the Subject who must undoubtedly be in great fear and in apparent danger of being let fall if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water And strange it is to me that Arminians who plead so much for the universal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind in general should not see how full of Reflection on God this Principle of theirs is which makes the God of Love and Mercy the Author of such a Mode or Way of Baptizing which is not possible to be practised without apparent Danger both to Health and Life of both the Subject and the Administrator too I conclude this Argument with the Saying of Judicious Sydenham viz That if Baptism be to be Administred in that way of Dipping only Happy are those who live in hot Climates or who have Bodies of Brass A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal thus That Mode or Way of Baptizing which is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women cannot be commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ neither was the same ever practised by John He who commands all Matters relating to Divine Worship to be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 and who commands Believers to abstain from all appearance of Evil 1 Thes 5.22 can never be the Author of such Disorderly Practises as thwart and contradict his own general Rules Now whether it be not an Immodest and unseemly Sight to see a mixt Company of Men and Women stand in Garments to use Mr. Sydenham's Expression next to Nakedness it self Let any not bereav'd of common Modesty Judge And whether the Administrator can possibly handle the Female Sex as he doth when actually Dipping them and not feel the risings and motions of Concupiscence in his Nature I leave to Thinking Persons to Determine and Judge Again in the fourth place to add no more let the last Argument be grounded on the Analogie which is and must be between the Baptism of John and that of Christ The Argument is thus framed If Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism whereof that of John was but the Outward Visible Sign be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Then John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on those he Baptized But Christ's way and manner of Administring the Inward Spiritual Baptism is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon Therefore John did certainly Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on those he Baptized If there was a necessity that John should Harmonize with Moses the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets I cannot see any reason why he should not be as greatly concern'd to Harmonize with Christ himself And seeing that the manner of Christ's Administring the Inward and Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regeneration why John the forerunner of Christ should Administer his Baptism which was but an External Sign or Christ's by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water can never be demonstrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Doctor though he were as well Verst in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the Hebrew Tongue as his so much admired Robertson was And if the Doctor will not be offended I am very desirous to know if his so highly commended and admired Robertson was by his so great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues more Infallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghost than other Men and that Mr. Robertson did certainly believe that the Etymology which he gave of the word Baptizo was Infalible as he said How came it to pass that the Learned Robertson did not Renounce that Baptism which he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling I think I knew Master William Robertson as well as Dr. Russel and during the time of my Acquaintance with him I am sure he was far enough from Anabaptism All the Skill he had in the Tongues with his Acquaintance in the Arts did not convince him that the Baptism he received in Infancy and by Sprinkling was a Nullity as the Doctor holds it is But to return to John the Dooper I think fit to assure the Doctor that I own my self bound to believe John himself rather than Doctor Russel or any of those Learned Men he so greatly Brags of The words of John are so plain that I can see no need of a Commentator to explain their Sense he tells us in Mar. 1.8 and in Mat. 3.11 that he did Baptize with Water but that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both intend and signify the very same way and manner of Administration All the difference between John and Christ in both their Baptisms is in the Subject Matter viz. In the outward Water and the inward Grace John he did Administer Water the outward Sign but Christ he did Administer the Spiritual Grace But as touching the manner it was most certainly the very same in both Now if the Doctor grant as he must if he speak Truth that Christ doth Administer the Inward and Spiritual Baptism by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghost he will find it altogether Incongruous and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith to hold or assert that John did Administer the outward Sign in such a manner as was directly contrary to Christ There must be necessarily an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing signified thereby which can never be in case Christ Baptizes by or with Pouring out or Sprinkling and John should Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into As Christ applies the Graces of the Spirit to the Soul in Conversion not the Soul to the Spirit so in the outward Baptism John he apply'd the Water the outward Sign to the Person not the Person to the Water For making the Thing or Point now in Debate obvious and plain to the meanest Capacity let it be seriously considered how plain and express the Scriptures are in affirming that Christ's way or manner in Administring the Spiritual Baptism is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spirit on the Souls which he Regenerates but never by applying the Souls to the Holy Spirit Read without prejudice Tit. 3.5 6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath powered on us the very same word is made use of in Acts 2.17 And it shall come to pass in the
