Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Proving Baptiſm is Dipping, by the Practice of John Baptiſt, Chriſt and his Apoſtles.
2dly. FRom the Practice of the Primitive Times. I have already ſhewed, that John Baptiſt baptized in the River Jordan, who was the firſt that received Commiſſion to baptize. And Diodate on Mat. 3. ſays he plunged them in Water.
Piſcator alſo ſaith, the antient manner of baptizing was, that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water.
So ſaith the Aſſembly in their Annotations.
Nav, ſay I, it had been a vain and needleſs thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize, if it had been only to ſprinkle a little Water on the Face; for a Quart of Water might have ſerved to have rantized a great number.
And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance, there is no Reaſon left to conceive why they ſhould go to Rivers; nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reaſon why John baptized in Enon near Salim, viz. becauſe there was much Water, John 3. 23.
But ſome ſtrive to contradict the Holy Ghoſt, by making People believe there was not much Water in that place.
Becauſe the Original reads not foreign much Water, but foreign, many Waters; that is (ſay they) many S…ms or Rivolets.
Anſwer. What difference is there between much VVater, and many Waters? If they were Streams and Rivolets, tho not deep, yet if they were but a little while ſtopped with a Dam, they would ſoon riſe to be deep enough to ſwim in, as Experience ſhews: But 'tis enough, there he baptized, ſaith the Holy Spirit, for there was much Water, or many Waters; there [for, or becauſe] intimating plainly, that the Ordinance could not be adminiſtred with a little Water, but that it required many Waters, or much Water, a great deal more than a Baſon could hold, or you hold in your Hand.
2. But 'tis objected, Sandy's Travels tell us that they were ſo ſhallow, as not to reach above the Ankles.
Anſw. 1. Muſt we believe God's Word, or a lying Traveller? the Scripture ſaith there was much Water, or many Waters, and he ſays there was but a little.
2. In ſome ſhallow Rivolets we daily ſee, that in ſome places the Water is deep, and might it not be ſo in that? and this Traveller might not ſo curiouſly ſearch or examine the matter.
3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then, (as Dr. Hammond words it) and yet but little or ſhallow Water now, or when Sandys was there? Time alters Rivers as well, as other things. But if any ſeek after this manner to contradict the ſacred Text, to defend their Childiſh Practice of Rantiſm, they deſerve greatly to be blamed.
Take this Argument.
If the Holy Ghoſt gives it as the Reaſon why John baptized in Enon near Salim, viz. becauſe there was much Water; then a little Water will not ſerve to baptize in.
But the Holy Ghoſt gives this as the Reaſon why John baptized in Enon near Salim, viz. becauſe there was much Water: Ergo, a little Water will not ſerve to baptize in.
2dly. But to proceed; Mark 1. 9. 'tis ſaid Jeſus was baptized of John in Jordan. Now ſaith a Learned Man on the place, It had been Nonſenſe for St. Mark to ſay, that Jeſus was baptized in Jordan, if he had been ſprinkled, becauſe the Greek reads it foreign, into Jordan: Could Jeſus be ſaid to be ſprinkled into the River Jordan? 'tis proper to ſay he was dipped into Jordan, and that is and was the Act, and nothing elſe beſure.
3dly. They went down both into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, Acts 8. What need had there been for them ſo to have done, had Baptiſm been ſprinkling? Sure Philip would not have put that Noble Perſon (who was a Man of great Authority under Ca…dace Queen of the Ethiopians) to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot, (if to ſprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done) and to go down into the Water and dip him: Sure Philip would on this occaſion have diſpenſed with Immerſion, and let Aſperſion or Rantiſm have ſerved, conſidering he was a great Perſon, and on a journey; he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwiſe, and have ſprinkled him in his Chariot, as ſome Miniſters do now in their publick Places of Worſhip; and thus Men make void the Command of Chriſt by their Traditions to the abuſe of Chriſtian Baptiſm, and Reproach of us that keep to his ſacred Inſtitution.
Mr. Daniel Rogers, a moſt worthy Writer, ſays in a Treatiſe of his, It ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Inſtitution, which is dipping, eſpecially it being not lest Arbitrary by our Church to the Diſcretion of the Miniſter, but required to dip or dive. And further saith, That he betrays the Church, whoſe Miniſter he is, to a diſordered Error, if he cleave not to the Inſtitution.
O, what abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too, have we in theſe as well as in former days! How little is the Inſtitution of Chriſt, or Practice of the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men? Where is the Spirit of Reformation? And doubtleſs that famous Author, and Learned Critick in the Greek Tongue, Caſanbon. was in the right: Take his words.
I doubt not (ſaith he) but, contrary to our Church's Intention, this Error having once crept in, is maintain'd ſtill, by the carnal Eaſe of ſuch, as looking more at themſelves than at God, ſtretch the Liberty of the Church in this caſe, deeper and further than either the Church her ſelf would, or the Solemneſs of this Sacrament may well and ſafely admit. Afterwards he ſaith, I conſeſs my ſelf unconvinced by Demonſtrations of Scripture for Infants ſprinkling.
The truth is, the Church gave too great Liberty; ſhe had no Power to alter in the leaſt matter, but to have kept exactly to the Inſtitution. She ſays dipping [or ſprinkling] that ſpoils all, that Addition gives Encouragement: VVho will dip the Perſon, that can believe the Church that ſprinkling may ſerve? And O! how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been ſo long, and ſo generally received, eſpecially when Carnal Eaſe and Profit attends the keeping of it up! and alſo when the true way of baptizing is reproached, and look'd upon to be ſo contemptible a Practice, and thoſe who own it, and dare not act otherwiſe, vilified and reproached (by many) with the ſcurrilous Name of Anabaptiſts, &c. altho we are as much againſt rebaptizing as any People in the VVorld can be.
The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. ſaith, Chriſt aſcended out of the Water, therefore Chriſt was baptized by John, not by ſprinkling or pouring Water upon him, but by Immerſion, that is, by dipping or Plunging into the Water.
Moreover, Muſculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptiſm dipping, and ſays the Parties baptized were dipped, not ſprinkled.
To cloſe with this, take one Argument.
If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, went both down into the Water, and the Perſon baptized was dipped, then is Baptiſm not Sprinkling but Dipping.
But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the days of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, went both down into the Water, and the Perſon baptized was dipped.
Ergo, Baptiſm is not Sprinkling but Dipping.