Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
scripture_n ghost_n holy_a inspire_v 2,844 5 10.2489 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A31095 A brief and plain discovery of the falseness and unscripturalness of anabaptism as the same is now practised by those of that perswasion, w[here]in are plainly proved from God's word the five particulars here handled, that God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. is the Covenant of grace whereby all God's elect are saved ... / by Ja. Barry, an unworthy minister of the Gospel. Barry, James, fl. 1650-1702. 1699 (1699) Wing B968; ESTC R34200 57,378 134

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

last days saith God I will power out my Spirit on all flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both which places are the fulfilling of those Gracious Promises in Esa 44.3 and Joel 2.28 where the Lord promised that he will pour Water on him that is thirsty c. and his Spirit on the Churches Seed The Hebrew word in Esa is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Etzek Ruchi and in Joel the word used to express the same thing by is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eshpoch Eth Ruchi in neither of which places will our Doctor 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vetabe lu Otham And Dip ye them be found The Doctor the better to help his limping Proselites over the Stile of Heresy and Error tells his Reader that the Evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue for Proof where●f he sets down his own Opinion that so it is and this Opinion of his he confirms as infallible by the Testimony of Jerom and he thinks the Opinion of the most Learned Men But the Dr. was so wary in this point that he resolved the Reader should not easily find him out in his quotations the which the Dr. knew would easily be done had he fairly directed his Reader to the Book and Page in Jerom where his judgment concerning this matter is exprest and by Naming the Learned Men who were one with him and Jerom in this Opinion His neglect herein forces me to charge him with unfairness to say no worse if that be a true rule in Logick Dolus latet in Vniversalibus that Deceit lyes hid in Universals I am sure the Dr. as well as the rest of his Fraternity who frequently walk in this Path must fall under this Lash the Drs. lothness to Name the Learned Men who were of his Opinion in this causes me to suspect that he means such as his Learned Baptist Servetus and his famous Castellio with those other Arminian and Popish Authors whose Names are in his Book It were worth while for the Reader to observe what shifts the poor Man is put to to prove and make good from Gods word his new though falsly pretended ancient Mode of Baptizing by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body into the Water He tells his Reader that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew the Drs. design being no doubt to make way for his Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dip ye them The root saith he is Tabal which is the third Person Singular of the Preterperfect Tense and signifies he Dipped He Instances in Naaman the Syrian 2. Kings 5.14 Then went he down and Dipped himself seven times in Jordan c. From Naaman the Syrian the Dr. comes per Saltum by a long leap to John B●ptizing in Jordan in Mat. 3.6 you have saith he the same Words again in the Passive Voice which must be rendred in English And were Dipped of him in Jordan And in Ver. 16. you have the same root again as it is applied to our Saviour And Jesus when he was Dipped went up straight way out of the Water The Dr. takes for granted that because Tabal signifies he Dipped and that because Naaman in the place above quoted Dipped himself in Jordan that therefore in Matthew it must needs be Vetabelu Otham and Dip ye them and that John did Dip all he Baptized over Head and Ears in Jordan Am I bound to believe that Matthew did write his Gospel in Hebrew because the Dr. is of the Opinion he did Or must I therefore grant it because Jerom is of his Opinion though neither Jerom nor he gives any solid reasons for that their Opinion Two things convince me that both Jerom the Dr. and his pretended Learned Men were all mistaken in this their Opinion First I find by Reading that the Gospel which Matthew is supposed to have written in Hebrew was never yet seen by any Author and therefore I must mind him of the Maxim as true and applicable in the present case De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est Ratio of things not appearing and of things not existing there is the same Reason to be given Secondly if Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew he would not have translated into Greek the word Emmanuel in Mat. 1.23 and those whole Sentences Eli Eli Lamma Sabacthani in Mat. 27.46 But suppose I should for Argument sake grant which I utterly deny and challenge the Dr. to make good that Matthew had Written his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue doth it therefore follow necessarily that the Holy Ghost who is so exact and precise in choosing the most apt and fit words whereby to express his Mind should use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which signifies to Dip and not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rachatz which signifies to Wash or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kibbem which signifies the same