more nor with any who are of your Spirit but if you write again let it be in Love and not in Wrath not hard Words but hard Arguments and you will not offend your abused Friend and Servant who wishes well to your Soul John Tredwel Preston-Place April 30 1692. A Certificate under the Hands of several sober and impartial Persons WHereas Mr. Burkit of Mildin in the County of Suffolk hath in his late Book called An argumentative and practical Discourse of Infant-Baptism very unjustly reproached the People called Anabaptists and particularly Mr. John Tredwell Preacher of God's Word declaring that he the said Tredwell hath lately at Kittle-Baston in the said County of Suffolk baptized several Persons in a nasty Horse-pond into which the Filth of the adjacent Stable occasionally flows and that the People baptized in the said Pond came forth with much Mud and Filthiness upon them c. We whose Names are hereunto subscribed do solemnly certify and declare to the whole World that those Reports and Assertions of the said Mr. Burkit are uttâ—rly and notoriously false for we taking a strict View of the said Pond and Stable find the Dung or Filth of the said Stable runs the quite contrary way from the Pond into the Road. Moreover we solemnly certify and declare that the Persons who were baptized in the said Pond came forth without the least Speck or Spot of Dirt or Filth upon their Clothes the Water being clean In witness whereof we have set our Hands this 3d Day of May 1692. John Tyril sen Gent. Baptists William Brown Not Bapt. Samuel Denny David Sare jun. Thomas Cable Thomas Game William Steward William Boram Thomas We le Thomas Boss  John Noble THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT grieves and afflicts my very Soul to see such Strifes Animosities and Bitterness of Spirit amongst Christians because of that Difference there is amongst us in respect of some Truths of Jesus Christ in a time when we are all threatned by the common Enemy I am afraid it is the Fore-runner of a dismal Hour which is coming upon us But indeed of all who have of late come forth against us called Anabaptists none have shewed a worser Spirit than this Mr. Burkit who writes himself Rector of Mildin in Suffolk and that which troubles me the more is what I have lately heard by a worthy Gentleman concerning him i. e. That he is look'd upon as a sober Person and one also well affected to the present Government would all his Brethren in that respect were like-minded But in this Attempt of his I know not what he aims at Should we not all unite together in Love and Affection and strive to promote Peace and Concord and not tear one another in pieces after this manner I am sure this cannot tend to the Honour of God which he has done nor to the Service of the Church or State but we have been provoked by him to vindicate our selves and therefore none who are unprejudiced can blame us Should we suffer our selves to be loaded with Reproach and Infamy and not endeavour in a just way to clear our selves and that Truth of Christ we are so well established in from the certain Testimony of the sacred Scripture and must we be exposed for making God's Word our only Rule herein as a corrupt and erronious sort of People because we affirm from thence Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism and that Baptizing is Dipping and not Rantising especially since 't is well known in all the Articles of Religion we are acknowledged to be sound and orthodox and that by our Adversâ—ries themselves only this is the out-cry you deny Infant-Baptism The reason of which Reader thou wilt see if thou dost but weigh well what is said in the ensuing Treatise And now to you my Brethren who own this despised Truth of Christ viz. The Baptism of Believers let me give you one Caution i. e. Take heed you are not ashamed of Christ or to own his holy Appointment or his Servants because reproached by ill Men or others through undue Prejudice left Christ be ashamed of you when he comes at the last Day in the Glory of the Father with all his holy Angels Reader there are two things I would desire thee to note First That I have repeated some of my Answers to Mr. Burkit often partly because he repeats the same Arguments and partly because I would indeavour to make it clearly to appear that many or most of his Arguments he brings to prove Infants ought to be baptized do as fully and as apparently tend to prove Infants ought to receive the Lord's Supper therefore I have drawn almost upon every like Occasion the same Inferences for that as he hath for the other which I intreat you to consider well of Secondly Whereas you will find both Hebrew Greek Latin German Dutch as well as English made use of other more or less in the insuing Answer I would not have you think I understand all those Languages but I have had the Assiâ—tance of a Learned Person tho in that case only who is my Friend and Acquaintance that so the Work might the more fully and effectually be done I 'll say no more but leave it to the Blessing of God and thy serious Examination and remain yours in the Lord's Service in the Work of the Gospel Benjamin Keach From my House near Horsly-down Southwark May 12 1692. THE Rector Rectified and Corrected OR Infant-Baptism Unlawful CHAP. I. Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism taken from Circumcision With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no Gospel-Covenant Confuting also the Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the pretended Jewish-Baptism AS to you Six Propositions I shall begin with the first and so speak to them in order Proposition I. Your first is this viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace Answ You and I are thus far agreed save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace for if it was then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace but the Holy Spirit I mean that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls see Ephes 1. 13 14. Chap. 4.30 Whereas you say the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water were once our Proselytes is not true of the greatest part of them tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of Many others of them you cannot be ignorant come from you and some from the Presbyterians c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers or such who make a Profession of Faith midwive their evil and
Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society
