Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Wherein the Author attempts to prove that the Ceremony of Baptiſm, is Immerſion, and not Sprinkling; which is an other Rite, he ſaith) introduced contrary to the ſignification of the Word, and Nature of the Ordinance, &c.
SInce the Author hath thought meet to appear thus as a Witneſs againſt Infant-Baptiſm, it had been well if he had followed the good old Rule injoyned Witneſſes, that is, to ſpeak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; and for want of which he hath given ſuch a partial and lame account hitherto. We are now come to a main point, upon which they place very much confidence, viz. the ſignification of the Word Baptiſm, and the Author undertakes to prove, that the Manner and Ceremony thereof ought to be by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body, and not by Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face or Head.
1. From the proper and genuine ſignification of the Word, which according to the Greek Lexicons, and the moſt eminent Criticks, he ſaith, imports nothing leſs than to Dip, Plung, or cover all over. And that Scapula and Stephens, two as great Maſters of the Greek tongue as we have any, tell us in their Lexicons, that foreign from foreign ſignifies mergo, immergo, obruo, Item tingo, quod fit immergendo, that is, to dip plunge; overwhelm, put-under, cover-over, to dye in Colour, which is done by plunging.
Anſwer.
To this we Oppoſe Dr. Featly in his foreign pag. 37. who ſaith, that Heſychius and Stephanus, and Scapula, and Budaeus, the great Maſters of the Greek Tongue, make good by many inſtances and allegations out of Claſſick Writers, that the Word [foreign] importeth no more than Ablution, or Waſhing, which may be done without Dipping. Now what a caſe is the illiterate Reader in? who ſhall he believe, the Author or the Learned Dr.? For my part being not willing to take up the matter upon truſt, I was the more curious to examine the Criticks.
Firſt, I conſulted with Stephanus, and he ſaith the Word foreign, ſignifies not only mergo, immergo, (to dip, or plung) but alſo abluo, lavo, (to wet, or waſh) and in the ſame place in his Lexicon he brings in Cyprian (who flouriſhed about 1500 years ſince) tranſlating the Word foreign, Tingentes, following therein his Maſter Tertullian; Corpus tingere ſparſâ aquâ Ovid. 4. Faſt. p. 558.and ſaith Stephens, Tingere apud prophanos Authores, idem eſt quod aſpergere, the Word tingere, among Heathen-Writers ſignifies Sprinkling, as he ſhews out of Ovid and Cicero.
For Paſſor the Author tells us,Nec enim Herculi nocere Deianira voluit, quum ei tunicam ſanguine Centauri tinctam dedit, Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 98. he Tranſlates the Word by Immerſion, Dipping, Submerſion, but he hath left out Ablution, or Waſhing, which Paſſor there adds, foreign, ſaith he, is Immergo, Abluo, either to dip, or to Waſh.
After him comes Voſſius, who is moſt expreſly againſt the Author's Opinion. The Word, ſaith Voſſius, ſignifies to Waſh, and Waſhing is not only by dipping as he hints, but by pouring out of Water, or ſprinkling it on the Body, and repreſents the waſhing of the Soul, according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you; and therefore it ſeems Baptiſm may be celebrated either way, by Dipping or Sprinkling.
Then for our own Country-men Mr. Leigh, Rogers, Taylor, Mede, Hammond: 'tis tedious to examine them all. We will only bring one of them to the teſt which is Mr. Leigh, who is inſtar omnium, for profound knowledg in the Greek and Hebrew. This Man the Author glories in: Mr. Leigh, ſaith he, in his Critica Sacra, tells us, its proper and native ſignification is to Dip into Water, or to plung under Water, and that the proper ſignification was ſuch a Dipping or Plunging as Dyers uſe for dying of Cloathes.
