persons denominated to go into and out of were once really and truly in Daniel was thrown into and taken up out of the Lyons den does not that shew plainly enough that he was in it the Swine ran into the sea were they not then in it I threw it into the fire saies Aaron of the molten image he made and there came out this calf will any say that the mettals he made it of were only warmed at the fire side they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and came up out of the water Iesus was baptized of Iohn into Iordan Mark 1.9 and when he was baptized went straitway out of the water Math. 3.16 can any man say that these two persons Iesus and the Eunuch of whom also Dr. Featley grants that they were baptized in the River were never in it at all but only wetted at the water side But that Philip and the Eunuch went into and were in the water and not unto it and at it only is evident by what I have hinted once already viz. in that it is said they were come unto the water before and therefore this must needs be into it or else either the Spirit Tautologized or they tautopoiâ—zed and came unto the water twice over but never into it at all Two more odd conceits and emblemes of the emptinesse of their apprehension in this point two a piece I mean in Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake I shall take notice of briefly in their fore-cited shuffles and so passe on to the rest First how peartly doth Mr. Cook squitch up A. R. with a question or two as if he would catechise him in that which he hath yet need to be further chatechisd himself Must they not go down to the water saith he if they would use it would the water come up to them in the Chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping In answer to which question I intreat Mr. Cook to ask his conscience this question whether if they had used the water only for sprinkling there was such necessity of going down to it as he seemes to intimate would not the water have come up to them in the Chariot sooner by far for sprinkling then for dipping yea verily both Philip and the Eunuch might have sat still in the Chariot and commanded water enough for sprinkling to be brought up to them thither in the hollow of the Chariot drivers hand if there were no bigger a vessel to bear it in but for dipping enough could never possibly be brought up into the Chariot at all Secondly he must saies he of Christ go down and come up from the water but here is not the least hint that John doused Christ over head or under water nay rather that conceit of yours saith he to A. R. is here confuted for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water but it is only implied that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it O how egregiously how shamefully doth this man forget and utter himself as if his senses were sodden into Trapizuntius his temper I would therfore ask him one or two questions viz. First whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth at all signifie to douse over head or under water or to plunge into water yea or no if not but I suppose he will not deny it so to do though he denies it to signifie onely plunging then I would have him to go to school again to the Lexicons which will teach him that it mainly signifies mergo immergo submergo and if lavo a bluo it is such an abâ—uâ—ion as is made immergendo but if it doth signifie to plunge dip or douse under water or overwhelm at all and I dare say he and every one else shall find it for all lavo quod fit immergendo to signifie a swilling in water altogether then I advise him to be think himself for I think he was asleep when he wrote this passage that there is at least some little hint that Iohn plunged Christ into the water when it s said Christ was baptized alias plunged dipt of Iohn into Iordan or washt in Iordan sith that pleases himself unless he put a difference between the active and the passive and will not yield it to be all one that Iohn baptized Christ and Christ was baptized of Iohn but though it be said Christ was baptized i. e. plunged of Iohn into Iordan overwhelmed in Iordan and that he came out of the water which is a shrewd sign that Iohn did not keep him there yet this is not plain and significant enough for him it seems unlesse he may have the framing of the spirits speech another way that is no whit plainer then the other neither viz. that Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water unlesse it may be said just so all that is said which yet is the same with that he would have to be said implies no more then that Christ went down unto the water and and came up again from it without being baptized so belike how A. Rs. opinion that Iohn doused Christ under water which is also mine and the very plainest expression the original can be read in is confuted by those texts Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.9.10 I can no more conceive then I can conceive that this expression viz. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and he baptized him is a confutation of him that supposes the Eunuch to be baptized at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Mr. Cooks marginals wherby he would have us learn t is like from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that their ascension was but from the water but I muse why he would not set down the words of the other Scripture Act. the 8.39 which expounds this and where t is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in latin ex and englished most naturally out of The second thing more observable in Mr. Blakes businesse runs thus First saith he howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose but a general concurrence of all examples See how Mr. Bls. heart misgives him and well nigh wavers within whether he had not best yield us these two examples for all his tugging for them before into our cause and therefore now falls for fear these two will side against him to serve himself against them another way i. e. by denying that the testimony of the spirit in these two examples is of any validity to us without a concurrence of all examples To which I say had Mr. Blake but one half inch of an example in the new testament of baby baptism how much he would make of it we may see by his cunning counterfeit examples for that thing out of scriptures that in truth are not onely far from
here in hand and the examples of the baptism of Christ Jesus and the Eunuch from which we shew how all men if at all ought of right to be baptized for though your Doctor disciples you not denying in the mean while but that baptizing in Rivers is lawful and mark that I pray for it sets our baptizing in rivers out of the reach of all your exceptions who snarle at it though I say he disciples you blindly into a belief that there is another baptism lawful besides that which Christ the Eunuch had and that dipping in rivers is not so necessary to baptism but that they may be accounted baptized who never were dipped after such a manner yet I tell you through whom he being dead yet speaketh that if by Rivers he means as we mean viz. any places where there is so much water as will well serve to dipp persons and so he must mean for else it might be but a pond for ought he knew where the Eunuch was dipped for it is called but a certain water in the way and if by that other lawful baptizing then that which is received in Rivers and places of much water he mean no other then rantizing at Fonts or as you have now contracted the businesse at Basons where there is water enough to sprinkle an 100. but not half water enough to baptize one you will find that at last to be so far off from being the same water baptism wherewith Christ and the Eunuch were baptized that it doth not come so neer it as it would do if it were as the Doctor calls it another baptism sith it is not so much as any baptism at all for another baptism such as Paedo-baptism would be if men did use it would be some kind of kin to the baptism of Christ they both meeting at least in the name of baptism yet so little that Christ will never own it for his but no baptism and such Paedo-rantism is is not so much as nomine tenus in the bare name of baptism any kin to Christ but that you falsly father it on him as his So that in truth our talk with you about another kind of baptizing then that of Christ and the Eunuch will be but impertinent unlesse you practised another neverthelesse for discourse sake and in resolution to the question as the Doctor states it in reference no question to his own practise viz. whether no other baptizing then that which Christ and the Eunuch had is lawful which is as much as to say whether another water baptism may not serve the turn as well or whether Christ hath not more water baptismes then one I answer no there is i. e. ought to be but one baptism Eph. 4. but one water baptisme one kind of baptisme of that one kind that must be the meaning for else there 's more i. e. more kinds of baptisme then one Hebr. 6.2 i. e. of Water Spirit Sufferings Supposing therefore your Baby-rantism to be that other baptism where note that himself confesses yours for that sure he means to be another baptizing then that Iohn and Philip dispensed supposing it I say to be that other baptism he pleads the lawfulnesse of yet sith Christ ownes but one even that alienation were enough to discard it as unlawful and none of Christs as well as its being none at all for new baptism and no baptism will speed both alike with him at last or if he mean onely that another manner of baptizing in water is lawful then he hath no enemy of us in that point save that we still shall differ about the subject for let any administrator take profest believers onely and baptize them i. e. overwhelm them in water and let him do it where he will yea how he will for me viz. backwards or forwards sidelong or headlong so he do it and they be not naked Rantist But still me thinks the main things the Dr. drives at remain unresolved for he tells you first that if it could be made appear that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water and were totally dipt yet thereby it appears not that all others must be baptized in such a manner Secondly that it cannot be made appear that either of them were dipt or plunged but onely washt in the River Baptist. No did I not shew you sufficiently above in what cases particular examples do prove what the general primitive practise was and may be argued from as from a general rule of what ever ought to be viz. when that or those particular practises are enjoined to all as well as to some in one and the same word of righteousnesse but specially when propounded as paterns and written as rules for our instruction and such are both these baptismes of Christ and the Eunuch which had never been recorded but for our learning and for examples sake unto us in which respect though he needed no baptism as we do to be a token to baptism for howbeit it was partly and perhaps primarily to fulfill all the righteousnesse of his own law as well as of Moses Law in his own person as he testifies it became him to do in Mat. 3. for he exacts and expects no more obedience to himself and the father either active or passive from us then he acted and yielded to the father first himself yet was he baptized partly also to the same end in order to which he did all things else that he either did or endured which was imitable and remaining for us to do after him as baptism is viz. that he might leave us who are so often charged to follow him an example that we should follow his steps Mat. 16.24 1 Pet. 2.21 Rantist This is true the matter of his baptism is imitable by us and we are to be baptized as well as he nor do I yet see reason as the Ranter seems to himself to do why Christ himself should be ingaged to baptism or the Eunuch either and our selves exempted from it but whether it be so needfull to be done just in that manner as you would make it to be I see no ground yet to believe that Baptist. Can you be baptized in a better manner think you then that wherein Iohn baptized Christ and Philip the Eunuch me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdome of those Primitive Administrators as to imagine such a thing and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse Or Secondly would you be baptized in not so low base contemptible ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they but in a more honourable more moderate more easie more tollerable more world winning more self pleasing more flesh favoring a manner or what is it you would have me thinks either that soure service of going down into a River or pond and being dipt or overwhelmed in water there which served our Lord Iesus Christ and that honourable Eunuch might serve you or else that easie sweet
