Answer to a Treatise Entitled The Vanity of Childish Baptism, Tract · Answer to tract · Part 2
An anſwer to the ſecond conſideration or argument, taken from the manner of Baptizing.
LEt us come to your ſecond conſideration, taken from the manner of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme.A. R. You ſay; The manner in which Baptiſme is adminiſtred in our Church is by ſprinkling or caſting a little water on the head or face. And your poſition that you oppoſe againſt us is this. Chriſts inſtitution requires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water. Hence your argument is this; The manner of the uſe of water muſt be either by infuſion or dipping. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dipper, uſed the water by putting the party into the water, not by infuſing or ſprinkling water upon the party, as is proved, Matth. 3.7.foreign. I indeed baptize you in water, Mark 1.8. I indeed have baptized you in water, Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.
Anſwer. Anſw. We will try how ſubſtantiall this reaſon is. Whereas you ſay; The uſe of water muſt be either by infuſion or dipping: In ſome ſenſe this is true, namely, if it be taken by way of enumeration, not of oppoſition; for Baptiſme which ſignifies waſhing, is done by applying the water to the party baptized or waſhed; But water is ordinarily applyed the one of theſe two wayes. viz. either by dipping or ſprinkling. In this ſenſe we grant your propoſition is true: viz. that Baptiſme muſt be either by dipping or infuſion, and ſo that it be either way it is ſufficient. But you take it not in this ſenſe, as may appeare by the manner of your reaſoning; for by the affirmation of the one, you inferre the deniall of the other; and if you ſhould take it in this ſenſe, it would make againſt your ſelfe, and overthrow your own argument. Therefore it appears you take it by way of oppoſition, and ſo we utterly deny it as falſe. Your reaſoning is like this, We come to the knowledge of Chriſt by reading the Scriptures, or hearing the word preached.Joh. 5.39. But Chriſt bids the Iewes to ſearch the Scripture, viz. by reading, that they might come to the knowledge of him. Therefore not by hearing the word preached. Or like this, The Miniſter muſt preach either ſitting or ſtanding. But Chriſt preached ſitting.Matth. 5.1. &c. Therefore Miniſters may not preach ſtanding. Or this, We muſt pray either ſtanding, or kneeling, or ſitting, or lying, &c. But Chriſt ſaith, when you ſtand praying.Mark. 11.25. Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other geſture but ſtanding. Who ſeeth not the weakneſſe of this reaſoning? yours is no better.
But to come to your aſſumption. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dipper (as you ſay, according to the Dutch) did uſe the water: By putting the partie into the water, not by inſuſing or ſprinkling, Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.
Anſwer. Anſw. Firſt, None of theſe places prove that Iohn put the partie into the water, much leſſe that the whole man was dipped all over in the water, which you undertooke to prove; But here is not the leaſt intimation of any ſuch matter.
Secondly, Whereas you gather from the Originall: that Iohn baptized in the water, and dipped the whole man all over in the water, and put the party into the water, you might as well ſay, that Chriſt baptized in the holy Ghoſt, and fire, and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghoſt and in the fire, Act. 11.6. Matth. 3.11. foreign.or put the party into the holy Ghoſt and fire; (which were a ſtrange interpretation) for the particle is the ſame.
Thirdly, Whereas you gather hence [A Baptiſme in water] not [a Baptiſme with water] I would have you tell me what were they baptized or waſhed with if not with water? as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water, and baptizing with water.
But that foreign doth not neceſſarily ſignifie [in,] you grant in our objection,foreign. which you propound thus, foreign doth ſignifie [with] ſometime as in Revel. 19.21. And the reſt were ſlain with the ſword. Whereunto I might adde that not onelyonly in this place, but frequently in the New Teſtament, the particle foreign (by an Hebraiſme) anſwering the prefixe ב ſignifies as well with as in. Matth. 5.13.foreign. with (not in) what ſhall it be ſalted, Matth. 7.2. with (not in) what judgement. Act. 26.18. with (not in) the ſanctified. You anſwer this objection thus.
