The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 9

The Rector Rectified · Treatise · Chapter 9

p. 173CHAP. IX.

… Baptiſm is Dipping, Plunging, or Burying of the whole Body in Water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt, from the Spiritual ſignification of Baptiſm.

AS touching your laſt five Arguments, againſt Rebaptizing, I ſee no ground to except againſt what you ſay there; only I ſhall take a brief view here of your ſix General Propoſitions, p. 49.

And as to you firſt, I have,Burkit's firſt Propoſition. and ſhall yet further make it appear, that Dipping is not an Accident, but an eſſential part of Baptiſm, viz. 'tis no Baptiſm at all, if not done by Immerſion, or Dipping.

2ly, Whereas you ſay,His ſecond Propoſition. the way or manner of applying Water is not poſitively determined in the Holy Scripture, cannot be gathered either from the ſignification of the Word, or from the ſignificancy of the Ceremony.

Anſw. This, as to the firſt part, viz. as to the ſignification of the Greek word, we have fully confuted; and as to the ſignificancy of the Ordinance, we ſhall forthwith in this Chapter make moſt evidently appear.

3ly, You ſay,His third Propoſition. There is a probability that Baptiſm was adminiſtred in the Apoſtles Times by Immerſion or Dipping, ſo there is likewiſe a probability that it was done by Aſperſion or Sprinkling.

p. 174Anſw. We have, and ſhall yet further prove, that there is not the leaſt probability, that in the Apoſtles time Baptiſm was ever adminiſtred by Aſperſion, but by Immerſion. You confeſs in hot Countries it was done by dipping; and that that Country where they baptized, … which we read, was a hot Country; ſo that … …hat Reaſon, by your own Argument, they … by Immerſion and not by Aſperſion.

4thly, His fourth Propoſition.You ſay you do not oppoſe the Lawfulneſs of Dipping in ſome caſes, but the Neceſſity of Dipping in all caſes.

Anſw. We have and ſhall prove the neceſſity of Dipping in all caſes, and that 'tis no baptiſm at all if not ſo done, let your Church ſay what ſhe pleaſes.

5thly, His fifth Propoſition.You ſay, that none ought to put a Divine Inſtitution upon any Rite at their own …eaſure, when it is in its own nature indifferent; and conſequently lay ſuch ſtreſs upon dipping, as to pronounce the Baptiſm of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void, ought to prove it an unchangable Rite.

Anſw. This makes againſt your ſelf, and all Pedo-baptiſts in the World. How dare you change a Divine Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt? change his Law and holy Ordinance, and ſubſtitute another thing in its ſtead and room? And if the Laws and Inſtitutions of Chriſt in their own nature are not unchangeable, what may not Men do and yet be blameleſs? this opens a door to make all Chriſt's Inſtitutions null and void. But, Sir, we have ſhewed in this Treatiſe, that for 1300 Years, in moſt parts of the World, Immerſion was only uſed; and ſome learned Pedo-Baptiſts have ſhewed that Rantiſm is utterly to be rejected, as an Innovation, and an inſignificant Ceremony.

p. 1756thly, His ſixth Propoſition.That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements, but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended; in Circumciſion it was not the Quantity of Fleſh cut off ſo much as the Signification of it, &c.

Anſw. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 'tis not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be obſerved, if ſo be it be adminiſtred in that order and manner Chriſt hath ordained, viz. to repreſent his Body broken, and his Blood poured forth. The like we will ſay alſo in Baptiſm, we need not go where there is more Water than what will ſerve to baptize, or dip the Perſon all over, ſo that it may repreſent the Burial and Reſurection of Chriſt, which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth, or repreſent when adminiſtred.

2. Should the People of Iſrael (as I have ſhewed) in Circumciſion only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Fleſh, and not round, or quite off, or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it, would that have anſwered the Mind of God in that Rite? or they have been born with, in pleading, it might as well anſwer Circumciſion in Signification? The Vanity and Sinfulneſs of this Aſſertion you will ſee fully in this Chapter laid open and detected. But I ſhall now proceed to your firſt Argument againſt Dipping.

Say you,Mr. Burkit's firſt Argument againſt Dipping. ſuch an Application of Water in the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, as the Spirit of God in Scripture expreſly calls baptizing, is lawful and ſufficient to the uſe in Baptiſm.

But ſprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping, is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expreſly called baptizing.

Therefore it is lawful and ſufficient, and Dipping is not neceſſary.

p. 176Anſw. That the primary literal, proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word foreign is to dip, we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witneſſes; and this indeed I ſee you dare not deny, ſaying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word foreign, from whence comes foreign, ſignifies to dye, or give a new Colour. All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over; but whereas you ſay it ſignifies alſo ſometimes to waſh, we have ſhewed 'tis no other waſhing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Perſon all over in Water. And therefore now, to proceed, I ſhall further prove Baptiſm is no other Act but Dipping, or burying the Body under the Water.

