BANBAN

BAPTISM

241

Acts, Mar. 6. (See Bishop Forbes, Kdlendars ofScottish Saints, s. v. Baldred.)

(2) A priest who gave eight “mansae” toEvesham soon after its foundation ( Chron .Evesham , ed. Macray, 18). [S.]

BANBAN. In Irish hagiology there are seve-ral Banbans usually given, but two at least of theseare probably the same person, Banban the Wise,attached to separate days, May l and 9. Colgan(in Tr. Thaum. p. 176, n. ° 7 ,) names four Banbans,and is of opinion that the “ Mauranum cogno-mento Barbanum, alias Banbanum, cognatum(Sti. Patricii), Deique Prophetam fidelem” ( Vit.Trip, or Sept. Vit. pars ii. c. xx.), to whom St.Patrick committed the “ Domnach Mor,” or largebasilica in Magh-Sleacht, co. Cavan, was Banbanthe Wise, whom again, in Quint. App. de Patr .et Gen. Sti. Patricii , c. 4-, n. 12 (p. 229), Colgansupposes to be a son of Richella, sister of St.Patrick, as elsewhere (p. 231) he calls him“Sti. Patricii nepos seu cognatus.” (Ib. ActaSS. p. 259, c. 3.) In the Hymn of St. Patrickgiven at a.d. 448 in the Four Masters , it is said,“ His sister’s son was Banban of fame,” thoughhe is not given in a similar list of the household inColgan’s Vit. Trip, (pars iii. c. 98); but O’Dono-van adds in a note {Four Masters by O’Donovan,p. 139, n. °) that in the copy of Flann’s poem, inthe Book of Lecan, the reading is “ Seannan washis brother ” (or cousin) “ of fame,” and that, asneither name has been identified with truehistory, it is more than probable that both owetheir existence to the errors of the transcribers.In Tr. Thaum. (p. 176, n. f>7 ), he is called “pres-byter ; ” but at May 1, the Mart. Tal/aght callshim “bishop.” There are other Banbans, suchas the bishop of Leithglinn (Leighlin, countyCarlow), Nov. 26; the abbot of Cluenadh (Clane,county Kildare), who died a.d. 777; anotherbishop, put by Mart. Doneg., Mar. Gorm. &c. onDec. 3; and a “ Banbhan, son of Donnghal, of therace of Fiacha Suighdhe, son of FeidhlimidhReachtmhar ” (king of Ireland, a.d. 164-174,or, according to the Four Masters , 111-119).(Colgan, Tr. Thaum. 176, n. 67 ; Mart. Doneg. byTodd and Reeves, pp. 117, 363 ; Four Masters, byO’Donovan, i. p. 383, a.d. 777.) [A. P. F.]

BAPTISM, in the sense now given to it,expressed in the N. T. by fidTrTi(r/j.a, not /Ja-n-T«r-fi6s: in Latin more commonly by Baptismusthan by Baptisma. For its origin, ritual, &c.,see the Diet, of Christian Ant. and of the Bible.That there was “ a doctrine ” respecting it, evenin apostolic times, is expressly stated in Heb. vi.2, where ^airTiapcov may have been used out ofconsideration for Hebrew ears, or suggested bya sojourn in Italy, or perhaps is due to theabbreviated way of writing ^airTurpaTajif in MSS.dhe employment of the plural number is easilyexplained out of the N. T. itself, where the“baptism of John” is often distinguished fromthat of “ Christ; ” and by that of Christ is meantsometimes His own death: sometimes the bap-tism administered by His disciples during Hislifetime ; sometimes the baptism administered byjhem alter His Ascension, or handed down toHis church. In dogmatizing on this last, it hadof course to be distinguished from, as well asi lustrjited by, the others. What the apostlesthemselves taught about it must be gathered

CHUIST. I3IOGK.

from their practice no less than their words; inboth of which they doubtless conformed rigidlyto what they * had learnt from their Lord.Between it and the baptism first instituted byHim, there were some characteristic differences,as well as some points in which they coincided.First, the matter employed was common to bothThis He must have settled among the first acts,of His ministry: for one of the first things Hisdisciples seem to have been commissioned to dofor Him was to baptise, and to baptise withwater, like the Baptist (John iv. 1-3). As littlecan it be doubted but that they baptised in Hisname; and to this form, as we shall see, theythemselves adhered probably through life;though for this form He substituted another Him-self, in terminating His earthly ministry, whichthey passed on to His church. Again, one wasdesigned to be provisional, the other permanent;and in the former the Holy Ghost was notreceived. During His lifetime we are told ex-pressly, “ the Holy Ghost was not yet given,because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (Z’&.vii.39). But, even after His Ascension, as long asbaptism was administered in this form, the HolyGhost was not imparted in it, but at times pre-ceded (Aets x. 4 4 - 4 8), at times followed it*reception {Ib. viii. 16-17). It was the not dis-tinguishing between these two baptisms institutedby our Lord that led St. Augustine to misapplyto the second the following remark which ismost true of the first. “ Haec distinctio interacceptionem baptismi, et acceptionem SpirituaSancti, satis nos instruit, ne habere hos continuoSpiritum Sanctum putemus, quos habere bap-tismum non negamus ” {Serm. 269, § 2, ed. Ben.).As long as baptism continued to be administeredin the “name of the Lord Jesus,” it preservedits original characteristics, and this distinctionexisted in fact; but when baptism came to beadministered in the name of the Trinity, thisdistinction ceased, because the Holy Ghost wasbestowed ever afterwards on every recipient ofbaptism at the font.

When the first form was disused, we mightas well attempt to define, as when the observanceof the law of Moses became obsolete. Certain itis, that in the Acts of the Apostles, we neverhear of the apostles themselves baptising, orindeed of anybody superior to a deacon baptisingat all; or, again, of anybody being baptised inany name but that of “ the Lord,” or “ the LordJesus.” Baptism formed no part of the com-mission given to the twelve when they werefirst sent forth; nor, again, to the seventy whofollowed them (Luke ix. and x.). Even St. Paul,in admitting that he baptised some few at Corinthwith his own hands, expressly says: “Christsent me, not to baptise, but to preach” (1 Cor. i.17). And there are numerous passages in hisepistles which shew that baptism in the name ofthe Lord Jesus was the baptism with which hewas familiar (Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. i. 13, and vi.11; Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 11), as it was certainlythe baptism he received himself (Acts xxii. 16).True, we know from St. Matthew—yet from himalone (xxviii. 19)—that baptism formed part ofthe commission given by our Lord to the elevenon leaving them, and was to be administered bythem in the name of the Trinity. If we com-pared the words spoken by Him on this occasiounakedly with the words spoken by Him in