A Christian, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Concerning the ſignification and uſe of the word Baptiſm, or to be baptized; the genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and New Teſtament; the places in the New Teſtament brought to prove it ſignifies to plunge the whole body, anſwered.
THE confidence of theſe that differ hath, been ſo great, that as they have excommunicated Infants from the capacity of ſuch a priviledge, which they had ſo old a title unto; ſo they have forced this only ſenſe from the word to baptize, that it muſt ſignifie to plunge the whole body under water; and deny that to be true Baptiſm, which is not ſo adminiſtred; and ſo make it as eſſential to the manner, as viſible profeſſion to the matter.
For clearing up of this miſt, I have diligently enguired into the propriety of the word, and its uſe in the Greek Tranſlators of the Old and New Teſtament, which are the beſt guides in this caſe; and if we look narrowly, it will be very hard to find, and very ſeldome, that ever the word in Scripture is uſed for the total immerſion of the body, or being abſolutely under water.
The word (foreign) ſignifies among all Writers, both Heathen and Eccleſiaſtical, promiſcuouſly to dip into, or waſh with water, by pouring on of it, or ſprinkling; and there is nothing more uſual in the New Teſtament expreſſion of it, then to hold forth any kind of waſhing: It's expreſt in Authors by madefactare, lavare, abluere, to wet or waſh: thus Budaeus, Scapula, Paſor and Grotius do interpret the word, though they grant it is, and may be taken more ſtrictly for immerſion: but let the Scripture explain it ſelf, Mar. 7.4. it is uſed for the waſhing of hands, and of cups, and beds, and braſen veſſels, and of tables; which is not by plunging them in the water, ſo much as waſhing them by the pouring forth of water on them; for ſo it is expreſt, when they came from the market they durſt not eat (foreign) without they were baptized, that is, waſhed; which could not be their whole bodies, without both exceſſive trouble and danger, for which times and ſeaſons muſt be obſerved: And beſides this (ſaith the Evangeliſt) they retained many other things in cuſtome, foreign, &c. as the Baptiſm of cups, that is, lotiones, or the waſhing of cups; which may be as well done by pouring on water, as by plunging into water, and was and is uſually done in all Nations. So in Luk. 11.38. the Phariſees wondred at Jeſus (foreign) that he was not baptized before dinner, that is, did not waſh. And Heb. 9.10. all the Ceremonial waſhings or ſprinklings are called Baptiſms; in a metaphorical ſenſe it's uſed for the pouring forth of the ſpirit.
And further, when it is tranſlated to dip, both in the Old and New Teſtament, it ſignifies commonly the leaſt touch or taſt of any thing that is liquid. So Luk. 16.24. Dives begs that Lazarus might be ſent (foreign) that he might baptize, or dip the top of his finger in water to cool his tongue; the leaſt drop would have been prized by him. 1 Sam. 14 27. Jonathan is ſaid to dip the end of his rod in an honey-comb, that is, but to take a very little; and the word is (foreign) ſo it is uſed in Exod. 12.22. Joh. 13.26.
But to put it out of queſtion, that there needs no ſuch rigidneſs; and in preſſing this method of plunging from the word Baptiſm, let us compare it with other phraſes.Differt à foreign, quod eſt proſundum petere, & penitus ſubmergi. Paſor, Lexic. When the Scripture would expreſs a covering of the whole body under water, and ſo a ſubmerſion, or being wholly under water, it uſeth two other words, as different from baptizing, viz. foreign, and foreign and foreign. Compare 1 Cor. 10.2. All the Fathers and the Iſraelites are ſaid to be baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea; they had only the dewings of the Cloud, and the ſprinklings of the water on them as they paſt through: But in Exod. 15.4, 5. when he ſpeaks of Pharoah and his Hoaſt, he doth not ſay they were baptized in the waters, but uſeth theſe two words, foreign, they were drowned in the Red Sea, ſubmerſi; and he adds, the depths have covered them; and foreign, they ſank, or as the word is, douſed themſelves into the bottom as a ſtone, while the Iſraelites were but baptized under the gentle droppings of the Cloud, and of the Sea. And the very ſame diſtinction did the Greek Writers make between baptizing and douſing, or caſting under water; expreſſing by baptizing, to be in the water as a Bottle is, or Ship that is ſeldom or never wholly overwhelmed: And this appears moſt demonſtratively to be their meaning by the verſe of the Ancient Oracle of the Athenians, who well knew how to ſpeak and diſtinguiſh Greek.
foreign.