service of sprinkling which you content your selves with might have served them one of the two for as they were required to be baptized no more then you so surely in no more unwelcome a way of baptism then your selves and they would not have so farre supererrogated as to have been baptized at all if it would have fulfilled righteousnesse in that point to have been sprinkled onely on the forehead Nay that would not for saies Christ when he came to Iohn and Iohn at first refused to baptize him Thus it becometh us to fulfill righteousnesse Thus i. e. not onely in this matter but in this manner but if you will needs perform this service more easily then Christ and the Eunuch did perform it onely as in sprinkling you do not and let be done in what manner or accidental form you please and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places we stand not on those nicities though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as modern were and are so baptized let it be done in a Cistern so it be totally and truly done yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in water by the other and then let it be done in a bason if you please As for the other thing the Dr. saies viz. that there is no proof at all of the dipping or plunging Christ and the Eunuch but onely of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon before he asserted such an absurdity as this if he had he might have found cujus contrarium that there is proof enough that they were dipped or plunged in the alledged texts but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way for the very thing that is related of them both is that they were dipt plunged or washed by dipping t is said of Christ plainly Mat. 3.15 that he came to Iohn to this very end that he might be baptized by him and verse 16. being baptized he ascended presently from the water and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8.38 they descended down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and ver 39. when they were come up or ascended out of â—he water Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world that are skilled so farre in the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense and signification of it in any Lexicon which is to dip plunge put under water overwhelm with water primarily and secondarily to wash or clense by dipping or dousing whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping and plunging or washing by dipping and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River I marvel to what purpose if not to be dipt there he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized which in plain English is dipt or overwhelmed in the River mark his words in the river also that such baptism of men especially in the hotter clâ—mates both hath been is and may be lawfully used and yet for all that denies either of them to have been dipt or plunged in the River or that any one may now lawfully be served so I marvell much what they did in the river before they came out of it o quoth he they were washt in the river and yet not so as by dipping neither good Sirs let us examine this a little for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means besides this of dipping or how any other washing was performed First to be sure it was not by sprinkling which yet is all in all among you and that for these reasons First because it s most certain that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no such signification as to sprinkle neither is it rendred any where Aspergo in any Lexicon or any translator of the testament whatsoever Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all neither is there any thing in the world save as I said before by sluts and slovens so much as undertaken to be washt onely by that act of sprinkling much lesse by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling as it may be put therby into some kind of capacity to be clensed by rubbing it while the water is on it and that is farre from your practise too but not half so well as when it is swilled in water and in a long while a garment may be all covered colored and as it were died by sprinkling as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last partly by the sprinkling of peoples blood upon him and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press where there are as there are usually in wars garments rould in blood and blood up to the horse bridles to have his raiment all stained and his vesture as it were died and dipt in blood but all this is hyperbolicall locution and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do who because there is not enough neer hand fetch a proof for sprinkling fourty miles off which yet proves nothing when it comes for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince but this is not such a deep dying as is by dipping Thirdly it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River meerly to be sprinkled if that were the onely businesse they might well have been dispenst with from descending into the water but sith they were not it shews that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them and if not them I know not why it should excuse the best of us though men do much in the service of God in vain when they do things that man doth but God never did require at their hands yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more then sprinkling and so we must think of the Eunuch also of whom we have little reason so to think for great folks and nobles such as he was love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh and no more then needs must be in this point of baptism if at all they stoop to it for he need not have hindred himself so long in his journey nor diseased himself so much in his body as to have descended out of his chariot and after into the water but might much rather have sent Philip or his servant to have fetcht so much water in the hollow of his hand as would have served very well to have sprinkled him if no more then so had been
any way in ones armes is easie enough to the dispenser when the disciple is once gon down with him into the water and yields himself to be laid along in it by his hands but conceive what part of a man you will except the hands which you will not for shame say is the onely member to be baptized and I le say hic labor hoc opus est t is a matter of no smal difficulty to dip meerly that for if you will dip a mans head and shoulders onely in the River you must poise and posture him Archipodialiter with his heeles upwards if his feet and legs onely you must first at least lift him up wholly and carry him in clearly from the ground which kind of dipping men in Rivers as t is more toilsome surely then that totall dipping which Iohn and Philip used so let him take it who is minded to make himself more moil then needs for our parts we have a way wherein to do it with more ease and to do it more sufficiently too then by the halves As for the other of the Dr. quibbles viz. First for the rest of them are elsewhere removed That the Israelites were baptized in a cloud not dipt into it Resp. nor sprinkled neither but onely metaphorically baptized Secondly that Zebedees children were baptized with blood the baptism wherwith Christ was baptized and yet neither he nor they dipt into blood Resp. Both he and they were baptized with sufferings shame and contempt and affliction and all misery in the world for truths sake i. e. penè yea penitus submersi sunk ore head and ears in deep waters of the proud going over their souls and overwhelmed with the waves of the wickeds wrath prevailing against them for a time and that 's the bloody baptism he speaks of not litterally the sprinkling of their own blood upon them when they were slain for Iohn suffered otherwise but his blood was not shed at all Thirdly that the fathers speak of the baptism of tears but no dipping in that baptism Resp. we mind not what your fathers spake hyperbolically but what our fathers spake in truth and plain sobernesse in this case It was therefore a totall dipping certainly which was then used and by which Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the water and not any other kind of washing there as the Dr. dreames which is also evinced yet a little further by this forasmuch as though the Eunuch was gone down with Philip into the water yet he was not said to be baptized till Philip had dipt him therein for if the wetting or washing or dipping of some parts of the body onely might passe for sufficient baptism then as soon as Philip had conducted the Eunuch into the River he might have led him out again as a person sufficiently baptized for he was washt already and dipt so far as to the Ancles but the businesse was not done though the Eunuch was in the River till he had baptized him thereinto Rantist Give me leave though to put in one thing by the way and that is this t is a question to me for all your confidence whether Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water at all or no the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon you ground it doth not alwayes signifie into but sometimes unto and why may it not in this place be thus read viz. they went down both of them unto the water both Philip and the Eunuch Baptist. No it cannot for they came unto the water before and so it s expressely spoken in the text ver 36. where its said and as they went on their way they came unto a certain water t is probable some foord or brook that they were to pass through and the Eunuch said see here is water what hindereth me to be baptized if they were come unto the water already as the word saies they were they could not be said properly except they had gone from it first to come unto the water again after they were come unto it therefore the next motion was into it without question yea the very Dr. himself with whom we now deal confesses no lesse then this that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptism of men hath been used if then they were used to be baptized in the water they went down first certainly into it not unto it onely for then they could not be well said to be baptized in it As therefore to that other quirk whereby the Dr. seeks to evade all baptizing in water and pleads for a baptism with water onely viz. that the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly is put after the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not in but with and is so translated and this is one of Mr. Cooks Crotchets too p. 12. of his book the Drs own grant quite cashieres it while he saies that Iohn and Philip baptized Christ and the Eunuch in the river for though I deny not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be and sometimes is truly enough translated with especially in Rev. 19.21 the place quoted by Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook who both strive to enervate A. Rs argumentation from that praeposition which is used Mat. 3.7 Mark 1.8 where Iohn saies I indeed baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in water saith A. R. with water saith the Dr. and Mr. Cook yet if it be granted as it is by the Dâ— to be in the River then it cannot be denied but that it is in water however and so the Dr. thwarts himself in that Neither is there such inconsistency in my conceit between baptizing in water and with water as that either this or that should be held exclusively of the other for they rather necessarily stand both together yet so as that the advantage stands still by it on our hand for whoever baptizes at all yea he that baptizeth in water baptizeth with water also and likewise he that will baptize wiâ—h water must necessarily baptize in water too i. e. obruere overwhelm or plunge persons over head and ears therein or else if we go to the truest signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reality he baptizeth not at all Let it be rendred therefore baptize in water or with water which you will it s all of a price to us sith the one of these includes the other And whereas the Dr. and Mr. Cook both make such a matter of the words that follow viz. He shall baptize you with the holy spirit and fire the Dr. pleading that the Apostles were baptized with fire not dipt in to it and Mr. Cook that one may as well say Christ baptized in the holy spirit and in fire or put the party into the holy spirit and fire as that John baptized in water the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being there also I answer we may as well say so indeed for t is a truth as well
the forenamed books that are extant specially that of Mr. Baxter whom I know to be a very able and godly man who hath in mine and I think in all discerning mens Apprehensions so sollidly disproved and clearly confuted your way of dipping that few or none of those that see what he saies in that point will be of your mind and follow your fashion therein for whereas you say that dipping was the custome in the first times and therefore go about to seduce men into the belief of it because it s said that the Eunuch went down into the water and that John baptized in Aenon because there was much water there he replies that is a thing never proved by any and that the Jaylor was baptized in the night in his own house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and that the Eunuch might well be said to go down into the water for the Country was mountanous and the brooks in the bottoms and that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water is found by Travellers to be a small brook which a man might almost step over and much more that gainsaies much of what you have said is in the 135. page of his book which I shall expect your answer to but if you please le ts see what you can say to this first Baptist. I shall very freely speak to any thing which hath not yet been spoken to in particular and to Mr. Baxters exceptions in that particular rather then any other because he is most noted in those parts were he lives and also in the examination of his Exceptions I shall have the more hint to take notice of such reliques and broken pieces as remain yet unspoken to as the gainsayings of the rest in this point for he seems to me to have gathered them up there and to have epitomized those mens matter as iâ— were into a fardel of fewer words excepting the two last grand Arguments of Mr. Cook against dipping one of which Doctor Featley affronts us with in the title page and both of which are more sparingly spoke to yet covertly touched and tacitly touched upon by Mr. Cook and those Mr. Baxter rather comments on at large and makes I cannot say a fairer but a fouler a