Chapter 15b
CHAPTER XV CHRISTIAN BAPTISM (Part 2) THE TESTIMONY OF BAPTISTERIES
It will cast some further light on this subject to know what places were resorted to for a convenient administration of this ordinance during the early ages of Christianity. They never would have frequented rivers, pools, cisterns, and other large bodies of water, for the mere purpose of sprinkling the candidates.
We know that John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus resorted to the Jordan for the purpose of baptizing, and to Enon, near to Salim, "because there was much water there."
TERTULLIAN says:
"There is no difference whether one is baptized in the sea or in a lake, in a river or in a fountain; neither was there any difference between those whom John baptized in Jordan, and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber.-De Bapt., ch. 4 Bing. Antiq., B. VIII,, ch. 8, sec. 1.
DR. DODDRIDGE says:
"John was also at the same time baptizing at Enon; and he particularly chose that place because there was a great quantity of water there, which made it very convenient for his purpose. "-Fam. Expositor on Matthew 3:16. As Christianity spread and converts multiplied, in many places, especially in large cities, there were few opportunities for the convenient and agreeable administration of the ordinance. Other cities were not so well supplied with pools as was Jerusalem. Then began to be erected baptisteries, expressly designed for this use. These, at first, were constructed in the simplest manner; but, in process of time, large, costly and imposing edifices were built for this purpose.
MOSHEIM says:
"For the more convenient administration of baptism sacred fonts, or baptisteria, were erected in the porches of the temples. This was in the fourth century. "-Eccl. Hist. Cent. 4, B. II., p. II,, ch. 4, sec. 7.
BROUGHTON says:
"The place of baptism was at first unlimited, being some pond or lake, some spring or river, but always as near as pos-sible to the place of public worship. Afterward they had their baptisteries, or (as we call them) fonts, built at first near the church, then in the church porch, and, at last, in the church itself." "The baptistery was, properly speaking, the whole house or building in which the font stood, which latter was only the fountain or pool of water in which the immersion was performed."-Hist. Dict., Arts. Baptism and Baptistery.
DR. MURDOCK says:
"Thc baptisteries were, properly, buildings adjacent to the churches, in which the catechumens were instructed, and where were a sort of cistern, into which water was let at the time of baptism, and in which the candidates were baptized by immersion. "-Mosh. Eccl, Hist,, Vol. I., p.281, note 15.
DR. SCHAFF says:
"In the fourth century special buildings for this holy ordinance (baptism) began to appear, either entirely separate, or connected with the main church by a covered passage. The need of them arose partly from the still prevalent custom of immersion. "-Hist. Chr. Ch., Vol. II., p. 558-9, sec. zo8.
CAVE says:
"These baptisteries were usually very large and capacious, not only that they might comport with the general custom of those times, of persons baptized being immersed or put under water, but because the stated times of baptism returning so seldom, great multitudes were usually baptized at the same time. "-Prim. Christ., P. I., ch. 10, p. 312.
BINGHAM says:
"In the apostolic age, and some time after, before churches and baptisteries were generally erected, they baptized in any place where they had convenience, as John baptized in Jor-dan, Philip baptized the eunuch in the wilderness, and Paul, the jailor, in his own house."-Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. 6, sec. 11.
HAGENBACH says:
"That baptism in the beginning was administered in the open air, in rivers and pools, and that it was by immersion we know from the narratives of the New Testament. In later times there were prepared great baptismal fonts or chapels. The person to be baptized descended several steps into the reservoir of water, and then the whole body was immersed under the water. "-Hist. Christ. Church, ch. 19, p. 324.
COLEMAN says:
"The first baptistery, or place appropriated to baptism, of which any mention is made, occurs in a biography in the fourth century, and this was prepared in a private house."- Ancient Christ. Exemplified, ch. 19, sec 10. The term "baptistery" was applied properly to the pool or font of water, but was also used to designate the building in which the pool was placed.