Baptize or waſh him, utris inſtar, as a Bottle in
water, but do not drown him, or utterly plunge
him.
Whereby it plainly appears that the word (to baptize) ſignifies any kind of waſhing, whether by ſprinkling or pouring out of water, or dipping into water; and that it is ſpecially diſtinguiſhed from theſe words that do ſignifie a total ſubmerſion; and theſe men do rack the word only to ſpeak for plunging under water, excluding the uſual and more common ſence of it, which is to waſh or cleanſe.
But let us view the Scriptures which they bring for the maintainance of this ſignification, Mat. 3.13.16. Jeſus after he was baptized, went ſtraight wayes up out of the water, (foreign) which may be tranſlated, he went up from the waters, foreign ſignifying more properly ab then ex, from then out; and it is moſt ſuitable to tranſlate it ſo, becauſe all rivers, for moſt part, lie low, and in valleys, in coming to which we are ſayd to deſcend, and coming from to aſcend; thus when Chriſt aſcended, in Act. 1.9. He was taken out of their ſight, that is from their ſight.
Of the like conſideration is that other place, which they lay ſo much weight on for to hold forth plunging, Act. 8.36, 37, 38. Of Philip and the Eunuch, it is ſaid they went both down into the water (foreign) which may as well, and better be tranſlated, they went down to or towards the water; it ſeems they being the upper ground, ſpied water below them, and ſo went down to it to be baptized, as it is a common phraſe among us, to go down to the water ſide.
But ſecondly, ſhould we grant them this interpretation, that they went both down into the water, which is a ſtraining of the words, yet it can never be proved from this, that their whole body was dipt all over, a man may go into the water, and yet not be over his ſhoes; and how can they prove by this place they went in any further, or how far they went; or whether Philip did not take up water, and poured it on him; or whether he duckt him under water, or dipt onelyonly his head; nothing can be proved from this place; but if they conjecture one thing, we may another, with as much evidence. In the 107. Pſal. it is ſaid, They that go down to the ſea in ſhip, ſee thy wonders; when they go down into the ſea in ſhips, is the ſhip plunged all over? or are they under water in the ſhip?
Yet thirdly, it is evident that their going into the water, is diſtinguiſhed in the ſame ver. from the Eunuchs being baptized; they went down, or to (or according to their own mind) into the water, and he baptized him: ſo that the going into the water, take it for dipping and ducking, is not baptizing, but ſomething diſtinct, another act; and if they will prove going down to the water, or into the water, in this place denotes the dipping of the whole body, then he muſt be dipt before he was baptized; for Philip baptized him after they went into the water.
Again, there is as much from this phraſe to prove Philip to be dipt as the Eunuch; and if dipping be baptizing, for the text ſaith expreſly, they both went down to, or in the water, if you interpret it after their own heart, that they both went into the water, Philip was as much in the water as the Eunuch; for there is no exception made, but both went in together, and who ſhould then baptize the Eunuch? if this ſeem to be an abſurdity to them, how can they from this expreſſion, in the ſevereſt acception, conclude the Eunuch was dipt? but they both went into the water together, ſeeing the Text ſpeaks as much of Philips going into the water, as of the Eunuchs: But if we take it according to the firſt tranſlation, that they went both down towards the water, there may be ſome reaſonable account given how the one was baptized; which ſeems to be moſt probable, by pouring out water upon him.
If any one object further from the next verſe, that they aſcended out of the water, here is not (foreign as in the former place, but foreign) out of the water, yet it will not at all help them; for it is ſaid of them both, they came up out of the water, and it ſpeaks as much of Philips dipping himſelf as the Eunuch; and you may as well argue that Philip was new dipt, as that the Eunuch was baptized by dipping, becauſe they both came up out of the water; beſides, one may be ſaid very properly to come out of the water, if he put but his foot into it; and thus you ſee on what weak foundations theſe high ſtructures of confidence and rigidneſs are built.
The third and moſt triumphant place, which they cry up, and adore for this manner of baptizing by dipping, is John 3.23. And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salem, becauſe there was much water there.
If we conſider impartially, here is but a Geographicall deſcription of this place, of it's ſituation, nigh Salem, and of the benefit they had of water, in regard of the moſt places beſides in the countrey, Aenon lying nigh the banks of Jordan; and whereas they lay the weight on this, that he gives it as a reaſon why John was baptizing at Aenon, becauſe there was much water there; it may be a very good reaſon why he choſe that place for the countrey to come in, and be baptized, becauſe they might go many a mile in theſe hot countreys, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a great priviledge accounted to theſe places that banked on Iordan, that they had much water; but what argument is to prove that Iohn plunged all he baptized?
