Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Shewing Baptizing is Dipping, not ſprinkling nor pouring a little Water.
SIR,
AS to what is contain'd in the ſecond Chapter of your Book concerning the Continuation of Chriſt's Baptiſm of Water in the Church, I ſhall ſay no more to that, in that we agree, and are one: but we differ about what Baptiſm of Water is; you would have it to be Sprinkling, which indeed is not Baptiſm but Rantiſm, for that you know is the Greek Word for Sprinkling.
2. As alſo we differ about the true and proper Subjects of it, according to our Saviour's Inſtitution; and ſince you begin with that you call the Manner or external Form of Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, I ſhall follow you herein, and ſhall firſt repeat your Words, and then reply. Thus you begin, viz.
Some judg that the whole Body ought to be dipped in Water, and all other ways to be unlawful.
Others judg (ſay you) the ſprinkling of Water on the Face of him that is baptiz'd to be ſufficient, eſpecially in theſe cold Climates; for even as in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is one Mo…ſel of Bread, and one Spoonful of Wine ſufficient for to ſignify the Spiritual Food that is had in Chriſt; even ſo in the Sacrament of Baptiſm, the ſprinkling of a little Water on him that is baptized, ſignifies the Virtue of the Blood of Chriſt as effectually as Rivers of Water.
I anſwer; Certainly you cannot be ignorant of what many learned Pedo-baptiſts have ſaid in Oppoſition to what you here ſpeak; for tho both the holy Sacraments are very ſignificant of Chriſt's Sufferings, and of thoſe ſpiritual Benefits we receive from him, yet they are of different Signification.
Firſt; The Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth in a lively Figure, the breaking of Chriſt's Body, and the pouring forth of his precious Blood; and this indeed may as well he repreſented by a ſmall quantity of Bread and Wine as by much, yet a little Water will not ſerve in Baptiſm.
1. Becauſe '…is poſitively ſaid, that John was baptizing in Enon near Salim, (John 3. 23.) becauſe there was much Water there. Certainly the Holy Ghoſt would not have given this as the Reaſon why John baptized near Enon, viz. becauſe there was much Water in that place, if a little Water, namely a Spoonful or two, would have been ſufficient, or two or three Quarts: It ſeems plainly deducible from this Text, it cannot be adminiſtred with a little Water, but contrariwiſe it doth require much Water.
Secondly; Pray conſider, that as the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper holds forth, or repreſents (ſymbolically) the breaking of the Body of Chriſt, and the ſhedding of his Blood, (and to that purpoſe it was in part inſtituted) even ſo the Sacrament of Baptiſm holds forth in as lively Figure, that our bleſſed Lord was dead, buried, and roſe again; and to this end this holy Ordinance was alſo inſtituted, as alſo to ſhew forth our Death unto Sin, and Vivification to Newneſs of Life, as by and by ſhall be abundantly proved, both from the holy Scriptures, and a multitude of learned Men that hold Infant-Baptiſm: therefore ſince a little Water cannot in this Ordinance repreſent Chriſt's Burial and Reſurrection, it follows directly that a little Water will not ſerve to baptize Perſons in, but that it muſt be adminiſtred in Rivers, Ponds, or places where there is much Water, i. e. ſo much Water as that the Body may be buried or covered all over therein. But to proceed, you ſay, Neither is dipping or ſprinkling eſſential unto this Ordinance, but waſhing with Water, or putting Water on the Body; for the word Baptiſm ſignifies in the Greek waſhing with Water, as we cited (ſay you) from Heb. 9. 10.