True Mr. Leigh ſays this, but he ſaith more, and 'tis disingenuouſly done of the Author thus to pick out what ſerves his turn, and leave the Reader in the dark as to the reſt. When-as Mr. Leigh ſaith in the very beginning, as ſoon as he names the Word foreign, that although it be derived from foreign, to Dip, or Plung, and ſignifies primarily ſuch a kind of Waſhing as is uſed in Buks, where linnen is Plunged and Dipt; yet it is taken more largely for any kind of Waſhing or Cleanſing, even where there is no Dipping at all: and he quotes theſe Scriptures for it, Matth. 3.20, 22. Mark. 7.4. foreign, They Baptized themſelves, it is rendred Waſhed themſelves; and ſo did eat. So Mark. 10.38. Luke 3.16. Act. 1.5. and 11.16. 1 Cor. 10.2. It is put generally for Waſhing ſaith Mr. Leigh, as Luke 11.38. Heb. 9.10. Chriſt no-where requireth Dipping, but only Baptizing, as he quotes out of Dr. Featly.
Thou ſeeeſt, Reader, how little he hath gotten by theſe Authors. I ſhall add a few more of great renown in the Church, who are oppoſite to the conceit of Baptizing to ſignify only Dipping. The firſt is Cyprian, Baptizare etiam morbis laborantes in lectis ſolitos. Cyp. in Epiſt. ad Magnum. L. 4. Epiſt. 7. indicat, & pro Baptiſmo probat. & ſic Baptizatum Cornelius Novatum ſcribit apud Euſeb. L. 6. Cap. 43. qui ſic autem Baptiz ablantur, inquit Voſſius, non immergebantur nec perfundebantur, ſed aquâ ſolâ aſpergebantur, &c. Voſſius de Baptiſmo. p. 358.who in his Epiſtle ad Magnum L. 4. Epiſt. 7. acquaints us that it was uſual in thoſe dayes to Baptize ſick Perſons in their Beds, and the ſaid Father proves by divers reaſons the warrantableneſs of ſuch Baptiſm; and that perſons are rightly Baptized although only Sprinkled, and he grounds it upon Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you &c. In like manner Voſſius cites out of Euſebius, L. 6. C. 43. That it was the Cuſtom of thoſe times to Baptize ſick Perſons in their Beds. Cornelius writes that Novatus was ſo Baptized, upon which the Learned Voſſius makes this Obſervation; That thoſe who were thus Baptized were not douſed or dipt under Water, but only Sprinkled. This is Voſſius whom the Author brings to be for Dipping, according to the ſignification of the Word, as if that were the only way of Baptizing; but you ſee what a falſe Suggeſtion it is.
Eſtius another very Learned Man, and great Critick, declares his Judgment,Probat Eſtius modum ablutionis, ſcilicet aſperſionis exemplo Apoſtolorum, Act. 2. Sane interalios Thomae Aquinati veriſtmile eſt aquâ perſudiſſe, ob Baptizandorum multitudinem, Voſſius de Bap. p. 359. grounding it on Act. 2.4. which is this, That the Apoſtles did Baptize by Waſhing or Sprinkling, for, ſaith he, it is altogether improbable that the Apoſtles Dipt 3000 Perſons in one day, and 5000 at another time. Non eſt veriſimile propter Multitudinem immergi omnes potuiſſe, ſed vel perfuſos, vel aſperſos fuiſſe aquâ. He conceived that they were rather waſhed, or had Water Sprinkled on them.
Walfridus Strabo, (an Ancient Eccleſiaſtical Writer, though ſince Auſtin many hundred years) ſaith in his 26th Chapter, It is to be noted that many heretofore were Baptized, not only by Dipping, but alſo by pouring Water on them; and that the ſame way of Baptizing may be ſtill retained. This is he whom the Author quotes to be for the Baptizing of grown Perſons only.
Laſtly, the Magdeburgenſes (whoſe Hiſtory of the Church the Author much applauds, and that juſtly being a rare work indeed) tell us that Baptiſm ſignifies Tinging, or Waſhing, and for this they bring Mark. 7. when the Phariſees come to the Market except they Waſh [the Word is Baptize] they eat not, and yet it was but a part, their hands only, and not the whole Body that was ſo Baptized or Waſhed. They alſo quote that place Luke, 11.38. That Baptizing is meerly Waſhing, and not only Dipping, The Phariſees wondered at Jeſus foreign, that he was not Baptized before Dinner, that is, that he did not Waſh. Now this muſt be by all means (according to ſome men's fancy) by Dipping and not pouring Water upon the hands; yet what more common than to Waſh ones hands this way, or by holding them under a Cock or Spout or Youre, 2 Kings 3.11. Here is Eliſha the Son of Saphat, which poured Water on the hands of Elijah: that is, who was his Servant as 'tis noted in the Margent. It is a very poor Suppoſition that Waſhing of hands muſt only be by Dipping; what if the Phariſees had had a mind to have Waſhed their Faces when they did their Hands, as is common; muſt that have been by Dipping? But the aforeſaid Text in the Kings puts the matter beyond exception, where by good hap we have found a place, to prove that a Man may Waſh his Hands without Dipping.
