Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 5

Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness · Chapter 5

p. 20CHAP. V.

Proving that Baptiſm is plunging or burying in Water the whole Body, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: Wherein Mr. Owen's Arguments for ſprinkling, and his Objections againſt Immerſion or Dipping, are fully anſwered.

REader, thou mayſt ſee that tho the remote Senſe of the common word foreign, may refer to pouring of Water, yet the proper and genuine Senſe of that word is dipping, or ſuch a waſhing as is by dipping, which is abundantly proved, as you have heard, both by the Scriptures and Conſent of a great Cloud of Witneſſes amongſt the Learned, both An…nt and Modern: Therefore what …. … saith in the beginning of his third Chapter, viz.

That it is uncertain, whether in the New Teſtament, the Apoſtles baptized by dipping or ſprinkling, is not true, it being evident it was by dipping and no other way. For where-ever the word Baptiſm is uſed (I ſay again) in the New Teſtament, as it refers to Chriſt's Ordinance of Baptiſm, p. 21it ſignifies dipping or plunging into the Water; nor can he prove the Jews waſhed their Hands and Cups only by pouring Water on them: tho Elijah might have Water poured on his Hand, we commonly waſh our Hands and Cups by dipping them into the Water. And ſo did the Jews as Mr. Ainſworth affirms.

2dly. Sir, what you ſay concerning that Typical Baptiſm in the Cloud and Sea, you have heard alſo fully anſwered, and that makes not for ſprinkling nor pouring. But more to that hereafter.

3dly. What you ſay concerning the Signification of Baptiſm, that it holds forth two things, 1. The Blood of Chriſt; 2. The Spirit of Chriſt, is far fetch'd: for the Lord's Supper holds forth the Blood of Chriſt; and we have no Ordinance ordain'd by Chriſt to hold forth in a Figure the ſprinkling or pouring forth of the Spirit; if Man has invented ſuch a thing, ſo be it. The Papiſts found out ſeven Sacraments with their ſignificant Signs, as they tell you, and they have the ſame Parity of Reaſon to maintain their Sacraments without any Warrant from God's Word, as our Pedobaptiſts have for their baptizing, or rather rantizing or ſprinkling of Babes. True, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſprinkling of the Blood of Jeſus, but Baptiſm is no Figure of that, as you have heard, but primarily of the Death, …urial and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt.

Sir, you ſay, Sprinkling is lawful, becauſe it is very probable that the Apoſtles themſelves did baptize by pouring or ſprinkling Water. Acts 2. 41. Then they that gladly received the word, were baptized; and the ſame day there were added unto them three thouſand Souls. It is not, you ſay, very probable that theſe three thouſand were plunged over Head and Ears in VVater; How could Peter, and the reſt of the Apoſtles, even twelve Men, baptize three thouſand in one day, yea in one half day? how could they change their Apparel? &c.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer, wonder no more how three thouſand Perſons ſhou'd be baptized, i. e. dipped, in that ſhort time; 'tis ſufficient for any Chriſtian to believe it, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt haſt ſaid it.

2. But whereas you ſay there were but twelve Men to adminiſter it, that is not true, there were the ſeventy Diſciples no doubt with them, who were Miniſters, and there might very probably be many more.

p. 223. However, ſince Baptiſm is Immerſion, i. e. dipping, and the Text ſays they were baptized, it follows they were dipped into the Water. What you ſay about Ananias baptizing Paul, and of Paul's baptizing the Jaylor, proves nothing, 'tis meer ſtuff that deſerves no Anſwer.

You ſay Paul was baptized in his Lodging when he was ſick.

Anſw. It is not ſaid he was ſick, nor that he was baptized in his Lodging, read the Text again; true, 'tis ſaid after he was baptized he received Strength. I have known multitudes of weak Perſons baptized by dipping in froſty Weather, in our cold Climate, and never took any harm thereby.

We ſay Baptiſm is Dipping, and among many other Reaſons, we argue it muſt needs be ſo adminiſtred, becauſe John the Baptiſt baptized in Jordan, and in Enon near Salim, becauſe there was much Water there; Mat. 3. 13. John 3. 23.

You anſwer, If ſome were baptized by dipping, others were baptized by pouring Water on them, as we proved (ſay you) before, therefore both ways are lawful.

I anſwer; 1. 'Tis well our way of dipping is owned by you as lawful and a right way; then do you and all others take heed how you ſpeak againſt us, who ſo adminiſter the holy Ordinance of Baptiſm; it appears we err not in ſo doing by your own Confeſſon.

2. But whereas you ſay you have proved, that ſome were in the Primitive Time baptized by pouring Water on them, we have ſhewed your Proofs to be too ſhort and invalid.

3. The way of the Adminiſtration of Chriſt's ſacred Ordinance was but one and the ſame in all the Churches of the Saints; and if ſome were baptized by dipping, and others by ſprinkling, or pouring Water upon them, then the Ordinance muſt have different Significations, which could not be anſwered on ſome Perſons, unleſs … they were both dipped and ſprinkled, and had water poured upon them, which is prepoſterous to imagine: for ſuch that were dipped or buried under the VVater, were thereby made in Sign and Signification conformable to the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which we have ſo fully proved to be one great End of Baptiſm, that it cannot be den…ed; and ſuch who were only ſprinkled, they were p. 23taught thereby the ſprinkling of Chriſt's Blood, and of the Spirit, as you would have the Ordinance to ſignify, without any ground from God's VVord.

Now how unlikely it is that both theſe ways were uſed, this being conſidered, I ſhall leave to all wiſe and conſiderate Perſons to think upon.

You ſay in the next place, That the Scripture doth not ſay in any place, when they were baptized they were dipped: If (ſay you) thoſe that are againſt ſprinkling, ſay that they gather ſo much by Conſequence from the fore-cited Scriptures, they ought to remember their rejecting Scriptural Conſequences when they are uſed by us for proving Infant-Baptiſm, &c.

Anſw. If I had not a Learned Man to deal with, I ſhould not marvel. Sir, Is not Baptiſin a Greek VVord? VVhat difference between Baptiſm and Baptiſma? Is not foreign à foreign Greek? and is it not in Engliſh to dip? VVhat need of Conſequences here? Had our Tranſlators truly tranſlated that word, they muſt have render'd it as the Dutch have, as I mentioned before, viz. Ende Jeſus gedoopt zijnde, is ter-ſtont opgeklomen vit hit wter: and when Jeſus was dipp'd, he came out of the Water; Mat. 3. 16. and ver. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan; And were dipped of him in Jordan: Hence the Dutch call John the Baptiſt, John the Dooper, John the Dipper. As to your Conſequences, we always deny that they are genuine, or naturally drawn from thoſe Scriptures to which you refer. But whereas you ſay we have nothing for dipping which is of the Eſſence of Baptiſm, as we do affirm it is, but Conſequences, it is too bold an Aſſertion, not being true, as by this time my honeſt Country men may ſee, if they are impartial Perſons.