You ſay, Pag. 52. We read of divers Waſhings under the Law, in the Original it is divers Baptiſms: Now, ſay you, what were thoſe Waſhings but Sprinklings, no Perſons were dipp'd in Blood, &c.

Anſw. We deny thoſe Waſhings which are called Baptiſms, were either ſprinkling or pouring of Water on them, but total dipping of their whole Body;Ainſworth his Annotat. on Levit. 11.32.Lev 11:32 and ſo the Reverend Mr. Ainſworth, (a Man very learned in all Jewiſh Rites and Ceremonies) poſitively affirms on Levit. 11.31. theſe are his words, viz. All that are unclean, whether Men or Veſſels, are not cleanſed but by dipping, or baptizing in Water; and whereſoever the Law ſpeaketh of waſhing a Man's Fleſh,Hence we read of thin Garments made for them. or waſhing of Cloaths for Uncleanneſs, it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein: And whether they be Men or Veſſels, there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them aſunder, as Clay, Pitch, or the like, that cleaveth to the Body or Veſſel;Maim. Mikvaoth, c. 1. §. 1, 2, 21. if there be, then they are (ſaith he) unclean, and their waſhing profiteth them not. Maim. in Mikvaoth.

p. 177What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm? But, Sir, where we read of ſprinkling of Blood, the word is not there baptizing. And now I ſhall proceed further to prove, that Baptiſm, or baptizing, is not Sprinkling, but Dipping, or plunging into the Water, in the Name of the Father, &c. and beſides all we have already ſaid, clearly make this appear… …rom the ſpiritual Signification thereof, or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby.

And firſt, to proceed; let it be in the fear of God conſidered, that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure repreſent the breaking of Chriſt's Body, and the pouring forth of his precious Blood; ſo and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptiſm doth ſignify and hold forth the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of the ſame Lord Jeſus Chriſt: and the holding forth and confirming of theſe two great Goſpel-Truths, was doubtleſs the end of our Saviour in ordaining both theſe Goſpel-Ordinances, that ſo Chriſt crucified, with his Burial and Reſurrection, might not only in the Miniſtry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears, but by theſe two Inſtitutions be alſo preach'd (as it were) to the ſeeing of our Eyes. And that Baptiſm doth hold forth this, together with our Death unto Sin, and riſing again to walk in newneſs of Life, I ſhall prove in the next place; and that,

Firſt, From expreſs places of Scripture.

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

1. The firſt Scripture is, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5, 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptiſm, &c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themſelves dead to Sin, and p. 178bound 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 Buri… and Reſurrection. But,

(2.) Alſo it ſignifies our Death unto Sin, and our riſing again to walk in newneſs of Life. And indeed the Apoſtle makes uſe of this as an Argument to preſs newneſs of Life (the thing ſignified in Baptiſm) upon them all—As if he ſhould ſay, As many of us as are baptized, muſt know this, that we were baptized into Chriſt's Death, and therefore muſt die to Sin, and live a ne… 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,Pool's Annotat. 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,Cajetan. We are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm into Death; by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptiſm: becauſe he (that is, the Party baptized) is put under Water, and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried, who was put under the Earth. Now becauſe none are buried but dead Men— from this very thing, that we are buried in Baptiſm, we are aſſimilated to Chriſt buried, or when he was buried.

The Aſſembly in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture,The Aſſembly's Annotat. ſay likewiſe thus, viz. In this Phraſe the Apoſtle ſeems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing, which was to dip p. 179the 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,Tilenus in his Diſpute, p. 886, 889. on Rom. 3, 4.Rom 3:4 ſpeaks fully in this Caſe; Baptiſm, ſaith he, is the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament, inſtituted by Chriſt, in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing ſignified. The outward Rite in Baptiſm is three-fold:

1. Immerſion into the Water.

2. Abiding under the Water.

3. A Reſurrection out of the Water.

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

p. 180And 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 thoſe 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 Water 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.

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

Chryſoſtom.Moreover Chryſoſtom ſaith, That the Old Man is buried and drowned 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 Syſt. Theol. l. 3. c. 8.Kecker ſays, That Immerſion, not Aſperſion, was the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſm, as it doth, p. 181ſaith he, plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And ſay I, where 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 to any Men or Church a Diſpenſation to change his Laws and Ordinances, or make them void by their Traditions, or to ſet up their Poſt by his Poſt?

How doth God complain by the Prophet againſt his People of Old, for preſuming to change his Laws, in 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 Altars ſhould be made of Earth or rough Stone. But in Iſa. 65.3. he reproves their horrid Tranſgreſſion and Diſobedience, in acting contrary to his expreſs Inſtitution: A People (ſaith God) that provoke me to Anger continually to my Face, that ſacrificeth in Gardens, and burn 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: Alas you know not how you hereby provoke God; although 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 further Witneſſes againſt your Practice.

p. 182Daille on the Fathers, l. 2 p. 148.Daille on the Fathers ſaith, That it was a Cuſtom heretofore in the ancient Church to plunge thoſe they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water, as ſaith he, Tertullian in his third Book, De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his ſeventh Ep. p. 211. &c. and others teſtify.