BRANDE says:
"A building destined for the purpose of administering the rite of baptism. The baptistery was entirely distinct from the church up to the end of the sixth century; after which period the interior of the church received it. "-Dict. Arts, Sci., and Lit., Art. Baptistery. THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA says:
"In the ancient Church it was one of the exedra, or buildings distinct from the church itself. Thus it continues till the sixth century, when the baptisteries began to be taken into the church porch, and afterward into the church itself." -Article Baptistery.
Some of these structures are still preserved, and others are well known to have existed-as that of Florence, Venice, Pisa, Naples, Bologna, and Raven-na. That of the Lateran, at Rome, is considered the oldest now existing, having been erected A.D. 324. That at Pisa was completed AD. 1160, the entire structure being one hundred and fifteen feet in di-ameter, by one hundred and seventy-two feet in height, and of a circular form. That at Florence is an octagonal building, ninety feet in diameter, with a lofty dome. That of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, erected by Constantine, AD. 337, was capable of accommodating a numerous Council, whose sessions were held in it. Most of these structures are large, elaborate, and costly edifices. The baptistery proper, or pool for baptizing, was an open cistern in the center of the large hall, or main part of the building. Can any one suppose these buildings would have been provided if sprinkling and not immersion had been the manner of administering baptism?*
* For a full account of Baptisteries, see Robinson’s History of Baptism, ch. 12, where, with much labor, the author has collected a large amount of information on the subject. Also Duncan’s Hist. Baptists, ch. 5, sec. 3. Also Crystal’s History of the Mode of Baptism. THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM
What was baptism intended to represent and teach? As an outward rite, it must be a type, or sign, of some religious truth, or spiritual fact, meant to be taught or enforced by its observance. And the form of the rite, the manner of its administration, must be such as properly to express its design and meaning. If the form be so changed that its symbolic force is lost, and its design no longer seen in its administration, then, manifestly, it is no longer baptism in form or fact; its teaching is not under-stood, and its chief purpose fails.
Now, it is not difficult to ascertain from the New Testament what was intended by baptism. It was clearly this: to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. And every candidate who receives the ordinance professes thereby faith in the merits of Christ’s death as the ground of his own hope and salvation, fellowship also with His sufferings, and a declaration of his own death to sin, and a rising to newness of life in Christ. It also typifies the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and declares the candidate’s hope of a resurrection from the dead, even as Christ, into the likeness of whose death he is buried, was raised up by the glory of the Father. That immersion alone can teach this is evident; which view the following testimonies abundantly confirm:
TYNDALE says:
"The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost."-Obedience of a Christ, Man, 143, cited by Conant, Append., p. 93.
ADAM CLARK says:
"But as they received baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water. "-Bap. for the dead, Com. on 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Bp. NEWTON says:
"Baptism was usually performed by immersion, or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ together, and therewith signify the person’s own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to a new life."-Prac. Expos. Catechism p. 297.
FRANKIUS says:
"The baptism of Christ represented His sufferings, and His coming up out of the water His resurrection from the dead ."-Programme, 54, p. 343.
PICTETUS says:
"That immersion into and emersion out of the water, practiced by the ancients, signify the death of the old man, and the resurrection of the new man."- Theol. Christ., B. XIV., Ch. 4, sec. 13.
BUDDEUS says:
"Immersion, which was used in former times, was a symbol and an image of the death and the burial of Christ."- Dogmatic Theol., B. V., Ch. I, sec. 8.
SAURIN says:
"The ceremony of wholly immersing us in water, when we were baptized, signified that we died to sin."-Sermons, Vol. III., p. 171. Robinson’s Trans.
GROTIUS says:
"There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and a resurrection, which in regard to Christ was external, in regard to Christians internal." -Annot. Romans 4:4. Colossians 2:12.
OLSHAUSEN says:
"As believers are in Christ’s death dead with Him, and in baptism buried with Him, so they are now also risen with Him in His resurrection."-Comment on Colossians 2:12.
