they should be accepted from such a judgement To which I answer Do you know any thing against the particular infant of an heathen if this be a reason upon which we are to judge any infants in particular to have faith because we know nothing againstany particular t is a reason upon which we are in charity to judge all particular infants in the world to have faith as well as any yea the infants of infidels as well as Christians for who knoweth any thing more against the infant of an infidell in his infanny whereby he should be excepted from our charitable opinion of him then he knows against the infant of a Christian especially that I may to your confutation conclude against you in your own words p. 5. 6. since it cannot appear that one of these more then the other hath by any â—…ctual sin barred himself and deserved to be exempted from the general staâ—…e of little infants declared in the Scripture viz. that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them So having run through and repelled that rout of responsives that would not be ruled by reason I come now to enter skirmish with your Scare-crow for verily what follows is no other then a false Alarum a sound of words a number of Iackeâ—…s and Breeches stuft with stubble and bombasted into the shape of men in arms to fright fools at a distance Review We shall only present to the Christian Reader those horrid sins this wretched error of the Anabaptists involves men in and so for bear to be further troublesome it may be the sight will make many tremble and forsake their tents and not suffer them to be so frolick about the hâ—…le of the Asp or play with the Leviathan and walk upon the ridge of thosâ—… Alps whose Praecipice is so fearfull Re-Review Bona verba quaeso and not thunder without lightning Review 1. It makes them deny their first â—…aith with their baptism for there is but one faith saith the Apostle and one baptism Eph. 4. 5 Re-review Aliâs it makes them first confesse and visibly professe that one faith and own that one baptism which what ever they did in words in works they denyed till now and makes them renounce that none faith and none baptism which they had in infancy for if they had faith while they were infants how can they deny it in your opinion who deny any falling from faith but if they had none in infancy then how can you deny but that they had none and so they deny none at all Review 2. It makes them crucify Christ again for we are baptized inâ—…o Christs death and therefore but once because Christ dyed but once Re-review It makes them crucify Christ often ore and ore again indeed i. e. in the Supper where in a figure they break his body and shed his blood an orderly fellowship and communion in which service they are ingaged to and enter upon after the example of those Acts 2. 42. immediately after baptism Other crucifying Christ I know none among them that is caused by their doctrine but that of those who after they are inlightned in it and have tasted the good word of God c. do after that fall away again and such indeed crucify to themselves the sonne of God a fresh and put him to open shame Heb. 6. 4. but I hope the truth among none but Reâ—…nlesse persons shall bear the blame and be made the cause of their crucifyings of Christ who depart from it as for us we are crucifyed dead and buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. for we are baptized into his death and that but once because Christ dyed but oâ—…ce and yet once because Christ dyed once and that is more then any Rantized Priest in Châ—…istendome can say of himself for he is not so much as once baptized at all Review 3. It makes them count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing for if it be holy what need they repeat it if unholy how do they prophane it Re-review How far forth Anabaptism properly so called i. e the repetition of baptism without such warrantable ground as it was repeated upon Act. 19. 5. doth saving the nonsense that is in that expression repeat the bloud of the Covenant and so count it an unholy thing I am not so much a friend to it as to gain say but sure I am that A-no-baptism and such yours is doth count not only the bloud of the Covenant but also that holy ordinance of baptizing believers which is the token of it an unholy thing for if it be holy why do you neglect it if unholy in so saying oh how do you prophane it Review 4. It makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse then the lâ—…gal this taking in all Children into the visible Church the Anabaptists excluding them making them no better than Turks and Pagans Re-review What again Review 5. It destroyes all the comforts that afflicted parents can have over their deceased children the grounds of them being destroyed their right in the covenant and promises of Christ. Re-review What again Review 6. It unchristens the whole Church of God for many hundreds of years together and calls in question the truth of Christs promises of being present with his Church to the end and guiding it by his spirit into all truth Re-review What again what ore ore and oreagain are you drawn so dry that you are fain to fill up to swell up your Review into the magnitude of a sheet with old ends and pieces and patches of things that were precedent or did these three Renegadoes fearing a storm run from their old ranks hither to secure themselves by câ—…ouding in amongst the rest of this rubbish stuff for every one of them have faced us once or twice a piece before page 6. 7. 12. 13. neverthelesse sith I meet with them here again I le have a word or two with every of them now To the first I say thus if the legal covenant did take in all children into the visible Church as you say as indeed it did i. e. as well the children of unbelieving as of believing Jewes neither had the one of these a strawes more right to circumcision then the other then sith the Covenant of the Gospel is inlarged and communicated to both Jewes and gentiles between whom the partition wall is broken down and they both made one And sith now by the Priests own confession it stands in the same way to be administred among the Jewes and Gentiles as that legal Covenant did for a time among the Jewes only the Priest himself makes the covenant of the Gospel worse then the legal that taking in at least to the visible Church all children of that people to whom it extended i. e. the Jewes without any exception without any respect to the parents being godly or ungodly believers or unbelievers the priests contrariwise under the Gospel Covenant which extends and belongs to the whole world i.