The Argument according to their form muſt be thus. 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; I hope they will allow us the ſame priviledge of demonſtration, when we ſay whole houſes were baptized, Ergo Infants and Children, who are the pillars of a houſe; is not this more fair and probable, then that Iohn plunged their whole body, becauſe there was much water? There is none of our conſequences for Infants baptiſm ſo ſtrained and far fetcht, as we have demonſtrated formerly; 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 hatdly a drop many miles round about, and yet not immerſe every one they baptized; you may in England go 20 miles in ſome countreys, and not find a river to plunge a mans whole body under the water, what would it be in Spain, and the other hot countreys, where water is ſold as wine and bear with us, how far might they go ere they could get a river to plunge themſelves in? Thus you ſee how little reaſon they have from theſe Scriptures to be ſo peremptory and rigid, as to make the eſſence of baptiſm to be dipping, or plunging all the body.
The laſt pretence commonly urged for this dipping, is from the analogie it hath with Chriſts burial, from that Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptiſm; hence ſay they it is clear one muſt be dipt under water, elſe it will not repreſent a burial. In this they put all their confidence, and therefore let us ſeriouſly view their ſtrength.
Sol. Firſt, let it be conſidered that they ſtill make uſe of conſequences, to prove inſtitutions, which they will not allow us.
But more particularly, 1. Plunging the whole body into the water, doth not hold ſimilitude neither with Chriſts burial, nor the manner of burials in the moſt part of the world; for firſt, for Chriſts burial and the manner of it, was not by throwing under the earth, for Chriſts body was wrapt in a linnen cloth by Ioſeph, and laid in a Tomb, or Sepulchre, hewen out of a rock, for that was the cuſtome of the Jews, è rupe ſpecum excavare condendis corporibus: Matth. 27.60. To cut out a place like a cave, or den, out of a rock to lay their dead bodies in, as is obſerved by a man of great learning, and diligence; thus when wee ſleep in our houſes we may be ſaid to be buried, having ſomething over our heads.
Secondly, the manner of burying in Europe is not by plunging the bodie into a pit of duſt, but by caſting duſt or dung on the perſon: ſo that their pouring out water on an Infant as a paſſive ſubject, ſeems more to anſwer the ſimilitude of burying, then the caſting into the water, wherein there is ſome motion of the party himſelf contributing to his baptizing.
Thirdly, no man is ſaid to be buried who falls into the water, or under earth, without he ſtay there ſome conſiderable time.
Fourthly, we are ſaid to be buried with Chriſt in baptiſm, in regard of the ſpiritual union we have with Chriſt in his death, and burial; and this is as much ſignified by pouring water on a perſon (as earth on a dead body) as well, I ſay, as by plunging.
Let us now conſider what remains to be ſaid againſt this abſolute rule, as they would make it; you have ſeen all their main places for plunging, with what demonſtration, at the beſt ex probabilibus & incertis, out of probable and uncertain conjectures, which they ſo much tax us withall, and yet the eye ſees not it ſelf.
Let us now go on, and conſider what other places of Scripture ſpeak more direct to qualifie this rigid opinion of plunging.
When Iohn began firſt to adminiſter his office, it is ſaid Mat. 3.5. That Ieruſalem, and all Iudea, and all the regions round about Iordan went forth to John, and were baptized of him in Iordan: A man had need have good ſtore of confidence to perſwade himſelf and others, that all theſe people were baptized by plunging their whole body into Jordan, or that they were dipt in their cloaths, or came with any prepared garments for that purpoſe; all which are neceſſary circumſtances to be conſidered; doubtleſſe they were many thouſands that came forth, for the denomination is from the greater number; all Iudea and Ieruſalem, &c. that is, a very great many, or the greateſt number of theſe Inhabitants; and how they could be thus baptized, men and women, in their cloaths promiſcuouſly, or how they could get garments ſo ready as to make the act decent, or what places they could have, ſeeing there were ſo many, for the women and the men, to prepare themſelves for the comely adminiſtration of ſuch an Ordinance, I cannot imagine; we hear Iohn baptized ſo many, but in what manner is uncertain; and that which is ſo hotly contended for moſt improbable, all things duely conſidered.
The like is of that, 2 Acts 41. where 3000 were baptized in one day by the Apoſtle, which if it were performed by plunging, could not but be accompanied with the like inconveniences: ſo that it is only ſaid they were baptized, not how; and the word, as you have ſeen, is not ſo ſtrictly to be appropriated to dipping, but admits of a more large ſignification.
