Amity with him And therefore their opposing force to force in their own Defence and for the maintaining the Liberties of Europe cannot be otherwise than lawful This is our Case Mr. Harrison after himself was become a Dissenter could not be contented to enjoy the Liberty of his Conscience to Worship God by the Favour of our Rulers who have permitted him the quiet and peaceable Exercise of Religion in his own way but he must be disturbing his quiet and peaceable Neighbours Preaching and Printing against them in such a shameful and unpresidented manner that they were not able to be silent but Necessitated to write in their own Defence Whatever therefore is the Consequence of this Vndertaking we are to be excused and the blame must lye at his Door he being the Aggressor After his first Book was published Mr. Hercules Collins did write an Answer thereto which was sufficient to have silenced him from any further prosecution thereof together with that addition made by that eminently Learned Minister Mr. Richard Claridge But as if nothing had been done of this kind he runs over his old Nine Arguments again in his second Book without giving a solid Answer to any thing that those Gentlemen had said And for want of Truth Reason and Argument to defend his own Position he stuffs his Book with scurrilous and abusive Language railing and reviling ridiculing and reproaching both them and the whole Party So that his Books can be esteemed by sober judicious Christians no other than scandalous Libels And if this be the first Fruits of his Labour in print it 's adviseable he either stop here or alter his Mode of Writing for in both these Tracts he hath dipt his Pen in Gall and Vinegar yea in the Poyson of Asps That this is true will appear if we consider That he is not contented only to accuse the Baptists in general who whatever he thinks are no inconsiderable Party with Error Heresie and Blasphemy in Points of Doctrine but Vnchristian Carriages fearful Curses yea with Murder it self and that their Imployment hath been to Play with Rattles ride on Hobby-horses and wallow in their own Dung with much more of this kind which I have faithfully Collected from his two Books and placed together at the entrance of my own that the World may see what a Monster of a Man I have to deal with in this Vndertaking If therefore I have let drop any words which may savour of great Indignation against such a procedure I hope the Reader will make a Charitable Construction of it For as the Apostle saith in another Case He hath Compelled me Having thus given this brief Account both of the Occasion and Manner of Manageing this Vndertaking I shall commit it to thy serious and impartial Perusal and Consideration Begging that the Father of Lights may assist thee therein that thro' his Blessing it may be a Means of thy Illumination in the Truths of Christ and through his Grace of the Salvation of thy precious Soul W.R. The EPISTLE of the Author to Mr. Michael Harrison Teacher of a Presbyterian Congregation in Potters-Pury in Northampton-shire SIR YOur Person I know not but I can with great facility discern your Spirit and the Frame and Temper of your Mind by your two Books for it 's discovered almost in every Paragraph thereof I have endeavoured to shun following your Example Quoad potest with respect to the Nature of the thing and instead of Railing to give you Scripture Reason and Argument for what I have said But whether after all as to your self I have not lost my labour you are best able to resolve For my own part I have little hopes of such who set themselves to oppose and contradict the Truths of God in such a way as you have done However I have according to my power endeavoured your Conviction being exhorted by the Apostle 2 Tim. 2.25 In Meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth But Dear Sir remember that in the Judgment of the Apostle it 's but a peradventure be not therefore high minded but fear For as our Lord said to Paul It 's hard for thee to kick against the Pricks to spurn against the Authority of Jesus Christ in his Word Sir One Eminent Instance of your Wilfull Opposition to Truth and the Conviction of your own Conscience is that you tell us about Aenon in John 3.23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there and they came and were baptized Now Sir You tell us it could not be supposed to be done by dipping nay almost impossible it should because of the extream scarcity of Water that there was not Water to dip such multitudes in That at Aenon where John was baptizing there was not much water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but Oculus an Eye a very little Fountain now here you speak directly contrary to the very Letter of the Text For the Holy Ghost saith There was much water And you say There was not much water Which must we believe This is a bold and daring Assertion Now Mr. H. Collins in his Answer to your first Book sufficiently confutes this Assertion of yours not only from Scripture but by the Authority of Learned Men who also were for Infant-sprinkling as the Learned Lightfoot Dr. Hammond Erasmus and that profound Critick Mr. Poole who all testifie there was Pools of Water many Waters gushing Streams of Water and that the Word so signifies both in the Greek and Syrian Languages Now if you had confessed your Error in your Second Book you had heard nothing from me about it But in your second Book you persist in your opposition hereunto for you say in page 33. Mr. Collins saith I have contradicted the Scripture in saying there was not much Water there Which you are pleased to say is no contradiction for notwithstanding the Scripture saith otherwise yet you say what I have said is true And you bring the Evidence of the Learned Piscator after all this to contradict your self The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videntur significare plures rivos c. That the words signifie many Rivers c. If there was many Rivers as your Author saith no Man can doubt but there was much water and that it was a fit place to dip multitudes in And why you brought this Testimony unless to confute your self I know not The next Testimony you bring is Hierom Aquae multae erant illic there was much water there But because that would have directly contradicted your self you say which Holybuse Englishes many Waters And you say the Town had its Name from some Fountains of Water springing there And you further say That Aenon come from the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnajin a Fountain A Man would have thought all this had beeh a full Confutation of your self and you had been