They think (ſay you) that John baptized by dipping, becauſe he baptized in Jordan; they can never prove that was the Cauſe, for the Scripture doth not ſay what was the occaſion why he baptized in Jordon.

Anſw. Sir, look into your Greek Teſtament once again, and read Mark 1. 9. foreign, into Jordan; VVould it be proper to ſay he ſprinkled them, or poured VVater on them into Jordan? It is proper to ſay he dipped them into Jordan, and that is Baptiſm, and nothing elſe, as it refers to Chriſt's Ordinance, viz. a waſhing by dipping or plunging into Jordan, or into the VVater.

p. 242. Tho the Scripture doth not ſay in ſo many words, that that was the occaſion of John's baptizing into Jordan: Yet, Sir, remember and tremble at that Text, John 3. 23. for there it is by the Holy Ghoſt given as the Reaſon why John baptized in Enon near Salim, viz. becauſe there was much Water there; plainly denoting that a little VVater will not ſerve to adminiſter holy Baptiſm, but ſo much as will cover or bury the whole Body.

You add,

It being very doubtful whether thoſe People that came unto him were dipped or plunged; for there went out unto him Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan, and were baptized by him: We cannot judg (you ſay) that he baptized leſs than an hundred thouſand Men and Women, &c. there were (you ſay) much more People in thoſe Countries; but it being impoſſible for him to dip or plunge ſo many Men in ſo ſhort time of his Miniſtry, which continued but three Years, and of theſe three Years he lay in Priſon half a Year, ſo that he did neither preach or baptize but for two Years and a half. Vid. Lightf. vol. I. p. 234.

If he had baptized fifty every day on theſe two Years and a half, which is not probable he could do, the whole you ſay is but forty five thouſand ſix hundred and twenty five, but he baptized much more, which could not be done by dipping or plunging; therefore it is reaſonable for us (you ſay) to judg that he ſprinkled or poured Water on them, &c.

Anſw. As to what you ſay here, it ſeems very ſtrange to me, that you ſhould once imagine that John baptized all the People univerſally in Jeruſalem and Judea, without Exception: Why did not you put in all the Infants too as well as Men and Women? I had lately to do with one Mr. Exel, who aſſerted that in a Treatiſe of his, which, with Shame enough to him, I gave an Anſwer unto. I am ſorry you have no better Skill in Scripture-Rhetorick, where frequently, per Synecdochen vel totius, vel partis, a part is put for the whole, or the whole for the part, as 'tis ſaid, God would have all Men to be ſaved, i. e. ſome of all ſorts and degrees, as Kings, Noble-Men, Old, Young, Rich, Poor, &c. So 'tis ſaid Chriſt, when he was lifted up he would draw all Men unto him, foreign, Joh. 12. 32. Doth he mean every individual Perſon, or ſome of all ſorts, of Jews and Gentiles? So Paul ſaith, All ſeek their own, &c.

p. 25Vid. Glaſſi Illerici Philolog. Sacr. and alſo our late Annotators, the word or term [All] (they tell you) is here twice repeated, Mat. 3. 5. foreign, &c. it is enough to let us know that in Scripture 'tis ſigniſicative no farther than many; for, ſay they, it cannot be imagined that every individual Perſon in Jeruſalem, and all the Regions round about Jordan went to hear John the Baptiſt.

2. You forget that Text, John 3. 26. Behold him that thou beareſt witneſs of, &c. the ſame baptizeth, and All Men come unto him, foreign, i. e. to Jeſus Chriſt. Alſo 'tis ſaid, John 4. 1, 2. That Jeſus made and baptized more Diſciples than John. If John baptized them all, and Jeſus baptized them all, then they were all twice baptized, or all re-baptized, and if ſo, were indeed properly all Ana-baptiſts.

Sir, in both places it intends but ſome. You worthy and beloved Britains, take heed how you are led by a Man that argues ſo prepoſterouſly; I doubt not but he may be a good Man, but under a Cloud of Darkneſs.

3. Sir, how Dr. Lightfoot or you can prove, that John preached but two Years and a half, I ſee not; but had he every day baptized an hundred, he might with much Eaſe have done it in the ſpace of four hours time, or thereabouts: But alas! neither he nor our Saviour had ſo many Diſciples as you imagine; the Number of the Diſciples after the Reſurrection of Chriſt, as we read, Acts 1. were but an hundred and twenty that were together, perhaps there might be ſome few more in ſome other parts.

4. But you, I perceive, contradict the Holy Ghoſt in ſaying, that John ſprinkled them, i. e. rantized them; for Ran…izing in the Original (as I preſume you know) is ſprinkling in Engliſh. Sir, I appeal to your Conſcience, whether it be not ſo: Sprinkling and pouring is one thing, and baptizing another, and a quite different Act. I affirm Sprinkling is not Baptizing, ſay what you will.

You in the next place, mention that which we object concerning Philip and the Eunuch, who went both down into the Water when the Eunuch was baptized. To this you anſwer and ſay, How doth that follow? Could they not go into the Water without plunging in it? We read in Gen. 24. 45. (ſay you) that Rebecca went down into the Well, Does it follow that ſhe was plunged in it? You p. 26will ſay of your Maid-Servant, when ſhe goes to draw Water, ſhe went down into the River, your meaning is not that ſhe was plunged there.

I anſwer, Rebecca might properly be ſaid to go down into the Well, becauſe in ſome Wells there are ſeveral Steps or Stairs before we come to the Water; 'tis not ſaid ſhe went into the Water. Alſo who of us could ſay when our Servant-Maid went to draw Water, or fetch Water from a River, ſhe went into the River? if any do ſay ſo, they ſpeak not truly, but indeed do lie. Sir, take heed what you ſay, the Holy Ghoſt doth not ſay they went down to the Water, but foreign, both went down into the Water, and he baptized him, i. e. dipp'd him, not rantiz'd him.

You bring in our Objection againſt your Sprinkling taken from Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12, 13. viz. we are ſaid to be buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm into Death. To this you ſay, We bury by caſting Earth on the Body, and the pouring of Water, you ſay, doth repreſent it; it cannot be ſaid one was buried that was fallen under Water or Earth, unleſs he remains there for a time: he that deſcendeth into a Coal-pit is under the Earth, but is not buried by reaſon he cometh out from thence immediately; dipping therefore doth not ſignify a Burial, unleſs he that is dipped remains for a time under the Water.

