The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
Proving, that to baptize, is to dip, or plunge the Body all over into the Water, from the Practice of the Primitive Goſpel-Days.
I Have 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 ancient manner of Baptizing, was, that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water.Aſſemblies Annotat. on Mat. 3.
So ſaith the Aſſembly in their Annotations.
Nay, 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 Aenon near Salim, Reader, mark this well.viz. becauſe there was much Water, John 3.23.
But you ſtrive to contradict the Holy Ghoſt, by making People believe, there was not much Water in that place, p. 59.
Becauſe the Original reads not foreign, much Water, but foreign, many Waters; that is, (ſay you) many Streams or Rivolets.
Anſw. What difference is there between much Water, and many Waters? If they were Streams and Rivolets, though not deep, yet if they were but a little while ſtopp'd with a Dam, they would ſoon riſe to be deep enough to ſwin 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 bebecauſe] intimating plainly, that the Ordinance could no… 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 (ſay you) Sandy's Travels tells us, that they were ſo ſhallow, as not to reach above the …kles.
Anſw. 1. Muſt we believe God's Word, or a lying Traveller? the Scripture ſaith, there was much, 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 your 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 for your ſeeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text, to defend your childiſh Practice of Rantiſm, you 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; therefore a little Water will not ſerve to baptize in.
2. But to proceed; Mark 1.9. 'tis ſaid, Jeſus was baptized of John in Jordan. Now ſaith a Learned Man on the Place,Mr. Sam. Fiſher. it had been nonſenſe for St. Mark to ſay, that Jeſus was baptized in Jordan, if it 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 dipp'd into Jordan, and that is and was the Act, and nothing elſe be ſure.
3. They went down both into the … both Philip and the Eunuch, Acts 8. What … had there been for them ſo to have done, had Baptiſm been Sprinkling? Sure Phil… would not have put that Noble Perſon (who was a Man of great Authority under Candace 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 you and they make void the Command of Chriſt by your 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,Treatiſe of the Sacraments, p. 1. chap. 5. in a Treatiſe of his, It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Inſtitution, which is Dipping, eſpecially it being not left 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 diſorder'd Error, if he cleave not to the Inſtitution.
O what abundance of the 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, Caſaubon, was in the Right; take his words.
I doubt not (ſaith he) but contrary to our Church's Intention,Caſaubon on Mat. 3.11. this Error having once crept in, is maintained 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 confeſs 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; Who 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 ſuch as you, with the ſcutillous Name of Anabaptiſt, &c. although we are as much againſt Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be.
The Learned Cajetan, upon Matth. 3.5. ſaith, Chriſt aſcended out of the Water;Cajetan on Mat. 3.5. 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.Muſculus on Mat. 3.5.
Moreover, Muſculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptiſm Dipping, and ſaith, the Parties baptized were dipp'd, not ſprinkled.
To cloſe with this, take one Argument.
If the Baptizer, and the Baptized, in the Days of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, wen… both down into the Water, and the Perſon baptized was dipp'd; 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 dipp'd. Ergo, Baptiſm is not Sprinkling, but Dipping.