I have already demonstrated from the word of God that in all the places of the New-Testament where the Holy Ghost makes mention of Baptism he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Wash by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto which signifies to Dip or Plunge into And when the Holy Ghost expresseth the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Dip into but never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash with by which it plainly appears to me at least that rather than the Dr. will loose his Credit and suffer his rotten Cause to be lost he will rather open door to the old Babel confusion of Tongues resolving Jesuit like to set the Pen-men of Holy Scripture together by the Ears and impose on his credulous Reader a real Belief that what the Holy Ghost hath laid down and plainly exprest in Greek he hath gainsaid and contradicted in Hebrew which Contradiction can never befall the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture nor without Blasphemy be charged on that Holy Spirit by which they were Acted and infallibly Inspired The reason which Jierom gives why Matthew writ his Gospel in Hebrew viz. for the Sake of those Jews which Believed is no reason at all for had it been the Will of God it should be so I know no reason why Peter James and Paul who all three wrote to the Jews which Believed should write in Greek not in Hebrew witness the two Epistles of Peter the Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Hebrews The Dr. pleaseth himself in telling his Reader that in Mr. William Robertson's Hebrew New-Testament he finds these words between the 18th and 19th Verses of Mat. 28 he means And as my Father hath sent me even so also I send you Go ye therefore c. These words he sets down in the Hebrew Character telling his Reader that he finds them not in any Greek Copy An Argument thinks he that Matthew wrote his
takes on him to Usurp the Seat of Judgment in passing Sentence on all the Holy Learned and Orthodox Divines and Protestant Martyrs and Churches who are gone to Glory in the unshaken Belief that the Infants of Believing Parents have an unquestionable right to Baptism and that they are as capable of the Seal of Baptism as they are of the Grace of Gods Covenant signified thereby But that the Lords Supper belongs to none but to Adult and actual Believers who are capable of those qualifications required in a worthy Communicant such as Self-examination with reference to his State Godward his faith in Christ his progress in a Holy Life his discerning the Lords Body his keeping up a lively Communion with Father Son and Spirit in that Ordinance and judging ones self in case of short coming in Holy Duties These are the qualifications required to be in one who comes to the Lords Supper of which any not in a Dream may judge an Infant cannot be capable while an Infant I humbly hope no judicious Christian will censure me as rash and uncharitable if I judge those Preachers fitter for a Shop-board than a Pulpit who are not able or willing to discern or distinguish between Milk and strong Meat and who will deny to Infants the Milk of Holy Baptism whereof they are capable and whereto by Gods Covenant they have right because they are uncapable of receiving and digesting the strong Meat of the Lords Supper Object 8. If Infant-Baptism were God's Ordinance and were accompanied with his Blessing to the Infant how comes it to pass that so many Baptized in Infancy prove so Carnal and loose in their Lives and Conversations Answ Hereto I reply in three Particulars wherewith I shall shut up the present Dispute First It is with many Believers Infants now under the Gospel as it was with Abraham and his Infants of old Some are their Children by fleshly Generation only who Ishmael-like prove Mockers and Scoffers at Holiness and Haters of God and good Men These notwithstanding the Relation they stand in to the Church by Virtue of their Baptismal Vow and the External Profession they make in the Visible Church for a time being left to the darkness and folly lodged in their corrupted Nature they give themselves over to all kind of Looseness Baptism now is no more to be faulted on this account than Circumcision was formerly When the Children of believing Gentiles do actually violate God's Covenant and depart from him then will God do with them as he did with Abraham's Carnal Seed c. Secondly As some of the Children of believing Parents who were Baptiz'd in Infant State prove loose and vain so Blessed be God a great many prove Holy and Upright Walkers with God manifesting in their Lives and Conversations the lively Coppy of that Spiritual Circumcision wrought by the Spirit in their Hearts when Converted which was Signified and Sealed by that Baptism which they were made Partakers of when Infants Thirdly and lastly If from the vain and sinful Practise of some Baptiz'd in Infancy Infant-Baptism must be disallow'd as no Institution of God how strong an Argument will this prove to overthrow the Baptizing grown Professors For if I mistake not the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must own will they nill they that many of those Baptiz'd in their way have notwithstanding their shining Profession and their high Pretensions to the Work of the Spirit within fallen most foully and never recover'd again And thus I have according to the Wisdom given from above endeavoured to clear up from God's Word