than that of the Adult that it is a dangerous Error and therefore of no Use at all but the contrary viz. a very sinful thing 1. Reader can that be useful or any ways beneficial which Christ never commanded or required to be done in his Name but is unrighteously fathered upon him to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers 2. Can that have any Usefulness in it that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it making them guilty of Will-Worship or of a humane Tradition 3. Can that be useful that brings poor Babes into such a Covenant which Christ never ordained for them to enter into and to which they never directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of and which they are utterly unable to keep and which giveth them no Strength to perform nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury with Self-murder nay with Hell and Damnation 4. Can that be of use to Infants that basely beguiles and deceives them causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians and become the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven nay regenerated and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration but conclude all is well with them 5. Can that be a useful thing which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Christ's Commission and so inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing who requires none to be baptized before they are first taught and made Disciples 6. Can that be of any Use to an Infant which you nor no Man else can prove from God's Word to have any Use and Blessing in it to them 7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition think you save poor Children or a little Water sprinkled on the Face wash away Original Sin 8. Can Water beget Children to Christ or can that be useful to them which they have only the bare Sign of and not the thing signified viz. the Sign of Regeneration but not Regeneration it self a Sign of Grace but not Grace it self you give them the Shell but no Kernel the Name of Christian but no Nature of a Christian making that you call Christ's Baptism as Dr. Taylor saith á Sign without Effect and like the Figtree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit 9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel-Church National and confounds the Church and the World together which ought to be Congregational a holy and separate People like a Garden inclosed 10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants than to adult Believers notwithstanding the Scripture saith that the Person baptized doth not only believe but call upon the Name of the Lord Acts 22.16 can Infants do that 11. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Christ And is not that as Mr. Baxter saith a strange Marriage where there is nothing signified of Consent And are Infants able so to do 12. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers and yet Baptism called the Answer of a good Conscience Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection 13. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers Whereas the first has no Promise of God made unto it and yet the other hath many as Acts 2.36.37 38. Mark 16.16 14. Can that be a useful thing that frustrates the sacred and spiritual Ends of Baptism which we have shewed are many but as administred to poor Babes 't is rendred wholly of none Effect and an insignificant thing Lastly Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things 1. Our Union with Christ 2. Our Communion with him Now how doth this appear in Infants as such as it does in Believers CHAP. VII Shewing that the Baptists are falsly called Anabaptists they being as much against rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit or any other Men or People whatsoever shewing that Infants who have only had a little Water sprinkled or poured on their Faces c. are not baptized but rantized Proving Baptism is Immersion and without the Person 's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water he is not baptized from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo 1. IN Page 42 you say That you will endeavour to satisfy such who were baptized as you call it in their Infancy that they were rightly baptized 2. And that such who have been once duly and rightly baptized ought not to be rebaptized or baptized again Answ That which you say in the first Place we do utterly deny though we readily grant you what you say against rebaptizing for we are as much against it as you can be But to prove your first Proposition you proceed to shew the several Requisites necessary to denominate a Person rightly baptized 1. The Person baptizing ought to be a lawful Minister authorized and commissioned by Christ and the Governors of his Church 2. The Party baptized you say must be a Subject qualified for Baptism c. 3. That the Element made use of must be Water 4. It ought to be done before credible Witnesses 5. Lastly Baptism ought to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Answ 1. I grant all you say here though how you can prove there were Witnesses by when Ananias baptized Saul or when Philip baptized the Eunuch I know not yet I believe 't is necessary there should be in all ordinary Cases credible Witnesses by 2. But Sir how doth this comport with the Rantism of Infants For 1 st That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptism I have fully proved and have detected your Argument concerning Baptism coming in the room of or succeeding Circumcision 2 dly I shall now prove your sprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject either on the Face or any part of the Body is not baptizing but rantizing Then answer you Allegations Objections base Reflections and false Calumnies cast upon Mr. Tredwell and indeed on the Baptists in general And in order to the effectual doing of this take a Passage or two out of the ancient Fathers c. St. Gregory saith That that is not said to be reiterated which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done And in another Place saith he If there be an Offence taken at the Truth it is much better that Offence be taken than that the Truth should be deserted The Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Customs are to be built See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts. Tertullian