Dr. Cave.Dr. Cave ſaith, That the Party baptized was wholly immerged, or put under the Water; 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 Water, his abiding under the Water, and his riſing up again, thereby repreſenting Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection. And in our Conformity thereunto, 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 puting 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 entring into a State of Death or Mortification, like as Chriſt remained for ſome time under the State or Power of Death: therefore it is ſaid, as many as are baptized into Chriſt, are baptized into his Death, &c. And then by Emerſion, or riſing up out of the Water, is ſignified his entring 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.

Paraeus upon Urſin, p. 375.We are ſaid (ſaith Paraeus) 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.

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

p. 183Againſt all theſe Teſtimonies, and multitudes more of the beſt and moſt learned Writers, and plain Scriptures, you in pag. 52. bring in your ſecond Argument againſt Dipping.Mr. Burkit's ſecond Argument againſt Dipping, (p. 25. of his Book) anſwered.

Arg. 2. If Baptiſm adminiſtred by pouring Water on the Face (repreſents the whole Perſon) doth anſwer the Uſe and End of Baptiſm, as well as when adminiſtred by Dipping or Plunging; then Dipping is not eſſentially and abſolutely neceſſary in the Act of baptizing: But the one anſwers the Uſe and End of Baptiſm as well as the other; therefore the one cannot be more neceſſary than the other.

What is the Uſe and End of Baptiſm but to repreſent to our Minds the Effuſion of Chriſt's Blood, for to take away the Guilt of Sin; and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit, for the purging away the Filth of it? Now (ſay you) 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, ad adminiſtred by Sprinkling, than by Dipping.

If, ſay you, the inward and ſpiritual Grace ſignified by Baptiſm, be more lively repreſented by Sprinkling than by Dipping; then ſurely Sprinkling is not only as lawful, but more expedient than Dipping: but the inward and ſpiritual Grace ſignified by Baptiſm, to wit, the cleanſing of the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Chriſt, is more lively repreſented by Sprinkling than by Dipping: therefore more expedient. And accordingly we find Almighty God himſelf often expreſſing that Mercy of Sanctification by this Action; Ezek. 36.25. Then will I ſprink… clean Water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean, &c.

Anſw. 1. By denying your minor Propoſition: Sprinkling doth not anſwer the Uſe and End of Baptiſm, as what I have ſaid and produced by p. 184the Teſtimony of the Scripture, and almoſt all learned Men, both ancient Fathers and modern Divines, fully ſhews the contrary.

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

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

4. We utterly deny that Baptiſm was ordained or inſtituted by Chriſt to ſignify either the pouring forth of his Blood, or the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit; and muſt tell you, that you affirm what you pleaſe, without any Proof from God's Word. But by the way let the Reader obſerve how you go from Sprinkling to plead for pouring Water on the Face of Infants: I queſtion whether you ever do ſo or not? but if you ſhould, that would be no more Chriſt's Baptiſm than Sprinkling.

You are not to deviſe new Signs or Symbols of ſpiritual Myſteries, of which God ſpeaks nothing in his Word, nor ever inſtituted to ſuch Ends. p. 185I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Goſpel to repreſent the Sprinkling or pouring forth of the Holy Spirit. The Papiſts have (you know) ſeven Sacraments, and they tell us of the Uſe and End of them, and how wonderful ſignificant they are; and yet all their Uſe and Expediency of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts. And I muſt tell you that they prove what they do and ſay of thoſe Sacraments, as well as you do what you ſpeak of Pouring or Sprinkling. Take what Tho. Aquinas moſt excellently hath ſaid on this Account.Aquinas. It belongs to the Signifier (ſays he) to determine what Sign is to be uſed for the Signification: but God it is, who by things ſenſible, ſignifies ſpiritual things in the Sacrament. Chriſt hath ordained Baptiſm to be a Sign, Symbol or lively Repreſentation of his own Death, Burial and Reſurrection, as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witneſſes. Will God endure or ſuffer men (think you) to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Goſpel-Myſteries, and then father them upon him, and call them his Ordinances? Nay, more, be ſo bold as to ſay, theſe are more uſeful, and anſwer better the End of God, than thoſe which he himſelf inſtituted? For thus you ſpeak of Sprinkling, viz. 'tis not only lawful, but more expedient than Dipping, p. 55. And hereby you ſeem to teach God Wiſdom, or to magnify yours above his. Be aſtoniſhed, O Heavens and be thou horribly amazed, O Earth! Was ever any Man thus bold before? Firſt you contrive a new Rite, and new Significations of it, which God never appointed to repreſent ſuch things, and then ſay, '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.

p. 186Sir Nort. Knatchbul in his Notes printed at Oxford, 1677.Pray take what Sir Norton Knatchbul hath wrote, in direct oppoſition to what you affirm.

