The Ancient Christian Religion, Book 2 · Part 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of the due form and manner of the Administration of Sacred Baptism.
THat dreadful rebuke which David received from the Lord, because he sought him not after the due order, 1 Chron. 15. 13▪ may justly cause an holy consideration in every serious heart, that considers how men have violated this ordinance of God, to wit baptism, in the form or manner wherein it ought to be performed: As to introduce the way of aspersion or sprinkling a few drops of water upon the forehead of the Subject, and therewith also to make a watry Cross, and this without authority of Scripture, and against the evident practise of Christ and the Primitive Churches. That we may therefore continue our testimony to what is the mind of God in this matter, and shew the great and dangerous mistake that men have fallen into, in not keeping the Ordinances as they were delivered to the Churches, we shall shew that immersion or dipping in the Element water in the name of the Father, and of the son and of the holy Ghost, Is the due manner and form of Baptism only, and this will appear.
1. From the practice of John the Baptist, and those that succeeded him, in the act of Baptizing.
2. From the true signification of the word Baptize, when used to express the act done in this solemn Ordinance.
3. From the intolerable injury offered to Christ, and unavoidable inconveniencies to the Church by altering the form or manner of Baptism.
4. From the agreement between the sign and thing signified in Baptism.
5. From the consent of learned men, who are our opposites herein.
As to the first, thus it is written, Mark 1. 5. And there went out unto him all the Land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him In the River of Jordan, confessing their sins, and John 3. 23. John was baptizing in Enon near Salem, because there wus much water there: and they came and were Baptized. John Baptist had no order to sprinkle water upon the people.From these two places it is most evident that John had no order to perform this Ordinance by sprinkling water upon the people; And therefore chose convenient places to do it by immersion; nor need any person go into the water or into the river for such an end, as to have his face washed or sprinkled only. Surely the least spring of water, wherein John might have wet his hand only, had been sufficient to sprinkle all the thousands that came unto him to be Baptized, but this would not do, wherefore he chose Enon near Salem, because there was much water. Now this being rendered as the reason, why John Baptized in that place, and the only reason too, it plainly informs us, that he knew not how to baptize with a little water in a Bason, as the manner of many is, who do thereby proclaim to all the World, that they have forsaken John the Baptist, who was sent of God to baptize, and have chosen other guides, or their own fancies to be their rule in this matter.
Yea they have forsaken Christ himself, and those that succeeded John in the solemn service of Baptizing, for Jesus did not only suffer himself to be dipped into Jordan He that is baptized in water, may truly be said to be baptized with water; but he that is sprinkled with water only cannot truely be said to be Baptized in water, and yet in Scripture th…se to be Baptized with and in water are the same thing.For foreign may be truely so rendered; and though the word, foreign, may be rendered with as well as in water, yet the preposition, foreign, at least as used, Mark 1. 9. cannot possibly signifie with but in or into Jordan, for how absur'd would it be to say that Jesus was baptized with Jordan, and how congruous to sence and truth too, it is to say. He was dipped in Jordan, yet against truth and reason is the way of Christ deserted, by all those that have admitted the devise of sprinkling instead of Baptizing. For when we read that Jesus came with his Disciples into the Land of Judea, and there he tarryed with them and Baptized. John 3. 22. Is it not clear that our Saviour, who was Lord of John the Baptist, yet is pleased to follow him in the management of this blessed ordinance, the Baptism of repentance of remission of sins? and therefore was it noted by John's Disciples, as something strange to them, that he to whom John bare record, should baptize, and all men go to him. And John shews them it was Jesus his right, even in that ministration to be preferred before him, and rejoyceth that his same begun to spread abroad, and that Jesus was more successful in the work then himself, though he made Disciples only, and ordered his Disciples to baptize them. Surely no man can think that Jesus altered the form or manner of the Administration of this Ordinance, from dipping to sprinkling; for still we find it to have the same appellation of Baptizing, without the least hint of variation in name or thing.