to plunge or overwhelm and that all its Derivatives are used in the same sence I could give you multitudes of Instances to prove that the right way of baptizing is by dipping Mr. John Gosnold in his excellent Treatise of the Doctrine of Baptisms saith The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo in its proper and native signification is to dip This saith he the Learned in all Ages and all Lexicous or Dictionaries do acknowledge nor can we find by the most diligent search that 't is otherwise accepted by any Author whatsoever excepting some very few of late He hath there given us divers Instances from men of good Authority for Learning as he saith in all Nations some of them I shall recite Hugo Grotius as Learned a man as any our latter Age hath afforded saith the word signifies to dip under water Bishop Vsher in his Body of Divinity saith the same As also Dr. Ames in his Marrow of Divinity Book 1. Chap. 40. As also Mr. Perkins Ball 's Catechism hath it washed by dipping Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra on the New Testament the last and best of this kind saith The native and proper signification of the Verb is to dip into water or to plunge under Water and of the substantive dipping into Water So also Wilson's Dictionary The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads for John the Baptist John the Dipper and for he baptized them he dipped them And the Common-Prayer Book prescribes Dipping as the best way for the manner of the performance of this Ordinance and always places it first The Priest shall dip c. So likewise Daniel Rogers a famous English Writer in his Treatise of the two Sacraments c. Part 1. Chap. 5. hath these Words It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is dipping especially it not being left arbitrary by our Church to the discretion of the Minister but required to dip or dive That he betrays the Church whose Officer he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution which is to dip And this saith he I so aver as thinking it exceeding material to the Ordinance and no slight thing yea which Antiquity constantly and without exceeption of Countries hot or cold witnesses unto and especially the constant word of the Holy Ghost first and last approveth as a Learned Critick upon Mat. 3.11 hath noted to wit Causabon And he further saith I doubt not but contrary to our Churches intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit I speak this saith he as desiring such as it concerns in their places to look to their Duty in this behalf Afterward he further saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstration of Scripture for Infants sprinkling Thus you see here is a Cloud of Witnesses to prove that baptizing was and ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water And I am perswaded there was not one of these but understood the Etymology of the Greek word Baptizo as well as Mr. Harrison and yet they all agree that Dipping is the right manner of baptizing But Mr. H. is pleased to tell us as tho' our Translators had never rendred the Word to dip or that it signified dipping in all the New Testament pag. 29. Answ I will prove that in divers places where there was nothing of the stress of the Controversy depending they have so rendred it as I have given a plain and full Account in my Epistle concerning Baptism to which I refer you as Rev. 19.13 Matt. 26.23 Luke 16.24 John 13.26 it 's translated dipt dippeth dip dipped as you will see by reading the places cited Now seeing he also tells us to sprinkle is a certain known sense of the Word and that it signifies to baptize by sprinkling page 29. I answer in the words of the learned Mr. Gosnold the Translators themselves never once in all the New Testament renderd it by sprinkling There is another word for that which they constantly translate to sprinkle to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantizo And the Translators do in effect render the word Baptizo as we do for they translate it washing Mark 7.4 8. Luke 11.38 and Heb. 9.10 washed which all know cannot be done by sprinkling but must be by dipping or plunging so much of it as is washed into the Water And where it is spoken of Persons it can signify no less than the whole body being dipt thereir And that this was the Practice in the first times of the Gospel I will alledge two or three Testimonies and so pass on On Matt. 3.6 were baptized in Jordan The Assemblies Annotations read it dipping in Jordan And Diodate saith they were plunged in water In Ver. 16. And Jesus when he was baptized c. Cajetan saith Christ was baptized not by sprinkling but by dipping into the Water And Lucas Brugensis upon the same place saith The Party baptized went into the Water as deep as his Thighs or Navel the rest of his Body was dipt not sprinkled Upon Acts 8.38 39. And he baptized him c. The Assemblies Annotations saith They were wont to dip the whole body And Piscator on the place saith The ancient manner of Baptism was that the whole Body was dipt into the Water Mr. Mede a great Antiquary in his Diatribae on Titus 3.5 saith That there was no such thing as sprinkling used in Baptism in the Apostles time nor many Ages after them Calvin also upon John 3.22 23. saith From this place you may gather that John and Christ administred Baptism by plunging the whole Body into the Water and confesses That the Church hath assumed this Liberty to her self of sprinkling I might add many other Testimonies to prove this Truth but I am tired with writing and these I have already alledged are more than sufficient Now a man would think it were highly reasonable that Mr. H. should give us some plain Evidence for his Rantism or Sprinkling to be Baptism when I have given my self so much Trouble to satisfy his Curiosity But he puts us off with a sham Pretence without any Scripture Testimony either from the English Translation or from the Greek His Pretence is this That in 1 Cor. 10.2 it signifies to baptize by sprinkling for all the World knows a Cloud doth but sprinkle Observe I pray how this Man deals with us Doth the Text by him quoted say They were baptized by sprinling Surely No There is not one word of sprinkling so much as mentioned In the next Page he abuses his Reader more for there he tells him that the Word Baptizo doth signify sprinkling but then his Heart failing him in the Proof he adds or to baptize by
hereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned But after all this you still oppose the Truth as well as your self by saying it signifies an Eye a little Fountain sending forth but little water in conformity to the Eye There really was but little water a Man might stop it with the Foot What can a Man stop many Rivers with his Foot I hope you will blush at the reading of such silly Contradictions as these But yet you say there was much that is many Waters here Conscience began to check you and forced another Confession from you but immediately by your Explication you contradict it again For you say there was several little Holes like Eves gushing out Water But in the next Words you say there was much water Well but how do you make that out As a Bucket-full is compared with a Spoon-full I was afraid those many Rivers would have dwindled to nothing But you confess there was a Bucket full of water to fill those many Rivers and to supply their constant course of flowing and so you say comparatively there was much and yet really but a little water If this be not to write against the Light of your own Understanding and to struggle with the Convictions of your own Conscience I know not what is We may see by this what shift some Men will make to support an Error when once they have espoused it The Greek words in that Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Arias Montanus renders Quia aquae multae erant illic Because there was much water there as our Translators have also done And the Learned Leigh in his Critioa Sacra saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multus much and in approved Authors as Thucyd Homer and others it 's used for things that are great large excelling eminent c. Teste Budaeo With the seventy Interpreters there is nothing more usual than to render it thus as Gen. 15.1 Exceeding great Psalm 36.6 A great deep 1 Kings 4.29 Exceeding much And it 's so taken Luke 16.10 where it 's twice rendred much And seeing you have mentioned the Hebrew give me leave also to set down the two Hebrew words that answer to it viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Majim rabbim Majim signifies Waters Fontes Flumina Fountains and Rivers Rab. signifies in the singular much great chief and as Leigh saith Multus magnus apponitur parvo pauco it signifies much and great opposed to little and few But here it 's used in the plural Number which encreases its signification See Robertson's Hebrew Dictionary and Leigh's Critica sacra And as for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnajin an Eye a Fountain as it 's rendred a Fountain in many other places of the Old Testament so particularly in Gen. 16.7 it 's twice so rendred in that one verse And the Angel of the Lord found her by a Fountain of Water in the Wilderness by the Fountain in the way to Shur But if in this and many other places where the same Word occurs we should understand it an Eye instead of a Fountain what strange work should we make in interpreting Scripture such that would not become one who esteems himself a Master of Reason and a Teacher in Israel But Sir I perceive your speaking of the Name of the Town which was not at all to the purpose was to lead us from the Truth of the thing which was the Matter in Question viz. That there was much Water as the Holy Spirit saith Before I pass this place the last Words in John 3.23 are in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were dipped The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vaitabelu and were dipped For as Baptizo signifies to dip or plunge into the Water and implieth the washing of their whole Bodies even so the Hebrew Root Tabal from whence is used this Word in the Text in the passive form vaitabelu signifies He dipped The same that is used in 2 Kings 5.14 Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan according to the saying of the Man of God From hence you may observe That when this word is rendred to wash it signifies no other washing than what is performed by dipping and plunging the whole body under the Water For in ver 10. it 's said by the Prophet Go and wash in Jordan seven times and in ver 14. according to that Command He dipped himself in Jordan seven times And to let you see what Trifling you have been guilty of in both those Tracts about the Meaning of this place Had it been Sprinkling intended it must have been from Rantizo in the Greek to sprinkle or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazab in the Hebrew he sprinkled but neither of these are used in this place but instead thereof its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal he dipped from whence it 's derived which are as different both as to Letters and Signification as any two Words can well be for that Sprinkling is not Dipping Rantizing is not Baptizing Besides It 's plain from the reason given by the Holy Spirit in the Text why John baptized in this place i. e. because there was much water But if he had not plunged them into the water and overwhelmed them with it as the word signifies but only sprinkled their Faces with a few drops thereof this Reason had been without Foundation For as Cornelius a Lapide observes A very little water would have served to have sprinkled thousands But their manner of baptizing being to dip the whole Body under water therefore much water was necessary thereunto without which the Act of baptizing could not be performed And as Erasmus saith upon the place Aenon in the Syrian Tongue signifies gushing streams of Water by reason whereof there was plenty of Water to baptize the People withall And our Learned Critick Mr. Matt. Poole saith thus upon the place It is from this apparent that both Christ and John baptized by dipping the Body in Water else they need not have sought places where there had been great plenty of Waters I shall say no more to it for this is more than sufficient to satisfie any rational Man about the meaning of this place And Sir If you will not acknowledge such a wilfull Error as this I shall despair of curing your infidelity 2ly I desire you to observe that the great stress you lay upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnolam Gen. 17. to prove that Covenant of Circumcision to be the Covenant of Grace is because you say that word signifies eternal Now if you your self did not doubt the truth of your own Assertion what makes you say in your second Book pag 17. The Covenant of Grace is immutable and eternal therefore Gnolam doth here signifie a perpetual Eternity Sir this is according to the common Proverb To run round like a Horse in a Mill For First You prove as you say the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. to be eternal because Gnolam signifies
Covenant made between parties as Aquila translateth it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testiment or disposition of ones last Will as the word is used by the Apostle Heb. 9.15 And the learned Dr. Coxe in his discourse of the Covenants pag. 5. saith Covenant relation to God and interest in him doth not immediately result from the proposal of a Covenant and terms of Covenant relation to man but it is by restipulation that he actually enters into Covenant with God and becomes an interressed party in the Covenant it is a mutual Consent of the parties in Covenant that states and compleats a Covenant-relation and this is called an avouching of the Lord to be their God by consent to the terms of a Covenant proposed to them It includes mutual ingagement But what Rutherford saith is not at all agreeable to the nature of Man's entring into Covenant with God under the Gospel because the Subjects he speaks of viz. Little Infants are not capable of understanding much less of giving themselves up to God in baptism in the way of a Covenant Engagement And I remember a saying of Mr. Richard Baxter in a Sermon I heard him preach some years agoe which is as follows It was the practice of the Church generally for the first five hundred years not to admit any to Baptism but such that did first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church But for as much as the Church hath alter'd the time of Baptism and doth administer it to such that are not capable to make such a profession of their Faith were I a Pastor of a particular Congregation I would admit none to the Lord's Supper but such who should first make a publick profession of their Faith before the Church for we ought to avouch the Lord to be our God Now by what Mr. Harrison saith in his Book concerning Mr. Baxter I take him