I anſwer; 'Tis true, we do bury by caſting Earth on the dead Body, but 'tis ſo much Earth as covers the Corps all over, or elſe 'tis not buried. So if you pour Water on a Child until it is covered all over in Water, it may truly be ſaid that Child was buried in the Water, altho the burying in Baptiſm is not by pouring Water in great abundance until it is covered, but by going into the Water and there to be dipped, or plunged all over, ſo that all may ſee the Body is buried under Water, as truly, ſymbolically, and as properly as if it had been buried in the Water. Or,

2. Tho a Perſon be laid in the Grave, and covered all over with Earth, tho it be but two Minutes, he may as truly and properly be ſaid to be buried, as he that lies there three Days, or a thouſand Years. But you would have Baptiſm to be no proper Repreſentation of a Burial, unleſs the Perſon baptized lies ſo long till he be drowned. Sir, Baptiſm doth repreſent the Death of Chriſt, and p. 27of the old Man, or Body of Sin, which is as ſufficiently held forth by a Minute or two, as by many Days.

3. And now, utterly to put to ſilence your vain Objections, I ſhall give the Senſe of a whole Cloud of Witneſſes, as to the proper Expoſition of thoſe Texts, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12, 13. by and by; but if my honeſt Country-men do think you have given a better Senſe of the Words than all thoſe Learned Men, I will ſay no more.

You ſay, the Reſemblance then between Baptiſm doth not ſtand in the dipping of the Body ſo much as in the End of the Ordinance, in making us Partakers of Chriſt's Death, of his Life, and of his Aſcenſion, and of his ſitting on the Right hand of God.

Baptiſm makes us to be planted together in the Likeneſs of his Death; yet there are none, you ſay, that plants Bodies in Water by baptizing them, Rom. 6. 5.

Anſw. We ſhall in our next Chapter finally determine this great Point, and plainly ſhew you by manifeſt Arguments, together with the joint Conſent and Agreement of a multitude of Learned Men, that were and are Pedo-baptiſts, that the Reſemblance between Death, Burial and Reſurrection, and Baptiſm, doth ſtand in the outward Sign of Dipping, as well as in our partaking of the Bleſſing of Chriſt's Death, Burial and Reſurrection. All know in the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper the Signs are ſignificant, and no true Proteſtant will admit of ſuch an Adminiſtration of it, in which the breaking of Chriſt's Body, and the ſhedding of his Blood is not clearly repreſented to the ſight of our Eyes. Why is the Popiſh way of the Adminiſtration rejected, who deny the Laity the Cup, if there ought not to be an exact keeping to the direct Signs, as well as to bear in Mind the Thing ſignified thereby? Nay, Sir, I find you in your third Chapter to juſtify your ſprinkling ſtifly, by arguing for an Agreement between the Sign and the Thing ſignined, and that Baptiſm was not ordained to be a Sign or Symbol of the ſprinkling Chriſt's Blood, but of his Death, Burial and Reſurrection: It ſhall (God aſſiſting) be further demonſtrated.

Now let this be conſidered, That as in the Lord's-Supper it is ſuch a quantity of Bread and Wine that is to be uſed, that may repreſent his Body broken, and his Blood ſhed; and as that Sacrament was appointed to that very end and purpoſe, ſo in like manner we alſo ſay, ſo much Water p. 28muſt be uſed as may repreſent the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of our bleſſed Saviour. But one Mr. Burkitt, a Pedo-baptiſt, ſaith in his Treatiſe of Infant-Baptiſm, That in the Sacraments it is not the quantity of Elements, but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended to; in Circumciſion (ſaith he) it was not the quantity of Fleſh cut off, ſo much as the Signification of it, &c. and you ſeem to expreſs your ſelf to the ſame purpoſe.

Anſw. To which I returned him this Anſwer, viz. There muſt be ſo much Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, that may repreſent Chriſt's Body broken, and ſo much Wine as may in Sign as well as Signification held forth the pouring forth of Chriſt's precious Blood, or elſe the End of Chriſt is not anſwered in that Sacrament; and ſo likewiſe muſt the Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt be in Sign, as well as our Death to Sin and riſing again to Newneſs of Life is repreſented in holy Baptiſm.

Should the People of Iſrael in Circumciſion only have cut off a little bit of the Fore-skin of the Fleſh, and not round quite off, or only have paired off the Nails of their Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it, would that have anſwered the Mind of God in that Rite, or they have been born with in pleading it might as well anſwer Circumciſion in Signification? But the Vanity and Sinfulneſs of this Aſſertion of Mr. Burkitt's and yours will yet be now further laid open in this Chapter; only there is one thing before I proceed on that I ſhall add a word or two unto, as touching what you ſay concerning thoſe Waſhings that were uſed under the Law, which are called Baptiſms, which you ſay were done by ſprinkling, which is not true; we utterly deny any of thoſe Waſhings which are called Baptiſms were either ſprinkling or pouring of Water on them, but total dipping of their whole Body. And ſo the Reverend Mr. Ainſworth, a Man very Learned in all Jewiſh Rites and Ceremonies, affirms, on Levit. 11. 31. ſee his Annotat. on that Text, theſe are his words, viz. All that are unclean, whether Men or Veſſels, are not cleanſed but by dipping or baptizing in Water; and whereſoever the Law ſpeaketh of waſhing a Man's Fleſh, or waſhing of Clothes for Uncleanneſs, it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein. And whether they be Men or Veſſels, there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them aſunder, as Clay, Pitch, or the like that cleaveth to the Body or Veſſel; if there be, then, ſaith he, they p. 29are unclean, and their waſhing profiteth them not. He cites for this Maim Mikvaoeh, c. 1. §. 12.

Sir, what is become of your ſprinkling of Cups, Pots and Brazen Veſſels among the Jews, when 'tis ſaid they waſhed or baptized them? it appears their way in waſhing was total dipping, or elſe they were not clean. And now to proceed to prove Chriſt's Baptiſm in Water is by Immerſion, by Dipping, to repreſent in Sign his Death, Burial and Reſurrection, and in Signification to hold forth our Death unto Sin and riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life who are baptized, I ſhall add it in this place,

Firſt, From the Scripture.

Secondly, By the Conſent; Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witneſſes, both Antient Fathers and Modern Divines, and worthy Proteſtant Writers.

1. The firſt Scripture is, Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptiſm, &c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themſelves dead to Sin, and bound to live no longer therein, and that becauſe by Baptiſm (as in a lively Figure) they held forth the ſame thing; ſo that it appears Baptiſm hath a twofold Signification.

(1.) There is in it, when truly and rightly adminiſtred, not only a Repreſentation of Chriſt's Burial and Reſurrection, but,

(2.) Alſo it ſignifies our Death unto Sin, and our riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life; and indeed the Apoſtle makes uſe of this as an Argument to preſs Newneſs of Life (the thing ſignified in Baptiſm) upon them all, as if he ſhould ſay, As many of us as are baptized muſt know this, that we are baptized into Chriſt's Death, and therefore muſt die to Sin and live a new Life: But we have all been baptized, or buried with him in Baptiſm, therefore muſt all of us die to Sin and live a new Life.

