reached the conviction that the baptism of infants was not only without Scriptural warrant but was a chief corner-stone of state-churchism, and transformed themselves into Baptist churches. In many cases a division of sentiment came to prevail on the matter of infant-baptism, and for a while mutual toleration prevailed; but mixed churches had their manifest disadvantages and separation ultimately ensued.

Among the Baptist leaders gained from Congregationalism as a result of the awakening was Isaac Backus (1724-1806), who became the New England champion in the cause of religious liberty and equality, and the historian of his denomination. To Daniel Marshall (d. 1784) and Shubael Stearns, "New Light" evangelists who became Baptists, the spread of Baptist principles and the multiplication of Baptist churches throughout the southern colonies were in great measure due. The feeble Baptist cause in Virginia and North Carolina had been considerably strengthened by missionaries from the churches of the Philadelphia Association, including Benjamin Griffith, John Gano (1727-1804), John Thomas, Benjamin Miller, Samuel Eaton, John Garrard and David Thomas, and several churches, formed or reformed under their influence, united with the association. In 1776 the Ketockton Association was formed by this group of churches. The Virginia colonial government, in earlier days cruelly intolerant, gave a limited toleration to Baptists of this type; but the "Separate" Baptists were too enthusiastic and too much alive to the evils of state control in religious matters to be willing to take out licences for their meetings, and soon came into sharp conflict with the authorities. Stearns was an evangelist of great power. With Marshall, his brother-in-law, and about a dozen fellow-believers he settled at Sandy Creek, North Carolina, and in a few years had built up a church with a membership of more than six hundred. Marshall afterward organized and ministered to a church at Abbott's Creek about 30 m. distant. From these centres "Separate" Baptist influence spread throughout North and South Carolina and across the Georgia border, Marshall himself finally settling and forming a church at Kiokee, Georgia. From North Carolina as a centre "Separate" Baptist influence permeated Virginia and extended into Kentucky and Tennessee. The Sandy Creek Association came to embrace churches in several colonies, and Stearns, desirous of preserving the harmonious working of the churches that recognized his leadership, resisted with vehemence all proposals for the formation of other associations.