In a Metaphorical ſenſe the Word (Baptize) is uſed for Pouring out the Spirit. But to go on with the Magdeburgenſes, they tell us that the Baptiſm of Chriſtians was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewiſh Cuſtom of Waſhings: which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Heb. 9.10. Their ſervice ſtood in divers Waſhings. The Greek is Baptiſms. Now thoſe Baptiſms or Waſhings were not all of them Dippings; although ſome 'tis confeſt were. Mr. Goodwin in his Jewiſh Antiquities ſhews, that the Jews had (amongſt other Baptiſms or Waſhings) a three-fold Baptization for the Dead; one of which was named foreign, that is, Baptization or Waſhing the Dead Corps: 'tis like this was done with ſome Odoriſerous Water, to keep off ill ſcents. Thus likewiſe the Graecians had their Ablutio mortuorum, Homer ſaith, Jupiter: bid them do ſo to Sarpedon. foreign Il. 11.they Waſhed the Corps with Oyntment, and poured Ambroſia upon the Head and Face. 'Tis ſaid of Tabitha, that ſhe dyed and when they had Waſhed her, they laid her up in an upper Chamber, Act. 9.37. I hope when they waſhed her, they did not Dip her under water.
2. It appears to be ſo, ſaith he, from the Practice and uſage we find thereof in Scripture.
1. In the Story of Chriſt's Baptiſm, Mat. 3.5. Jeſus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him; and verſe 16. when he was Baptized he went up ſtraight way out of the Water.
Anſwer.
We may be ſaid to come up out of the water, when we have not been under it. Men uſually go down into the water to bath themſelves, and and yet keep their Heads above water; but the Words in the Text which are foreign, as Mr. Sydenham notes, may be better tranſlated, went up from the water; foreign ſignifies more properly; ab from, than ex out; becauſe Rivers for the moſt part lye low, and in Vallies, in coming to which uſually there is a deſcent, and coming from them ſome aſcent.
2. A Second Scripture, which he urgeth for his Opinion is that of John 3. verſe. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salem, and the reaſon why he pitcheth on this place, is given to be, is this, becauſe there was much Water.
Reply.
The aforeſaid Author gives a ſufficient Anſwer to this, viz. John's Baptizing at Aenon, namely becauſe there was much water, is a good reaſon why he choſe that place, for the Country to come in and be Baptized, becauſe they might go many Miles in thoſe hot Countries, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a great priviledg to thoſe places that banked on Jordan, that they had much water, but this is no Argument to prove that John plunged all he Baptized, The Argument, ſaith Mr. Sydenham, muſt be this, John Baptized in Aenon becauſe there was much water: ergo Baptizing is by Dipping all the whole Body. This is a dangerous and ominous way of arguing, to thoſe who deny Conſequences and Deductions for to warrant duties, without expreſs ſyllabical Precept — None of our Conſequences for Infant-Baptiſm are ſo ſtrained and far-fetcht. It was neceſſary for them, that had ſo many of ſeveral parts to Baptize, to go where there may be much water, when they could get hardly a drop many miles. You may in England go twenty miles in ſome Countries, and not find a River to plunge a man's whole body under water, what would it be in Spain and other hot Countries, where Water is ſold as Wine and beere with us, how far might they go ere they could get a River to plunge themſelves in? &c.
A third Scripture is that, Act. 8.36.38. — And they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him, and when they came up both out of the Water. &c.
Anſwer.
