Account of a Late Debate at Lime, Chapter 2

Account of a Late Debate at Lime · Chapter 2

p. 55CHAP. II. QUEST. II. Whether Baptiſm by Sprinkling of Water on the Subject of it, be Law ul & Sufficient for the Ends of the Inſtitution?

p. 56The intelligent Reader ſees this Queſtion was incautiouſly ſtated, the word [Sprinkling] uſed in it not being ſo expreſſive of what we conceived to be the right Mode of Baptiſm, as the phraſes of Pouring on, or Waſhing with Water. This was obſerved to them before Entrance was made on the Diſcuſſion of the Queſtion; and we let them know that by it we intended Baptizing by the Application of Water to the Face of the Subject, by Pouring it on or Waſhing with it. Which being premiſed, the Poſition before me to prove, was this, Viz.

2. P. That Baptiſm by pouring on or waſhing with Water, is Lawful and Sufficient for the Ends of the In…titution. And for Proof of this, I told Mr. Wightman & the Aſſembly, That I would firſt mention ſome things on which, as grounds or reaſons we held ourſelves Juſticiable in Adminiſtring Baptiſm in this mode or manner, and which, as we ſuppos'd, being laid together, would prove the Lawfulneſs of is; which having done, I would ſum them up together as a Medium in the Argument I ſhould offer for that end. They were th…ſe that follow, viz.

1. That the word Baptizo in the Greek, ſi…ifi… Promiſcuouſly either Dipping into, or Waſhing with Water, by the Application of it to the Subject. Se…e…elius renders it by the p. 57Latin words Mergo & Lavo, i. e. to Dip or Waſh; and its rendered in other Authors by the Latin words Madefacto, Lavo, Abluo, i. e. to Wet or Waſh. Thus Budeus, Scapula, Paſer and Grotius. And Criticks on the Greek Tongue tell us, that all Writers, both Heathen and Chriſtian, thus Promiſcuouſly uſe it. Leigh in his Critica Sacra tells us, That tho' the word be derived from Bapto, Tingo, i. e. to Dip, or Plunge into Water, and ſignifieth primarily ſuch a kind of Waſhing as is uſed in Bucks where Linen is Plung'd or Dipt; yet its taken more largely for any kind of Waſhing, Rinſing, or Cleanſing, even where there is no Dipping at all. Vid. Critica Sacra on this Word, where alſo he gives many inſtances of it from Scripture. And this (viz. the Scripture uſe of this Word) is what at preſent deſerves our more particular conſideration and enquiry. As to which, though I have not had time ſo to look into this matter as that I may be Poſitive in it; yet believe that upon a ſearch it will be found, that its no where ſo applied or uſed as neceſſarily to ſignify Plunging or Dipping. I do not remember any Text where it neceſſarily ſo ſignifies; but this I find, viz. That the Scripture when it would expreſs ſuch a kind of waſhing or cleanſing things as may be performed by pouring on or the Application of p. 58Water to them, it then uſes the word Baptizo, but when it would expreſs a Plunging things under Water, it then uſes other Words. I'll give here ſome inſtances, Mark 7.4. Its uſed for waſhing Hands and Cups, Pots, Brazen Veſſels and Tables. Where none can ſay it neceſſarily ſignifies waſhing or cleanſing by immerſing or dipping thoſe things in Water, ſince they may as well be cleanſed by pouring on, or applying Water to them. Of the Phariſees its there ſaid, That when they came from the Market, except they Waſh they Eat not: In the Greek, Ean me Baptizontai, i. e. Except they are Baptized, but there rendred Except they Waſh becauſe none can rationally underſtand the Baptizing there ſpoken of as ſignifying an Immerſion or Dipping of their whole Bodies. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as Baptiſmous Poterion, i. e. according to the Greek the Baptiſms of Caps, but there rendered the Waſhing of Cups, which may as well be done by the Application of Water to them, as by Plunging them into it. So Luke 11 28. Its ſaid of the Phariſee with whom Chriſt at a certain time Dined, that he Marvelled at him, Oti ou proton ebaptiſthe pro tou Aristou, i. e. That he was not Baptized before Dinner; but there rendered that he had not firſt Waſhed before Dinner: p. 59Becauſe none can rationally underſtand by it any more to be intended than the Waſhing his Hands, which every one will ſay might as well have been done by pouring Water on them, as by dipping them into it. So Heb. 9.10. All the Ceremonial Waſhings or Sprinklings are in the Greek called Baptiſms, (Diaphorois Baptiſmois) the words in the Original are rendred by Beza, diverſes Ablutionibus, i e Diverſe Waſhings, as in our Tranſlation) many of which, ſays Pool in loc. were for the Prieſts, in their Services, and for others in performing theirs by them; ſome by Sprinkling with Blood, Exod. 29.20, 21. with Water. Numb. 8 7. and 19.9, to 19. ſome by waſhing at the Brazen Laver, as the Prieſts, Exod. 29.4. and 30.17, to 22. ſo the Sprinkling of Healed Lepers, Lev 14.4, to 9 and the Purification of the Unclean. All which Ceremonies were performed by Sprinkling or Pouring on of Blood or Water, and not by an immerſion of the Body into it, and are therefore evidences that the word (Baptiſma, Baptiſm) is ſo far from being neceſſarily underſtood to intend Dipping or Plunging, that in this place at leaſt, its neceſſarily underſtood to intend no more than Sprinkling or Pouring on of Blood or Water.

But now on the other hand, when the Scripture would expreſs a Submerſion or covering p. 60of the whole Body under Water, it uſes other words; hereby intimating that this is ſomething different from Baptiſm. The words it makes uſe of on this Occaſion are Katapontizeſthai, D…n…i & Dueſthai. See Exod. 15 4, 5. Where when it ſpeaks of Pharaoh and his Hoſt, their being Overwhelmed in the Red Sea, it uſes not the Original word for Baptizing, but the former of the words but now mentioned, and expreſſes it thus, Katepontiſen en Eruthra Thalaſſe, i. e. They were Drowned or Overwhelmed in the Red Sea And Kateduſan eis buthon hoſi Lithos, i. e. They Deſcended or Sank to the Bottom as a Stone. Whereas ſpeaking of the Iſraelites who at the ſame time had only the Dewings of the Cloud, and Sprinklings of the Water of the Sea on them, uſes the word for Baptizing, expreſſing it thus, Baptizanto en te Nephele, kai en te Thalaſſe, i. e As its rendred in our Bibles, They were Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea. This I mentioned as the firſt Ground or Reaſon on which we held ourſelves Juſtifiable in Adminiſtring Baptiſm by Sprinkling or Pouring on of Water: But before I had quite finiſh'd this particular, Mr. Moderator Hitchcock, contrary to all Order and Laws of Diſputation, broke in upon me, and having bro't with him Mr. Sympſon, his Lexicon Anglo Graeco p. 61Latinum Novi Teſtamenti, and turning to pag 17. where on the word Baptizo you have the following words, moſtly from Leigh above mentioned, viz. To Baptize, Baptizo, Mat. 3.11. & 28.19. Mark 1 4, 8. The word tho' it be derived from Bapto to Dip or Plunge into the Water, and fignifies primarily ſuch a kind of Waſhing as is uſed in Bucks where Linnen is Plung'd or Dipp'd, yet its taken more largely for any kind of Waſhing, Rinſing, or Cleanſing, even where there is no Dipping at all: As Mat. 3.11. & 20 28. Mark 7.4. & 10.38. Luke 3.16. Acts 1.5. & 11.16. 1 Cor. 10.2. Its put generally for Waſhing, Luk. 11.38 Heb. 9 10. Mark 7.4. And Baptizing imports no more than Ablution or Waſhing, as the Baptizing of Beds & Tables. Neither Mr. Adams, nor my ſelf, nor I ſuppoſe any other Perſon preſent had any Suſpicion of his Unfairneſs or Diſhoneſty in reading Mr. Sympſon, or that he had not …ead to us all he had ſaid on the word Baptizo, accordingly did not deſire of him a ſight of the Book; but ſince that Mr Adams having the Book in his Library, has look'd into it and found out the Diſhoneſty of the Man, that he read not to us the whole his Author had ſaid on the word Baptizo; but only ſo much of it as was proper to perſwade us and p. 62others, that he was againſt me, or at leaſt not ſo full with me in the account I had given of the import and uſe of the Word, as we ſhould have ſeen he was, had he read to us all he had ſaid. He read as far as that Clauſe, viz. Yet its taken more largely for any kind of Waſhing, and ſtop'd there; whereas had he read all, every one would have ſeen Mr. Sympſon was fully with me in what I had ſaid. I mention not this through any Perſonal Prejudice againſt Mr. Hitchcock; I never, that I know of, ſaw his face before, but becauſe I think I owe this Juſtice to my Reader, that he may ſee how little theſe inſpired Teachers, as they would be accounted, ſo frequent in many parts of the Land are to be depended on for light and guidance in our way, what little regard they have to Truth, and how unwilling they are it ſhould appear in caſes where it will Reprove them, & Convince others of their Errors: I make no doubt but the reſt of his Brethren preſent knew of the Cheat as well as he.

At the ſame time he read to us from The Portſmouth Diſpute, (as Mr. Adams informs me, the Title of the Book was) the Opinions of the Aſſembly of Divines, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Pool, and Mr. Baxter, in doing which alſo he repreſented them as of Opinion that dipping or plunging was the Primitive way of p. 63Baptizing. To which he added, that if this was not the Primitive way, whence was it that the Eunuch was Oblig'd to come forth of his Chariot and go down with Philip into the Water in order to his being Baptized? What, ſaid he, had not ſo great an Officer of Queen Candace as he was, any Diſh or other Veſſel in his Chariot in which a little Water, enough for Sprinkling him, might have been fetch'd? this is very unlikely. He did not acquaint us with the particular Books of the fore-mentioned Authors from whence that Author had made thoſe Collections, nor have I to this day ever ſeen that Book; ſo that whether I have them by me, or if I have, whether that Author was Faithful in making his Collections from them, or Mr. Hitchcock read them as Honeſtly to us as he did Mr. Sympſon, I can't ſay.