"foreign is never taken for [with] after baptizo.
Reply. I reply. That is the thing in queſtion. And I would demand whether you thinke that our Tranſlatours, (and moſt or all others) who have Engliſhed it [with] knew not how to render the Originall in its proper ſignification as well as your ſelfe? Beſides theſe forementioned places,Mat. 3.11. Act. 11.19. ſpeaking of Chriſts baptizing with the holy Ghoſt and with fire, cannot be otherwiſe Engliſhed with any ſenſe.
Your peremptory deniall of foreign to ſignifie [with] after foreign, you would confirme thus. Either the word Baptizo muſt ſignifie to ſprinkle, or the word foreign muſt not ſignifie [with.] But the word baptizo doth ſignifie to dip. Ergo, the word foreign muſt ſignifie [In] and not [with,] as is proved very clearely, and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language.
Anſw. As for this your Syllogiſme, it ſhews your Clarklineſſe wherewith you ſcoffingly taunt our Miniſters. It is notoriouſly fond, it wants forme, hath foure termes: In the aſſumption you put [to dip] in ſtead of [not to ſprinkle,] as if one word might not ſignifie to dip and ſprinkle both. There is no neceſſitie in the propoſition. Your aſſumption wherein you ſay (But baptizo ſignifies to dip) if it be taken excluſively, as to debarre all other ſignifications (which it muſt, or elſe it is brought to no purpoſe) is falſe. Whereas in your concluſion, you ſay foreign muſt ſignifie [in] and not [with] which you ſay is denied by none, who are not ignorant of the language.
Anſwer. Anſw. What fond arrogancy this is, I ſhall make appeare by and by. But let us heare this criticall Linguiſt prove what he ſaith from the ſignification of the Greek word.
You ſay that Greeke Authors account Bapto and Baptizo, to ſignifie that for which the Latines uſe Mergo, Immergo & Tingere immergendo; that is to dip or plunge, to douſe over head, or under water.
Anſwer. Anſw. Bapto indeed ſignifies Mergo or Tingo. foreign.Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence, which ſometimes may ſignifie the ſame with its primitive. But if we look into the uſe of it in the New Teſtament, we ſhall finde it rendred, To waſh; where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept. as Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market they eate not except they waſh. — The waſhing of cups and of pots, and of brazen veſſels, and of beds or tables. Again, verſ. 8. The waſhing of pots and cups. Here you have the verbe Baptizo to waſh, and the noune Baptiſmos, waſhing. And that this is the proper ſignification of the word may appeare (aBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptiſmata. beſide the conſent of Tranſlatours) in that it is uſed as ſignifying the ſame thing with the other words, that alwayes ſignifiesaBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptiſmata. waſhing, as verſ. 2.bforeign. With unwaſhen hands, and verſ. 3.bforeign. Waſh their hands. By which it appeareth, that foreign and foreign ſignifie the ſame thing. So Hebr. 9.10. And divers waſhings, where the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the legall waſhings. So Luk. 11.38. The Phariſee marvelled that Chriſt had not waſhed before dinner. So that the word ſignifies properly to waſh, whether by infuſion or immerſion it matters not.