I ſee not how this Text can ſerve their turn, for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head & ears; if they will prove it from any thing it muſt be from their going down into the Water, or coming up out of it; but that will not do, for I may go down into the Water, and come up again out of it, and yet not be up to my Ankles: and how can it be proved hence they went any farther, or whether Philip did not flaſh water into his Face, or caſt it over his Head, or whether he dipt only his Head, or his whole Body under water; the Scripture is ſilent as to this, and Men may conjecture what they pleaſe, but muſt not impoſe upon others. The Text faith, they both went down into the Water, but their going down into water was no part of the Baptiſm, for then they had both been Baptized: for they went both together down into the water, but it is ſaid that Philip Baptized him after they went down into the water. That the Eunuch was Baptized is clear, but after what manner we are yet to ſeek. We cannot from hence learn the management of this buſineſs, whether Philip took up this great corpulent Perſon (for ſuch Eunuchs uſe to be) quite out of the water by the ſtrength of his Arms, and ſo Dipped down again or no, or whether ſo much of him only as was above the water was Dipt, & that of him under the water left alone. And beſides, as for this Eunuch, if his whole body were Dipt whether it were in puris naturalibus, altogether naked, or in his wearing cloaths, this latter cannot be conceived for they went preſently up in the Chariot, nor could he have any conveniency of ſhift for ſuch a purpoſe, for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuch's part: ſo that we conclude, nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text.
The laſt Scripture the Author mentions is tha Rom. 6.4. Buried with him in Baptiſm, &c.
This is a Metaphorical expreſſion ſignifying partaking of Chriſt's Death by vertue of Union, but Plunging the whole body doth not hold ſimilitude neither with Chriſt's burial, nor the manner of burials in the moſt part of the World: for as Mr. Sydenham notes, Chriſt's burial, and the manner of it was not by throwing under the Earth, for his Body was wrapt up in a linnen-cloth by Joſeph, and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre, hewen out of a Rock, and this was the cuſtom of the Jews, Matt. 27.60. to cut out a place like a Cave, out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in; and beſides, Chriſt is ſaid to ſtay three days ſo buried, and ſo muſt they under the water, if they are for an exact reſemblance to his Burial; but of this we may have occaſion to ſpeak more in our Anſwer to the 6th Chapter.
After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors, who affirm that the ancient way of Baptizing was by Dipping, as Cajetan &c. And amongſt the reſt he hath a paſſage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fabian viz. That Auſtin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent, and the River Swall, where note by the way (ſaith Mr. Fox) it followed there was no uſe of Fonts.
To this I Anſwer, there could not well be any uſe of Fonts, becauſe as Bede ſays, it was in initio Eccleſiae ubi jam cito templa [non potuerunt extrui, it was before Temples were built, and therefore ſaith he, paſſim ad Flumina turba Baptizata eſt, Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hiſt. cap. 14. And I ſhall mind the Reader with a pretty Obſervation of Mr. Fuller upon this occaſion; we have it in his Church-Hiſtory, p. 66.
That (ſaith he) which they bring for Dipping, becauſe they were Baptized in the River Swall, makes againſt it. For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. cites a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in York-ſhire, Auſtin in one day Baptized above tenthouſand Saxons— Though Bede aſcribes this numerous Baptizing to Paulinus Arch-Biſhop of York. Now, faith he, if ſo many were Baptized it may be well urged againſt the Anabaptiſts and Papiſts; againſt the former, that all theſe could not be dipt in a day; and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Adminiſtration of the Sacrament was not loaded with thoſe Superſtitious Ceremonies, as eſſential thereunto, of Croſſing, Spittle, Oyl, Cream, Salt, &c.
Laſtly, the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf, which he undertakes to Anſwer thus.
Objection.
But the Word foreign ſignifies if not to Sprinkle, yet not only to Dip, and overwhelm, but alſo to Waſh. Mark, 7.4. where there is mention of Waſhing of Hands, Cups, Pots, Veſſels, which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water.
Anſwer.
That Baptiſm in a ſence is Waſhing, ſaith he, I no ways doubt, for you can not dip a thing without you waſh it: But may not Cups and Veſſels be waſhed though not dipt? True (ſaith he) they may though not from this Scripture, the Word being foreign; for though all Dipping be Waſhing, yet all Waſhing is not Dipping in a proper ſenſe.
Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very ingenious and logical, you are now at your termini convertibiles, where ſhall we have you next? No wonder that (as ſome boaſt) you convert many to your Judgment. But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way: What think you of that place Luk. 3.16. I Baptize you [with Water] if by Baptiſm had been meant Dipping, muſt it not have been ſaid I Baptize you [in Water]?
Once more Act. 1.5. John Baptized [with Water] is not this a very improper ſpeech if it be meant of dipping, for 'tis as much as to ſay John Dipt with Water— The ſame may be ſaid of Chriſt's coming after John, whom, he ſaith, ſhall Baptize with the Spirit; is this to be underſtood of Dipping, or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was promiſed?
If this will not ſatisfy, I ſhall offer one Text more, and that I think is beyond exception; it is concerning Nebuchadnezzar; Dan. 4.30. of whom it is ſaid he did eat graſs as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven, foreign as the Septuagint hath it: foreign is here rendred Wet, and that with the Dew of Heaven: It is the ſecond Aoriſt of foreign, from whence comes foreign. So now we have found that which the Author ſaid he could never do, namely, that the word is ſimply taken for Waſhing, by pouring on Water, or Sprinkling; for if the Root ſignifies ſo, then doth the Branch alſo. And thus my Antagoniſt having ſhewn ſo much of his Acumen in the Greek, he will alſo give us a taſt of his skill in the Myſtery of Huſwifry.
I preſume, ſaith he, you will account her but a S…lut, and give her no thanks for her pains, that having unclean Hands, Veſſels, or Cloaths to Waſh, doth only Sprinkle, or pour a little Water upon them as though that would ſerve.
'Tis a commendable thing to be cleanly, and let all Maids take ſpecial notice of this item, and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts, let them be mindful of this that when ever they ſet about that neceſſary work of Waſhing Diſhes to look well to their buſineſs, and let them be ſure they dip them quite under water, or they will never be clean: and I queſtion whether this will do without ſome rinſing and rubbing, for I have obſerved your cleanly Huſwifes to fetch off the filth that way, and then they will ſhine like Chryſtal, if afterward they ſcoure them with Sand. But we muſt be more ferious in a buſineſs of this nature, and I hope to be excuſed, being tempted thus 10 Anſwer our Author in his own kind. I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the conſideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men muſt needs fill themſelves full of Bread and Wine, becauſe it beſt ſignifies the fulneſs of Chriſt; ſo it is no better to ſay, that we muſt needs be waſhed all over becauſe it beſt ſignifies the fulneſs of Chriſt. Chriſt told Peter that the Waſhing of his Feet was enough to cleanſe all.
Eight Argument againſt the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm by Dipping.
1. BEcauſe we are not to preſume to do that which is not written, that is, that is not founded upon Scripture-precept, either Thetice, in ſo many expreſs words, or Dianoetice, by clear conſequence: They will not allow us the priviledg of deducting Conſequences from Scripture, although never ſo clear, yet they preſume to make uſe of Conſequences, and think they can demonſtrate that which is impoſſible to be done, from Scripture. There is a poſitive ſaying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word [foreign] Chriſt nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptizing, and as for the manner and method how this ſhould be done, there is altum Silentium in the Scripture, a deep ſilence: and therefore 'tis I very great boldneſs, (to ſay no worſe,) for any to lay the whole eſſence of Baptiſm in Dipping.
2. As there is no expreſs Command for it, ſo there is no Preſident in the New-Teſtament; they cannot inſtance in any one Perſon that ever was ſo ſeverely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears. Nor is there any convincing Circumſtances to be collected thence, that any was ſo ſerved. And is it not ſtrange that upon ſearch of all the Sacred Regiſter, from the time that John the Baptiſt began his Miniſtery, to the time that John the Evangeliſt ended his, which was above ſixty years, during which time thouſands and ten thouſands were Baptized; that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way, then no error ever ſhould be committed, no fainting, or drowning of perſons under water, or ſome accident or another happen, to demonſtrate that Baptizing was after that manner. Me thinks there ſhould fall out ſomething, either of Omiſſion or Commiſſion, that might argue the thing. But we have not ſo much as one Circumſtance of that nature.