Anſw. I anſwer, now you have given away your Cauſe at once (or I am miſtaken); for if neither dipping nor ſprinkling be eſſential unto this Ordinance, but waſhing, what is become of your Baptiſm? Sir, all dipping in Water is waſhing, tho all waſhing is not dipping; in that you hurt us not, but your ſprinkling is not waſhing. If a Woman ſhould ſprinkle her foul Linen with a few drops of Water, would that be deem'd a waſhing of them? Again, if Sprinkling be not eſſential to Baptiſm, you have no Baptiſm at all; take away the Body of a Tree, and there is no Tree. That thing can't be where the eſſential part of it is wanting. And now that the Greek Word foreign doth ſignify dipping, and ſuch a waſhing as is by dipping, we ſhall plainly ſhew, evince, and demonſtrate, and confirm it by ſuch Arguments and Authors that no unprejudiced ſober Perſon can any longer well remain doubtful about this matter, and then we will examine your Objections.
I ſhall prove baptizing, or foreign, is not ſprinkling, nor pouring of Water upon the Body, but dipping or plunging the Body all over in Water: and that,
1ſt. From the proper, literal and direct Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo, and the Teſtimonies of Learned Men.
2dly. From the Practice of Primitive Times.
3dly. From the Conſideration of what is ſignified and repreſented in Baptiſm.
4thly. From thoſe Typical Baptiſms ſpoken of in the Scriptures.
5thly. From the nature of thoſe Metaphorical Baptiſms mentioned, viz. the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and that of Afflictions.
To proceed to prove the firſt:
Scapula and Stephens, two as great Maſters of the Greek Tongue as moſt we have, do tell you in their Lexicons, that foreign baptizo, from foreign bapto, ſignifies mergo, immergo, item tingo quod fit immergendo, inficere, imbuere, viz. to dip, plunge, overwhelm, put under, cover over, to dye in Colour, which is done by plunging.
Grotius ſays it ſignifies to dip over Head and Ears.
Paſor, an Immerſion, dipping or Submerſion.
Voſſius ſays it implies a waſhing the whole Body.
Mincaeus in his Dictionary ſaith that foreign à foreign, is in the Latin Baptiſmus, in Dutch Doopſit or Doopen, Baptiſmus or Baptiſm, to dive or duck in Water, and the ſame with the Hebrew foreign Tabal, which the Septuagint, or Seventy Interpreters render foreign baptizo, to dip. This Caſa…bon ſaith was the right of way Baptizing, that Perſons were plunged into the Water, which the very word Baptizo ſufficiently demonſtrates, which as it does not extend ſo far as to ſink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Perſon, ſo it is not to ſwim upon the Superficies of the Water. Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred by plunging the whole Body into the Water.
The late famous, and moſt learned in all the Oriental Tongues, Dr. Du-Veil, in his literal Explanation of the Acts, Chap. 1. 5. ſaith the word foreign baptizo, is to dip, as if it were to dye Colours; and any Dyer will tell you if there is any ſmall bit of Cloth not dipped, it is not dyed.
Leigh in his Critica Sa…r…, ſaith, the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water, or plunge under Water; Mat. 3. 6. Acts 8. 38. for which alſo he quotes Caſa…bon, Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius: he ſaith witha… that ſome would have it ſignify waſhing, which Senſe …, he ſaith, oppoſed, affirming that it was not otherwiſe ſo than by Conſequence; for the proper Signification was ſuch a dipping or plunging as Dyers uſe for dying of Cloth.
Salmaſius ſaith, That is not Baptiſm which they give to Children, but Rantiſm.
Beza on Mat. 3. 11. ſaith the word foreign baptizo, ſignifies to dye by dipping or waſhing.
Selden ſaith that the Jews took that Baptiſm wherein the whole Body was not baptized, to be void.
Ainſworth ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe, as I ſhall ſhew you.
Mr. Daniel Rogers ſays, that a Miniſter is to dip in Water the Party baptized, as the meeteſt Act, the word Baptizo notes it; for, ſaith he, the Greeks wanted not words to expreſs any other Act beſides dipping, if the Inſtitution could bear it: What Reſemblance of the Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt is in ſprinkling? [mark that!] all Antiquity and Scripture (ſaith he) confirms that it was dipping.