And that no alteration was made by Christ, in the manner of this Ordinance is evident from the practise of those, who by virtue of his Commission did Baptize with or in water after his Ascention. Act. 8. 38. And they went both down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. So that still those that succeed in the management of the Gospel, and Baptism as a Ordinance thereof, kept close to the first pattern, even to go into the water, both the Minister and the subject of Baptism; which is full evidence that they knew no such device as the sprinkling the forehead; for if they had, it would have prevented this descent into the water to be baptized. So that the Apostacy from truth in this particular, of those that have espoused this idle practise of rantizing, is so palpable, that he that runs may read it.
SECT II. From the true signification of the word Baptize, &c.
The Greek word foreign is ever used (saith a learned writer) in the original as that whereby this Ordinance is expressed, and whence it derives that denomination of Baptism, the proper plain English of which is, to overwhelm, or cover with water, to dip or douze in water; Mr. Fisher.and it is the derivative of foreign, which is tingo, quod sit immergendo, to dip in manner as they do, that dye cloath or Colours, which is by that total submersion of things in the Liquour, as is known by common experience — whereupon he summoneth all the learned men in Christendom, to shew out of Stephanus, or Scapula, the two great Lexicons, that are now of greatest request, that foreign either doth not signifie a total dipping of the immediate Subject that is denominated Baptized, or dipped by it, or that it ever signified such a thing as sprinkling at all.
And he further shews that the word which signifies sprinkling, is another word, viz. foreign, which is ever used in Scripture by the Spirit, when he speaks of such a thing as sprinkling; It is used three times in one Chapter, viz. Heb. 9. 13, 19, 21. and is all along englished by sprinkling. Neither is there any one place of Scripture, wherein the word foreign, is rendred to Baptize, or used to signifie Baptizing. Neither is there one Scripture wherein the word foreign is rendered sprinkling or used to signifie such a thing; nor is there any reason why it should be so rendered if you consider The nonidentity, and deep diversity that is between these two actions, viz. sprinkling and Baptizing, by which as by the second Argument it is most plain, that sprinkling is not only, not the Baptism of Christ; but in truth no Baptism at all. Which he demonstrates, because dipping and sprinkling, are truly two wayes, two forms, two actions, two kinds of actions, so really different in their essentials (as Actions) so specifically diversified in nature, as actions, that even Homo and Brutum, do not differ more essentially in praedicamento substantiae, then sprinkling and dipping do differ in the praedicament of action, and therefore they cannot be called one and the same. And though dipping and sprinkling are both actions in genere remoto or in genere proximo both wettings; yet are they not one kind of action, or wetting in specie not all one, so as the one may be Universally used instead of the other, nor so as to be denominated properly by each other, nor so as that the one is the other.
Wherefore seeing that dipping and sprinkling are not the same thing, they cannot both signifie one self fame manner of Baptizing, and when we are commanded to Baptize with water in the name of the Lord Jesus, &c. we are commanded not divers, but one action, as respecting the practick part of that Ordinance, otherwise if the word, Baptize, do signifie variety of actions as distinct from both the former, as they are one from another, yea a fourth, and a fifth, &c. till no man can be certain what to determine shall be the sence, with respect to the act of Baptizing.
SECT III. From the intolerable injury offered to Christ, and unavoidable inconveniencies to the Church, by altering t…e form or manner of Baptizing.
