Anabaptism and Other Errors, Chapter 7
CAP. VII. The lawfulneſſe of ſprinkling, and needleſneſſe of dipping in Baptiſme.
HOw abundant and copious in the faculty of lying and inventing of errours,The lying ſpirit of Anabaptiſm. the ſpirit of Anabaptiſme was of old; how much ſuperiour in an extreamly malignant fruitfulnes he hath been to any evil ſpirit that ever appeared in the Chriſtian Church before him; we have I hope, demonſtrate in our firſt two Chapters. That the younger Anabaptiſts who thus trouble the Church of England, are nothing inferiour to their Fathers in the art of erring, being ſure where ever they are aſhamed of any one of their predeceſſors tenets to give us two much worſe in the place thereof, we have endeavoured to make appear in our third and fourth Chapters.
Among the new inventions of the late Anabaptiſts, there is none which with greater animoſity they ſet on foot, then the neceſſity of dipping over head and ears, then the nullity of affuſion and ſprinkling in the adminiſtration of baptiſme.The preſſing of dipping and exploding of ſprinkling is but an yeſterday conceit of the Engliſh Anabaptiſts. Among the old Anabaptiſts, or theſe over ſea to this day ſo far as I can learn, by their writs or any relation that yet has come to my ears, the queſtion of dipping and ſprinkling came never upon the Table. As I take it they dip none, but all whom they baptize, they ſprinkle in the ſame manner as is our cuſtome. The queſtion about the neceſſity of dipping ſeems to be taken up onelyonly the other year by the Anabaptiſts in England, as a point which alone, as they conceive, is able to carry their deſire of exterminating infant-baptiſme: for they know that parents upon no conſideration will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants, by plunging them over head and ears in a cold river. Let us therefore conſider if this ſparkle of new light have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanctuary, or the Sun of righteouſneſſe, if it be according to Scripturall truth, or any good reaſon.
For the ſtating of the queſtion,The ſtate of the queſtion. the tearms of dipping and ſprinkling muſt be a little cleared; by ſprinkling we underſtand according as our adverſaries not unfitly expreſſe it, an application of water to the perſon, whether in greater or ſmaller meaſure, whether by drops ſeverally ſcattered, or poured on all together: ſo that there be no ſenſible diſgregation of the water applyed. The diſtinction of affuſion from ſprinkling in this matter, ſeems to be but a needleſſe curioſity; By dipping they underſtand an application of the whole perſon to the water, a putting of the whole perſon in the water, not a pouring of the water upon the perſon; an intinction not of one member, but of the whole body, a ducking, an immerſion of the whole body under the water. Conſider farther, that we doe not oppoſe the lawfulneſſe of dipping in ſome caſes, but the neceſſity of it in all caſes: Neither doe they impugne the expediency of ſprinkling in ſome caſes, but the lawfulneſſe of it in any caſe. So both their doctrine and practiſe makes the ſtate of the queſtion to be this; Whether in Baptiſme it be neceſſary to put the whole baptized perſon over the head and ears in the water, or if it be lawfull and ſufficient, at leaſt in ſome caſes, to poure or ſprinkle the water upon the head of the perſon baptized? For the lawfulneſſe of ſprinkling and againſt the neceſſity of dipping,Sprinkling is ſufficient, and dipping is not neceſſary in Baptiſme. I reaſon thus.
The 1 Arg. for the affirmative Baptiſme in many Scriptures ſignifies ſprinkling and not dipping.Firſt, that action which the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expreſſes formally by the name of baptiſme, is lawfull and ſufficient to be uſed in baptiſm. But ſprinkling or pouring out of water upon the party baptized without any dipping, is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expreſſed formally by the name of baptiſme. Ergo. The major is one of the adverſaries principles; for they reject ſprinkling on this reaſon mainly, that the word Baptiſme in no good Author, eſpecially not in Scripture, does ever ſignifie ſprinkling, but always dipping. The minor appears by many places of Scripture, I cite but a few.
