Discovery of the Unscripturalness of Anabaptism, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
AMong all the Raſh and Preſumptuous Aſſertors of Dipping the whole Body under Water, being the only right Mode or Manner of Baptizing, none hath made a greater noiſe (or a fairer ſhew) of being (herein) Infalible, than one William Ruſſel, who ſtyles himſelf Medicinae Doctor, Accademiae Cantabrigienſis.
This Author, with a more than ordinary Confidence, hath boldly aſſerted; that Dipping, &c. is the only right Mode of Baptizing, commanded by Chriſt in the New Teſtament, and practiſed by John the Baptiſt, and all the Apoſtles and Primitive Chriſtians.
This crude (or raw) Aſſertion of his, he labours to ſupport and make good by a fourfold Medium: Firſt, The Etymologie of the Greek word the Holy Ghoſt uſeth to expreſs Dipping by.
Secondly, Thoſe Metaphors uſed in Holy Scriptures, to repreſent it to our Underſtanding.
Thirdly, The Practiſe of the firſt Baptizers.
Fourthly, The words of the Grand Commiſſion given by our Saviour in Mat. 28.19.
To demonſtrate the falſeneſs of his Aſſertion, and to diſcover to Weak and Injudicious People the great Miſtakes, whereon he bottoms his Aſſertion, is the deſign of my preſent Undertaking. But before I attack this Goliah, in examining what he can get from the four Particulars (above mentioned,) which may cauſe Simple and empty Brains to think and conceit this Accademical Doctor Invincible and Unanſwerable in what he hath (ſo Peremptorily) aſſerted for the Truth of God. I will lay down two things, (by way of Premiſe) whereof I deſire the Reader (who is unwilling to be deceiv'd) to take notice.
The firſt is, That not ſo much the bare Letter of Scripture, as the ſenſe and meaning of the Spirit, (therein) is the Word of God; by which Truth and Error are to be Try'd and Judg'd. I have often ſaid, (and I am very bold in affirming, that) that Senſe or Interpretation, which any Man or Men give of any Text of God's Word, which thwarts and contradicts the Analogie of Faith, that Senſe or Interpretation is from the Spirit of Satan; not from God, be the ſame never ſo plauſible and pleaſing to the Sons of Men; and be the Authors never ſo highly eſteem'd of, for both their Piety and Learning. There is a ſweet and an harmonious Concord and Agreement between all the parts of God's Revealed Religion, though but few (Comparatively) can ſee it to be ſo. The Doctrine and Inſtitutions of God in all the particulars of his Inſtituted Worſhip, are plain, eaſy and obvious to the Eye, which the Spirit of Chriſt hath Anointed: But to ſuch Men and Women, who are Deſtitute of the Spirit of Chriſt, nothing in Religion appears to them, but Nonſenſe and ſeeming Contradictions, which is the Reaſon why ſo many thouſands in England, &c. Stagger and Reel (with a Spiritual Vertigo) in the Principles of the Proteſtant Religion, wherein both they and their Anceſtors were Initiated (by Water-Baptiſm;) and in maintaining of which, they ſeemed (for many years) very Zealous.
The ſecond thing I ſhall Premiſe, is this, (viz.) That Heterodox and Corrupt Underminers of the Goſpel are then to be moſt of all lookt after and watcht againſt, when they lay about them, to advance the Fame and Credit of the Devil's Miniſters, by Ecclipſing and Darkening the Credit and deſerved Fame of Chriſt's Worthys, whom Chriſt hath Honoured with, being the chief Combatants in the Lord's Battels againſt the Powers of Darkneſs in this World.
My deſign in this, is to diſcover to the unwary Reader, this Doctor's Deſign of Blackening that Renowned and Incomparable Servant of Chriſt, Mr. John Calvin, than whom, I verily believe, the World hath not (ſince the Apoſtles left the Earth) ſeen a Greater Divine. A Man, who (for his high and excellent Endowments in all manner of Learning, eſpecially his Eagle-eyedneſs, in penetrating into the Senſe of Scriptures) was more like a Prophet, or an Apoſtle, than an ordinary Preacher.
This Doctor, that he might put a Luſtre on Michael Servetus his Name, draws the Pencil of horrid and black Reproach acroſs the Name and Reputation of Holy, and (as I ſaid) Incomparable Calvin. The Devil (in his Miniſters) being deeply ſenſible how the famous and elaborate Works of that one Man ſtand in the way, to prevent and hinder the Devil growing Rampant, in advancing his Kingdom of Darkneſs among the Sons of Men.
Calvin is (by the Dr.) repreſented as an ambitious, Self ſeeking Man; and (which is far worſe) a bloody Perſecuter, while his Servetus is deckt and adorned wi…h the Robes of a Glorious Martyrdom. The Drs. Words will ſhew whether I be miſtaken in what I ſay of him, ſee Page 4 of the Drs. Epiſtle, where he ſaith, (with a Spirit of virulency) and at laſt I concluded it muſt certainly proceed from the very Spirit and Principle of the firſt founder of your Sect, (meaning the Presbyterians) Maſter John Calvin, who burnt the Books of Servetus, a Learned Baptiſt, and afterwards perſwaded the Magiſtrates of Geneva to Burn him alive; which Sentence was executed upon him, (as Caſtellio teſtifies, (who was a contemporary with him) In theſe words Michael Servetus was burnt alive for his Opinion, at Geneva, 1553, upon the 27th …ay of October.
Beſides this, The Dr. tells his Reader, (with an ungodly deſign, to leſſen and blacken the Famous Calvin; and to Extol his Servetus,) that one well obſerves, that Mr. Calvin did acknowledge of Servetus, that he was a Learned Charitable Man; notwithſtanding which, he wrote a Book to Juſtifie Servetus being put to Death.
When I See and Rea… theſe things, from a better, and more Impartial Teſtimony than Caſtellio was, I ſhall then ſay ſomewhat to it. But (indeed) I muſt Ingeniouſly aſſure the Dr. that I ſhall neither believe him, nor his Caſtellio, in the Reports they ſpread abroad of Calvin, and others (of Chriſt's Worthys) who Detect and Decry their Heretical Doctrines.
Not him, becauſe ſad Experience Teaches, that thoſe of his Judgement are pretty well Skilled, in Miſrepreſenting and Belying the moſt Holy, Orothodox, and moſt Learned of Divines; on purpoſe to gain Ground among the leſs Intelligent, whom they know to be ſtrangers to Authors; and who will be eaſily drawn to Credit thoſe Reports, which they are not able to contradict: Eſpecially when Repreſented to them, by the Mouth and Pen, of ſuch, as they take to be good Men.
Not his Caſtellio, becauſe I look on him every way as unfit to be a Witneſs againſt ſo Orthodox and great a Propugnator of Goſpel Verities, as Calvin is known to be; And that, on the Account of the Teſtimonies given of Caſtellio; by good and Learned Men, who better knew what Caſtellio was than Dr. Ruſſel doth.
The Great and Learned Scaliger charges Caſtellio, with holding many corrupt Opinions of the Anabaptiſts.
And the Learned Hoffman Accuſed him for being one of the firſt Sowers of the Seed of Arminianiſm.