to be of that sort of Presbiterians which are called Baxterians And if he will abide by the sentence of his Master then Infants can make no restipulation and so not be actually in the Covenant For they cannot avouch the Lord to be their God and consequently can have no right to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant if they are not actually in it But further Mr. H. saith If this displease we will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame upon the Text viz. That they who have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they also have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the Infants of Believing Parents have a right to be baptized by the word of promise therefore they have a right by the word of Command Who this Mr. Stephens is I neither know nor care but this I know that his Argument is nothing to the purpose he brings it for For 1. He doth not toll us what this word of promise is Nor 2. Where it is written And therefore we are at as great a loss as before But if there be any consistence betwixt Mr. H. and him it is in Acts 2.39 and if he reads the Text but once more without Mr. Stephens his Spectacles he will not find any promise there that Infants shall be baptized I may with far better Authority argue thus If there be no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any promise of any blessing to them in being baptized then they have no right to be baptized But there is no Command in all the Scripture that Infants should be baptized nor any Promise of any blessing to them in being baptized Ergo They have no right to be baptized The major is undeniable the minor is proved from that universal silence throughout the whole Book of God there â—ot being the least word spoken concerning it either directly or indirectly of any such command or promise And yet for all this Mr. H. according to his usual way of ludere sacra trifling and fooling with Holy Things saith He hath now answered our desire here is both a word of Command and a word of Promise But it is in his Friend Stephens his Argument and not in the Holy Scripture But seeing he hath promised he will stand by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame we have reason to conclude he values it above any thing that can be said to the contrary tho' never so plain evidence be given him from the Holy Scriptures But if it were not the gain of filthy lucre that incited him thereto perhaps he might as well change his mind about that as he hath done about some other things when he left a small Benefice under Episcopacy to get a better Livelyhood under the form of Presbytery I have said enough to this of the Covenant to satisfie any man that is willing to receive satisfaction either from Scripture or the reason of the thing But if neither of those will prevail we must leave such to stand and fall to their own Masters For all the benefit we can expect from the best of means where it is willfully rejected is that they will still persevere in their old practises contradicting and blaspheming the way of the Gospel as the Jews did in opposition to the Apostles Doctrine to their own Destruction CHAP. V. Shewing that the right manner how Baptism ought to be administred is by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming the whole Body of the Person baptized under Water And that it is not by sprinkling or otherwise applying Water to the Person baptized as Mr. Harrison saith MR. H. tells us The Anabaptists confidently affirm the right manner is dipping the whole body under water and say they if not so performed is no baptism at all Answ There are many who do thus affirm and that truly but that the Anabaptists do so I know not for I do not know of any Anabaptist in the World If he means those that do baptize believers upon profession of Faith they cannot be called Anabaptists because they do not baptize any who were before baptized and I hope he is so good a Master of the Word himself uses as to know the Etymology thereof For the word Ana signifies again and we do not baptize any that were baptized before And indeed it 's neither like a Man much less a Scholar to beg the Question but to prove it Besides he knows we deny sprinkling to be Baptism and till he hath proved himself or any of those he sprinkles to be baptized he hath no reason to call us Anabaptists Now for dipping in Baptism saith he they plead 1. That the Greek Word signifies to Dip. 2. The manner of baptizing in the primitive times was by dipping 3. John's baptizing at Aenon 4. The word Burial being buried in Baptism Answer A man would suppose that this plea were good but it seems not pleasing to Mr. Harrison For 1. He saith we say the word baptizing in Greek signifies to be Dipped They say to baptize in English is to dip And what
doth he say to that And so there is the English of English This is a meer Quibble for baptize is from baptizo and is not originally an English Word and by his good favour there is if he will have it so other English for it viz. to dip or plunge c. and whether he will or no we believe that to be the signification of the word and doubt not to make it appear Mr. H. Well saith he but let us enquire what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie in the Original Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes indeed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip or plunge Answ I wish Mr. H. would do by himself in this as he saith he will do by Mr. Stephens his Syllogistical Frame stand by it For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip or plunge how comes its derivatives to signifie otherwise Bapto is the Theme or Root from whence all the other are derived and the Branches certainly are of the same nature with the Root What wise man expects Apples to grow upon an Oak or Grapes from Thorns or Figs from Thistles And it 's as strange to think that the genuine and proper derivatives of Bapto to dip or plunge should signifie to sprinkle or scatter But in the very next words he saith But it is seldom or never used for dipping in the New Testament Answ It 's a wonder that the Evangelists and Apostles who were divinely inspired should feldom or never use a word in its right signification Pray let Mr. H. either retract this unwary assertion or else acquit himself from blasphemy against the Holy Ghost if he knows how It 's a dangerous thing to charge the Holy Pen-men at this rate But seeing he saith it 's seldom or never so used in the New-Testament it implies that it 's so used by other Authors Why doth he not tell us who they are that we may apply to them for the right use of words and not any longer be deceived by the Pen-men of the Scripture Doth he not see what a Trifler he is about divine things and what horrid consequences do attend such a frothy way of arguing Can he believe himself I do not think it possible But saith he though it be derived of a word that signifies to dip it does not follow it signifies so Answ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo is the word he intends or nothing for himself puts that down and that must be the it he means and tells us it 's never rendred to dip in all the New Testament Nay further