Saith he, Baptiſm, which now ſaves us by Water, (ſpeaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3.20.) that is, by the aſſiſtance of Water, and is Antitypical of the Ark of Noah, does not ſignify the laying down the Filth of the Fleſh, but the Covenant of a good Conſcience towards God, while we are plunged in the Water, which is to teſtify our Belief of the Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt; ſo that there is a manifeſt Antitheſis between theſe words, by Water, and by the Reſurrection. Nor is (ſaith he) the Elegancy of it diſpleaſing. As if he ſhould ſay, the Ark of Noah, not the Flood, was a Type of Baptiſm, and Baptiſm was an Antitype of the Ark; not as if Baptiſm is a waſhing away of the Filth of the Fleſh by Water, wherein it anſwers not at all to the Ark; but as it is the Covenant of a good Conſcience towards God by the Reſurrection of Chriſt, in the belief of which Reſurrection we are ſaved, as they were ſaved by the Ark of Noah: for the Ark and Baptiſm were both a Type and Figure of the Reſurrection. So that the proper End [mark] of Baptiſm ought not to be underſtood as if it were a Sign of the waſhing away of Sin, (although it be thus often-times taken metonymically in the New-Teſtament) and by the Fathers, but a particular Signal of the Reſurrection by Faith, in the Reſurrection of Chriſt, of which Baptiſm is a lively and emphatical Figure; as alſo was the Ark, out of which Noah returned, as from the Sepulcher to a new Life; and therefore not unaptly called by Philo, the Captain of the New Creation. And the Whales Belly, out of which Jonas, after a burial of three days, was ſet at liberty: and the Cloud, and the Red Sea, in which the People p. 187of Iſrael are ſaid to have been Baptized, is not waſhed, [mark] but buried, for they were all Types of the ſame thing, as Baptiſm, viz. not the waſhing away of Sin, but of the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, and our own: to which the Apoſtles, the Fathers, the Scholaſticks, [mark] and all Interpreters agree. The thing (ſaith he) is ſo apparent, as not to need any Teſtimonies; but becauſe there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine, it will not be ſuperfluous to produce ſome of theſe innumerable Teſtimonies, that I may (ſaith he) not ſeem to ſpeak without book. And,

Firſt, Let us begin with St. Paul, Rom. 6.3. Know ye not that ſo many of you that have been baptized into Chriſt, were baptized into his Death? Therefore we are buried with him in Baptiſm, into his Death, Col. 2.12.Col 2:12&c. Elſe what ſhall they do, 1 Cor. 15.29.1 Cor 15:29that are baptized for the Dead, if 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,Ignat. Epiſt ad Tral. id. Epiſt. ad Philadelph. 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,Juſtin Martyr. 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 p. 188Rantiſm or Sprinkling; for this is none of Chriſt's true Baptiſm. Chriſt's Baptiſm in Water 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.

Baſil the Great.Hear Paul exclaiming, they paſt through the Sea, and were all baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea.

Baſil of Silencia. Chryſoſtom.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.

Lactantius. Bernard.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 all 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, and of your Church too.

Perkins, 2 Vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257.Mr. 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 ancient Cuſtom of Baptizing,1 Vol. cap. 33. p. 74. was to dip, as it were to dive, all the Body of the Baptized in Water; Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neoceſarea.

p. 189And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp (the preſent Arch-Biſhop of York) hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majeſty, on Eaſter-day, March 27, 1692.

And this in antient times was taught every Chriſtian (ſaith he) in and by his Baptiſm:His Sermon on Phil. 3.10. p. 9.Phil 3:10 When ever 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 plunged 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.

Dr. Fowler (now Lord-Biſhop of Gloceſter) on Rom. 6. 3, 4. ſaith,Deſign of Chriſtianity pag. 90. Chriſtians being plunged into the Water, ſignifies their undertaking, and obliging themſelves in a ſpiritual ſenſe to die, and 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 godly Life.

Alſo Dr. Sherlock (Dean of St. Pauls) on Rom. 6. 3, 4. ſaith,Charity without Ʋſury, p. 1. 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 riſing out p. 190of his warry Grave a new-born Creature.

And unto theſe let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotſon (the preſent Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury) hath wrote:Sermons preached on ſeveral Occaſions, 5th Ed…. p. 188, 189. ſpeaking of the ſame Text, Rom. 6.3, 4. Anciently (ſaith he) thoſe who were baptized, put off their Garments, which ſignified the putting off the Body of Sin; and were immers'd 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 that 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, no nor thoſe learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church, who … living; but contrary to the nature and tende…y 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 or 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 Reſorrection of Jeſus Chriſt, and not any of thoſe things you affirm, as your own Concein, 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 p. 191the 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 Finger… of their Male Infants ▪ and have called that Circumciſion, as you may call ſprinkling or pouring a little Water, Baptiſm. But may be you will ſay, in Circumciſion they were to draw Blood; ſo ſay I, they might in cutting the Nails of 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) better than 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 off 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 a-maze 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;) that both thoſe ſhameful Abuſes in your Church, and among other Churches alſo, are not rectified, viz.