after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under â—…y the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as toly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies surther that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one in the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of un lothing for that end nor yet of the putting on of garments after baptism when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it as in the case of Paul of whom after he was baptized it is said he received meat and was strengthned but not that apparell was put on him nor dry and warm clothes applied to him which we should sure have heard of if he had bin dipt over head in water Baptist. If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead I know not onely no necessity but no modesty also in such a divestment nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say though in his expressions viz. that informer dayes it was thought no immodesty and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked though not necessary when ingenuity of judgement and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have construed his meaning to be this viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times though it be now by Mr. Baxter to be dipt in that way wherein we are dipt which is not naked as Mr. Baxter bruits it and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is if persons be baptized by a totall dipping and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off and on of their clothes in their addresses to and dresses after baptism there was not onely no necessity but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7. 58. of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul who is said Acts 8. 1. to be consenting to his death and also by Paul himself Act. the 22. 20. confessing to God his persecutions and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death and kept the raiment of them that shew him Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a
Christs death buriall and resurrectiby our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be of those that adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know not any Word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Thus whereas he saies elsewhere as I have shewed above that the end of baptism was to represent the spiriual grace as well as signify it and that the spiritual grace or thing signified and to be cleerly represented is mortification and vivification or communion with Christs death and resurrection which things t is strange he should say against the word of God for he protests it to be against the word when we say it and if there be any word expressing or implying a representation which himself so much talks on I am sure there is none like those two which we produce viz. Rom. 6. Cot. 2. which most lively shew it as I shall shew anon and undeniably declare yet here in the passage last cited he that talks of this representation and resemblance of Christs death and resurrection and ours with him as needful to be made in baptism is a lyar with him and an adder to the word which warrants no where to presse a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign no not so much as in those Scriprures Rom 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be and yet must not be and yet must be And yet for all this which is the wonder of me and will be of many more but specially of every wise man that hath his wits about him and would have bin of Mr Woodcock too who without taking notice of any weaknesse in it extoll'd the Book in the beginning of it and put it forth to Sir Iohn Burgoines patronage had he well weighed these passages of it Mr. Cook wheeles about once again and will needes have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it and argues stiffely for it to but the representation must be of what he pleases among the things signified and not of the main thing signifyed in baptism it must be of sanctification as t is called a washing a cleansing a purging a pouring of the spirit on us a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us and so be done by sprinkling water but not as it stands divided into its two parts mortification and vivification a death and resurrection or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism then by an As for example fetcht from the old world that was drowned dead buried by an infusion of water not an immersion and from the Ark which was rained upon only and not overwhelmed this death and resurrection must needs and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dipping in water for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping i. e. a descension into the water and ascention out of the water which we all know was the way of Christs and the Eunuchs baptism we must urge also burial which is principally expressed Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time answerable to Christs three daies biding in the bowels of the Earth which cannot be without danger quoth he yea certainty of drowning and if sprinkling should not so fitly resemble as dipping and plunging yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body to all which I answer Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face for all he saies it may as well or better sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling or raining on them in the daies of Noah serve to resemble our death and burial then dipping does yet in truth resembles a death burial and resurrection little more then a knock o' th' pate Secondly which drowning of the old world as it would make not a jot for such a purpose as he pleads for had it been by such a way as he dreames it was by viz. sprinkling raining on them by infusion and not immersion yet in very deed and so hee l see when he is awake and his eyes are open was by immersion immediately and not infusion for it might have rained long enough upon the earth before the men that had houses to shelter themselves in from that would have bin killed and buried under water if the waters had not prevailed by a flood so high over the earth as to overwhelm the men under it and plunge them ore head and ears and if he call that sprinkling and infusion let him