But ſhould we grant Baptizo and Bapto, to be altogether of the ſame ſignification (though the contrary have been ſufficiently proved,) what will you gain thereby? foreign ſignifies, either mergo or tingo. Mergo ſignifies properly, to drown, overwhelm, ſwallow up, &c. If you will have your converts (according to this interpretation) ſo baptized as to drown them; you will make ſure work to prevent their ſinning any more. And ſo your Baptiſme will have a priviledge above the Baptiſme of Chriſt, Iohn or the Apoſtles; for their converts and baptized ones ſinned after Baptiſme. But if you will have Baptiſme taken and uſed in this ſenſe, I know none that will be your diſciples, unleſſe they be weary of their lives. The other word Tingo ſignifies to dip orcDan. 4.12. &c Interpreters render the word foreign which in ſound hath great affinitie with foreign, ſome letters being tranſpoſed, by Intingitur. Iun. & Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf. our Tranſlatours render it, to be wet. Where Intingo, cannot ſignifie to douſe over head, or to dip, but to beſprinkle or bedew, for it follows — with the dew of heaven. beſprinkle, to embrue, ſtain, wet, or waſh, &c. Now what reaſon is there, why it ſhould be reſtrained onelyonly to the firſt ſignification? Nay if we compare Scriptures, we ſhall finde that what is rendred by ſprinkling in the Old Teſtament is expreſſed by this word foreign in the New. As if we conferre theſe two places, Rev 19.13. and Eſa. 63.3. In Rev. 10.13. And dforeign foreign ſparſus, aſperſus, inſperſus fuit. vel active, aſperſit. foreign conſperſus, tinctus, madefactus. Bez. veſte tincta ſanguine. Ari. veſtimention tinctum. Vulg. veſte asperſa.he was cloathed with a veſture (dipt) in blood, So our Tranſlatours, (or rather ſprinkled, ſo we,) Eſa. 63.3. Their blood ſhall be (ſprinkled) on my garments; To which place of Eſay it is certain that the holy Ghoſt in the Revelation alludes (that I ſay not that it may be a repetition of the ſame propheſis, pointing at the ſame time and thing) as it may appeare by the ſame ſimilitude of treading the wine-preſſe of Gods wrath, largely proſecuted in both places. See Eſa. 63.1 With dyed garments, verſ. 2. Red in his apparell, &c. verſ. 3. I have trod the wine preſſe, and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. &c. So that it is evident, that foreign doth expreſſe the ſame that was meant by foreign and foreign. Though our Tranſlatours render it dipped, becauſe the word in the Originall ſignifies either dipped or ſprinkled equally; Yea, Beza uſeth a word that equally ſignifies dipped or ſprinkled. So Arias Montanus. But the vulgar tranſlation hath a word that onelyonly ſignifies beſprinkled, not dipped.
But you ſay. That Baptizo ſignifies, to dip, plunge, douſe over head, &c. is proved by Chriſts own Baptiſme. Andeforeign. he was baptized into the Iordan. Mark 1.9. But it is not, the water was put upon him, as in ſprinkling the water is put on the partie.
Anſw. 1. Neither is it, he was dipped, plunged, douſed over head, or under the water, &c.
2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle foreign, which you will needs have tranſlated [Into] not [In.] But can you, who cenſure others for their ignorance of the language, be ignorant that [foreign] ſignifieth very frequently In or by, not Into? as Matth. 2.23.fforeign. He dwelt in [not into] a citie called Nazareth. Matth. 4.13. He dwelt in [not into] Capernaum. Matth. 5, 45. Neither by the earth, neither by Ieruſalem, foreign & foreign, are put in the ſame ſignification there. Matth. 10.9. Neither poſſeſſe money in [not into] your purſes. and 41.foreign. In [not into] the name of a Prophet. Matth. 13.33. She hid it in [not into] three meaſures of flower, &c. Thus you ſee foreign ſignifying in, ſo that it were abſurd to render it into, and ſo you have proved nothing for your purpoſe from the particle.