he saith it 's not yet proved that it ever signifies dipping in all the New Testament Now seeing he hath mentioned the Learned Leigh in his Critica Sacra and prefaced it with these words Instar omnia in the stead of all I will examine his Author These are his Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the word Baptize notwithstanding what he cites out of Dr. Featly he declares to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto Tingo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linnen is plunged and dipt Now if Mr. H. doth not know how they use to order their Linnen when they wash Bucks let him ask the good women in the Countrey and they will inform him that they do not sprinkle a little water only upon their Cloaths but cover them all over with it And again saith the Learned Leigh the native and proper signification of it is to dip into Water or to plunge under Water and quotes several Places in the New Testament where it 's so used as John 3.22 23. Mat. 3.16 Acts 8.38 Again for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptisma he saith it is dipping into Water and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismos Mersionem significat in aquam It signifies to be drowned or overwhelmed in the Water He further saith That it appeareth from the Notation and Etymology of the word it self what was the custom of administring Baptism in the beginning whereas we now have rather Rantism that is Sprinkling in the stead of Baptism Wherefore he further tells us that we might not be deceived by a fallacious use of some latter Authors as if less than dipping the whole Body under Water were intended when they use the word wash or washing in the stead of baptizing Neque vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat lavare nisi à consequenti Nam propriè declarat tingendi causâ immergere Neither indeed doth the word Baptizein signifie to wash except only by consequence For it properly declares they are to be plunged under water as things are that they may be dyed Again Siquidem proprie baptismos est immersio intinctio Baptismos is properly a dipping a dying And Lastly He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intingor Dipt For which he quotes Rev. 19.13 He hath his Vesture dipt in blood And concludes thus it is taken from the Dyers Vatt and is a dying or giving a fresh colour and not a bare washing only whence cometh Baptism So that you may see how fairly he is confuted out of his own Author We will now examine another of his Authors Schrevelius as published with many additions by the Famous Linguist Mr. William Robertson Entuled Cornelij Schrevelij Lexicon manuale Graco-Latinum copiosissime Adauctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto Intingo Mergo Lavo hine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo idem Baptismos Baptisma c. all which signifie to dye to dip or plunge but not one word of sprinkling so much as mentioned And there was was a very good reason fet it because he tells us there is another word in the Greek to signifie that by I shall give it you from the same Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantizo Aspergo to sprinkle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rantismos Aspersio Sprinkling and Rantisma the same So that you may see the words are as different in the Greek as they are in several other Languages and are as discernable as they are in English And every English Reader knows there is a vast difference in the Action signified by dipping and that signified by sprinkling Sprinkling is not Dipping nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seeing the Spirit of God uses two Words to signifie two different actions it would be great presumption in us to confound them Alstedius in his Lexicon Theologicum saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum significat immergere non lavare nisi ex consequenti that Baptizein signifies only to dip plunge or drown and not to wash except by consequence Besides as I have noted in my Epistle concerning Baptism that this sence is so well understood however it comes about that Mr. H. is so great a stranger to it that every School-boy in the Greek Grammar can tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there rendred mergo immergo to dip
sprinkling 1 Cor. 10.2 They were all Insants as well as grown Persons baptized by the Cloud There are two great Abuses he puts upon his unwary Reader 1. He falsifies the Text for instead of being baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea he saith by the Cloud Doth he think the Apostle Paul who was divinely inspired did not know how to use an apt word to express his meaning by but he must be beholding to such a one as he to mend it for him Had Mr. H. the like Advantage against us we might have expected to have been sufficiently abused by his virulent Pen but he shall see by the Grace of God that we have other wise learned Christ But 2dly He tells us They were all Infants as well as grown Persons baptized Who told him so He is a bold Man to venture upon adding to the Word of God Let us read the words and then you will see there is not the least mention of Infants in the Text But his Design was to prove Infants the Subjects as well as sprinkling the manner of Baptism 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. Moreover Brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now let us see if we can by Gods Assistance find out the Mind of the Spirit in these words 1. The Subjects are described to wit the Fathers All our Fathers 2. They are said to eat spiritual Meat and drink spiritual Drink to drink of Chirst the Rock of Ages 3. That from hence it will manifestly appear That all the Persons said to be Baptised unto Moses c. were true Beleivers because none can eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood but such that are united to him by Faith John 6.32 33 34 35 36. I shall only recite part of the words you may read the rest at your leisure And Jesus said unto them I am the bread of Life he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst c. See also from Ver. 47. to Ver. 59. So that it appears from hence That it was only the Believers in Christ among that mixt multitude that were the Persons intended But 4ly With many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now let us examine who those were whose Carkasses fell in the Wilderness In Numb 14.22 Because all those Men which have seen my glory and my Miracles which I did in Egypt and in the Wilderness and have tempted me now these ten times and have not hearkned to my voice surely they shall not see the land c. V. 29. Your Carkasses shall fall in this Wilderness and all that were numbered of you according to your whole number from twenty years old and upward c. save Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun Here you see who they were whose Carkasses fell in the Wilderness who are called Fathers viz. The men among them from Twenty years old and upward they sinned they murmered they tempted Christ c. and their Carkasses fell in the Wilderness From whence the Apostle cautions these Saints at Corinth to be warned by their Example V. 