3. Becauſe as the Word foreign ſignifies both to Plunge and to Waſh, ſo it is moſtly uſed in Scripture for Waſhing. It is a good Rule to be obſerved that when we find a word in Scripture of a double ſence, and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio, ſo that we know not which to take, our ſafeſt courſe is then to obſerve which way the Scale doth moſt incline, that is we are to imbrace that ſence which is moſt common in Scripture. But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loſs, for we ſhall not eaſily find any explicite place in all the Bible, where the Word Baptize is uſed poſitively for Plunging.
4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to ſignify Dipping, yet for aſmuch as it is alſo in Scripture uſed ſimply for Waſhing, we are alſo to obſerve and follow another Theological Rule, that where a word is of doubtful interpretation, admitting a double ſenſe, that ſenſe is to be taken for right, which agrees beſt with the Mind of God in other places; and the general Anatogy of Faith, and Evangelical Doctrine. Hence then we conclude that Baptizing is not Dipping, becauſe this Practice runs directly croſs to a Vital Maxime of Religion, which is ſelf-preſervation, required not only in the Moral-Law, but Charactered in us by Nature: and under the Evangelical Diſpenſation, we find our Lord Jeſus ſo tender of Man's health and life, that rather than it ſhould be endangered, even the Sabbath it ſelf muſt be diſpenſed with; and the Reaſon Chriſt gives is, becauſe Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man; ſo may it be ſaid Man was not made for Baptiſm, but Baptiſm Inſtituted for Man, for his good, not hurt; and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of ſome Mens health, but the loſs of ſome lives, is to be ſuſpected to be none of Chriſt's Ordinances. And for this Reaſon Mr Cradock (a great Independent as they call them) in his Treatiſe of Goſpel-Liberty, ſaith, the Practice is to be reſtrained by the Magiſtrate, for the preſervation of the lives of his Subjects.
Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle, and we ſhall ſee how inconſiſtent it may in ſome caſes be to the Life of Man.
1. We know the Command of Baptizing takes place immediatly upon Believing; for this is certain, every one that Believeth ought preſently to be Baptized (if he can have it) for ſo it was without delay, as appears by ſeveral Inſtances in the Acts of the Apoſtles. If then only Dipping be Baptizing, what ſhall become of them that are weak and ſickly, that have Catarrhs, Conſumptions, Palſies; Theſe, if they Believe, although it be in Winter, in froſt and ſnow, muſt to the work without any delay, they muſt I ſay be covered all over with water: and if ſo, may not this haſten their end, which may endanger the lives of the ſoundeſt Bodies? Is this think you ſuitable to the mercy & tender Bowels of Chriſt, whoſe Yoke is eaſy and Burden light? Certainly ſuch a penance as this to ſome Perſons and to thoſe that live in extream cold Countries, is more unſupportable than the burthen of the Ceremonial-Law, and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited. And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more ſevere Climat, yet we muſt know Chriſt's Ordinances are calculated for all Meridians, and all are bound to ſubmit unto them. That therefore cannot be Chriſt's Ordinance, which muſt needs compel ſome to ſelf-cruelty and deſtruction. To thoſe therefore who are ſuch ſtubborn aſſerters of the Doctrine of Dipping, that of Peter may be well applyed, Why tempt ye God, to put ſuch a Yoke upon the necks of Chriſtians, not able to bear it, when nothing elſe but your miſtaken expounding of the Text hath brought it on them? what then Mr. Baxter ſpeaks in reſpect of weak Conſtitutions, is (for ought I know) a truth, viz. The way of Dipping is good for nothing but to diſpatch Men out of the World, that are burdenſome to it, and to ranken Church-yards.
Secondly, Baptiſm cannot be by way of Dipping, becauſe Chriſt hath Inſtituted no Ordinance, to thwart and croſs the pure and chaſt Rules of the Goſpel, which prohibits all appearances of evil, and the unclean glances of the Eye. Can we therefore imagine that Chriſt's Baptiſm ſhould intrench ſo much upon the laws of Civility, Chaſtity, and Modeſty; as to require Women and Maids, to appear openly, in the light o the Sun, out of their wonted habit, in tranſparent and thin Garments next to nakedneſs, and in that poſture to be Plunged, in the face of the whole Congregation, before Men and Boys? for my part I cannot bring my ſelf to believe that Chriſt owneth any Practice of ſo uncomely an aſpect, and that is ſeemingly ſo ſcandalous and ignominious to the honour of Chriſtianity.
