Gold Refined, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Proving that Baptiſm is dipping, plunging, and covering the Body all over in Water from the Practice of the Primitive Times.
CErtainly no better courſe or way in the next place we can take to find out what Baptiſm is, than to examine the Scripture, and see what the thing was which the Saints practiſed in the Primitive Time, where we read they did baptize, or were baptized: for as the Jews in Circumciſion all along were to practiſe that Rite, as it was commanded, and practiſed by Abraham; and keep the Paſſeover as it was given to them from the Lord by Moſes, together with all other Ordinances and Services whatſoever, it behoved them to obſerve the firſt or Primitive Inſtitution and Practice of every particular Duty, and were not to derogate from thence in any thing whatſoever; and for their adulterating any of the Ordinances of God, they brought themſelves under the Wrath of God, and many heavy Judgments from him, as the Old Teſtament doth ſufficiently witneſs; ſo it behoveth us, I ſay, to ſee to the firſt or Primary Inſtitution and Practice of Baptiſm in the Goſpel-Time, that being a Pattern or Rule to us, and to all Chriſtians to the end of the World, in reſpect of every Goſpel-Ordinance; and if we derogate from that Rule, we muſt expect to meet with ſharp Rebuke from the Almighty firſt or laſt. Now that that Ordinance which is called Baptiſm, is Immerſion, Dipping, or Plunging into Water, will appear, if we obſerve the Practice of John the Baptiſt, who was the firſt that was sent by Chriſt to baptize; read Mat. 3. 6. he 'tis poſitively ſaid baptized in a River, viz. in the River Jordan.
Diodate on this place in his Annotations,Diodate Annotat. ſaith he plunged them in Water; and our late Annotators say he dipp'd them in Jordan.Pool's Annotat.
Moreover 'tis ſaid that John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim;Joh. 3. 23. the Reaſon is given, becauſe there was much Water. Now if it had not been dipping or covering the Body in Water, this could be no reaſon, for a little Water would have ſerved to ſprinkle thouſands, as Cornelius à Lapide notes.
Piſcator on this Paſſage ſaith,See Mr. Goſnold's Doctrine of Baptiſm, pag. 20. that Baptiſm was dipping the Body in Water.
Alſo our late Annotators*Pool's Annot. on Joh. 3. 23. upon the place ſay thus, viz. It is from hence apparent, that both Chriſt and John baptized by dipping the Body in the Water, elſe they need not have ſought places where had been a great plenty of Water. They ſay well, and leſs they could not ſpeak unleſs they would ſtifle their Conſciences, or offer Violence to their Reaſon: but if they had from hence ſaid, it is apparent that Chriſt and John Baptized, and not Rantized Perſons, they had come off better, and had undeceived the People.
Secondly, 'Tis ſaid when our bleſſed Saviour was baptized by John in Jordan, Mat. 3. 16.he went up straightway out of the Water,Acts 8. 38, 39. &c. and Philip and the Eunuch 'tis ſaid went both down into the Water, and that they came up out of the Water.
The Aſſembly in their Annotations on this Text, ſay, they were wont to dip the whole Body; and Piſcator on the place (as I find him quoted by a worthy Divine) ſaith, the ancient manner of Baptiſm was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water.
Certainly it had been a vain and weak thing for them to have gone down into the River to be ſprinkled with a little Water.
There is no ground to think they would ever have done ſo, if Sprinkling or Rantiſm had been the Ordinance required of them, the manner was not to apply Water to the Subject, as ſome do, but the Subject to (nay into) the Water.
In Mark 1. 9. 'Tis ſaid, Jeſus was baptized of John in Jordan: Now, ſaith one on this place, it had been non-senſe for Mark to ſay that Jeſus was baptized in Jordan, if it had been ſprinkling, becauſe the Greek reads it into Jordan, foreign, could Jeſus be ſaid to be sprinkled into Jordan? 'tis proper to ſay he was baptiz'd, that is, dipp'd into Jordan, and that was the Act and nothing elſe, as all the Learned acknowledg.
Moreover, Philip needed not to have put that noble Perſon, who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, to the trouble to come out of his Chariot (if Sprinkling had been Baptiſm) and to go into the Water and dip him; or if Sprinkling might have done as well as Dipping, ſure Philp would on this occaſion have diſpenſed with Immerſion, and let Rantiſm have ſerved, conſidering he was a great Man and on a Journey; he might have fetch'd a little Water in his hand and have ſprinkled him in the Chariot. But as Philip had preach'd Baptiſm to him, ſo there is like ground to think that the Eunuch very well underſtood what it was, and readily ſubmitted to it; but if Sprinkling would not excuſe them, I know not how any Chriſtian can think it may excuſe us in theſe days; we have no Reaſon to think Chriſt Jeſus, or his Apoſtles, did do or teach any thing in vain, yet ſo we muſt conclude, if he went into a River to receive no more than Sprinkling; and ſo we muſt think of Philip and the Eunuch alſo.