Tar. Faber, another Great and Learned Author, Charged him with ſaying that the Song of Solomon was a Wicked Book. And he held that Paul Taught a more Myſterious Divinity to ſome perfect Diſciples, than he left in Wri ing, this is to be ſeen in his Book, on the Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians.
Now if the Impartial Reader, ſeriouſly weighs the Account given of Calvin and Caſtellio, by the Orthodox and Learned, he will ſoon conclude (with me,) That had the Parts and Learning of Servetus and Caſtellio both Concenter'd in one Head, Calvin's Orthodoxy in the Faith, and his Excellency in all manner of Learning, had never been in danger of Suffering an Eclipſe: Nor yet his Books of receiving a Solid Anſwer (much leſs a Confutation) by ſuch Men as Servetus and Caſtellio, whatever Dr. Ruſſel and his Bigotted Proſelites think or believe to the Contrary.
That Eagle Eyed Calvin, ſoared too High (in Penetrating into the Arcana Imperii of Heaven) for ſuch Glow-worms to reach his Senſe, or to underſtand the Spirit by which he Speaks and Writes. Wiſdom is Juſtified of none but her own Legitimate Off-ſpring. Mat. 11.19.
And here I deſire the wary Reader, to take notice of the fraudulent deſign of Dr. Ruſſel, which is, to I…poſe on his Reader, a believing that Servetus (who dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion) did Dye for b…ing an Anabaptiſt: which inded is a notorious Piece of Falſ…ood, as the Learned and Godly (who look into Antiquity) well know, who give that Account of Servetus, that he was Executed at Geneva for his Blaſphemy ag…inſt the Holy Trinity, he Denying the God-Head of Chriſt, and the Perſonality of the Holy Ghoſt.
This the Dr. well knew would have ſpoiled his deſign, had he (honeſtly) told his Reader, what an Heterodox and Blaſphemous Wretch, his Servetus, that Learned Baptiſt (who Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion) was.
And truly, (to be plain,) had Servetus Dy'd for being an Anabaptiſt (which I utterly deny he did,) yet, I am far from thinking the better of Anabaptiſm therefore: Or, Judging Servetus, (or any others who on that Account looſe their Lives) to be true Martyrs of Jeſus.
That ſaying of Cyprian will ever be true, that Cauſa, non Mors, facit Martirem, The Cauſe, not Death, makes a Martyr. As the Bleſſed Jeſus hath his Witneſſes, who Seal the Word of his Patience, with their deareſt Blood.
So the Devil hath his Witneſſes, (yea, many more than Chriſt hath,) who Seal their Infernal Hereſies, and Damnable Doctrines, with their Hearts Blood; yet I am far from Believing that ſuch Martyrs, will ever be owned by Chriſt, at their going off the Stage: Or, that ſuch Sufferings will make better the horrid Lyes and Blaſphemies Men Suffer for, be their Conſtancy, ſeeming Zeal, and Courage what it will.
Having Premiſed theſe things, I now proceed, to Examine the Four Particulars, whereon his Fabrick of Anabaptiſm ſeems to be Founded.
The Dr. and (with him all Anabaptiſts) Hold, (and with great Confidence) Aſſert: that Dipping and …lungeing the whole Body under Water, is the Only Right manner of Baptiſm, which all Believers are to practiſe under the Goſpel.
This he labours, (though in vain) to make good by the Etymologie of the word, which the Spirit uſes to expreſs Baptiſm by.
The word (in the Greek) is foreign, which (ſaith the Dr.) is derived from foreign to Dip or Plunge a thing under water. This ſignification of the Primitive word foreign, he confirms by Human Teſtimony; he begins with Learned Mr. Leigh, to whoſe Critica Sacra he refers his Reader, in Quoting whom, he deals with his Reader as he did in Quoting Servetus; he ſaith that Servetus Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion, but hides from his Reader the horrid Blaſphemies for which he Dyed: So here the Dr. (deſignedly) Curtails the Obſervations of Mr. Leigh on the word foreign, telling his Reader ſo much out of Mr. Leigh as he thinks makes for his Cauſe, but leaving out what of Mr. Leigh he knows makes full againſt him; which (I muſt needs ſay) is the trick of a Deceiver: And by theſe kind of ſhifts he and the moſt Crafty of his Party, do endeavour to underprop their ſinking Cauſe, bearing poor ſimple folk in hand, that the Eminently Learned and Godly Men (whom they Quote) were of the Anabaptiſts Perſwaſion.
Now to let his unfairneſs appear herein, I here ſet down what of Leigh he quotes, and what of him he omits.
The word foreign (ſaith Mr. Leigh, is derived from the word foreign, 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. Thus far the Dr. Quotes Leigh, and who would not think by reading ſo much of Leigh, and looking no further, (as the Dr. no doubt would have his Reader) but that Leigh in his Critica Sacra was of the Drs. judgment herein.
Now follows the Learned Leighs Obſervations on the ſignification of the word foreign. yet (ſaith he) it is taken more largely (meaning Baptizo) for any kind of waſhing, rinſing or cleanſing, even where there is no Dipping at all; for which he Quotes Mat. 3.11. I indeed Baptize you with Water, &c. Mat. 20.22. Are ye able to be Baptized with, &c. Mar. 7.4. And when they come from the Market, except they waſh they eat not. Luke 3.16. Acts 1.5. Acts 11.16. and 1. Cor. 10.2. In all which Scriptures Mr. Leigh doth acknowledge that foreign (the Derivative) is of a larger ſignification then foreign its Primative, and intends ſuch a waſhing as is done without Dipping; and why ſhould this be concealed from the Reader?
As for Zeppeorus, Alſtedius, Plutarch and Nazianzen, (on whom the Dr. lays no ſmall ſtreſs) I hope he will allow us the ſame liberty he takes to himſelf, (viz.) to Quote ſuch Teſtimonies as make for us.
The Learned Dr. featly (Quoted by Mr. Leigh) tells us that Chriſt no where requireth Dipping, but only Baptizing; which word (ſaith he) Heſychius, Stephanus, Scapula and Budeus, the great Maſters of the Greek Tongue) make good by very many Inſtances and Allegations out of Claſſick Writers, that the word importeth no more then Ablution or Waſhing, foreign (ſay they) in their Lexicons and Commentaries) Lavo foreign Lavatio, Ablutio, which may be done without Dipping.
As touching the Greek Lexicon, Publiſht, and recommended by.
Joſeph Caryl,
George Cokayne,
Ralph Venning,
William Dell,
Matthew Barker,
William Adderly,
Matthew Mead,
Henry Jeſſey.