MACKNIGHT says:
"He submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised up out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection. "-Comment on Romans 6:4.
BAXTER says:
"In our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant profession, that as He was buried for sin, we are dead and buried to sin. "-Para. Romans 6:4. Colossians 2:12.
ABP. LEIGHTON says:
"Buried with Christ . . . . where the dipping into water is referred to as representing our dying with Christ, and the return thence, as expressive of our rising with Him. "-Com. 1 Peter 3:21.
DR. BARROW says:
"The action is baptizing, or immersing into water." "The mersion also in water, and emersion thence, doth figure our death to the former, and our reviving to a new life. "-Doct. Sacra. Works, Vol. III., p. 43.
Dr. Cave says:
"As in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts-the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again-so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and in con-formity thereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power. and our resurrection to a new course of life. "-Prim. Christ., p. I., ch. 10, p.320.
Dr. HAMMOND says:
"It is a thing that every Christian knows, that the immersion in baptism refers to the death of Christ. The putting the person into the water denotes and proclaims the death and burial of Christ."-Comment. on Romans 6:3.
DR. WALL says:
"The immersion of the person, whether infant or adult, in the posture of one that is buried and raised up again, is much more solemn, and expresses the design of the sacra-ment and the mystery of the spiritual washing much better than pouring a small quantity on the face. "-Hist. Inf. Bap., pp. 404-408.
DR. SCHAFF says:
"All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit, or take it for granted, that in this verse the ancient prevailing mode of baptism by immersion and emersion is implied, ’as giving additional force to the idea of the going down of the old and the rising up of the new man."- Note in Lange on Romans 6:4.
Bp. BLOOMFIELD says:
"There may also be (as the ancient commentators think) an allusion to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; which, while typifying a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, also had reference to the Christian’s communion with his Lord, both in death and resurrection from the dead. "-Greek N. Test. on 1 Corinthians 15:29. Bap. for the dead.
DR. TOWERSON says:
"Therefore, as there is so much the more reason to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one that can answer the end of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it; so, especially, if, as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force, the general practice of the Primitive Church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek Church to this very day. For who can think that either one or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite, were it not that they were well assured, as they of the Primitive Church might well be, of its being the only instituted and legitimate one?" -On Sacra. Bapt., Part III., pp. 51-58.
CANON LIDDON, on the likeness to Christ’s resur-rection, said:
"Of this, the Apostle traced the token in the ceremony, at that time universal, of baptism by immersion. The baptismal waters were the grave of the old nature, while through those waters Christ bestowed the gift of the new nature. As Jesus, crucified and dead, was laid in the grave, so the Christian, crucified to the world through the body of Christ, de-scends, as into the tomb, into the baptismal Waters. He was buried beneath them; they closed for a moment over him; he was ’planted,’ not only in the likeness of Christ’s death, but of His burial. But the immersion is over; the Christian is lifted from the flood, and this is evidently as correspondent to the resurrection of Christ, as the descent had been to His burial. Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him. "-Easter Sermon in St Paul’s, June, 1889.
Such are the opinions of candid Pedobaptist divines, as to the design of baptism. Immersion alone can meet this demand, and serve its purpose. Sprinkling, or pouring water on a candidate, has no force in the direction of this sacred symbolism. It cannot show the death, burial, or the resurrection of Christ; nor the disciple’s death to sin, and his rising to a new life. If immersion, therefore, be abandoned, the entire force of the ordinance will be destroyed, and its design obliterated.
Sprinkling sets forth no great doctrine of the Gospel. Only when the disciple is buried beneath the water, and raised up again, do the beauty, force, and meaning, which divine wisdom intended, appear in that sacred ordinance. THE WATER SUPPLY
Among the weak arguments used, and the indefensible positions assumed by the advocates of sprinkling, is this-one of the weakest, and least defensible-that the Jordan had not sufficient depth of water for immersing the multitudes said to have been baptized by John and the disciples of Jesus; and that there were no conveniences in Jerusalem for immersing the large number of early converts who were baptized there. Consequently, they say, those converts must have had water sprinkled on them instead.