But to proceed, here I cannot well omit that which Mr. Daniel Rogers, Rogers in his Treatiſe of the two Sacraments, part 1. chap. 5.a moſt worthy Engliſh Writer, hath ſaid in a Treatiſe of his, It ought (saith he) to be the Churches part to cleave to the Inſtitution, which is Dipping, eſpecially it being not left arbitrary by our Church to the Diſcretion of the Miniſter; but required to dip or dive: And further saith, that he betrays the Church, whoſe Officer he is, to a diſorder'd Error, if he cleave not to the Inſtitution, which is to Dip. What abundance of Betrayers of the Truth and Church too have we in theſe days? How little is the Inſtitution or Practice of the Primitive Chriſtians minded amongſt many good Men? and where is the Spirit of Reformation? And doubtleſs that famous Author, and Learned Critick Caſaubon was in the right; will you have his words; I doubt not,Caſaubon on Mat. 3. 11. ſaith he, but, contrary to our Churches Intention, this Error having once crept in, is maintained ſtill by the Carnal Eaſe of ſuch as, looking more at themſelves than at God, ſtretch the Liberty of the Church in this caſe deeper and further than either the Church her ſelf would, or the Solemneſs of this Sacrament may well and ſafely admit.—Afterwards further ſaith, I confeſs my ſelf unconvinced by Demonſtration of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling.
But Oh! how hard is it to retract an Error which has been ſo long and generally received, eſpecially when there is Carnal Eaſe and Profit attending the keeping of it up, and when the contrary Practice, I mean dipping, is look'd upon so contemptible a thing, and thoſe who do it are daily, by the ignorance of fooliſh Men, reproached and vilified, as it is now as well as in former days.
Acts. 8. 38.—And they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him.
We may ſee,Calvin on Act. 8. 38. ſaith Calvin, what faſhion the Ancients had to adminiſter Baptiſm, for they plunged the whole Body into the Water: The uſe with us is now, ſaith he, that the Miniſter caſts a few drops of Water only upon the Body, o… upon the Head.
And upon John's baptizing in Aenon near Salim, Joh. 3. 23. ſaith the ſame Calvin, From this place we may gather that John and Chriſt adminiſtred Baptiſm by plunging the whole Body into the Water.
The Learned Cajetan upon Mat. 3. 5. ſaith,Cajetan on Mat. 3. 5. Chriſt aſcended out of the Water; therefore Chriſt was baptized by John, not by ſprinking or by pouring Water upon him, but by Immerſion, that is, by dipping or plunging into the Water.
Moreover,Muſcul. on Mat. 3. Muſculus on Mat. 3. calls Baptiſm Dipping, and ſaith, the Parties baptized were dipped, not ſprinkled.
Object. But it is ſtill objected, Sprinkling is Baptizing, ſay you what you will; and Baptiſm signifies Sprinkling as well as Dipping.
Anſw. To this we always anſwer, and again say and teſtify, that the Greek word to ſprinkle, is, foreign, Rantizo; and that the Tranſlators themſelves never ſo much as once, in all the New Teſtament, render Baptiſm, Sprinkling; and where is the Man that affirms the word ſignifies Sprinkling?
Object. But the word Baptizo will bear VVaſhing.
Anſw. VVe anſwer then, 'Tis ſuch waſhing as is done by dipping; ſo much as is baptized, or waſhed, is dip'd, and your Rantiſm is no waſhing; and we alſo ſay, and that too with good Authority, that though the word Baptizo doth ſometimes allow of that Acceptation, yet it is not the direct, immediate, genuine, and primary signification of it, for that is to dip, or plunge, as you ſee in the Lexicons. But at the beſt 'tis but indirectly, collaterally, by the by (as one obſerves) ſo meant, or improperly and remotely, that it ſo ſignifies: And we ask, Whether when we try any Matter by the ſignification of the word as 'tis in the Original, we ſhall go to the direct, original, prime, and proper, or to the occaſional, remote, indirect and improper ſignification to be tried by? Your practice it ſeems is built only upon the indirect, improper and remote acceptation of the word, and therefore is at beſt only an uncouth, indirect, improper and far-fetch'd practice; and indeed, as the word is found in Scripture, reſpecting Chriſt's Ordinance of Baptiſm, it is evident to all what it ſignifies.
Object. But the Phariſees, Mark 7. 4. held the waſhing of Hands, Veſſels, Cups, Pots, and Beds, &c. and there VVaſhings are called Baptiſm.
Anſw. Yea, and what then, for, ſaith Mr. Wilſon, to baptize, is to dip or plunge primarily, and ſignifies ſuch a waſhing as is uſed in Bucks wherein Linnen is plunged and dip'd; and thus they waſh'd their Veſſels, Hands, and Cups, viz. they swilled, rinſed, cleanſed, and totally waſhed, dip'd, or wetted them all over with VVater, or elſe you may be ſure it could never be ſaid they baptized them. But, Sirs, who-ever waſhes Hands, Cups, Pots, or Beds, by ſprinkling a few Drops of VVater upon them? there is no waſhing by ſuch a kind of Sprinkling. O that you would give over ſuch Arguing, ſince the practice of Baptiſm in the Primitive Times doth, as you have heard, evidently ſhew that the Baptized were always dipped all over in VVater; Certainly 'tis no Baptiſm at all, if not so adminiſtred.
