Truth Prevailing Against the Fiercest Opposition, Part 5 – Part 6
Your fifth Conſideration for ſubſtance this: THat learned men are not agreed about the exact ſignification of the word BAPTIZO, whether it be to dip or not, therefore not fit for any, much leſs ſuch illiterate ones, to determine it, and build ſo great a matter upon it.
To which I anſwer. 1. What conſiderable advantage would it be to us, to know the original at this point, it ſeemeth all the knowledge of the learned worketh not union in judgement about it, you confeſs they are not agreed for all that.
But 2. Whether learned men can agree about the ſignification of the word BAPTIZO or no, it is of little conſideration to us in this caſe, becauſe the Spirit of God hath interpreted it to our hand, in the holy Scripture elſewhere, namely, in the 6. of Romans 4. and Coloſ. 2.12. Therefore we are BURIED with him by Baptiſme. Again, being BURIED with him in Baptiſme, wherein alſo we are riſen with him, beſides many other places: So that if theſe Scriptures ſpeak of water Baptiſme (which is but few mens queſtion, That one of them doth. I have proved already, and would the other if need required it) there muſt be a buriall of the body in water, where the Baptiſme of the Goſpel of Chriſt is rightly adminiſtred, otherwiſe it is none of the Baptiſme of Chriſt, and the Apoſtles, and Primitive Churches. The late Annotators are much to be commended for their honeſt and upright dealing with the Scripture herein, upon this 4 verſe of the 6. Romans, theſe words, Buried with him by Baptiſme, in this phraſe, ſay they, the Apoſtle ſeemeth to allude to the antient manner of Baptiſm, which was to dip the parties baptiſed, and as it were to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up, to repreſent the buriall of our old Man, and our Reſurrection to newneſs of life. Again, upon the 8. of Acts 38. theſe words, They both went down into the water, and he baptiſed him: They were wont, ſay they, to go… down into the water, and dip the whole body: As in the 3. Math. 16. So that their judgement of the Text there alſo; And Jeſus when he was baptized went up ſtraight way out of the water. I ſay, their judgement is, that his body was dipt by John in Jordan, and who can think otherwiſe with reaſon, for to what purpoſe ſhould he go to the River to be baptiſed, but becauſe there would be a want of much water? And how clear is this apprehenſion to an unprejudiced mind, ſince that the abundance of water is given for the reaſon of Johns baptiſing at Enon. John 3.23. And John alſo was baptiſing in Enon, near to Salim, becauſe there was MƲCH WATER there.
But beſides, the 3. Math. 16. ſaith of Jeſus, that when he was baptiſed he went Up ſtraitway OUT of the water. And ſo Mark 1.9, 10. and how could he be ſaid to go up out of the water, except he firſt went down into it? As the Scripture ſaith expreſly of Phillip and the Eunuch, I ſay as expreſly as they can ſpeak, read elſe Acts 8.38 And Phillip and the Eunuch went both DOWN INTO the water, and he baptiſed him, and when they were come Up OUT of the water: And can any body with any ſhew of reaſon conceive, that they went down into the water to be ſprinkled of the face. Juſtin Martyr therefore telleth us, that in their Baptiſme they were BORN of water, which he propoundeth as their practiſe from the Primitive cuſtome.Mr. Baxſter Saints Reſt p. 179. Now the whole man its coming out of the womb of the water, hath a perfect Analogy to a natural birth, to which he doth allude; but in the ſprinkling of the face there is no likeneſs at all to any ſuch thing as a birth. Calvin himſelf, as much a friend as he was to Infant-ſprinkling, yet was ſo honeſt, as to affirm, its practiſe was not from the Word of God, but the CHURCH HER TAKING TO HER SELF THE LIBERTY, meaning, to vary from the Apoſtolick practiſe, which was by plunging the body into the water, and this he acknowledgeth from Acts 8.38. Phillip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and coming up out of it;Com. upon the Acts p. 208. and did not Calvin underſtand the original? And doth he not further plainly ſay, this practiſe was taken up ſince the beginning, for of old the rite was to put all the body into the water.
Or what if ſo be, that the words tranſlated INTO and OUT OF, may from the Originall be rendred UNTO and FROM, doth it follow, that they muſt needs be ſo rendred in this place, or was they ever ſo tranſlated by any one, ſince the new Teſtament was put into Engliſh? and indeed how can it be with any reaſon thought they ſhould be ſo, ſince it is plain, they were come unto the water before this is affirmed of them, that they went down into it, by v. 36. which ſaith, they came unto a certain water, and the Eunuch ſaid, lo here is water.
But 2. Suppoſe the words ſhould be ſo tranſlated here, would that force us to beleive they went but to the water ſide, and not into the water, and that they came but from the water ſide, and not UP out of the Element of water; beſides, the cry of the Scriptures, lately mentioned, and the judgements of learned men upon them, which Mr. Baxſter well knoweth; ſurely every body that goeth into the water goeth unto it firſt.