"You adde the teſtimonie of our Tranſlatours themſelves. For which I anſwer. Matth. 26.23. and Mar. 14.20. foreign & foreign, have the prepoſition ſet before them, which alters the ſignification and reſtrains it to ſignifie Dipping, in which ſignification the ſimple Verbe that we are about is not reſtrained unto. From Luk. 16.24. Ioh. 13.26.foreign. you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour; namely, that bapto ſometimes ſignifies to Dippe. But thence it followes not that it ſignifies ſo alwaies, or onelyonly. Of foreign, Revel. 19.13. and the difference betweene Bapto, and Baptizo, I have ſpoken before. And here you confirme what I ſaid, and contradict your ſelf. For ſaying that in no Greek Authour, nor Scripture written by the Apoſtles in that Language, can be found that they differ:Mark. 7.4. Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a ſenſe different from Bapto, which you never ſhewed, not have I read to ſignifie, to Waſh. So that you pull down with your owne hands, what you have beene building all this while. See before what hath beene ſaid to that place, where mention is made of ſuch a waſhing, as is ſo farre from neceſſarily implying dowſing into the water onelyonly, that it will ſcarcely admit it as waſhing themſelves when they come from the market, and the waſhing of Beds or Tables. What you adde,That waſhing of cups, is putting cups into the water: is as true as waſhing hands or face is putting them into the water. May not cups be as well waſhed by infuſion of water in and upon them; as by putting them into the water?
Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23. is as frivolous. As if there could be no reaſon why Iohn ſhould chuſe a place where were many waters, but this, that he might dip the whole man into the water, plunge and douſe them over head, or under water, (as your expreſſions are) But no ſuch reaſon is here expreſſed, nor ſo much as intimated. Rather the cauſe ſeemes this. Becauſe in thoſe hot countreys waters were rare,Gen. 21.15.19. Gen. 26.18. Judg. 1.15. and in ſome places could not be had in a great diſtance: therefore Iohn choſe places where were continuall running waters and ſtreames: eſpecially, ſeeing there came ſuch huge multitudes unto him to be baptized,Mat. 3.5, 6, 7. and it is more then probable that not onelyonly Iohn, but alſo his diſciples baptized, as Ioh. 4.1, 2. Chriſt is ſaid to baptize thoſe whom his diſciples baptized: So Iohn may be ſaid to baptize thoſe whom he and his diſciples baptized together, a long the river at ſeverall places of the river, that they might make more ſpeedy diſpatch, with ſo great multitudes.Act. 2.41. Act. 16.15.33. Neither is it true that you ſay; A little font will ſuffice to beſprinkle a whole world with handfuls. Moreover, we reade of great multitudes baptized, even three thouſand in Ieruſalem, without mention of going to the rivers; and of whole families, without mention of going out to the waters, or fetching great ſtore of waters. It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight ſufficed.
Act. 8.38, 39.Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch, that therefore they uſed dipping; is as vain. Muſt not they go to the water where it was, if they would uſe it? would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any ſooner for ſprinkling then for dipping? Of the ſame ſtamp is your inference, from Matth. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. from Chriſts aſcending from the water. For as Chriſt was pleaſed to be baptized with water: ſo he was pleaſed to go where the water was. viz. in the channell, to which there was a deſcent, and from which there was an aſcent; ſo that he muſt go down to and come up from the water. But here is not the leaſt hint that Iohn douſed Chriſt over head or under the water. Nay, rather that conceit of yours is here confuted; for if our Bleſſed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water, then it would rather have been ſaid; That Iohn caſt or plunged Chriſt into the water,foreign. and took him out of the water. But it is onelyonly implyed, that Chriſt went down unto the water and came up again from it.
