That the primary literal proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witnesses and this indeed I see you dare not deny saying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dye or give a new Colour All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over but whereas you say it signifies also sometimes to wash we have shewed 't is no other washing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Person all over in Water And therefore now to proceed I shall further prove Baptism is no other Act but Dipping or burying the Body under the Water You say Pag. 52. We read of divers Washings under the Law in the Original it is divers Baptisms Now say you what were those Washings but Sprinklings no Persons were dipp'd in Blood c. Answ We deny those Washings which are called Baptisms were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them but total dipping of their whole Body and so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth a Man very learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies positively affirms on Levit. 11.31 these are his words viz. All that are unclean whether Men or Vessels are not cleansed but by dipping or baptizing in Water and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh or washing of Cloaths for Uncleanness it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein And whether they be Men or Vessels there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder as Clay Pitch or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel if there be then they are saith he unclean and their washing profiteth them not Maim in Mikvaoth What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm But Sir where we read of sprinkling of Blood the word is not there baptizing And now I shall proceed further to prove that Baptism or baptizing is not Sprinkling but Dipping or plunging into the Water in the Name of the Father c. and besides all we have already said clearly make this appearâ—â—rom the spiritual Signification thereof or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby And first to proceed let it be in the fear of God considered that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of Christ's Body and the pouring forth of his precious Blood so and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism doth signify and hold forth the Death Burial and Resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Christ and the holding forth and confirming of these two great Gospel-Truths was doubtless the end of our Saviour in ordaining both these Gospel-Ordinances that so Christ crucified with his Burial and Resurrection might not only in the Ministry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears but by these two Institutions be also preach'd as it were to the seeing of our Eyes And that Baptism doth hold forth this together with our Death unto Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life I shall prove in the next place and that First From express places of Scripture Secondly By the Consent Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses both Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines and worthy Protestant Writers 1. The first Scripture is Rom. 6.3 4 5 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin and bound to live no longer therein and that because by Baptism as in a lively Figure they held forth the same thing So that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification 1. There is in it when truly and rightly administred not only a Representation of Christ's Buriâ—â— and Resurrection But 2. Also it signifies our Death unto Sin and our rising again to walk in newness of Life And indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press newness of Life the thing signified in Baptism upon them all As if he should say As many of us as are baptized must know this that we were baptized into Christ's Death and therefore must die to Sin and live a neâ— Life But we have all been baptized or buried with him in Baptism therefore must all of us die to Sin and live a new Life Our late Annotators on the place say thus He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries which was say they to dip or plunge the Party baptized and as it were to bury him for a while under Water Cajetan upon the same Text says We are buried with Christ by Baptism into Death by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism because he that is the Party baptized is put under Water and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried who was put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead Men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried The Assembly in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture say likewise thus viz. In this Phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing which was to dip the Party baptized and as it were to bury them under Water for a while and then raise them up again out of it to represent the Burial of the Old Man and the Resurrection to Newness of Life The same saith Diodate Tilenus a great Protestant Writer speaks fully in this Case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the Water 3. A Resurrection out of the Water The Form of Baptism viz. external and essential is no other than the Analogical Proportion which the Signs keep with the things signified thereby for the Properties of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body does in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of Sin so diping into the Water in a most lively Similitude sets forth the Mortification of the Old Man and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the New Man The same plunging into the Water saith he holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine Justice in which Christ for our sakes for a while was in a manner swallowed up abiding under the Water how little time soever denotes his Descent into Hell even the very deepest of Lifelesness which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death In like manner saith he 't is therefore