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

2dly. That Infants ſhould be once deemed the p. 192proper Subjects of Baptiſm, ſith 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 of 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 to Sin, live any longer therein? Rom. 6.3, 4Rom 6:3Rom 6:4knowing that ſo many of us 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 watry Grave a newborn 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 the Subjects thereof, becauſe in them appears no ſuch Death to Sin, nor can they be ſaid to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures.

To theſe Teſtimonies I ſhall only add one or two more, and paſs to your Obiections.

See that moſt learned Anonymous French Proteſtant Writer,See Dr. DuVeil on Acts 8. p. 292, 293.Acts 8 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 ancient Uſe, and that nearneſs of Similitude, which is needful p. 193ſhould 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,Calvin, l. 4. c. 16. 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.

1. From whoſe words I note, 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,Zanchy on Col. 2.12.Col 2:12 is Learned Zanchy, There are two parts (ſaith he) in Regeneration, Mortification and Vivification; that is called a Burial with Chriſt, this 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 no 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 p. 194he, 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, it is in 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 … ſacramentally dead, buried and riſen with Chriſt, but only of ſuch as have true Faith. Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument.

And thus your firſt and ſecond Arguments againſt …ipping are fully anſwered, in the 52d and 53d pages of your Book.

Mr. Burkit's third Argument againſt Dipping, anſwered.Your third Argument, or Objection, againſt Dipping, is this, viz.

If Dipping were eſſentially and abſolutely neceſſary in Baptiſm; then in all the Baptiſm recorded in Scripture, we ſhould meet with full Proof, or at leaſt with fair Probability, that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped.

But (ſay you) in ſeveral Inſtances of Baptized Perſons recorded in Scripture, we meet with no ſuch Proof, but the contrary, Ergo, &c.

The Text… you cite, are firſt, Acts 9.18, 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings, being ſick and weak, &c.

Anſw. 1. Both theſe things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text.

For, firſt, the Text does not ſay, he was baptized in his Lodgings, therefore you ſtrive to p. 195make the Scripture ſpeak what it doth not. See, Reader, the 18th Verſe, and you may find Mr. Burkit ſpeaks an Untruth, or that which the Text ſays not.

2. 'Tis falſe alſo, in that you ſay he was ſick or weak, tho he might be ſomewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him. But if he had been weak, yet when God commanded him to be baptized, or dipp'd in Water, In the Name of the Father, &c. he had no cauſe to fear or doubt of any Harm.

3. I have known sickly and weak Perſons baptized in this col… Climate, and yet received not the leaſt hurt thereby.

Your ſecond Text is Acts 16.33. where 'tis ſaid, The Jaylor was baptized the ſame Hour of the Night; and Paul newly waſhed of his Sores by his Stripes.

Anſw. This is ſuch ſilly reaſoning, that 'tis not worth naming. He was not ſo ſore, but he might go into the Water to baptize the Jaylor and thoſe in his Houſe. And though in the ſame Hour of the Night it was done alſo: What of that, might there not be a River or Pond near his Houſe? Sir, this muſt be believed, ſince Baptiſm is Immerſion; and you are filled with Prejudice and Incredulity if you believe it not.

3. The other Text is that of 3000 baptized in the ſame day, Acts 2.41.

Can any Body believe (in or near Jeruſalem, that great City) there was not Water enough to baptize ſo many Perſons? And could not the twelve Apoſtles, and the ſeventy Diſciples, dip more than 3000 Perſons in one day? Sir, 'tis enough, the Holy Ghoſt ſays they were baptized, that is, Dipped, not Rantized: therefore you do but go about to contradict the Holy Spirit, and fight with your own Shadow.

p. 196Mr. Burkit's fourth Argument againſt Dipping, anſwered.Your fourth Argument, againſt the Neceſſity Dipping, is taken from the difficulty of the thing in ſome Countries, in regard they have not (you ſay) ſcarce Water enough to drink, not a River or Brook in many miles.

2. In regard of the danger of the thing, doubtleſs (ſay you) our Saviour, who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice, allows the Adminiſtration of the Ordinance, in ſuch a way as is conſiſtent with his Peoples Lives; which muſt in ſome Countries, eſpecially at ſome Seaſons of the Year, be in extream danger, &c. Mentioning an Act made by the Senate at … in Switzerland, That if any Anabaptiſt dipp'd any of their People, he ſhould be puniſh'd with drowning.

Anſw. 1. You ſhould have told us what Countries they are, who have not Water enough to baptize People in. I know generally 'tis ſaid by Writers, that thoſe Countries that are without Water, are unhabitable.

2. But if they have Rivers or Ponds, though not in a …, no doubt, ſuch who are convinced 'tis their Duty to be baptized by Chriſt's Commiſſion,How far did ſome of the Jews go to worſhip God at Jeruſalem? would never ſtick at their labour to go forty or fifty Miles to have it done; for 'tis ſaid by ſome Writers, our Saviour went above forty Miles to be baptized of John in the River Jordan.