that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17.7 is most certainly the Covenant of Grace I have also prov'd from the same Word that Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant And that Baptism under the Gospel is now succeeded or come in the room thereof I have endeavoured to prove that the Infants of believing Gentiles have as real a Right to Baptism as Abraham's Seed had to Circumcision under that dark Dispensation And whether the Answers I have given to the most material Objections I find brought against Infant-Baptism be pertinent and convincing I leave to the Judicious and Unprejudic'd to Judge CHAP. V. AMong all the Rash and Presumptuous Assertors of Dipping the whole Body under Water being the only right Mode or Manner of Baptizing none hath made a greater noise or a fairer shew of being herein Infalible than one William Russel who styles himself Medicinae Doctor Accademiae Cantabrigiensis This Author with a more than ordinary Confidence hath boldly asserted that Dipping c. is the only right Mode of Baptizing commanded by Christ in the New Testament and practised by John the Baptist and all the Apostles and Primitive Christians This crude or raw Assertion of his he labours to support and make good by a fourfold Medium First The Etymologie of the Greek word the Holy Ghost useth to express Dipping by Secondly Those Metaphors used in Holy Scriptures to represent it to our Understanding Thirdly The Practise of the first Baptizers Fourthly The words of the Grand Commission given by our Saviour in Mat. 28.19 To demonstrate the falseness of his Assertion and to discover to Weak and Injudicious People the great Mistakes whereon he bottoms his Assertion is the design of my present Undertaking But before I attack this Goliah in examining what he can get from the four Particulars above mentioned which may cause Simple and empty Brains to think and conceit this Accademical Doctor Invincible and Unanswerable in what he hath so Peremptorily asserted for the Truth of God I will lay down two things by way of Premise whereof I desire the Reader who is unwilling to be deceiv'd to take notice The first is That not so much the bare Letter of Scripture as the sense and meaning of the Spirit therein is the Word of God by which Truth and Error are to be Try'd and Judg'd I have often said and I am very bold in affirming that that Sense or Interpretation which any Man or Men give of any Text of God's Word which thwarts and contradicts the Analogie of Faith that Sense or Interpretation is from the Spirit of Satan not from God be the same never so plausible and pleasing to the Sons of Men and be the Authors never so highly esteem'd of for both their Piety and Learning There is a sweet and an harmonious Concord and Agreement between all the parts of God's Revealed Religion though but few Comparatively can see it to be so The Doctrine and Institutions of God in all the particulars of his Instituted Worship are plain easy and obvious to the Eye which the Spirit of Christ hath Anointed But to such Men and Women who are Destitute of the Spirit of Christ nothing in Religion appears to them but Nonsense and seeming Contradictions which is the Reason why so many thousands in England c. Stagger and Reel with a Spiritual Vertigo in the Principles of the Protestant Religion wherein both they and their
Only Right manner of Baptism which all Believers are to practise under the Gospel This he labours though in vain to make good by the Etymologie of the word which the Spirit uses to express Baptism by The word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith the Dr. is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dip or Plunge a thing under water This signification of the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he confirms by Human Testimony he begins with Learned Mr. Leigh to whose Critica Sacra he refers his Reader in Quoting whom he deals with his Reader as he did in Quoting Servetus he saith that Servetus Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion but hides from his Reader the horrid Blasphemies for which he Dyed So here the Dr. designedly Curtails the Observations of Mr. Leigh on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling his Reader so much out of Mr. Leigh as he thinks makes for his Cause but leaving out what of Mr. Leigh he knows makes full against him which I must needs say is the trick of a Deceiver And by these kind of shifts he and the most Crafty of his Party do endeavour to underprop their sinking Cause bearing poor simple folk in hand that the Eminently Learned and Godly Men whom they Quote were of the Anabaptists Perswasion Now to let his unfairness appear herein I here set down what of Leigh he quotes and what of him he omits The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Leigh is derived from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tingo to Dip or Plunge into the Water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linnen is plunged and dipt Thus far the Dr. Quotes Leigh and who would not think by reading so much of Leigh and looking no further as the Dr. no doubt would have his Reader but that Leigh in his Critica Sacra was of the Drs. judgment herein Now follows the Learned Leighs Observations on the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet saith he it is taken more largely meaning Baptizo for any kind of washing rinsing or cleansing even where there is no Dipping