From your other Scriptures, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.5. 1 Cor. 15.29. what you goe about to gather I know not, unleſſe this, that as Chriſt was buried, abode in the grave three dayes, and then roſe again: ſo the party baptized muſt be put under the water, abide there ſome conſiderable time, and then come up againe (for if you preſſe a ſimilitude of Chriſts buriall in going down into the water, and of his reſurrection in coming up out of the water; why not alſo of his abode in the grave three dayes, by abiding three dayes, or ſome anſwerable time under the water?) which will make bad worke; neither can any ſuch thing be gathered from thoſe Scriptures. Now to uſe your owne words: Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reaſon judge, whether in all theſe Scriptures be any ſyllable that ſpeaks more for dipping then for ſprinkling or waſhing with water? Men may well be at agreement with their reaſon, and yet perceive no ſuch thing as you inferre hence.Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.29. But I would demand here two Queſtions: Firſt, How can you gather from theſe places, a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a ſimilitude of Chriſts death, buriall, and riſing againe, to be repreſented by dipping into the water is ſignified here? Theſe Scriptures ſhew indeed that the end of our baptiſme is to ſeale our communion with Chriſt, in his death and reſurrection, by which we are dead to ſinne, and raiſed againe to holineſſe. But if you will preſſe hence a neceſſitie of reſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection by our deſcending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water;Pro. 30.6. Revel. 22.18. take heed leſt you be one of thoſe which adde to Gods word, leſt he reprove you as a lyer: and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke. For I know not any word of God wherein this repreſentation is neceſſarily implied, much leſſe expreſſed. Beſides, if you urge death and reſurrection to be reſembled by deſcenſion into, and aſcenſion out of the water: you muſt urge alſo buriall (which is principally there expreſſed) by the biding of the whole man, head and all under for a time anſwerable to Chriſts three dayes buriall, which cannot be without danger (yea certainty) of drowning.
Secondly, If it ſhould be granted that a repreſentation and reſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection is ſet before us in baptiſme; and ſo of our death to ſinne, and riſing again to holineſſe: Yet I would demand, why may not this be repreſented as well by infuſion of water, as by dipping? Can you give me an example of ſo many killed and buried by immerſion or dipping into the water; as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried, by the infuſion of water? I am ſure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures (thoſe few that were in the Arke excepted) were buried in the univerſall Deluge at once, by infuſion, not by dipping. So that infuſion or ſprinkling,Gen. 6.27. & 7.11, 12. may well as clearely ſignifie death and buriall, as dipping. And to the preſervation of Noah and thoſe that were with him, by the Arke, (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the Apoſtle compares baptiſme, as its antitype. Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modeſt, and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reaſon which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits.
Now we come to your inference or concluſion, which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of ſuch vaine and fond premiſes, falls to the ground of it ſelfe. And whereas you ſay, that, The Greek wanted not words to expreſſe any other act as well as dipping. I anſwer. Neither did the Greek want words to expreſſe onelyonly dipping of the whole man all over into the water; or dowſing and plunging over head and under the water (which you would have Baptizo to ſignifie, but neither have nor can prove that it doth) if the holy Ghoſt had meant any ſuch act. Neither doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words. It ſeemed fit to that wiſe Spirit to uſe Baptizo, which ſignifies to waſh, whether by dipping or ſprinkling; waſhing onelyonly being intended to be ſignificant, and not either dipping or ſprinkling. Whereas you ſay, that It cannot be proved that baptiſme was adminiſtred any other way then by dipping, for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt.
Anſ. I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Hiſtorians and Antiquaries, as being unfurniſhed with the Records of Antiquitie: though I conceive your Aſſertion is as bold and groundleſſe as your others are proved to be. Secondly, Why do you not prove that dowſing over head, and under water, was uſed for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt? Thirdly, How can you tell it cannot be proved that ſprinkling was uſed of all that time? Will you perſwade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients; or that you are ſo honeſt, faithfull, and unerring, that your word muſt be taken for an Oracle without proofe?
As for your cleare reſulting conſequence, as I ſaid, It is built on too weake grounds to ſtand, and therefore may be ſafely denied as a plaine untruth. And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us,Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. 1 Sam. 15.23. as to unbaptized perſons, perſwading us to ariſe and be baptized: Intimating, that for us to refuſe this your Charge, is rebellion and ſtubborneſſe, as witchcraft, iniquitie and idolatrie. I would adviſe you take heed of, and repent for abuſing Scripture, as in theſe and a great part of your quotations you doe moſt groſly. God will not hold them guiltleſſe that take his name in vaine. When you come to us with the ſame ſpirit and authoritie, as Peter, Ananias, and Samuel had; we will hearken to you.