falser and far more miserable improvement of then any of the rest do This he professes to be the businesse of his book p. 13. viz. To use the proofs that others make use of in some newer kind of way confessing that few have improved their Arguments as they might have done nor mannaged them in the most forcible way and not to medle much with those arguments that others have fully mannaged Yet by his leave he meddles so much with the Arguments that others almost every one makes use of that he makes some of them the worse again he mars many a one with his mendall Mannagement It is not to use many Arguments saith he but to drive home a few Yet he uses many more then any one else viz. three capital ones to prove infants to be disciples twenty cardinal ones to prove them members to which Nos numeri sumus a number of others are subservient and subordinate two more in proof of babisme besides eight in proof of no body knows what all these in his Disputative piece of book so that for ought I find Et sinon prosint singula multa juvant his genius stood more to numerositie than dextery in handling a few unlesse by few he mean only the three main Mediums as Capital and Cardinal to the rest the first of which but especially the second in tot ramos ramulos ramusculos se ipsum Rantizavit hath stragled it self into so many small branches that indeed it hangs not handsomly together within it self and indeed the whole is but a certain three legged stool which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain Worships and seâ—vings of God after the Precepts of men which if they never be broken by any hand writing responsibly to them yet are so rotten that they will wear out within a while of themselves but be they few or many he might well say he would drive home a few for verily above all the rest those two I speak of viz. wherein dipping is called Murther and adultery he drives on beyond the bounds of modesty truth sense and reason as far I dare say to the full as God would suffer the Devill to direct and drive him For my part I never saw Mr. Baxters face that I know of but I see too much of his spirit in his latest labor in which if the spirit of God had been his leader he would not have led him into that confident utterance of such utter untruths not onely in point of doctrine but matter of fact too now and then let his parts let his piety you talk on be more then his parts if it will God once left as honest as holy as worthy a one as he can be in punishment of a people whom he had a mind to plague for their dotage on him to be stirred up by Satan to do things inconvenient and unseemly 1 Chron. 21.1 and so it seemes to me he hath left Mr. Baxter as Godly as he is or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities such rank venomous viperous ulcerous fluxes of folly flesh fierceness fiction falseness firery invectives to the madding of the very magistracy if it would be any longer blinded by the bawlings of a mistaken ministry against many a dear Saint of God against a people precious to God though base in his eyes against thousands that are as intimate with God and more privy to his will in point of baptism then himself that thus he does shall appear by and by at present see what little verity and less validity is in that first viz. that it is not yet proved by any that dipping was the primitive custome when yet it s proved if not by many yet at least by two of our way viz. A. R. and Mr. Blackwood and that so sufficiently that if Dr. Featley and Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake did not decline them and if they had been minded to mark and seriously to search the Scriptures and not to dazle mens eyes with all the fiddle-faddles they could find to fling before them and to satisfie themselves at slender rates in the present custome rather then cry out for a change sith it is the present custome the Scriptures they hint on are so plain taking the words thereof not in feigned forced figurative and forreign but in their own prime direct native ordinary proper and rational sense and signification that he who runs may read no lesse then this that dipping yea total was the way wherein baptism was then dispensed but if we had not such proof of it extant from our own party yet t is so
further as to limit these Scriptures that relate the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch so as to force them to no further signification then this to and unto and from the water as if they went not into it at all Rantist Nay not so neither by your leave for the words that follow which relate that the Swine were choaked in the waters shew plain enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though we will not allow it the sense of into Mark 1 9. must needs be Englished into here and that the English word into though we allow it to signifie no more then to or unto Acts the 8. verse 38. yet signifyes that the Swine were really not at onely but in the waters for how else could they be choaked there Baptist. How why man t is as possible a creature may be choaked with water powring down his throat yea and a little more possible then t is for any Creature to be said truly not Synechdochically to be baptized by sprinkling or powring water only upon his face and yet t is sure enough that this choaking of the Swine was otherwise then so and no other then by an overwhelming in water forasmuch as it is said they ran down INTO the Lake and were choaked Luke 8.33 choaked IN the Waters Matth. 8.32 IN the Sea Mark 5.13 and yet t is as sure to me who dare not suppose the spirit to speak nonsence as they do in my mind who say that this baptizing Act. 8.38 39. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9 10. was though with water also as their choaking was and therefore Dr. Featley will get nothing by pleading for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify with yet not as truly in the water also i. e. by an overwhelming therewith forasmuch as t is said Act. 8 38 39. they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized Anglice dippt or overwhelmed or if you will have washed washed him by dipping for as dipping and swilling is a true washing so by washing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished by it is meant neither infusing nor sprinkling but that washing onely that is by the way of dipping and I testify to their faces that would fain make a baptizm of rantism that t is more easy to choak then to baptize a man without overwhelming But Mr. Cook foreseeing no doubt what absurdity must needs be committed in granting the words to be read as they be translated viz. they went down into the water and ascended out of the water and yet denying that they were at all in the water and being sensible also surely how it might be noted as a piece of paultry and partiallity to allow the sense of into to the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 8.38 and yet so deeply to disown and deny that sence of into to the same preposition in Mark 1.9 as he does he is more wary then either Mr. Blake or Mr Baxter in that particular and will not by any meanes read it as the other do viz. they went down into the water nor yet as t is in the text they came up out of the water but runs it over more smoothly in a phrase sutable to his own purpose viz. they went down to the water and came up from the water but I hope he'el condescend freely to be corrected for the same fault and with the same rod of reproof with which himself hath corrected others or else his partiallity will so appear as to deny him to have any of that wisdome which is from above Iames 3 the last wherefore as he checks A. R. most sharply for offering to alter and vary from the wisdome of interpreters so as to English the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in which they thought good to English with p. 12 in these words viz. I would demand of you whether you think that our Translators and most or all others who have englished it with knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as your self So I must take the boldnesse sith our Translators and most or all others but himself do read Act. 8.38 thus they went down both into the water and ascâ—nded out of the water to demand of him in his own words to A. R. whether he think that our Translators and most or all others who english those passages by into the water knew not how to render the originall in its proper signification as well as himself As for the other two viz. Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter they foreseeing no doubâ— it would be no safe handsome acceptable nor advantagious way to take upon them as they saw Mr. Cook did to correct the Translators and mend their constructions they are more wary then Mr. Cook in that particular and so thus incidit in Scillam qui vult c. to decline the Rock of insolence they drop into the gulf of nonsence owning the original to be rightly rendred and reading them according to that rendition viz. into the water and up out of the water yet denying those phrases they descended into the water and came up out of the water to sound out any more then Mr. Cook saies the Greek words do viz. to and from the water But I must intreat those two Parallels in that opinion to consider what imparalleld improprietie it is to expresse no more then going to the water side and comming from it again by these phrases viz. going down into the water and comming out of the water for they imply necessarily a being in the water and not only at it he descended into hell is more then being at the brinks of hell he descended into the lower parts of the Earth is more then bare being on the superficies of the Earth and so he descended into the water is necessarily more then being at the side the situation of the water below in the bottoms will not salve the absurdity of such expression concerning being at the water only and returning for he descended to it and ascended from it is enough for that but to expresse that only by into it and out of it is superfluous and superlative simplicity whatsoever element or place in any element we are said to go down into and come up out of we wâ—re once in or else we are fowlly belied had it been said of Philip and the Eunuch they went down both to the water or into the bottoms they descended into the vallies where the water was as Mr. Cook prates by a Periphrasis and when they came up out of the valley or bottom from the water then it had shewed somwhat like the sense these men like best and long to have it in but into the water and out of the water expresse not only a bare being in the bottomes where the water was but in the water also for whatsoever place or element is put after the prepositions into and out of is a place or element that the
ground enough to believe they were all baptized as well as the rest yea Mr. Blake believes it and in the same way as the rest whose baptism with the manner of it is expressed for why should others be baptized in rivers because they were multitudes and yet these multitudes be exempted from that and be dispached with so small a matter as sprinkling therefore the not mentioning t was done is an argument as good as nothing and whereas he saies there is no mentioning of fetching in great store of waters t is true that we never read at all of water fetcht to the persons but of persons going to the water we do though he saies we do not for even Lydia her self and her family which is no other then his own instance were gone out to a river side to hear Paul preach where being converted they were baptized that being the wonted place of preaching and praying no doubt in order to the conveniency of baptizing before ever the Apostles were so much as invited to her house Secondly of this stamp also is Mr. Blakes conceit concerning the baptism of Paul who because the particular place or sourse of water wherein he was baptized is not expressed imagins that he must needs be baptized within doors and no where else and so consequently not by dipping but some other way whereas there is neither necessity nor probability of his being so but rather evidence if not from the very place yet at least from what Mr. Blake saies that it was otherwise For First it seemes to me that Paul was not to be baptized within but to go some where or other to the dispatching of that businesse wherefore else should Ananias rub him up to it as he doth in such wise as this and now why tariest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins c. Which as it Argues it was a service Paul was tardy to and I know no mans flesh forward to it further then by faith it is overpowred specially in such a weak case as Paul it seemes was in at that present so it was as who should say why art thou so undisposed to thy duty in that particular make hast and linger not longer about it but come away and be baptized now had aspersion or infusion been only the work Paul could not have bin so backward as to need such sharp exsuscitation when once convinced for there 's no such great unpleasantness to the flesh as to engender any aversenesse unto that but that Paul was more tardy then he should have been and why he should be so I know not if among the other impediments at least he was not sensible of some tediousnesse in the service was uttered in a publique exercise once from that very text Acts. 22.16 by a friend of yours and mine now deceased at his sprinkling one of mine own children in which Sermon the doctrine was this and a good doctrine it was and very truly grounded upon the Example of Pauls dulnesse in that Scripture and further cleered by Lots loitering in Sodom viz. That by reason partly of the remainder of corruption in the best presenting evill