Our late Annotators on the place ſay thus, He ſeems to allude to the manner of baptizing in thoſe warm Countries, which was, ſay they, to dip or plunge the Party baptized, and as it were to bury him for a while under Water. Cajetan upon the ſame Text ſays, We are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm unto Death; by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptiſm, becauſe he (that is, the Party baptized) is put under Water; and by this carries a Similitude of him that was p. 30buried, who was put under the Earth. Now becauſe none are buried but dead Men, from this very thing that we are buried in Baptiſm, we are aſſimilated to Chriſt buried, or when he was buried.

The Aſſembly … their Annotations on this Text of Scripture, ſay likewiſe thus, viz. In this Phraſe the Apoſtle ſ…s to allude to the antient manner of baptizing, which … to dip the Party baptized, and as it were to bury them under Water for a while, and then raiſe them up again out of it, to repreſent the Burial of the old-Man, and the Reſurrection to Newneſs of Life. The ſame ſaith Diodate.

Tilenus, a great Proteſtant Writer, ſpeaks fully in this caſe: Baptiſm, ſaith he, is the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament inſtituted by Chriſt, in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the Thing ſignified. The outward Rite in Baptiſm is threefold.

1. Immerſion into the Water.

2. Aciding under the Water.

3. A Reſurrection out of the Water.

The Form of Baptiſm, viz. External and Eſſential, is no other than an Analogical Proportion, which the Signs keep with the Thing ſignified thereby: For the Property of the Water waſhing away the Defilements of the Body, does in a moſt ſutable Similitude, ſet forth the Efficacy of Chriſt's Blood in blotting out of Sin; ſo dipping into the Water, in a moſt lively Similitude ſets forth the Mortification of the old Man, and riſing out of the Water the Vivification of the new Man: The ſame plunging into the Water, ſaith he, holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine Juſtice, in which Chriſt, for our ſakes, for a while was in a manner ſwallowed up; abiding under the Water, (how little time ſoever) denotes his Deſcent into Hell, even the very deepeſt of Lifeleſneſs, lying in the ſealed or guarded Sepulchre, where he was accounted as one dead. Riſing out of the VVater, holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conqueſt which this dead Man got over Death. In like manner, ſaith he, 'tis therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death, and buried with him, ſhould riſe alſo with him, to go on in a new Life. Thus far

p. 31And let all thinking and ſerious Chriſtians carefully conſider, ſince this ſacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus ſignificant, as this and other Learned Men obſerve, what a ſad and lamentable thing it is, that the true Baptiſm ſhould be changed from dipping into ſprinkling, which neither doth nor can hold forth theſe great Myſteries, for which purpoſe our Saviour ordained it: For 'tis evident Rantiſm or Sprinkling doth not bear any Proportion to theſe Myſteries, nor can they be ſignified thereby. What Figure of a Burial of Chriſt, or of the old Man is there in ſprinkling a few drops of VVater on a Perſon's Face? Or what Repreſentation is there in that Act of a Reſurrection? O, how is Chriſt's holy Baptiſm abuſed by this deviſed Rantiſm, and the Signification thereof deſtroyed! the Lord open your Eyes, or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader. This ſhews you clearly what Chriſt's true Baptiſm is, as alſo the true Subject. But to proceed.

St. Ambroſe ſaith, VVater is that wherein the Body is plunged, to waſh away all Sins; there all Sins, ſaith he, are buried. We ſuppoſe he means 'tis a Sign of this, i. e. that all Sin is buried.

Moreover Chryſoſtom ſaith, that the Old Man is buried and drown'd in the Immerſion under Water; and when the baptized Perſon is afterwards raiſed up out of the Water, it repreſents the Reſurrection of the New Man to Newneſs of Life; and therefore concludes the contrary Cuſtom, being not only againſt Eccleſiaſtical Law, but againſt the Analogy and Myſtical Signification of the Sacrament, is not to be complied with.

It has been too long, as I have formerly noted, God grant Men more Light to ſee their Error, and abhor to do ſo any more.

Kecker ſays, That Immerſion, not Aſperſion, was the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſm, as it doth, ſaith he, plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And ſay I, VVhere hath Chriſt ſince the firſt Inſtitution, inſtituted Aſperſion, or Sprinkling in the ſtead or room of Immerſion or Dipping; or given Orders to change that ſignificant Sign into the inſignificant Foppery of Sprinkling? Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were firſt inſtituted and given to the Saints? Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice to the End of the World? Has Chriſt given any Men or Church a Diſpenſation to change his Laws p. 32and Ordinances, or make them void by theſe Traditions, or ſet up their Poſt by his Poſt?

How doth God complain by the Prophets againſt his People of old, for preſuming to change his Laws, Deut. 12. 13? God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incenſe, Exod. 40. 5. and he commanded, Exod. 20. 24, 25. that his Altar ſhould be made of Earth or rough Stone: but in Iſa. 65. 3. he reproves their horrid Tranſgreſſions and Diſobedience, in acting contrary to his expreſs Inſtitution. A People (ſaith God) that provoketh me to Anger continually to my Face, that ſacrificeth in Gardens, and burneth Incenſe upon Altars of Brick. You may think that was no great Error, inſtead of Gold or Stone, to make Altars of Brick: but what ſaith God? they for this, &c. provoke me continually to my Face. O tremble ye who adventure to tranſgreſs God's Precept in as bad or worſe a manner! Who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father, &c. and you rantize or ſprinkle Infants? A…as, you know not how you hereby provoke God! altho he is yet ſilent, and doth not manifeſt his Diſpleaſure, yet know he is a jealous God and hath the like Zeal for his Goſpel-Inſtitutions, as ever he had of thoſe under the Law, and may manifeſt it too in his own time. But to proceed, and call in for more Witneſſes againſt your Practice.

Daill… on the Fathers ſaith, that it was a Cuſtom heretofore in the antient Church to plunge thoſe they baptized over Head and E…s in the VVater: And, ſaith he, Tertullian in his third Book de …. Mil. Cyprian in his ſeventieth Epiſtle, p. 211, &c. and others teſtify it.

Dr. Cave ſaith, that the Party baptized was wholly immerged, or put under the VVater, which was the almoſt conſtant and univerſal Cuſtom of thoſe Times, whereby they did moſt notably and ſignificantly expreſs the great Ends and Effects of Baptiſm: For as in immerging there are in a manner three ſeveral Acts; the putting the Perſon into the VVater, his abiuing under the VVater, and his riſing up again, thereby repreſenting Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection, and in our Conformity thereupto, our dying to Sin, the Deſtruction of its Power, and our Reſurrection to a new courſe of Life; So by the Perſon's being put into the Water, was lively repreſented the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, &c. by his being under it (which is a kind of Burial into the Water) his entering into a State p. 33of Death or Mortification, like as Chriſt remained for ſometime under the State or Power of Death: therefore 'tis ſaid, As many as are baptized into Chriſt, are baptized into his Death, &c. And then by Immerſion, or riſing up out of the Water, is ſignified his entering upon a new courſe of Life; that like as Chriſt was raiſed up by the Glory of the Father, ſo we ſhould walk in Newneſs of Life. Thus Dr. Cave.