All that I ſhall (or need to) ſay, is this, (viz.) that albeit I own my ſelf bound to Reverence and Honour the hoary Head, when found in the way of Truth and Righteouſneſs, yet it muſt ſtill be with the reſervation of the honour and reſpect which I owe to God, (that Ancient of Days) their Father and mine, who alone and not the Learning and Wiſdom of Men, (though the Greateſt and Holieſt) is the Father of their Faith and mine. I am not inſenſible that ſome Learned and good Men have granted, that the word foreign doth indifferently ſignifie, any kind of Waſhing by pouring out or ſprinkling Water upon, or, by Dipping or Plunging into the Water; and this they have grounded on the native Signification of the Primitive word foreign. But with becoming modeſty and due veneration to their Reverend Names, I muſt crave leave in telling the World, that for a World I cannot be of their Opinion (herein) until I receive greater and clearer light from the Spirit and Word of God, concerning this matter; and that for the reaſons here following. Firſt, the apparent difference I find between the two Words, foreign and foreign, in Letters and Syllables, let the words be obſerved, in foreign (the Primitive) I can find but 2 Syllables, foreign, Bap-to, but in the Derivative foreign I find three, foreign, Baptizo, and as in the Active, (ſo alſo in the Paſſive) Voice, foreign, Bap-to-mai hath three Syllables, whereas foreign which is the Paſſive of foreign, hath four Syllables, foreign Bap-ti-zo-mai. Now that the 2 words ſhould both in Active and Paſſive Voice ſo apparently differ in Letters, Syllables, and ſound of the words; and yet, that both the words ſhould ſignifie and import the very ſame thing, is to me ſuch a Riddle, that indeed I cannot ſee how the ſame can be unfolded, unleſs by the elucidating Art, and skill of Dr. Ruſſel. The Learned know (very well) that in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues, the change of a Letter or a Syllable doth greatly alter the Senſe and Import of Words; and why it ſhould not be ſo here, I cannot ſee any ſolid reaſon to the contrary, only it is the Will and Pleaſure of our Dr. (and his Adherents in this Cauſe) that it muſt and ſhall be ſo, right or wrong; as appears by his Arminian Confidence almoſt in every Page where he mentions the Word Baptize; where he (peremptorily) beggs the Queſtion, taking for granted, that which will never be granted by any, (unleſs by Brainleſs Heads or wilful underminers of the Goſpel, (viz.) that the Derivative foreign doth always (in the Goſpel) ſignifie and import the very ſame thing with Bapto, (viz.) to Dip or Plunge the whole Body under Water.
But that which will farther clear the matter, and put the Truth (I here contend for) out of the reach of all Scriptural Contradiction, is the Practice of the Holy Ghoſt, who is better Etymologiſt than our Dr. and then all the Arminian (and other Heretical) Criticks, who (in pretence of giving the Native and Genuine ſenſe of Words in the Scripture) have forc't a wrong ſenſe from the Original, on purpoſe to lay a firm foundation, on which they may build their Heterodox, and Soul deluding Doctrines.
I find that when the Holy Ghoſt would expreſs the Act of Dipping or Plunging into, he doth it only by the Primitive foreign, never by the Derivative foreign that I can find: For Proof whereof, let thoſe Scriptures (Quoted by the Dr. himſelf in Page 11.) be without prejudice lookt into, and ſeriouſly weighed. Rev. 19.13. He had his Veſture dipt in Blood. Mat. 26.23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the Diſh. Luke 16.24. That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water. And in John 13.26. it is (ſaith the Dr.) twice uſed, foreign Dipped, foreign, and when he had Dipped: Here in theſe places the Holy Ghoſt expreſſeth the A…t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive foreign, but never by foreign, Baptizo the Derivative.
Secondly, again (on the contrary) when the Holy Ghoſt expreſſeth Baptiſm by waſhing, he doth it by the Derivative foreign, but never by the Primitive foreign, Bapto. For Proof hereof, let the places of Scripture already quoted (out of Leigh's Critica Sacra) be conſulted, in all which places the Spirit ſpeaks of Baptiſm, but not a word of Dipping; and that by the Derivative word foreign, Baptizo; never by the Primitive Bapto.
Seeing then it hath pleaſed the Holy Ghoſt to expreſs Dipping or Plunging into by the word foreign, but never by the word foreign, Baptizo; and that he hath expreſſed Baptiſm by the word foreign, but never by the word foreign. I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for reſolving to believe the Holy Ghoſt (in this matter) before I believe Dr. Ruſſel, and all the human Teſtimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cauſe; though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his ſo much admired Servetus and Caſtellio.
The Premiſſes conſidered, I hope the Dr. will not be diſpleaſed for making this fair and generous offer to him, and all who eſpouſe his Unſcriptural Cauſe, (viz.) that if he (or they) can ſhew ſuch a ſolid and convincing reaſon (as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith) why (or wherefore) the Holy Ghoſt ſhould not in any of thoſe Scriptures (where he expreſſeth Dipping) expreſs Dipping by foreign the Derivative, but only by foreign the Primitive; and why he ſhould not expreſs Baptiſm in any of the places of Scripture above quoted, by the Primitive foreign, Bapto, but always by Baptizo, in caſe both foreign the Primitive, and foreign its Derivative do ſignifie the very ſame thing, (viz.) to Dip or Plunge under the Water: And I do faithfully promiſe him to own my ſelf miſtaken, and him to be (herein) in the right.
If he cannot, I then hope his miſguided Proſelytes as well as himſelf, will ingeniouſly own themſelves miſtaken, and perſiſt no longer in fighting againſt the truth of God.
From the difference between the two words in Letters, Syllables and Sound; as alſo from the Practice of the Holy Ghoſt, in uſing both the words in the N. T
I thus Argue, Major. If the words foreign and foreign do apparently differ in Letters, Syllables and Sound, and if the Holy Ghoſt do always expreſs the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto, never by Baptizo; and Baptiſm by Baptizo, never by Bapto; then the word Bapto muſt ſignifie to Dip and Plunge, but never to Baptize; and the word Baptizo muſt ſignifie to Baptize, but never to Dip or Plunge under Water.
Aſſump. But the words Bapto and Baptizo do apparently differ in Le…ters, Syllables and Sound; and the Holy Ghoſt doth always expreſs the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto, never by Baptizo; and Baptiſm by Baptizo, never by Bapto.
Concluſion, Ergo the word Bapto muſt ſignifie to Dip or Plunge, but never to Baptize; and the word Baptizo muſt ſignifie to Baptize, but never to Dip or Plunge under Water.
Beſides this Argument, others ſhall be laid down to confirm this when I come to ſpeak to his third, (viz.) the Practice of the firſt Baptizers.
In the 2d place, our Dr. will have Baptizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water: The Proof he gives (to make good his Aſſertion herein) are thoſe Metaphors uſed in Holy Scripture: To repreſent it to our underſtanding, he Inſtances in two, in Page 8, (viz) Burial and Reſurrection.
He tells his Reader there, that our Lord Jeſus hath not burdened us under the Goſpel with a multitude of Ceremonies, as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Diſpenſation, but only with ſome few; and thoſe very Significant, this being a more Spiritual Diſpenſation. Before I meddle in ſpeaking to his Metaphors, I …ill take liberty to tell the World, that al…eit Chriſt doth not burden us with a multitude of Ceremonies now, as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Diſpenſation; yet this one Ceremonie (of Baptiſm) will prove a heavier Yoke to Believers now then Circumciſion with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Diſpenſation, in caſe it muſt be Adminiſtred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water, as Anabaptiſts ſay it muſt.
I come now to his Metaphors, the firſt whereof (he ſaith) is that of a Burial: For this, he and all of his Perſwaſion quote Rom. 6.4. and Coloſ. 2.12. Buried with him in Baptiſm unto Death. From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party, do hold and teach (for an infallible truth) that the Scope and Deſign of the Apoſtle in the two places (now quoted) is to teach and ſet forth the mode and manner how Chriſt was Buried, to the end Believers ſhould (in Baptiſm) imitate the ſame: This (if I miſtake them not, as I am very confident I do not) is the ſenſe and meaning wherein he and all Anabap…iſts take thoſe Scriptures.