when they should do Good and partly the great grand enemy of our salvation Satan opposing himself to all good the best that have even renounced their vile life have an indisposition to holy duties and have need of excitation and stirring up Again had he not either been to be baptized within by dipping or been to receive within an aspersion or infusion upon his face only he need not to have bin bid to arise or stand up in order to either of these so much as from the present posture he was in for if he were then sitting face rantism might have been done as well and if he were lying down which in his then case is the more likely of the two much better then in a standing posture in which t is not so easie to dispence a pouring upon the face least pouring so little as you do it prove rather a Rantism then a baptism or pouring so much as the baptizer should do on the disciple if he will needs do it by pouring i. e. till he hath buried him in baptism or wholly covered him with water in resemblance of the spiritual he make way for his bodily buriall in the earth also Whereas therefore Mr. Blakâ— saies thus viz. that though the Eunuch coming to the River might saie here 's waâ—er what hinders why I should not be dipped yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Iudas his house in straight street in Damascus or the Iaylor at his Prison in Phillippi I say it is very likely it was so indeed that they had not any Ponds or Rivers in their houses to dip in but will it follow therefore that they were baptized in the house without dipping no such matter by Mr. Bls. favour but rather that sith there was not water enough for their dipping within doors as there was for the Eunuchs dipping without therefore they went out to some water or other that they might be baptized i. e. dipped conveniently as the Eunuch was and that may possibly not be farre for many a one that hath not brooks nor ponds in their houses yet have them oft not far from their doors and that Iudas had not so who can tell but whether he had or no the matter is not great sith he lived not far from much water however whilest he was living in Damascus for were not Abana and Parphar Rivers of Damascus though not for Namans disease yet for dipping full as good as Iordan it self and all other waters of Israel Thirdly See how miserably Mr. Baxter is mistaken he would make men believe if they would be such Idiots as to take his single word for it against the expresse word of God that in the Countrey of the Iaylor water was so scarce that he could not be dipped over head whereas oh that Mr. Baxter would see how the Lord hath left him to discover his too hasty galloping over the Sripture it is related that a River â—an just by the same City of Phillippi where he dwelt even that by the side of which Paul preached and prayer was wont to be made where also Lidy 1 and her houshold were converted and baptized and all this no further off then in the very same chapter where the Iaylors baptism is spoken of viz. Acts 16.13 14 15. I perceive this scarcity of water is made a mighty Argument among you against dipping some saying that water for dipping was not to be had in the houses of the disciples that were baptized therefore they received no more then some aspersion or infusion within some speaking as though water for dipping were not to be had in whole Cities and Countreys where the disciples dwelt thus doth not onely Mr. Baxter who denies a sufficiencie of water for dipping over head to be in that Country where the Jaylor dwelt but
it that baptism was not only by dipping then I hope we shall have your answer to them too and the rather because they are of some weight and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them First saith he if the way of baptism were only dipping then the Baptizer must put the baptized over head in the water and after a space receive them up again otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8. Baptist. I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water and yet say so shortly after we find no more then their going to the water and from it again how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it that go but to and from it I have shewed already but t is more strange to me that he should so far forget himself as to say we read of no such thing in Scripture as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water or taking them from thence for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan and in Iordan and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Philip baptized him and that Christ came up out of the water and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water if all this be not partly an expression partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of then I shall never trust my spectacles more for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan if he was not dipped overwhelmed put under the water was he sprinkled into Iordan and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him after they were both gone down into the water if he did not put him under it did he no more then sprinkle or pour a few drops of water on him either of those might have been done as easily and more if they had never gone into the water yea if they had never went so much as to the water at all and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water is it not necessarily implyed and therefore what need it be expressed that Iohn and Philip who put them under the water did take them up again after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under by the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as to ly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies further that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one iâ— the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of unclothing for that end nor yet of
Iesus not one jot of Philips sermon unto him is set down but the next newes we hear is this v. 36. that coming to a certain water in the way the Eunuch desired to be baptized saying see here is water what hinder why I may not be baptized doth not all this plainly import howbeit what Philip preached to the Samaritans and the Eunuch is not extant expressely in any particulars thereof yet he preached the ends and â—uses of bapâ—ism to them and prest the practise thereof upon them how else could they have known it why else did they both do and desire it we see then how the first preachers of the Gospel Ananias Philip Peter Paul are said all along to preach Christ and Jesus and the things concerning the kingdome of God and the name Jesus Christ and the word of the Lord and peace by Jesus and things that we must do and that are appointed for us to do and what we ought to do and the things that were commanded them of God to command us in his name and yet preacht baptism still as well as faith repentance and salvation and so he seems to me to this day to preach Christ but by the halves that preaches salvation by Christ faith in Christ and not baptism in the name of Christ for remission of sins And as this doctrine of water baptism was thus universally preached in Christs name as his will concerning those that were converted and discipled in obedience punctually to Christs Commission in that kind Mat. 28.18.19.20 in those primitive ages of the Gospel so was it as universally imbraced and obeyed by them that were made disciples in those dayes not onely before but also after Christ crucified for as in the dayes before Iohn the baptist was beheaded and before Christ crucified all those multitudes of disciples which by each of them were made by teaching were universally baptized either by Iohn confessing their sins or by Christs disciples who dispenst in Christs name for he dispenst not himself in Enon or Iordan or some other places that were convenient Mat. 3.5.6 Iohn 3.22.13.4.1.2 so even long after Christ crucified raised and ascended were the people that were discipled and converted to the faith before ever they joined in visible Church-fellowship in one body in breaking of bread and prayers baptized all without exception for as it s said Act. 2.38.40.41.42 of that first Church of the Jews or Hebrews to whom that Epistle was after written they were bid to be baptized every one of them so as many of them as did gladly receive the word of the Lord i. e. as repented and imbraced the Gospel were baptized and then continued in the Apostles doctrine who surely taught them all the six first principles of the oracles or holy things of God at that time Heb. 5.12.6.1.2 and what more they saw occasion for for with many more other words then those that are recorded did Peter then exhort that people v. 40. and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers so it s said 1 Cor. 12.13 of the whole Church of Corinth in way of sacramental metonymy whereby that is very familiarly spoken of the thing signified which can be spoken properly onely of the outward sign et retro by one spirit we are all baptized into one body Iewes or Gentiles bond or free none excepted and have been all made to drink into one spirit Yea as these Churches in Iudea Ierusalem and Corinth were all baptized before bailt up in a body so which of all the Churches were not to whom the Apostles directed afterward those several Epistles All the Romans to whom Paul wrote were baptized all the Galatians were baptized the Ephesians which at first were but 12 disciples that imbraced the truth were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus the Colossians were baptized the Philippians were baptized as we see by Lydia and the Iaylor and all those that believed with them which was the beginning of the Church at Philippi and that the Thessalonians were not baptized is more then bruitish to imagine for surely Paul and Silas that went immediately thither from Philippi where the Iaylor and Lydia and many more were baptized had not got a new doctrine of no-baptism to preach before they came to Thessalonica nay it is evident by the Jews accusation of them Act. 17 6. that what doings and disturbance they were occasion of through their preachings and baptizings at Philippi the same they were by the same means no causes but occasions of at Thessalonica therefore of them say they these that have turned the world upside down are come hither also yea Paul himself hints that to us 1 Thess. 2.2 that after they had suffered and were shamefully intreated at Philippi they yet were bold to speak to the Thessalonians the Gospel of God the same Gospel sure that they preacht at Philippi for what he did and ordained in one Church the same he did and ordained in all the Churches 1 Cor. 16.1 with much contention By all which foregoing considerations the Minor of the third main argument above is cleared which assure baptism to be commanded to all without exception therefore a duty from which we are not exempted What Christ commanded to be taught and observed not only in and among all nations of the world but also in all ages and generations thereof even to the very end the same is not ad placitum but de jure not at mens own pleasure but of right to be taught and observed as Christs will and their duty in all nations to this very day Buâ— Christ commanded Baptism in water to be taught and observed not onely in and among all Nations of the world but also in all ages and generations therof even to the end Ergo Baptism in water is not at mens own pleasure but of right to be taught and observed as Christs will and their duty in all nations to this very day The Minor which only needs proving needs none neither to him that will but observe how plain it is to every mans understanding in the text For first if baptism be to be taught to and observed as duty among all nations and by every creature therein that hears and believes as t is clear it is both here for teach them saies Christ i. e. all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and did he not command them in the very verse above the observation of that administration of baptism and also Mark 16.15.16 where he bids that the Gospel of salvation be from thenceforth tendred on terms of faith and baptism to all the world to every creature capable of being preach to then of necessity in all nations and generations to the worlds end for all nations were not then extant but many nations are risen since that the world then knew not all the world every creature was not in actual being