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
Medium whereby he labours to prove that the right way of Baptizing under the Gospel is and must be by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water viz. The Practice of the first Baptizers In this he is as full of Confidence as he was in the other two I have now dismist and I hope in the Goodness of God it will plainly be demonstrated that in this also he and his Adherents do pervert the Scriptures which gives us the account of the first Baptizers as they most certainly do the other Scriptures which they bring to justifie and make good their Soul deluding Dreams He begins with John the Baptist Page 10. where he tells his Reader that it doth appear that Dipping is the right way of Baptizing from the first Baptizers The first mention saith he of this Ordinance of Holy Baptism we have in Mat. 3.1 where John the Dipper is mentioned and so he goes on in a strange kind of Rapsody warbling out his so much affected Note Dipping and Plunging I shall not be concerned to follow the Dr. Pedetentim step by step in his Pedantick way least I should be found guilty of the same empty Tautologies wherewith his so much admired Epistle abounds The ground of his mistake herein is the wrong Etymology he gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he and his mistaken Testimonies take to signifie and mean Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water This Etymologie of his I have overthrown as the Reader may see if he look back to the first Head of the Dispute viz. the Etymologie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall not repeat but go on to confirm the truth of the Etymologie I have given of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the word of God and the best Greek Authors by such Arguments as I hope in Christ will prove irrefragable The first shall be grounded on the necessity of John Baptist his Harmonizing with the Pen-men of the Old-Testament in all the parts of his Ministry if the Dr. will grant as he must if he speak truth that his John the Dooper was a true and faithful Prophet of God he must of necessity grant that John did run parallel with Moses and the other Prophets This the Dr. must either grant or deny if he grant that John did run exactly parallel with Moses and the other Prophets then is it beyond all contradiction that John administred Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water on the Persons he Baptized for most certain it is that Moses under the Ceremonial Dispensation did apply all the Legal Washings and Purifications by Water which all had a Typical relation to Christ to come as John's Baptism also had by pouring out or sprinkling the Water The Prophets also witness those two great Prophets Esa and Ezek. they foretold of the manner how God would apply to his People the two great Benefits accrewing by his Sons Mediatorial Sacrifice viz. Justification and Sanctification which was to be by Sprinkling as will evidently appear by Esa 52.15 Then shall he Sprinkle many Nations c. and Ezek. 36.25 Then will I Sprinkle clean Water upon you c. In these places the Spirit of Christ in his Prophets had an Eye to the Baptismal Washings of the New-Testament Dispensation Now if John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize with Moses and the other Prophets he did undoubtedly Baptize by pouring out or sprinkling Water on those he Baptized for most certain it is as hath been already observed pouring out or sprinkling was the mode or way of application of all the Ceremonial Washings which were used before John's Baptism If the Dr. and his Adherents deny that John did run exactly parallel with Moses and the other Pen-men of Holy Scriptures then is John the Dooper by them made a false Prophet and all who from John take up and practise the mode of Dipping the whole Body under Water as the only right Baptism are Self-condemned in that they do herein follow one who contradicted the Spirit of God in the other Prophets And so hereby it appears how much John the Baptist is obliged to the Dippers of our Age who rather than they will lose their silly Opinion will have the Spirit of Truth to speak Nonsense yea contradict himself and John the greatest of all the other Prophets because the immediate fore-runner of Christ to be a false Prophet This Stain they will never be able to wash off their Name any other way than by honestly acknowledging that John did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize with Moses and the other Prophets the which if they once grant as they must if they speak by the Holy Ghost then is their Cause lost and John no more to be Stiled John the Dooper but John the Baptizer From what hath been said I argue thus if John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize and agree with Moses and the other Prophets then did he administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon those he Baptized But John Baptist did in all the parts of his Ministry Harmonize and agree with Moses and the other Prophets Therefore John Baptist did administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water on those he Baptized A second Argument