what I can find in Scripture to have been done in the Case of Baptizing by our Lord's Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven Now the first that we read of to have been Baptiz'd by them were the Three thousand Converts Acts 2.41 But that none of these were Children is most confidently affirm'd because 't is there said of them that they gladly receiv'd the Word c. which indeed is a very plausible way of Arguing but yet 't is a very ill way and not to be allow'd of in our Interpretations of such Scripture-Passages For there is nothing more common than for the Scripture to speak of Children together with adult Persons and yet to add such things as the Children will not be thought capable of As for Example St. Paul speaks of Infants as well as of Men and Women when he assures us that We must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and every one of us receive for the good or evil done in our bodies I say St. Paul speaks of Infants among the rest tho' one half of what he there speaks cannot be understood of them namely That they shall receive for the good or evil done in their bodies who never liv'd in their Bodies to do either Good or Evil. Sir you argue that none of the Three thousand baptiz'd Acts 2. were Children because 't is said of them That they gladly received the word and continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine which are things that Children could not do And just at the same rate it may be argu'd That no Infants shall appear at the last Day before the Judgment-Seat of Christ because 't is said of them that shall then and there appear that they must receive for the good or evil done in their bodies which are things that Infants could not do And again I have not the least doubt but there will be Children and Infants at the Last Day placed among the Blessed Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge and yet I know what the Judge will then say to those on his Right-hand I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But now as you are pleas'd to reason the Case That there were no Children among the Three thousand baptized Acts 2. because such things are immediately added to have been done by them as no Children could possibly do viz. That they continu'd stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. just after the same manner it may be reason'd That there shall be no Infants among the Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge at the Last Day because such things will immediately be added to have been done by them as no Infants could possibly do viz. I was an hungred and ye gave me meat c. But good Sir Infants will certainly make up a great part of the Blessed Train at the Right-hand of the Judge though the Judge cannot say to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat And so there might be many Infants among the Three thousand that were baptized tho' it cannot be said of them that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine For so you plainly see that Infants may be spoken of together with adult Persons though some things may be added which the Infant-part of the Company are no ways capable of And accordingly that there were Infants or Children among the Three thousand baptized as aforesaid we have yet this further Reason to convince us because when they were there perswaded to be baptized with this Promise of having the Holy Ghost given them 't is expresly added The promise is to you and to your Children Acts 2.38 39. But of this more largely before I have done I proceed therefore to the next that we read of to have been baptized and They were the Samaritans baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.12 and there indeed it is said that They were baptized both Men and Women and therefore surely say you had any Children been then baptized it would have been added That they were baptized Men Women and Children No Dear Sir there was no need of any such Addition for consider I beseech you the Scripture-way of speaking Even all Ages of both Sexes Children and Infants together with the Elder Sort are express'd in Scripture by Men and Women as Mr. Horn has particularly noted in Joshua 8.25 26. and Judges 9.49 51. which Texts you may consult at your Leisure and I will take leave to go on The next we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles to have been baptized was the Eunuch baptized by St. Philip Acts 8.38 and from their going down to the Water is there a great Objection rais'd against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water but this I have already answer'd In the next Chapter was St. Paul baptized by Ananias and I think he was baptized in the House of Judas and you will not I hope from hence conclude that he also was Dipt In the next Chapter again we find St. Peter commanding Cornelius and them that were with him to be baptized but pray Sir Observe the Reason Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Acts 10.47 48. And may it not as well be argu'd Can any man forbid Water that Children shou'd not be Baptized who receive the Holy Ghost as well as we But of this more hereafter In the next place we read that Lydia was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16.14 15. Where I observe that whatever qualifications are mention'd to have given Lydia a right to Baptism yet we read not any thing of any of her Houshold but that they were Baptized Nay and after their Baptism says Lydia to the Apostles If ye have Judged Me faithful to the Lord c. She says not if ye have Judged Us faithfull but only ME which implies according to our Adversaries best way of reasoning That only Lydia and that none of the rest were Believers So that thus far I am sure here is nothing against Infants being a part of her Family But Sir I must admire the Author of your little Book and the profound discoveries he has made in his Notes upon this Text to convince us that Lydia had no Husband and Consequently no Children But this wou'd not follow unless he cou'd prove her to have been no Widow neither and therefore by dint of mighty Argument he 'll make us farther know that she was no Widow And I must not conceal his All-convincing Reason which is this She cou'd be no Widow because she is called a Woman whereas Widows in Scripture are called Widows as the Widow of Sarepta c. A most wonderful Argument indeed But Sir When I think on 't again The wonder ceases because I find the very Widow of Sarepta call'd a Woman 1 King 17.17 24. Yea I find in Scripture one call'd a Woman who had been seven times a Widow for after she had Buried no fewer than Seven Husbands 't