I freely do and every one must grant and therefore what is spoken by you in proof of that might well have been spared also that the bare submission to that outward dispensation of water is not that which simply of it self and abstract from the inward i. e. the answer of a good conscience doth save us must needs be granted also but what of this will it therefore follow that it is to be omitted and not made use of at all in reason surely it cannot be so assertter for as the bare outward hearing of the word without doing it will do us no good but rather hurt yet that outward hearing is an ordinance at no hand to be neglected but necessarily to be used in order to the doing of the word without which we had better never hear for we shall not save but deceive our own souls Iam. 1.22 and shall perish in the end Mat. 7.26 and as bare outward fellowship in breaking of bread is so far from saving that we eat and drink judgement to our selves unlesse withall we discern the Lords body and be pattakers of the thing signified and yet that outward service is needful to be performed so though water baptism doth not save us ex opero operato and unlesse it be answered within by the answer of a good conscience yet what consequence is there from hence that it need not be done at all neither doth Peter altogether exclude the putting away the filth of the flesh as not to be practised and place the business of baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience as you here say he doth but rather places the baptism that saves in both these not in either without the other yea in that he saies thus baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience he includes the baptism with water as that which is to be done but not to be rested in as available to salvation without the other Ranterist There is no man sent by Christ to baptize so that were I never so willing to be baptized yet there is none to baptize me for though it should be granted which neverthelesse is false and cannot be evinced out of the Scripture that the Apostles were sent to baptize with water yet this doth not warrant others to do so likewise unlesse they can prove that whatsoever was spoken to the Apostles was spoken to them and by this account they must go into all Nations and make them disciples having first stayed at Ierusalem till they have been indued with power from on high for both things are injoined to the Apostles by Christ. Baptist. That the Apostles were not sent to baptize in water in such a sense as Paul saies 1 Cor. 1. Christ sent not him to baptize in i. e. to dispense that ordinance necessarily with their own hands so but that when they had preacht and converted persons to the faith others might help â—o administer it I granted above but that they were not sent to preach the Gospel i. e. the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins among all Nations as far as they were capable and that baptism in water was not a part of that Gospel ministration which was committed to them to command all Nations to observe and to see dispensed on all that should be discipled therein this I utterly deny and the contrary to it is so clearly evinced in the word that he that runs may read it for either Christ commanded them Mat. 28. to teach baptizing not with the spirit but in water or else Peter miserably mistook his commission that in obedience thereto presses 1000â— of people at once enquiring what they should do to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus promising onely that so doing they should not from him surely but from Christ receive the holy spirit Act. 2.39 and also concerning a people that were already baptized with the spirit asks who can forbid water why these may not be baptized commanding them who were ready to hear no more then what was commanded him of God to deliver to them Act. 10.23 to be baptized in the name of the Lord and if by the Apostles you mean the eleven onely that were within hearing when Christ spake as t is to him that is not afraid of cold water undoubtedly true that these were so as undeniable it is that others were sent to baptize in water as well as they viz. Philip that baptized the Samaritans and Eunuch Paul that baptized so many of the Corinthians as he did and Ananias that baptized him or else they made and preacht a Gospel of their own heads another Gospel and not Christs which if they did they made more hast then good speed to themselves for such as teach for doctrines of Christ their own traditions and run before they are sent do both worship God in vain and shall neither of them have any thank from him for their labour and that what was spoken to those 11 Apostles themselves as to the point of baptism was spoken also to us even to such in all Nations as being once discipled are after that enabled from God to preach the Gospel is no lâ—sse evident then all the rest Matth. 28.19 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you among which water baptism was one v. 18. and whereas you say upon this account we must go into all nations and make them disciples who doubts but that t is our duty so to do to the utmost of our power and they could do no more for that 's commanded and baptism too to be observed to the end but for their staying at Ierusalem till they were indued with power from on high and beginning first to preach there that did concern them only as a special circumstance for that time not pertaining to the substance of the service nor required of all the Apostles themselves and administrators of baptism then for if it had Ananias Philip Paul began at the wrong end of their businesse when one of them began to preach the Gospel at Samaria the other at Damascus not going up to Ierusalem first Gal. 1.17 and if not of them why it should be of us I know not Neverthelesse as to the substance of that command I grant that every one is to tarry till he be indued more or lesse with power i. e. boldnesse wisdome knowledge utterance resolution self denyall c. before he goes out as Christs Messenger to preach to the nations but being so indued and furnished must out for ought I know among all people as he hath ability and occasion beginning at the place where he is and proceeding to spread the Gospel afar off if he find not work enough neerer home Ranterist Could it be proved as it cannot that there are some sent to baptize yet even then will it not follow that I and such as I am ought to be
required Fourthly it had been stark non-sense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1.9 he was baptized of Iohn in Iordan if he were not dipt or if by baptized we must understand sprinkled for he was sprinkled into the River is as absurd and unelegant English as to say he was dipt into the rain Secondly it was not by powring water upon them that Christ and the Eunuch were washed this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to as that and that only which ever he saw dispensed in all his life as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling which yet is your onely wonted way I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism as many a one besides him is who with him puts it off thus that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling but powring of water upon the infans for my part saith he p. 134. I may say as Mr. Blake that I never saw a child sprinkled but all that I have seen baptized had water powred on them and so were washed And Mr. Blake saies p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men who perceiving the perverse practise of sprinkling infants summoned and sub paena'd to come to a trial by the word of God do disguise it out of its old name that it hath born with content and without controul for ages and generations and doth still among many of their own party till now they begin to see it more strictly then ever enquired after and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christs command and shroud it under another name whereby to secure it so that now they know not nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world No Sirs what never that is strange what parts of Christendome have you lived or do you live in I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants my self about some seven or eight years not only in several parishes but in several parts of our English Christendome far distant yet so far as I remember I did never see till I came acquainted with the people whom you nick name Anabaptists any thing done by any in that particular that might well bear any other name then that of sprinkling yea I know where a dispensation of baptism as t was called was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man that the father himself was so far in doubt whether there was so much as sprinkling or any water at all dropt from the fingers of the Dispenser that he doubted a while after whether he do still or no I know not whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better the Gentleman I speak of if ever he read this will surely remember both what and what Child of his I mean Mean while what more then sprinkling was ever done by my self or any other in that place or any other wherever I have been I cannot call to mind neither do I know that ever till of late that men see advantage lost by it in this controversy the name of sprinkling was denyed to what was done in all places of England save such where the manner was and very newly is upon sight of the falsenesse of the way of sprinkling to dippe a little more then the tippe of their Noses Besides though the Rubrick did prescribe dipping as the onely right form wherin baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child yet what kind of powring was universally used by them who never used dipping is evident by the Rubrick if we will give it leave to expound it self for in the Catechism thereof which is not unknown to Mr Blake and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England this question viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptized is dipped or SPRINKLED with it in the name c. So that howbeit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water as you do yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration which I suppose was in the bishops reign done the like though now happily they make a little better measure or at least seen the like at some time or other but me thinks they cannot chuse but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other a poor piece of pouring I say when their hands onely being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infants face that it might be wetted a little with what fell guitatim from their fingers ends And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen in respect of which I may say the Priest that administred all commonly by book and wiâ—hin book did act beside book and without book in that service for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water as the most expedient way at least and not so much as to dispence by powring water unlesse in case of weaknesse onely yet he made bold having an inch given him to take an ell i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weaknesse only to forbear dipping altogether and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make powring suffice instead of dipping at such time onely wherein dipping might not be safely used to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also and in this manner I am perswaded the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians daies and after who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sicknesse in case the sicknesse proved unto death for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipt for ease sake to the flesh and such like self ends made some slender slabber to stand for baptism altogether And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident enough to any save such as seeing see not and have ears and hear not yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled yet there are Divines famous in their account who own it some of which seem to speak as if they never heard of such a thing as powring of water in the dispensation of baptism but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of witnesse besides
several other Catachistical composures that I have seen that specialy of Mr. Ball a man not only vindicated by Mr. Marshall but much magnified by Mr. Baxter by the titles of Rutherfords second excellent Mr. Ball judicious Mr. Ball no Dull Divine to be easily misled p. 131.132 which Mr. Ball in his Catachise p. 24. speaking of the outward sign element action speaks much what as it is in the Rubrick viz. water wherewith the person baptized is washed by dipping or sprinkling in the name c. as if he had never seen water poured on a child but all that ever he saw had been either dipped or sprinkled Nay more then all this witnesse also the very man that manages this very cause together with them viz. Mr. Cook whom I dare say Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have read and made no little use of for he hath furnished them both with sundry of their Arguments against dipping this man in opposition to A. R. which A. R. speaking of sprinkling excludes it by this disjunction viz. that the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping answers thus not only to the clean contradicting of Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter and to the proving of them but so so in their denyals that ever they saw or heard of any sprinkled but also to the excluding of infusion or pouring which yet in other places he pleads for which Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter say is the only way yea all the way that they have seen save dipping which yet one of them never saw at all and to the evincing of sprinkling to be one of the ordinary waies of baptizing for page 11. whereas A. R. saies the use of water must be either by infusing or dipping but not by infusing nor sprinkling for he counts them much what one therefore by dipping Mr. Cook tells him as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing as pouring which is all that Mr. Baxter saies he saw in his daies that the ordinary use of the water is one of these two waies viz. either by dipping or sprinkling yet Mr. Blake that hath read Mr. Cook never heard of any sprinkled So Calvin Tylenus Buchan and all call it either Aspersim or Immersion yet again some Divines seem to speak as if they never saw nor heard of such a thing as dipping unlesse among the Heretical Anabaptists which yet is the onely true and primitive form of Baptism but onely of pouring on of water or sprinkling witnesse the whole Synod of Divines who in their directory direct the world further out of the way of the word in point of baptism then the Bishops in their Rubrick did for they in their Liturgy appointed dipping to be done as the most expedient form and powring on water onely in case of necessity but the other in theirs directly