We are ſaid, ſaith Pāraeus, to die, and to be buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm. And further ſhews, that the external Act of being buried in Water is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration.

St. Bernard ſaith, Immerſion is a Repreſentation of Chriſt's Death and Burial.

Againſt all theſe Teſtimonies and multitudes more of the beſt and moſt Learned Writers, Mr. Burkitt objects as follows, and you ſeem to argue after the ſame manner; theſe are his words, viz.

If Baptiſm adminiſtred by pouring Water on the Face (repreſenting the whole Perſon) doth anſwer the Uſe and End of Baptiſm, as well as when adminiſtred by aipping or pl…nging, then dipping is not eſſentially and abſolutely neceſſary in the Act of baptizing: but the one anſwereth the Use and End of baptizing as well as the other, therefore the one cannot be more eſſential than the other.

What is the End and Use of Baptiſm, but to repreſent to our Minds … Effuſion of Chriſt's Blood for to take away the Guilt of Sin, and the pouring forth of the Spirit for the purging away the Filth of it? Now (ſays he, and you to the ſame purpoſe) the ſprinkling of the Blood of Chriſt, and the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon the Infant, are more fully and plainly repreſented by Baptiſm as adminiſtred by ſprinkling than by dipping. He ſays further, That if the inward and ſpiritual Grace ſignified by Baptiſm be more lively repreſented by ſprinkling than by dipping, then ſurely ſprinkling is not only lawful, but more expedient than dipping: but the inward and ſpiritual Grace ſignified by Baptiſm, to wit, the cleanſing the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Chriſt, is more lively repreſented by ſprinkling than by dipping; therefore more expedient, and accordingly we find Almighty God himſelf often expreſſing the Mercy of Sanctification by this Action; Ezek. 36, 25 Theu will I ſprinkle clean Water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean, &c.

p. 34Anſew. 1. To this I anſwer, where the Thing ſignified is not, the Sign is a nullity; but your Thing ſignified in ſprinkling VVater on the Face of an Infant, viz. the holy Spirit and Graces of it, does not appear in thoſe Infants you ſo ſprinkle: Ergo, Your Sign is a nullity. If Grace was in them ſo much as in the Habit of it, when they are grown up the Act and Fruits of the Spirit and Faith would ſhew themſelves; for Grace is an active and lively Principle where-ever it is infuſed.

2. And I poſitively deny that the End and Uſe of Baptiſm is or can be repreſented by ſprinkling or pouring of VVater; but by what I have ſaid and produced, by the Teſtimony of the Scripture, and almoſt all Learned Men, both Antient Fathers, and Modern Divines, I have fully ſhewed the contrary.

3. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper had been inſtituted by Chriſt, to ſignify the Effuſion, or pouring forth his precious Blood, and not Baptiſm. VVill you confound the Uſe and End of one Sacrament with the other, to maintain your own Innovation and Abuſe of Chriſt's holy Baptiſm?

4. Might not the Jews, who inſtead of making Altars of Gold or Stone, made them Altars of Brick, ſay, that Altars of Brick might ſerve as well to anſwer the Uſe and End of burning Incenſe? Nay, may be they might ſay, they had not the other to do it, and therefore built their Altars of Brick: But would this Pretence do? No, no, what ſaith the Almighty God? They provoke me continually to my Face. Alſo might not others argue thus about the Sacrament of the Supper, viz. VVhat need we have VVine? If we uſe Mum or ſome other Red Liquor, inſtead of the Fruit of the Grape, it will anſwer the Uſe and End of that Sacrament as well as VVine. O, whither would this lead us!

5. VVe utterly deny that Baptiſm was ordain'd or inſtituted by Chriſt to ſignify either the pouring forth of his Blood, or the pouring forth of the holy Spirit, and muſt tell you, that you affirm what you pleaſe, without any Proof from God's VVord. But by the way, let the Reader obſerve how you go from ſprinkling to pouring VVater on the Face of Infants. I queſtion whether you ever do ſo or not; but if you ſhould, that would be no more Chriſt's Baptiſm than ſprinkling.

p. 35You are not to deviſe new Signs or Symbols of Spiritual Myſteries, of which God ſpeaks nothing in his VVord, nor ever inſtituted to ſuch Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Goſpel to repreſent the ſprinkling or pouring forth of the holy Spirit. The Papiſts have (you know) ſeven Sacraments, and they tell us of the Uſe and End of them, and how wonderfully ſignificant they are, and yet all the Uſe and Signification of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts: And I muſt tell you that they prove what they do and ſay for their Sacraments as well as you do. As to what you ſpeak of pouring or ſprinkling, take what Tho. Aquinas moſt excellently hath ſaid on this account. It belongs to the Signifier (ſays he) to determine what Sign is to be uſed for the Signification: But God it is, who by things ſenſible, ſignifies ſpiritual things in the Sacrament.

Chriſt hath ordained Baptiſm to be a Sign, Symbol, or lively Repreſentation of his own Death, Burial and Reſurrection, as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witneſſes. Will God endure or ſuffer Men (think you) to invent out of their own Brains, new Signs and Symbols of Divine Goſpel-Myſteries, and then father them upon him, and call them his Ordinances? Nay, more, be ſo bold as to ſay, theſe are more uſeful, and anſwer better the End of God, than thoſe which he himſelf inſtituted? For thus you and other Pedo-baptiſts ſpeak of Sprinkling, viz. 'tis not only lawful, but more expedient than Dipping. And hereby you ſeem to teach God Wiſdom, or to magnify yours above his. Be aſtoniſhed, O Heavens! Be thou horribly amazed, O Earth! Were ever any Men thus bold before? Firſt, You contrive a new Rite, and new Significations of it, which God never appointed to repreſent ſuch things, and then ſay, 'tis more expedient than Chriſt's Ordinance of dipping, which was inſtituted by him for other Ends and Significations; whereas the whole Body of all learned Men and Chriſtians, witneſs to and teſtify the contrary.