However as I then wondered to hear thoſe two Venerable Names, viz POOL and BAXTER among them, eſpecially the laſt, conſidering what he ſays of Baptizing by Dipping, in his Plain Scripture Proof of Infant-Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm, ſo ſince Mr. Hitchcock's Diſhoneſty reſpecting Mr. Sympſon is detected, as I am ſtrongly Suſpicious of ſome ſuch unfair-dealing as to all the Perſons above-named, either by that Author in making his Collections from them, p. 64or in Mr. Hitchcock in reading thoſe Collections to us: So I find that as for Mr. Pool, and Mr. Baxter, they were greatly Abuſed or Miſrepreſented in this matter. You will be convinc'd of this when I have cited to you ſome Paſſages from them. As for Mr. Pool, I find it was his Opinion that Dipping in Baptiſm was ſometimes uſed in the Eaſtern, Warmer parts of the World; in his Notes on Mat 3.5, 6. He has theſe words, viz. A great part of thoſe, i. e. of the dwellers in Jeruſalem, &c. who went out to hear John, were Baptized, i. e. Dipped in Jordan. But then as he adds in the ſame place, That it will not from hence follow that Dipping is Eſſential to Baptiſm, So in his Notes on Joh. 3.23. he as fully expreſſes it to be his Opinion that this was not the conſtant way or manner of Baptizing in the Primitive times, but that ſometimes they Baptized then by applying or pouring on of Water. For there we have theſe words, viz. If ſome think it probable from this Text, that ſometimes the Apoſtles did Baptize by Dipping, yet it is at leaſt as Probable that they did not, or not conſtantly, from what we read of the Apoſtles Baptizing in Houſes, Acts 9.17, 18 & 10.47, 48. & 16.33. From whence tis evident that as to Mr. Pool, had that Author or Mr. Hitchcock from him, given p. 65this account of his Opinion in this matter, viz. That in the Primitive times, when Time, Place and other Circumſtances concurr'd, Baptiſm was performed by Dipping, but at other times when thoſe Circumſtances did not invite to it, 'twas performed by pouring on of Water. And that however it was then adminiſtred, yet Dipping is not eſſential to it. This had been an Honeſt Repreſentation of him in this matter; but for them, or either of them to take from him only what I but now cited from his Notes on Mat. 3.5, 6. with other like Paſſages, perhaps elſewhere in others of his Writings, at the ſame time paſſing by others, and hereupon repreſent him as of Opinion, not only that Dipping was the way of Baptizing only in uſe in the Primitive times, but as needful to be obſerved now in order to the due Adminiſtration of it, and hereby to bring him in as Patronizing an Error which never entred into his Heart, as Mr. Hitchcock then did; This I ſay is ſuch an abuſe of him, as can in no wiſe be juſtified, and which I think no Man of Faith and Probity would have been Guilty of: But this is one of the uſual Refuges of Error, and what we may oft ſee it has recourſe to. In like manner that Mr. Baxter was no leſs Abuſed either by Mr. Hitchcock or his Author, you'll be put beyond all doubt when I have p. 66cited from him ſome Paſſages which you may find with much more of the ſame Strain or Tenor, in his Plain Scripture Proof of Infants-Church-Memberſ…ip and Baptiſm: Particularly from pag. 134 to 138, where he is Arguing againſt Baptizing by Dipping. Pag. 134. He begins with theſe words, My Sixth Argument ſhall be againſt the uſual manner of their Baptizing as it is by Dipping over Head in a River or other Cold Water; and his firſt Argument againſt it is this, viz.

That which is a plain breach of the Sixth Command, Thou ſhalt not Kill, is no Ordinance of GOD, but a moſt Heinous Sin.

But the Ordinary Practice of Baptizing by Dipping over Head in Cold Water as neceſſary, is a plain Breach of the Sixth Commandment.

Therefore its no Ordinance of GOD, but an Heinous Sin.

And as Mr. Cradack in his Book of Goſpel Liberty, ſhews, The Magiſtrates ought to reſtrain it; to Save the Lives of their Subjects. That this is flat Murder and no better, being ordinarily and generally uſed, is undeniable to any underſtanding man; for that which directly tendeth to overthrow Mens Lives, being wilfully uſed is plain Mu…der; but the ordinary o… general dipping of People over Head in the cold p. 67Water, doth tend directly to the Overthrow of their Health and Lives; and therefore it is Murder. To which his Antagoniſt Mr. Tombs having ſaid, there is no neceſſity of its being in Cold Water; Mr. Ba…ter replies, pag. 135 His warm Bath would be alſo dangerous to very many Perſons: And where ſhould this Bath be prepared? If in Private, it will ſcarce be a Solemn engaging Act. If the Meeting place of the Church, Then

(1) it will take no ſmall room, & require no ſmall ſtir to have a Bathing place, and Water wherein to Dip People over Head.

(2) And if they do not run home quickly before they are well engaged, the hot B…h wil… be turned to a cold one to them, and make them Repent this B…dge of Repentance, e…cept they will have all things ready, … be p… to Bed alſo in the Church before the People. And a little after, Others, ſays …, ſay, That Dipping was the custom in the Scripture times: To which I reply,

[…] It is not yet proved by any; the Jay …our was Baptized in the Night in his Houſe, therefore not likely over Head in that Country where water was ſo ſcarce. The E…nuch might well be ſaid to go down into the Water, for the Country p. 68was Mountainous, and the Brooks were down in the Bottoms. Even the River of Enon where John Baptized, becauſe there was much Water▪ is found by Travellers to be a Small Brook that a man may almoſt Step over.

[2] The Word in the Original ſignifies to Waſh as well as to Dip, and ſo is taken when applied to other things, as Mark 7.4—8.

[3] The thing ſignified is ſet forth by the Phraſe of Waſhing or Sprinkling, and the Sign need not exceed the thing ſignified

[4] CHRIST hath not appointed the meaſure of Water, nor the manner of Waſhing, no more than he hath appointed in the Lord's Supper what quantity of Bread and Wine each muſt eat & drink: And as it would be but Felly for any to think that men muſt needs ſill themſelves f…ll of Bread & Wine, becauſe it beſt ſignifies the fulneſs of Chriſt; ſo it is no better to ſay, that we muſt needs be Waſhed all over becauſe it beſt ſignifies our Burial with Chriſt A little may ſignify as well as much, as a Clod of Earth does in giving Poſſeſſion of much Lands, and a Corn of Pepper ſignifies our Homage for much.

His Second Argument againſt if follows.

p. 69My Seventh Argument is alſo againſt another Wickedneſs in their manner of Baptizing, which is their Dipping Perſons Naked, as is very uſual with many of them, or next to Naked, as is uſual with the Modeſteſt that I have heard of; againſt which I argue thus,

If it be a Breach of the Seventh Commandment (Thou ſhalt not Commit Adultery) ordinarily to Baptize the Naked, then it is intolerable Wickedneſs, and not GOD's Ordinance.

But it is a Breach of the Seventh Commandment ordinarily to Baptize Naked.

Therefore it is intolerable Wickedneſs, and not GOD's Ordinance. He goes on,

All the Queſtion is of the Minor, which is evident thus, the Seventh Commandment forbids all incitements to Uncleanneſs, and all immodeſt Actions, but to Baptize Women Naked is an immodeſt Action & an Incitement to Uncleanneſs; therefore it is there Forbidden: Which Argument alſo is followed with Anſwers to Mr. Tombs his Objections, together with diverſe other conſiderations againſt this manner of Baptizing. Thus Mr. Baxter. And who now can think he had any Favour for this way of Baptizing, or that he tho't it the Primitive way of Baptiſm? as Mr Hitchcock from that Author endeavoured to perſwade p. 70the Aſſembly? Certainly if he did he muſt then think that either the Primitive Chriſtians in Baptizing complied not with the Inſtitution, and ſo are not to be followed, or if they did, that then GOD Inſtituted a way of Baptiſm which is nothing leſs than a Violation of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. But enough of this. To theſe Authorities cited by Mr. Hitchcock, as is above Related, it was tho't enough to ſay, that tho' the Perſons named were, many of them at leaſt, Great as well as Good Men, yet being Men and therefore Fallible, their Opinions could be no proof in the caſe. On which having again liberty, I paſs'd on to the Second Conſideration I offer'd as a further ground or reaſon of our Baptizing by Sprinkling or Waſhing with Water.

Which was,

2. That none of the Scriptures alledg'd by our Adverſaries in this point, to prove that Dipping was the Primitive way of Baptizing do neceſſarily conclude or prove it. How-much-ſo-ever they may ſeem to look that way, yet they are ſo far from expreſ…y aſſ…rting any ſuch thing, that they don't in…er it by any neceſſary Conſequence. And to make this evident I took the following view of the ſeveral Texts inſiſted upon by them for this end.

p. 71The firſt of theſe we have in the Hiſtory of the Baptiſm of CHRIST, Mat. 3. where we have theſe words, ver. 16 And …eſus when he was Baptized, went up ſtraight way out of the Water. In the Greek, Aneb…e Apo …ou Hudatos, which I obſerved might as well, yea better, be rendred, He went up from the Water. The Prepoſition Apo, as our Grammars tell us, ſignifying more properly from than out of; and as Mr. Siden…am obſerves i…s moſt ſuitable to Tranſlate it ſo, becauſe Rivers for the moſt part lie Low and in Valleys, in going or coming to which we are therefore properly ſaid to deſcend or go down to them, and in going or coming from which, to aſcend or come up from them.

The Second we have in the Story of the Eunuchs Baptiſm by Philip, Acts 8 where are th…ſe words, ver. 38, 39. And he, i. e. the Eunuch, Commanded the Chariot to ſtand ſtill, and they went down bath into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him. And when they were come up out of the Water, &c. On which I obſerved ſeveral things. As,

1. That the Phraſe in the Original is, Eis to Hudor, i. e. To the Water, intimating the Text may as well be rendred, They went down both to the Water, as into the Water. But,

2. Allowing the Prepoſition Eis when joyned with an Accuſative caſe, as here it p. 72is, more properly ſignifies into, than to, yet it can never from hence be proved that he, the Eunuch, was Baptized by Dipping his whole Body in Water, ſince it might truly be ſaid of them, that they both went down into the Water, if they went no further into it than to wet the Soles of their Fee…; nor is it poſſible from this place neceſſarily to infer any more than this, ſuppoſing the Tranſlation they would have be true. Eſpecially when its conſidered,

3. That the Text plainly diſtinguiſhes thoſe two Acts, viz. Their going down into the Water, and Philips Baptizing him. The words ver 38 are, And they went down both into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him. Manifeſtly making them two diſtinct things, and ſo indeed they were, elſe we might as truly ſay of Philip that he was Baptized as the Eunuch; for its ſaid of them both that they went down into the Water. So that all that can neceſſarily be gathered from this Text, even as here Tranſlated, is, that when they had ſome little way entred the Water, Philip toók of i… and Baptized him. And whereas it may be ob…ected that in ver. 39. where its ſaid that when they were come up out of the Water, &c. in the Greek its not Apo, as in the Story of Chriſt… Baptiſm, but Ek tou Hudatos, thereby p. 73aſſuring us that they came up not nicerly from, but out of the Water; I obſerved that neither will this prove what they would, or make it evident that either of them went further into it than to wet their Shoes, ſince if they did ſo, and no more, it might truly be ſaid of them, That they came up out of the Water.