In alterations of this kind, the motives leading thereto ought to be such as will justifie the alteration which is made; and if any thing do it in this case, it must either be a new mandate from Heaven; or some perfection hereby added to the thing it self, or some greater advantage hereby brought to the Church. Note, it is granted by the Papists, that their Church did alter the dipping overhead and Eares in water to a little sprinkling upon the face. Certamen Relig.But none of these things can be pretended, without apparent injury done to the Lord Jesus, who as he was the Messias, was to tell us all things, or at least what he did tell us, is in no wise to be contradicted, and yet as to the matter in hand, he so approved of the practice of John the Baptist that he said, thus it becommeth us to fulfil all righteousness, And thereupon was baptized of John, in, or into the River Jordan. And God at the same time approves the work, and commands us to hear that his beloved Son, as him in whom he was well pleased, so that there is no ground to think that God ever yet countermanded the order, which he gave to his Servant John; nor have we any reason to think that Chtist would contradict his own practice, neither did the holy Apostles change the Ordinance that we read of, and we are sure none since their dayes had more power, or wisdom in this case then they, and therefore Heaven is not concern'd in this alteration, and consequently it cannot be warranted, by any divine Authority.
Neither doth the alteration of the Form of this Ordinance, add to the perfection of it. For as the wise man saith, what can the man do that comes after the King? Eccles. 2. 12. or if it do, is not Christ degraded, who could not (according to this conceit) give his own Ordinances their due form, but must leave that for some abler heads; But alas, this trifling usuage of sprinkling and crossing the fore-head, hath quite spoiled the beauty of the Ordinance, which as Christ established it, does well set forth Christ and him crucified; the Subjects death to Sin, and rising to a new life. Will any say that sprinkling is more decent then dipping, and so the more perfect Form? if so, doth that not still degrade the Lord Christ? was he indecent at all? and yet did he not go into the River and was dipped there, and came out of the water when Baptized? sure it is the greatest indecency in the world, to throw aspersions upon Christ or his truth; and it's absur'd to talk of mending any thing, if we cannot first shew where it is faulty. As for God his waye is perfect, and every word of God is pure, we may not impeach what he hath said or done; But see whether this conceit will lead men, if they may take upon them to mend one Ordinance, why not all? and if they have power to alter once, why not twice yea twenty times? and when shall we be sure the ways of God are past your adding perfection to them? and if you make them not better, you make them worse, and why did you meddle with that, which you could not amend? this vanity is sufficiently reproved by the Protestants writings against the Papists about the manifold additions to the service of the Mass, and yet they cannot beware of it in the case of Sacred Baptism, but must bring their sprinklings, crossings, and sponsores into it.
And lastly the alteration which men have made in this Ordinance, is not more for the profit or advantage of the Church, then it was before, if otherwise: will not this also reflect dishonour upon Christ, who (according to this conceit) either could not, or would not do things in his own Church to the best advantage? surely we have cause to say as those, Mark. 7. 37, He hath done all things well. He did well in going down into the water for our Example, in this step of obedience, even as he did well to die for us not only to bear our sins, but also leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps. 1 Pet. 2. and I doubt he that grudges to follow him in the laver of Baptism, will har… …ke well of his following him to mount Calvary. In a word he that … think sprinkling a better form of Baptism then immersion, doth degrade the wisdome and goodness of Christ, and set up sinful Flesh in competition with him.
As Christ is injured by mens innovations in things pertaining to religion, so the Church is brought to great inconveniencies on that account, as experience hath taught the world long since; for begin to alter Gods wayes, and there is no end, and that which is none of the least inconveniencies, the Church is never certain that she hath any one Ordinance in the purity; nor indeed whether she have them at all. Sometimes general Councels gave the laiety both the bread and Cup in the Eucharist; sometimes gen. Councels deny them the Cup and gave them the bread only. Now if the Institution of Christ himself stand us not instead, who can be sure what is right or wrong in this case? even so in Baptism, sometimes Crossing and sprinkling goes together, sometimes they have been parted, Augustine was sign'd with the Cross many years before he was Baptized, Aug. Confess.of late some are sprinkled without the Cross at all, among the Papists some dip the head of the Infant into the water, some pour it out of a Glass, upon the face of the Child, If now this great example of our Lord, be not minded (as it is not, by all these innovators, or any of them) how shall the Church be able to know who are the true observers of Christ holy Ordinances; or what his Ordinances are? have not all the vain traditions of men got ground, by admitting the Ordinances of God to be altered? for if they have power to mend Gods wayes, why may they not introduce some of their own? and so they have; A necessity therefore there is, that setting aside all mens devices whatsoever, we labour to reform the corruptions of our times, in the places where God hath set us, with all Christian modesty, as near as possible, to the very walk of Christ and his Apostles both for matter and manner; For every plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted, must be rooted up.