Puerile as may seem this objection, it has been seriously put forth by not a few of the advocates of aspersion, even in the face of Scripture testimony, and against scholarship and history. Such assertions indicate the ignorance or the recklessness of those who make them, and show how prejudice may unfit even good men for a just discussion of grave subjects. The objection is too trifling to merit serious regard; and yet the testimony on this point is so abundant, and so conclusive-and that, too, from Pedobaptist sources-as to make it both pleasant and fitting to adduce some of it in this connection.
PROF. EDWARD ROBINSON, in 1840, made a careful survey of Palestine, including the Jordan river. His statements corroborate those of others, as to the abundant supply of water both in the Jor-dan and in the city of Jerusalem itself. He cites the earlier but well-known travelers whose published works are familiar to the reading public: Seetzen, who visited the country in 1806; Burckhardt, who explored it in 1812; Irby and Mangles, in 1818, and Buckingham, who traveled through it at about the same time. These distinguished explorers published the results of their travels, which can be consulted.-Rob. Bib, Resear., Vol. II., pp. 257-267.
LIEUT. LYNCH, of the United States navy, was, in 1848, sent out by his government in charge of an expedition to explore the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. This, of course, had no connection with po-lemic discussions, and least of all was it to settle the baptismal question. It was done for antiquarian research, and for the advancement of science. The expedition passed down the entire length of the Jordan, in boats, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea; made frequent and careful surveys, which were accurately recorded and officially published. The river was found to vary in width from seventy-five to two hundred feet; and in depth from three to twelve feet. At Bethabara, where tradition has fixed the place of our Saviour’s baptism, and where John baptized the multitudes, Lieut. Lynch gives the width as one hundred and twenty feet, and the greatest depth as twelve feet. There certainly is no lack of water there, since one quarter of twelve feet would be sufficient for burying converts in baptism.
It is a well-known fact that thousands of Christian pilgrims from adjacent countries visit this spot at a certain season annually to bathe in the waters, held sacred by them because of Christ’s baptism there. The expedition witnessed one of these scenes, and had their boats in readiness to prevent accidents, which it was feared might occur in so great a crowd of fanatical devotees, in so great a depth of water. Had the advocates of sprinkling been present they might have found an argument as perilous as it would have been convincing for a sufficient depth of water for the immersion of Christian believers. Scarcely an occasion of this kind transpires without some fatal accidents by drowning in the deep and rapid current.-Lynch, chs. 10, 11.
DEAN STANLEY, a distinguished divine and scholar of the English Church, made the tour of the Holy Land in 1853, explored the Jordan valley, witnessed the bathing of the pilgrims, and recorded this remark touching the baptism of John:
"He came baptizing, that is, signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their sins." "There began that sacred rite which has since spread throughout the world; through the vast baptisteries of the Southern and Oriental churches, gradually dwindling to the little fonts of the North and West. "-Stanley’s Syria and Palestine, Ch. 7, pp. 306-7.
DR. THOMSON, for a quarter of a century mis-sionary in Syria and Palestine, and very familiar with the Holy Land, traversed it in 1857, visited the Jordan in the vicinity of Jericho, and witnessed the bathing of the Greek pilgrims, as described by Lieut. Lynch and others. Of this singular and exciting scene he gives a graphic description. He says:
"The men ducked the women somewhat as the farmers do their sheep, while the little children were carried and plunged under water, trembling like so many lambs." Being Pedobaptists, these Oriental fanatics may not have performed their rites with becoming propriety. But there was an abundance of water, and they believed in a thorough immersion. He adds:
"The current is astonishingly rapid, and at least ten feet deep. "Two Christians and a Turk. who ventured too far, were drowned without the possibility of a rescue." A perilous depth of water certainly. "At the bathing-place it was twenty rods wide." "Boats could do nothing in such a current, and it is too deep to ford ."-The Land and the Book, Vol. II., pp. 445-446
PROF. OSBORNE, who in 1857 made the tour of Palestine for scientific research, makes this note of a bath taken in the Jordan:
"The current was too strong to permit of swimming across, though washing in its waters completely freed me from the clammy sensation which was the consequence of my previous bath in the Dead Sea. "-Palestine, Past and Present, p. 476.