If you would, ſaith Dr. Du-Veil, attend to the proper Signification of the word; in the Synod of Caelichyth, Anno 816. where Wolfred Archbiſhop of Canterbury preſided: Let, ſaith he, the Presbyters beware that when they adminiſter the Sacrament of Baptiſm, they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Infants, but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God himſelf, who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan. Thus muſt the Ceremony be performed according to order: See Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts, Chap. 2. p. 5, 6, 7.
The ſaid learned Doctor ſaith in the ſame place, The conſtant Practice of the univerſal Church till the time of Clement V. who was crowned Pope Anno 1305, under whom, firſt of all, the ſecond Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuſe brought into ſome Churches about an hundred Years before, that Baptiſm without any neceſſity ſhould be adminiſtred by Aſperſion. Hence it came to paſs, that contrary to the Analogy, or intended Myſtical Signification of this Sacrament, all the Weſt, for the moſt part, has in this Age the uſe of Rantiſm, that is Sprinkling inſtead of Baptiſm, as Zepper ſpeaks, to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Ruſſians, who to this day plunge into the Water thoſe they baptize, and deny any one to be rightly baptized, who is not plunged into the Water, according to the Precept of Chriſt, as we find in Sylveſter Squropulus.
Dr. Taylor ſaith, The Cuſtom of the Antient Church was not Sprinkling, but Immerſion, in purſuance of the Senſe of the word Baptizing, and the Commandment and Example of our bleſſed Saviour.
Salmaſius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus, ſaith, that the word foreign ſignifies Immerſion, not Sprinkling. Nor did the Antients otherwiſe baptize than by ſingle or treble Immerſion, as in the Greek Church to this day; ſaith he, the Perſon to be baptized is plunged over Head and Ears. The ſame thing does Peter Avetabolis teſtify of the Aſian Chriſtians inhabiting Iberia and Colchi.
St. Ambroſe ſaith, Water is that wherein the Body is plunged, to waſh all Sin away, there all Vice is buried.
In a Book inſcribed, Reformation of Eccleſiaſtical Laws. printed at London, 1641. 'tis expreſſed in theſe words: While we are plunged in the Water, the Death and Burial of Chriſt is recommended to us, that we openly teſtify that Sin lies dead and buried in us.
The Raman Order, publiſhed by the Writers concerning Eccleſiaſtical …eremoni…s, ſays, the Presbyters enter into the Fountain Within unto the Water, and the Males are firſt baptized, and then the Femaies.
Luther ſaith, The Name of Baptiſm is a Greek Word, it may be termed Dipping when we dip ſomething in Water, that it may be wholly covered with Water; and altho (ſaith he) that Cuſtom is now altogether aboliſhed among the moſt part, for neither do they dip the whole Children, but only ſprinkle them with a little VVater, they ought nevertheleſs to be dipp'd, and preſently drawn out again.
The Germans alſo call Baptiſm Ta…ff from Deepneſs, which they call Tieff in their Tongue; as if it were meet (ſaith our Author) that thoſe be dipp'd deeply who are baptized.
John Bugenhagius Pomeranus (both a Fellow and Succeſſor in the Miniſtry of Luther at Wittenburgh, whom Thuanus and Zanchias witneſs to have been a very moderate, godly and learned Man) affirms, that he was deſired to be a VVitneſs at Hamburgh in the Year 1529. that when he had ſeen the Miniſter only ſprinkle the Infant wrapt in Swadling-Clothes on the top of the Head, he was amazed, becauſe he neither had heard or ſeen, or ſaw any ſuch thing, nor yet read in any Hiſtory, except in caſe of neceſſity in Bed-rid Perſons.