5. Chriſt's Ordinances are calculated for the Univerſal World, for the Inhabitants of all Countries, and on that conſideration, I ſee not how Dipping can be one of them: for how can Perſons be ſtrictly obliged to that in all places, which cannot be practiſed but in ſome, and that too at certain times; for ſome Countries are ſo hot and dry, that People muſt travel many miles before they can find any River up to their Knees, and in other places at Winter the water is frozen up, that the Ice cannot be perforated or broken up.
6. I cannot think that by Baptizing we are to underſtand Dipping under water: for the prime end of Baptiſm (as the Author ſaith Chap. 4th of his firſt Part, pag. 15.) is, that the Baptized might have the Myſteries of the Goſpel repreſented in a ſign, and preacht to his Eye in the Ordinance, which hath been Preacht to his Ear. But what of that can be ſeen or apprehended at that time when the Ordinance is celebrated? how can any one, eſpecially ſuch as are timorous, and of the weaker Sex, be free to exerciſe their Minds or Faith upon Divine Myſteries? What can ſuch think of, but their danger, and how they ſhall eſcape being throtled or drowned? And I cannot conceive (if there were nothing but this) that Chriſt hath inſtituted an Ordinance, that ſhall ſo confound the ſenſes, and put tender folks into ſuch an afright and amaze for the preſent, and at ſuch a time when they had need have their minds moſt ſerene to contemplat of the glorious Myſteries repreſented in the Ordinance.
7. Baptizing cannot be by Dipping, for if ſo, then the Body muſt be either naked, or cloathed: if cloated, then certainly the perſon is not Baptized but his Cloathes; for Voſſius ſays true, de Baptiſmo pag. 357. Baptiſmus non veſtium eſt, ſed humani corporis: Baptiſm is not that of the Cloaths, but of the body of Man: for if one be Dipt in his Cloaths, the Fleſh cannot be ſaid to be waſhed primarily, but ſecundarily, and by conſequence, and 'tis the Garment that is properly Baptized,Mr. Sydenham's Exercitation on Baptiſm. or Waſhed; and yet that part that is to be Baptized ought doubtleſs to be naked, that the Water may fall immediatly upon the fleſh that hath been the inſtrument and ſubject of ſinning: and therefore anciently, for above ſix-hundred years, Voſſius ſhews that (through an erroneous miſtake) Men, Women, and Infants,Voſſius de Bapt. p. 357. Eo etiam, poſito pudore toto penitûs corpore nudabantur, adeo ut ne faſciâ quidem (qualem pictores honeſtatis cauſâ appingere ſolent) obduxiſſe videantur partibus pudendis. were Baptized naked, and the Chriſtians gloried in it, that for the ſake of Chriſt they could expoſe themſelves to ſhame, until afterward they came to more light, and had regard to modeſty; which taught Chriſtians that the waſhing of one part may ſuffice, and may well enough ſignify the purifying the whole Man, as Chriſt told Peter as before, in a caſe of like reſemblance, John 13.10. And this is the reaſon, as Mr. Sydenham well obſerves, why we only pour Water on the Face, becauſe it is the principalleſt part wherein the Image of God moſt appears, and the Soul ſhines forth moſt eminently, on which all the workings of mens humors and affections leave the viſibleſt impreſſion and ſymptoms. And 'tis obſervable that the ſame Word in the Greek [foreign] ſignifies both the Face and the Perſon, becauſe the whole Perſon is repreſented by the Face; and thus we Baptize the Perſon when we Baptize his Face, which we can look upon without ſhame.
8. Baptizing is not by Dipping, but ſome other way, for 'tis ſaid of John that he Baptized all Jeruſalem and Judea, and the Regions roundabout, and three-thouſand were Baptized in one day, and five thouſand another, which is hinted brawny Arms, to go through ſuch work as to Dip them all; and how all theſe could be Dipt Men and Women promiſcuouſly in their Cloaths, or how they could get Garments to render the act comely, is not eaſily to be conjecture, and therefore it is more likely Water was flaſht, or caſt upon or over them.