sprinkle or infuse water in such abundance till the water sprinkled or infused become of such depth about the parties he is about to sprinkle as to swell ore their heads and to swill them wholly under it and I shall own such infusion for right baptism yet none of Christs ordinance neither unlesse dispenst to a right subject i. e. babes or beginners in the faith Thirdly which elegant allusion of his to the ark as that on which water was onely powred or sprinkled whence he seemes to argue thus viz. that it rained onely on the Ark or water was onely powred or sprinkled upon the Ark which Ark was a type of baptism Ergo baptism must be dispenst by sprinkling is as simple a delusion as ever was devised for if he intend that for an argument to prove that baptism is to be done by sprinkling and if not what does it there it does rather conclude that baptism must be sprinkled as the Ark was for reduce his matter into the form of a syllogism and see how sillily it concludes viz. thus The Ark was a Type of baptism But the Ark was only sprinkled with the rain not dipt Ergo baptism its antitype is to be dispenst by sprinkling He concludes more then he can possibly squeeze out from those premises and another thing then what is asserted of the Ark in his minor whereas in right form it should run thus The Ark typified baptism But the Ark was rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely Ergo baptism must be rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely But then what simple stuff were this what a logical lump of artificial non-sense Besides if it would follow that because the Ark which was a type of baptism was sprinkled therefore the way of baptism is sprinkling it would more truly follow that because the Ark was half dipt and half sprinkled one part of it being under the water another sprinkled with rain aboue the water therefore the way of baptism is to dip one half of the person and to sprinkle the other half but alas the Ark was a type of baptism as t
was the way and outward meanes of salvation but not in this respect as it was rained on nullum simile currit Quatuor Fourthly which washings purgings sprinklings of Christs blood and clean water typified of old and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hysop wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel so that they were typically and ceremonially counted holy and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense onely are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism as Mr. Cook imagines nor are so neer a kin to it as he laies claim to for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism as things some way or other signified to us therein yet are they not at all the main or principall things or such as are immediately or primarily but onely remotely and secondarily signified to us therein and so not necessarily to be either all or at all so much resembled as something else But the death burial and resurrection of Christ which is the rise and root the originall and meritorious cause of all the rest being that which though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest is mainly and most immediately signified and primarily to be eyed and respected and all the rest but consequently and through that therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively that it may take the deeper impression upon us Yea these matters of Christs death burial and resurrection are such cardinall things to be considered as quibus non mediantibus without the mediation of which we cannot conceive clearly nor lay claim to any of the other as ours For as in the supper remotely heaven it self and all spirituall excellencies are signified to us to be ours yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye but onely such as are the more immediate significations of it and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest viz. Christ crucified and our feeding on him by faith theseare and are to be lively set forth unto us and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken and powred out and received and applied to us but not all the fruits of his death and our faith even so it is likewise in baptism and indeed the main signification in both is Christs person crucified dead buried and raised and that is to be resembled in both and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins and purging c. to be consequentially gathered from that neither can nor are nor need all those to be resembled But as for Mr. Coâ—…k he pleads stifly to have all these resembled viz. washing purging powring sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christs death and resurrection which are the very rise and ground of all those And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled are they not as much and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water then by powring and sprinkling a little water upon him and is not swilling under water a more effectuall way of washing and clensing then sprinkling which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting yet in truth is no way of washing at all If therefore he will have washing and such a washing as well deserves the name of clensing to be resembled in baptism can he have even that done in a better way then by dipping or dousing for verily plunging is a washing and a more eminent way of washing and purifying and so more lively resembling ablutioneâ—… peccatorum the purging away our sinnes by the blood of Christ then aspersion or bare infusion either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and clensing seldome used by men or women unlesse it be among slatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more favouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10. 22. let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what