SECT. IV. From the agreement between the sign and thing signified in Baptism.
The form of Baptism must be (can be) but one, as well for that it must have but one signification, as for that it cannot otherwise be known; For suppose that in the dayes of John the Baptist, some of his Disciples which had seen him chuse places of much water, on purpose to dispence the sacred Ordinance to men and women, should by chance have espyed some man with a dish of water in his hand, and wetting his fingers therein, sprinkling the faces of persons that stood by him, would they from hence have gone and told John, that such a man was Baptizing? surely they would rather have told him, how some had found out some other Ordinance, as not knowing it to be any Baptism at all; so that the rule here holds good un… … est unica tantum forma, of one thing there can be but one (esse… Joh) Form, what may be accidental is not material, seeing it is the esse…al Form quae dat esse rei, which gives every thing to be, or to be called what it is. Forasmuch then as the thing signified in Baptism must hold agreement with the signe, It is necessary the sign be one and the same at all times, and in every place, otherwise confusion must needs ensue: Now the Apostle, Rom. 6. 1, 2, 3. &c. Hath so fully shewed the agreement between Baptism and the death; Burial, resurrection of Christ, our death to sin, burial and rising with him to a new life, as nothing can be more plainly delivered. Know yee not (saith he) that so many of us as were Baptized into Christ, were Baptized into his death? Therefore we are buryed with him by baptism into death (meaning a death to sin, as vers. 2.) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the Glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life; knowing that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of Sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. And the same we find Collos. 2. 11, 12, 13. In whom also you are Circumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumsion of Christ. Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead; And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your Flesh, hath he quickned together with him, having forgiven you all Trespasses.
The evidence of these places are so clear, that generally expositors do grant, that the Apostle here alludes to the old way of Baptizing by dipping, Diodate. Erasmus. Musculus. Austin.thus Diodate, Erasmus, Musculus and Augustine concur with our doctrine of the necessity of an agreement between the sign and the thing signified, saying, If the Sacraments should not have some likeness to the things whereof t…ey are Sacraments, they could not be Sacraments at all, but by reason of this likeness it comes often to pass, that they bear the very names of the things they resemble. Tindal.Also Tindal, folio 143. hath these words upon Rom. 6. 4. The plunging into the water signifies, that we dye and are buryed with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin which is Adam; and the pulling out again, signifieth, that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the holy Ghost, which shall rule us and guide us, and work the will of God in us, as thou seest Rom. 6. 4. Hymingeus.And the learned Hymingeus gives testimony to this truth, saying, That Baptism should be a figure of Christs death, burial and resurrection, is proved, in that he termed his passion by the name of Baptism, when he answered the Children of Zebedee on this wise, can yee be Baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with? Calvin. Vrsin. Paraeus.Also Calvin, Vrsin, Pareus, and indeed who not, do consent to the truth here asserted, and to the exposition of these places, Rom. 6. Collos. 2. as here we have expounded them. Zanky.I will only add the words of Zanchy upon. Collos. 2. 12. Of regeneration there are two parts, Mortification, and Vivification, that first is called burial with Christ; the second, a rising with Christ; the Sacrament of both these is Baptism, in which we are overwhelmed or buryed, and after that do come forth and rise again; It may be said indeed, but Sacramentally, of all that are Baptized, that they are buried with Christ, and raised with him, yet really only of such as have true Faith, mark that!
