BAPTISTS, are a sect of Christians who derived their name from the peculiar opinions which they held respecting baptism, and began, about the time of the Reformation, to claim the attention of the ec clesiastical historian. When we take a superficial view of this sect, collected as it were into one so ciety, and in its present embodied form, nothing ap pears more easy than to write its history, and to spe cify the doctrines which are peculiar to it. But when we come to examine it more minutely, and en deavour to analyse it into its elementary parts, we find that it is composed of very different materials, that its origin is hid in the darkness of antiquity, and that its history, for many centuries, is only the his tory of individual persons. If opposition to the mode in which baptism is commonly administered be the distinguishing characteristic of this sect, Tertul lian, who lived about the end of the second century, may be accounted one of its earliest founders. A short time afterwards, Agrippinus, a Carthaginian bishop, and many of the neighbouring clergy, re jected the baptisms which were then administered, and rebaptized all those who joined this society. Cyprian and his followers adopted the same sentiments in the third century. From Carthage these opinions migrated to the East, and Firmilian, bishop of Ca: sana, and many other bishops in Asia, re-baptized. The Novatians and Donatists likewise condemned baptism as then commonly administered, and em braced the sentiments of those who re-baptized. The ostensible reason which all these persons assigned for this conduct, was the wickedness of those who were universally admitted to baptism, and which, in their opinion, rendered the ordinance altogether invalid.
But soon a different cause impelled the professors of Christianity to the same line of conduct. In the council of Nice, held in the year 325, it was decreed, that as the Paulianists denied the doctrine of the Tri nity, and consequently omitted the names of the Son and of the Spirit in the administration of baptism, their baptism was nugatory ; and hence all that joined the orthodox from that sect were re-baptized. The
Arians, on " the. other hand, rejected the baptism of the orthodox, because it -implied an acknowledgment If the divinity of the Son, 'and of the personality.of the Spirit, and therefore they re-baptized all those who came over to them from the orthodox. It is a very curious fact, therefore, that at that time the whole church, •though for very different reasons, might be accounted baptists, and esteemed re-baptiza tion necessary for preserving the purity of the church.
But in the twelfth century several denominations of Christians arose, who, from the peculiar tenets which they adopted, pursued the same line of con duct respecting baptism. The Waldenses and Albi crenses at that period, as well as the Wickliffites in the fourteenth century, inveighed bitterly against the immorality of the clergy, accounted baptism invalid when performed by a priest whose conduct was un worthy of the Christian character, and re-baptised all those to whom that ceremony had been adminis tered by men who were openly profane. Socinus and his followers, who lived about the time of the Re formation, as well as the baptist churches in Holland and Germany at the present day, imagine that a per sonal profession of Christianity is essential to baptism, and hence they re-baptize all those who were bap tized in infancy. The Greek church maintains that immersion is absolutely necessary to the validity of the deed, and for this reason they re-baptize all those to whom baptism had been administered by sprink ling. The baptists of Britain, Poland, Lithuania, Transylvania, and America, all agree, that immersion, and a personal profession of faith and repentance, constitute the very essence of baptism ; hence they re-baptize all who have been baptized in infancy in any manner, or by sprinkling, when they have ar rived at manhood.