3. As to the Danger, we ſay, what you affirm is …lſe, … thouſands in this Nation, by their own Experience and Knowledg, can juſtify there is no Danger at all attending the Dipping or Baptizing the Adult, who profeſs▪ Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, …, although it be done in the ſharpeſt or coldeſt Seaſon of the Year, many thouſands of Perſons, of both Sexes, and ſome ancient, others weak and ſickly, have been baptized in very cold Weather; and yet we do challenge all the World to bring an Inſtance of any Harm any p. 197one Perſon ever received thereby: And ſince the Bodies of Infants cannot bear it, 'tis a good Argument they were not the Subjects Chriſt intended, &c.

4. Might not the Jews have pleaded for ſuch a kind of Circumciſion as I mentioned before, as the pairing the Nails of their Childrens Fingers, and not to cut the Foreskin of their Fleſh, with the ſame Argument you ſpeak of, viz. God will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice? for you know who ſaid, A bloody Husband thou art to me, becauſe of this Circumciſion.

5. May be there were ſuch wicked Men at Zurick in Switzerland, who might make ſuch an Act, That ſuch who baptized People ſhould be drown'd.

Anſw. What then? we have had as bad Acts here alſo in England, or worſe, who made an Act, That thoſe who held ſuch Doctrine which they call'd Hereſy, ſhould be burn'd. And others of later Date, That ſuch who aſſembled together, above the number of Five, to Preach or Pray, ſhould be Fined, Impriſoned, or their Goods taken away: 'Tis no marvel to hear of ſuch a Law, wicked Men always hated Chriſt's Truth and People.

Your fifth Argument againſt Dipping is a terrible one indeed, if true, viz. Becauſe it has a tendency towards the breach of the 6th and 7th Commandment, Thou ſhalt not Kill: Thou ſhalt not commit Adultery.

You poſitively aſſert, That Baptiſm by Dipping of ſome Perſons, and in ſome Places, may expoſe to all thoſe Hazards, and infallibly deſtroy and make an end of thouſands.

Anſw. As to the Sin of Murder, what I have now ſaid, it appears it has no tendency to that, and therefore you ſhew a moſt unjuſt and malicious Spirit againſt Chriſt's Sacred Inſtitution, by p. 198what you ſpeak here: not one Soul was ever deſtroyed thereby that ever you heard of, or I either. True, ſhould you baptize Infants, who are not the Subjects, you may fear it might deſtroy them indeed; and it would be a preſumptuous Act so to do, becauſe not commanded, but you may be ſure God will own his own Ordinance. And us to what you ſpeak concerning Adultery, that ſhews the like envious, bitter and vile Temper; who do you charge? can't you take a Woman by the Hand without having unclean Thoughts in your Heart? Thoſe whom we baptize, have decent Clothes upon them. Therefore this Practice of ours, according to our Saviour's Inſtitution, cannot endanger our own nor our Neighbour's Chaſtity, as your ſlanderous Pen ſays, Pag. 56. we performing the Ordinance with all Gravity and Modeſty imaginable before many Witneſſes.

But then, ſay you, the Clothes are baptized.

What then, were not Grave-Clothes always buried with the Perſon that was laid in the Grave? Or, doth it follow, becauſe the Clothes were buried, the Body of the Man or Woman was not buried alſo?

If you pour Water on the Face of a Child, the good Women will tell you, you will baptize the Child's fine Clothes alſo: nay, have you never ſprinkled, or rantized the Childrens fine Clothes or Dreſſes, when you, as you call it, have baptized them?

But who do you (by arguing thus) reflect upon and reproach? is it not the holy and ever bleſſed Jeſus who gave forth the Law, i. e. to dip Believers, or to plunge them in Water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt? and do you not acknowledg in the Primitive Times, and in hot Countries, Baptiſm was done by Dipping? Why then, pray conſider, do p. 199you think they were in thoſe times baptized naked; if ſo, may you not charge them with the Sin of Adultery, as you do in a wicked and ungodly manner charge us? We read of Women in the Scriptur… who were baptized (that is, as we have proved▪) dipped.

Therefore, Sir, there is no need to endeavour further to prove they were dipped; for if the Word had been truly tranſlated according to the literal, genuine and proper Signification thereof, we ſhould have read it, they were dipped both Men and Women, Acts 8.12. and ſo the Dutch have tranſlated it in their Language.

Maer do ſy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende [van] don name Jeſus Chriſti verkondigh de wier den ſy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen. In Engliſh thus;

When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were dipped both Men and Women.

But you ſay, that which may be lawful and modeſt in one Country, may be ſinful and immodeſt in another, &c.

Anſw. Did not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſend his Diſciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries, not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot? And dare you, without bluſhing, Did Chriſt inſtitute his Ordinance with reſpect had to the Cuſtom of the Countr… ▪ſay or intimate, 'tis immodeſt and a ſinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World, becauſe it may be poſſibly cenſured, condemned or accounted ſo by the Sons of Belial, wicked and ungodly Men and Women?

