The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Shewing that the Baptiſts are falſly called Anabaptiſts, they being as much againſt rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit, (or any other Men or People whatſoever) ſhewing that Infants who have only had a little Water ſprinkled or poured on their Faces, &c. are not baptized, but rantized: Proving Baptiſm is Immerſion, (and without the Perſon's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water, he is not baptized) from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo.
1. IN Page 42, you ſay, That you will endeavour to ſatisfy ſuch who were baptized (as you call it) in their Infancy, that they were rightly baptized.
2. And that ſuch who have been once duly and rightly baptized, ought not to be rebaptized, or baptized again.
Anſw. That which you ſay in the firſt Place we do utterly deny, though we readily grant you what you ſay againſt rebaptizing, for we are as much againſt it as you can be.
But to prove your firſt Propoſition, you proceed to ſhew the ſeveral Requiſites neceſſary to :denominate a Perſon rightly baptized.
1. The Perſon baptizing ought to be a lawful Miniſter, authorized and commiſſioned by Chriſt, and the Governors of his Church.
2. The Party baptized, you ſay, muſt be a Subject qualified for Baptiſm, &c.
3. That the Element made uſe of, muſt be Water.
4. It ought to be done before credible Witneſſes.
5. Laſtly, Baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt.
Anſw. 1. I grant all you ſay here, though how you can prove there were Witneſſes by when Ananias baptized Saul, or when Philip baptized the Eunuch, I know not; yet I believe 'tis neceſſary there ſhould be in all ordinary Caſes credible Witneſſes by.
2. But, Sir, how doth this comport with the Rantiſm of Infants?
For, 1ſt. That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptiſm, I have fully proved, and have detected your Argument concerning Baptiſm coming in the room of, or ſucceeding Circumciſion.
2dly. I ſhall now prove your ſprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject, either on the Face, or any part of the Body, is not baptizing but rantizing: Then anſwer you Allegations, Objections, baſe Reflections, and falſe Calumnies caſt upon Mr. Tredwell, and indeed on the Baptiſts in general.
And in order to the effectual doing of this, take a Paſſage or two out of the ancient Fathers, &c. St. Gregory ſaith,Gregory l. 1. Ep. 7. That that is not ſaid to be reiterated, which is not certainly demonſtrated to have been rightly and duly done. And in another Place ſaith he, If there be an Offence taken at the Truth, it is much better that Offence be taken, than that the Truth ſhould be deſerted. The Cuſtom of the Churches ought to ſubmit to the Words of Chriſt,Dr. Du-Veil on Acts, p. 86. not the Words of Chriſt to be wreſted to the Cuſtom of the Church; in regard the Words of Chriſt are the Foundation upon which all Cuſtoms are to be built. See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts.
Tertullian ſays, Whatſoever ſavours contrary to Truth is Hereſy,Tertull. though it be an ancient Cuſtom.
Theſe Maxims, ſaith Du-Veil, Dr. Du-Veil on Acts, 2. p. 86.ſo agreeable to Reaſon, whoſoever intends to follow, will never queſtion but that they ought to be baptized, if they have not received that Baptiſm ordained by Chriſt, but only Rantiſm, that is, Sprinkling, ſubſtituted in its room by a vulgar Uſe, or rather Abuſe.
Mr.Perkins ſaith,Perkins, Vol. 1. p. 74. if the external Form of Adminiſtration be obſerved, a Perſon baptized by an Heretick, muſt not be baptized again.
Nor is it to be doubted, ſaith that famous Divine, John Forbes, Inſtruct. Hiſt. n. 10. c. 14. n. 13.but that they are again to be baptized, who before have only received a vain Waſhing, and not the true Sacrament of Baptiſm.