Object. Doth it follow that we muſt Baptize so now? That was in a hot Country; but we live in a cool Climate, and when Children were Dipt, ſome of them died; and God will have Mercy, not Sacrifice.
Anſw. Ought you not to make God's VVord your Rule? Have you a Diſpenſation to make the Commandments of God void by your Traditions? VVe conclude, the Inſtitution of Chriſt and the Practice of the Primitive Church, ought to be followed in all things as near as we can. But you ſay this is a cold Climate: Pray, Sirs, did not Chriſt, when he gave forth his Commiſſion to his Apoſtles, to teach and make Diſciples, and Baptize, bid them go into all the World, and into all Nations? VVere they not to go into cold Countries as well as Hot? And, were they not to teach the ſame Doctrine, and adminiſter the ſame Ordinances alike where-ever they come? Or, did he tell them they ſhould Baptize thoſe in hot Countries that were Diſciples, and Rantize ſuch who received the Word in cold Countries? Unleſs you can prove this, I am ſure all you ſay is nothing.
Certainly you were as good never pretend to Baptize, but wholly deny it, and caſt it off as a low and carnal Thing, as ſome do, as to do another thing in the room of it, which Chriſt never commanded, and call it his Ordinance; Which we do declare and teſtify, by the Authority of God's VVord, and a great Cloud of VVitneſſes, who all underſtand the Greek Tongue, (may be better than ſome of you do) that 'tis no Baptiſm at all, but a thing of Man's deviſing brought in, in the room of Chriſt's Baptiſm, and unjuſtly fathered upon him.
Sirs, How dare you, In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, ſay, I Baptize thee, &c. when you do but Rantize the Perſon? for you neither dip the Perſon, nor waſh him. Has the Holy Trinity given you any Authority ſo to do? For God's ſake, for time to come, uſe the Names of thoſe Perſons by whoſe Authority it was firſt set on foot and given forth, till you can ſhew you have Authority from Jeſus Chriſt to ſprinkle, or pour a little VVater upon the Face of a poor Infant, or an adult Perſon. Nor is it any marvel, when they did dip poor Children in VVater, that ſome of them died, ſith they are not the true Subjects of Baptiſm; if they had, no doubt God would have preſerved them, as well as he did thoſe Babes whom once he required to be Circumciſed. Can any believe God would command any ſuch thing to be done, that ſhould endanger the Life of a Child? that was doubtleſs a juſt Re…uke for the prophanation of Chriſt's bleſſed Ordinance; he will one day, I fear, ſay, Who hath required this at your hands? Nay, and who knows what Judgments and VVrath may come upon this Land for the abominable abuſe of the Sacred Inſtitution of Baptiſm. God many times ſhews Men their Sin, by the puniſhment he brings upon them, if you are so fond of Humane Traditions and Innovations.
Object. But why muſt the whole Body be dipp'd? may not the Head be ſufficient, that being the principal Part?
Anſw. I muſt confeſs, in a late Diſcourſe I had with a Miniſter of the Church of England, he pleaded for this, ſeeing he could not defend Rantiſm. But to give a direct Anſwer, pray conſider whether it be the Perſon, (viz. the Man or Woman) or part of the Perſon that Chriſt commanded to be baptized; if not the whole Body, why might it not ſerve only to waſh or dip the Hands? But if it were the Hands only, or the Feet, or the Head only that was to be Baptized, i. e. dipped, a ſmall Veſſel of Water would have ſerved, and no need for Chriſt or John to have gone into Rivers and Places where there was much VVater, to baptize.
2. It is not ſaid, John baptized him, i. e. our bleſſed Saviour, not part of him: But as the bleſſed Virgin bore him in her VVomb, and brought him forth, and laid him in a Manger; ſo John baptized, or dipped him, that is, his whole Body into Jordan, or in the River Jordan. Moreover, 'tis ſaid, Acts 8. 12. They were baptized, both Men and Women, (that is, the Bodies, the whole Bodies of thoſe Men and Women) and not ſome Part or Members of them: If this be not granted, we ſhall be run into many ſtrange Abſurdities almoſt every where in reading the Scriptures.
3. To put this out of doubt, 'tis evident the whole Body ought to be dipp'd or baptiz'd, becauſe (as we ſhall ſhew in the next Chapter) Baptiſm is a Figure of the Burial and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, nay, called a Burial. Now a Perſon is not ſaid to be buried, that is not totally covered in the Earth; no more can a Man be ſaid to be baptiz'd, except he be covered all over in the VVater.
4. VVe have ſhewed how all the Learned agree, and poſitively aſſert, that Baptiſm was adminiſtred in the Primitive Times, by a total dipping the Body in VVater. And indeed at firſt, when this Innovation of Rantiſm came in, they uſed to ſprinkle the Body all over, being sure it was not one Part, but the whole Body that was to be baptized, and ſo they Rantiz'd the whole Body. But you are gone here too, for you in (your Practice, and in your own Senſe) Baptize but the Face only; ſo that all your People are unbaptized Perſons, as evident as any thing can be, take it how you will, if it ſhould be granted. I mean, that Sprinkling is Baptiſm.