But the Text our Adverſaries moſt Glory in as what they would bear us in hand is beyond exception in the caſe, is Joh. 3.23. where its ſaid of John the Baptiſt, That he was Baptizing in Enon near to Salim becauſe there was much Water there. To which I then more generally ſaid, that neither did this Text neceſſarily. Conclude the point, it being ſo far from being ſaid in it that John Baptized by Dipping, that his doing ſo could not be deduc'd from it, by ſuch Conſequence as may be allowed for proof in any caſe. As will appear if the Argument of the Text, be diſpos'd into Syllogiſtical form: In which caſe it will ſtand thus, Viz.

If John Baptized in Enon near Salim becauſe there was much Water there, then he Baptized by Dipping.

But John Baptized in Enon near Salim becauſe there was much Water there.

Therefore he Baptized by Dipping.

p. 74But how Enormous is the Conſequence here? How far from being neceſſary and concluſive? Does it neceſſarily follow he Baptized by Dipping, becauſe the abounding of Water in this Place beyond what it did perhaps in moſt others, was a reaſon of his making choice of it to attend that Duty in? Eſpecially conſidering that in that Country, many places of it at leaſt, a Man may go many Miles without coming at a drop of Water, unleſs ſuch as is procured by Art and Labour: And with all conſidering that there were Multitudes that came to be Baptized of him

When we argue and ſay, That we Read in Scripture of diverſe Houſholds Baptized, therefore Infants were Baptized; you will not allow it for good proof, telling us the Conſequence is not concluſive and neceſſary, and that becauſe its poſſible that in all thoſe Houſholds there might be no Children. And I grant what you ſay is right, and that the Conſequence here is but Probably and not Neceſſarily true: But yet I Appeal to any Unprejudiced Perſon whether there be not far greater Degrees of probability in it, than in this Conſequence, viz. That John Dipped thoſe he Baptized, becauſe the abounding of Water in Enon, beyond what it did, at leaſt, i… places Adjacent to it, was one reaſon of p. 75his Baptizing there? This is what I then off…red on this Text, and is I think enough to …hew its inſufficiency to Conclude what our Adverſaries would from it; more I will add by and by when we have heard Mr. Wight…an's Arguments.

There are two Texts more which I forga… then to ſpeak to, and which as they are inſiſted on by our Adverſaries in this point; ſo in my Opinion bid fairer to eſtabliſh this their Doctrine than any of the fore mentioned; they are Rom. 6 4. and Col 2.12. In one of which we are ſaid to be Buried with Chriſt [By] in the other [In] Baptiſm As to which Texts I now ſay, that were it certain thoſe words (Buried with him by or in Baptiſm) are to be taken ſtrictly in their Grammatical ſenſe, as holding forth what was in that day done in Baptiſm, they would be a full proof that Dipping in the Primitive times was at leaſt ſometimes uſed in Baptizing. In-as-much as a Perſon, ſo ſpeaking, can not be ſaid to be Analogically, Symbolically or Sacramentally B…ried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, that is not Dipped or Immerſed in it. And thus the Engliſh Annotations in their Notes on theſe Tex…s ſeem to underſtand them, when they tell us that in them there is an Alluſion to the Primitive Mode of Baptizing, which was by Dipping, &c. p. 76But yet I think there is a great deal of reaſon to doubt of this, and to take thoſe words in a Metaphorical ſenſe, as holding forth only the Communion Believers have, in or by Baptiſm, with Chriſt in his Death, the Fruits and Effects of it, &c. and that for this reaſon we are in Baptiſm not only ſaid to be Buried with him, but Buried with him into Death; which ſeems to be expounded by the Apoſtle Gal. 3 ult. In other places when he telis us we are by Baptiſm Baptized into Chriſt and into his Death, &c. And in this ſenſe I find Pious and Learned Mr. Pool underſtood theſe words, whoſe Gloſs on them you have in the following words, We are Buried with him by Baptiſm, &c. i. e. ſays he, We have Communion with him, (i. e by Baptiſm) in his Burial alſo, which Repreſents a further degree of the Deſtruction of Sin; by putting it as it were out of our ſight. And then adds, Some think the Apoſtle alludes here to the manner of Baptizing in thoſe Warm, Eaſtern Countries, which was to Plunge or Dip the Party Baptized under Water: Others think with greater reaſon, that this Phraſe is uſed to ſignify that Union and Communion, Believers have with Chriſt in his Death and Burial, which is ſignified by Pouring Water on a Perſon, like Earth or p. 77Duſt on a Dead Body, and not as by Dipping him under Water.

Now if this be right; and for my own part I ſee no neceſſity of the other ſenſe, then nothing certain relating to the Primitive Mode of Baptiſm can be concluded from theſe Texts neither, which, unleſs there be others, that I know not of, is ſufficient to make good what is now before me for proof, which is this, viz. That none of the Scriptures alledged by our Adverſaries in this point, to prove that Dipping was the Primitive way of Baptizing, do neceſſarily conclude or prove it. The Third Conſideration was,

3. There are ſundry Scriptures which when conſidered render it difficult, if not impoſſible to think that Dipping was, at leaſt always, the Primitive way of Baptizing. For evidence of which I inſtanc'd,

(1) In Mat. 3.5, 6. Where we read, Then wen out to him, (i.e to John the Baptiſt) Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, And were Baptized of him in Jordan, Confeſſing their Sins. On which I ſaid to this effect, viz. That tho' it can't be ſuppoſed that every Individual of the ſeveral places there mention'd went out to the Baptiſt and were Baptized of him in Jordan, yet as the expreſſion implies it, p. 78ſo undoubtedly there was a very great Multitude, and that of both Sexes, who did ſo. Now as for ſuch as ſuppoſe he Dipp'd all he Baptized, I would ask them, How could this Vaſt Multitude receive the Ordinance in that way? Either they were Dipp'd Naked or with their Cloaths on! No man … preſume will ſay the former, or that they were Dipp'd Naked. Well, if not, but with their Garments on I further ask, What Garments were they? Were they ſuch as they came from home attir'd with, or ſuch as they bro't with them, and had prepar'd for that end or purpoſe? The laſt of theſe looks to me moſt Gredible, and yet this Suppoſition is not without ſuch difficulties as are not eaſily remov'd, inasmuch as it implies an Ability in them all to provide ſuch Garments, and that on a ſudden too; which is not very eaſy to ſuppoſe, and not only ſo, but alſo that when they were come to the place of their Baptiſm, where John was, they had places of Retirement, (each Sex and Perſon apart by himſelf) for the Decent change of their Garments, and preparation of themſelves for the Decent Adminiſtration of the Ordinance: Which how it could be where there was ſuch a Multitude thronging together; is not eaſy to conceive.

I inſtanc'd,

p. 79(2) In Acts 2.41. The Three Thouſand Converted by Peter's Sermon, all which as they were Baptized, ſo if it was by Dipping, ſeems a caſe attended with more difficulty than that already mentioned, and that becauſe we can't ſuppoſe they came with Garments prepar'd on purpoſe for the Reception of the Ordinance in, ſince in the courſe of the Story we have good aſſurance they had no thought of being Baptized when they came together, on the occaſion mentioned toward the beginning of the Chapter, no, nor until they were exhorted to it by the Apoſtle, ver. 38. So that its Morally certain if they were Dipp'd, they were either Naked, or array'd with the ſame Garments with which they came, either of which, I think muſt ſeem very unlikely to any Man. And to this, one thing further, which is a difficulty in my way of Believing they were Dipped or Plunged, I'll now add; and it is this, viz. 'Tis manifeſt from ver. 4.1. That they were all Baptized in one Day: Yea, and it was in that part of it too which ſucceeded the SERMON, which could not be much more than the laſt Half of it, ſince its evident from ver. 15. that the Sermon began not till Nine in the Morning. Now it being ſo, to me its difficult to conceive how ſo great a Number could be Baptized in ſo p. 80ſhort a time, provided they were Dipp'd or Plung'd, even tho' we ſuppoſe all the Apoſtles to have concurred or aſſiſted in it. For let us ſuppoſe they entred upon their work at Eleven of the Clock, (which I think, all things conſidered, is as ſoon as can be ſuppoſed) there were then not more than Eight Hours before Sun-ſetting. The Days its true were now pretty near at their greateſt length; this Day of Pente…oſt on which this Sermon and Baptiſm were, (being Fifty one Days after the Crucifixion of CHRIST,) which according to the beſt accounts being on the Third of April, or (according to the Jewiſh account) on the Fifteenth of Abib or Niſan, muſt be the Twenty fourth or Twenty fifth of May following, at which time every one knows, the Days in our Nothern Climates are near their longeſt. Yet ſince in no part of Judea the Days when longeſt exceed Fourteen Hours and a Quarter, and Jeruſalem the place where this Baptiſm was, being the Southern parts of it, we cannot ſuppoſe there was more than the Space of time mentioned, before Sun-ſetting, 'Tis difficult I ſay, for me to conceive how ſo great a Number could be Baptized by Twelve Men in ſo ſhort a Time, if they were Plunged: And that for Two Reaſons;

p. 81[1] Becauſe its reaſonable enough to think a conſiderable part of this ſhort time muſt be ſpent in Enquiries after, or in taking knowledge or account of the Faith and Repentance of thoſe they Baptized. 'Tis certain that all that were preſent at this time and heard this SERMON, were not Baptized, but only ſuch of them as gladly received the Word. This is plain in the Text. Now who theſe were, was ſome way or other known to the Apoſtles before they Baptized them; and probably it was by ſome Declaration made on their part, in anſwer to Enquiry made by the Apoſtles. I grant the Apoſtles were capable of knowing this by that Power of diſcerning Spirits they were endued with; yet ſince in other Inſtances of their Baptizing, we find not they made any uſe of this Power for this end, but diſcovery was made of the requiſite qualifications of thoſe they Baptized by ſomething ſaid or done by them, its reaſonable to think it was ſo at this time too. And if ſo, be it never ſo conciſe or ſhort, yet it muſt of neceſſity take up a conſiderable part of this ſhort time.