Now who would think that men so clear in their judgment about the meaning of those Scriptures, should yet for all this, be so deluded as to admit of such a form in Baptism, as to which these things, by themselves so plainly asserted, cannot possibly be reconciled; strange it is that men of such wisdom should not be more consistent in their practise with their own Doctrine. Here therefore again, the Baptized Churches do justly complain against Papists and common Protestants, as men that have left the way of the Lord, and which follow their own devices, and do justly expect their return to us herein, because the truth of God is with us.
SECT V. From the consent of learned men (who are our opposites) about the signification of the word Baptizo.
The industrious and judicious Mr. Henr. Danvers, having done so much this way that more need not be done, I shall only cite a few passages partly out of him, and partly out of the Authors themselves. Scapula.And first, I have read Scapula, and find him inveigh sufficiently against the Baptized Churches, yet dares not give any othet signification of the word Baptizo, whose root is foreign, then mergo, immergo, submergo, obruo, or tingo quod fit immergendo, &c. To Dip, plunge, overwhelm, cover over, to die in colour which is done by submersion or plunging.
Grotius.Mr. Hugo Grotius, in opposition to such as used sprinkling instead of Baptism affirms that foreign signifies a dipping over the Head and Ears.
Mincaeus.Mincaeus in his Dictionary, testifies that foreign from foreign is in Latine Baptismus, in the Dutch Doopsel or Doopen; in English to dive in water, and the same with the Hebrew foreign to dipp.
Leigh.Leigh, Crit. Sac. the Native and proper signification of foreign, is to dip into water or plung under water, Act. 8. 38. Matth. 3. 6. and is taken from a dyers vat, and imports a dying, or giving a fresh colour, and not a bare washing only.
Erasmus.Erasmus denyes that Baptizo, is a washing only, otherwise then by consequence for the proper signification saith he, is a dipping or plunging, as Dyers use for dying Cloaths.
Causabon. in Matth. 3.Causabon, observes that immerging (or dipping) is the proper rite of Baptism, as the word it self sufficiently declares. And further to the contradiction of captious Mr. J. Goodwin, he observes that it does not signifie foreign a going down to the bottom without any ascending, but foreign a going down and coming up again.
Beza. in Matth. 3.Beza saith, foreign signifies to dye by dipping and washing, and differs from the word foreign, signifying to drown or go down to the bottom as a stone.
Mr. Rogers, The minister is to dip in water, as the meetest act; the word foreign notes it; for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other act besides dipping, if the Institution could bear it.
Chamier. Tom, 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6.Chamier, The antient use of Baptism was to dip the whole body in the Element, which is the force of foreign; therefore did John Baptize in a River.
Mr. Wilson.Mr. Wilson, in his Christian Dictionary, in letter B. Interprets the word Baptism, by a dipping into or washing in water.
Diodate.Diodate in Rom. 6. upon the words, were buried with him in Baptism. informs us that in Baptism being dipped in water was the antient Ceremony, a sacred sign unto us, that sin ought to be drowned in us, by Gods Spirit.
Dr. Taylor.Dr. Jer. Taylor, Rule of consc. l. 3. c. 4. If you would attend saith he, to the proper signification of the word, Baptism signifies plunging in water or dipping with washing.
Dr. Hammonds Annot. on John 13. 10. and 3. 23. Matth. 3. 1. &c.Dr. Hammond, 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 that as the Greeks called their Lakes where they washed themselves foreign; so the antients called their Baptisterions, or Vessels containing their Batismal water Columbethras, swimming or diving places, being made very large with partitions for men and women. And that the baptizing of Cups, Beds Vessels, &c. was no other then a putting them into the water all over, rinsing them.
Mr. Mede's Diatribe.Thus do these twelve learned Men consent to the Doctrine of the twelve Apostles, and the practise of the present Baptized Churches, to the confutation of their practise of sprinkling instead of Baptizing, which Mr. Mede affirms was not used in the Apostles times, nor for many ages after.