the other yet coâ—…es this sixâ—… of the Rom. 3. and 4. to prove the Analogy that is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism in his 24 question in page 668. quae est analogia conventenâ—…a sigâ—… et rei signatae in Baptismo optima c. saith he What is that Analogy and Agreement which is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism Most apâ—… forasmuch as in the same Manner as the water washes the body and clenses it from bodily impurities so the blood of Christ by its merits washes away our sins and spiritual impurities and his spirit sanctifyes us Moreover that immersion into water or aspersion doth most clearly denote Rantismon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ in order to remission of Sins and imputation of righteousnesse but the abode Quantumvis Momentanea quantula cunque saith Tilenus though never so small so that both these confute Mr Cooks fancy of a necessity of 3 daies abode under water if we will have Christs burial represented lively denotes the death burial of our corruption by vertue of the death burial of Christ that is the mortification of the old man but the rising out of the water doth most analogically as it were object unto our eyes â—…he resurrection of the new man or our vivisication and newnesse of life and also our resurrection at the last day See how this man saving that he shuffles in aspeâ—…sion and immersion as nothing differing doth own immersion into water abode under it rising out of it as the most admirable way of analogy to signifie and resemble what evâ—…r was to be resembled in baptism again in his 53 question p. 692. he quotes Rom. 6. 4. saying with allusion to that Scripture that Predicatione sacramentali we are said in baptism to die to be buried to be raised with Christ and that baptism confirmes our faith in these things because it doth pingere mortem c. plainly paint out the death burial and resurrection of Christ and therein is documentum c. a certain lesson of our renovation and resurrection Now the reason of all such sacramentall locutioâ—… whereby the things signified are said to be done in the outward sign is saith Paraeus analogia signi et reâ—… signatae tale enim quiddam est res significata in suo genere quale quiddam est signum in suo genere c. The likenesse that is between the outward sign and the thing signified for such as the thing signified is in its kind just such a thing the sign is in its kind for as the water washes away the filth of the flesh so Christs blood our sinnes and in such a manner as the sign is outwardly dispensed so inwardly the thing signified as the minister acts without so God within c. As therefore God within by the power of Christs death and resurrection mortifies buries to sin and raises us to righteousnesse so must not the administrator without semblably bury the person in water in baptism unto death and raise him again unto life or in token of his resurrection to a new life if not where is then the analogie and if no analogie why are we said sacramentally in baptism to be buried and raised sith the cause of all such sacramental locution is because the sacraments are as Austin saies pictures of the things signified in them or is aspersion an action as answerable to a burial and resurrection and painting it out as lively as submersion and emersion do hic murus ahaeneus esto This I know as sorry a shifâ—… as it is must be your most inmost shelter when all is done for it can never be with any colour of reason nor is it by any reasonable men that I know save Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake denied but that baptism must 〈◊〉 according to the word yea that word Rom. 6 â—…ol 2. bear analogy to and the image of the thing signified yea and that very thing of all the rest which are represented therein viz. a death burial and resurrection by being under water and brought out of it again though by all that sprinkle t is moâ—… heedlessely thought and therefore as senselessely taught that rantism i. e. aspersion sets forth those to the life as much as baptism i. e. immersion or overwhelming Among the rest that write of baptism with any allusion to those Scriptures we are yet in hand with what learned Tilenus saith is worth your animadversion I confesse the man though in his judgement he seem clear for our manner of baptizing by immersion submersion and emersion as that which was the onely primitive action and institution yet is so far benighted by the mist and black vail of implicit faith which hath covered all Christendom as to suppose that aspersion may now serve the turn and that for sundry reasons some of which are apparently faâ—…se and never a one of them worth a â—…raw which I le repeat and answer as I go for saith he Ritus in baptismo est triplex immersio in aquam 〈◊〉 sub aquâ et emersio ex aquâ quam vis autem immersio usâ—…atior olim fuerit presertim in Judea c. The outward ceremony to be used in baptism is threefold dipping into the water abode under the water and rising out of the water but howbeit this immersion was the usual way in former times especially in Judea and other warmer Countries rather then aspersion where note that he grants and who does â—…ot but Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake that having once denied it do strenuously resist it that the primitive way in Iudea and those Regions was totall dipping yet saith he the circumstance pertaines not to the substance of baptism which is false for I have proved that to be no baptism that is but sprinkling Secondly and sith the analogy of the Sacrament may be held out no lesse in aspersion then immersion which is as false and fond a fanâ—…asm as the other for sprinkling hath no more likenesse in it to a death a burial and a resurrection which though Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake deny it yet Tilenus himself abundantly pleads as I shall shew and that ex instituto from these Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. ought to be represented in baptism then it hath likenesse to immersion submersion and emersion and that 's not so much as is between an apple and a nut Thirdly and sith in legall purifications sufficiebaâ—…t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinklings did suffice which if they did it was because these sprinklings with blood of the sacrafices which were as well on the mercy seat as on the people in token of onenesse or atonement between God and them were instituted directly and solely to point out the spiritual sprinkling of Christs blood on the mercy seat in heaven and on us here on earth in token of atonement which is not the thing onely mainly originally or immediately signified neither so as that it onely is to