Firſt, that of Mark 7.4.Mark 7.4.8. And when they come from the market they eat not except they waſh, as it is in the originall, except they be baptized; alſo that ſame verſe, And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the waſhing of cups and pots, brazen veſſels, and of tables; as it is in the originall, the baptiſmes of cups, &c. alſo in that ſame chap. ver. 8. For laying aſide the commandement of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the waſhing of pots and cups; as it is in the originall, the baptiſms of pots and cups. That which here by the holy Ghoſt is thrice expreſſed under the name of baptiſme, can be no other thing but a waſhing by ſprinkling, and no ways by a totall immerſion or dipping; for is it imaginable that the Phariſees, oft times every day, even ſo oft as they went to meat, yea, ſo oft as they came home from the ſtreets did caſt off their cloaths and dip themſelves over head and ears in water? ſenſe and reaſon will be againſt ſo troubleſome a ſuperſtition; the text it ſelf expones the Phariſees daily and almoſt hourely baptiſme of the waſhing of their hands; now the ordinary way of waſhing the hands among the Jews was, by pouring water upon the hands from a laver, not by putting the hands in a baſon, as we read 2 Kings 3.11. Here is Eliſha the ſon of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. Alſo the baptiſme of brazen veſſels, of tables or beds, (for then in their triclinia tables and beds were all one thing, or at leaſt were joyned together) could be no other but pouring ſome little water upon them: for ſuppoſe, that contrary to the common cuſtome of all Nations in all times, all their great and heavy veſſels of braſſe and iron in every one of their waſhings had been put into the water, and no water poured upon them, yet how is it poſſible that all their tables and their beds, many times every day, ſhould be brought to deep rivers, & there put wholly under the water? Such a practiſe, if poſſible, had made the toyle of all the Jewiſh ſervants unſupportable, and yet according to the Anabaptiſts Lexicography, all this labour was ſimply neceſſary.
Another place we have, Heb. 9.10.Heb 9.10. Which ſtood onelyonly in meats and drinks, and divers waſhings, and carnall ordinances impoſed on them untill the time of reformation. The originall reads it divers baptiſmes; What were theſe legall bapti…mes and waſhings? doubtleſſe many of them were ſprinklings of blood and water, prefiguring the ſouls waſhing by the blood of Chriſt. In the Books of Moſes, the Jews baptiſmes by blood were onelyonly by ſprinkling; no perſons among them were drowned in blood, onelyonly in their purifications, blood was poured or ſprinkled upon them: in reference to this manner of application, the Antitype Chriſts blood, whereby the Church is truly waſhed from ſin, is called the blood of ſprinkling, Heb. 12.24. As for the old baptiſms with water divers of them were by ſprinkling alone; Numb. 8.7. And thus ſhalt thou doe unto them to cleanſe them, ſprinkle water of purifying upon them; the moſt of theſe baptiſmes were by pouring out of water upon the perſon, few, if any, by dipping over head and ears. The ordinary and daily waſhing of the Prieſts at the great laver and brazen ſea, was not by plunging in the water, but by pouring out the water on the perſon to be waſhed. The ſea made by Solomon ſtood high on the back of the brazen buls, and had no ſteps without for any to aſcend, and within for any to deſcend into it: and the laver in the Tabernacle made by Moſes, was not of the capacity for one man to bath, much leſſe for all the Prieſts who had to doe about the Altar at one time. Farther, the preſcribed manner of waſhing, was onelyonly of the hands and of the feet, though it be imaginable that the Prieſts might have ſtretched themſelves to dip their hands in the laver ſtanding upon his high baſe; yet how ſhall we conceive them able to have put their feet into that laver? Doubtleſſe, many of the legall baptiſmes and waſhings were onelyonly by ſprinkling and pouring out, and not by dipping or drowning into the blood or water.
Take for a 3 place, 1 Cor. 10.1.1 Cor. 10.1. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye ſhould be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and were all baptized unto Moſes in the cloud; What baptiſme was that by the cloud which was above their head, and under the which they did walk? was it any other thing but the dropping of the cloud upon them, as the rain and dew fals on men from heaven? can any be dipped in a cloud that hangs in the aire above their head?
A fourth place we may have in the Revel. 19.13.Rev. 19.13. And he was cloathed with a veſture dipped in blood; the originall reads it, baptized in blood; now the manner of this baptizing, dipping, or dying, is expreſſed by the Prophet, Eſay 63.3. Their blood ſhall be ſprinkled upon my garment, and I will ſtain all my raiment. The garments of the ſlain, lying upon the ground, may be rolled in blood; but the glorious Victor ſitting ſtill on horſe back, as Chriſt in the Revelation is deſcribed, cannot have his garments rolled nor otherwiſe dipped in blood, then by the ſtaining and ſprinkling of the blood of the wounded perſons falling upon his garment.
