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 last days saith God I will power out my Spirit on
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 Aâ—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 Leâ—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 â—ill take liberty to tell the World that alâ—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 Anabapâ—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
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 whereâ—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 Bâ—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
be Justified by God's Word should they Judiciously acknowledge that Abraham's Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that Circumcision was the Seal thereof and that Water Baptism is now come in the room thereof 2. In that some have reflected on that Covenant calling it a carnal Covenant of Works and the Church which was to Observe and Practice Circumcision the Seal thereof a carnal Church all I need to say by way of Reply is to bewail the carnallity of their Uncircumcised Hearts and Lips who have no better or higher Apprehensions of God's Holy Covenant the Grace whereof must bring them to Heaven if ever they come thither and of his so highly Honoured Friends Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs Prophets and Godly Believers of that Day than to call it a carnal Covenant and them a carnal Church 3. If Abraham's Covenant was a Covenant of Works to him and his Children then it must needs he so to us Gentile Believers and to our Children now And if so let the Adversary Demonstrate if he can how Abraham or any of that carnal Church as they falsely term it can be supposed to be now in a Saved State Or what ground of hope we Gentile Believers and our Children have that we or any of ours shall go to Heaven when we Die seeing that we are still under the very same Covenant with Abraham which Covenant if it be a Covenant of Works and not of Grace no Salvation can be expected and if the Believers under that dark Dispensation were Carnal and not Spiritual how comes the unerring Wisdom of God to Propound them to Believers under the Gospel for Examples and Patterns of Faith Patience c. Heb. 11. Heb. 12.1 Ja. 5.10 Let it be farther considered that Albeit the Seal of Circumcision Sealed no saving Blessings to the Non-Elect it doth not hence follow that it Sealed no other than Temporal Blessings to the Elect seeing that to them the Heavenly were Typically included in the Earthly As touching the Earthly Blessings which Circumcision Sealed to the Non-Elect they were greater and better than God was any way obliged to give them I am sure than they savingly improved Object We utterly deny that Water-Baptism did succeed and come in the room of Circumcision Answ For confirmation of the Affirmative let the three Arguments already laid down under this Head be seriously and without prejudice considered To which I will only add the Explication of Colos 2.11 12. whereon I have grounded a fourth Argument to prove that Water-Baptism succeeded and came in the room of Circumcision In the place above quoted the Apostle plainly sets forth to the believing Colossians and in them to all believing Gentiles to the Worlds end two things necessary to be known and believed by all true Believers First That they who by a true lively Faith have Embrac'd the Lord Jesus Christ as held forth in the Gospel evidencing their Faith by the Truth of Gospel-Sanctification They and none else who are Adult are made actual Partakers of the true and saving Circumcision effected in the Soul by the Spirit of Christ And which was Externally signified by the outward Circumcision These Believers having now obtained the Spiritual Circumcision are not at all to be Concerned or Troubled that they are not outwardly Circumcised with the Circumcision made with Man's Hands Forasmuch as that which was Externally Signified and Seaâ—ed to the believing Jews by the outward Circumcision is now Internally and Powerfully wrought in their Hearts by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ Secondly The Apostle sets forth in this place that Water-Baptism is Instituted and Appointed by Christ under the Gospel Dispensation to be to believing Gentiles the same that Circumcision was to the Jews viz. A Visible Sign and Seal of Abraham's Covenant to all his Ecclesiastical Church-Seed among the Gentiles viz. All of that Race who on God's calling them Believe in and Obey the Lord Jesus Christ To these and their Infant-Seed and none else among the Gentiles Baptism doth now under the Gospel Signify and Seal the very same Spiritual Blessings and Church-Priviledges which Circumcision of old did Signify and Seal to the believing Jews and their Infant-Seed This I take to be the Sense and Meaning of the Apostle in that so much controverted place In this Sense I hope I shall Die satisfied And herein I humbly conceive none of the Orthodox will differ from me which Sense being granted it is beyond the reach of all Scriptural contradiction that Water-Baptism was Instituted and Appointed by Christ on purpose to succeed in the room of Circumcision CHAP. IV. Shewing and proving that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now under the Gospel have as real a Right to the Covenant of Grace and to Baptism the now Visible Sign and Seal thereof as had the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh to it and to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant of Grace And that they are as capable of the Grace and outward Seal of the Covenant as are the most Adult grown Believers I shall lay down Four Arguments to evince and make good against all Opposition what I now assert Arg. 1. THE first Argument is thus fram'd If God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father and never since Repeal'd that Gracious Act of his Then the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interested in the Covenant of Grace and have as great Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever But God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father which Gracious Act of his was never since Repealed Therefore the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interessed in the Covenant of Grace and have as great a Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever I cannot see how this Argument can possibly be overthrown but by proving that God did alter and change that Covenant he made with Abraham his Friend for himself and for his Church-Seed The which when the Adversary doth by Evidence of Scripture not abused and perverted I shall then yield the Cause and bewail my Mistake But two things cause in me an unshaken Confidence that this can never be done First The Immutability and Unchangableness of God on which very account he is styled a Covenant-keeping God who never yet cast off any poor Sinner until that Sinner did first actually cast God off the which I think the Adversary dares not deny Secondly The Impossibility of poor Infants actually casting God off and that because of their Incapacity in respect of Age. Arg. 2. If Infants be at all Saved they are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham which Covenant and the External
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