the Primitive Churches minded by many good Men Where is the Spirit of Reformation And doubtless that famous Author and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue Casaubon was in the Right take his words I doubt not saith he but contrary to our Church's Intention this Error having once crept in is maintained still by the carnal Ease of such as looking more at themselves than at God stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self would or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit Afterwards he saith I confess my self unconvinced by Demonstrations of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling The truth is the Church gave too great Liberty she had no Power to alter in the least Matter but to have kept exactly to the Institution She says Dipping or Sprinkling that spoils all that Addition gives encouragement Who will Dip the Person that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long and so generally received especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice and those who own it and dare not act otherwise vilified and reproached by such as you with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be The Learned Cajetan upon Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the Water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by Dipping or Plunging into the Water Moreover Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith the Parties baptized were dipp'd not sprinkled To close with this take one Argument If the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles wenâ— both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd then is Baptism not Sprinkling but Dipping But the Baptizer and the Baptized in the Days of Christ and his Apostles went both down into the Water and the Person baptized was dipp'd Ergo Baptism is not Sprinkling but Dipping CHAP. IX 〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping Plunging or Burying of the whole Body in Water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost from the Spiritual signification of Baptism AS touching your last five Arguments against Rebaptizing I see no ground to except against what you say there only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions p. 49. And as to you first I have and shall yet further make it appear that Dipping is not an Accident but an essential part of Baptism viz. 't is no Baptism at all if not done by Immersion or Dipping 2 ly Whereas you say the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word or from the significancy of the Ceremony Answ This as to the first part viz. as to the signification of the Greek word we have fully confuted and as to the significancy of the Ordinance we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear 3 ly You say There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling Answ We have and shall yet further prove that there is not the least probability that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion but by Immersion You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping and that that Country where they baptized 〈◊〉 which we read was a hot Country so that 〈◊〉 â—hat Reason by your own Argument they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion 4 thly You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases Answ We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done let your Church say what she pleases 5 thly You say that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own â—â—easure when it is in its own nature indifferent and consequently lay such stress upon dipping as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void ought to prove it an unchangable Rite Answ This makes against your self and all Pedo-baptists in the World How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ change his Law and holy Ordinance and substitute another thing in its stead and room And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable what may not Men do and yet be blameless this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void But Sir we have shewed in this Treatise that for 1300 Years in most parts of the World Immersion was only used and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected as an Innovation and an insignificant Ceremony 6 thly That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it c. Answ In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained viz. to represent his Body broken and his Blood poured forth The like we will say also in Baptism we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize or dip the Person all over so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth or represent when administred 2. Should the People of Israel as I have shewed in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh and not round or quite off or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite or they have been born with in pleading it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping Say you such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing Therefore it is lawful and sufficient and Dipping is not necessary Answ
to God after that we are renewed through Christ those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live according to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for Forgiveness of Sins and we also pray with them And when they are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit they are washed in Water c. This Food we call the Eucharist to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins and so liveth as Christ hath taught and this saith Mr. Baxter is you see no new way 'T is said Justin Martyr was converted about 30 Years after the Apostle John and by the Order then used in the Church it appears there was no Infant-Baptism thought of Walafrid Strabo as I find him cited by a great Historian says That there was no Children but aged understanding Persons baptized in this Age that is to say in the 2 d Century Walafrid Strabo Eccl. Hist c. 26. Vicecom l. 1. c. 30. Tertullian in his Book of Baptism speaking of that Text Suffer little Children to come unto me saith Indeed the Lord said do not hinder them to come unto me Let them come therefore while they grow to Years and while come let them be taught let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ why doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins Men will deal more warily in worldly Affairs So that they who are not trusted with an earthly Inheritance are trusted with an heavenly one Let them ask for Salvation that thou mayst appear to have given it to him Dr. Taylor saith thus The Truth of the Business is as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the Susception of it so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council a Provincial in Africa never till then I grant saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it And tho that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them ever pretend it to be necessary nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius Thus Dr. Taylor Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts That it ought to be accompanied with Faith Love and Patience after preaching H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16 to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis to them of Philadelphia Dr. Taylor saith in his Disswasive against Popery pag. 118. printed 1667. one of his last Pieces thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having it from the former it lies upon a single Testimony which saith he is a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke of it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been an Apostolical