[2] Becauſe there is no reaſon to think the needful Requiſites of Adminiſtring Baptiſm in this way, were ready prepared before hand. But on the other hand there is reaſon to think they were not; ſince, as I hinted before, p. 82none of thoſe that were Baptized had any tho't of being ſo when they came to the Apoſtles, no nor until they were exhorted to it by Peter in the cloſe of his Sermon. Now if they were not ready prepared, then a conſiderable part of this remaining part of the Eight Hours muſt of neceſſity be ſpent in this alſo; ſo much that I can't but think any Unprejudic'd Perſon will ſay, its hard to conceive how ſo much could ſtill remain, as in which, it was poſſible for them to Plunge Three Thouſand Men. The only thing that can be ſaid here, i…, that the Apoſtles were now at or near ſome Pool, Pools, Pond, or River where there was a ſufficiency of Water, and to which they might have free acceſs, and therefore no need of ſpending time either in going far to ſome ſuch conveniency, or in procuring a number of large Veſſels, and filling them with Water, (and that more than once,) for Dipping this Multitude.

But to this I anſwer,

(1) That though it be true there were diverſe Pools in the City, yet that the Apoſtles and this Multitude were now met at or nuar to any one, or more of them, or if they were, that they had free Acceſs to them on this occaſion are things which I Conjecture will want proof for ſome time, and which p. 83I think no Rational man, will ſay, are very probable, (eſpecially the laſt of them.)

(2) The contrary to this is what is probably true, and what a view of the Chapter and conſideration of all Circumſtances, leads us to think in the caſe, unleſs the houſe in or at which the Apoſtles and the Multitude met had one or more of thoſe Pools in it or Adjacent to it; and this too I Conjecture will want proof for ſome time. Certain it is that as the Place where the Apoſtles Aſſembled on this Day of Pentecoſt, & where thoſe extraordinary Gifts were beſtowed on them, was an Houſe, ver. 1, 2 And that the Multitude that heard the Sermon came thither to them; ſo is it equally certain that in the whole Chapter we have no hint of any remove from thence till the whole affair was over. For which reaſon, what ſeems moſt probably to be Truth in this matter is this, viz. That from ſome Loft or Window of the Houſe the Apoſtle Peter Preach'd to this Multitude, and that thoſe of them that gladly received the Word, were Baptized upon the Spot, before they removed from thence. This is what the whole Story leads us to think in this matter; and by Conſequence that conſiderable time muſt be ſpent in procuring a Veſſel or Veſſels ſufficient to receive many Bodies at once, & ſo to employ p. 84all the Apoſtles in Baptizing; and in filling them with Water, and that more than once or twice before all were Baptized. A couſiderable part of this ſhort remainder of time, I ſay, muſt be ſpent in thoſe things, in caſe they were Dipp'd, unleſs, as I ſaid, this Houſe had the conveniency of ſuch a Body of Water in or Adjacent to it, (to uſe which they had Liberty,) as was ſufficient for the purpoſe As to which if our Adverſaries in this point will take the liberty to Conjecture it had, I cant but hope they will give us liberty on the other hand to Conjecture it had not, ſince I'm well aſſured they themſelves can't but be ſenſible we ſhall do it on far the more probable grounds.

In a Word, I can't but think our Adverſaries muſt now ſee themſelves in danger of being preſſed with this Dilemma on this occaſion viz. That if this Multitude were all P…ung'd or Dipp'd, then either they had the Convenience … ſome Pool or Pools ſufficient for the buſineſs before them, in or Adjacent …o the Houſe where they were met, or they had not. If …t be ſaid they had, then it muſt be ſuppoſed too, they had liberty of a free acceſs to them, to Dipp this Multitude in them, and ſo to defile them and render them un…i… for other uſe, at leaſt for ſome time; and this I think every one muſt ſay, is very p. 85unlikely, conſidering they were now in a City, and that very Populous too, where probably their Pools and Wells contained all the Water they had for Daily uſe; and conſidering withall, that the Apoſtles and this Multitude in what they now did can't be conſidered as having the Countenance and Approbation of the Body of the People. If on the other hand, it be ſaid, they had not ſuch Convenience, then beſides what time was ſpent in taking Account or Knowledge of the Faith and Repentance of thoſe they Baptized, which muſt be conſiderable, beſides this, I ſay, the procurement of ſome large Veſſel or Veſſels ſufficient for Plunging diverſe Bodies at once, and the filling them with Water, (and that diverſe times) muſt neceſſarily take up ſo much more time, and cauſe ſuch further delay to their work, that it ſeems to me Night muſt needs overtake them before they could get thro' it; and how then will what we are told ver. 41. remain true, viz That the ſame Day there were added unto them about Three Thouſand Souls? But I return to my Narrative,

In the next place the Inſtances of Paul and the J…ylour were conſidered, the former of which was Baptized in the Houſe of Judas, Acts 9.17, 18. The latter probably in an outer Apartment of the Priſon, and at Midnight p. 86night, chap. 16.33. compared with the preceding and following Context. I know its poſſible there might be in thoſe Houſes, either ſome Artificial Pools or Veſſers of that Capacity as to allow of their being Dipp'd in them, but yet as we have nothing in thoſe Stories ſuggeſting any ſuch thing, ſo when all Circumſtances are conſidered, it can, I think, appear no otherwiſe than very unlikely that there were. And for my own part, I can't but think, that when we reaſon and ſay, Paul was Baptized in the Houſe of Judas, and the Jaylour in an outer Apartment of the Priſon, and at Midnight, therefore they were not Dipp'd or Plung'd, in Baptiſm, but Sprinkled or Waſhed, When I ſay we thus Infer or Argue, the Conſequence to me ſeems far more Concluſive, (all Circumſtances conſidered) than when our Adverſaries ſay John Baptized in Jordan and in Enon, therefore he Dipp'd or Plung'd thoſe he Baptized. This was the Third thing mentioned as a ground of our Practice in Baptizing. To which Ladded.

4. That Baptiſm is a Viſible Sign & Seal of an Inviſible Grace, the Eſſence of which can't lie in or depend on the quantity of Water uſed in it, unleſs it were Determined by ſome Poſitive Law, and ſo made neceſſary to render the Ordinance Significative p. 87of the Grace held forth in it. It is a Sign and Seal, and all it coes is by war of Sign and Seal. And that GOD has not by any poſitive Law determined the quantity of Water hat ſhall be uſed in it, I preſume all wid a … and it not, its certain its Eſſence con…de…ed as a Sign or Seal can have no dependance on that. And to uſe Mr. Baxters words, Chriſt told Peter that the Waſhing of his Feet was enough to cleanſe all. A little may Si…ni…y (and I may add Seal) as well as much, as a Clod of farth does in giving Poſſeſſion of much Lands, & a Corn of Pepper ſignifies our Ho…age for much.

5. GOD has not by any poſitive Law determined the Mode of Baptizing, whether it ſhall be by Dipping, Sprinkling or Waſhing. That Miniſters ſhall Baptize meet Subjects is matter of poſitive Determination but how, or in what manner is not This Propoſition alone, it true, is enough to prove what is now before m…tor proof, viz. That Baptiſm by Pouring on of Wa…r is Lawful. Finally I added,

6. That it appears to us unreaſonable to think that Chriſt ſhould appoint any Ordinance which Perſons can't univerſaly and at a…ti…es attend on, not only without ſuch Inconveniences as would render it an p. 88Intollerable Burden, but alſo without manifeſt Peril to the Health both of Soul and Body: But thus he has done, if Dipping only be Baptizing. For evidence of which what I offered was of the Tenor of what is before cited from Mr. Baxter p.

Theſe are the Propoſitions I offered as accounting for the Reaſons why we Baptized by the Application of Water to the Subject, and held it lawful for us to do ſo; and having done ſo, Summ'd them up into the following Arguments, viz. Seeing it is as we have heard, that the Word of GOD our only guide in all Adminiſtrations hath left the Adminiſtration of this Ordinance of Baptiſm under ſuch a Latitude; in particular, ſince the word [Baptizo] ſignifies as well to waſh by Sprinkling or pouring on of Water, as by Dipping into it; ſince none of the Scriptures alledged to prove that Dipping was the Primitive way of Baptizing, do neceſſarily Infer or Prove it; ſince there are other Scriptures which when conſidered and weighed with all attending circumſtances, look quite another way, render it difficult and next to impoſſible to think that Dipping was, at leaſt always, the Primitive way of Baptizing; ſince Baptiſm is a Viſible Sign and Seal of an Inviſible Grace, the Eſſence of which don't depend on the p. 89quantity of Water uſed in it; ſince GOD by any poſitive Law has not determined the mode of Baptizing.

And Finally, Since its unreaſonable to think that CHRIST ſhould Ordain an Ordinance which can't univerſally and at all times be attended by Perſons, without ſuch Incoveniences and Perils as above; theſe things being ſo, it muſt needs be lawful to Baptize by applying or pouring Water on the Subject of it, and we are Juſtifiable in ſo Adminiſtring of it. But the Antecedent is true: Therefore ſo alſo is the Conſequence. This is what I offered in proof of the Second Article; nor do I remember any thing material ſaid in anſwer to it, more than I have already accounted for. And now again it came to Mr. Wightman's turn to act the part of an Opponent, and offer on the Negative part of the Queſtion, which accordingly he did, and in doing of it, let us know he was not ſuch … Stranger to Syllogiſms as before was pretended.

When I had determined to gratify the deſire of ſome Friends by drawing up this Narrative, I was unwilling to depend on my Memory in accounting for what Mr. Wightman offered in this place, leaſt in doing of it I might do him wrong by an unfair Repreſentation of it, and therefore Wrote to him p. 90by one of his Brethren to ſend me his Arguments; in anſwer to which I received by the ſame hand the following Letter, where you have them, but corrected or amended, as he ſuppoſes, together with others now a …ed by him, for further Confirmation of the matter before him. He begins thus, Viz.

1 Arg. If all Judea and Jeruſalem under Divine conduct were Bap…ized of a Miniſter in a River or much Water, Confeſſing their Sins,

Then all Perſons that are under Divine conduct, ought to be Baptized in a River or much Water, Confeſſing their Sins.

But; &c Mat. 3.5.

2 Arg. If the ever Bleſſed JESUS was Baptized in a River or much Water, & came up out of the Water after His Baptiſm

Then all followers of the LAMB ought to be Baptized in a River or much Water, and come up out of the Water after their Baptiſm.

But, &c Mark 1.9.

Except you think we muſt not follow CHRIST's example as far as we are able: But now you tell of CHRIST's example and follow it in the other Sacrame … of the Lords Supper, and why not the S…ament of Baptiſm?

p. 913 Arg. If the beſt of Saints in the Primitive Platform did go to much Water & down into the Water in order to Baptiſm, then it is a Rule for us.

But the Antecedent is true.