exclude dipping as a thing no where appearing to be needful and order that either of the other shall serve without it for these are their words p. 45. of the Directory viz. He is to baptize the child with water which for the manner of doing it is not only lawful but sufficient and most expedient to be by powring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child whether any thing that ever hath been done by any in obedience to this directory in that second way of sprinkling which Mr. Baxter denies that he ever saw done and Mr. Blake that he ever heard of as done to any did ever reach Mr. Baxters eye or Mr. Blakes eare I leave them seriously to examine but this I am sure of that the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch was dispensed neither by sprinkling as I have shewed above nor yet by bare pouring on of water which they so plead for and this I shall now make appear as plainly as the other For First in vain did they descend into the River to have nothing but water poured on them with no greater spout or stream then what runs down contiguously from the hallow of ones hand but Christ did nothing surely in vain and Philip and the Eunuch might well have spared their paines in wetting themselves so much as they must needs do by going down both into the water and as sufficiently discharged such a service by standing only on the shore Secondly if by powring you mean the powring of a farre greater quantity of water then what can he held in the hand as namely out of some scoop or vessel used to such a purpose upon the face or head as that might have been done full as well by the water side if they had not gon down into the water so it must have been as tedious by running down into their necks and bosomes and so necessarily have occasioned the trouble of the shifting of themselves as very dipping it self can be or do Thirdly t was not by washing them in any other way excepting still that of dipping suppose by applying water to them with their hands or otherwise and then rubbing it on their bodies for if so then this washing must be of their whole bodies or of some part or parts of them onely if some part or parts onely then of those parts which we commonly keep uncovered as the face and hands or else let it be assigned what other parts but it was not the face or hands onely that were thus washt for this again were a very vain thing to go down into the water for as it s said of Philip and the Eunuch that they both did frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora t is meer foolishnesse to fetch a beetle and wedges to cleave a stick no bigger then ones finger little wisdome to run so much as ore shoes meerly to wash ones face or hands which may be done as well at the waters side as in it if their whole bodies were thus washt then it must be done either with their clothes on and that is impossible for though the whole body may be baptized i. e. washt by dipping or swilling it under the water as conveniently and more comely with clothes on then otherwise yet they surely have little else to do and find themselves more work then becomes wise men that go about to wash persons by rubbing water upon them through their garments besides while you can totally wash one in that form of washing I le wash by dipping at least no less then a score or else exutis vestimentis i. e. stark naked that were more immodest then naked dipping Fourthly nor was it done by dipping some part of their bodies onely into water but the whole for to dip a person but in part besides that it is not properly to dipp that person but onely to dip some part of him is to the dispenser and the disciple too tanta mount in difficulty if not surmounting a total dipping yea to dip the whole body of a man at years for we speak not now of infants that may at ease be dandled
purses in the name of a prophet she hid it in three measures of flour in all which places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished in or by Resp. As if because this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath other significations besides into but specially the signification in in other places where very common sense and reason shew that it cannot there bear be Englished into but only in therefore it cannot by any meanes bear to be Englished into in this place where it s as good sense save that it shewes sprinkling to be nonsense yea and more suitable to a genuine and candid construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and undoubtedly to the spirits meaning in the place to English it into then to English it in for though he was rantized Anglice sprinkled into Iordan be ridiculous yet he was baptized Anglice dipped into Iordan is as proper to the full as he was baptized in Jordan yet they blush not to say for so saies Mr. Cook and there lies the very force of his reason viz. that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in though he knowes iâ— signifies into also therefore it were absurd to render it into here at all Mr. Blake also makes this his sole ground whereupon to say that the Scripture is against our Englishing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by into because elsewhere viz. in the places they alledge where the sense will not bear it to be read into its rendred all along in or by I cannot but believe that those two gentlemen are Judicious enough to discern their own halting and meer shuffling in this case for if I should argue upon them as to but one of those places where they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Englished in on this wise viz the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequently and most properly signifies into as namely Luke 5.3 he entered into one of the ships Rom. 11.24 thou art grafted into a good olive tree Ephes. 4.9 He descended into the lower parts of the Earth Mat. 6.6 Enter into thy Closet Mat. 6.13 lead us not into temptation Acts 8.38 they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch therefore it is absurd for you to render it in in Mat. 4.13 and the Scripture is against that interpretation if I say I should urge so upon them and so they argue to us ward they would quickly spye out my nakednesse in that consequence but O how abominable blind are they at home Neverthelesse I tell you plainly that though right is right and to be stood for to a tittle and that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.9 were rightly rendred it should be rather into then in yet the service the word in will do us in that place is little lesse then what the word into will do so that we need not stand contending for the sense of into having enough from your own professed sence of in without the other wherefore waving out right in that at present we wâ—ll freely fall in with you as the sense is in yea we grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and that in many more places then those alledged by your selves as namely to add to your store Act. 2.27 thou wilt not leave my soul in hell Luke 11.7 my children are in bed with me But is it so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and is so rendred in that place and many more then I am sure that here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City put a Nazareth or Capernaum is at that time when said to be in it not out of it nor only by it but in it money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it leaven hid in three pecks of Meal whilest hid is in it overwhelmed covered with it and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only He that is in hell i. e. the grave in bed while he is truly said to be in it he is in it and not at it only and so he that is truly denominated to be baptized in water or in Iordan in the River Jordan is not out of it not at it not by the side of it not neer it only as you fancy them to have bin that were baptized of John in Jordan He I say who is said truly and the spirit lies not to be baptized in Jordan must needs be whilest he was in the Act of this baptizing not out of Jordan nor just by it only but truely in it and that 's more then he needs to be in order to baptism if he can be baptized as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling Whereas therefore you contend against baptizing i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers and plead for a baptizing in water onely by the Example of Christs baptism which you yield in Jordan but not into it I marvel what wide difference you see in these two that you should grant it to be in and yet be affraid to grant it to be into Jordan you cry out not into not into by any meanes for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing but by all meanes let it be in only viz. in water in the River in Jordan let it be in water then as much as you will for me so it be in water that you are baptized and not out of it and not well nigh without it as most of yâ—ur christened Creatures are whilest little or none in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptizing of them doth once come neer them Fourthly it appears plainly that the way of baptizing in the primitive times was by totall dipping not sprinkling in that they chose to do it in places where there was much water or many waters which they need not have done if sprinkling might then have past for baptizing Iohn baptized in the River Iordan and was baptizing Iohn 3.23 in Enon neer to Salem and the reason is rendred thus viz. because there was much water there and there they came and were baptized and as the reason why they went to be baptized there was because there was much water or many waters for the word is Plurall so surely the reason why they went to such a place was that they might be baptized i. e. dipped in water as they could not conveniently be elsewhere at least not every were for where might they not easily have bin sprinkled and upon this account no doubt as Iohn chose to preach about those River sides viz. Iordan and Enon that their converts might conveniently be baptized Paul and Silas being at Philippi and abiding in that City certain daies to preach the Gospel on the Sabbath the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in went
its end which end saith he mark his phrase in this passage p. 20 is to represent which is as much as to say to resemble or lively to set out to our eyes that spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that it be not so little as not clearly to represent it yea and which is more and as much as we say our selves he grants and asserts it for undoubted truth that the spiritual grace or thing signified by baptism is among other things a death and resurrection for who questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanctification or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification which is as much as to say those two parts of our sanctiâ—ication viz. our spiritual death and resurrection are sealed and signifyed by baptism i. e. are the spiritual grace of it Also p. 17. these Scriptures viz. Rom. 6. Coll. 2. shew indeed saith he that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection by which vve are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse And in all this he sides so sourdly with us and jumps so just into our opinion that if we did hire him to speak our mind for us to the world we could scarce desire him to propound it more plainly than he doth bating only his stiling baptism by the name of a seal instead of which I wish he would call it only a sign yea he gives us all that in this case we contend for from those Scriptures viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is to be therein also represented and that our death and resurrection by vertue of Christs is that thing that is signified there or that spiritual grace the signifying of which other things not excluded is the chief end of our baptism Otherwhiles again he gain saies this grant speaking of it suppositively onely as page 17. If saith he it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse As if he were never the man that had granted as you see he doth or ever would grant or give way to such a thing and not only so but as if he were loath and half angry that any man should speak the truth but himself or the same truth with himself he charms A. R. and little lesse then charges him as a lyar and in him consequently us all for saying no other then what if you put his sayings together he saies himself which is this viz. That our mortification and vivification by vertue of Christs death and resurrection is the spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that respect or care must be had in the administration of it that the quantity of water be sufficient clearly to represent the spiritual grace but how that can be without enough to be buried in water and raised again what ere he thinks I know not but if you vvill saith he presse hence a necessity of Resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrecti by our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be of those that adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know not any Word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Thus whereas he saies elsewhere as I have shewed above that the end of baptism was to represent the spiritual grace as well as signify it and that the spiritual grace or thing signified and to be cleerly represented is mortification and vivification or communion with Christs death and resurrection which things t is strange he should say against the word of God for he protests it to be against the word when we say it and if there be any word expressing or implying a representation which himself so much talks on I am sure there is none like those two