at all for which he Quotes Mat. 3.11 I indeed Baptize you with Water c. Mat. 20.22 Are ye able to be Baptized with c. Mar. 7.4 And when they come from the Market except they wash they eat not Luke 3.16 Acts 1.5 Acts 11.16 and 1. Cor. 10.2 In all which Scriptures Mr. Leigh doth acknowledge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s Primative and intends such a washing as is done without Dipping and why should this be concealed from the Reader As for Zeppeorus Alstedius Plutarch and Nazianzen on whom the Dr. lays no small stress I hope he will allow us the same liberty he takes to himself viz. to Quote such Testimonies as make for us The Learned Dr. featly Quoted by Mr. Leigh tells us that Christ no where requireth Dipping but only Baptizing which word saith he Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by very many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers that the word importeth no more then Ablution or Washing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they in their Lexicons and Commentaries Lavo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lavatio Ablutio which may be done without Dipping As touching the Greek Lexicon Publisht and recommended by Joseph Caryl George Cokayne Ralph Venning William Dell Matthew Barker William Adderly Matthew Mead Henry Jessey All that I shall or need to say is this viz. that albeit I own my self bound to Reverence and Honour the hoary Head when found in the way of Truth and Righteousness yet it must still be with the reservation of the honour and respect which I owe to God that Ancient of Days their Father and mine who alone and not the Learning and Wisdom of Men though the Greatest and Holiest is the Father of their Faith and mine I am not insensible that some Learned and good Men have granted that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth indifferently signifie any kind of Washing by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon or by Dipping or Plunging into the Water and this they have grounded on the native Signification of the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But with becoming modesty and due veneration to their Reverend Names I must crave leave in telling the World that for a World I cannot be of their Opinion herein until I receive greater and clearer light from the Spirit and Word of God concerning this matter and that for the reasons here following First the apparent difference I find between the two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Letters and Syllables let the words be observed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive I can find but 2 Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-to but in the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and as in the Active so also in the Passive Voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-to-mai hath three Syllables whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Passive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath four Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bap-ti-zo-mai Now that the 2 words should both in Active and Passive Voice so apparently differ in Letters Syllables and sound of the words and yet that both the words should signifie and import the very same thing is to me such a Riddle that indeed I cannot see how the same can be unfolded unless by the elucidating Art and skill of Dr. Russel The Learned know very well that in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues the change of a Letter or a Syllable doth greatly alter the Sense and Import of Words and why it should not be so here I cannot see any solid reason to the contrary only it is the Will and Pleasure of our Dr. and his Adherents in this Cause that it must and shall be so right or wrong as appears by his Arminian Confidence almost in every Page where he mentions the Word Baptize where he peremptorily beggs the Question taking for granted that which will never be granted by any unless by Brainless Heads or wilful underminers of the Gospel viz. that the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth always in the Gospel signifie and import the very same thing with Bapto viz. to Dip or Plunge the whole Body under Water But that which will farther clear the matter and put the Truth I here contend for out of the reach of all Scriptural Contradiction is the Practice of the Holy Ghost who is better Etymologist than our Dr. and then all the Arminian and other Heretical Criticks who in pretence of giving the Native and Genuine sense of Words in the Scripture have forc't a wrong sense from the Original on purpose to lay a firm foundation on which they may build