Firſt, of the ſame conſideration is that place, Acts 8.12. where it is expreſly ſaid, that men and women were baptized together, and on a ſudden, which can hardly be conceived how it could be done with that gravity the Goſpel requires, by plunging in their own proper habits; and ſuch ſudden acts could not be done with ſuitable preparations of garments.
But to come to particular inſtances, and parallel them together with former places, which are brought to prove this kind of dipping; and let us judge which hath more demonſtration. Acts 9.18. Paul was baptized in the houſe of Iudas; there is nothing of a Iordan or Aenon, a river that he was carried unto; neither can they by any thing prove that Paul was thus dipt, but only their good will to have it ſo; neither is it probable that every houſe had a deep pond belonging to it, or a river running through it, or ſo vaſt a receptacle or ciſtern to hold water as to plunge a mans whole bodie in it.
Secondly, conſider the Jailors caſe, Acts 16.33. he was baptized in the priſon, and at midnight, he and his houſe; he waſhed their ſtripes, and they waſhed him in token of remiſſion of ſins.
All that the moſt rationall and profound Critick of that judgement can ſay, is onelyonly this; That it may be ſuppoſed he had ſome great veſſel, which ſome had in theſe hot countreys for waſhing themſelves in, and ſo made uſe of it himſelf to be baptized; but what a poor ſuppoſition is this? there is nothing either in the text, or from reaſon to countenance it; who can imagine that in theſe hot countreys where water is ſo ſcarce and precious, a poor Jaylor ſhould have ſuch a veſſel of ſo large and vaſt a continent, which muſt coſt much; or that the State would provide ſuch a veſſel in the Priſon to bathe and refreſh Priſoners who are under ſuſpition, or cenſures of all ſorts of crimes againſt the State? but no more of that; it's too groſs to conceive: And why may not we as well argue thus; The Jaylor was baptized late in the night in the Priſon; Ergo not by plunging, but waſhing or pouring out water on him, as they argue from Joh. 3.33. John was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, becauſe there was much water there; Ergo he baptized by plunging; I leave it to any ſober judgement to determine; if the one prove that baptizing may be by dipping, the other proves it may be by ſome other way.
Thus you ſee the Scripture is not ſo peremptory as theſe men are, but hath left the method of baptizing in general, and under a latitude: Neither can they bring one expreſs place which holds it forth either in precept or preſident (which they call for from us to ſhew them for our judgement, and will not be ſatisfied in all other conſiderations) and have no more but conjectural conſequences to prove their abſolute determinations, but what their confidence ſupplies: And if there be any abſolute need of dipping, it is to cool the heat of theſe mens ſpirits, who deny Baptiſm to be true, becauſe they have not been plunged.
The ſum of all is this; They affirm the word, To baptize, ſignifies only immerſion, plunging or dipping the whole body under water; we deny it, and ſhew that it ſignifies to waſh by pouring on water, and more often in the Old and New Teſtament; and that when this word is uſed in the Scripture, it's oppoſed to other words that ſignifie properly douſing, or caſting under water: And I think I may ſay it without too much raſhneſs, that they can hardly bring one explicit place in the Old or New Teſtament, where the word, To baptize, is uſed poſitively for plunging or douſing under water; and doubtleſs the moſt of that judgement know not what the meaning of the words are, elſe they would not lay the eſſence of Baptiſm on a word of ſuch a large uſe.
The Scriptures being thus cleared, to ſpeak at leaſt, that plunging is not abſolutely neceſſary to conſtitute the truth of Baptiſm: Let us now come to conſider the morality of this judgement, and the practical conveniencies or inconveniencies of this way of plunging; for if it be the only and pure Goſpel-way, it will have no ominous or uncomely aſpect on other rules, which are from the ſame authority, nor any way aſperſe the Goſpel.
1. I know no how to believe that Chriſt would ordain any Ordinance, and tye ſouls ſtrictly to it, that cannot be practiſed univerſally by all, and but in ſome places, and at ſome ſeaſons, without manifold inconveniencies and dangers unto nature: For if only dipping ſhould be baptizing, and every one that believes ought preſently to be baptized, how ſhall they do that live in thoſe hot and dry Countrys where water is ſo ſcarce, as it is in many places of the world, who muſt be forced to go ſo many miles to come to a River, and yet may only find it a ſmall Brook, with which they can hardly wet their feet in paſſing over, as it is in many places of the World?