erroneous Principles into the World as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all There 's more cause to â—earâ—tis your practice of â—â—â—tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture May not they be miâ—â—ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance which the Scripture is â—holly silent about But to proceed in Pag. 2. you say The great Controversy between you and us liâ— in your second Proposition which is this viz. Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ but the Infants of such Professors may and ought to be baptized Answ Reader observe that Mr. Burkitt does grant that such who do actually profess Faith may nay ought to be baptized It appears he â—wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ But he says more i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized but the Infants of such who profess Faith also And to prove this hold Assertion he lays down this Hypothâ—tical Syllogisâ— viz. If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ciâ—cumcision the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circâ—mcision therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism Answ Sir must we believe it is so because you speak and write it You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition which is utterly denied Might not I state another Argument as good as yours nay may be better yet both prove nothing I argue thus 1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan the Infants of Christiâ—â—s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan But the former is true Ergo. And if this were so let us make another holy War aâ—d take possession of it for our Children 2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood and many other external Priviledges then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel and many other external Priviledges But the former is true Ergo. Ob. Your Logick will do you no good if you Argue no better I must tell you that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews not because their Infants weâ—â— in that legâ—l Coveâ—ant with their Parents but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham for evident it is no Godly Marâ—â— Children before 〈◊〉 days had any Right to be Circumcised And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God â—hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like mâ—nner If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Exampâ—e 〈…〉 the Holy Biblâ— it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible Ergo it is Willâ—worship in them so to do I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of Câ—rcuâ—cision then as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be Baptized But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision therefore 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now Answ 1. I answer There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance therefore I deny your Mâ—â—â—r What if 〈◊〉 that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law or Old Testament besides Circumcision And yet you cannot find or once imagine any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively for that then it would follow there would be as many Christian Riâ—es Precepts and Ordinances as there were Jewish Rites Precepts and Ordinances which as oâ—â— observes were more than three hundred 2. Besides as Dr. Taylor observes If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all because none but Male Infants were then circumcised 3. And whereas you say Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did it is not true as will appear to all understanding Men if they consider these Particulars following which are so many Disparities viz. 1. Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come Baptism is a Sign he is already come was dead and buried 2. Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Priviledges made to Saints as such and no others 3. Circumcision was a Domestick Action i.e. to be done in the House Baptism an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Gospel-Church 4. Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers 5. Circumcision was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh which drew Blood Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood 6. Circumcision belonged to Male Children only Baptism belongs to Males and Females also 7. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth day Baptism is not limited to any precise day 8. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 9. Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House to his Male Infants only or sucâ— who were bought with his Money and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days unless they join themselves to his Family Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nationâ— 10. Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite to keep the whole Law of Moses Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage 11. If Circumcision signified the same things and consequently particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace then those 〈◊〉 were circumcised needed not to be baptized because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing but Christ and all his Apostles and many others who were circumcised were nevertheless baptized 12. Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart but Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not 13. Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile Male and Female Barbarian and Scythian Bond and Frâ—e are all one in Christ Jesus Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism â— And
Gentiles believing that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith St. Paul saith The Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham Rom. 9.8 Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace but what does this signify to the Infants or fleshly Seed of Believers as such And thus I shall pass to your next Argument pag. 14. CHAP. III. Wherein Mr. Burkitt ' s other Arguments are answered viz. 1. Infants are capable of the Spiritual Benefits by Baptism 2. Also that they have habitual Faith 3. That Christ has Lambs in his Fold therefore Infants 4. Infants are capable of Christ's Blessing they were brought to Christ and received by him 5. Infants are in Covenant with a federal Holiness therefore may be baptized YOur third Argument to prove Infants ought to be baptized is this viz. If Infants are capable of Spiritual Benefit by Baptism then Baptism may and ought to be administred to Infants if they are capable of the inward visible Grace sure they may partake of the outward and visible Sign if the Word of the Promise doth belong to them surely the Seal of the Promise ought not to be withheld from them But say you the former is true viz. That Infants are capable of Benefits by Baptism therefore the latter is true they ought to be Baptized There are amongst others two special Blessings and spiritual Benefits which Infants are capable of by Baptism namely Remission of Sin and Regeneration 1. Remission of Sin this being an Act of gracious Favour in God discharging a Person from his obnoxiousness to Wrath upon the score of Guilt contracted an Infant is certainly as capable of this Act of Favour as a grown Person To prove this you bring in a Simile That an Infant of a Traitor is as capable of the benefit of the King 's gracious Favour as the Father himself Suppose the King should send for a Traitor's Child out of the Cradle say you and before all his Courtiers declare That whereas the Blood of that Child was attainted by its Father's Treason and therefore according to Law it s whole Inheritance became forfeited to the Crown yet says the King I will pardon this Infant freely and restore him to all his forfeited Rights and in token thereof I command one of my Ministers to wash the Infant in pure Water signifying thereby to all my Subjects that he is cleansed from his original Attainder and Corruption of Blood and that I am perfectly reconciled to him I demand say you now whether any one can truly say that this Action was insignificant