In Anſwer to whom, I affirm that this their ſenſe of thoſe places is ſenſeleſs, and meerly forc't to ſerve their own turn, in proving that Dipping and Plunging (in Baptiſm) is the only true and right Baptiſm.
Now to diſcover their Miſtake and Error herein, I ſhall offer but two things to conſideration.
The firſt is, to ſhew the Scope and Deſign of the Apoſtle in thoſe places, which is not (as they fondly and injudiciouſly imagine) to ſhew that Chriſt was Baptized by dipping, or that Believers are to be ſo Baptized.
But the Scope and Deſign of the Apoſtle in thoſe places, is to ſet forth and prove that Suretyſhip Union, which is between Chriſt (the Mediatorial Head) and all the Members of his Body Myſtical; there being no one Act of Obedience, either Active or Paſſive, which Chriſt (the Mediator) performed in the aſſumed Nature, but all his Members are ſaid to do and perform the ſame; and all the Effects and Saving Benefits thereof do undoubtedly redound to all the Elect: and all this is Signified and Sealed in Baptiſm to every Elected Sinner, whether Infant or Adult. And I cannot but reckon it a ſtrange Infatuation on thoſe who lay ſuch ſtreſs on the Dutch Tranſlators, in the point of John the Dooper, (wherein ſilly and weak People do not a little Glory and Brag) that they ſhould put ſuch Sleights and Contempt on the Dutch Annotators, thoſe great Lights of the World, in matter of Infants right to Baptiſm, of Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of abſolute Grace, of Circumciſion being the Initial Seal thereof, and Baptiſm ſucceeding in the room thereof; with ſundry other material points in Goſpel Religion, wherein they are Sound and Orthodox: Yet, in nothing muſt our Dr. and his Adherents make uſe of the Dutch, only John the Dooper, John the Dooper: And in this Commiſſion, de Salve Dopende, Dipping them.
And what ground hath our Dr. to conclude, that had our Engliſh Tranſlators turned the words (about Baptiſm) into Dipping, as the Dutch Tranſlators have done? (If it be as he ſaith) that therefore it muſt (neceſſarily) be ſo in the Original, or how will he prove the Dutch Tranſlators nearer to Infallibility than our Engliſh Tranſlators were? or that our Engliſh Tranſlators would have been more Infallible than they were, in caſe they had Tranſlated John the Baptiſt Johannes de Dooper; and in the Commiſſion Baptizing them, de Salve Dopende Dipping them.
Secondly, if to imitate and ſet forth Chriſts Burial, be the deſign of the Apoſtle, then muſt it (neceſſarily) follow that it is Mens duty to imitate it in all the Circumſtances of a Burial, as well as in ſome.
Chriſt when he was Buried, he was wholly Paſſive; he did not go into the Grave himſelf, but was laid in by others; ſo muſt Perſons be in Baptiſm, they muſt be wholly Paſſive, they muſt not go into the Water …hemſelves, but muſt be laid under the Water by the Adminiſtrator of Baptiſm: Chriſt when Buried was left in the Grave, ſo muſt the Perſon in Baptiſm; he muſt be left under the Water as long as Chriſt continued in the Grave, which was three Days and three Nights.
If any ſhall ſay it is abſurd and ridiculous to think or ſay, that theſe Circumſtances ſhould be attended or imitated by Believers in Water-Baptiſm, I ſay ſo too; ad do farther ſay and affirm, that it is (altogether) as abſurd and ridiculous for any to affirm and teach, that for Believers to ſet forth and imitate Chriſts Burial is the Apoſtles deſign in the above-mentioned Scriptures: If Anabaptiſts will be peremptory in aſſerting and teaching that to ſet forth and imitate Chriſts Burial in thoſe places, is the ſcope and deſign of the Apoſtle, they muſt give me leave to be as peremptory as they in affirming, that unleſs they imitate Chriſts Burial in the Circumſtances now mentioned, their Baptiſm (about which ſo great and confuſed a noiſe is made in the World) is but a meer ludicrous (or mock) Baptiſm, for that they do not imitate Chriſt in their Baptiſm in thoſe Circumſtances which are ſo eſſentially neceſſary to ſ…t forth and repreſent his Death and Burial, in caſe it be as they hold it is.
To which I add, that our Baptizing by pouring out or ſprinkling Water on the Subject, doth (every way) more exactly repreſent and ſet forth a Burial, than that of Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water.
The truth of this will appear, if the Particulars following be ſeriouſly and without prejudice conſidered.
Firſt, In Dipping and Plunging into the Water, the Party Baptized, is Active, in going himſelf into the Water, which (indeed) ought not to be the Ordinance of Water-Baptiſm, being (in all reſpects) a Paſſive Ordinance, wherein the Subject is to be wholly Paſſive, as the Soul is in the Work of Regeneration.
The Work of Converſion or Regeneration is the Inward and Spiritual Baptiſm Adminiſtred by Chriſt. In this wonderful Work, the Dead Sinner hath no hand in effecting or producing the ſame, it is wholly done by Chriſt, the Adminiſtrator thereof. So in the outward Ordinance of Water-Baptiſm, (which is no more than the outward Sign or Seal of the Inward) the Miniſter of the Goſpel (in Adminiſtring Baptiſm) muſt only be Active, the Subject muſt put forth no Act at all. The Party going himſelf into the Water, doth not repreſent and ſet forth a Dead Man, in Pouring out or Sprinkling Water on the Subject, the Party is wholly Paſſive, as is a Dead Man when Buried. Again, in Dipping and Plunging the Party Baptized, is applyed to the Water, not the Water to the Party, which is contrary to the manner of Burials, which all Men know is to lay the Corps on its Back in the Grave, and to Pour out or Sprinkle the Earth on it.
In Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water, the Party is laid on his Back, and the Water poured out or ſprinkled on him.
The Party Dead is never thruſt into the Earth, but the Earth or Mould is poured out on him.
Now, whether of theſe two ways of Baptizing by Dipping and Plunging, or that of Pouring out or Sprinkling Water upon, do more lively and exactly ſet forth and repreſent a Burial, let any (who have not loſt their Senſes) Judge.
As to the ſecond Metaphor, (viz.) A Reſurrection, I humbly conceive, that what here follows may ſuffice to ſhew, that as Anabaptiſts do not (at all) hold forth or …epreſent the Death and Burial of Chriſt in …eir going into the Water (in their way) ſo, neither do they ſet forth and repreſent his Reſurrection, as they fancy they do.