which we produce viz. Rom. 6. Col. 2. which most lively shew it as I shall shew anon and undeniably declare yet here in the passage last cited he that talks of this representation and resemblance of Christs death and resurrection and ours with him as needful to be made in baptism is a lyar with him and an adder to the word which warrants no where to presse a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign no not so much as in those Scriptures Rom 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be and yet must not be and yet must be And yet for all this which is the wonder of me and will be of many more but specially of every wise man that hath his wits about him and would have bin of Mr Woodcock too who without taking notice of any weaknesse in it extoll'd the Book in the beginning of it and put it forth to Sir Iohn Burgoines patronage had he well weighed these passages of it Mr. Cook wheeles about once again and will needes have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it and argues stiffely for it to but the representation must be of what he pleases among the things signified and not of the main thing signifyed in baptism it must be of sanctification as t is called a washing a cleansing a purging a pouring of the spirit on us a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us and so be done by sprinkling water but not as it stands divided into its two parts mortification and vivification a death and resurrection or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism then by an As for example fetcht from the old world that was drowned dead buried by an infusion of water not an immersion and from the Ark which was rained upon only and not overwhelmed this death and resurrection must needs and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dipping in water for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping i. e. a descension into the water and ascention out of the water which we all know was the way of Christs and the Eunuchs baptism we must urge also burial which is principally expressed Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time answerable to Christs three daies biding in the bowels of the Earth which cannot be without danger quoth he yea certainty of drowning and if sprinkling should not so fitly resemble as dipping and plunging yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body to all which I answer Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face for all he saies it may as well or better sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling or
clear of it self that men famous even of your own way that have not thrust their fingers too far into the fire of this controversie concerning the primitive form of baptizing as these men have done and therefore will on in what they have once asserted and get thorow by hook or crook rather then recede with that shame I should say honour which is the right of every recantant when he sees he hath misreckoned do not onely confesse but also teach us the very same that we stand for Witnesse Tilenus who tells us that Immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesertim in Iudea et aliis regionibus c. p. 886. dipping yea totall dipping for in the very line before he defines the right of baptism to be tripple Immersio in aquam mora sub aqua emersio ex aqua plunging into the water abode under it resurrection out of it was rather used heretofore specially in Judea and other warmer countries then sprinkling Yea Dr. Featley that is as it were the fronteer or fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping did yet find occasion to acknowledge little lesse p. 69. notwithstanding saith he I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the River and that such baptism of men i. e. in rivers specially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used though I confesse he gives this a pull in again and very cleanly contradicts himself in the very next words saying that there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but onely of washing in the River O grosse First as if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie onely to wash in some other way and not at all to wash by dipping Secondly as if ever any things or persons that are washed in Rivers are washed ordinarily otherwise then by dipping or plunging Thirdly as if he could properly be said to be washed in a river that was never in it but was onely scrubd a little by the side of it Or Fourthly as if wise persons would go into a river for no more then a little fourbishing their faces Rantist You talk of in the river and into the River but you heed not what Mr. Baxter saies in the present section that you are desired to speak to he tells you the word into is not to be taken as if either John and Christ or Philip and the Eunuch were at all in the water or descended into it but unto it onely it being below in the bottoms and the countrey being montanous in which respect they might well be said to go down into it Mr. Cook also and Mr. Blake do both very elegantly answer your observation in that particular Mr. C. thus to A. R. viz. your collection from Philips going down into the water with the Eunuch therefore they used dipping is as vain must they not go down to the water where it was if they would use it would the water have come up to them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping of the same stamp is your inference from Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 from Christs ascending from the water for as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channel where there was a descent and from which there was an ascent so that he must go down to and come up from the water Nay rather your conceit is here confuted for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water but it is onely implyed that Christ went down to the water and came up again from it Mr. Blake thus to Mr. Blackwood viz. for your criticism of the ascending and descending if you compare Acts 24.1.25.1 also with your places quoted you will see it nothing for your purpose those phrases are used when men go to a place or from a place when they neither ascend upwards neither descend downwards Bishop Usher will furnish you with ten severall Scriptures where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Apostles is used for no descent from a higher place to a lower but onely a removing from place to place though in this place we may believe there was some ascent and descent waters being lower places and when they went to the place of waters the channell in which the waters had their current they may be fitly said to go into the water howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose but a General concurrence of all examples We have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded from those examples Baptist. O the wondrous wayes of wretchednesse if not of wilful wilinesse that the wits of these men work in whereby to wave of the way of God from taking place among them how do they strive to keep it off as it were at staves end not yielding it an inch lest it should get an ell one brings one kind of furniture wherewith to fight it another another yet altogether are but a bullrush a flag that shewes like sword and Rapier but will scarce hold a push if put to it to the purpose Mr. Blake he fetches furniture from Bishop Vsher that saies there are ten Scriptures in the acts where the words ascend and descend expresse no more then removing from one place to another of which if those he alledges be two of the ten or supernumerary it matters not for if there were 10000 it would do him no right and truth no wrong in this place where it is believed by every of the three both himself and his two Colleagues that here was going up and down from higher places to lower therefore he may set that cypher some where else or send it home again to the book whence he had it and where perhaps it was of use for here it stands void and serves for nothing And as for their joint sneaping the words they went down into the water and came out of the water into such a short sense as may serve your own curtaild and cloudy conceptions of the matter and exclude our construction that is most clear and congruous perverting and mincing it thus viz. that they went down to the water i. e. the channel where the water was to which there was a descent and ascended from the water or if it be allowed to be read as t is most properly rendred by the Translators into the water yet the meaning of that word into must be no other then unto I admire how men of such professed piety can convince their consciences to content with such home-spun coverings such greivous glosses pittiful put ofs as they do in this case I profess they might almost as good say that the heard of Swine that Mat. 8.32 are said to run down into the Sea did but run down to the Sea and no
exemplifying such a thing as the housholds he makes use of are but also clear examples to the contrary as the non-baptizing of those very infants that were brought to Christ and the non-baptizing of those very infants with their parents Act. the 2. to whose parents and their children to on the same termes of repentance when at years the promise is there made both which Scriptures he wrests into his turne yea verily and had he but one true single example of any one infant baptized in all that word we should lay down to him and never open our mouthes more against infant baptism yet if these two examples do prove for us it seemes they shall not be heeded whilst against them unlesse there be a general concurrence of all examples Wherefore secondly I tell him of a truth that though me thinks the single example of the Lord Iesus might content him and of the Eunuch for can he shew a better example then these yet there 's as general a concurrence of all examples in this particular as there is of the example of any one thing that is exemplified in the Scriptures all Ierusalem all Iudea and the Region about Iordan were baptized i. e. dipt of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins Christ dipt of Iohn into Iordan the Eunuch going into the water and there baptized baptizing in Aenon because much water and indeed the very word baptize makes them all examples of our practise while it signifies obruo submergo Secondly saies he we have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded for you from these examples of yours Mr. Bls. examples it seems for his different practise must conclude for him but our examples though never so clear must conclude nothing for us ipse dixit Mr. Bl. hath forbidden them so to do and therefore we must sign ne plus ultra here and urge our examples no more wherefore I le cease Onely secondly I hope he will give me leave to ask him what different practise it is he meanes of which he hath examples giving full evidence against ours and if it be either baptism of infants or Rantism of infants or powring water on infants or washing infants any other way or dispensig Christs ordinance of baptism to men or women in any other way then in the way of dipping or washing by dipping which baptizo signifies I le promise him faithfully that upon his giving us any one example that gives full evidence of it or any other kind of full evidence of it besides that of example any of which he is far from giving in any thing that was ever pen'd by him yet I shall yield and become his disciple and follow him as far as I find him following Christ in that or any thing else and that for ever till then he must excuse me if in love to his soul I seriously beseech him to search and try his wayes and turn in truth to that truth of the Lord Iesus he yet tramples on Rantist There is example given you enough against your way by Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook too of baptizing otherwise then by dipping in the Iailor whom they all instance in either expressely or implicitly First Mr. Baxter saies in that section of his which you have not yet fully spoke to that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and to this agree some words of Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook concurrent in matter though different in form we read saith Mr. Cook p. 16. of multitudes baptized even 3000 in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers and of whole families without mention of going to the waters or fetching store of waters it is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed Acts 2.41 Acts 16.15.33 and saith Mr. Blake p. 10. sometimes baptism was administred where water for dipping was not to be had and though the Eunuch comming to a river saith here is water what hindred that I should be dipped yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Judas's house in streight street in Damascus nor the Iailor in his prison in Philippi you say that baptism was ordinarily in rivers where there were many waters but sure there were neither many waters nor rivers in these mens dwellings and as sure they went not out in the night unto any such places yet were they baptized Baptist. Are these your Examples of baptizing otherwaies then by dipping certainly unlesse these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches or willingly ignorant or smitten with blindnesse and given up in some measure at least for their not imbracing this plain easie truth of dipping in the love thereof to deep dotage and stronge delusion they could never believe much lesse print such palpable untruths absolute absurdities and cleer self confutations as are unavoidably to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcells they have published to the eye of all men See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause we read of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptized for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on least the volume should swell is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptized i. e. submersi obruti abluti immergendo for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mainly I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing dipping or swilling specially since in places enough it is said they were baptized in Rivers and places of much water but to say nothing I say of that mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines upwards from it for there giving other reasons then that of dipping why Iohn chose to baptize in Rivers and running waters among others he gives this as a speciall one viz. Because of the multitudes that were baptized especially saith he seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptized and yet here were great multitudes baptized even no lesse then 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where which by Mr. Cooks own reason if it be a reason must be a place of running waters and streams that many might be imploied at once in baptizing along the river for the more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes therefore these belike went not out to the rivers though yet there 's no more mentioned that they did not then that they did There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it and yet there is