Therefore ſo alſo is the Conſequence. Mat 3.5. Joh. 3 23. Acts 8.38

4 Arg. If the beſt of Saints in the Primitive Platform never went into a Private Houſe, or Meeting Houſe to have a little Water Sprinkled or Poured on them in order to Baptiſm, then that is not the way for us.

But the Scriptures doth not ſhew that they ever did ſo;

Therefore that is not the way for us.

5 Arg. If Sprinkling or Pouring doth not anſwer to ſome of the chief things repreſented in Baptiſm, as a Death, Burial and a Reſurrection, Rom. 6.4.5. Col, 2 12 then Sprinkling or Pouring is not the right way of Baptizing.

But Sprinkling or Pouring doth not anſwer to ſome of the chief things repreſented in Baptiſm, as a Death, Burial and a Reſurrection.

Therefore Sprinkling or Pouring is not the right way of Baptizing:

For what Likeneſs, Proportion or Analogy is there between Sprinkling or Pouring p. 92and a Death or a Reſurrection? Can any Man living imagine but in the right way of Baptizing we go into an Element of Death, and therein is Death repreſented, and being Buried in the Element of Death (as Water is,) a Burial is repreſented, & riſing out of the Element of Death, a Reſurrection is plainly repreſented: But it is not ſo in the Act of Sprinkling: But as to our Practice we have plain Scripture; For,

1. We take an account of the Perſons Faith to be Baptized, with a Confeſſion of their Sins, according to thoſe Scriptures, Acts 8.37. Mat. 3.6.

2. We go down into the Water, Acts. 8.38. Mat. 3.6. then we Bury them in Baptiſm, according to Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12: then we come up out of the Water after the Example of our Bleſſed Saviour, Mark 1.10. Had you but ſuch plain Scripture for your Practice, we ſhould ſoon come over to you; but if you have it pray ſhew it us, and put the matter out of Debate, & when we can ſee it we will ſubmit. But it may be ſome will ſay the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak of the manner of Baptizing in Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. in anſwer to which take this Argument.

6 Arg. If the Aſſembly of Divines in their Annotations upon Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. p. 93thus ſay, In this Paraphraſe the Apoſtle ſeemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptiſm, which was to Dipp the Parties Baptized, and as it were to Bury them under the Water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and to lift them up to repreſent the Burial of our Old Man, and our Reſurrection to Newneſs of Life. And in ſo ſaying they ſpeak true, then the manner of Baptizing is there intended in Rom 6.4 Col. 2.12. which in ſhort is this, the Aſſembly ſaith, the Apoſtle alludeth to the manner of Baptiſm, and ſay true in ſo ſaying, and therefore Vindicate my foregoing Argument.

7 Arg. If the Spirit of GOD doth never uſe the Word Rantizo or Rantiſma, (Rantiſmos it ſhould be) in the Original, or Sprinkling in the Tranſlation where the Ordinance of Baptiſm is mentioned,

Then Sprinkling is not the right way of Baptizing.

Now I can ſhew in the Dutch Tranſlation that the word (Dipp or Gedoopt) is expreſſed where the Ordinance of Baptiſm is mentioned; and if I remember right you granted Baptis or Baptizo ſigniſieth Dipping or Waſhing, and we can produce a Cloud of Teſtimonies that ſaith the ſame, and that Dipping and Waſhing p. 94are the ſame, ſee 2 Kings 5.10. … 14. The Prophet bids Naaman the Syrian to Waſh Seven times in Jordan, and he went and Dipp'd Seven times; and the Spirit of GOD has left it on Record that what he did was according to the ſaying of the Man of GOD; ſo that Dipping & Waſhing is the ſame in Subſtance.

Theſe are his Arguments, and for a Cloſe he adds,

And thus Sir, I thought ſit to give you a few Arguments on the manner of Baptizing, and I think fit to reſerve my other Arguments on the other Two Heads, until I ſee yours in Print; and if they are really Concluſive of Truth in my Judgment, I will ſubmit, for I love to be on the ſtrongeſt ſide, and I account Truth the Strongeſt. I ſhould have choſen to try the matter out by plain Texts of Scripture, but ſince you go in this Method, I have followed you; and I know of no fallacy in them, to be ſure they are honeſtly deſigned. If they are not ſo exactly formed according to rule, yet if the Concluſions be fairly drawn from the Premiſes, I hope you will bear with the reſt, and ſometimes my miſpelling, if you put the Diſpute in Print. I think you ought to have Mr. Hitchcock's Arguments, perhaps p. 95they are better than mine, with all the Scriptures that was then brought, & our words their due weight. The firſt Four Arguments was delivered at the Diſpute, only now a little alter'd in the Two firſt; the other added now. If you ſay ſome of theſe Arguments are not Negative but Affirmative, I anſwer, If the Affirmative be on our part, it neceſſarily implies the Negative on your parts, in my Judgment.

This from him that is willing to ſerve you in the Truth, Valentine Wightman.

This I think is his Letter Verbatim without miſtake of a word. He ſays the firſt Four of the Arguments above were offered by him at the Diſpute, I remember but Two, and they not as here written, as he himſelf intimates; however ſince its poſſible I may be miſtaken, I'll not inſiſt on that. What I would ſay here, is, That as I am I hope ſincerely deſirous, and ſhould heartily rejoice if Mr. Wightman, or any others of his Way or Denomination might receive any benefit by what is now written, ſo its my reſolution as far as may be to avoid every thing tending to Prejudice or Hinder it; for which reaſon, though it were eaſy for me to make both my ſelf and others Merry with ſome remarks p. 96on the Arguments above, yet I will not do it leſt I ſhould offend thoſe, whom I ſhould rejoice to Gain. For this reaſon I ſay, (as alſo becauſe I think there is not any thing in them with an Anſwer to which the foregoing Diſcourſe does not furniſh the Reader) I'll wave any thing of that Nature, and inſtead of it annex ſome further thoughts on this matter, by which Mr. Wightman and his Brethren may ſee there is more reaſon to doubt of Dipping, its being the Primitive way of Baptizing, than perhaps now they do, & at the ſame time be convinc'd that whatever it was, yet that the Poſition laid down by us in this matter (as we ſuppoſe prov'd) at the Debate, is an Undoubted Truth, and we therefore Juſtifiable in Baptizing by the Application of Water to the Subject.

And for this end I'll endeavour to make good theſe Two Propoſitions. Viz.

1. That a good account may be given why John the Baptiſt Baptized in Jordan and Enon, and Philip made uſe of the Water of a Fountain, Brook or River in Baptizing the Eunuch, altho' they did not Dipp or Plunge thoſe they Baptized.

2. That ſuppoſing the utmoſt that can be deſired by any in this caſe, viz. That John the Baptiſt, the Apostles, Philip, and the other Evangeliſts p. 97did Immerſe or Dipp thoſe they Baptized, or that Dipping was really the Primitive Mode of Baptizing, yet this will not prove that others are oblig'd to Baptize in the ſame manner alſo, & by Conſequence that our way of Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring on of Water, is Sinful; yea that it will be ſo far from it, that notwithſtanding, it may be Sinful in others to Immerſe or Dipp thoſe they Baptize.

If theſe Two Propoſitions can be made evident, I think, that as our Adverſaries in this matter will have reaſon to abate of their Confidence reſpecting the Primitive way of Baptizing, viz That it was by Dipping or Plunging; and to be more ſparing in their Invectives againſt us, for not complying with it; ſo at the ſame time to ſee how Inexcuſable they are in making this one Ground or Reaſon of their ſeparating from us. I'll therefore make an Eſſay here, and ſay,

1. That a good account may be given why John the Baptiſt Baptized in Jordan and Enon, and Philip made uſe of the Water of a Fountain, Brook or River in Baptizing the Eunuch, altho' they did not Dipp or Plunge thoſe they Baptized.

This Opinion of our Adverſaries, viz. That Dipping was the Primitive way of Baptizing, takes riſe as I conceive principally from the Hiſtory we have of the Places of the Baptiſms p. 98of thoſe Two Primitive Miniſters; of the former his Baptizing in Jordan and Enon, the latter his making uſe of the Water of a Fountain, Brook or River in Baptizing the Eunuch. Not ſo much from the Phraſe (of going down into & coming up out of the Water) made uſe of in thoſe Hiſtories, which have been before taken notice of, and their inſufficiency to prove what they would from them ſhewed; this Opinion of theirs I ſay, does not ſo much take Riſe from theſe, as from the conſideration of the Places (Jordan and Enon) where they Baptized, there being much Water there. And this they think is a good evidence of the Truth of it, in-as-much as if it be ſuppoſed the Baptiſt and Philip did not Dipp thoſe they Baptized, no man, they ſay, can excogitate or aſſign any good reaſon why they Baptized in ſuch places, rather than others where there was not ſuch plenty of Water: To which, I ſay, that if other reaſons can be given of this, ſuch as will well account for, or juſtify their doing ſo, though it be ſuppoſed they did not Dip thoſe they Baptized there, the Inevitable Conſequence of this will be, that this Opinion or theirs ſtands upon a very Feeble Baſis, ſuch as will ſcarcely bear them out in their Confidence in it. Now this is what I would here give ſome evidence of, and this p. 99I will do from ſeveral Propoſitions of Unqueſtionable Truth or Certainty, and which, altho', ſome of them at leaſt, may at firſt view, ſeem remote from my preſent buſineſs, yet will appear otherwiſe when I come to apply or make my deſigned uſe of them.

Then let it be Conſidered,

1 P. The Land of Canaan in which the Baptiſt and Philip Baptized, was and is a Dry and Thirsty Land, not Watered with Springs or Rivers as many other Countries are. That it is ſo now, the accounts of thoſe whoſe Curioſity has led them to Travel into it, aſſure us; and that in Ages paſt it was in this reſpect, as it is now, Revelation aſſures us alſo. Indeed its called, Deut. 8 7 — A Land of Brooks, of Water, of Fountains, and Depths that Spring out of Valleys and Hills; and ſo it was and ſtill is, Comparatively ſpeaking, or compared with ſome other Lands, in which ſenſe thoſe words are to be underſtood; and yet it was and is a Dry & Thirſty Land ſtill, compared with many others. Nor was the extraordinary Produce of it in Old time whereby it Subſiſted, ſuch vaſt numbers of Inhabitants ſo much the effect of the natural Fertility of its Soyl, as the peculiar Bleſſing attending of it, the Eyes of the Lord being upon it from one end of the year to the other, Deut. 11.10, But more of this under, 4 P.

p. 1002 P. The words [Much Water] Joh: 2.23. in the Original are Polla Hudata, i. e. Many Waters; according to which the Verſe ought to run thus, viz. And John alſo was Baptizing in Enon near to Salim, becauſe there were many Waters there; alluding no doubt to the many Springs that were in it, which are intimated in the name Enon, which ſignifies the Place of Springs.