Now though what hath beene ſaid in anſwer to this diſputers Arguments againſt baptizing by ſprinkling, or infuſion; and for onelyonly dipping or plunging might ſuffice; yet I will adde ſomething more to what hath been written, endeavouring to make it appeare, that waſhing, whether it be by dipping, or ſprinkling, is the externall act required in this Sacrament, to be uſed; and that ſprinkling, or infuſion, is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and inſtitution of this Sacrament, as dipping, or immerſion.
Argument 1. As the word uſed ſignifieth waſhing, (as hath beene ſhewed) ſo the thing repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in this Sacrament, is ſet forth in the Scripture by the phraſe of waſhing, or cleanſing, as 1 Cor. 6.11. But ye are waſhed, foreign.but ye are ſanctified, but yea are iuſtified, &c. Now who queſtions but our juſtification, and ſanctification, or remiſſion of ſinnes, together with mortification, and vivification are ſealed, and ſignified by baptiſme, &c. But theſe are here called waſhing. So Tit 3.5.foreign. According to his mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghoſt. In the former of which expreſſions (waſhing) if here be not meant baptiſme it ſelfe, (which to deny I ſee no reaſon) yet certainely here is meant the thing ſignified by baptiſme, which is ſufficient for our purpoſe which way ſo ever it is taken. Heb. 10.22.foreign. Having our bodies waſhed with cleane water. 1 Ioh. 1.7. And the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt his Sonne ſhall cleanſe us from all our ſinnes. Heb. 9.14. The bloud of Chriſt ſhall purge your conſcience. Now we know waſhing, purging, or cleanſing, may be, and commonly is, as well by infuſion, or powring on the thing to be waſhed, as by dipping. Common experience teſtifies ſo much, and Scripture is not ſilent herein. Luk. 7.44. She hath waſhed my feet with tears, viz. foreign.by powring or diſtilling, as the word ſignifies. And though it were granted that in thoſe hot Countries they commonly waſhed, by going downe into the water, and being dipped therein; whether in ordinary, or ceremoniall, or ſacramentall waſhing; that will no more inforce on us a neceſſity of obſerving the ſame in baptiſme now, then the example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles*Matth. 26.2. foreign. Mar. 14.18. foreign. Luk. 22.14. foreign. Matth. 14.19. foreign. geſture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the ſame, (which was leaning, and partly lying, which was their uſuall table geſture then.) Now the ordinary table geſture which is uſuall among us is moſt fit; ſo the uſuall manner of waſhing amongſt us is moſt fit to be obſerved in baptiſme; and that is by powring, as well as by dipping.
But it may be objected, That ſprinkling a little water, doth not ſo fitly repreſent the perfect waſhing away of all our ſinnes, as dipping or plunging, ſith here the whole body is waſhed, there onelyonly the face or head onelyonly. Anſw. Firſt, the Scripture no where requires the waſhing of the whole body in baptiſme. Secondly, with as good reaſon one might plead thus. It is moſt convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant ſhould receive his belly full of bread and wine; and take as long as ſtomack and head will hold, to ſignifie the full refreſhment of the ſoule with the body and bloud of Chriſt. But who would endure ſuch reaſoning? Theſe outward elements of Water, Bread and Wine, are for ſpirituall uſe, and to ſignifie ſpirituall things; ſo that if there be the truth of things, the quantitie is not to be reſpected further then is ſufficient for its end; namely, to repreſent the ſpirituall grace: and that it be neither ſo little, as not clearely to repreſent it;2. Pet. 3.21. nor ſo much, as to take off the heart from the ſpirituall to the corporall thing. Not the waſhing away of the filth of the body in baptiſme; nor the glutting or ſatisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after, but the waſhing and refreſhing of the ſoule; which may well be repreſented by the ſprinkling of a little water; eating, and drinking of a little bread and wine. In Circumciſion a little skin was cut off.