12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he stands take heed least he fall But saith Mr. H. Infants as well as grown Persons I pray therefore see what is written from the mouth of God Numb 14.31 32. But your little ones which ye said should be a prey them will I bring in and they shall know the land which ye have despised But as for you your Carkasses they shall fall in this Wilderness From whence I infer That if Baptism were here caken for an Ordinance administred by Moses the Subjects of it as expressed by the Apostle were Fathers and from that of Numbers where we are told what they were They are called men and said to be twenty years old and upward So that you may see Mr. H. makes strange work in his Interpretation of Scripture for he turns Men into Infants But 2ly If it must be so taken as an Ordinance then Believers in Christ are the only Subjects of it For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But saith Mr. H. They were Baptised by sprinkling for they were all Baptised by the Cloud and a Cloud doth but sprinkle or pour out water not Dip. What he means by a Cloud dipping I know not but when he hath falsified the Text by putting in by in the room of in he had a mind to accommodate it to his own Fancy But why Mr. H. fancies that they were sprinkled by the Cloud I cannot tell except it be that he prefers his own Imaginations before the written Word I would ask this Gentleman a few Questions 1. How he knows there was Water in this Cloud If he shall say that all Clouds have Water in them that I must deny Besides other Reasons that might perhaps be assigned I shall offer this in Evidence That in the Epistle of Jude ver 12. we read of Clouds without Water and how doth he know but this might be such a Cloud 2ly If this Cloud had Water in it How will he be able to prove that it dropped upon the Children of Israel whilst they were passing through the Sea For I am sure the Scripture saith not one word of it 3ly If he will but consider the account that is given of this Cloud in Numb 14.14 Exod. 13.21.22 whether he will not find that this which is called the Pillar of a Cloud was not the Token of God's Presence as a Guide to them by day as the Pillar of Fire was by night And whether this was not a miraculous manifestation of God's Favour to them and not a common natural cloud see Exod. 14.21 29. Chap. 15.8 Psalm 106.9 Now these places assure us they went thro' the midst of the Sea as on dry Land and the Waters were a Wall unto them on the right hand and on the left Pray how had it been dry Land if it had rained upon them all the time they passed thro' Compare but this with Psalm 105.39 He spread a Cloud for a Covering c. 4ly Seeing the word in 1 Cor. 10.2 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it being here used in the passive form it may not properly be read thus They were all overwhelmed unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea as they must needs be when the Cloud covered them and the Waters were a Wall unto them on the right hand and on the left
So that the main design of the Apostle among other Mercies of God bestowed upon that People is to commemorate that great and wonderful deliverance at the Red Sea and then to shew us what an ungrateful People they were thus to sin against him and to cause him for their sins to destroy them in the Wilderness And if this be the Scope of the place as I believe it is that so we might be warned by their fall to avoid falling into Apostacy against God as they did and had our translators so rendred the word as it imports in our English Tongue no Man would ever have dreamt of an Ordinance of Baptism from this Text. If notwithstanding all that I have said upon the Text Mr. H. will still insist upon it that it was a Baptism and that by sprinkling I shall oppose thereto the Dutch Translators to shew him their Opinion to the contrary who being Presbyterians their words may possibly have the greater force upon his Understanding They read it thus Ende alle in Mosen gedoopt Zin And they were all dipt unto Moses So that you may see the Learned Men in Holland of his own perswasion do directly contradict what he saith I will only offer one Consideration more and so pass it viz. That by the same Argument that in the word all their Infants were included their Cattle were included also for they all passed under the Cloud and thro' the Sea as well as their Little Ones for it is written Exod 10.26 Our Cattle also shall go with us there shall not a hoof be lest behind And altho' the Papists are for baptizing of Bells I hope Mr. H. will not be also for baptizing of Cattle even the Beasts of the field But let him avoid the consequence if he can in case it be not restrained to the Fathers as in the Text. The next thing Mr. H. insists upon is That there are three sorts of Baptism that of Water that of the Spirit and that of Afflictions to which I concede And whereas he saith it 's expressed by one Greek Word I do also agree but that those three as he saith are but one Baptism that I deny He is the first that I ever knew affirm it But pray Sir consider what you say Is Water the Spirit and Fire Is Affliction the Spirit or Water Affliction or Fire Water Take it which way you will I believe you will find it attended with difficulties Indeed Sir it 's one of the most intricate Metaphors that you have yet sported your self with in your whole Book and if you understand it no better than I do you might have forbore to acquaint the World with the conceited fineness of the thought But Sir I suppose I may have the same liberty to give you my thoughts as you had to impart yours The Text you have brought to prove that these three Baptisms are but one and exprest by one word is Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism How this proves that those three Baptisms are but one Baptism I see not Sir you are very unhappy in one thing to lay down Assertions and when you come to prove it you urge such Texts that do not conclude the thing in Question but altho' this doth not prove three to be one and so afford us a new sort of Trinity I will not be so ungentile as not to give you my thoughts upon the Text before I pass it There is a threefold Baptism spoken of in the New Testament viz. That of Water that of Affliction and that of the Spirit and yet the Apostle here speaks after this manner one Baptism as there is one Lord one God c. Now my thoughts are these That it is Water-baptism only that is here intended And my Reason is this because to speak properly there is no other real baptism for the other two are figurative and metaphorical But besides The Apostle is there speaking of those Believers as incorporated into one body and as having been called into one hope of their calling having Christ for their one Lord and one Faith to unite them to this one Lord and one Baptism to make them visible Members of this one body the Church which Mr. H. owns to be an initiating Ordinance and God as their one common Father to supply all their wants and that these Persons that were members of this Church were baptized with water upon believing you may see Acts 19. beginning And this seems to me the most probable sense of those words