Mr. Baxſter alloweth the cuſtome of the Primitive times are patterns to us, (with the limitation formerly ſpoken of) p. 135. of his plain Scripture proof, arguing againſt the neceſſity of dipping, ſaith:
1. It is not yet proved by any, that dipping was the Primitive practiſe, which is ſtrange, ſince he himſelf giveth us the judgement of Juſtin Martyr as orthodox, who relating their way of baptiſing from the Primitive times, p. 129. of Saints Reſt, ſaith, That they are brought to the water, and are BORN again, or baptiſed, doth not that imply their dipping? how elſe is there the leaſt reſemblance between an ordinary birth and their baptiſme? and is not an Analogy therein aimed at? but I referre the Reader to what hath been ſaid to this point already: but I cannot but much wonder, that Mr. Baxſter ſhould ſay, that the Jaylour was baptiſed in his houſe, doth the Scripture ſay ſo? read Acts 16.33. And he took them the ſame hour of the night, and waſhed their ſtripes, and was baptiſed he and all his ſtrait way; but where he was baptiſed is not ſet down.
But the next words rather give us, that it was not in the houſe, becauſe preſently after the mention of his baptiſme the Text ſaith, He brought them into the houſe, ſo that though this Text ſpeaketh clearly, onelyonly to his being baptiſed preſently upon beleiving, not to the place where, or the manner how, yet it giveth more ground to beleive it was done out of doors than in the houſe.
But what need we grope in the dark? doth not the light ſhine bright from other Scriptures, why ſhould we think the Jaylors baptiſme to differ from all other mens.
But Mr. Baxſter objecteth further, that the River Enon (where the Text ſaith was MUCH water, which alſo is given for the reaſon why John baptiſed there) Travellers ſay, is a ſmall brook that a man may almoſt ſtep over.
Whatever Travellers ſay, I hope Mr. Baxſter, that hath written ſo much to prove the Scriptures truth, will beleive the plain Word of God, namely, that there was much water there then, when John baptiſed there, whatever there may be when the Traveller was there. There might be much water there when John baptiſed there, as doubtleſs there was, or the Scripture would not ſay ſo, and yet little enough when the Traveller paſs'd that way that Mr Baxſter ſpeaketh of.
Doth not the Scriptures ſay, Pſalm 107.33, 34. He turneth Rivers into a wilderneſs, and the water ſprings into dry ground, for the wickedneſs of them that dwell therein? Nay, doth he not threaten the Jewes, Pſalm 42.15. That he would dry up their pooles, and promiſe, when he reſtoreth them, that he will make their thirſty lands ſprings? Iſaiah 35 7. Their preſent drineſs then is no argument that there was not much water in Johns dayes.
But honeſt Reader, is not this an ugly ſuggeſtion, infinitely diſparaging the Scriptures? Is the report of Travellers any thing to us, againſt the expreſs Word of God, and doth not Mr. Baxſter urge the report of Travellers as conſiderable to the contrary, of what is written in the Word? I offer not this as any Argument, that Mr. Baxſter hath not a due eſteem of the Scripture, No, no, I pray God ſtrengthen my faith in them, and make it equall to his; he is a perſon that my ſoul honoureth, for his edge God-ward; but to ſhew the Reader what cauſe he hath to ſuſpect that cauſe, that putteth ſuch learned men, as Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Baxſter is, upon ſuch ſtrange adventures to make it good. In the mean time, thou canſt not lightly but ſee, that we have the plain words of Scripture on our ſide, that their mouth is open, and their heart enlarged, to juſtifie our practiſe, but they will neither be courted nor forced to ſpeak againſt us.
But Mr. Baxſter further objecteth againſt the neceſſity of dipping, thus,P. 135. of plain Scripture. The thing ſignified is ſet forth by the phraſe of waſhing or ſprinkling, and the ſign need not exceed the thing ſignified: I confeſs the ſign need not exceed the thing ſignified; but it is farre from the truth, that ſprinkling, or any waſhing that is not by dipping can be any ſign of all the holy thing ſignified in baptiſme, which is plainly ſet down in the 6. Roman. 4 and Coloſ. 2.12. Being buried with him in Baptiſme, wherein alſo you are riſen with him: If the Baptiſme of the New Teſtament, ſealed in Chriſts hears bloud, be the ſign of Death, Buriall and Reſurrection, then is not ſprinkling, or any waſhing that is not by dipping, ſufficient to ſignifie it, but the Baptiſme of the New Teſtament is a ſign of Death, Buriall and Reſurrection, 'tis plain in the Text; Mr. Baxſter acknowledgeth both theſe Scriptures to be meant of water Baptiſme, p. 342. Of his Scripture proof.
As for thoſe Scriptures, namely, 1 Corrinth. 6.11. Titus 3.5. with ſome others,P. 135. Of Scripture proof. which Mr. Baxſter inſtanceth in, as hinting the ſpiritual good things ſignified by Baptiſme; I acknowledge they reſpect a part of the good things ſignified by baptiſme, namely, the ſoules cleanſing from ſin by Chriſts bloud, but not all, nor indeed half what he intended to ſignifie by Baptiſme.