1. 2. Heb. 12. 24. To which I say it is true some but not all the things signified nor yet that which is most immediately signified and therefore mainly to be resembled are set forth by the phrase of washing pouring and sprinkling and it is as true that the sign need not exceed the thing signified but the sign need be adaequate to the thing signified and so is not any kind of washing but that of dipping under water nor doth that exceed the thing signified for that which is the main matter the signandum or the radical matter to all the rest is the death burial and resurrection of Christ and ours spiritually with him which things are no way Analogized in sprinkling and pouring but onely by a burial under water and bringing up again which yet are the only things that these three men plead to have left unsignifyed and unrepresented in the sign but we must have them all not only signified but also as much as may be lively pictured out in the sign of baptism this cannot be by infufion or aspersion for they are too narrow to resemble all but they may be and are in submersion and immersion for these are neither too narrow nor too wide but just adaequately resembling the signata there must be a sufficiency in the sign to the end saies Mr. Cook p. 20. namely to represent the spirituall grace though yet p. 17. he knew not any word of God wherein this representation is necessarily either expressed or implied Now the whole spiritual grace being the death burial and resurrection of Christ together with all the benefits thereof viz. the washing of our souls from guilt as to justification from filth as to sanctification as by the blood of Christ sprinkled and his spirit poured respect must be had that as neer as can be all these must be represented and that the Elements and actions be neither so overmuch as may take off the heart from the spiritual to the Corporal thing as we might easily do if we should do more then dipp under and raise up or should hold so long under water as almost to suffocate the subject nor yet so little as Mr. Cook saies well as not clearly to represent the spiritual grace the whole spiritual gracebeing therfore all these things forenamed care must be had that they be all Analogized as far as it is possible and especially the main which is fundamental to all the rest viz. Christs death burial and resurrection for this however ought to be done nor ought the other altogether to be left undone but it sprinkling be the way then the main thing is left undone for there is no representation of Christs death buriall and resurrection Rantist And if Totall Dipping be the way then many things are left undone for there is no representation of the blood of sprinkling and the Spirits powring Baptist. Not so neither with your leave for howbeit in bare infusion and aspersion death burial and resurrection are excluded yet in submersion and emersion both pouring and sprinkling are concluded the greater wettings containing in and under them the lesse but the lesse no way reaching to the other Moreover that remission of sins by the blood of Christ sprinkled is represented sufficiently in emersion as well as in aspersion not so the death burial and resurrection in Aspersion consult a learned Author for this that was for asspersion as well as your selves though I believe he saw submersion to be the better way i. e. Bucan who in page 668. as I have hinted above saies thus viz. Illa in aquam Mersio sive aspersio perspicue denotat Rantismon id est aspersionem sanguinis Christi in peccatorum remissionem justitiae imputationem mora autem c. So that we see he counted submersion though it exceed that one part of the thing signified viz Christs blood sprinkled yet to signify represent that vertually as well as other things I conclude therefore notwithstanding any exceptions that Either Mr Ba. Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake hath put in hitherto against what hath been said by us in proof that baptism was by dipping in the primitive time that that was the way of baptism then Rantist But Mr. Blake hath many more Arguments then those you have yet spoken to whereby he cleerly evinces it that baptism was not only by dipping then I hope we shall have your answer to them too and the rather because they are of some weight and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them First saith he if the way of baptism were only dipping then the Baptizer must put the baptized over head in the water and after a space receive them up again otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8. Baptist. I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water and yet say so shortly after we find no more then their going to the water and from it again how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it that go but to and from it I have shewed already but t is more strange to me that he should so far forget himself as to say we read of no such thing in Scripâ—…ure as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water or taking them from thence for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan and in Iordan and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Philip baptized him and that Christ came up out of the water and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water if all this be not partly an expression partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of then I shall never trust my spectacles more for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan if he was not dipped overwhelmed put under the water was he sprinkled into Iordan and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him after they were both gone down into the water if he did not put him under it did he no more then sprinkle or pour a few drops of water on him either of those might have been done as easily and more if they had never gone into the water yea â—…f they had never went so much as to the water at all and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water is it not necessarily implyed and therefore what need it be expressed that Iohn and Philip who put them under the water did take them up again