One Baptism Now that it is a real Baptism is evident For as the word signifies to dip plunge or overwhelm them in the water and as it signifies the Burial and Resurrection of Christ so in respect of the thing done it 's a real act for that every person who is truly baptized as I have shewed above is plunged into the water and also raised up again out of the water the thing is really performed But that of Affliction is only metaphorical alluding to this of water as likewise also that of the Spirit and of Fire But perhaps Mr. H. may imagine that to be the Baptism of Affliction which is not and therefore let us hear what he saith about it As to the Baptism of Affliction saith he some soffer more some less some suffer lighter crosses as Mocks c. some loss of goods and liberty others Death when he hath said this he then delivers his Opinion about it in these words Now he that suffers least for Christ in a Christian manner doth as truly partake of the Baptism of Afflictions as he that suffers most Now suppose I deny this as I must how doth he prove it why he quotes no Text here but in the foregoing page Mark 10.39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withall shall ye be baptized That this is the Baptism of Affliction I own We must now enquire what this hath a principal respect unto for there is something more than common intended in these words In Luke 12.50 our Saviour saith I have a Baptism to be baptized withall and how am I strained till it be accomplished Now this can be no other than that Death and bitter Agony he was to undergo for our sins that he might bring us to Glory And by his prediction to his Disciples in Mark 10.39 he foretold their deaths also for his sake Now as a Person that is baptized in water is overwhelmed therewith even so that bitter Agony our Lord endured in the Garden and upon the Cross when his Soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death before wicked men had so much as laid their hands upon him it pleased the Lord so to bruise him and put him to grief that his sweat was as it were drops or clotters of blood falling down to the ground And when he was upon the Cross how did he cry out by reason of that sorrow that overwhelm'd his Soul
My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And what great torture some of the blessed Martyrs have endured is not unknown This therefore I take to be meaning of those words I will close this in the words of a Learned Protestant Writer J. G. I shall saith he say no more of this Baptism but only leave this Note That every suffering is not the Baptism of suffering but only great and deep sufferings unto blood and death Hence the Ancients call it the Baptism of Blood in opposition to a lesser degree or measure of suffering being dipped and plunged into afflictions So Wilson's Dictionary And still this carries the signification of the Word with it Some conceive this phrase to be borrowed from such places in the Old Testament as these Psal 42.7 Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me Psal 69.1 2. Save me O God for the waters are come in unto my Soul I sink in deep mire where there is no standing I am come into deep waters where the floods overflow me Psal 88.7 Thy wrath lyeth hard upon me and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves Selah Ezekiel 26.19 For thus saith the Lord God when I shall make thee a desolate City like the Cities that are not inhabited when I shall bring up the deep upon thee and great waters shall cover thee In the next place Mr. H. proceeds to speak of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire for which he cites Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire Now I perceive Mr. H. is as much mistaken in the true Notion about this Baptism as he is in the other two and indeed 't is common for one Error to follow another at the heels What need therefore have Christians in general and more especially those that are Ministers who are Guides to others to be very cautious of admitting any thing for truth but what they have good Authority for from the Word of God The Lord pour out of his Spirit to give us more light and to make us all sincere I find by his citing these Texts in Isa 52.15 Ezek. 36.25 and Heb. 10.22 that it is his Opinon That Regeneration wrought in the Soul by the Spirit is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire For saith he the giving of the Spirit is expressed by sprinkling Now for my part I am quite of another mind for as I do not believe that any were baptized with that Baptism from the beginning of the World to the coming of the Messiah so neither do I think that any have been baptized with it since the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit did cease after the Apostle's days And to make it appear that it 's more than only the sanctifying Graces of the Spirit I might recite the Opinions of divers learned Men I shall content my self with what is already prepared to my Hand by a Learned Pen whose Words are these That this Phrase hath a further meaning in it see Wilson's Dictionary Also the Learned Cameron and Dr. Hammond on this place viz. Mat. 3.11 who both refer and that rightly this for the further opening of it unto Acts 2.3 4. There appeared unto them cloven Tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance So that this Baptism of Fire hath clearly reference unto and was fulfilled in this extraordinary appearance of the Spirit like as of fire That this was the Baptism of the Spirit promised Mat. 3. and Luke 3. appears further by Acts 1.4 5. The Apostles being assembled together Christ commanded them that they should not depart from Hierusalem but wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence Which was accordingly fulfilled Acts 2. See also Acts 11.15 16. the Case of Cornelius as reported by Peter As I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning viz. in Acts 2. before-mentioned Then remembred I the Word of the Lord how that he said John indeed baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit This Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire is first called a pouring out of the Spirit in the Old as in Joel 2.28 29. and the Baptism thereof in the New Testament Acts 2. as borrowing its phrase from the Baptism of Water Mat. 3.11 still carrying the signification of the word with it both terms to wit a pouring forth of the Spirit and Baptism in opposition to a sprinkling or dropping of the Spirit in the ordinary measures thereof Moreover The account we have of it Acts 2.2 proves it And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of à rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost c. From whence I observe the resemblance it had to the Baptism of Water For 1. They were filled with it 2. It sat upon each of them 3. The House was filled therewith So that it was not only about them but it covered or overwhelm'd them even as the water doth in Baptism 4. All that were baptized with this Baptism had the Gift of Tongues 5. It is to be observed that the Spirit was not thus given before For they were all amazed at it and said one to another what meaneth this Ver. 12. and this did agree with that promise of our Saviour John 7.37 c. This spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified From hence I infer It could not be the ordinary Gifts of the Spirit with the sanctifying Graces thereof for this the Apostle had before his death but such an eminent pouring forth which is called the Baptism of the Spirit by which they received the Gift of Tongues and Prophesie by which they were endued with power from on high to execute their Masters Commission Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 To go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature This they did not receive till that wonderful pouring of it out upon the day of Pentecost Acts 2. it was a Gift reserved till that time to put a Glory upon the Messiah in the presence of those who had been his Murderers By this time I hope Mr. H. is satisfied of his Ignorance about points of such Importance as these are I wish with all my Soul that he were a Man of that meekness of Spirit which he ought to be so as to be willing to learn the truth as it