shall be grounded on impossibility thus that way of Baptizing which is impossible to be practised without a miraculous strength of Body was never commanded by Christ nor practised by John but to Baptize the many Multitudes which came to John's Baptism by Dipping the whole Body under Water was a thing altogether impossible seeing John had no miraculous strength of Body to render him capable of such an arduous and difficult Administration Therefore that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water was never commanded by Christ nor practised by John The major Proposition will not be denyed the Assumption will readily be subscribed as an unquestionable truth if Men who plead for that way of Dipping will be but ingenious in doing two things First in lifting up in their Arms cleverly from the Earth the many Corpulent-Bodies which offer themselves to Baptism lay them under the Water and there hold them until the Administrator pronounce the words of Institution I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Secondly in sincerely acknowledging what experience teaches them concerning this Practice these two Particulars comply'd in will I doubt not put the matter now in Debate out of all Question that to Baptize in that way of taking up in the Arms and laying under Water the most Corpulent Bodies who offer to Baptism and to hold them under the Water till the words of Institution be pronounced is a thing altogether impossible not only in respect of the Administrator whose Bodily Strength must in an ordinary way sink and fail in lifting and holding up so long such massy ponderous weights And also in respect of
Gospel in Hebrew a meer Non-sequitur What though those words be not in Matthew I hope he will not deny that they are in Jo. 20.21 there the Spirit of God hath recorded them and why the Dr. should look to find them in Matthew I know no reason or wherefore his Learned Friend Mr. Robertson should take on him to place the Words recorded by John between the 18th and 19th of Mat. 28. I cannot conceive But whatever moved Robertson to so presumptuous an Act in taking on him to alter things of this Nature as if by his Skill in the Hebrew Tongue he thought himself able to rectifie the Order in which the Holy Ghost hath set down his own Mind in Writing I doubt not but the Dr. was well pleased with so Palpable an Aberration and all for the love and liking he hath to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal he Dipped and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Velammddu Disciple ye By what I have said it is easie to judge that could the Dr. but have his will in two things First that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo doth alway signifie the very same thing with its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Secondly that Matthew did write his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue and that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vetabelu otham and Dip ye them were the very words of Matthew All the Art in Men and Angels could never hinder but that Dipping the whole Body under the Water must needs be the only right way of administring the outward Baptism But both these on which he erects his tottering structure of Anabaptism I utterly deny and do fairly offer and sincerely promise him that if he can confute by Gods Word the Arguments laid down to prove him mistaken in both I will forthwith renounce my Baptism received in Infancy and by Sprinkling as a meer Nullity and not only so but I will in Pulpit and Print too Declare to the World that I am fully convinced that Dipping the whole Body under Water is the only right way of administring Water-Baptism under the New-Testament Dispensation And this I hope with the offer made him in clearing up the Etymology of the word Baptizo will prove as generous an offer as he made to Master James As touching what is usually Objected from Mat. 3.16 concerning Christ's coming up out of the Water And from Acts 8.38 39. concerning Philip and the Eunuch going down into and coming up again out of the Water I need say but two things First For any to affirm possitively what the Word of God affirms not is to me a sure Argument of an Ignorant Rash and Presumptuous Spirit Reader mark the words And Jesus when he was Baptized went up straightway out of Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from not out of the water The Text doth not say in downright Terms that Christ was Dipt under the Water neither doth it appear from Acts â— 38 39. that the Eunuch was Dipt onâ— the Doctor and his Adherents will â—ve it to be so right or wrong Secondly There is nothing more certain than that a Person may be said properly enough to go down into the Water though he go not in above Shooe or Ancle deep which I doubt not was practised by both John and by Philip in the places above-mentioned and that for the better conveniency of catching hold of the Water with their Hands in order to Sprinkle or Pour out the same on those they Baptized And that which may convince any Man not prepossest with Prejudice against the Truth I here contend for that this was the Practise of John and all the first Baptizers so much brag'd of by the Dr. is the Impossibility of the Spirit 's being the Author of any though the least Contradiction in any part of God's Worship Hence I argue That which can no way be prov'd or made good by express Testimony of God's Word or deduced therefrom by sound and necessary Consequence is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate as not appointed by him But Dipping the whole Body under Water in Baptism can no way be provâ—â— made good by express Testimony of Goâ— Word nor yet by sound or necessarâ— Consequence deduced