be remembred and resembled in baptism but the truth of the death burial and resurrection of Christ as the root whence all the other flows and therefore that reason though true yet is nothing to the purpose Fourthly sith immersion quoth he may indanger the health specially of such tender infants as are wont to be baptized now a daieâ—… which shewes that of old such were not baptized and that Christ never instituted this ordinance for infants who cannot bear the dispensation of it to them as it should be by right without danger of death but must of necessity and in charity and in humane prudence taking upon it to correct the divine wisdome of Christ and modle his ordinances more to their own ease have another thing i. e. Rantism universally dispensed to them instead of it Fiftly sith both these rites viz. sprinkling and dipping are expressed by the name of baptism Mat. 3. 26. Luke â—…1 38. Mark the 7. 4. then which nothing is more contrary to truth for though t is true that dipping is stiled baptism in Mat. 3. 16. the place he brings to prove that where note again that Christ himself was baptized by submersion yet that 's not true that Rantism is any where called by the name of baptism yea in the very places he uses to prove that viz. Luke 11. Mark 7. t is most evident that t was more then sprinkling yea and no lesse then a dipping that is there called baptism for t was washing of hands which if ever any body living saw any but slovens wash when foul by no more then sprinkling two or three drops of water on them they have seen more then ever I saw to my remembrance since ever I were born and christned For these forâ—…named reasons saith Tilenus we suppose the Church by the law of charity anâ—… neâ—…essity may use which of these rites she pleases By all which it appears that though speculatively he saw submersion to be the way by institution unlesse out of necessity and charity the Church forbid it yet practically he was as you are for aspersion and this makes the more against you in this matter in that a man that retained sprinkling as you do sith t is the fashion in these colder climates should yet be constrained to confesse so much institution as he does for that way of truth I mean submersion which we contend for for seriously take away the wretched reasons which flattered him in to speak favorably of sprinkling he was as to the true way of total dipping caetera orthodoxâ—…s as orthodox as we desire him to be Iâ—…e bestow the paines of rehearsing what he writes so far as concerns our purpose in very elogan Latine p. 884. 886. 889. 890. of his disputations in as plain English as I am able Baptism saith he is the first sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most paâ—… and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signifyed those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in water the outward rite of baptism is three fold immersion into the water abiding under the water and resurrection out of the water the form of baptism to wit internal and essential is no other then that Analogicall proportion which the signes keep with the things signifyed thereby for as the properties of the water in washing away the 〈◊〉 of the body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the effiâ—…acy of Christs blood in blotting out of sins so dipping into the water doth in a most lively similitude â—…et forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the water the vivification of the New although that Leviticaâ—… rite of sprinkling of blood Exod. 24. 8. did more grossely resemâ—…e the blood of Christ yet that was not so exact a similitude as is in the water of our baptism That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulfe of of divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abode under the water how little a while soever yet saies Mr. Cook it must be three daies answerable to Christ three daies burial or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all denotes his descent into hell even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre he was accounted as one truly dead rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest which this dead man got over death which he vanquished in his own den as it were that is the grave in like manner therefore it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new life Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. that these things are signifyed unto us in baptism the very outward rites themselves do teach for immersion shadowes out to us the pravity of our nature dying in us in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ the progresse of which benefit putting forth its power in us by a little abode under the water points out even as rising out of the water sers forth a new life corruption being done away hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Regeneration and that whereby we are saved â—…us 3. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. namely because what is done outwardly by the body in the sign the same is truly performed and confirmed to believers in the soul and even therefore both the names and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably attributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages and some of this he repeats ore again page 1078. whereby you may guesse that in this his thoughts were well digested Forma Baptismi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies he sive Relatio c. The Form of baptism is that Analogicall relation of the external and earthly which are the signes with the heavenly things or things signifyed this relation and most lively similitude that is between them is the cause why both the names and the properties of the signes and things signifyed are frequently given to one another by a familiar metonimy of the holy Scriptures wherein baptism is called the washing of regeneration and is said to save us saith he and in this respect also say I we are said to be buryed and raised in baptism in those places because of that lively resemblance of and likenesse to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism and that is in that institution if practised as ordained by Christ. Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptized indeed i. e. dipped into buried under and brought out of the water in his baptism in remembrance and resemblance of Christs death resurrection and his own with him for how