One place more, Matth. 3.11.Mat. 3.11. He ſhall baptize you with the holy Ghoſt and with fire. How were the Apoſtles baptized in the holy Ghoſt and fire? was it poſſible for them to be dipped in the holy Ghoſt, or was the ſpirit poured out upon them, as Peter expones it from Joel, Acts 2.17. and were they by their baptiſme in fire, put into any fire? We read, Acts 2.3. that the fiery cloven tongues did onelyonly come down and ſit upon them. By all this we ſee how frequent the holy Ghoſt in the very New Teſtament is in aſcribing the name and ſtyle of baptiſme to that which cannot be any dipping, and is nothing elſe but a ſprinkling, a pouring out, an application of water, blood, or fire, to the ſubject; and not of the ſubject to thoſe things, much contrary to the credulity and bold aſſertion of the late Anabaptiſts.
Our ſecond Argument,The 2. Arg. the thing ſignified by Baptiſme is oftner expreſſed in Scripture by ſprinkling then dipping. That action whereby Scripture does frequently repreſent the main thing ſignified by baptiſme, is lawfull and ſufficient to be uſed in baptiſme; But Scripture frequently repreſents the main thing ſignified in baptiſme by ſprinkling or pouring out of water. Ergo. The major is grounded on the nature of Sacramentall rites, they are ſigns fitly proportioned to the ſpirituall bleſſings, they ſignifie and ſeal; when we finde in the ſigne not onelyonly a clear repreſentation and ſimilitude of the thing ſignified; but the holy Ghoſt in Scripture making uſe of that repreſentation and relation, it is to us a ground of the lawfull uſe of that ſign. This is the adverſaries owne argument in their great reaſon for dipping, that it does fitly repreſent our buriall with Chriſt; and is uſed in Scripture, as they alledge, for the expreſſing of that repreſentation.
As for the minor, that pouring and ſprinkling frequently in Scripture repreſents the main thing …gnified and ſealed in baptiſme, our participation of the benefits of Chriſt his blood and Spirit,In Scripture ſprinkling is made a ſign of the application of Chriſts blood to the ſoul. many Scriptures doe evidence: as firſt, Heb. 10.22.Heb. 10.22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full aſſurance of faith, having our hearts ſprinkled from an evill conſcience, and our bodies waſhed with pure water; Here both the ſign, and the thing ſignified of baptiſme are ſet down together; the outward waſhing with water is made to ſignifie the ſprinkling of the heart from an evill conſcience. That waſhing by outward ſprinkling repreſents the inward ſprinkling of the heart by the blood of Chriſt, as fitly as waſhing by outward dipping or immerſion can doe, appears by 1 Pet. 1.2.1 Pet. 1, 2. Through ſanctification of the ſpirit unto obedience, and ſprinkling of the blood of Ieſus Chriſt; here the application of Chriſts blood unto the ſoul, is expreſſed in the ſimilitude of ſprinkling. And ſo fit is this repreſentation, that the holy Ghoſt ſtyles the blood of Chriſt, whereby we are waſhed and ſaved, the blood of ſprinkling, Heb. 12.24.Heb. 12.24.
The other great bleſſing ſealed up in baptiſme, is our communion in the Spirit of Jeſus:Alſo of Ch…iſts Spiri…. this bleſſing alſo the Spirit delights to expreſſe by the act of pouring or ſprinkling of water, Act. 2.16, 17.Acts 2.16, 17. But this is that which was ſpoken by the Prophet Joel, And it ſhall come to paſſe in the laſt days, ſaith God, I will poure out my Spirit upon all fleſh, Iſay 44.3.Iſ. 44.3. For I will poure water upon him that is thirſty, and flouds upon the dry ground; I will poure my Spirit upon thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thy off-ſpring. Alſo, Iſ. 52.15. So ſhall I ſprinkle many Nations. And Ezek. 36.25.Ezek. 36 25. Then will I ſprinkle clean water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean, a new heart will I give unto you, and a new ſpirit will I put within you.