Beſides, have you not granted the Caſe ſo far, that in hot Countries they did dip? pray, was not that a hot Country? was it not in Judea, the ſame Country our Saviour lived when on Earth? By what you ſay here, it may appear that you ſay and unſay the ſame thing, and ſeem p. 200to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping,The Land of Canaan is a hot Country. or any where elſe, tho you contradict all the Learned, both the Greek and Latin Fathers, and all th… eminent Divines, Biſhops and Doctors, I have quoted out of their Writings. I even am ſick of ſuch an impertinent Antagoniſt.

Mr. Burkit's ſixth Argument againſt Dipping, anſwered.As to your ſixth and laſt Argument, That God hath bleſſed and highly honoured the Adminiſtration of your way (of Babes Rantiſm) to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes.

Anſw. 'Tis wholly without Proof or Demonſtration, and nothing but a bold, preſumptive and raſh Aſſertion of your own: God has ſuffered it long 'tis true, (as he hath ſome other human Rites and Traditions) but you cannot prove he has bleſſed either it or them, to any one Soul's profit—. And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptiſm? (for formerly they were baptized, i. e. dipped) God did honour the Baptiſm of the Adult highly, when our Saviour being 'about thirty Years old was baptized by John;Mat. 3.16.Matt 3:16 for the Heavens were opened, and a Voice heard, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed;Luk. 3.23.Luke 3:23 and the Holy Ghoſt came down upon him.

And ſo in Acts 8.12, 14. thoſe Men and Women who believed and were baptized, the holy Spirit was given unto: nay, and ſo highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers, that there is a Promiſe of Forgiveneſs of S… and of the receiving the holy Spirit; nay, of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized, Acts 2.37, 38. Mark 16.16.

But there is no Promiſe made to Infants that are Baptized, much leſs to ſuch who are but only Rantized.

1. As to your Objection (in Pag. 57.) about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping, 'tis not their Annotators, but 'tis their Tranſlators, and that p. 201too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word;'Tis ſo read Reader, in the Dutch Teſtament, they have tranſlated the Greek word, and our Tranſlators have not. therefore you ſay nothing to weaken what we have ſaid upon that account.

2. And as touching what you ſpeak, i. e. that in Pag. 57. (viz. That Baptiſm ſignifies the Death and Burial of Chriſt, we, and a Cloud of Witneſſes therefore ſay, that 'tis Dipping, becauſe that is a moſt lively Repreſentation of his Death, Burial and Reſurrection) But you ſay, Baptiſm may ſignify the Death of Chriſt, and be ſo adminiſtred, as lively to repreſent the Death of our Saviour, without the expoſing thoſe who are baptized to the danger of Death; and may ſignify Chriſt's Burial too without ſending the Perſon baptized to his Grave: even in Sprinkling, there is a plain Repreſentation of Chriſt's Death; for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly repreſents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body.

Anſw. If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried, or covered all over in Water, you had ſaid ſomething; tho that is not the way of baptizing neither, but dipping, or plunging; yet that would, I muſt confeſs, repreſent a Burial: But is the dead Body buried ſo ſoon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him? if you ſhould ſay it, no body would believe you, the Body muſt be covered under the Earth before it can be ſaid to be buried, and ſo muſt the Perſon baptized be covered under the Water, or 'tis not baptized; for as otherwiſe there is no actual Burial in the firſt, ſo there is no Repreſentation of a Burial in the ſecond.

But, ſay you, if you will cloſely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars; then as the Perſon buried is altogether paſſive, and laid in the Grave only by others, in like manner the Party baptized, ſay you, ought to p. 202put neither Foot, nor Leg, nor Thigh into the Water, but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms, and lay his entire Body into the Water, &c.

Anſw. Are you not blame-worthy to write after this ſort? O that you were more wiſe, and dreaded the holy Majeſty of God! Is it not ſaid, They went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he (that is, Philip) baptized or dipped him? this is the Rule, not to take the Perſon up into our Arms; yet 'tis the Adminiſtrator notwithſtanding that buries the Perſon in the VVater: his going into it himſelf doth not baptize him, tho he ſhould go in as high as his VVaſte, but the Adminiſtrator does it. You know Metaphors do not go (as we uſe to ſay) on all four, nor muſt they be ſtrained further than the deſign and purport of the holy Spirit; but you by ſprinkling deſtroy and utterly make void that ſacred Alluſion of the Holy Ghoſt, which is not to be born with: Baptiſm is no Repreſentation of a Burial at all, if Sprinkling be it. And if you have heard that ſome have been kept ſo long under the VVater till (as you ſay) almoſt choaked, or buried alive; I ſuppoſe 'tis not the firſt Untruth you have heard.

In Pag. 58, and 59. about Chriſt's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age, you ſay, Chriſt was circumciſed at eight days old; and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy, yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptiſm: alſo you intimate, that ſome expound the words for his coming up out of the Water, that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching.