Pray take what Sir Norton K…atchbul hath wrote, in direct oppoſition to what you affirm. Saith he,

Baptiſm, which now ſaves us by Water (ſpeaking of the Text, in 1 Pet. 3. 21.) that is, by the aſſiſtance of Water, and is antitypical of the Ark of Noah, does not ſignify the laying down the Filth of the Fleſh, but the Covenant p. 36of a good Conſcience towards God, while we are plunged in the Water, which is to teſtify our Belief of the Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt; ſo that there is a manifeſt Antitheſis between theſe words, by Water, and by the Reſurrection. Nor is (ſaith he) the Elegancy of it diſpleaſing. As if he ſhould ſay, the Ark of Noah, not the Flood, was a Type of Baptiſm, and Baptiſm was an Antitype of the Ark: Not as if Baptiſm is a waſhing away of the Filth of the Fleſh by Water, wherein it anſwers not at all to the Ark; but as it is the Covenant of a good Conſcience towards God by the Reſurrection of Chriſt, in the belief of which Reſurrection we are ſaved, as they were ſaved by the Ark of Noah; for the Ark and Baptiſm were both a Type and Figure of the Reſurrection: ſo that the proper End [mark] of Baptiſm ought not to be underſtood as if it were a Sign of the wiſhing away of Sin, (although it be thus oftentimes taken Metonymially in the New Teſtament, and by the Fathers) but a particular Signal of the Reſurrection, by Faith in the Reſurrection of Chriſt, of which Baptiſm is a lively and emphatical Figure, as alſo was the Ark, out of which No…h returned as from a Sepulchre, to a new Life; and therefore not unaptly called by Philo, the Captain of the new Creation; and the Whale's Belly, out of which Jonas, after a Burial of three days, was set at liberty; and the Cloud, and the Red Sea, in which the People of Iſrael are ſaid to have been baptized, i. e. not waſhed [mark] but buried: for they were all Types of the ſame thing as Baptiſm, viz. not the waſhing away of Sin, but of the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, and our own; to which the Apoſtles, the Fathers, the Scholaſticks, [mark] and all Interpreters agree. The thing (ſaith he) is ſo apparent, as not to need any Teſtimonies; but becauſe there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine, it will not be ſuperfluous to produce ſome of thoſe innumerable Teſtimonies, that I may (ſaith he) not ſeem to ſpeak without Book. And,

Firſt, Let us begin with St. Paul, Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not, that ſo many of you that have been baptized into Chriſt, were baptized into his Death? Therefore we are buried with him in Baptiſm into his Death, &c. Elſe what ſhall they do that are baptized for the Dead, p. 37if the Dead riſe not? As if he had ſaid, If there be no Reſurrection, why are we baptized? In vain does the Church uſe the Symbol of Baptiſm, if there be no Reſurrection. The like Teſtimonies frequently occur among the Fathers (ſaith he).

Ignatius ſaith, That believing in his Death, we may be made Partakers of his Reſurrection by Baptiſm. Baptiſm was given in Memory of the Death of our Lord, we perform the Symbols of his Death [mark] not of pouring forth his Blood, or holy Spirit, or ſprinkling the Spirit on us, or the Blood of Chriſt: No, no, this, that Author ſays, is not ſignified in Baptiſm, but the Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which ſprinkling no manner of ways can repreſent.

Juſtin Martyr ſaith, We know but one ſaving Baptiſm, in regard there is but one Reſurrection from the dead, of which Baptiſm is an Image.

And from hence, ſay I, we know not Infants Rantiſm or Sprinkling, for this is none of Chriſt's true Baptiſm. Chriſt's Baptiſm is but one, and 'tis that of Believers, and 'tis not ſprinkling but dipping, to ſignify Chriſt's Burial and Reſurrection. He goes on and cites other Authors.

Hear Paul exclaiming, They paſt through the Sea, and were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea.

He calls Baptiſm the Paſſage of the Sea, for it was a flight of Death cauſed by Water.

To be baptized, and ſo plunged, and to return up and riſe out of the Water, is a Symbol of the Deſcent into the Grave, and returning from thence.

Baptiſm is a Pledg and Repreſentation of the Reſurrection: Baptiſm is an Earneſt of the Reſurrection: Immerſion is a Repreſentation of Death and Burial. Innumerable are the Teſtimonies (ſaith Sir Norton) which might be added, but theſe I think ſufficient to prove, that Baptiſm is an Image of the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt (from whence we acknowledg the Myſtery of our Religion, ſaith he, Chriſt's Deity and Humanity) and of the Faithful, who are baptized in his Faith, from Death in Sin to Newneſs of Life, which if they lead in this World, they have a moſt aſſured Hope, that being dead, they ſhall hereafter riſe to Glory with Chriſt.

Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul, a worthy Knight.

p. 38Mr. Perkins ſaith, The dipping of the Body ſignifies Mortification, or Fellowſhip with Chriſt in his Death; the ſtaying under the Water ſignifies the Burial of Sin, and coming out of the Water, the Reſurrection from Sin to Newneſs of Life. In another Treatiſe of his, he ſaith, the antient Cuſtom of baptizing, was to dip, as it were to dive all the Body of the baptized in Water; Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neoceſarea.

And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp (the preſent Archbiſhop of York) hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majeſty on Eaſter-day, March the 27th, 1692.

And this in antient Times was taught every Chriſtian (ſaith he) in and by his Baptiſm: Whenever a Perſon was baptized, he was not only to profeſs his Faith in Chriſt's Death and Reſurrection, but he was alſo to look upon himſelf as obliged in Correſpondence therewith, to mortify his former carnal Affections, and to enter upon a new State of Life.

And the very form of Baptiſm (ſaith he) did lively repreſent this Obligation to them: For what did their being plung'd under Water ſignify, but their undertaking in Imitation of Chriſt's Death and Burial, to forſake all their former evil Courſes? as their aſcending out of the Water did their Engagement to lead a holy, ſpiritual Life. This our Apoſtle doth more than once declare to us: thus Rom. 6. 3, 4. We are buried (ſaith he) with Chriſt by Baptiſm unto Death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up by the Glory of the Father, ſo we ſhould walk in Newneſs of Life.

Thus far Dr. Sharp, his Sermon on Phil. 3. 10. pag. 9.

Dr. Fowler (now Lord Biſhop of Gloceſter) on Rom. 6. 3, 4. ſaith, Chriſtians being plunged into the Water, ſignifies their undertaking and obliging themſelves in a ſpiritual Senſe, to be buried with Jeſus Chriſt in an utter renouncing and forſaking all their Sins, that ſo anſwering to his Reſurrection, they may live a holy and a godly Life. Deſign of Chriſtianity, p. 90.

Alſo Dr. Sherlock (Dean of St. Paul's) on Rom. 6. 3, 4. ſaith, Our Conformity to the Death and Reſurrection of our Saviour conſiſts in dying to Sin, and walking in Newneſs of Life: Which, ſaith he, St. Paul tells us, is repreſented by the external Ceremony of Baptiſm, and p. 39riſing out of his watery Grave, a new born Creature. Charity without Uſury, p. 1.