Firſt, It is moſt certain, that when the time (determined by God's Decree) for Chriſt's remaining in a State of Death was accompliſht, (according to the Holy Scriptures,) he raiſed up himſelf from the Grave. No Hand of Men or Angels helpt to raiſe him. So that plain it is, if the Scriptures they alledge for this, be to be taken in a literal Senſe, then muſt it needs follow, that as he that Adminiſters Baptiſm (by Dipping or Burying the whole Body under Water,) doth Adminiſter Baptiſm in that way of Burying under the Water, to the end the Party ſo Baptized might lively ſet forth the Death and Burial of Chriſt; ſo he muſt leave the Party Buried in the Water, to raiſe up himſelf, that ſo he might repreſent Chriſt in his raiſing up himſelf from the Grave. If this were practiſed, it would not be hard to gueſs, how many Proſelites they would get to join with them in this their Fantaſtical new Mode of Baptizing. And truly, for my part, I cannot ſee how they can be excuſed from doing the one as well as the other, ſeeing that the Metaphor muſt be Proſecuted in all its parts, as well as in ſome. And thus they may ſee what they are like to get, by building their Confidence on miſunderſtood and wreſted Metaphors.
I come now to the Doctor's third Medium, whereby he labours to prove, that the right way of Baptizing under the Goſpel, is (and muſt be) by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water, (viz.) The Practice of the firſt Baptizers. In this he is as full of Confidence as he was in the other two; I have now diſmiſt, and I hope in the Goodneſs of God it will plainly be demonſtrated, that (in this alſo) he and his Adherents do pervert the Scriptures, which gives us the account of the firſt Baptizers, as they (moſt certainly) do the other Scriptures, which they bring to juſtifie and make good their Soul deluding Dreams.
He begins with John the Baptiſt, Page 10. where he tells his Reader, that it doth appear that Dipping is the right way of Baptizing from the firſt Baptizers: The firſt mention (ſaith he) of this Ordinance of Holy Baptiſm, we have in Mat. 3.1. where John the Dipper is mentioned; and ſo he goes on in a ſtrange kind of Rapſody, warbling out his ſo much affected Note, Dipping and Plunging. I ſhall not be concerned to follow the Dr. (Pedetentim) ſtep by ſtep in his Pedantick way, leaſt I ſhould be found guilty of the ſame empty Tautologies wherewith his ſo much admired Epiſtle abounds.
The ground of his miſtake herein, is the wrong Etymology he gives of the word foreign, which he and his miſtaken Teſtimonies take to ſignifie and mean Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water.
This Etymologie of his I have overthrown, as the Reader may ſee, if he look back to the firſt Head of the Diſpute, (viz.) the Etymologie of the word foreign. I ſhall not repeat but go on to confirm the truth of the Etymologie I have given of the word foreign, from the word of God, and the beſt Greek Authors, by ſuch Arguments as (I hope in Chriſt) will prove irrefragable.
The firſt ſhall be grounded on the neceſſity of John Baptiſt, his Harmonizing with the Pen-men of the Old-Teſtament in all the parts of his Miniſtry, if the Dr. will grant (as he muſt) if he ſpeak truth that his John the Dooper was a true and faithful Prophet of God, he muſt of neceſſity grant that John did run parallel with Moſes and the other Prophets.
This the Dr. muſt either grant or deny, if he grant that John did run exactly parallel with Moſes and the other Prophets, then is it beyond all contradiction that John adminiſtred Baptiſm by pouring out or ſprinkling Water on the Perſons he Baptized; for moſt certain it is, that Moſes (under the Ceremonial Diſpenſation) did apply all the Legal Waſhings and Purifications by Water, (which all had a Typical relation to Chriſt to come, as John's Baptiſm alſo had) by pouring out or ſprinkling the Water: The Prophets alſo, (witneſs thoſe two great Prophets Eſa. and Ezek.) they foretold of the manner how God would apply to his People the two great Benefits accrewing by his Sons Mediatorial Sacrifice, (viz.) Juſtification and Sanctification, which was to be by Sprinkling, as will evidently appear by Eſa. 52.15. Then ſhall he Sprinkle many Nations, &c. and Ezek. 36.25. Then will I Sprinkle clean Water upon you, &c. In theſe places the Spirit of Chriſt (in his Prophets) had an Eye to the Baptiſmal Waſhings of the New-Teſtament Diſpenſation. Now if John Baptiſt did (in all the parts of his Miniſtry) Harmonize with Moſes and the other Prophets, he did (undoubtedly) Baptize by pouring out or ſprinkling Water on thoſe he Baptized; for moſt certain it is, (as hath been already obſerved) pouring out or ſprinkling was the mode or way of application of all the Ceremonial Waſhings which were uſed before John's Baptiſm.
If the Dr. and his Adherents deny that John did run (exactly) parallel with Moſes and the other Pen-men of Holy Scriptures, then is John the Dooper (by them) made a falſe Prophet; and all who (from John) take up and practiſe the mode of Dipping the whole Body under Water, (as the only right Baptiſm) are Self-condemned in that they do (herein) follow one who contradicted the Spirit of God in the other Prophets.
And ſo (hereby) it appears how much John the Baptiſt is obliged to the Dippers of our Age, who, (rather than they will loſe their ſilly Opinion) will have the Spirit of Truth to ſpeak Nonſenſe, (yea, contradict himſelf) and John the greateſt of all the other Prophets, (becauſe the immediate fore-runner of Chriſt) to be a falſe Prophet.
This Stain they will never be able to waſh off their Name, any other way than by honeſtly acknowledging that John did (in all the parts of his Miniſtry) Harmonize with Moſes and the other Prophets, the which if they once grant, (as they muſt if they ſpeak by the Holy Ghoſt) then is their Cauſe loſt, and John no more to be Stiled John the Dooper, but John the Baptizer.
From what hath been ſaid, I argue thus, if John Baptiſt did (in all the parts of his Miniſtry) Harmonize and agree with Moſes and the other Prophets, then did he adminiſter Baptiſm by pouring out or ſprinkling Water upon thoſe he Baptized: But John Baptiſt did (in all the parts of his Miniſtry) Harmonize and agree with Moſes and the other Prophets.
Therefore John Baptiſt did adminiſter Baptiſm by pouring out or ſprinkling Water on thoſe he Baptized.
A ſecond Argument ſhall be grounded on impoſſibility, thus, that way of Baptizing which is impoſſible to be practiſed (without a miraculous ſtrength of Body) was never commanded by Chriſt, nor practiſed by John; but to Baptize the many Multitudes which came to John's Baptiſm, by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was a thing altogether impoſſible, ſeeing John had no miraculous ſtrength of Body to render him capable of ſuch an arduous and difficult Adminiſtration.
Therefore that way of Baptizing, by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was never commanded by Chriſt, nor practiſed by John.
The major Propoſition will not be denyed, the Aſſumption will readily be ſubſcribed, (as an unqueſtionable truth) if Men who plead for that way of Dipping will be but ingenious in doing two things. Firſt, in lifting up in their Arms (cleverly from the Earth) the many Corpulent-Bodies which offer themſelves to Baptiſm, lay them under the Water, and there hold them until the Adminiſtrator pronounce the words of Inſtitution, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. Secondly, in ſincerely acknowledging what experience teaches them concerning this Practice; theſe two Particulars comply'd in, will (I doubt not) put the matter now in Debate out of all Queſtion, that to Baptize in that way of taking up in the Arms, and laying under Water the moſt Corpulent Bodies who offer to Baptiſm, and to hold them under the Water till the words of Inſtitution be pronounced; is a thing altogether impoſſible, not only in reſpect of the Adminiſtrator, whoſe Bodily Strength muſt (in an ordinary way) ſink and fail in lifting and holding up (ſo long) ſuch maſſy, ponderous weights: And alſo in reſpect of the Subject, who muſt (undoubtedly) be in great fear and in apparent danger of being let fall, if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water.