Sir, To baptize a Perſon, a Believer, again, who was baptized before, we ſay is ſinful and unlawful. But ſince yours is no Baptiſm, but meer Rantiſm, I need ſay no more to this; and that 'tis ſo, I ſhall firſt prove from the proper genuine and literal Signification of the Greek word foreign, baptiſo; that comes from foreign,Scapula and Stephanus. to dip, ſignifies mergo, immergo, ſubmergo, obruo, item tingo quod fit immergendo; that is, to immerge, plunge under, over-whelm, as alſo to dip, which is done by plunging. We grant in a leſs proper or more remote Senſe, becauſe things that are ſaid to be waſhed, are commonly dipped or plunged all over in Water, it is put for waſhing, Luke 11.38. Heb. 9.10. Mark 7.4. You ſay, pag. 52, as for the Derivative word foreign, ſometimes it ſignifies to dip or plunge; ſometimes to waſh or cleanſe, citing ver. 9, 10. Yet we ſay it no where ſignifies to ſprinkle. You know the Greeks have another Word to expreſs Sprinkling, viz. foreign, rantizo, as Heb. 9.19. and ſprinkled, (foreign) both the Book and the People; 'tis foreign ▪ So Heb. 9.13. Sprinkling the Ʋnclean, foreign, &c. 1▪ Pet. 1.2. And ſprinkling of the Blood of Jeſus Christ, 'tis foreign. The like in many other Places: And ſo that we dare modeſtly aſſert that no Greek Author of any Credit, whether Heatheniſh or Chriſtian, has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling, or uſed thoſe Words promiſcuouſly: for as in theſe Scriptures we have cited Heb. 9.13, 19, 21, &c. 'tis always tranſlated Sprinkling: So there is not one Place in Scripture, wherein the word foreign, rantizo, is rendred to baptize; nor is there one Scripture wherein the word foreign, baptizo, is rendred Sprinkling. And whereas you ſay, the word ſometimes ſignifies Waſhing: We ſay, notwithſtanding it does, yet 'tis ſuch a Waſhing as is by Dipping or Plunging, as I ſaid before:Wilſon. Thus Mr. Wilſon in his Dictionary renders baptizo, derived from foreign, bapto, ringo, to dip or plunge into the Water: and ſignifies, ſaith he, primarily ſuch a kind of waſhing as is uſed in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dip'd; though in a remote Senſe he hints it ſignifies other kind of Waſhing.
You ſay, Pag. 49. That we ought to diſtinguiſh betwixt that which is of the Eſſence of Baptiſm, and that which only is accidental in Baptiſm; the Word and Element ſay you, are of the Eſſence of Baptiſm.
Anſw. We ſay with you, that if Accidents, or meer Acceſſories be wanting in Baptiſm, yet there may be true Baptiſm notwithſtanding; but we aſſert that Dipping or Plunging belongs to the Thing, Act, or Eſſence of Baptiſm; not an Accident, but ſo eſſential, that 'tis no true Baptiſm if the Body is not dipped, or plung'd into the Water: therefore the Word and Element are not ſo the Eſſence of Baptiſm, unleſs there be ſo much Water uſed as to cover the Body all over in it; Rantizing is Rantizing, and Baptizing is Baptizing, they are two different things, and the one will never be the other while the World ſtands. And tho you dare affirm, that the Child that is only Rantized, i. e. Sprinkled, is Baptized, yet you cannot prove it; and altho you do aſſert it, and attempt to make it out, yet a multitude of learned Writers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue do fully contradict you.
Scapula and Stephens, Scapula. Stephens▪two as great Maſters of the Greek Tongue as moſt we have, do tell you in their Lexicons, that foreign from foreign, ſignifies mergo, immergo, item tingo quod fit immergendo, inficere imbuere, viz. to dip, plunge, overwhelm, put under, cover over, to die in colour, which is done by plunging.
Grotius ſays it ſignifies to dip over Head and Ears.Grotius.
Paſor, an Immerſion, Dipping or Submerſion.Paſor.
Voſſius ſays it implieth a waſhing the whole Body.Voſſius.
Mincaeus in his Dictionary ſaith,Mincaeus. that 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 Baptiſo, to dip.Caſaubon. This Caſaubon ſaith was the Rite of 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—. 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 is to dip, as if it were to dye Colour; and any Dyer will tell you, if there is any ſmall bit of Cloth not dipped, it is not dyed.
Leigh's Critic. Sacra.Leigh in his Critica Sacra 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 Caſaubon, Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius: he ſaith withal, that ſome would have it ſignify waſhing, which ſenſe Eraſmus, 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 Clothes.
Salmaſius ſaith, That is not Baptiſm which they give to Children, but Rantiſm.
Beza.Beza on Mat. 3.11. ſaith, The word 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.
Rogers.Mr. Daniel Rogers ſays, That a Miniſter is to dip in Water (the Party baptized) as the meeteſt Act, the word baptize 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, confirm that it was Dipping.
If you would, ſaith Dr. Du-Veil, Dr. Du-Veilattend to the proper Signification of the word, in the Synod of Celichyth, Wolfred Arch-biſhop of Canterbury.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 Acts Chap. 2. p. 76.