to the Child because he did not understand it c. Answ Were not the Male Infants of Believers before Abraham's days as capable of the Priviledges and Benefits of Circumcision as Abraham's Male Infants were If so why were not they Circumcised If you say it was Because God did not require them to be Circumcised they were not commanded to do it Even so say I God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants therefore whatsoever Benefit or Blessing they are capable of it signifies nothing in the Case unless there was a Command or Law given us to baptize them 2. Might you not as well argue that Infants are capable of the Benefits or Spiritual Blessings signified by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper therefore may partake of that also Are not they capable of Redemption from Sin and Wrath by the breaking of Christ's Body and shedding of his Blood 3. And are not Infants of Unbelievers nay Turks and Pagans capable of the Spiritual Benefits signified in Baptism sure as considered in themselves they are and why then may they not be baptized also 4. Sir 'T is not such are capable of receiving a Favour or Priviledg from God but rather who he hath in his Sovereign Wisdom granted that Privilege unto And let me tell you your Simile quite overthrows your own Argument for if God because he is graciously pleased to acquit our Children who die in their Infancy from the Original Guilt they brought into the World with them through the Atonement made by Jesus Christ and in token thereof had commanded us to baptize them the Case was clear and our Controversy was at an end but since he has not required us to do any such thing whatever Grace or Favour he is pleased to afford to any of our Infants we have no Warrant to baptize them his Will and Law and not our Fancies being that which gives us Authority to do all we do in his Name or Worship If God had commanded us to baptize our Infants we would no more say that Action would be insignificant to our Children no more than Circumcision was to Children under the Law whom God required to be Circumcised 5. Besides in the last place Baptism doth not by God's appointment belong to them who are capable of the Benefits or Blessings signified thereby as Remission of Sin and Regeneration c. but only to such who are capable to repent and profess Faith in Christ these we say and none else ought to be baptized if the Royal Charter or Grant of the Lord Jesus be observed in the case of a regal Right to Baptism Suppose the King should grant to you and to all in your Parish who have been Traitors to him who are skilled or learned in the Mathematicks and understand the Law to be Officers in some of his Courts and will then also upon submission pardon you and them of all your horrid Crimes will you upon this carry up several ignorant unskilful Persons who are in your Parish tho as guilty of Treason as your selves and offer them to the King to be Officers and Clerks in his Courts who indeed as they are untaught in that Art so see not their own Guilt nor submit themselves to the Mercy of the King and say yet they are capable of Pardon and to receive the Sallary also Sir All that are to be baptized are by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching and take heed you add not to his Word nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth nor go about as you do to make void his Commands by your own Traditions 2. In pag. 15. you say Infants are not less capable of Regeneration of their Nature than of Remission of Sins it being certain that no unclean thing can enter into Heaven that none can be saved whose Natures are not renewed either the sanctifying Grace of God say you must be allowed Infants or Salvation must be denied them Regenerating Grace is called by St. John the Seed of Grace 1 John 3.9 No way hinders but that the Soul of an Infant may be as capable of this Seed as of a grown Person for say you I argue thus '
says Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom These Maxims saith Du-Veil so agreeable to Reason whosoever intends to follow will never question but that they ought to be baptized if they have not received that Baptism ordained by Christ but only Rantism that is Sprinkling substituted in its room by a vulgar Use or rather Abuse Mr. Perkins saith if the external Form of Administration be observed a Person baptized by an Heretick must not be baptized again Nor is it to be doubted saith that famous Divine John Forbes but that they are again to be baptized who before have only received a vain Washing and not the true Sacrament of Baptism Sir To baptize a Person a Believer again who was baptized before we say is sinful and unlawful But since yours is no Baptism but meer Rantism I need say no more to this and that 't is so I shall first prove from the proper genuine and literal Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptiso that comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip signifies mergo immergo submergo obruo item tingo quod fit immergendo that is to immerge plunge under over-whelm as also to dip which is done by plunging We grant in a less proper or more remote Sense because things that are said to be washed are commonly dipped or plunged all over in Water it is put for washing Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Mark 7.4 You say pag. 52 as for the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes it signifies to dip or plunge sometimes to wash or cleanse citing ver 9 10. Yet we say it no where signifies to sprinkle You know the Greeks have another Word to express Sprinkling viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo as Heb. 9.19 and sprinkled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the Book and the People 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Heb. 9.13 Sprinkling the Vnclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1 Pet. 1.2 And sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like in many other Places And so that we dare modestly assert that no Greek Author of any Credit whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures we have cited Heb. 9.13 19 21 c. 