And ſtrange it is to me, that Arminians, who plead ſo much for the univerſal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind (in general,) ſhould not ſee how full of Reflection on God, this Principle of theirs is, which makes the God of Love and Mercy, the Author of ſuch a Mode or Way of Baptizing, which is not poſſible to be practiſed, without apparent Danger, both to Health and Life, of both the Subject and the Adminiſtrator too.
I conclude this Argument with the Saying of Judicious Sydenham, (viz) That if Baptiſm be to be Adminiſtred in that way of Dipping only, Happy are thoſe who live in hot Climates, or who have Bodies of Braſs.
A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal, thus; That Mode or Way of Baptizing, which is both Immodeſt and tends to Excite Luſtful Motions and Carnal Deſires in Men and Women, cannot be commanded by Chriſt; neither was the ſame ever practiſed by John. But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water, is both Immodeſt and tends to Excite Luſtful Motions and Carnal Deſires in Men and Women.
Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was never commanded by Chriſt, neither was the ſame ever practiſed by John.
He who commands all Matters (relating to Divine Worſhip) to be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. and who commands Believers to abſtain from all appearance of Evil, 1 Theſ. 5.22. can never be the Author of ſuch Diſorderly Practiſes, as thwart and contradict his own general Rules. Now, whether it be not an Immodeſt and unſeemly Sight, to ſee a mixt Company of Men and Women ſtand in Garments, (to uſe Mr. Sydenham's Expreſſion) next to Nakedneſs it ſelf: Let any (not bereav'd of common Modeſty) Judge: And whether the Adminiſtrator can (poſſibly) handle the Female Sex, as he doth (when actually Dipping them,) and not feel the riſings and motions of Concupiſcence in his Nature; I leave to Thinking Perſons to Determine and Judge.
Again, in the fourth place, (to add no more) let the laſt Argument be grounded on the Analogie, which is (and muſt be) between the Baptiſm of John and that of Chriſt. The Argument is thus framed.
If Chriſt's way and manner of Adminiſtring the Inward Spiritual Baptiſm (whereof that of John was but the Outward Viſible Sign) be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon: Then John did (certainly) Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on thoſe he Baptized:
But Chriſt's way and manner of Adminiſtring the Inward Spiritual Baptiſm, is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon.
Therefore John did (certainly) Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on thoſe he Baptized.
If there was a neceſſity that John ſhould Harmonize with Moſes, the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets, I cannot ſee any reaſon why he ſhould not be as greatly concern'd to Harmonize with Chriſt himſelf: And ſeeing that the manner of Chriſt's Adminiſtring the Inward and Spiritual Baptiſm, is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regeneration, why John (the forerunner of Chriſt) ſhould Adminiſter his Baptiſm (which was but an External Sign or Chriſt's) by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water, can never be demonſtrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Doctor, though he were as well Verſt in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the Hebrew Tongue, as his ſo much admired Robertſon was: And if the Doctor will not be offended, I am very deſirous to know if his ſo highly commended and admired Robertſon was (by his ſo great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues) more Infallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghoſt than other Men; and that Mr. Robertſon did certainly believe, that the Etymology, which he gave of the word Baptizo, was Infalible as he ſaid. How came it to paſs, that the Learned Robertſon did not Renounce that Baptiſm, which he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling?
I think I knew Maſter William Robertſon as well as Dr. Ruſſel; and during the time of my Acquaintance with him, I am ſure, he was far enough from Anabaptiſm. All the Skill he had in the Tongues, with his Acquaintance in the Arts, did not convince him, that the Baptiſm he received in Infancy, and by Sprinkling, was a Nullity, as the Doctor holds it is.
But to return to John the Dooper, I think fit to aſſure the Doctor, that I own my ſelf bound to believe John himſelf, rather than Doctor Ruſſel, or any of thoſe Learned Men he ſo greatly Brags of. The words of John are ſo plain, that I can ſee no need of a Commentator, to explain their Senſe; he tells us in Mar. 1.8. and in Mat. 3.11. that he did Baptize with Water; but that Chriſt ſhould Baptize with the Holy Ghoſt: foreign and foreign, do both intend and ſignify the very ſame way and manner of Adminiſtration: All the difference between John and Chriſt, in both their Baptiſms, is in the Subject Matter, (viz.) In the outward Water and the inward Grace: John he did Adminiſter Water, the outward Sign; but Chriſt he did Adminiſter the Spiritual Grace: But as touching the manner, it was (moſt certainly) the very ſame in both.
Now, if the Doctor grant, (as he muſt if he ſpeak Truth) that Chriſt doth Adminiſter the Inward and Spiritual Baptiſm, by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghoſt, he will find it (altogether) Incongruous, and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith, to hold or aſſert, that John did Adminiſter the outward Sign in ſuch a manner as was directly contrary to Chriſt. There muſt be (neceſſarily) an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing ſignified thereby, which can never be, in caſe Chriſt Baptizes by or with, Pouring out or Sprinkling; and John ſhould Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into.
As Chriſt applies the Graces of the Spirit to the Soul in Converſion, not the Soul to the Spirit; ſo in the outward Baptiſm John he apply'd the Water (the outward Sign) to the Perſon, not the Perſon to the Water.
For making the Thing or Point (now in Debate) obvious and plain to the meaneſt Capacity, let it be ſeriouſly conſidered, how plain and expreſs the Scriptures are in affirming, that Chriſt's way or manner in Adminiſtring the Spiritual Baptiſm, is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spirit on the Souls, which he Regenerates, but never by applying the Souls to the Holy Spirit, Read (without prejudice) Tit. 3.5, 6. Not by works of righteouſneſs, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he hath ſaved us by the waſhing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghoſt, which he ſhed on us abundantly, through Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour.
foreign, hath powered on us, the very ſame word is made uſe of in Acts 2.17. And it ſhall come to paſs in the laſt days, (ſaith God) I will power out my Spirit on all fleſh, foreign. Both which places are the fulfilling of thoſe Gracious Promiſes in Eſa. 44.3. and Joel 2.28. where the Lord promiſed, that he will pour Water on him that is thirſty, &c. and his Spirit on the Churches Seed. The Hebrew word in Eſa. is foreign, Etzek Ruchi; and in Joel the word uſed to expreſs the ſame thing by, is, foreign, Eſhpoch Eth Ruchi: in neither of which places will our Doctor's foreign Vetabe lu Otham: And Dip ye them, be found. The Doctor, the better to help his limping Proſelites over the Stile of Hereſy and Error, tells his Reader, that the Evangeliſt Matthew wrote his Goſpel in the Hebrew Tongue; for Proof where…f, he ſets down his own Opinion, that ſo it is; and this Opinion of his he confirms (as infallible) by the Teſtimony of Jerom, and (he thinks) the Opinion of the moſt Learned Men: But the Dr. was ſo wary in this point, that he reſolved the Reader ſhould not (eaſily) find him out in his quotations, the which the Dr. knew would eaſily be done, had he (fairly) directed his Reader to the Book and Page in Jerom; where his judgment concerning this matter is expreſt, and by Naming the Learned Men, who were one with him and Jerom in this Opinion: His neglect herein forces me to charge him with unfairneſs, (to ſay no worſe) if that be a true rule in Logick, Dolus latet in Ʋniverſalibus, that Deceit lyes hid in Univerſals; I am ſure the Dr. (as well as the reſt of his Fraternity, (who frequently walk in this Path) muſt fall under this Laſh; the Drs. lothneſs to Name the Learned Men, who were of his Opinion in this, cauſes me to ſuſpect that he means ſuch as his Learned Baptiſt Servetus, and his famous Caſtellio, with thoſe other Arminian and Popiſh Authors, whoſe Names are in his Book.