The ſaid learned Doctor ſaith in the ſame place,Dr. Du-Veil. the conſtant Practice of the univerſal Church, till the time of Clem. 5. who was crowned Pope An. 1305. under whom firſt of all the second Synod of Ravenna, approved the Abuſe introduced 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,Concil. Florent. Sect. 9. c. 9. lib. of Infant-Baptiſm. f. 693. to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Ruſſians, who to this day plunge into the Water thoſe they baptize, and deny [mark] any one to be rightly baptized, who is not plunged into the Water, according to the Precept of Chriſt, as we find in Sylveſter Sguropulus.
Dr. Taylor ſaith, The Cuſtom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling, but Immerſion,Ductor Dubit, l. 3. c. 4. numb. 9. in purſuance of the ſenſe of the word Baptizing, in the Commandment and Example of our bleſſed Saviour.
Salmaſius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus *St. Martin's Life, N. 16.ſaith, That the word Baptizein ſignifies Immerſion, not Sprinkling. Nor did the Ancients otherwiſe baptize than by ſingle or treble Immerſion 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 Avitabolis teſtify of the Aſian Chriſtians inhabiting Iburia and Colchi.
St. Ambroſe ſaith,Lib. de Initiandis. 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, viz. 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 Roman Order publiſhed by the Writers concerning Eccleſiaſtical Ceremonies, ſay the Preſbyters, enter into the Fountain within, unto the Water, and the Males are firſt baptized, and then the Females.
Luther's Latin. Tom. 1. Fol. 71.Luther ſaith, The Name of Baptiſm is a Greek word, it may be turned a Dipping, when we dip ſomething in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water. And although (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 Water, they ought nevertheleſs to be dipt, and preſently drawn out again.
The Germans Teſtimony. Dr. Du-Veil.The Germans alſo call Baptiſm T…ff, from deepneſs, which they call Tieff in their Tongue, as if it were meer (ſaith my Author) that thoſe be dipt deeply who are baptized.
John Bugenhagius Pomeranus (both a Fellow and Succeſſor in the Miniſtry of Luther at Wittenburgh, Bugenh. in his Book printed in the German Tongue, 1542.whom Thuanus and Zanchius witneſs to have been a very moderate, godly and learned Man) affirms, That he was deſired to be a Witneſs at Hamburgh, in the Year 1529. That when he had ſeen the Miniſter only ſprinkle the Infant wrapped in Swathling-Cloaths on the top of the Head, he was amazed, becauſe he neither had heard nor ſaw any ſuch thing, nor yet read in any Hiſtory except in caſe of Neceſſity in Bedrid Perſons.
Hence in a General Aſſembly therefore,See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 8. p. 286, 287. of all the Miniſters that were convened, he did ask of a certain Miniſter, (John Frize by Name, who was ſometime 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 hath crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant. At length they did agree among themſelves, that the Judgment of Luther, and of the Divines of Wittenburgh, ſhould be demanded about this Point. Which thing being done, Luther wrote back to Hamburgh, That this Sprinkling was an Abuſe, which they ought to remove. Thus Plunging was reſtored at Hamburgh, yet is that Climate cooler than ours.Diatrib. on Titus 3.2.
Mr. Joſeph Mede ſaith, That there was no ſuch thing as Sprinkling, or Rantiſm [mark] uſed in Baptiſm in the Apoſtles days, nor many Ages after. He had ſpoke more proper 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 abſolutely 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 commanded her? was that the thing, or is it not another Act? Even ſo 'tis here, you do not the thing, you Rantize, and Baptize none, unleſs you dip them into the Water.
Pan. Cathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2.Chamier alſo ſaith, The ancient 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. 3.1. 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 Ancients called their Baptiſterions, or the Veſſels containing their Baptiſmal-Water, Columbethras, viz. a Swimming or Diving-place, being very large, with Partitions for Men and Women.
Pool's Annotat. on Joh. 3.6.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 Matth. 28.20. ſay they. It is true, the firſt Baptiſm of which we read in Holy Writ, was by dipping the Perſon Baptized.
The Dutch Tranſlation,Dutch Tranſlation on Mat. 3.16. according to their Language, reads it Dipping.
Mat. 3.16. Ende Jeſus gedoopt zijn de, is terſtont opgeklomen vit hit wter. And when Jeſus was dipp'd, he came out of the Water. And, verſ. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan; And were dipped of him in Jordan. Hence they call John the Baptiſt, John the Dipper. In verſ. 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 Baptiſma?
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. Your Church alſo, in the Common-Prayer, ſaith, Dipping into the Water, is the proper, (as I conceive,) ſignification of the Word. 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 were none of the Subjects Chriſt commanded to be dipt, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
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.