't is always translated Sprinkling So there is not one Place in Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo is rendred to baptize nor is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo is rendred Sprinkling And whereas you say the word sometimes signifies Washing We say notwithstanding it does yet 't is such a Washing as is by Dipping or Plunging as I said before Thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders baptizo derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto ringo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dip'd though in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of Washing You say Pag. 49. That we ought to distinguish betwixt that which is of the Essence of Baptism and that which only is accidental in Baptism the Word and Element say you are of the Essence of Baptism Answ We say with you that if Accidents or meer Accessories be wanting in Baptism yet there may be true Baptism notwithstanding but we assert that Dipping or Plunging belongs to the Thing Act or Essence of Baptism not an Accident but so essential that 't is no true Baptism if the Body is not dipped or plung'd into the Water therefore the Word and Element are not so the Essence of Baptism unless there be so much Water used as to cover the Body all over in it Rantizing is Rantizing and Baptizing is Baptizing they are two different things and the one will never be the other while the World stands And tho you dare affirm that the Child that is only Rantized i. e. Sprinkled is Baptized yet you cannot prove it and altho you do assert it and attempt to make it out yet a multitude of learned Writers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue do fully contradict you Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to die in colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implieth a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptiso to dip This Casaubon saith was the Rite of baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies Baptism ought to be administred by plunging the whole Body into the Water The late famous and most learned in all the Oriental Tongues Dr. Du-Veil in his literal Explanation of the Acts Chap. 1.5 saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip as if it were to dye Colour and any Dyer will tell you if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped it is not dyed Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water or plunge under Water Mat. 3.6 Acts 8.38 for which also he quotes Casaubon Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius he saith withal that some would have it signify washing which sense Erasmus he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence for the proper Signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Clothes Salmasius saith That is not Baptism which they give to Children but Rantism Beza on Mat. 3.11 saith The word Baptizo signifies to dye by dipping or washing Selden saith That the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized to be void Ainsworth speaks to the same purpose Mr. Daniel Rogers says That a Minister is to dip in Water the Party baptized as the meetest Act the word baptize notes it For saith he the Greeks wanted not words to express any other Act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it what Resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling mark that all Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that it
the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casaubon was in the Right take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's 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 he saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least Matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says Dipping or Sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives encouragement Who will Dip the Person that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by Dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ
inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism to wit the cleansing of the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ is more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping therefore more expedient And accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing that Mercy of Sanctification by this Action Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinkâ—â— clean Water upon you and ye shall be clean c. Answ 1. By denying your minor Proposition Sprinkling doth not answer the Use and End of Baptism as what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture and almost all learned Men both ancient Fathers and modern Divines fully shews the contrary 2. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had been instituted by Christ to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood and not Baptism Will you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's Holy Baptism 3. Might not the Jews who instead of making Altars of Gold of Stone made them Altars of Brick say that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Vse and end of burning Incense Nay may be they might say they had not the other to do it and therefore built their Altars of Brick but would this Pretence do No no. What saith Almighty God They provoke me continually to my Face Also might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper viz. What need we have Wine If we use Mum or some other red Liqour instead of the Fruit of the Grape it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament as well as Wine O! whither would this lead us 4. We utterly deny that Baptism was ordained or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood or the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit and must tell you that you affirm what you please without any Proof from God's Word But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from Sprinkling to plead for pouring Water on the Face of Infants I question whether you ever do so or not but if you should that would be no more Christ's Baptism than Sprinkling You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of spiritual Mysteries of which God speaks nothing in his Word nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the Sprinkling or pouring forth of the Holy Spirit The Papists have you know seven Sacraments and they tell us of the Use and End of them and how wonderful significant they are and yet all their Use and Expediency of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say of those Sacraments as well as you do what you speak of Pouring or Sprinkling Take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this Account It belongs to the Signifier says he to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification but God it is who by things sensible signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death Burial and Resurrection as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses Will God endure or suffer men think you to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries and then father them upon him and call them his Ordinances Nay more be so bold as to say these are more useful and answer better the End of God than those which he himself instituted For thus you speak of Sprinkling viz. 