As the application of the blood and Spirit of Chriſt to the ſoul of the baptized, is expreſſed ſo often in the tearm of ſprinkling: ſo under the Law,Sprinking under the Law a figure of the thing ſignified in Baptiſme. the action of ſprinkling, ſometimes of blood alone, ſometimes of water alone, ſometimes of both together were uſed, for the prefiguring of that blood and water, which in the days of the Goſpel by the Word and Sacrament were more abundantly to be communicate. Exod. 12.7.13.Ex. 12.7.13 And they ſhall take of the blood and ſtrike it on the two ſide poſtes, and on the upper door-poſte of the houſes, wherein they ſhall eat it; And the blood ſhall be to you for a token upon the houſes where you are; and where I ſee the blood, I will paſſe over you, and the plague ſhall not be upon you to deſtroy you, when I ſmite the Land of Egypt. Leviticus 16.14.Lev. 16.14. And he ſhall take of the blood of the bullocks, and ſpri…kle it with his finger upon the Mercy-ſeat Eaſt-ward, and before the Mercy-ſeat ſhall he ſprinkle of the blood with his finger ſeven times; here blood alone is ſprinkled. Numb. 19.18.Num. 16.18. And a clean perſon ſhall take hyſſope, and dip it in the water, and ſprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the veſſels, and upon all the perſons that were there, and the clean perſon ſhall ſprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the ſeventh day; here water alone for purification is ſprinkled, at leaſt water without blood, for this water of purification had no mixture, except of the aſhes of the burnt Heifer. Lev. 14.5, 6, 7.Lev. 14.5, 6, 7. And the Prieſts ſhall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen veſſell of running water; as for the living bird, he ſhall take it and the Cedar wood, and the ſcarlet, and the hyſſope, and ſhall dip them, and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water, and he ſhall ſprinkle upon him that is to be cleanſed from the leproſie, ſeven times, and ſhall pronounce him clean. In this place, blood and water together are ſprinkled upon the leper, at leaſt with the ſprinkling of the blood, the preſence of water is injoined.
The chief end of applying water to any body, whether by dipping of it in the water, or ſprinkling the water upon it, is to purge it from ſoile;Sprinkling ſerves as much for purging as dipping can do. that the uſe of water in baptiſme is to remove and waſh away, albeit not the defilement of the body, yet the guilt of ſin from the ſoul; we read in the 1 Pet. 3.21.1 Pet. 3 21. The like figure whereunto even baptiſme doth alſo now ſave us; not the putting away of the filth of the fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience toward God; and Acts 22.16.Acts 22.16. Riſe and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſins, calling on the name of the Lord. This being the onelyonly end why water in baptiſme is uſed, that way of uſing of it muſt be lawfull which is fit for that end; now common experiences teaches, that pouring and ſprinkling is as meet for purifying, as dipping can be; a veſſell often dipped, if not rubbed, may keep all its ſoile, and ſprinkling or pouring out of water is nothing leſſe, but oftentimes more effectuall for purging.
A third Argument, If dipping be neceſſary, and ſprinkling unſufficient, then in all Scripturall approved baptiſmes, dipping was uſed, and not ſprinkling; But no ſuch thing does appear in Scripture. Whether in any Sacramentall baptiſme mentioned in Scripture, dipping over head and ears was ever practiſed, we ſhall conſider in our anſwer to the objections; but that in divers Sacramentall baptiſmes approved in Scripture, no dipping at all was uſed,In many Scripturall baptiſms there was no dipping. we prove by three examples.
At the firſt and greateſt Baptiſme we read of, Acts 2.41.Acts 2.41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the ſame day there were added unto them about three thouſand ſoules, there could be no dipping, for that baptizing ſo far as the text intimates was in the ſtreets, in the ſame place wherein the people did hear Peters Sermon. Now how was it poſſible to dip in the ſtreets of Jeruſalem three thouſand perſons? There was no river in that place, yea, in all Jeruſalem we remember not of any river, unleſſe it were the brook Kedron, which run through the Suburbs in the valley under the Town, which was ſo ſmall a ſtrand, that at no time, eſpecially not at the Pentecoſt in the midſt of Summer, it was any ways meet for the immerſion of aged people. I grant they had in Jeruſalem divers fountains, and pools, and in ſome families were veſſels for bathing; but that either the Apoſtles went to theſe fountains and pools, or that any bathing veſſels were brought out to them, there is not the leaſt appearance in any Scripture. Alſo which way ſoever you can imagine the matter to have been carried, the dipping over head and ears of three thouſand perſons could not in one half day bee performed by the hands of twelve weak men, though you ſhould give to them the aſſiſtance of the whole ſeventy Diſciples; and if any ſuch action had been performed, it behoved to have made ſuch a din and noiſe, as would certainly have commoved the whole City; and being ſo notable and new a circumſtance, could hardly have been paſt in ſilence by the Penmen of that holy Hiſtory. Thoſe and many more inconveniences and impoſſibilities cannot be ſatisfied upon the ſuppoſition of dipping, but admitting of ſprinkling the caſe is made not onelyonly poſſible, but very eaſie, for the twelve Apoſtles in a few houres, to baptize not onelyonly three, but five thouſand, and if need had been, many more.