And if there were in every place never ſo much water, yet how dangerous is it for ſome bodies who are rheumatick, and ſubject to Catarrhs and defluxions, in the winter time (for no ſeaſon ſhould hinder a man from the practice of an Ordinance) in cold and wet to be plunged into the water? it were enough to beget diſeaſes in the moſt healthy bodies; Chriſt is more tender of the bodies of his Saints, then to put them into ſuch hazards; and I hope no one will conceive Baptiſm to be a charm to prevent all inconveniencies and diſeaſes on the body: yet the zeal of theſe of that way carries on ſo furiouſly, that they think it's impoſſible for them to get any hurt, though they plunge themſelves into the water in froſt and ſnow: but it's dangerous to tempt God out of his ordinary way of preſervation, when there is no abſolute neceſſity for ſuch a practice. Beſides, this Ordinance would be a greater yoke and burthen then Circumciſion, if this rule of theirs ſhould be ſo univerſally followed; for there was no danger to the Child by that act, though it ſeemed bloody and hard: But if all perſons (for none are excluded by any weakneſs or indiſpoſition) ſhould be thus baptized, how eminent a danger would many be in? And if it prove ſo hazardous to the bodies of many healthy ones, that have in winter time but accidentally fallen into the water, though they have not been under water, that it hath coſt them their lives, the violence of cold ſo piercing their bodies and animal ſpirits (of which we have many experiences) how would it be for others, who labour under daily weakneſs? And there is no promiſe that the water ſhall have no power to hurt thoſe which after this manner are baptized, no more then others. Fleſh and blood is the ſame in all, which is the immediate ſubject of ſuch an act; and God doth proportion his Ordinances to keep correſpondency with his other rules of mercy, and preſcriptions for uſe of means. In a word, if this be the only way of baptizing, happy are thoſe that live in hot Countreys, or have bodies of braſs.
It's ſaid, if it be an Ordinance, God will preſerve; but that is the queſtion; and that which demonſtrates it, is not the only way; if it be a way at all, it is That it croſſeth Gods rules for preſervation of a mans ſelf; the practice of it at ſome times being a kind of a degree of ſelf-murther, and very unſutable to the laws of mercy and tenderneſs, that command the very heart of Chriſt; and ſuch an abſolute unqualified command doth not look like an Ordinance of the Goſpel: For if baptizing be immediatly to be practiſed after believing (according to their principles) then what ſhould hinder water that they may not be baptized? Suppoſe they be ſick and weak, ſuppoſe the ſeaſon be unſutable, and yet the ſoul deſires to be baptized? You muſt either go againſt all rules of nature to plunge that perſon, or elſe find out ſome other way of baptizing; or elſe a Goſpel command muſt be neglected; for there is nor precept nor preſident of delay of that Ordinance (ſtill to their own poſitions) in all the New Teſtament; and ſo both the baptizer and baptized muſt ſin in performance of a duty; for the one ſins if he by any pretence deſtroys his own health; and the other ſins in being an inſtrument in it. I wiſh men were conſiderate of the nature and effects of theſe things; which if it were more commonly practiſed, we ſhould have heaps of inſtances to make good this conſideration.
2. It's very much to be obſerved, that Chriſt who hath bid us avoid all appearance of evil, ſhould ordain any Ordinance wherein there muſt needs be ſome ſuch appearance fit for fleſh and blood to act on; I have ſo much modeſty as only to preſent this, how women, take it in what habit you will, can be baptized publickly, where all may come with men, and by men, without appearance of evil. And if the Apoſtle would have women to be vailed or covered in the Congregation, becauſe of the Angels, take it either literally or tropically, to ſhew the modeſty of Church-Aſſemblies, and to prevent any ſhadow of temptation; how can we think that it's ſutable to Apoſtolical rule, that women ſhould appear in the open air, out of their wonted habit, in a garment next to nakedneſs, and ſo be plunged into water? But I am loth to enter into theſe ſecrets.
I only propound this, Whether or no that this baptiſm by plunging, be not rather a baptizing of mens cloaths, and upper garments, then of the body, if the perſon baptized be not naked? and if he or ſhe be, how odious a cuſtome would that be? I cannot but think that that part that is baptized, ought to be naked, that the water may immediatly fall on that place; elſe ſomething elſe muſt be baptized primarily, and the fleſh ſecondarily and by conſequence.
This is the reaſon why we only pour water on the face, becauſe it's 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 it's 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 in baptizing his face, which we can look on, and waſh naked, and not be aſhamed. Let theſe men that are ſo zealous for dipping and plunging the whole body, conſider from all this, what warrant they have from Scripture for their ſo much rigid confidence.