their Heterodox and Soul deluding Doctrines I find that when the Holy Ghost would express the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it only by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I can find For Proof whereof let those Scriptures Quoted by the Dr. himself in Page 11. be without prejudice lookt into and seriously weighed Rev. 19.13 He had his Vesture dipt in Blood Mat. 26.23 He that dippeth his hand with me in the Dish Luke 16.24 That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water And in John 13.26 it is saith the Dr. twice used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he had Dipped Here in these places the Holy Ghost expresseth the A●t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the Derivative Secondly again on the contrary when the Holy Ghost expresseth Baptism by washing he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto For Proof hereof let the places of Scripture already quoted out of Leigh's Critica Sacra be consulted in all which places the Spirit speaks of Baptism but not a word of Dipping and that by the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo never by the Primitive Bapto Seeing then it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to express Dipping or Plunging into by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and that he hath expressed Baptism by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for resolving to believe the Holy Ghost in this matter before I believe Dr. Russel and all the human Testimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cause though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his so much admired Servetus and Castellio The Premisses considered I hope the Dr. will not be displeased for making this fair and generous offer to him and all who espouse his Unscriptural Cause viz. that if he or they can shew such a solid and convincing reason as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith why or wherefore the Holy Ghost should not in any of those Scriptures where he expresseth Dipping express Dipping by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative but only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and why he should not express Baptism in any of the places of Scripture above quoted by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto but always by Baptizo in case both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Derivative do signifie the very same thing viz. to Dip or Plunge under the Water And I do faithfully promise him to own my self mistaken and him to be herein in the right If he cannot I then hope his misguided Proselytes as well as himself will ingeniously own themselves mistaken and persist no longer in fighting against the truth of God From the difference between the two words in Letters Syllables and Sound as also from the Practice of the Holy Ghost in using both the words in the N. T I thus Argue Major If the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do apparently differ in Letters Syllables and Sound and if the Holy Ghost do always express the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto then the word Bapto must signifie to Dip and Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Assump But the words Bapto and Baptizo do apparently differ in Le●ters Syllables and Sound and the Holy Ghost doth always express the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto Conclusion Ergo the word Bapto must signifie to Dip or Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Besides this Argument others shall be laid down to confirm this when I come to speak to his third viz. the Practice of the first Baptizers In the 2d place our Dr. will have Baptizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water The Proof he gives to make good his Assertion herein are those Metaphors used in Holy Scripture To represent it to our understanding he Instances in two in Page 8 viz Burial and Resurrection He tells his Reader there that our Lord Jesus hath not burdened us under the Gospel with a multitude of Ceremonies as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation but only with some few and those very Significant this being a more Spiritual Dispensation Before I meddle in speaking to his Metaphors I ●ill take liberty to tell the World that al●eit Christ doth not burden us with a multitude of Ceremonies now as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation yet this one Ceremonie of Baptism will prove a heavier Yoke to Believers now then Circumcision with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Dispensation in case it must be Administred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water as Anabaptists say it must I come now to his Metaphors the first whereof he saith is that of a Burial For this he and all of his Perswasion quote Rom. 6.4 and Colos 2.12 Buried with him in Baptism unto Death From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party do hold and teach for an infallible truth that the Scope and Design of the Apostle in the two places now quoted is to teach and set forth the mode and manner how Christ was Buried to the end Believers should in Baptism imitate the same This if I mistake them not as I am very confident I do not is the sense and meaning wherein he and all Anabap●ists take those Scriptures In Answer to whom I affirm that this their sense of those places is senseless and meerly forc't to serve their own turn in proving that Dipping and Plunging in Baptism is the only true and right Baptism Now to discover their Mistake and Error herein I shall offer but two things to consideration The first is to shew the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places which is not as they fondly and injudiciously imagine to shew that Christ was Baptized by dipping or that Believers are to be so Baptized But the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places is to set forth and prove that Suretyship Union which is between Christ the Mediatorial Head and all the Members of his Body Mystical there being no one Act of Obedience either Active or Passive which Christ the Mediator performed in the assumed Nature but all his Members