The other example is that of the baptiſme of Paul by Ananias, Acts 9.18, 19.Acts 9.18, 19. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been ſcales, and he received ſight forthwith, and aroſe and was baptized, and when he had received meat he was ſtrengthned. Paul is here baptized in his lodging houſe, being yet ſick and weak, and having faſted three whole days: Suppoſe, whereof there is no probability, that in his lodging houſe there had been accommodations for his plunging and immerſion, yet being in ſo weak a condition, as the miraculous viſion of Chriſt, and the extraordinary long faſting put him into, he was very unfit to be ſtripped and plunged over head and all, in cold water. To aſſert this without any appearance of ground from Scripture, is but raſhneſſe.
The third example we have in Acts 16.33.Acts 16.33. And he took them the ſame houre of the night and waſhed their ſtripes, and was baptized, he and all his ſtraightway. Which way could the Gaoler and all his houſhold in the midſt of the night be brought to any deep river and plunged over head and ears by Paul and Silas, newly waſhed of their ſores, can hardly be imagined.
A fourth reaſon; Nothing is neceſſary in Baptiſme which naturally is hurtfull to the life or chaſtity of any;Arg. 4. Dipping is hurtfull to the life of man. for the unchangeable God is never contrary to himſelf, all his laws and ordinances have an harmonious conſonancy one with another; the Lord having diſcharged in the ſixth and ſeventh Commandements the practiſe of all things hurtfull to the life and chaſtity of men, he will not in any of his Sacraments appoint that to be practiſed, which is of ſuch a nature. But ſo it is, that dipping over head and ears in baptiſme, is naturally hurtfull both to the life and chaſtity; to the life, though we ſpeak nothing of young infants, many of riper years in divers places of the earth, yea, in the hotteſt climates at ſome times of the year, cannot be plunged over the head in cold water, without evident hazard, ſometimes of life, and often of health, and this much experience among our ſelves does teach, in that ſhort time wherein this noyſome ceremony has been brought in faſhion.
As for chaſtity,Alſo to his chaſtity. muſt it not be a great ſcandall, in the face of all the Congregation, where alone, Sacraments can be duly celebrated, for men and women to ſtand up naked, as they were born; and naked men to goe into the water with naked women, holding them in their arms till they have plunged them in the water? it is true, one of the great Anabaptiſtick Maſters David George made it a part of his art, to teach all his Diſciples to look one upon anothers nakedneſſe, and to doe much more then behold, without any carnall motion; but ſuch villanous hypocriſie cannot be but deteſtable to all honeſt minds. Some hundred years agoe, when the chaſtity and ſimplicity of the world was greater, then in theſe our wretched days, the dipping of naked perſons was ſo full of ſcandall, that it occaſioned a number of humane inventions about Baptiſme, as the Deaconeſſes, the white garments, &c. and thereafter cauſed th… change of that ceremony, where it had gotten place, into the much more convenient rite of ſprinkling.
One other reaſon; That is not neceſſarily required in baptiſme which lays both upon the baptized, and the baptizer burthens which they are not able to bear; But dipping does ſo. Ergo. The major is grounded upon the nature of Gods ordinances, eſpecially of the New Teſtament; they are an eaſie yoak and portable. The minor is thus clear, by the neceſſity of this rite the baptizer is obliged to dip the whole baptized perſons under the water, and to lift them up again above the water, but this for the moſt part of baptizers is altogether unpoſſible:A fifth argument, dipping makes baptiſme inſupportable. No Preacher will be able to baptize. How many Preachers are of that bodily ſtrength as to lift up in their arms a man to dip him in the water, and again to lift him clear out of the water? for according to our adverſaries, baptiſme is the dipping of the whole man into the water, and the lifting of the whole man again out of the water; the putting of his head and breaſt into the water is but a dipping of a part of the body, the lifting of the head and upper parts of the body, and not of the lower and whole parts, is not a full and compleat baptiſme: now for this dipping of the whole man under the water, and lifting of the whole man above the water, the ſtrength of more men then one is neceſſary; And yet Scripture requires for the adminiſtration of baptiſme, no more agents then one.