3 P. We are not to conſider John the Baptiſt as having the Countenance or Approbation of the leading, governing part of the Nation of the Jews in his Miniſtry, i. e. in his Preaching and Baptizing, no nor of the main Body of the People, unleſs it was a… his firſt ſetting out therein. Its true, at his firſt appearance in that work, he had a general eſteem with the People. He came in the Spirit and Power, i. e. with a Warmth and Zeal like that of Elias, was one who in his conduct diſcovered a great Mortification to and Contempt of the World, the Manners and Faſhions of it; which things occaſioned in multitudes an extraordinary Veneration of him; inſomuch that they held him for a Prophet; ſome Extraordinary Perſon commiſſioned and Sent from GOD, and accordingly ſhewed a great Regard to his Preaching & Submitted to his Baptiſm. But as is uſual in ſuch caſes, this raiſed Eſteem of the p. 101Multitude was not of long continuance, but ſo ſoon declined that (tho' the whole time of his Miniſtry was very ſhort; ſcarce exceeding a Year and half,) we find him not toward the cloſe of it, attended or followed with ſuch Multitudes, as in his beginning. And to this our Saviour no doubt has reference, when in his Diſcourſe with the Jews, ſpeaking of John, he ſays of him, Joh 5.35. He was a Burning and a Shining Light, and ye were willing for a Seaſon to rejoice in his Light, Q. D. How ſhining a Light ſoever he was, & how well ſoever deſerving of their eſteem and affection, yet their regard to him continued not long; you for a ſhort time made diſcovery of a great regard to him, and came with great Zeal to hear him, hoping that he was (if not the MESSI AS, yet at leaſt) Elias, or that Prophet in him revived again: but when you ſaw that John did only bear Record to CHRIST, you ſoon grew cold in your Affections to him, and fell of from him. And with reference to the ſame, no doubt it was, that he told them of their Abuſive Speeches concerning him, Mat. 11.18 And finally, to the ſame thing refer thoſe words of John to his Diſciples, on the occaſion of their relating to him the growing Reputation and Intereſt of CHRIST among the People, when he had entred on his p. 102Miniſtry, Joh. 3.30 He muſt increaſe, but I muſt decreaſe. He muſt increaſe in Honour, Dignity & Reputation in the world; He is the Riſing Sun, To give you notice of which I was but as the Morning Star; He muſt ſhine every Day more and more, but as for my ſelf, tho' I was once venerable in your eyes, as he now is, yet my Glory is now in the Wane, and I muſt every day grow leſs and leſs. Not that there were none that retained an Honour for him even to the laſt; the Hiſtory we have of him aſſures us of the contrary, viz That there were many who did ſo; but the number was ſmall compared with what it was in his beginning or firſt entrance on his Miniſtry. But as for the leading, governing part of the People, there was no time of his Miniſtry in which he had their countenance or favour, as is variouſly evident. In the Sanhedrim that grand Council of the Nation, as well as in their leſſer Councils, there were many of the Phariſees, who every one knows were a Set of Men moſt Zealous for and Tenacious of the Jewiſh Rites, and would allow nothing to be added in Divine Worſhip to what they had received concerning it, either from the Law of GOD, or the Tradition of the Elders. Their eves were therefore open to Spie out and take ſeaſonable care of every thing tending to p. 103Introduce Innovations in Religion, and inaſ-much as they could not but ſee this to be the Tendency of John's Preaching and Baptiſm, it could not be but that they were no ſooner appriz'd of it, than they look'd upon him with a Jealous eye. According to this we find that forthwith upon this they ſent Prieſts and Levites from Jeruſalem to Bethabara, where he was in the exerciſe of his Miniſtry, to enquire of him, who he was, and by what Authority he Preach'd and Baptiz'd? See Joh. 1.19, to 25. Hereby letting us know that they had no Favour for him, that they look'd upon him as a Dangerous Perſon, one who if he were ſuffered to proceed, as he had begun, it might be of ill Conſequence. And for further Confirmation of this Propoſition, there are Two things Obvious in the Hiſtory we have of the Baptiſt, which I would here take notice of, Viz.

(1) His Wilderneſs Life. The Story we have of him aſſures us not only that the more Private part of his Life, which continu'd till he was about Thirty Years of Age, was ſpent in the Wilderneſs, i. e. in places Remote and but thinly Inhabited; but alſo that his Publick Life, or that part of his Time which ſucceeded his Entrance upon his Office was ſo too. I remember not that in that p. 104part of his Hiſtory that relates to us this part of his Life, we find him any where but at Jordan, Bethabara and Enon and Parts Adjacent; all of them Places remote and not ſo ſtor'd with Inhabitants as many other parts of the Land. According to which he is ſaid, Mat. 3 1. To come Preaching in the Wilderneſs of Judea; and is ſtiled by the Prophet Iſa. Chap 40.3 The Voice of one crying in the Wilderneſs, &c. Otherwiſe it was with CHRIST, who ſhunn'd no places of greateſt Reſort; oft Preach'd in the Temple & Synagogues of the Jews, &c. And whereas Chemnitius thinks the Baptiſt choſe thus to fulfil his Miniſtry in the Wilderneſs, rather than in the Temple and other places of Reſort, to make an illuſtrious difference between himſelf and his LORD; of whom it was Propheſied, Mal. 3.1. The Lord whom ye ſeek, ſhall ſuddenly come to his holy temple. I muſt ſay, that to me it ſeems far more reaſonable to think, it was for the Reaſon hinted above, viz. becauſe he knew how he was eſteemed or look'd upon by the Leading, Governing part of the Nation, as well as the main Body of the People (at leaſt in the cloſe of his Miniſtry) that they look'd upon him with an evil Eye, as a dangerous Perſon, one who it ſuffered to proceed, might bring on Changes they deſired not; to prevent which there was p. 105danger leſt they ſhould Apprehend and Confine him, if not inflict greater Evils on him.

(2) It gives us no account of ſuch Numbers reſorting to him in the latter part of the time of his Miniſtry, as in the beginning of it. This will be evident to every one that conſiders the Order of things related by the Evangeliſts as done by him in the courſe of his Miniſtry. With relation to which I ſay, That as in the Story we have of him, we never find him any where, during that time but at Jordan & Places adjacent, viz. Bethabara & Enon, (which were near to it; the one on the Eaſt, the other on the Weſtſide of it) So what it accounts for as done by him, it relates as done in one or other of thoſe Places; And further, That he that attentively Reads it, will ſe that he diſcharged his Miniſtry in thoſe places in this order, viz. firſt at Jordan, then at Bethabara, and laſt at Enon. I need not enlarge here to Evidence this, it being what every one that attentively Reads that part of the Sacred Hiſtory will ſee. Now we have in it no account of ſuch Multitudes reſorting to him when at Bethabara & Enon as when at Jordan. With reſpect to this laſt, the Story ſays, Then went out to him Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were Baptized of him, &c. i. e. great Numbers of all p. 106ſorts went out. But with reſpect to his Baptizing at Bethabara, it only informs us of the Conference he had with the Prieſts and Levites ſent from Jeruſalem by the Sanhedrim to Enquire of him who he was, & by what Authority he Baptized; Adding for a cloſe, Theſe things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was Baptizing; without a word accounting for the Number that reſorted to him there. In like manner, with reſpect to his Bap…izing in Enon, it only tells us there were ſome that came and were Baptized of him. Now, tho' its not to be doubted, there were many who came to and were Baptized of him in thoſe Places, ſince its manifeſt he was in great Eſteem with many, even to the time of his Death, yet in as much as the Hiſtory is ſilent here, makes no mention of ſuch Numbers reſorting to him when at thoſe Places as when at Jordan, 'tis reaſonable to think they were Comparatively few: which if it was ſo, its no doubt to be Reſolved into this as the Reaſon, viz. The Baptiſts ſinking, declining Reputation among the common ſort of People. That ſhining Light at the time of his Miniſtry in theſe Places was in his decreaſe and therefore they Reſorted not to him as at firſt:

4 P. 'Tis manifeſt that of the Multi…des that attended John's Miniſtry, i. e. his p. 107Preaching and Baptiſm at Jordan, there were many that came a great way to it (and the ſame muſt be ſuppoſed to be proportionably true of thoſe that attended his Miniſtry at Bethabara and Enon) with Reſpect to the time of his Miniſtry there, 'tis ſaid Mat. 3.5, 6. Then went out to him Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the Regions round about Jord in, and were Baptized of him in Jordan, Confeſſing their fins. If the Term [Judea] here be taken in its ſtricteſt acceptation, as diſtinct from Samaria & Galilee and containing only the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon & Dan, yet of ſuch Extent in this ſenſe is it, as to make it Evident that ſuch as came from the Remoteſt parts of it, muſt Travel near (if not full out) an Hundred Miles before they reach't Jordan. Such as came from Jeruſalem (which lies near in the middle between the Weſtern Borders of the land and Jordan on the Eaſt) Travelled between Fourty and Fifty Miles. Now it being ſo, its unreaſonable to think that ſuch of this Multitude at leaſt as lived thus Remote from Jordan, Travelled thither on foot; without the help of Horſes or ſuch other Creatures as they ordinarily uſed in their Journeys, and the caſe is the ſame as to ſuch as from Remote parts Travelled to Bethabara and Enon to attend his Miniſtry there, of p. 108whom its not to be doubted there were many.

5. P. As the Southern parts of Canaan toward the Arabia's & Egypt, are more eſpecially dry and thirſty above the reſt; ſo it was in this part of that Land that Philip met the Eunuch on the Road & Baptized him. This Propoſition contains two Particulars in it, viz.

(1) That the Southern parts of Canaan are more eſpecially Dry and Thirſty above other parts of it. Of this we are aſſured not only by Humane, but Divine Teſtimony. Gerar (where Abimelek was King, and to which Abraham Removed from Mamre upon the turning the Adjacent place where the City's of Sodom and Gomorrah ſtood into a ſtinking Lake) was in this part of the Land, yea near the moſt Southern Borders of it. The Lake it ſelf where thoſe abominable City's ſtood, and near to which Mamre was is in the Southern parts of it, and from thence the Text tells us he removed ſtill more South when he went to Gerar. Gen. 20 1. And that this part of the Land was more Dry and Thirſty than other parts of it. The Scriptures aſſure us in that they let us know that here Principally it was that the Inhabitants were forc't to be at ſuch Pains and Coſt in procuring Water for their Herds and Flocks by digging Wells or Pitts. Here p. 109it was that Abraham was at this Pains and Coſt for preſerving the lives of his. Gen. 26.15.18. — Here it was that he Contended with Abimelek about a Well which his ſervants had violently ſeized and taken away. Here it was that the Bond-woman and her Son, Hagar and Iſhmael, being ſent into the Wilderneſs with a bottle of water, when it was ſpent ſhe lays the Child under a ſhrub and Removing ſome diſtance from him, ſays Let me not ſee the Death of the Child: And where they were Relieved in that diſtreſs by a Well of water not far from them, See Gen. 21.12, to 19. Here in a word it was that the Philiſtins envying Iſaac's growing greatneſs in Flocks and Herds, as an effectual Remedy to prevent it; fill'd up his Wells of water, Gen. 26. forecited. And to add no more, this is that part of Canaan wherein David hiding himſelf from Saul calls it a Dry and Thirſty Land where no Water is, or without Water, as it is in the Original. Pſal 63.1.