It were worth while for the Reader to obſerve what ſhifts the poor Man is put to, to prove and make good (from Gods word) his new, (though falſly pretended ancient) Mode of Baptizing, by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body into the Water.
He tells his Reader that Matthew wrote his Goſpel in Hebrew; the Drs. deſign being (no doubt) to make way for his Hebrew words, foreign and Dip ye them. The root (ſaith he) is Tabal, which is the third Perſon Singular of the Preterperfect Tenſe, and ſignifies he Dipped: He Inſtances in Naaman the Syrian, 2. Kings 5.14. Then went he down and Dipped himſelf ſeven times in Jordan, &c. From Naaman the Syrian the Dr. comes (per Saltum) by a long leap to John B…ptizing in Jordan; in Mat. 3.6. you have (ſaith he) the ſame Words again in the Paſſive Voice, which muſt be rendred in Engliſh, And were Dipped of him in Jordan: And in Ver. 16. you have the ſame root again as it is applied to our Saviour, And Jeſus when he was Dipped went up ſtraight way out of the Water.
The Dr. takes for granted, that becauſe Tabal ſignifies he Dipped, and that becauſe Naaman (in the place above quoted Dipped himſelf in Jordan; that therefore in Matthew it muſt needs be Vetabelu Otham, and Dip ye them; and that John did Dip all he Baptized, over Head and Ears in Jordan.
Am I bound to believe that Matthew did write his Goſpel in Hebrew, becauſe the Dr. is of the Opinion he did?
Or, muſt I therefore grant it becauſe Jerom is of his Opinion? though neither Jerom nor he gives any ſolid reaſons for that their Opinion.
Two things convince me that both Jerom, the Dr. and his pretended Learned Men, were all miſtaken in this their Opinion.
Firſt, I find (by Reading) that the Goſpel which Matthew is ſuppoſed to have written in Hebrew, was never yet ſeen by any Author, and therefore I muſt mind him of the Maxim, as true and applicable in the preſent caſe, De non apparentibus, et non exiſtentibus eadem eſt Ratio, of things not appearing, and of things not exiſting, there is the ſame Reaſon to be given.
Secondly, if Matthew had written his Goſpel in Hebrew, he would not have tranſlated into Greek the word Emmanuel, in Mat. 1.23. and thoſe whole Sentences, Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani, in Mat. 27.46.
But ſuppoſe I ſhould (for Argument ſake) grant (which I utterly deny, and challenge the Dr. to make good) that Matthew had Written his Goſpel in the Hebrew Tongue, doth it therefore follow (neceſſarily) that the Holy Ghoſt, (who is ſo exact and preciſe in chooſing the moſt apt and fit words, whereby to expreſs his Mind) ſhould uſe the Hebrew word foreign Tabal, which ſignifies to Dip, and not the word foreign Rachatz, which ſignifies to Waſh, or foreign Kibbem, which ſignifies the ſame: I have already demonſtrated from the word of God, that in all the places of the New-Teſtament where the Holy Ghoſt makes mention of Baptiſm, he doth it by the Derivative foreign, which ſignifies to Waſh, by pouring out or ſprinkling Water upon, but never by the Primitive foreign, Bapto, which ſignifies to Dip or Plunge into: And when the Holy Ghoſt expreſſeth the Act of Dipping or Plunging into, he doth it by the Primitive foreign, which ſignifies to Dip into, but never by the Derivative foreign, which ſignifies to waſh with; by which it plainly appears (to me at leaſt) that rather than the Dr. will looſe his Credit and ſuffer his rotten Cauſe to be loſt, he will rather open door to the old Babel confuſion of Tongues, reſolving (Jeſuit like) to ſet the Pen-men of Holy Scripture together by the Ears, and impoſe on his credulous Reader a real Belief, that what the Holy Ghoſt hath laid down (and plainly expreſt) in Greek, he hath gainſaid and contradicted in Hebrew; which Contradiction can never befall the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture, nor (without Blaſphemy) be charged on that Holy Spirit, by which they were Acted and infallibly Inſpired.
The reaſon which Jierom gives why Matthew writ his Goſpel in Hebrew, (viz.) for the Sake of thoſe Jews which Believed, is no reaſon at all; for had it been the Will of God it ſhould be ſo, I know no reaſon why Peter, James and Paul, (who all three wrote to the Jews, which Believed) ſhould write in Greek, not in Hebrew; witneſs the two Epiſtles of Peter, the Epiſtle of James, and that of Paul to the Hebrews.
The Dr. pleaſeth himſelf in telling his Reader, that in Mr. William Robertſon's Hebrew New-Teſtament, he finds theſe words between the 18th and 19th Verſes (of Mat. 28 he means) And as my Father hath ſent me, even ſo alſo I ſend you. Go ye therefore, &c.
Theſe words he ſets down in the Hebrew Character, telling his Reader that he finds them not in any Greek Copy.
An Argument (thinks he) that Matthew wrote his Goſpel in Hebrew! a meer Non-ſequitur: What though thoſe words be not in Matthew, I hope he will not deny that they are in Jo. 20.21. there the Spirit of God hath recorded them; and why the Dr. ſhould look to find them in Matthew I know no reaſon, or wherefore his Learned Friend Mr. Robertſon ſhould take on him to place the Words recorded by John, between the 18th and 19th of Mat. 28. I cannot conceive: But whatever moved Robertſon to ſo preſumptuous an Act, in taking on him to alter things of this Nature, (as if by his Skill (in the Hebrew Tongue) he thought himſelf able to rectifie the Order, in which the Holy Ghoſt hath ſet down his own Mind in Writing) I doubt not but the Dr. was well pleaſed with ſo Palpable an Aberration; and all for the love and liking he hath to his foreign Tabal, he Dipped, and foreign Velammddu, Diſciple ye. By what I have ſaid, it is eaſie to judge, that could the Dr. but have his will in two things. Firſt, that the word foreign, Baptizo, doth alway ſignifie the very ſame thing with its Primitive foreign.
And Secondly, that Matthew did write his Goſpel in the Hebrew Tongue, and that the words foreign Vetabelu otham, and Dip ye them, were the very words of Matthew. All the Art in Men and Angels could never hinder but that Dipping the whole Body under the Water, muſt needs be the only right way of adminiſtring the outward Baptiſm.