Again, this dipping puts upon the baptized, burthens which neither nature, nor civility, nor religion permits them to bear:Dipping whether of cloathed or naked perſons is inſupportable We read not in Scripture, that perſons in baptiſme did ſtrip themſelves of their garments; and if this had been the cuſtome, it's very like that Scripture had not always paſt it over: For ordinarily in Hiſtoricall narrations, Scripture marks the caſting off of the cloaths: ſo in the prophecying of Saul, 1 Sam. 19.24. And he ſtripped off his cloaths alſo and propheſied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day, and all that night. So in the young man who followed Chriſt at his taking, Mark 14.52. And he left the linnen cloth and fled from them naked. So in the crucifying of Chriſt, Mark. 15.24. And when they had crucified him they parted his garments; ſo in many other Hiſtories: wherefore if always in baptiſme the perſons had been ſtripped, we know no reaſon why ſometimes Scripture would not have remarked this conſiderable circumſtance. Suppoſing therefore the dipping of the baptized perſons with their garments upon them, we ſay that this did bring a burthen upon them which to nature had been inſupportable: for immediately after Baptiſm we read of their going to the Table, Act. 16.33, 34. alſo Acts 9.18, 19. without any change of apparell, ſo far as Scripture expreſſes it, or by any circumſtance of any text can be collected. Now how intolerable it is to nature for any perſon to be dipped in their garments over head and ears, and without any ſhifting of their wet cloathes to goe to the Table, or any other employment, ſenſe can inform a very ſimple man.
If you ſuppoſe their nakedneſſe in baptiſme as the moſt of our dippers doe, though without any Scripturall warrant, then how extreamly contrary to all civility will every modeſt perſon finde it to diſcover himſelfe before a whole Congregation of people? Though it be a part of the Georgian and Familiſtick Anabaptiſme, to lay down all naturall ſhame, yet God has imprinted ſo much ſhamefaſtneſſe in the hearts of all ſince the fall of Adam, that no honeſt and ingenuous perſon can endure to ſtand naked before any company: and if this ſhould be put upon them by any neceſſity, they could not but take it for a great and diſgracefull affliction.
As dipping puts more upon the baptized then nature and civility can bear, ſo likewiſe then can conſiſt with religion; Divinity admits not of Se-baptiſme,Dipping brings in Se-baptiſm. and permits not the baptized to be agents, but in this act will have them to be patients, and baptized by others; now in dipping the moſt part of the body is put under the water by the parties baptized themſelves: for, as they ſay the cuſtome is, they goe into the water and ſtand there above the middle; why therefore are they not to be reputed as well baptizers, who put the moſt parts of the body in the water as they who put the leſſe?
Againſt all this the grand diſputants object, Firſt, that the word Baptizein does ſignifie onelyonly to dip or waſh, and never to ſprinkle:The firſt objection, That the originall word Baptzein does ſignifie always dipping and never ſprinkling removed to prove this they bring the authority of the Septuagints, of Nonnus, of Voſſius. Anſwer. If this argument were caſt in form the major of it would lye upon ſuch a generall propoſition, No rite may be uſed in any Sacrament, which differeth from the common ſignification of the word uſed in Scripture to expreſſe that rite; If this were univerſally true, what geſture would be neceſſary to be uſed by the communicants at the Lords Table? The word expreſſing Chriſt and his Ap…ſtles geſture in the laſt Supp…r is, Anaceiſthai, Anapyptein, Anaclinein, relative to the ancient form of lying about the Table in their Triclinia: theſe words doe no more ſignifie to ſit, Cath…zein, then Baptizein, ſignifies to ſprinkle. If any upon ſuch a grammatication would call in queſtion the lawfulneſſe of ſitting at the Lords Table, his criticiſme would not be judged ſolid by any judicious perſon.
The minor alſo, That baptiſme does always ſignifie dipping, and never ſprinkling, we deny; in our firſt argument for the affirmative, we gave eight inſtances to the contrary out of the New Teſtament, to which we may adde, beſide other places, Luke 11.38.Lu…. 11.…8 And when the Phariſee ſaw it, he marvailed that he had not fi…ſt waſhed before dinner; in the originall, that he was not firſt baptized before dinner. Could it be a matter of any wonder that Jeſus or any other perſon before dinner did not plunge themſelves over head and ears in water? or rather was not the Phariſaicall ſuperſtition in the neceſſity of pouring water upon the hands for a legall purification?
The authorities mentioned are nothing to the purpoſe; that of the Septuagints, 2 Kings 5.14. Then went he down and dipped himſelf ſeven times in Jordan, according to the ſaying of the man of God; it onelyonly proves a waſhing of Naamans body in Jordan, according to the Prophets direction; every true waſhing is not by a totall immerſion, as daily experience and many Scriptures prove; the woman waſhed Chriſts feet with her tears, and David waſhed his bed with his tears, onelyonly by ſprinkling. But ſuppoſe the Septuagints in this place had taken the word for a dipping over head and ears, will it follow that the word is no otherwiſe taken by any Authour any where elſe? Goe to the ſame Septuagints, Dan. 4.33.Dan. 4.33. His body was wet with the dew of heaven, foreign, the Hebrew tabal, and the Chaldee jits tabang, which ordinarily are tranſlated by baptizo, and here by its root bapto, which oft is more and never leſſe then baptizo, can no otherwiſe be taken then for ſprinkling; for which other way did the rain and dew fall upon Nebuchadnezars body then by drops? We grant that Nonnus expounds baptizo by cathairo, but this makes nothing at all for dipping, for many more purifications were by ſprinkling and affuſion then by immerſion and dipping.