Anſw. Circumciſion was then in force, now 'tis gone, therefore in that Chriſt could not be an Example for us, but in Baptiſm (which is p. 203an Ordinance of the New Teſtament) he is our Example and Pattern, as his Precept is our Rule, in that we ſhould follow his Steps.

2. And let me tell you, if it was in the Infancy of Baptiſm, (you mean the beginning of the Practice of it) you hereby contradict what you have ſaid about thoſe Jewiſh Baptiſms, which you ſay were long in uſe before our Saviour's time, and from hence he ſpoke ſo little of Infant-Baptiſm; if it were ſo, how was this in the Infancy of Baptiſm?

3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity, indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was ſoon after the Apoſtles time corrupted, as well as other Truths were. We ought to go to the Original Copy, to the Primitive, or firſt Inſtitution and Practice; Is not Chriſt's Precept our only Rule? and his own Practice our ſure and certain Pattern?1 Cor. 11.2.1 Cor 11:2 VVere not the Saints to keep the Ordinances (and commanded ſo to do) as they were firſt delivered to them? As to the Situation of the River Jordan, is a Figment; 'tis not ſaid he came up from the VVater, but that he came up out of the Water, therefore had been in it.

4. As to what you ſay, that John baptized in Aenon, becauſe there was much Water; that the word ſignifies many Waters, I have anſwered that already, but take one word or two more here. True, the Greek word foreign ſignifies many Waters, but not little Rivolets, but rather the tumultuouſneſs and raging of the Seas, which fully ſignifies the abundance and confluence of Waters, contrary to what you affirm. See Rev. 14.2. where you have the ſame original words, ſo Rev. 19.6.

5. And laſtly, as to your Arguments againſt re-baptizing, I paſs them over, you might have ſaved your ſelf that Pains, for we (as I told you before) are as much againſt re-baptizing as you p. 204can be, or for any to renounce their true Baptiſm; your Arguments therefore in that are good. And now from the whole take two Arguments.

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

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

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

Typical Baptiſms ſignify Dipping or Plunging, 1 Cor. 10.2.1 Cor 10:24.There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer, that Baptiſm is Immerſion, Dipping, or Plunging, and nothing elſe, and that is taken from thoſe typical Baptiſms ſpoken of in the Holy Scripture. 1. That of the red Sin, wherein the Fathers were bu…ed as it were unto Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud. See Pool's Annotations on the Place. Others, ſays he (more properly) think the Apoſtle uſes this term in regard of the great Analogy Betwixt Baptiſm (as it was uſed) the Perſons going down into the Waters, and being dipped in them; and the Iſraelites going down into the Sea, the great Receptable of Water, though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either ſide of them; yet they ſeemed buried in the Water, as Perſons ſeemed p. 205buried in the Water were in that Age, when they were baptized.

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

Arg. 3. If thoſe typical Baptiſms ſpoken of in the Scriptures, ſignified Immerſion, or an overwhelming, or a Burial; then is Sprinkling no true Baptiſm: But thoſe typical Baptiſms, &c. did ſignify Immerſion, or an Overwhelming, or a Burial; therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptiſm.Metaphorical Baptiſms ſignify Dipping or Plunging, Mat. 3.11.Matt 3:11

5. And laſtly, That Baptiſm is Dipping or Plunging, or a being buried in the Water, appears by thoſe metaphorical Baptiſms we read of, which are two-fold.

1ſt. The Baptiſm of the Holy Spirit.

2dly. The Baptiſm of Afflictions.

1. Saith John Baptiſt, I indeed baptize you with Water; but he ſhall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and Fire. Now '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 Effuſion 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,Caſaubon. &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. p. 206'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 ſeemed like a Fiſh-Pond,See Philologia ſacra, p. 190. becauſe it was promiſed to the Apoſtles, that they ſhould be baptized with the Holy Ghoſt.

2. We read of the Baptiſm of Afflictions: I have a Baptiſm to be baptized with, Matth. 20.22, 23.Matt 20:22Matt 20:23and how am I ſtraitned till it be accompliſhed! From the literal Signification of the word baptizo, immergo, plunge under, overwhelm, great Afflictions come to be called Baptiſm, and ſignifies, as Voſſius ſhews, not every light Affliction, but like that of David, Pſal. 32.6. he drew me out of deep Waters: Hence great Afflictions are called Waves; Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me, Pſal. 42.7. '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 Annotat. on Mat. 20.22Matt 20:22Pool's Annotations ſay, to be baptized is to be dipped in Water, metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions.

I ſhall cloſe this alſo with another Argument.

Arg. 4. If thoſe metaphorical Baptiſms which we read of in God's Word (as the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and of Afflictions and Sufferings) are taken from the literal Signification of the Greek word baptiz…, which ſignifies to dip▪ then Sprinkling is not baptizing, but th… former is true. Ergo, Sprinkling is not baptizing.