Hence in a General Aſſembly therefore of all the Miniſters that were convened, he did ask of a certain Miniſter (John Frize by Name, who was ſometimes Miniſter of Lubec) how the Sacrament of Baptiſm was adminiſtred at Lubec? who for his Piety and Candor, did anſwer, that Infants were baptized naked at Lubec, after the ſame faſhion altogether as in Germany; but from whence and how that peculiar manner of baptizing had crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant. At length they did agree among themſelves that the Judgment of Luther and of the Divines at Wittenburg ſhould be demanded about this Point; which thing being done, Luther wrote back to Hamburgh, that the Sprinkling was an Abuſe they ought to remove. Thus plunging was reſtored at Hamburgh, yet is that Climate cooler than onrs.
Mr. Joſ. Mede ſaith there was no ſuch thing as Sprinkling or Rantiſm [mark!] uſed in Baptiſm in the Apoſtles days, nor many Ages after. He had ſpoken more properly if he had ſaid, there was no Rantiſm uſed in the Apoſtles days, but Baptiſm, than to ſay no Rantiſm uſed in Baptiſm, ſince he well knew they are two diſtinct and different Acts: It cannot be Baptiſm at all, if it be only Rantiſm or Sprinkling, Immerſion or Dipping being the very thing, not an Accident, as I hinted, but an Eſſential ſo abſolutly neceſſary, that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it.
If I command my Maid to dip my Handkerchief into the Water, and ſhe only takes a little Water in her Hand and ſprinkles a few drops upon it, doth ſhe do what I command her? was that the thing, or is it not another Act? Even ſo 'tis here, you do not the thing, you rantiſe and baptize none unleſs you dip them into the Water.
Chamier alſo faith, the antient uſe of Baptiſm was to dip the whole Body into the Element, therefore did John baptize in a River.
Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. ſaith, that foreign ſignifies an Immerſion, or waſhing the whole Body, and which anſwereth to the Hebrew Word foreign uſed for dipping in the Old Teſtament, and therefore tells us upon Mat. 3. that John baptized in a River, viz. in Jordan, Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water, John 3. 23. becauſe 'tis ſaid there was much Water, which the Greeks called the Lakes where they uſed to waſh: Alſo, ſaith he, the Antients called their Baptiſterions, or the Veſſels containing their Baptiſmal Water, Columbethras, viz. ſwimming or diving places, being very large, with Partitions for Men and Women.
The Learned Mr. Pool (or thoſe Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his moſt excellent Annotations on the holy Bible) ſays, a great part of thoſe who went out to hear John, were baptized, that is, dipped in Jordan, on John 3. 6. and on Mat. 28. 20. ſay they, the firſt Baptiſm of which we read in Holy Writ, was dipping the Perſon baptized.
The Dutch Tranſlation according to their Language reads it dipping.
Mat. 3. 16. Ende Jeſus Gedoopt zijn de is terſtont Opgeklomen vit hit w…er. And when Jeſus was dipp'd, he came out of the Water. And Ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan. And were dipped of him in Jordan. Hence they called John the Baptiſt John the Dipper. In Verſe 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea. In Engliſh thus: In thoſe days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderneſs of Judea. Had our Tranſlators tranſlated the Greek word into our Engliſh Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs, it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper; and, for baptizing them in the Name of the Father, &c. it would have been read dipping them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, and then the People would not have been deceived; but they have not tranſlated the Greek word at all, but left it in its Original Language: What difference is there between Baptiſm and the Greek word Baptiſma?
Mr. Ball in his Catechiſm doth not only ſay Faith was required of ſuch who did deſire Baptiſm, but alſo that the Party baptized was waſhed by dipping, &c. But to cloſe with this, I argue thus, viz.
Since our Saviour ſent his Diſciples (to teach and baptize, or dip in the Name, &c.) into all Nations, viz. into cold Countries as well as hot; and ſeeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear dipping, without palpable danger of their Lives, it follows clearly that they are none of the Subjects Chriſt commanded to be dipp'd in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt.
To conclude with this, take one Argument, viz. If the proper, literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping, or to dip, then ſprinkling is not baptizing: But the proper, literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word baptizo is dipping, or to dip: Ergo, Sprinkling is not Baptizing.