therefrom Therefore Dipping the whole Body uâ—der Water in Baptism is an Invention in God's Worship which God will Reject and Abominate because not appointed by him The major Proposition will not be denied That which secures the Minor and proves the Conclusion to be the Truth which all the Wit of the Adversary will never be able to prevail against is the Scriptures silence in that it no where gives an express Witness or Testimony heretâ— And the Impossibility of that being prov'â— a sound Consequence from God's Word which makes God the Author of Self-Contradiction The Word of God no where commands Dipping in Baptism neither doth it say in express terms that either John or any of the Apostles did Baptize by Dipping under the Water Reader Keep the Adversary close to this where doth the word Dip appear either in the command of Christ when speaking of Baptizing or in any Instance of Persons Baptized by Joâ— or the Apostles If thou keep close to this the Enemy will retreat and fly to Consequence 〈◊〉 the which if he doth as no doubt he will 〈◊〉 pursue him with a Holy Courage be not a◠〈◊〉 of his daring Brags How do yo prove that 〈◊〉 sound and Scriptural Consequence which 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit of God the Author of Self-â—â—â—â—â—adiction â—hat thus it is will evidently appear the Adâ—â—â—sary can no way avoid it If thou urge with an Holy Zeal for Truth what is Graphically set down in God's own Word concerning the manner of Application of the Blood of the Sacrifices and the Waters of Purifications both which had a Typical Relation to the Spiritual Baptism Administred by the Spirit of Christ These were applied under the Ceremonial Administration by Sprinkling not by Dipping as hath been before observed The Prophets who foretold of Christ and the great Benefits which should come by him to Believers under the Gospel They set it forth by Sprinkling witness â—sa 52.15 and Ezek. 36.25 and in the Gospel â—e are assured that the Spirit of Christ doth apply â—he inward Spiritual Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring out the Graces of his Spirit on the Soul in the Work of Regeneration see Tit. 3.6 Now to affirm that Christ either commands Dipping or that he himself was Dipp'd in Baptism what is it but to affirm that Christ's Spirit doth contradict himself What is pretended for Dipping from John 3.23 hath nothing in it to help their Cause but what empty Conceit and Unscriptural Confidence supply John saith the Adversary was Baptizing in Aenon because there was much Water there Therefore he Baptized by Dipping the whole Body under the Water The stress or weight of the Argument is laid on a fond Conceit that much Water there signifies and â—â—ports Greatness and Depth of Water which plainly appears to be otherwise witness the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Waters denoting ra◠〈◊〉 Rivulets or Springs of Water wherewith thaâ— abounded than that the Waters of that place deep And it was I doubt not for Conveniencâ— that John left Bethabarah a place of deeper Vâ— because Aenon was every way more convenienâ— commodious for the multitudes o People which oâ— daily to his Baptism Piscator's Note upon the place may not here 〈◊〉 either improper or impertinent to the Purpose iâ— hand Videntur significari plures Rivi non autem unuâ— Magnum Flumen Many Rivulets not one grâ—â—â— Floâ— or Water seems here to be signified saith that Learâ—ed Author with whom agrees the best Geographeâ— who give the Description of that place I conclude my Treatise against Dipping in Baâ—tism with that Saying of Godly and Judicious Sâ—denham If saith he there be any absolute need of Diâ—ping it is to cool the heat of those Mens Spirits who deâ— Baptism to be true or right Baptism because not Aâ—ministred by Plunging or Dipping Reader Observe that as in the Sacrament of thâ— Lord's Supper it is not so much the Quantity of thâ— Wine drunk in that Ordinance by a Believer 〈◊〉 the Quality which signifies and represents the Blooâ— of Christ Christ doth not tye a Believer up to such or sucâ— a quantity of Winâ— to be drunk in remembrance oâ— his Blood-shed but only commands Wine to 〈◊〉 drunk leaving to the Discretion of the Believâ— what quantity to drink So in Water-Baptism it is not the depth or quâ—tity of Water which is necessary to right Baptism real Water it matters not how small the quantâ— be so there be but a Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on the Subject to represent the Sprinkliâ—â— or Pouring out of the Graces of God's Spirit on tâ— Elect Soul in Effectual Calling FINIS
Ancestors were Initiated by Water-Baptism and in maintaining of which they seemed for many years very Zealous The second thing I shall Premise is this viz. That Heterodox and Corrupt Underminers of the Gospel are then to be most of all lookt after and watcht against when they lay about them to advance the Fame and Credit of the Devil's Ministers by Ecclipsing and Darkening the Credit and deserved Fame of Christ's Worthys whom Christ hath Honoured with being the chief Combatants in the Lord's Battels against the Powers of Darkness in this World My design in this is to discover to the unwary Reader this Doctor 's Design of Blackening that Renowned and Incomparable Servant of Christ Mr. John Calvin than whom I verily believe the World hath not since the Apostles left the Earth seen a Greater Divine A Man who for his high and excellent Endowments in all manner of Learning especially his Eagle-eyedness in penetrating into the Sense of Scriptures was more like a Prophet or an Apostle than an ordinary Preacher This Doctor that he might put a Lustre on Michael Servetus his Name draws the Pencil of horrid and black Reproach across