LORD NUGENT says of the Jordan:
"Its general breadth is between fifty and sixty yards, perhaps a little wider; and in most parts it is too deep, within a few feet out (when thus high), to allow any but swimmers to trust themselves out of arm’s reach of the brink, and its drooping branches and tall reeds. The pilgrims who come thither in crowds at Easter, bathe in this way. Some of us tried to make way against the current, but were carried several yards down before reaching even the full strength of it." - Travels, Vol. II., p. zoo. The city of Jerusalem was abundantly supplied with water, to a large extent by pools and cisterns, many of which were of great size. Outside, but near the city, were others of still larger dimensions. These were constructed in part for the purpose of furnishing water for the ordinary uses of life, and in part to supply conveniences for the many ablutions enjoined by the Mosaic law.
These pools were abundant in our Savior’s time, and some of them still remain, containing water, and even now affording admirable conveniences for the administration of baptism in its primitive form. Others, now in a ruined state, distinctly reveal their original form and magnitude. The greater part of them were in good repair, and continued to be used for hundreds of years after Christ.
DR. EDWARD ROBINSON visited Jerusalem in the prosecution of his researches, and made careful and extensive investigations touching the topography and antiquities of the Holy City. The results, published in his "Researches" in 1841, have been fully corroborated by other and more recent surveys. They are as follows:*
*Robinson’s Biblical Researches, Vol. I., pp. 480-515. See. also, Thomson’s Land and Book, Vol. II., pp. 64 and 446. The Pool of Bethesda is three hundred and sixty (360) feet long, one hundred and thirty (130) feet wide, and seventy--five (75) feet deep. When full, it was a considerable pond, covering more than an acre of ground. The Pool of Siloam is fifty-three (53) feet long, eighteen (18) feet wide, and nineteen (19) feet deep; it now holds two or three feet of water, which can readily be increased to a much greater depth. The Upper Pool is three hundred and sixteen (316) feet long, two hundred and eighteen (218) feet wide, and eighteen (18) feet deep, covering an acre and a half of ground. The Pool of Hezekiah is two hundred and forty (240) feet long, and one hundred and forty-four (144) feet wide, and is partly filled with water. The Lower Pool, or Pool of Gihon, is five hundred and ninety-two (592) feet long, two hundred and sixty (260) feet wide, and forty (40) feet deep, covering more than three and a half acres of ground. This pool is now dry; but so lately as the time of the Crusaders was fully supplied with water, and free to the use of all.
Several other pools existed, either in or in the immediate vicinity of the city. They were all constructed with sides gradually sloping inward and downward, so as to make a descent into the water to any required depth safe and easy, and were, doubtless, in daily use for purposes of ablution, as constantly practised by the Jews.
DR. BARCLAY, who spent many years in mission-ary labor in Jerusalem, and who, so far as that city is concerned, is perhaps the most competent and reliable of all authorities, substantiates the above statements by his own testimony.-City of the Great King. See, also, Prof. Chase’s Design of Baptism, with Dr. Sampson’s Article, p. 115.
DR. THOMSON, in his efforts to identify the place where Philip baptized the eunuch, says:
"He would then have met the chariot somewhere south-west of Latron. There is a fine stream of water, called Mu- Ruth 1:1-22 bah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends."- The Land and the Book, Vol. II., p. 310.
Good testimony that is, from a most competent and reliable source, and from one who did not think immersion essential to baptism.