As for Voſſius, ſuppoſe his criticiſme were well founded, that baptizein did ſignifie principally to dip, which may very well be queſtioned; (for why may we not make the firſt ſignification of the word to be waſhing, and the ſecond dipping, the firſt being the end, and the other but the mean, as well as to make dipping the firſt ſignification, and waſhing the ſecond, becauſe the one is the cauſe, and the other the effect?) yet all this is for no purpoſe, for though the word did ſignifie firſt to dip▪ yet if in the ſecond, third, fourth, fifth, or any place it ſignified to ſprinkle, it is enough for all that we affirm: now that the word baptizo, has truly this ſignification of ſprinkling, Voſſius in this very place alledged to the contrary does prove it from many paſſages both of Scripture and Antiquity.
Their ſecond objection they take from theſe Scriptures, where the baptized ſeem to have been dipped,The ſecond objection, No evidence in Scripture that any were ever dipped over head and ears in Baptiſme. Matth. 3.13.16. Then commeth Jeſus from Galilee to Jordan unto Iohn to be baptized of him, and Jeſus when he was baptized went up ſtraightway out of the water. Iohn 3.23. And Iohn alſo was baptizing in Enon, becauſe there was much water there. Act. 8.38, 39. And he commanded the Chariot to ſtand ſtill, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him, and when they were come up out of the water, &c. Anſ. Firſt, ſuppoſe that in all theſe places dipping had been uſed, it follows not that it was ſo univerſally; we have proved that divers Scripturall baptiſmes were by ſprinkling, and not by dipping. Secondly, although dipping had been univerſall in the Primitive times, yet th…s practiſe would not inferre any neceſſity of its continuance, unleſſe two things were made good; firſt, that practice and example alone is a ſufficient ground for the inſtitution of a Sacramentall rite; again, that every circumſtance of a Sacrament generally practiſed in Scripturall times, muſt be of an unchangeable and unvariable nature, and ſo neceſſary, that without ſin it may not in any caſe be altered. Thirdly, none of the places alledged, doe look towards the dipping of a naked perſon over head and ears, which is the main queſtion. Fourthly, there is no word expreſly in any of the places of dipping, and if they will admit us to diſpute by conſequences, ſee if from any of thoſe places there be a neceſſary inference of any dipping; the multitude of waters in the third of John, John 3.23.infers not the plunging of all who were baptized in them, but onelyonly the conveniency of baptizing a multitude, rather in a place of many waters then in a deſert void of water, ſuch as many places in Canaan were. In the days of the Patriarchs the finding of a fountain in theſe bounds was a rare and ſingular benefit: however we deny that the conveniency of much water for the baptizing of a multitude of people, does import a neceſſity of dipping any who are baptized therein.
The other place of Act. 8.38, 39. imports Philip and the Eunuchs going down from the coach towards the water, and their aſcending again into the coach from the lower place where the water was; but doth either this deſcending, or aſcending, infer Philips ſtripping of the Eunuch, and dipping him over head and ears in that water?
The third place is not ſo important, for it ſpeaks nothing of Chriſts going down into the water, and what it ſays of his comming up may well be expounded of the low ſituation of the river beneath the field, where John did preach: readily they have ſtood on the brink, or within the river when they were ſprinkled, and had the water of the river poured upon them, but that in the midſt of that multitude Chriſt did diſcover himſelf, and that John ſo oft as he baptized any did cauſe to ſtrip both himſelf and them, and went ſo naked with them into the river taking them in his arms, and plunging them therein, is a matter of ſo great unlikelihood, that without Scripture or greater reaſon then yet appears it may not be admitted.
The third objection, Immerſion is neceſſarily to be practiſed, becauſe it ſignifies our buriall with Chriſt,The third objection, That Baptiſme is a ſign of the buriall of Chriſt, has no reference at all to Immerſion. according to Rom. 6.3, 4. Know ye not that ſo many of us as were baptized into Jeſus Chriſt, were baptized into his death? therefore wee are buried with him by Baptiſme unto death; alſo Col. 2.12. Buried with him in Baptiſme, wherein alſo you are riſen with him. Anſ. Firſt, it is a preſumption in any man to put a divine inſtitution upon any rite, which in its own nature is onelyonly indifferent; But it is a preſumption in the higheſt degree to affixe a ſignification to any ſuch rite; we grant Baptiſme for its ſignification has the death of Chriſt and all the fruits thereof, alſo that it ſeals to us our fellowſhip not onelyonly in Chriſts death, but in his buriall, his reſurrection, his aſcenſion, his ſitting at the right hand of God; but what divers Scriptures, and particularly the places in hand do aſcribe to Baptiſme, we have no warrant to apply it unto immerſion.