It was in this part of the Land that Philip met the Eunuch on the Road and Baptized him. This is manifeſt in the ſtory of it; For as Jeruſalem it ſelf is Scituate in the Southern parts of Canaan, ſo this Eunuch was now in his Return from it home; which home whether it was in the Arabic or Affrican Ethiopia it matters not as to this, ſince in p. 110either caſe he muſt ſteer South from Jeruſalem. According to which the Angel that ſent Philip on that Errand, does it in theſe words, Acts 8.26. Ariſe and go toward the South, unto the way that goeth down from Jeruſalem to Gaza: Which Command he obeying meets with this man of Ethiopia. This Gaza, the City whoſe Gates Sampſon took away Judg. 16.2. And whether he was carried when taken ver. 22. and where he pulled down the Houſe of their god Dagon on the Lords of the Philiſtins ver. 30. this Gaza I ſay ſtood in the very Southern Borders of Canaan toward Egypt and Affrica. In this very Dry and Thirſty part of this Thirſty Land it was that he met and Baptized him. Now what I Scope at in this and the foregoing Propoſitions, is, to make it evident that John the Baptist and Philip had good reaſon to Baptize in Jordan and Enon, or ſome other places a like Circumſtanc'd, tho' it be not ſuppoſed they Dipp'd thoſe they Baptized: And if I miſtake not, theſe Propoſitions reflected on, will ſuggeſt ſuch reaſons for it, as will Convince any unprejudiced Perſon, 'twas Wiſdom and Neceſſary for them to do ſo, tho' we ſo ſuppoſe concerning them.

For let it be Conſidered here,

1. As to John the Baptiſt, (1) That ſince there were ſuch Multitudes came to his Baptiſm p. 111at Jordan and Enon, (Thouſands no doubt to the laſt, and to the firſt many Thouſands) and ſince many of them came from parts ſo Remote from thoſe Places, and therefore rode on Horſes or other Beaſts ordinarily uſed by them in their Journeys, and ſince reaſon will tell every man, the Baptizing ſuch a Multitude (eſpecially the Multitude that came to Jordan) muſt needs take up a conſiderable time, ſome Weeks no doubt, if not Months, and did therefore require a conſiderable time of ſtay or abode there, at leaſt in many that came; ſince, I ſay, theſe things were ſo, how could it be that theſe Multitudes and the Beaſts they rode upon, could be ſupply'd with Water neceſſary to ſubſiſt them, and ſatiate their Thirſt, unleſs he had choſen ſome ſuch place or places as theſe were, for his Baptiſm, where Water was in ſuch plenty? For certain it is that tho' Comparatively ſpeaking, a little Water would have Suffic'd for Baptizing thoſe Multitudes, ſuppoſing they were Sp…inkl'd or Waſh'd, yet the ſupply of their neceſſities, and the neceſſities of their Beaſts for ſo long a time, as reaſon will tell any man, many of them at leaſt, muſt attend or wait for Baptiſm, was what required no ſmall quantity of Water.

And here,

p. 112If it be ſaid that as Dry & Thirſty a Land as this was, yet its not to be doubled, but that there were in it Towns or Cities (and they Scituate in the Central parts of it too, to which a Reſort had been more convenient for the People) ſo ſtor'd with Pools & Wells, as to be able to furniſh with Water for the Baptiſm of thoſe Multitudes, provided they were only Sprinkled or Waſhed, and ſatiate the Thirſt of them and their Beaſts; and that therefore in that caſe he would doubtleſs have choſen one or more of thoſe Places to Baptize in. To this I ſay,

(2) That ſuppoſing it to be true that there were ſuch Places, and they ſo conveniently Scituate in the Land yet from what has been premiſed, particularly the Third Propoſition, its Evident it would have been far from Wiſdom in him to have made Choice of any of them to diſcharge his Miniſtry in, inasmuch as its from thence manifeſt, that in ſo doing he would have had reaſon not only to doubt of a free undiſturbed …iberty in uſing their Water but moreover that Violence or Injury might be done to his Perſon. What elſe could he …a…ionally expect or look for in this caſe? Did he not know that the Superior part of the Nation, conſidered or look…d upon him as a dangerous p. 113Perſon, One, of whom there was need ſome care ſhould be taken to ſtop his Progreſs, as they did afterward on Him, whoſe way he came to prepare? And that among the Inferior ſort, tho' there were many that had a Veneration for him, and accordingly ſhewed regard to his Perſon and Miniſtry, yet that there were others (and they perhaps not Inferior in Number) who were of another ſtrain, and had other thoughts of him, and who making their Judgment of him by his Garb and manner of Life, tho't him to be Hypocondriacal even to a degree of Diſtraction, and therefore ſaid of him He had a Devil! Mat. 11. Tis evident therefore ſuch a choice in him would have been what no man in his Wits would have made, and that Wiſdom did direct him to a more Wilderneſs Life, during the time of his Miniſtry, & to the choice of ſuch places for the exerciſe of it as Jordan, Enon and Bethabara, where (alſo probably) Water being ready prepared by Nature, without the coſt of Labour and Art, in great plenty; and being Communis Juris, free and open for Man and Beaſt as they had occaſion, he was aſſured of the free undiſturbed uſe of it, and which places being more remote, he could promiſe himſelf more ſafety to his Perſon. This is what to me appears reaſonable to think reſpecting p. 114the reaſons inducing John to make choice of theſe places to diſcharge his Miniſtry in, and what I'm ready to think will appear to every unp…e…dic'd perſon to be the Truth of the matter; which if it be ſo, it lets us know he had good reaſon thus to do, even tho' he Baptized not by Dipping or Plunging, and by Conſequence that when our Adverſaries infer or argue his doing ſo becauſe he Baptized in Jordan and Enon, ſuch inference muſt appear to be what the Premiſes will in no wiſe allow to be Concluſive.

2. As for Philip his Baptizing the Eunuch in or at a Fountain, Brook or River the foregoing account of the Condition of the place where he met him on the road and Baptized him, will alſo well account for it, tho' we don's ſuppoſe he Dipp'd or Plung'd him; inasmuch as from thence its rational enough to think that beſides that Fountain, Brook or River, there might not be a Drop of Water within many Miles of them. This I ſay, by all account of the place is reaſonable to think, and if ſo, he muſt either make uſe of that or not Baptize him at all, unleſs he had Travell'd with him (perhaps) many Miles further. Had Philip met the Eun…ch in ſome Town or Village where Water ſuſficient to Sprinkle or Waſh him, might have been had from Wells or Pits they had made p. 115for their uſe, and had gone with him from thence to ſome Fountain, Brook or River, there had then been good reaſon to conclude he Plung'd or Dipp'd him; and there would then be ſome ſtrength in the Conſequence, if from their doing ſo his Plunging him were inferred or argued. But we find not a Word of this in the Story, but quite the contrary, viz That it was in the Wilderneſs that he met him. The Angel ſays to Philip, Ner. 26. Ariſe and go toward the South, unto the way that goeth down from Jeruſalem to Gaza, which is Deſert, i. e. which way is a Deſert; as Whitby renders it exactly according to the Greek. Here, in this Dry & Thirſty Wilderneſs, where a man may Travel many Miles (yea, may I not ſay Scores of Miles?) and not ſee a Drop of Water, it was that Philip Met and Baptized him, from whence 'tis evident he was obliged to make uſe of this Water they came to as they were Travelling on the Road, or not Baptize him at all, unleſs (as I ſaid but now) he had Travelled with him, perhaps, many Miles further. And whereas Mr. Hitchcock at that time of the Debate, as I before obſerved, ſaid on this Inſtance, If Philip did not Dipp the Eunuch, why was it that he was obliged to come forth of his Chariot and go down with Philip to the Water? What, p. 116had not ſo great an Officer of Queen Candace as this Eunuch was, any Diſh or Veſſel in his Chariot in which a little Water ſufficient for Sprinkling or Waſhing him might have been fetch'd? To this I ſay, that as ver. 36. aſſures us that they came in their way even to or upon this very Water (Epi to Huder the Orignal is,) before the Eunuch mov'd to Philip to Baptize him, and cauſed his Chariot to ſtand ſtill, ſo every one will ſay the Room of his Chariot was a place no ways convenient or proper to Adminiſter the Ordinance of Baptiſm in, unleſs Chariots in that Day were very different from what they are now; and that they were better I think there is little reaſon to believe. 'Tis not therefore ſtrange he came forth of his Chariot, as great a man as he was, to be Sprinkl'd or Waſh'd with the Water, tho' he be ſuppoſed to have never ſo many Attendants, and a Score of Golden Bowls with him. And now to conclude this matter, From theſe things it appears to me, that John and Philip had Wiſe and Good reaſons for Baptizing in the Places mentioned, where there were ſuch large Collections of Water, even tho' they did but Sprinkle or Waſh thoſe they Baptized; and it being ſo, how Feeble the Argument or our Adverſaries muſt be, when from their p. 117Baptizing in thoſe places they infer that they Dipp'd thoſe they Baptized, is what I hope there are none but will ſee. And this may ſuffice for the Firſt Propoſition. The Second is,

2. That ſuppoſing the utmoſt that can be deſired by any in this matter, viz. That John the Baptiſt, the Apoſtles, Philip, and other Primitiva Miniſters, did Immerſe thoſe they Baptized; or that Dipping was really the Primitive way of Baptizing, yet this will not prove that all others are obliged to Baptize in the ſame manner alſo, and by Conſequence that our way of Baptizing by the Application of Water to the Subject is Sinful, yea it will be ſo for from it, that notwwithſtanding it may be Sinful in others to Immerſe or Dipp thoſe they Baptize.

This Propoſition contains a Two-fold Aſſertion, Viz.