And unto theſe, let me add what the Pious and Reverend Dr. Tillotſon (late Archbiſhop of Canterbury) hath wrote; ſpeaking of the ſame Text, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Antiently, ſaith he, thoſe who were baptized put off their Garments, which ſignified their putting off the Body of Sin, and were immerſed and buried in the Water, to repreſent the Death of Sin; and then did riſe up again out of the Water to ſignify their Entrance upon a new Life. And to theſe Cuſtoms the Apoſtle alludes, when he ſays, How ſhall we that are dead to Sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that ſo many of us as were baptized into Jeſus Chriſt, were baptized into his Death? &c.

1. 'Tis a hard caſe, you neither will believe the holy Scripture, the Antient Fathers and Modern Divines, nor other learned Prelates of the Church of England, who are yet living; but, contrary to the nature and tendency of holy Baptiſm, plead for Sprinkling and condemn Dipping, and caſt Reproach upon it, and ſay alſo, that the Thing ſignified thereby, is the pouring forth of Chriſt's Blood, or the ſprinkling and pouring out of the holy Spirit, notwithſtanding we prove from the Scripture, and with the Teſtimony of all theſe great Men, that Baptiſm ſignifies the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, and not any of thoſe things you affirm as your own Conceit, without the Teſtimony of any learned or approved Author.

Therefore, Sir, that Baptiſm is any thing elſe than dipping, plunging or waſhing, which is done by dipping, we do utterly deny: For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Fleſh, or not the twentieth part round, is not Circumciſion; ſo ſprinkling a little Water on the Face is not Baptiſm.

True, you call it Baptiſm, and will do ſo, tho 'tis nothing leſs nor more than Rantiſm, 'tis, not the Thing, nor does it anſwer in Signification. I may tell you again, that the Jews inſtead of circumciſing the Foreskin of their Childrens Fleſh, might have as well preſumed to diſpense with that, and only have paired off the Nails of the Fingers of their Male Infants, and have called that Circumciſion, as you may call ſprinkling or pouring a little Water, Baptiſm. But may be you'l ſay, in Circumciſion they we… to draw Blood, ſo ſay I, they might in cutting the Nails p. 40of their Childrens Fingers; nay, and they might better plead, that the Things ſignified in Circumciſion, might be as well anſwered in that new Device (the Nails being a ſort of Excrement they might ſay ſignified the taking away the Filth of Sin, or Corruption of Nature) as the great Myſteries ſignified by Baptiſm or Dipping, can be repreſented by ſprinkling or pouring.

Furthermore, they might poſſibly plead the ſame Pretences you do, viz. The cutting off the Foreskin of the Fleſh put the Infants to great Pain; nay, may be they might fancy it would coſt them their Lives; nay, call it Murder, and therefore let pairing of their Nails ſerve: As you it ſeems fear dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants, and therefore make ſprinkling to ſerve inſtead thereof. But to proceed.

2. I am in amaze to ſee theſe Men ſpeak ſo fully and clearly to this glorious Truth, (i. e. that the great thing Chriſt ordained Baptiſm to repreſent, is his Death, Burial and Reſurrection, together with the baptized Perſon's Death to Sin, and his riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life) and yet both thoſe ſhameful Abuſes amongſt you and other Churches are not rectified, viz.

1. That Sprinkling, which doth not, cannot anſwer or repreſent thoſe Goſpel-Myſteries, ſhould not be rejected.

2. That Infants ſhould be once deem'd the proper Subjects of Baptiſm, ſince nothing of a Death to Sin, nor riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life, can appear in them. For, as the Learned obſerve, Baptiſm is a Symbol of preſent, not future Regeneration: 'Tis an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin, which the Party baptized paſſed under then, or ought to have done, when (or before) he is baptized. They then profeſſed themſelves to be dead to Sin, i. e. even when they were buried with Chriſt in their Baptiſm; for the Argument of the Apoſtle lies in that reſpect: How ſhall we that are dead unto Sin, live any longer …? Knowing that ſo many of … who have been baptized into Chriſt, were baptized into his Death, both in Sign and Signification: And therefore, as Dr. Sherlock ſays, riſing out of that watery Grave a new born Creature, denotes not only what they ſhould be hereafter, but what they were actually at that time. So that as this Text, and Arguments drawn therefrom, utterly condemn Sprinkling as not being Chriſt's Baptiſm, ſo it excludes Infants from being p. 41the Subjects thereof, becauſe in them appears no ſuch Death to Sin, nor can they be ſaid to come out of that watery Grave as new born Creatures. To theſe Teſtimonies I ſhall only add one or two more.

See that moſt learned Anonymous French Writer, in his Anſwer to the famous Biſhop of Meaux; 'Tis moſt certain (ſaith he) that Baptiſm hath not hitherto been adminiſtred otherwiſe than by ſprinkling, by the moſt of Proteſtants; but truly this ſprinkling is an Abuſe. This Cuſtom, which, without an accurate Examination they have retained from the Romiſh Church, in like manner as many other things, makes their Baptiſm very defective. It corrupteth its Inſtitution and antient Uſe, and that Nearneſs of Similitude which is needful ſhould be betwixt it and Faith, Repentance and Regeneration. This Reflection of Mr. Boſſuet deſerveth to be ſeriouſly conſidered, to wit (ſaith he) that this uſe of plunging hath continued for the ſpace of a whole thouſand and three hundred Years: Hence we may underſtand that we did not carefully, as it was meet, examine things which we have received from the Roman Church.

Calvin ſaith, That Baptiſm is a form or way of Burial; and none but ſuch as are already dead to Sin, or have repented from dead Works, are to be buried.

From theſe words I note;

1. That Sprinkling is not the form of Baptiſm, becauſe not the form of a Burial.

2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptiſm, becauſe not ſuch as are already dead to Sin, or have repented from dead Works; and indeed as they are not able, they are not required ſo to do by Chriſt.

The laſt Author I ſhall quote is learned Zanchy, There are two Parts, ſaith he, in Regeneration, Mortification and Vi…ification; that is called a Burial with Chriſt, this (is called) a Reſurrection with Chriſt. The Sacrament of both theſe is Baptiſm in which we are overwhelmed, or buried, and after that do come forth and riſe again. It may not be ſaid truly, but ſacramentally of all that are baptized, that they are buried with Chriſt, and raiſed with him, but only of ſuch as have true Faith.

Now we may appeal to all the World, whether Zanchy and all the reſt do not clearly and evidently teſtify the ſame thing that we aſſert, viz. That Baptiſm is and can be p. 42no other Act than Immerſion or Dipping, ſince Sprinkling, all muſt confeſs, doth not repreſent in a lively Figure, the Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, nor our dying or being dead to Sin, and Vivification to Newneſs of Life, ſaith he, Sacramentally, i. e. Analogically, in reſpect of the near Reſemblance between Baptiſm, and a Death and Reſurrection.