the putting on of garments after baptism when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it as in the case of Paul of whom after he was baptized it is said he received meat and was strengthned but not that apparell was put on him nor dry and warm clothes applied to him which we should sure have heard of if he had bin dipt over head in water Baptist. If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead I know not onely no necessity but no modesty also in such a divestment nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say though in his expressions viz. that in former dayes it was thought no immodesty and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked though not necessary when ingenuity of judgement and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have construed his meaning to be this viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times though it be now by Mr. Baxter to be dipt in that way wherein we are dipt which is not naked as Mr. Baxter bruits it and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is if persons be baptized by a totall dipping and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off and on of their clothes in their addresses to and dresses after baptism there was not onely no necessity but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7.58 of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul who is said Acts 8.1 to be consenting to his death and also by Paul himself Act. the 22.20 confessing to God his persecutions and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death and kept the raiment of them that shew him Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a piece remarkable or worth recording of it self or in any other respect in the world save for this end onely as it was an expression of the malice that Saul who was afterward converted and called Paul did at that time bear against the truth for surely had there not been that good reason wherefore the laying aside of their clothes had not been worth our notice nor should it ever have been mentioned simply for it self sake but now there was no such weighty end as this nor any end or purpose at all in order to which it was needfull to mention the circumstance of their clothing and unclothing about the administration of baptism it is enough that we have recorded of the thing in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that and how and why it was done but it would have been frustraneous and even every way endlesse to have minded us of such impertinent appertenances to baptism as the dressing and undressing of the disciples if any one tell me a story that such and such infants were sprinkled at such places is not that relation sufficient and compleat unlesse he tell me how the infants were drest in their blankets and what a fiâ—ling was made by the midwife and the minister about the unpinning and turning up of their face clothes is not the story of Naamans washing himself seven times in Iordan full enough to our use because there is no mention of his putting off and on Christ washt his disciples feet and wiped them it may well be supposed they put off their shoes first and put them on again yet there is no mention of that Mr. Blake thinks that among all the multitudes that were baptized there must have been some words about their unclothings and clothings and specially that there was reason that we should have heard that Paul had dry and warm clothes put on him after his baptism as well as mention of meat given him if he had been baptized by immersion because he had been weak but what crude conceits are all these it was related that he was weak through fasting three daies and that was but proper and answering to the other to tell how after he eat his meat and gathered strength but the other must have come in for ought I see without either sense or reason and sith he stranges that among so many baptized no mention should be made of their preparations viz. the seponing and resuming their garments I wonder what mention he finds of the accommodations that those multitudes had that were circumcised in Abrahams family in one day and in the City of the Shechemits and those thousands in the wildernesse after the long cessation both before and after circumcision and yet that was such a tedious bloody sore and painfull piece of service as required no question ten times more attendance with clothes and other accomplishments till it was whole then this of baptism even in that so troublesome way to you wherein we dispense it Rantist But pray give me leave a little Now we talk of their Cloaths I remember that no sooner was Christ come out of the water but immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing Act. 8. whence I argue thus viz. if they put off their Cloathes they did not stay to put them on but went away naked if they had them on then being as you say dipped over head and ears they must have worn them wet but the first had been unseemly the later prejudiciall to their health Baptist. Well argued Mr. Simpson again as sure as can be you have got his Arguments by root of heart for these also are Mr. Simpsons very words in that letter of his above mentioned Rantist Whose Argument this is it matters not I suppose it is past your answer and here is reason enough in it to disprove Christ and the Eunuchs total dipping as a meer groundlesse and reasonlesse conjecture and crotchet of your own coming or if you have any thing to say to it I pray let us have it out of hand Baptist. Reason say you it were well if there were so much as common sense in it for my part I suppose it a senselesse fancy but I am sure there is
so little truth in the ground of it that its stark rotten at the very root it is a dispute Ex falso suâ—positis t is taken by you for granted as necessary when it shall never be yielded to by us for so much as probable that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized either naked or else in the cloathes they ware immediately both before or after either for both Christ comming purposely to be baptized and the Eunuch though not thinking of baptism till Philip met him yet returning homeward from Jerusalem where he had been for some time were undoubtedly accommodated otherwise and with change sutable enough to such a businesse Secondly it supposes that both Christ Philip and the Eunuch posted all so immediately several waies from the water that they staied not so much as to cover themselves with other Cloathes then those they went with into and came up with out of the water whereas as nature it self forbids us to believe they went in much more that they went away naked for common sense forbids us to take the word immediately in so strict a sense as to think they departed in such extremity of hast as was no way consistent with the shifting and so fitting of themselves for departure Immediately doth seldome sound forth such a suddennesse as admits of no intertime nor invening action at all yea sometimes it signifies no sooner then some howers some daies some years after according to the nature of the matter asserted in the sentence wherein it hath its use as Matth 24.29 nor doth it expresse any other in Mark 1.13 where it is said Immediately the spirit drave Christ into the Wildernesse then within a while after his baptism as appears not only by Matth. 4.1 where it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is there peractis praedictis ordinative of another story but specially by Luke 4.1 where it s said plainly that he was returned from Iordan before it is said he was led into the wildernesse and had you or Mr. Simpson compared Scripture with Scripture or heeded the harmony of the Evangelists you had saved your selves the labour of all those lines and lost nothing by it but what is worth nothing viz. the Argument it self for as if I should say immediately after the child was sprinkled the Gossips and friends went along with it home it were absurd to understand me so as if I meant that they did not stay so long after as to wipe the childs face and put the face cloathes over it and lap it up again in the loose blanket to keep it warm so no lesse absurdity is it to understand that speech viz. And immediately the spirit caught away Philip and immediately after Christ was baptized he went in to the wildernesse so strictly as if there was not staying so much as to reassume any garments they had laid aside in order to the more conveniency of their baptizing One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this clause as t is Mr. Simpsons and that is what little proportion if not contradiction it holds with the words of Mr. Simpson or rather of Mr. Blake used by Mr. Simpson immediately precedent to these in his letter for he will not give way to it at any hand that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water or at least that they were put into the water by Iohn and Philip or taken thence but onely in the phrase of Mr. Blake at the third hand of Mr. Cook that they went to the water and came thence and yet here he forgets himself so far as to the confutation of himself and them to speak 〈◊〉 the phrase or Scripture concerning Christ and the Eunuch viz. that they came out of the water which if they could do and neither went into it nor were put into it then I know not how to understand plain English Rantist Well this is all but by the businesse let us go on and consider what more Mr. Bl. brings to disprove dipping to be the primitive custome he tells you further p. 9. it was the Apostles way to baptize disciples as soon as they were become Converts the same day rather sometimes the same houre as we see in the Eunuch the Jaylor and Lydia and multitudes of others but conversion of Disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping the Element of water being over Cold for that service If any object that in those Countreyes there was no danger in the coldest times He answers the commission being for all Nations disciples were made in all Countreys how soone saith he came the word to this Nation c. sometimes therefore saith he the water and weather was too cold for dipping Secondly the Number of Converts were so numerous 3000 5000. in one day that there was no possibility of baptizing in that Manner Acts 2.41 and the 44. Thirdly Sometimes the Baptizers were in that condition that they were unable for that work in that way as Paul and Silas men newly taken out of the stocks in the Inner Prison with such stripes that their Convert was fain forthwith to wash them in this case they were unfit to wade into the water for that work and had they made any such adventure the Scripture would not have been silent Fourthly Sometimes the baptized have not been in case for dipping and plunging which was Pauls case upon the Aparition of the vision he was lead into Damascus where he continues without meat or drink three daies and upon Ananias his comming in and instructing of him he is baptized and when he had received meat saith the text he was strengthned will any believe he went out in this case with Ananias into the water over head in water before the taking of any sustenance Baptist. That persons were baptized as soon as ever they became Converts and could be discerned to be disciples even the same houre commonly without delay is an undeniable truth for that and no other was the very period of time at which what ever their parents were they were deemed to have true title to baptism for neither if their parents were wicked were such excluded as were nor if the parents were godly were such admitted as were not converted upon the Account of the fathers goodnesse or badnesse but as they believed or not themselves and this makes me the more amazed at it that it is come to passe since that the faith of the father can now intitle the child to baptism though the child have no faith at all of his own and yet I muse more sith you all count infants at least of believers to be disciples from the womb why yet you delay their baptism so long and do it not at the same houre of their birth for whether they be Discipuli nati or discipuli facti if they be disciples as you falsly suppose they are if the primitive rule were to baptize persons as soon as ever they appeared