But both theſe (on which he erects his tottering ſtructure of Anabaptiſm) I utterly deny, and do fairly offer, and ſincerely promiſe him, that if he can confute (by Gods Word) the Arguments laid down, to prove him miſtaken in both, I will forthwith) renounce my Baptiſm received in Infancy and by Sprinkling, as a meer Nullity; and not only ſo, but I will in Pulpit and Print too, Declare (to the World) that I am fully convinced that Dipping the whole Body (under Water) is the only right way of adminiſtring Water-Baptiſm under the New-Teſtament Diſpenſation.
And this, (I hope with the offer made him, in clearing up the Etymology of the word Baptizo) will prove as generous an offer as he made to Maſter James.
As touching what is (uſually) Objected from Mat. 3.16. concerning Chriſt's coming up out of the Water. And from Acts 8.38, 39. concerning Philip and the Eunuch going down into, and coming up again out of the Water; I need ſay but two things.
Firſt, For any to affirm (poſſitively) what the Word of God affirms not, is (to me) a ſure Argument of an Ignorant, Raſh and Preſumptuous Spirit. Reader, mark the words: And Jeſus, when he was Baptized, went up ſtraightway out of (Greek foreign, not foreign, from not out of) the water. The Text doth not ſay, (in downright Terms) that Chriſt was Dipt under the Water; neither doth it appear from Acts ….38, 39. that the Eunuch was Dipt, on… the Doctor (and his Adherents) will …ve it to be ſo, right or wrong.
Secondly, There is nothing more certain than that a Perſon may be ſaid (properly enough) to go down into the Water, though he go not in above Shooe (or Ancle) deep, which (I doubt not) was practiſed by both John and by Philip, in the places above-mentioned; and that for the better conveniency of catching hold of the Water with their Hands, in order to Sprinkle or Pour out the ſame on thoſe they Baptized.
And that which may convince any Man, (not prepoſſeſt with Prejudice againſt the Truth I here contend for) that this was the Practiſe of John, and all the firſt Baptizers, (ſo much brag'd of by the Dr.) is the Impoſſibility of the Spirit's being the Author of any (though the leaſt) Contradiction in any part of God's Worſhip.
Hence I argue. That which can no way be prov'd or made good by expreſs Teſtimony of God's Word, or deduced therefrom by ſound (and neceſſary) Conſequence, is an Invention in God's Worſhip, which God will Reject and Abominate as not appointed by him.
But Dipping the whole Body under Water in Baptiſm, can no way be prov… made good by expreſs Teſtimony of Go…, Word, nor yet by ſound (or neceſſar… Conſequence deduced therefrom.
Therefore Dipping the whole Body u… der Water (in Baptiſm) is an Invention in God's Worſhip, which God will Reject and Abominate, becauſe not appointed by him.
The major Propoſition will not be denied. That which ſecures the Minor, and proves the Concluſion to be the Truth, (which all the Wit of the Adverſary will never be able to prevail againſt) is the Scriptures ſilence, in that it no where gives an expreſs Witneſs (or Teſtimony) heret… And the Impoſſibility of that being prov'… a ſound Conſequence (from God's Word,) which makes God the Author of Self-Contradiction.
The Word of God no where commands Dipping in Baptiſm, neither doth it ſay (in expreſs terms,) that either John or any of the Apoſtles did Baptize by Dipping under the Water. Reader! Keep the Adverſary cloſe to this, where doth the word Dip appear, either in the command of Chriſt, (when ſpeaking of Baptizing) or in any Inſtance of Perſons Baptized by Jo… or the Apoſtles? If thou keep cloſe to this, the Enemy will retreat and fly to Conſequence … the which, if he doth, (as no doubt he will) … purſue him with a Holy Courage, be not a… … of his daring Brags. How do yo prove, that … ſound and Scriptural Conſequence, which … the Holy Spirit of God the Author of Self-…adiction?
…hat thus it is, will (evidently) appear, the Ad…ſary can no way avoid it. If thou urge, (with an Holy Zeal for Truth) what is (Graphically) ſet down in God's own Word, concerning the manner of Application of the Blood of the Sacrifices, and the Waters of Purifications, both which had a Typical Relation to the Spiritual Baptiſm, Adminiſtred by the Spirit of Chriſt. Theſe were applied under the Ceremonial Adminiſtration, by Sprinkling, not by Dipping, (as hath been before obſerved.) The Prophets, who foretold of Chriſt, and the great Benefits which ſhould come by him to Believers under the Goſpel. They ſet it forth by Sprinkling, witneſs …ſa. 52.15. and Ezek. 36.25. and in the Goſpel …e are aſſured, that the Spirit of Chriſt doth apply …he inward Spiritual Baptiſm, by Sprinkling or Pouring out the Graces of his Spirit on the Soul in the Work of Regeneration, ſee Tit. 3.6.
Now to affirm, that Chriſt either commands Dipping, or that he (himſelf) was Dipp'd in Baptiſm, what is it, but to affirm, that Chriſt's Spirit doth contradict himſelf? What is pretended (for Dipping) from John 3.23. hath nothing in it to help their Cauſe, but what empty Conceit and Unſcriptural Confidence ſupply. John (ſaith the Adverſary) was Baptizing in Aenon, becauſe there was much Water there: Therefore he Baptized by Dipping the whole Body under the Water.
The ſtreſs (or weight) of the Argument is laid on a fond Conceit, that much Water (there) ſignifies and …ports Greatneſs and Depth of Water, which (plainly) appears to be otherwiſe, witneſs the Greek, foreign foreign. Many Waters denoting ra… … Rivulets or Springs of Water, wherewith tha… abounded, than that the Waters of that place deep. And it was (I doubt not) for Convenienc… that John left Bethabarah, (a place of deeper V… becauſe Aenon was (every way) more convenien… commodious for the multitudes o People, which o… daily to his Baptiſm.
Piſcator's Note upon the place, may not (here) … either improper or impertinent to the Purpoſe i… hand, Videntur ſignificari plures Rivi, non autem unu… Magnum Flumen. Many Rivulets, not one gr… Flo… or Water, ſeems (here) to be ſignified, ſaith that Lear… ed Author; with whom agrees the beſt Geographe… who give the Deſcription of that place.
I conclude my Treatiſe (againſt Dipping in Ba… tiſm) with that Saying of Godly) and Judicious) S… denham: If (ſaith he) there be any abſolute need of Di… ping, it is to cool the heat of thoſe Mens Spirits, who de… Baptiſm to be true (or right) Baptiſm, becauſe not A… miniſtred by Plunging or Dipping.
Reader! Obſerve, that as in the Sacrament of th… Lord's Supper, it is not ſo much the Quantity of th… Wine drunk in that Ordinance, (by a Believer) … the Quality, which ſignifies and repreſents the Bloo… of Chriſt.
Chriſt doth not tye a Believer up to ſuch or ſuc… a quantity of Win… to be drunk in remembrance o… his Blood-ſhed, but (only) commands Wine to … drunk, leaving to the Diſcretion of the Believ… what quantity to drink.
So in Water-Baptiſm it is not the depth or qu… tity of Water which is neceſſary to right Baptiſm, real Water; it matters not how ſmall the quant… be, ſo there be but a Sprinkling (or Pouring out) Water on the Subject, to repreſent the Sprinkli… (or Pouring out) of the Graces of God's Spirit on t… Elect Soul in Effectual Calling.
FINIS.
End of the text · James Barry, Discovery of the Unscripturalness of Anabaptism (1699)