And this, I ſay, cannot be ſaid of them that are ſprinkled only; for if, in reſpect of Mortification and Vivification, they may be denominated buried and raiſed with Chriſt, (which cannot be ſaid of Infants) yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them ſo much as Sacramentally buried and raiſed with Chriſt: for there is not ſo much as any likeneſs of ſuch things in it; but in true Baptiſm, viz. total dipping the Body in Water, and raiſing it again, there is a lively Figure held forth to our very ſight. And as Zanchy ſaith, It cannot be ſaid of all, nor indeed of any, that they are thus ſacramentally dead, buried and riſen with Chriſt, but only of ſuch as have true Faith. Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument.

What you ſay, that none plant Bodies in Water by baptizing them, ſeems ſtrange, and not the words of a learned Man; becauſe dipping is a Figure of planting us into Chriſt ſpiritually, and of Chriſt's Death and Reſurrection, muſt the Body of a Man be a Tree? None graft Bodies into a Vine, yet the grafting of a Perſon into Chriſt is repreſented by that Alluſion, or Metaphorical Expreſſion: Muſt the Sign and the Thing ſignified be all one and the ſame thing?

Thus we ſee, in oppoſition to what you ſay, in the cloſe of your third Chapter, that it is very plain and manifeſt, that dipping is abſolutely neceſſary, and of the Eſſence of Baptiſm, it's foreign. Alas, Sir, in all the New Teſtament where we read of ſprinkling, the Greek (as I ſaid before) renders it rantizing, not baptizing: … Chriſt has ordained Rantiſm, to repreſent the ſprinkling of his Blood, or the ſprinkling of his Spirit, prove it; we deny it, and have ſufficiently proved he has appointed Baptiſm to repreſent his Death, Burial and Reſurrection, and that ſprinkling is not baptizing. But for a farther Satisfaction of the impartial Reader take a few Syllogiſtical Arguments.

Arg. 1. If Baptiſm was ordained to repreſent the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt in a lively Figure; then Sprinkling cannot be Chriſt's true Baptiſm: But Baptiſm p. 43was ordained to repreſent the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt in a lively Figure; therefore Sprinkling cannot be Chriſt's true Baptiſm.

This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it.

Arg. 2. If Baptiſm was appointed to hold forth or repreſent in a lively Figure the Perſon's Death to Sin who is baptized, or his preſent Regeneration, not future, and his riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life; then Infants cannot be the Subjects thereof. But Baptiſm was appointed to hold forth, or repreſent in a lively Figure the Perſon's Death to Sin who is baptized, or his preſent Regeneration, not future, and his riſing again to walk in Newneſs of Life: Therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof.

4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer, that Baptiſm is dipping or plunging, and nothing elſe, and that is taken from thoſe Typical Baptiſms ſpoken of in the holy Scripture.

(1.) That of the Red Sea, wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud. See Pool's Annotations on the Place.

Others, ſays he, (more properly) think the Apoſtle uſes this Term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptiſm (as it was uſed) the Perſon going down into the Waters, and being dipped in them, and the Iſraelites going down into the Sea, the great Receptable of Water; tho the Water at that time was gathered on heaps on the other ſide of them, yet they ſeemed buried in the Water, as Perſons ſeem'd buried in the Water were in that Age when they were baptized.

(2.) The ſecond Typical Baptiſm was that of Noah's Ark: See Sir Norton Knatchbull, whom I quoted before, ſaith he, Noah's Ark and Baptiſm were both a Type and Figure of the Reſurrection, not a Sign of the waſhing away of Sin, tho ſo taken metonymically, but a particular Signal of the Reſurrection of Chriſt. Of this again, ſaith he, is Baptiſm a lively and emphatical Figure, as alſo was the Ark of Noah, out of which he returned, as from a Sepulchre. From hence I infer this Argument following.

Arg. 3. If thoſe Typical Baptiſms ſpoken of in the Scriptures, ſignified Immerſion, or an Overwhelming, or a Burial; then is Sprinkling no true Baptiſm: But thoſe p. 44Typical Baptiſms, &c. did ſignify Immerſion, or an Overwhelming, or a Burial; Therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptiſm.

Again, that Baptiſm is dipping or plunging, or a being buried in the Water, appears by thoſe Metaphorical Baptiſms we read of, which are twofold.

1ſt. The Baptiſm of the Holy Spirit.

2dly. The Baptiſm of Afflictions.

1ſt. Saith John the Baptiſt, I indeed baptize you with Water, but he ſhall baptize you with the holy Spirit and Fire. Now 'tis not the ſanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every Godly Perſon receives, that is the Baptiſm of the Spirit; but, as the Learned obſerve, the miraculous Effuſions of the holy Spirit, like that at Pentecoſt, Acts 1. 4, 5. ſhall be baptized. The Greek word foreign, ſaith Caſaubon, is to dip or plunge, &c. in which Senſe, ſaith he, the Apoſtles might be truly ſaid to have been baptized; for the Houſe in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghoſt. So that the Apoſtles might ſeem to have been plunged into it, as in a large Fiſh-pond. 'Tis not a ſprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptiſm of the Spirit: for ſo doubtleſs the Apoſtles had the Spirit before they were ſaid to be baptized with it.

Oecumenius on Acts 2. ſaith, A Wind filled the whole Houſe that it ſeem'd like a Fiſh-pond, becauſe it was promiſed to the Apoſtles, that they ſhould be baptized with the Holy Ghoſt.

2dly. We read of the Baptiſm of Afflictions. I have a Baptiſm to be baptized with, and how am I ſtrai…ned till it be accompliſhed! From the literal Signification of the word baptiz…, immergo, as I ſhewed before, to plunge under, overwhelm, great Afflictions come to be called Baptiſm, and ſignifies, as Voſſius ſhews, not every light Affliction, but like that of David, Pſal. 32. 6. he drew me out of the deep Waters. Hence great Afflictions are called Waves; Thy Wazes and thy Billows are gone over me, Pſal. 42. 7. 'Tis ſpoken of Chriſt's Sufferings, who was as it were drowned, drenched, or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings: Every ſmall Affliction is not the Baptiſm of Afflictions, but great and deep Afflictions, ſuffering even unto Blood and Death.

Pool's Annotations ſay, to be baptized is to be dipped in Water, metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions.

p. 45I ſhall cloſe this alſo with another Argument.

Arg. 4. If thoſe Metaphorical Baptiſms which we read of in God's Word (as the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and of Afflictions and Sufferings) are taken from the literal and genuine Signification of the Greek word foreign immergo, which ſignifies to dip; then ſprinkling is not baptizing: but the former is true; Ergo, ſprinkling is not baptizing.