Tradition and that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives who says That anciently none were baptized but Persons of riper Age. And as touching Origen's Works and many more of the Ancient Fathers there is great cause to doubt about them because as Mr. Perkins notes no Greek Copies thereof are extant and many other Books said to be written by such and such Fathers are spurious and never wrote by them See Perkins Great Basil in his Book of the Holy Spirit Chap. 12. saith Faith and Baptism are the two Means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together for Faith is perfected by Baptism but Baptism is founded by Faith and by the same Names both things are fulfilled for as we believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit so also we are Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and indeed there goeth before a Confession leading us unto Salvation but Baptism followeth sealing our Confession and Covenant The same Churches Teacher saith the Learned Dr. Du-Veil in his third Book against Eunomius speaketh thus viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith Faith is the Confession of the Godhead it is necessary we should first believe and then be sealed in Baptism Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278. Zonaras saith The Babe will then need Baptism when it can chuse it Gregory Nazianzen in his 4 th Oration saith Dr. Du Veil Of those who die without Baptism gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not admitted by reason of Infancy And the same Nazianzen though he was a Bishop's Son being a long time bred up under his Father's Care was not saith the said Doctor baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner saith he Basil the Great that was born of devout Parents and instructed from his Childhood was not baptized until a Man p. 280. Also saith John of Antioch called afterwards Chrysostom was born of Christian Parents as the truer Opinion is tutored by the famous Bishop Meletius was not yet baptized till he was one and twenty Years of Age. Hierom also Ambrose and Austin who were born of Christian Parents and consecrated to Christian Discipline even from their Childhood were not baptized before thirty Years of Age as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts in his 12 th Section of the Life of Christ Now Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the Primitive Times Children of Baptized Believers were not baptized but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed and gave an account of their Faith Had it been the constant Custom of the Godly to baptize Infants would not these think you have been in their Infancy baptized Grotius as I find him quoted by Dr. Duveil ' saith The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants See Grotius his Notes on the Gospel Nay saith the same great and Learned Writer it doth most plainly appear by the right of baptizing used in the Romish Church for Baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church which the Surety does in the Infant 's Name a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required which the same Surety rehearseth in the Infant 's Name i. e. A renouncing of the World its Pomps the Flesh and the Devil We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church-Catechism came But this is a clear Argument saith the Doctor to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized asked themselves Baptism in their own
him in Jordan Hence they call John the Baptist John the Dipper In vers 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de Dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea In English thus In those days came John the Dipper preaching in the Wilderness of Judea Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue as the Dutch have done it into theirs it would have been read in our Bible John the Dipper and for Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. it would have been read Dipping them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and then the People would not have been deceived but they have not translated the Greek word at all but left it in its Original Language What difference is there between Baptism and the Greek Baptisma Ball in his Catechism doth not only say Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism but also that the Party baptized was washed by Dipping c. Your Church also in the Common-Prayer saith Dipping into the Water is the proper as I conceive signification of the Word To close with this I argue thus viz. Since our Saviour sent his Disciples to Teach and Baptize or Dip in the Name c. into all Nations viz. into Cold Countries as well as Hot and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear Dipping without palpable danger of their Lives it follows clearly that they were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit To conclude with this take one Argument viz. If the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip then Sprinkling is not Baptizing But the proper literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo is Dipping or to dip Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing CHAP. VIII Proving that to baptize is to dip or plunge the Body all over into the Water from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days I Have shewed that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan who was the first that received Commission to baptize And Diodate on Mat. 3. says He plunged them in Water Piscator also saith The ancient manner of Baptizing was that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water So saith the Assembly in their Annotations Nay say I it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face for a quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance there is no reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Aenon near Salim viz. because there was much Water John 3.23 But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost by making People believe there was not much Water in that place p. 59. Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is say you many Streams or Rivolets Answ What difference is there between much Water and many Waters If they were Streams and Rivolets though not deep yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin in as Experience shews but 't is enough there he baptized saith the Holy Spirit for there was much Water or many Waters there for or be-because intimating plainly that the Ordinance could noâ— be administred with a little Water but that it required many Waters or much Water a great deal more than a Bason could hold or you hold in your Hand 2. But say you Sandy's Travels tells us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the â—â—kles Answ 1. Must we believe God's Word or a lying Traveller the Scripture saith there was much or many Waters and he says there was but a little 2. In some shallow Rivolets we daily see that in some Places the Water is deep and might it not be so in that and your Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the Matter 3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then as Dr. Hammond words it and yet but little or shallow Water now or when Sandys was there Time alters Rivers as well as other Things But for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text to defend your childish Practice of Rantism you deserve greatly to be blamed Take this Argument If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water Then a little Water will not serve to baptize in But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim viz. because there was much Water therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in 2. But to proceed Mark 1.9 't is said Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Now saith a Learned Man on the Place it had been nonsense for St. Mark to say that Jesus was baptized in Jordan if it had been sprinkled because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan 't is proper to say he was dipp'd into Jordan and that is and was the Act and nothing else be sure 3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done had Baptism been Sprinkling Sure Philâ—â— would not have put that Noble Person who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done and to go down into the Water and dip him sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion and let Aspersion or Rantism have served considering he was a great Person and on a Journey he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand or otherwise and have sprinkled him in his Chariot as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship And thus you and they make void the Command of Christ by your Traditions to the abuse of Christian-Baptism and reproach of us that keep to his Sacred Institution Mr. Daniel Rogers a most worthy Writer says in a Treatise of his It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping especially it being not left Arbitrary by our Church to the Discretion of the Minister but required to Dip or Dive And further saith That he betrays the Church whose Minister he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution O what abundance of the Betrayers of the Truth and of Churches too have we in these as well as in former Days How little is the Institution of Christ or Practice of
preâ—â—â—ted by the ancient Fathers of old and the 〈◊〉 Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a mere positive Right wholly depending on the sovereign Will of the Legislation doth not give just cause to all â—o question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denied it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are federally â—oly therefore to be baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be baptized by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say By the Faith of the Church as Auâ—â—iâ— Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is a 〈◊〉 Apostolical 〈◊〉 Tradition but others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say it is a regenerating Ordinance and Infants thereby are put into a savable Some Others say the Infants of Believers are safe before because in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answered it before Query 8. Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Precept nor Example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor Promise made to such who do it nor Threat denounced on such who neglect it This they say they answered in one of our Arguments Their Answer is there about Womens receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of mere positive Right such as Bapâ—ism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law giver They answer Yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to baptize only such who are first taught or made Disciples by teaching or who make a Profession of their Faith And Dipping is the express and direct Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament and a great Cloud of Witnesses testify Query 10. Whâ—â—her the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor ignorant People who think they were thereby made Christians and regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration nor Baptism that represents or holds forth that inwarâ— Work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Reply Then I appeal to all Men who have read the old Church-Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. how can Infant-Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12. Whether God hath any where commanded or injoined Parents to bring their little Babes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with himself by Baptism since 't is not to be found in all the Scripture If not how can that Covenant oblige their Child when he comes to Age if it be so great a Sin not to perform that Covenant or to renounce the thing it self Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no Promise is made of Assistance to perform it nor of Blessing if it be kept nor one Threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptismâ— or Baptisma â—â—â—ranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he baptized them he dipped them The Athenian Society answâ—â— They are the best Judges themselves if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the Unlearned in that Tongue do not know that 't is to dip or Immersion therefore 't is not enough 14. Whether such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to dip and tho sometimes to wash yet such a washing as is by dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the sure side Ten ARGUMENTS against Pedo-Baptism Arg. I. Those that our Saviour commanded in his Commission to be baptized were such who were first discipled by the Word Infants are not discipled by the Word Ergo Infants according to Christ's Command in the Commission ought not to be baptized Arg. II. To believe and repent are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent Ergo They ought not to be baptized Arg. III. The Church of England saith Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and if Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Athenians in Answer to this Argument say The Church of England means only the Adult who are capable c. Reply They mean Infants also why else do they add Yes verily they that is Infants do perform it by their Sureties c. And how true that is I leave to all Men to judg Arg. IV. If there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is no Precept that one Infant was baptized then Infant-Baptism is unlawful But there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is