Arg. 2 The ſpirituall grace and inviſible act of God upon the ſoule ſignified and repreſented by the outward act of baptiſme, is oft expreſſed in Scripture by the phraſe of powring, and beſprinkling, and that in great probabilitie (if not certainly and unqueſtionably) with alluſion to the Sacrament of Baptiſme, either already adminiſtred,foreign of foreign fudit. Infudit, affudit, profudit, perfudit. foreign or to be adminiſtred. I mean the bloud of Chriſt, and the Spirit of God, (which are the inviſible grace of Baptiſme) are ſaid to be powred or ſprinkled on Gods people. Eſa. 44.3. For I will powre water on him that is thirſtie, and floods on the dry ground: I will powre my Spirit on thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring. Here the Spirit is ſaid to be powred, and this benefit is ſignified by the type of powring water. Ioel 2.28. I will powre out my ſpirit on all fleſh. Which promiſe Peter citing, calleth upon the people to repent, and receive baptiſme, as being the ſigne and ſeale which God had appointed to repreſent, and exhibite this promiſed bleſſing by. Ezek. 36.26.foreign And I will ſprinkle upon you cleane water, and you ſhall be cleane. This cleane water queſtionleſſe, is the blood and ſpirit of Ieſus Chriſt, repreſented by the water in baptiſme. Thus we ſee three ſeverall phraſes ſignifying, to ſprinkle, beſprinkle, powre. If we look into the New Teſtament we ſhall find the like phraſes, Act. 2.17.foreign foreign. I will powre forth my Spirit upon all fleſh. Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts beſprinkled from an evill conſcience. 1 Pet. 1.2. By the ſanctification of the ſpirit, and ſprinkling of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verſes compared together; and Heb. 12.24. Now let any one without prejudice conſider theſe Scriptures, whether at leaſt ſome of them ſpeake not in alluſion to baptiſme, and whether they all hold not forth the thing ſignified in baptiſme; and whether baptiſme be not a lively reſemblance and repreſentation of the things here ſpoken off. And then withall let him conſider, whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever ſo fully ſet forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether ſprinkling be not as (that I ſay not more) agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament, as dipping.
Arg. 3 Thirdly, this douſing over head, and under water that A. R. pleads for, as eſſentiall to baptiſme, ſeems directly againſt the ſixth Commandement, and expoſeth the perſon baptized to the danger of death. For firſt, ſuppoſe the party be fit for baptiſme (as they account) in the ſharpe Winter as now beleeving, profeſſing, &c. He muſt immediately be taken to the river (as his tenet ſeemes to hold) and there plunged in over head and eares, though he come forth covered with yce. But if he eſcape periſhing with cold; how can he eſcape being choaked, and ſtifled with the water: if he muſt be plunged over head to ſignifie his death to ſinne: ſecondly, be kept under water, to ſignifie his buriall: and thirdly, be taken up, as this Diſputer ſeemes to reaſon? But whatſoever be the danger of freezing, or ſuffocation; it ſeemes this he holds the onelyonly baptiſme, and therefore muſt not be ſwerved from.
Arg. 4 Fourthly, will not this their manner of dipping be found alſo againſt the ſeventh Commandement in the Decalogue? For I would know with theſe new dippers, whether the parties to be dowſed and dipped, may be baptized in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from ſome part of the body, and then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole man, ſay they, muſt be dipped. Againe, I would aske what warrant they have for dipping, or baptizing garments, more then the Papiſts have for baptizing Bells. Therefore belike the parties muſt be naked, and multitudes preſent as at Iohns baptiſme, and the parties men and women of ripe yeares, as being able to make confeſſion of their faith and repentance: yet though they both ſinne againſt the ſixth Commandement, indangering life, and againſt all common honeſtie and civilitie, and Chriſtian modeſtie required in the ſeventh Commandement, they muſt have this way obſerved, becauſe they fancie it the onelyonly baptiſme. Shall we thinke this was the baptiſme of Iohn, Chriſt, and his Apoſtles? But enough of this ſecond Conſideration; we come to the third Conſideration.