[1] That ſuppoſing Dipping was the way in which John the Baptiſt, the Apoſtles, Philip, &c. did Baptize, yet this will not prove that all others are obliged to Baptize in the ſame manner, and Conſequently that our way of Baptizing by the Application of Water to the Subject, is Sinful. This I think will be evident to every one that will weigh the following particulars,

(1) That the Examples even of the Holieſt and Beſt Men in any caſe or inſtance, are not ſimply or in themſelves binding to p. 118others. Its true, its our Duty and we are bound in many things to trace the ſteps of the Wiſe and Holy, and its our Sin when we do not; But why is it ſo? Why not meerly becauſe they did thoſe things wherein we are bound to follow them, but either becauſe there are moral reaſons in the things themſelves, or becauſe there is ſome expreſs, poſitive Command of GOD ſuper-added to the example. And in theſe caſes only it is that an Obligation lies on us to be followers of them. If the example of any Man, John the Baptiſt, Philip or any other, as ſuch, be binding, I would gladly know in what caſes or Inſtances it is ſo, whether in ſome things only done by them, or in all? I'm ready to think Mr. Wightman and his Brethren will not ſay the laſt, or that its binding in all they did; inasmuch as this would be a dangerous Doctrine indeed, one inevitable Conſequence of is being this, viz. That they, and I, and many others, are obliged to imitate John in his manner of Living, taking up our abode in the Wilderneſs, clothing our ſelves with Camels Hair, and wearing a Leathern Girdle about our Loyns, and Eating Locuſts and wild Honey, as he did. But this I ſuſpect they would not like very well, I am ſure I ſhould not; and I believe any Man will find it a difficult Task p. 119to perſwade them they are bound by the Example of John in theſe points. Well, if we are not obliged by it in theſe Inſtances, in what are we? You ſay in the Inſtance of his Baptizing, otherwiſe there is no force in vour Argument, when from his Dipping in Baptiſm, as you ſuppoſe, you infer an Obligation on us to do ſo too. But pray give me a reaſon for this, viz. Why it ſhould oblige us in this caſe or Inſtance, and not in the fore-mentioned. When I was at the School A Quatenus ad Omne, valet Conſequentia, (which you may Engliſh thus if you pleaſe, viz If the Example of any Man as ſuch, oblige in one inſtance, it does in all;) was received for a Maxim or Rule of Everlaſting Truth; and that it is ſo, I firmly believe ſtill. And if it be ſo, then our Obligation from John's example, conſidered as ſuch, to dwell in the Wilderneſs, array our ſelves with Camels Hair, &c. is as great and ſtrong, as to Baptize by Dipping; for as I ſaid, if his Example as ſuch, bind us in any one caſe or inſtance, it muſt in all. But its needleſs for me to enlarge here, ſince what I now aſſert is no more than what I preſume Mr. Wightman, (or at leaſt ſuch of his Brethren, as paſs under the Denomination of Seventh Day Baptiſts) will allow or grant. Their ſtanding practice in not obſerving or Sanctifying p. 120the Firſt Day of the Week, but the Seventh, gives me, I think, juſt reaſon ſo to preſume; ſince if they tho't Examples of Holy men, as ſuch binding, how they can hold themſelves excuſable in not Sanctifying that Day, for the Sanctification of which, the Apoſtles and Primitive Chriſtians have ſet us an Example, is hard for me to ſee. This particular at once Caſhiers Four of Mr. Wightmans Arguments; and I can't but hope he will now ſee, that for him or any other Perſon to attempt to prove the Unlawfulneſs of Sprinkling or Waſhing in Baptiſm, from the Example of John, Philip or any other, (ſuppoſing it were evident they Dipp'd thoſe they Baptized) is Vain and Abſurd; ſince whatever they did in this matter Simply in it ſelf, can't infer any Obligation on us to do in the ſame manner.

2. Suppoſing they Dipp'd in Baptizing, yet as there are no moral reaſons in the Nature of the thing obliging others to do ſo too, ſo neither is there any poſitive Law obliging us to follow them in it, or determining that mode of Baptiſm. There are two Caſes, as I Intimated above, wherein Examples are binding, or Rather wherein we are bound to follow them, viz. When there are Moral Reaſons in the nature of the things done, and when any expreſs, poſitive Law p. 121of God is ſuper…added determining them and Requiring in others an Imitation of them. But now neither of theſe things can be pretended in this matter of which I'm now ſpeaking. For,

(1) There can be no Moral Reaſons in that mode of Baptiſm obliging us to it, but on the other hand I think its manifeſt from what I have cited above from Mr. Baxter, there are Moral Reaſons obliging us to Swerve or Deviate from it. If it be true that the Sixth and Seventh Commands of the Moral Law, are Moral, and Baptizing by Dipping be, as he ſays, a Breach of thoſe Commands, then ſurely there muſt be Moral Reaſons in the Nature of the thing thus obliging us.

(2) There is no expreſs poſitive Law Obliging us to follow them in it; or Determining that mode of Baptiſm. If Mr. Wightman or any of his Denomination know of any, I'le thank them if they'll let me do ſo too, and inſtantly come over to them, at leaſt, in this point. All that I know can be ſaid here, is, that John's Baptiſm was from Heaven, as our Saviour imply's in that Queſtion he propounded to the Chief Prieſts and Elders of the Jews. Mat. 21.25.—And if ſo, then ſo was the mode of it too: If therefore he Baptized by Dipping, this will infer p. 122a poſitive Law, ſome may think, determining that mode of it. But I deny the Conſequence here, and ſay that tho' it be ſuppoſed he Dipp'd in Baptizing, his Baptiſm may well enough be ſaid to be from Heaven, and yet that mode of it not be ſo, ſince the modes of things are not of their Eſſence. I know very well Mr Wightman & his Brethren ſay this mode, viz. Dipping, is of the Eſſence of Baptiſm, and that Baptiſm in any other way is no Baptiſm. But beſides that herein they ſeem not to me well to diſtinguiſh between Entities & their Modes: Beſides this I ſay, I'm at a loſs how they will prove it, any poſitive Law determining this mode of it I'm ſure there is none, nor can it I think be done from the import or meaning of the word in the Original: ſince (whatever it is, yet) we find it oft uſed there by the Spirit of God to ſignify Sprinkling or Waſhing by pouring on or applying water to things, as well as dipping them. But enough of this, and more I think I need not add to make out this firſt Particular, which is That Suppoſing Dipping was the way in which John the Baptiſt, the Apoſtles, Philip &c. did Baptize, yet this will not prove that all others are Obliged to Baptize in the ſame manner. The Second is,

[2] That tho' this he Suppoſed. yet it will be ſo far from inferring ſuch an Obligation lying on p. 123others, that not withſtanding it may be ſinful in them to Immerſe or Dip thoſe they Baptize. This will be readily allowed for a Truth by all thoſe that know that many caſes may be ſuppoſed, wherein there may be Moral Reaſons obliging Perſons to Swerve or Deviate from the Example of Holy men, in things wherein at other times and in other Circumſtances it were not only warrantable for them, but their duty to imitate or follow them. And this all thoſe muſt know that are not ſo near to perfect Ideotiſm, as not to know that as hic & nunc i.e. time and place are Circumſtances inſeparable from all Actions, ſo that the Expediency or Inexpediency, and Conſequently the Lawfulneſs or Unlawfulneſs of them has a great dependance on thoſe Circumſtances. Actions good in themſelves and Expedient or Proper in one time or place, in another are Inexpedient; and it is a known Rule, Quicquid not Expedit, in Quantum non Expedit, non licet, i. e. Whatſoever is not Expedient, is ſo far forth Unlawful as it is Inexpedient. What I now ſay might be Illuſtrated by a Thouſand Inſtances; but one ſhall ſuffice. And its that of the Corinthians, their going to Law before Unbelievers; Mr. Wightman no doubt will allow that the uſe of the Law for Recovery of mens juſt Rights is lawful, yea p. 124many times a neceſſary Duty; and doubtleſs was ſo in many of the Caſes refer'd by the Corinthiane to the Deciſion of Pagan Judges: Yet it was a ſin in them at that time, for which the Apoſtle greatly blames them, and it was ſo meerly on the account of the Circumſtances of time and place, which did render their doing ſo Inexpedient, Prohibit it, and Require that they ſhould rather have debated and iſſued their Controverſies among themſelves. Now to apply this to the matter in Hand, viz. Dipping or Plunging in Baptiſm, as what I have now ſaid eſpecially takes place in the Poſitives of Religion, that have nothing moral in the Nature of them, and more eſpecially in the Undetermined Modes of thoſe Poſitives, ſo as to this particular of them of which I'm now ſpeaking, viz. Dipping in Baptiſm, if the Circumſtances of time and place or either of them are ſometimes ſuch that there are Moral Reaſons Diſſwading from and Prohibiting of it, 'twill then follow that tho' the Baptiſt and others in the Primitive Times did Dip in Baptizing, yet that will be ſo far from proving an Obligation on others to do ſo too, that notwithſtanding it may be very ſinful in them.

If any of our Adverſaries ſay here, Suppoſing what I now ſay to be true, yet what Advantage p. 125can it be to us; Or how does it excuſe us in Baptizing by the Application of water to the Subject, ſuppoſing Dipping was the Primitive way, ſince we can Plead no ſuch difficulty in our way from the Circumſtances of time and place? I Anſwer,

(1) I am not now immediately proving the Lawfulneſs of our Baptizing in particullar, but that tho' John the Baptist and others in the Primitive Times did Dip, yet that notwithſtanding others may ſin in ſo doing; and that becauſe the Circumſtances of time and place may be ſuch as to render it Inexpedient and therefore Sinful. And this I take to be a truth ſo evident, that I can't but eſteem that man better ſtor'd with Confidence then Senſe that ſhall deny it. And,

(2) As to Ourſelves in particular, I ſay I am of Opinion, that the Circumſtances of time and place, very often at leaſt, do on Moral Conſiderations forbid our Dipping in Baptiſm, and that ſo evidently, that for my own part I durſt not do it. To Conclude, I think I have made good the two Propoſitions above, and having done ſo, as its manifeſt on the one Hand, that Mr. Wightman's Arguments taken from the Examples of John the Baptiſt, Philip, &c their Dipping as he ſuppoſes, are utterly Inſufficient to prove what he would by them, ſo on the p. 126other its to be hoped he & his Brethren may henceforth more ſuſpect the Expediency and Lawfulneſs of Dipping in this our Cold Climate, than hitherto they have done: And ſee that we are not without ſomething to ſay for our manner of Baptizing, be more in Opinion with it, and ſparing in their Invectives againſt us and that, than in time paſt they have been I paſs to the Third and laſt Queſtion, which was,