preaching to hear him tell them Beloved If your Children dye in their Infancy unless they are elected I can assure you they shall go to Hell and be punished there to all Eternity for that they could never help God hath so ordered it by his Secret Decree unknown to me and all the World Do you think God ever sent him of this Message Especially when he tells you in his Book he knows not who belongs to the Election of Grace Now Mr. H. might have been truly inform'd of this matter if he had minded what Mr. Collins told him in page 35. of his Book in answer to Mr. Mence and him That one of the first Arguments of the Church of Rome for Infant-Baptism is which I suppose is Mr. Harrison's also if he knows what he is talking of that it washes away Original Sin We can saith Mr. H. Collins tell you of a better way of washing away Original Sin namely by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Infants dying in Infancy Add to this what Mr. Claridge saith in his Epistle to the same Book And here I would inform all the Readers of Mr. Mence's Book that whereas he charges Mr. Collins for maintaining Infant-damning Doctrine it is altogether a mistake for Mr. Collins is rather inclined to think That all dying Infants are saved by the imputed Righteousness of Christ Notwithstanding all this and much more that hath been said before upon this Subject he still goes on in his confident way of writing and saith he will prove That all by Birth or Nature are by the sin of Adam liable to the condemnation of Hell by plain Scripture He is a bold man at asserting but he commonly fails in his Proof Let us now examine those Scriptures he alledges for probation of this confident assertion Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Now this was the threatning but in Gen. 3.17 18 19. we have the Sentence denounced against Adam by God himself which serves to explain the former threatning to be only the first Death with its Concomitants Cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the Herb of the field In the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return Here you see that what is called Death in the threatning is called returning to the Ground and unto Dust in the Sentence but not one word of punishment in Hell so much as intimated therein As for the other Texts he mentions they are no proofs of what he brings them for and therefore I shall pass them and proceed to his three Arguments Argu. 1. If Children need Regeneration and a Second Birth before they can go to Heaven then they are liable to Eternal as well as Temporal Death But Children do need Regeneration therefore c. John 3.3 5. Except a man be born again c. Now it 's plain Nicodemus understood our Saviour in this sence by his answer viz. not of Children newly born but of adult Persons for he saith How can a man be born when he is old But to answer directly to his Argument I deny his Minor and say they do not need Regeneration and a second Birth in the Sence there intended before they can go to Heaven and if they did they were in a bad Case indeed for they are not capable either of Repentance or Faith both which are comprehended in those words Except a Man be born again Thus you see when he should have brought a Text to have proved Infants must be born again this only proves that a Person of grown years a Man must be born again Let him not imagine that I feign an Interpretation of my own for Mr. Firmin a great Pedo-baptist saith They must be regenerate they must have Faith c. They who are regenerated have Faith and Repentance all saved Infants are regenerated therefore they have Faith and Repentance they must be born of Water and of the Spirit according to John 3.6 else there is no Heaven for them Now that God does cleanse dying Infants from all Impurity and fits them for Heaven I readily grant But this Regeneration they talk of from this Text and apply to Infants I positively deny And certain I am if he had read those Quotations upon that Argument given by Mr. Claridge he might have been sensible of this his Error before he had wrote this his 2d part Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith Dr. Taylor to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove which is the very case of Mr. Harrison when he hath denyed them to have either personal and actual or habitual Faith he concludes thus This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the men are to be excused unless there were a better And again we desire saith he no more advantage in the World against such men than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason Common-sence and all the Experience in the World Dr. Taylor 's Liberty of Prophecy page 240 242. Mr. H's 2d Argum. is this If Infants are not liable to the damnation of Hell for Adam's sin then they may be saved without Christ by vertue of the Covenant of Works But c. This is a strange Assertion What can Infants be saved by Works that are wholly uncapable to Perform any this is meer trifling But I shall deny the Consequence of his Major For If Infants by virtue of Adam's sin must return to the dust and cannot raise themselves to life again but must have remained in that state for ever unless Christ had come in the flesh dyed and rose again and by vertue of his Resurrection raised them again by his mighty Power then it had been impossible for them to have been saved So that it 's a Non-sequitor for altho' they are not condemned to eternal Punishment in Hell yet there is a necessity for them to be saved by Christ if ever they get to Heaven But besides this they stand in need of Christ to purifie their Natures from Original Corruption as I have shewed above His 3d. Argu. is this Such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell but all are so therefore Infants Eph. 2.1 2 3. Answ In this he hath dealt very unfairly and neither like a Gentleman nor a Scholar for his Argument is not in due form For 1. Infants are no where expressed but in the Conclusion 2. He hath put the word all into the Minor tho' he hath not told us what all he means And in the major it 's only such as are c. I suppose he would have framed a Categorical Syilogism if