How fully such testimony from well - informed sources vindicates the views held by Baptists, let any one judge. And how futile are all objections urged against immersion as the scriptural mode of baptism, on the ground of an insufficient supply of water for such a purpose, is manifest. And this testimony comes from those who have no doctrinal sympathy with Baptists.
ASPERSION FOR IMMERSION
We may now properly inquire when and why was sprinkling introduced and accepted as a substitute for the original scriptural form of dipping in bap-tism? Why and when did a human device supersede a divine institution? The question has its interest and its importance, and is fully and satisfactorily answered by Pedobaptists themselves. We accept their testimony as a complete justification of our position in respect to this ordinance. For two hundred and fifty years after Christ we have no evidence of any departure from the primitive practice of immersion-the first authenticated instance of such a departure being about the middle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was in the case of Novatian. Eusebius, the historian, gives this case, and no earlier instance could be found by Dr. Wall in his laborious researches. Good evidence that none earlier existed. What he failed in this direction to discover, it would be difficult for any other one to find.
Novatian was dangerously ill, and believing himself about to die, he greatly desired to be baptized, not having as yet received that ordinance. As the case seemed urgent, and he was thought too feeble to be immersed, it was decided to try a sub-stitute as nearly resembling baptism as possible. Water was poured profusely over him as he lay on his bed, so as to resemble as much as possible a submersion. The word used to describe this action (perichutheis, perfusus) has usually been rendered, besprinkle; it rather means, to pour round about, or upon and over one. This was, doubtless, the action in the case of Novatian, and such a profuse over-whelming with water, it was thought, might serve the purpose, especially as the necessity was so great.-See this case treated in Dr. Chase’s Design of Baptism, p.53.
EUSEBIUS, in his history, quoting from Cornelius, bishop of Rome, gives the following accounts of this case-a case which claims the more regard as being the first recorded departure from apostolic usage in the matter of baptism:
"He fell into a grievous distemper, and, it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism-being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism. "-Eccl. Hist., B. VI., Ch. 43. Cambridge ed. 1683. Also Bing. Christ. Antiq., B. XI., Ch. 11, sec. 5. Also B. IV., Ch. 3, sec. 11. The historian himself seemed doubtful as to the validity of such a rite.
VALESIUS makes the following comment on the passage:
"This word, perichutheis, Rufinus very well renders be-sprinkled (perfusus). For people who were sick, and baptized on their beds, could not be dipped in water by the priest, but were besprinkled by him. This baptism was thought imperfect, and not solemn, for several reasons. Also, they who were thus baptized were called ever afterward Clinici; and by the twelfth canon of the Council of Neocesarea, these Clinici were prohibited priesthood. "-Cited by Booth, Pedo-ex. Ch. 7, ref 2. Also. Chase’s Design of Baptism, p. 53. Bing. Antiq., B. IV., Ch. 3, sec. 11.
DR. WALL, the able historian and defender of infant baptism, makes the following statement respecting the case of Novatian:
"Anno Domini 251 Novatian was, by one part of the clergy and people of Rome, chosen Bishop of that Church, in opposition to Cornelius, who had before been chosen by the major part, and was already ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, vindicate his, right, showing that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of priesthood, much less was capable of being chosen Bishop; for that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were against his being ordained presbyter; because it was not lawful, they said, for one that had been baptized in his bed in time of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted to any order of the clergy.’ -Euseb. Eccl. Hist., B. VI., Ch. 43. Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II.., Ch. 9,p. 463.
It is evident that such a substitute for baptism was, at the time, generally considered as unscriptural and improper. But, having been introduced, and by some accepted, from that time the practice of affusion or aspersion was resorted to in cases of sickness; hence, denominated "clinic baptism," from clina, a couch or bed, on which it was received.
BISHOP TAYLOR says:
"It was a formal and solemn question made by Magnus to Cyprian whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, who are only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped." -Duct. Dubit., B. III., Ch. 4, r. 14.