the Name and Reputation of Holy and as I said Incomparable Calvin The Devil in his Ministers being deeply sensible how the famous and elaborate Works of that one Man stand in the way to prevent and hinder the Devil growing Rampant in advancing his Kingdom of Darkness among the Sons of Men. Calvin is by the Dr. represented as an ambitious Self seeking Man and which is far worse a bloody Persecuter while his Servetus is deckt and adorned wiâ—h the Robes of a Glorious Martyrdom The Drs. Words will shew whether I be mistaken in what I say of him see Page 4 of the Drs. Epistle where he saith with a Spirit of virulency and at last I concluded it must certainly proceed from the very Spirit and Principle of the first founder of your Sect meaning the Presbyterians Master John Calvin who burnt the Books of Servetus a Learned Baptist and afterwards perswaded the Magistrates of Geneva to Burn him alive which Sentence was executed upon him as Castellio testifies who was a contemporary with him In these words Michael Servetus was burnt alive for his Opinion at Geneva 1553 upon the 27th â—ay of October Besides this The Dr. tells his Reader with an ungodly design to lessen and blacken the Famous Calvin and to Extol his Servetus that one well observes that Mr. Calvin did acknowledge of Servetus that he was a Learned Charitable Man notwithstanding which he wrote a Book to Justifie Servetus being put to Death When I See and Reaâ— these things from a better and more Impartial Testimony than Castellio was I shall then say somewhat to it But indeed I must Ingeniously assure the Dr. that I shall neither believe him nor his Castellio in the Reports they spread abroad of Calvin and others of Christ's Worthys who Detect and Decry their Heretical Doctrines Not him because sad Experience Teaches that those of his Judgement are pretty well Skilled in Misrepresenting and Belying the most Holy Orothodox and most Learned of Divines on purpose to gain Ground among the less Intelligent whom they know to be strangers to Authors and who will be easily drawn to Credit those Reports which they are not able to contradict Especially when Represented to them by the Mouth and Pen of such as they take to be good Men. Not his Castellio because I look on him every way as unfit to be a Witness against so Orthodox and great a Propugnator of Gospel Verities as Calvin is known to be And that on the Account of the Testimonies given of Castellio by good and Learned Men who better knew what Castellio was than Dr. Russel doth The Great and Learned Scaliger charges Castellio with holding many corrupt Opinions of the Anabaptists And the Learned Hoffman Accused him for being one of the first Sowers of the Seed of Arminianism Tar. Faber another Great and Learned Author Charged him with saying that the Song of Solomon was a Wicked Book And he held that Paul Taught a more Mysterious Divinity to some perfect Disciples than he left in Wri ing this is to be seen in his Book on the First Epistle to the Corinthians Now if the Impartial Reader seriously weighs the Account given of Calvin and Castellio by the Orthodox and Learned he will soon conclude with me That had the Parts and Learning of Servetus and Castellio both Concenter'd in one Head Calvin's Orthodoxy in the Faith and his Excellency in all manner of Learning had never been in danger of Suffering an Eclipse Nor yet his Books of receiving a Solid Answer much less a Confutation by such Men as Servetus and Castellio whatever Dr. Russel and his Bigotted Proselites think or believe to the Contrary That Eagle Eyed Calvin soared too High in Penetrating into the Arcana Imperii of Heaven for such Glow-worms to reach his Sense or to understand the Spirit by which he Speaks and Writes Wisdom is Justified of none but her own Legitimate Off-spring Mat. 11.19 And here I desire the wary Reader to take notice of the fraudulent design of Dr. Russel which is to Iâ—pose on his Reader a believing that Servetus who dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion did Dye for bâ—ing an Anabaptist which inded is a notorious Piece of Falsâ—ood as the Learned and Godly who look into Antiquity well know who give that Account of Servetus that he was Executed at Geneva for his Blasphemy agâ—inst the Holy Trinity he Denying the God-Head of Christ and the Personality of the Holy Ghost This the Dr. well knew would have spoiled his design had he honestly told his Reader what an Heterodox and Blasphemous Wretch his Servetus that Learned Baptist who Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion was And truly to be plain had Servetus Dy'd for being an Anabaptist which I utterly deny he did yet I am far from thinking the better of Anabaptism therefore Or Judging Servetus or any others who on that Account loose their Lives to be true Martyrs of Jesus That saying of Cyprian will ever be true that Causa non Mors facit Martirem The Cause not Death makes a Martyr As the Blessed Jesus hath his Witnesses who Seal the Word of his Patience with their dearest Blood So the Devil hath his Witnesses yea many more than Christ hath who Seal their Infernal Heresies and Damnable Doctrines with their Hearts Blood yet I am far from Believing that such Martyrs will ever be owned by Christ at their going off the Stage Or that such Sufferings will make better the horrid Lyes and Blasphemies Men Suffer for be their Constancy seeming Zeal and Courage what it will Having Premised these things I now proceed to Examine the Four Particulars whereon his Fabrick of Anabaptism seems to be Founded The Dr. and with him all Anabaptists Hold and with great Confidence Assert that Dipping and â—lungeing the whole Body under Water is the
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