not one Precept that one Infant was baptized Ergo Infant-Baptism is unlawful The Athenians answer Shew us a Precedent for our Wives communicating they mean to receive the Lord's Supper which we have answered already Arg. V. St. Paul declared or made known the whole Counsel of God St. Paul did not declare or make known Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is none of God's Counsel Arg. VI. The holy Scripture being a perfect Rule of Faith and Practice either by Precept or Example makes known every positive Law and Institution of Christ But the holy Scripture doth not make known neither by Precept for Example Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Institution of Christ Arg. VII That Doctrine and Practice that reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses can be no Ordinance of Christ But the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ The Athenian Society answer The Obscurity of the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism does not at all reflect on the
them to Circumcise their Male Children will not justify us nor free us in so doing from palpable Will-Worship Were there none among the Gentiles think you in the Old-Testament-time that were Believers and Godly Persons And if there were such I ask you whether they were to Circumcise their Children notwithstanding they abode without the Gate or Pale of the Jewish Church Nay I affirm that it was not the Duty of Melchisedec Lot nor Job because not Abraham's natural Off-spring nor bought with his Money had they never so many Sons to Circumcise one of them because they had no Command so to do Read Gen. 17.8 9 10 11. and you will find the express Command of God was to him and to every Male-Child of his or that was born in his House or bought with Money ver 11 12. 2. Because the Church-State of the Jews or that under the Old-Testament quite differs from the Gospel-Church State the Jewish-Church-Constitution was National the whole Nation of the Jews and every individual Person that proceeded from Abraham's Loins were admitted as Members of that Church under the Law or in Times of the Old-Testament and therefore his Infant-Seed were and might be admitted Members thereof But in the Times of the Gospel the Church is not National but Congregational Shew us what whole Nation or People none excepted were by Christ's Appointmen◠constituted as a Gospel-Church as the People of Israel or Jewish Nation were and you will gain a great Point Is it not evident all along in the Acts of the Apostles which gives an Account of the Nature and Manner of the Gatherings and Constitutions of the Gospel-Churches that they consisted of none but of such who professed Faith and Regeneration and so were either gathered out of the Jewish People or else out of the Nations of the Gentiles and consisted of no other but such who were called or did profess Faith in Jesus Christ Which if considered utterly overthrows not only what you speak here but all you speak afterwards about Children being once in Covenant under the Law 3. Whereas you say It is not the Old-Testament alone nor the New-Testament but both together that contains the Rule of our Faith and Practice I answer That though in part what you say here is true yet your Trumpet gives an uncertain Sound for in respect of Practice were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews which no ways in the least concern us or God's Spiritual Israel under the Gospel If you explain your self no better you may soon subvert the People and carry them away to Judaism with a witness nay and instead of Baptizing Children upon such a childish and erroneous Foot of Account make them think they ought to Circumcise them as some of late here in England were deluded to do Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws the New-Testament is our only Rule without the help of the Old Christ alone is our Law-giver and him and not Moses we are only to hear and hearken unto though as to matter of Faith the Old-Testament may be useful 〈◊〉 us in many respects and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature The Old-Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New which I might shew in many respects not only touching the Law of the Decalogue but also of Prayer singing God's Praises Fasting Days c. But for you to intimate in the case of Circumcision that the Old-Testament is a Rule of Practice or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership you strangely betray your Ignorance as will further appear hereafter For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite I shall evidently anon fully prove But so much as to your first Reason your Second shall be now examined 2. So little is said say you in the New-Testament about Baptizing Infants because the custom of Baptizing them was common and the practice constant in the Jewish Church at and before our Saviour's Time Whilst Circumcision was the Covenanting Sign Baptism was the Purifying Ceremony among the Jews for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church both Parents and Children were first Circumcised and then Wash'd in token of cleansing them from the filth of their Heathenism So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's Time Answ 1. 'T is a sign of a bad Cause when Men are forc'd to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove Pray was that Custom among the Jews of Baptizing Infants when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church commanded of God Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept or was it not one of their own Traditions who in their own Wisdom without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver devised that Ceremony possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism as your Predecessors in like manner without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ devised the Baptizing of Infants to wash away the Filth of Original Sin Doth not our blessed Saviour say that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions I do affirm it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the Great God nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old-Testament therefore it was a meer humane Tradition 2. Can any wise Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God think this a good Argument for Infant-Baptism I must tell you as I have some of your Brethren called The Athenian Society That a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one You were better plead thus The Romish Church without any Warrant from God's Word received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition and in some Councils early Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris Matrum Baptizandos esse negat Anathema esto Milev Can. 2. and Anathematized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors and General Councils who positively affirm you ought to baptize your Children Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former 3. But is it so indeed did our Saviour say nothing of Infant-Baptism or as you hint leave so little of it in the New Testament because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church What Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour tho I know it was their last Refuge when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a
says Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom These Maxims saith Du-Veil so agreeable to Reason whosoever intends to follow will never question but that they ought to be baptized if they have not received that Baptism ordained by Christ but only Rantism that is Sprinkling substituted in its room by a vulgar Use or rather Abuse Mr. Perkins saith if the external Form of Administration be observed a Person baptized by an Heretick must not be baptized again Nor is it to be doubted saith that famous Divine John Forbes but that they are again to be baptized who before have only received a vain Washing and not the true Sacrament of Baptism Sir To baptize a Person a Believer again who was baptized before we say is sinful and unlawful But since yours is no Baptism but meer Rantism I need say no more to this and that 't is so I shall first prove from the proper genuine and literal Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptiso that comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip signifies mergo immergo submergo obruo item tingo quod fit immergendo that is to immerge plunge under over-whelm as also to dip which is done by plunging We grant in a less proper or more remote Sense because things that are said to be washed are commonly dipped or plunged all over in Water it is put for washing Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Mark 7.4 You say pag. 52 as for the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes it signifies to dip or plunge sometimes to wash or cleanse citing ver 9 10. Yet we say it no where signifies to sprinkle You know the Greeks have another Word to express Sprinkling viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo as Heb. 9.19 and sprinkled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the Book and the People 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Heb. 9.13 Sprinkling the Vnclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1 Pet. 1.2 And sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like in many other Places And so that we dare modestly assert that no Greek Author of any Credit whether Heathenish or Christian has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling or used those Words promiscuously for as in these Scriptures we have cited Heb. 9.13 19 21 c. 't is always translated Sprinkling So there is not one Place in Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rantizo is rendred to baptize nor is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizo is rendred Sprinkling And whereas you say the word sometimes signifies Washing We say notwithstanding it does yet 't is such a Washing as is by Dipping or Plunging as I said before Thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders baptizo derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bapto ringo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifies saith he primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dip'd though in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of Washing You say Pag. 49. That we ought to distinguish betwixt that which is of the Essence of Baptism and that which only is accidental in Baptism the Word and Element say you are of the Essence of Baptism Answ We say with you that if Accidents or meer Accessories be wanting in Baptism yet there may be true Baptism notwithstanding but we assert that Dipping or Plunging belongs to the Thing Act or Essence of Baptism not an Accident but so essential that 't is no true Baptism if the Body is not dipped or plung'd into the Water therefore the Word and Element are not so the Essence of Baptism unless there be so much Water used as to cover the Body all over in it Rantizing is Rantizing and Baptizing is Baptizing they are two different things and the one will never be the other while the World stands And tho you dare affirm that the Child that is only Rantized i. e. Sprinkled is Baptized yet you cannot prove it and altho you do assert it and attempt to make it out yet a multitude of learned Writers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue do fully contradict you Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell you in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo item tingo quod fit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to die in colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Vossius says it implieth a washing the whole Body Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen Baptismus or Baptism to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal which the Septuagint or seventy Interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptiso to dip This Casaubon saith was the Rite of baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word baptizo sufficiently demonstrates which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person so it is not to swim upon the Superficies Baptism ought to be administred by plunging the whole Body into the Water The late famous and most learned in all the Oriental Tongues Dr. Du-Veil in his literal Explanation of the Acts Chap. 1.5 saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip as if it were to dye Colour and any Dyer will tell you if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped it is not dyed Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water or plunge under Water Mat. 3.6 Acts 8.38 for which also he quotes Casaubon Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius he saith withal that some would have it signify washing which sense Erasmus he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence for the proper Signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Clothes Salmasius saith That is not Baptism which they give to Children but Rantism Beza on Mat. 3.11 saith The word Baptizo signifies to dye by dipping or washing Selden saith That the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized to be void Ainsworth speaks to the same purpose Mr. Daniel Rogers says That a Minister is to dip in Water the Party baptized as the meetest Act the word baptize notes it For saith he the Greeks wanted not words to express any other Act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it what Resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling mark that all Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that it