DR. TOWERSON says:
"The first mention we find of aspersion in the baptism of the elder sort, was in the case of the Clinici, or men who re-ceived baptism upon their sick beds. "-Sacra. Bap., p. III., p. 59
VENEMA says:
"Sprinkling was used in the last moments of life, on such as were called Clinics. "-Eccl. Hist., Vol. IV., ch, 4, sec 110.
SALMASIUS says:
"The Clinics only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of which they were capable; thus Novatian, when sick, received baptism, being besprinkled, not baptized. "-De Vita Martini ch. 15. Cited by Witsius, B. IV., ch. 16, sec. 13.
GROTIUS says:
"The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have pre-vailed in favor of those that were dangerously ill, and were desirous of giving up themselves to Christ, whom others called Clinics. "-Comment on Matthew 3:6.
SPRINKLING PREVAILED, IN the Roman Church pouring for baptism was tolerated in the eighth century, and in the sixteenth century generally adopted as a matter of convenience, that hierarchy presumptuously arrogating the right to change ordinances.
DR. WALL says:
"France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it."-Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II, Ch. 9, p. 470. The same learned author states that Calvin prepared for the Genevan Church, and afterward published to the world, "a form of administering the sacraments," in respect to which he adds, "for an office, or liturgy of any Church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes aspersion absolutely."-Hist. Inf. Bap. See above.
DR. WALL adds:
"And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at A.D. 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few." "But sprinkling for the common use of baptizing was really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries) in times of popery."-Hist. Inf. Rap., p. II., Ch. 9, p. 470. Of England, he says:
"The offices and liturgies did all along enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." About 1550 however, aspersion began to prevail, being used first in the case of "weak children," and "within the space of half a century, from 1550 to 1600, prevailed to be the more general." The English Churches finally came to imitate the Genevan, and casting off the dominion of the pope, bowed to the au-thority of Calvin, and adopted pouring in the place of dipping.- Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., p. II,, Ch. 9, pp. 463-475. THE ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, in Convocation in 1643, voted by one majority, mainly through the in-fluence of Dr. Lightfoot, probably the most influen-tial member of the Assembly, against baptizing by immersion, and the year following Parliament sanc-tioned their decision, and decreed that sprinkling should be the legal mode of administering baptism. Both immersion and sprinkling had been in com-mon use. This action ruled out immersion and made sprinkling sufficient. The following is the form finally decided and fixed by the Assembly for the minister to use in baptism:
"He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing, is not only lawful, but also sufficient and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of the child without any other ceremony." -Pittman and Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. XIII., p. 300. Cited in Debates of Camp. and Rice, pp. 241-2. THE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA gives the following account of the rise of sprinkling
"The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode of baptism was by Pope Stephen TI., A. D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311 that a Council held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent, In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI. (about 1550), immersion was commonly observed. "-Article Baptism. But during the reign of the Catholic Mary, who succeeded to the throne on the death of Edward VI., 1553, persecution drove many of the Protestants from their homes, not a few of whom, especially the Scotch, found an asylum in Geneva, where, under the influence of John Calvin, they imbibed a prefer-ence for sprinkling.-Edinb. Ency., Art. Baptism. "These Scottish exiles," says the last-quoted au-thority, "who had renounced the authority of the pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and returning to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559 established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established Church."
It was not authorized in England until, as above stated, the action of the Westminster Assembly in 1643, and confirmed by Parliament in 1644. THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA states the case, much to the same effect, as follows:
"What principally tended to confirm the practice of affu-sion or sprinkling, was that several of our Protestant divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and coming home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been received and sheltered, And having observed that at Geneva, and some other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of England a greater service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. "-Ency. Britan., Article Baptism.
Thus we have given, briefly, but accurately, the rise, progress, and final prevalence of this perversion, the substitution of sprinkling for immersion, in the administration of Christian baptism.