Secondly, if men would goe to make analogicall ſignifications according to their own pleaſure, we might ſay that ſprinkling did put water upon the head, and ſo the whole perſon under the water, and by this were a ſign of buriall as well as immerſion. It makes nothing againſt this, that by ſprinkling, a little quantity of water is applyed onelyonly to the head, and much water by dipping is applyed to the whole body, for in Sacraments the quantity of the element, the ſhortneſſe of the outward action is not attended: The taſting of a little bread and a little wine does ſignifie to us our full communion with the whole body and the whole blood of Chriſt, as well as the largeſt banquet of wine and all delicates could do. The cutting off a very little from one part of the body only did ſignifie the Circumciſion and cutting off of the whole body of corruption, as wel as if much skin & much fleſh had been cutted off from every member: even ſo the ſprinkling of a little water may ſignifie and ſeal up unto us our participation in Chriſts life, death, buriall, reſurrection, and every thing elſe of his wherein we have intereſt, as well as a totall immerſion in the whole Ocean for ſo long a time as Jonah lay under the billows of the great deep.
Thirdly, this argument draws us to two great inconveniences:The danger of dipping. Firſt, a neceſſity, as we would not aboliſh a Sacramentall and ſignificant rite, to keep every baptized perſon ſo long a time wholly under the water, as may ſenſibly expreſſe Chriſts buriall under the ground; now to be put for ſo long a time wholly under the water by the hand of a weak Miniſter, though never ſo carefull to preſerve, cannot but bring an evident hazard of life or health to many.
Secondly, conſider if it bring not in the inſtitution of a new Sacrament, whereof none that yet I have heard of have ſpoken, the Sacrament of emerſion,The new Sacrament of Emerſion. at leaſt the addition of this as a new large half unto the old Sacrament of Baptiſme or Immerſion; this their new rite of emerſion does ſignifie and ſeal up to us as they ſay our reſurrection with Chriſt: this can be no part of baptiſme or immerſion, nor rationally be comprehended under it, though always it were conjoyned and did follow at its back; for emerſion and immerſion are contraries, and one contrary is not a part, nor cannot goe under the name of the other, except you will make bitter ſweet, and darkneſſe light.
Unto thoſe Arguments of the Diſputants the Treatiſer adds nothing conſiderable in all his long Diſcourſe, except ſome teſtimonies, partly from Proteſtant, but moſt from Popiſh writers: aſſerting the ancient cuſtome of dipping in baptiſme.A generall anſwer to the teſtimonies for dipping. To which I anſwer, firſt, what ever authority teſtimonies may have with us, yet with him that brings them, and with his whole party, they are of no value at all: Will they miſlike, or ſo much as ſuſpect any of their abſurdeſt novelties, when it is demonſtrate to them that the whole current of all Chriſtian writers ancient and modern is againſt them? is it not then their cuſtome with a great deal of ſcorn to declaim againſt the vanity and frivolouſneſſe of an argument from humane aſſertions? Secondly, the Treatiſer himſelfe cannot but know that every one of the Authours he brings, does poſitively impugne his aſſertion, the neceſſity of dipping and unlawfulneſſe of ſprinkling in Baptiſme. Thirdly, his witneſſes, though they aſſert indefinitely the antiquity of dipping, yet none of them does deny the like ancient uſe of ſprinkling; both thoſe may well ſtand together, and ſo it is the judgement of many, that ſometimes dipping, and ſometimes ſprinkling, as the occaſion required were practiſed in the Primitive times. Fourthly, of thoſe that ſpeak of ancient dipping, how many doe underſtand it of the totall immerſion of a naked body over head and ears? and yet this alone is our queſtion. Fifthly, though even for this teſtimonies were brought, yet they come not home unleſſe ſuch a dipping be atteſted to be a rite unchangeable, and ſo neceſſary, that the omiſſion of it at any occaſion, were a ſin, and breach of the Lords inſtitution. When any writer, either ancient or modern, except ſome few of the lateſt Anabaptiſts, is brought to bear witneſſe to any ſuch aſſertion, I ſhall acknowledge my information of that whereof hitherto I have been altogether ignorant.