But what ſhould the reaſon be, that Mr. Baxſters deſign being to enumerate the Scriptures, ſpeaking of the holy thing ſignified in baptiſme, ſhould leave out the two grand capital Scriptures to the point, namely, Coloſ. 2.12. Roman. 6.34. Is it not, becauſe his opinion cannot look them in the face without bluſhing? there being no ſign of Death, Buriall or Reſurrection, or any ſuch like thing in ſprinkling.
Oh that Mr. Baxſter would lay to heart this one conſideration, and conſider once again the high and holy deſign of Chriſt in Baptiſme, which conſidered evinceth againſt all contradiction, that the form can be no other, but by dipping, or burying the body in water: his deſign, what is it, but to make the Goſpel word, and the Goſpel figure to anſwer one another, as face anſwereth face in the water, and to be brother Preachers of the ſame doctrine,1 Cor. 15 3 Rom. 4.25. Compared with Rom. 6.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. Col. 3.1. namely, the death of Chriſt for ſinners, and the ſinners duly to die to ſin, and to ſuffer for and with Chriſt? Chriſts reſurrection for the ſinners juſtification, the ſinners duly to riſe to Chriſts life here, becauſe of the bleſſed aſſurance of a glorious reſu…rection to eternal bliſſe with Chriſt hereafter; all which holy doctrine, which is the ſubſtance of the Goſpel, is preached in baptiſme,P. 177. Caſes of Conſcience. as well as the Word, which maketh Mr. Perkins ſay thus, The preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments, are all one in ſubſtance, for in the one the will of God is SEEN, and in the other HEARD.
Now where is the will of God touching Chriſts Death, Buriall and Reſurrection, and our death, buriall and reſurrection with him, ſeen in the ſprinkling of childrens faces? Oh that we had an impartiall Judge!
The Apoſtle affirmeth of the Goſpel, 2 Cori…h. 3.18 That we all with open face behold, as in a glaſſe, the glory of the Lord. And doth not the Apoſtle chiefly intend the Sacraments of the Goſpel by the metaphor of a glaſs, becauſe they reſpect the eye as a glaſs doth, whereas the Word preached reſpecteth the care? And if we do but conſider why Chriſt would have the Goſpel preached (namely, to affect the hearts and ſoules of men with the goodneſs thereof) It will eaſily appear, that the form of baptiſme can be no other but by dipping, becauſe in any other way the ſign will no way anſwer the thing ſignified, and ſo the glaſs being defaced, the heart is not affected by the eye for want of a reſemblance, whereas otherwiſe the Ordinances being adminiſtred, according to the laſt will of Chriſt, where there is a full correſpondence between ſign and thing ſignified, they goe hand in hand with the Word, excellently aiding and aſſiſting the holy deſign of the Word preached, when adminiſtred upon the right Goſpel ſubject, namely; a converted Diſciple to Chriſt, which Mr. Baxſter, p. 301. of plain Scripture proof, calleth, the moſt fully capab…e ſubjects, the moſt eminent ſubjects, the moſt excellent ſubiects, and of whom the Scripture fully ſpeaketh: In the ſame place complaineth of Infant baptiſme, as dark in Scripture, and hard to find, notwithſtanding his flouriſh of plain Scripture proof for it.
Be aſtoniſht therefore oh ye heavens, and horribly afraid oh earth, that ſuch a ſilly Worm as Man is, ſuch a thimble full of duſt, ſhould dare to change Chriſts Ordinances, and deface that glaſſe, which repreſenteth Chriſts glory, and blurre the laſt will of him before whoſe judgement ſeat they muſt all appear to be judged, 2 Cor. 5.10and receive according to all the deeds done in the body: Are ye ſtronger than he?
Your ſixth Conſideration being the very ſelf ſame in ſubſtance with the firſt, I referre the Reader to my Anſwer to that, in which thou ſhalt find the Anſwer to this alſo, onelyonly there is a remarkable paſſage in the beginning of it, which I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak to, when I come to anſwer the 18th Conſideration.
Your ſeventh Conſideration for ſubſtance this: THat in the 6. of Hebr. 2. the word Baptiſmes, which is there reckoned amongſt the foundations, or beginning doctrines of Chriſt, being in the plurall number, it is not eaſie to determine, whether by it be not meant variety of formes in baptiſing, or a variety of ſubjects of Baptiſme, rather than a variety of Baptiſmes.
To which I anſwer, why ſhould that be hard to you or any man elſe which the Scripture hath made eaſie?
As for variety of ſubjects the Scripture is ſilent, we read of no ſubjects, but diſcipled perſons, made ſo by teaching. For variety of formes of baptiſing Diſciples, where is there any ſuch thing ſo much as whiſpered? But as for variety of Baptiſmes, that the Scripture ſpeaketh fully too, though but one proper reall Baptiſme, namely, that with water,Math. 3.11. Luke 12.5… which is the Ordinance of the Church, the other, namely, that of the Spirit and afflictions, being metaphorical, and by way of Analogy, to that which is reall and proper, is called Baptiſme; yet Dr. Luſ…ington upon the place ſaith, that the Siriac Tranſlation rendreth the word Baptiſme in the ſingular number: but be it otherwiſe, why ſhould we take hedge and ditch, when the Kings high-way lieth juſt before us.