't is not only lawful but more expedient than Dipping p. 55. And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom or to magnify yours above his Be astonished O Heavens and be thou horribly amazed O Earth Was ever any Man thus bold before First you contrive a new Rite and new Significations of it which God never appointed to represent such things and then say 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of Dipping which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Christians witness to and testify the contrary Pray take what Sir Norton Knatchbul hath wrote in direct opposition to what you affirm Saith he Baptism which now saves us by Water speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3.20 that is by the assistance of Water and is Antitypical of the Ark of Noah does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God while we are plunged in the Water which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words by Water and by the Resurrection Nor is saith he the Elegancy of it displeasing As if he should say the Ark of Noah not the Flood was a Type of Baptism and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water wherein it answers not at all to the Ark but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved as they were saved by the Ark of Noah for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection So that the proper End mark of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the washing away of Sin although it be thus often-times taken metonymically in the New-Testament and by the Fathers but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith in the Resurrection of Christ of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark out of which Noah returned as from the Sepulcher to a new Life and therefore not unaptly called by Philo the Captain of the New Creation And the Whales Belly out of which Jonas after a burial of three days was set at liberty and the Cloud and the Red Sea in which the People of Israel are said to have been Baptized is not washed mark but buried for they were all Types of the same thing as Baptism viz. not the washing away of Sin but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and our own to which the Apostles the Fathers the Scholasticks mark and all Interpreters agree The thing saith he is so apparent as not to need any Testimonies but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine it will not be superfluous to produce some of these innumerable Testimonies that I may saith he not seem to speak without book And First Let us begin with St. Paul Rom. 6.3 Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism into his Death c. Else what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead if the Dead
beginning of the Practice of it you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism if it were so how was this in the Infancy of Baptism 3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted as well as other Truths were We ought to go to the Original Copy to the Primitive or first Institution and Practice Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances and commanded so to do as they were first delivered to them As to the Situation of the River Jordan is a Figment 't is not said he came up from the VVater but that he came up out of the Water therefore had been in it 4. As to what you say that John baptized in Aenon because there was much Water that the word signifies many Waters I have answered that already but take one word or two more here True the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Waters but not little Rivolets but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters contrary to what you affirm See Rev. 14.2 where you have the same original words so Rev. 19.6 5. And lastly as to your Arguments against re-baptizing I pass them over you might have saved your self that Pains for we as I told you before are as much against re-baptizing as you can be or for any to renounce their true Baptism your Arguments therefore in that are good And now from the whole take two Arguments Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life then Infants cannot be the Subiects thereof But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin who is baptized or his present Regeneration not future and his rising again to walk in â—â—wness of Life therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer that Baptism is Immersion Dipping or Plunging and nothing else and that is taken from those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Holy Scripture 1. That of the red Sin wherein the Fathers were buâ—â—ed as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud See Pool's Annotations on the Place Others says he more properly think the Apostle uses this term in regard of the great Analogy Betwixt Baptism as it was used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptable of Water though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Water as Persons seemed buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized 2. The second typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark See Sir Norton Knatchbul whom I quoted before saith he Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection not a Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ of this again saith he is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre From hence I infer this Argument following Arg. 3. If those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures signified Immersion or an overwhelming or a Burial then is Sprinkling no true Baptism But those typical Baptisms c. did signify Immersion or an Overwhelming or a Burial therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism 5. And lastly That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging or a being buried in the Water appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of which are two-fold 1 st The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2 dly The Baptism of Afflictions 1. Saith John Baptist I indeed baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and Fire Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every godly Person receives that is the Baptism of the Spirit but as the Learned observe the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1.4 5. shall be baptized The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Casaubon is to dip or plunge c. in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond 'T is not a Sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost 2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions I have a Baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished From the literal Signification of the word baptizo immergo plunge under overwhelm great Afflictions come to be called Baptism and signifies as Vossius shews not every light Affliction but like that of David Psal 32.6 he drew me out of deep Waters Hence great Afflictions are called Waves Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me Psal 42.7 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings who was as it were drowned drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions but great and deep Afflictions suffering even unto Blood and Death Pool's Annotations say to be baptized is to be dipped in Water metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions I shall close this also with another Argument Arg. 4. If those metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word as the Baptism of the Spirit and of Afflictions and Sufferings are taken from the literal Signification of the Greek word baptizâ— which signifies to dip then Sprinkling is not baptizing but thâ— former is true Ergo Sprinkling is not baptizing CHAP. X. Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole with seasonable Counsel to Parents c. 1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or