only that I have been perswaded to make these Letters publick I have not so much as made the Style gawdy with any high-flown Strains Ornament and Rhetoric was none of my aim but Sincerely Faithfully and to the utmost of my mean Abilities to shew the naked truth and whether I have hit or miss'd my Aim you may now be pleas'd to examine and Judge I am My very good Friends and Brethren Your very much obliged and most humble Servant T. Hewerdine From March 7 Aug. 1699. LETTER I. SIR YOURS of the Third Instant has just now surpriz'd me wherein at the very first dash of your Pen you somewhat bluntly require and charge me as I will answer it at the dreadful Day of Judgment when the Secrets of all Hearts shall be disclos'd to tell you freely and plainly whether I do in my Conscience believe That the way of Baptizing now used in the Church of England namely by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water is a good and justifiable way of Baptizing Good Sir You have known me some hundreds of times Baptize after this manner and I wou'd sain hope that I have not by any practice of mine given you the least just Cause to suspect me of Hypocrisie I don't say this with any intent to give the Go-by to your Request and Charge but since you have put me to 't I do here solemnly protest and wou'd enter the same Protestation tho' I was immediately to appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ That I do in my Conscience believe that the Mode of Baptizing now used in the Church of England by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water is a good and justifiable way of Baptizing And thus far I 'm sure I am in the right My Conscience bearing me Witness But Sir You next pretty flatly put it upon me to inform you how this Mode of baptizing is to be defended and justified Now in good Truth I cou'd be very well contented to save my self this Trouble by referring you to those Books and Pages of Books wherein this Matter is industriously debated and the Mode of baptizing which you now seem to call in Question sufficiently defended and justified so as not to be gainsay'd but by the stiffest Obstinacy But lest you should construe this as a giving up the Cause I will here venture to say what you so earnestly desire to hear from me namely upon what Grounds it is that I my self am perswaded in my own Conscience concerning the Validity and Lawfulness of this way of Baptizing I will be very brief and yet go to the Bottom and rise by such Steps and Degrees as shall help to carry us over all difficulties and shew us the truth of the Matter in some light And therefore I begin at our Catechism in which we are well and truly taught that in the Sacrament of Baptism there 's The outward Sign and The Thing Signified The outward Sign is Water wherein the Person is Baptized in the Name of the Father c. And Sir I will not here spend either Ink or Paper in the Proof of this presuming that we are still agreed thus far But then The Inward part of this Sacrament or the Thing Signified is the Holy Spirit or the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit such as these mention'd in our Catechism A Death unto Sin and a New Birth unto Righteousness c. for you must know that wheresoever we read in Scripture of God's giving or of Man's receiving the Holy Spirit by the Holy Spirit must be meant The Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit and This I say is the Inward part or Thing Signified by the Water in Baptism And this was represented by the Descending of the Holy Ghost upon our Saviour at his Baptism Matth. 3.26 and there seems to be a plain Evidence of this in those Words of John the Baptist I indeed Baptize you with water but He speaking of Christ shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost The Baptist and I add all the Ministers of Christ do but baptize with Water 'T is Christ himself who does the Inward part and baptizeth with the Spirit and so says ours Saviour himself A Man must be born of Water and of the Spirit For as it is said of Circumcision That the outward Circumcision of the Flesh is as no Circumcision without the Inward Circumcision of the Heart too Rom. 2.28 29. So to compleat the Sacrament of Baptism there must be the Inward part as well as the Outward For except a Man be Born of Water and of the Spirit He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And thus St. Paul in his description of Baptism not only speaks of the external Washing of Regeneration but of the Internal Renewing of the Holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 And so again putting some of his Corinthians in mind of their being baptiz'd Ye are Washed and Sanctified says He that is not onely Washed with Water but Sanctified with the Holy Ghost 1. Cor. 6.11 And to mention but one place more for all Be Baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost says St. Peter Act. 2.33 From whence 't is very plain That when the Ministers of Christ baptize with Water Christ himself baptizeth with the Holy Ghost which as I have said before is the Inward part or Thing Signified by the Water in Baptism And with great Reason therefore do we pray in the Office of baptism Give O Lord thy Holy Spirit to this Infant that He may be Born again and also Wash him and Sanctifie him with the Holy Ghost For to clear this Matter to the most Vulgar Capacity As when we pray in the Communion-Service Hear us most merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine may be Partakers of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood 'T is as much as to pray that we may not only be Partakers of the outward Part of that Sacrament the Bread and Wine but also that we may be Partakers of the Inward part or thing Signified likewise which is the Body and Blood of Christ So when we pray for the Baptized That He may have the Holy Spirit given him and that he may be Sanctified with the Holy Ghost 't is as much as to pray That he may not only be baptized with the outward part of Baptism which is Water but also that he may be baptized with the Inward part or thing Signified by Water which is the Holy Spirit And hence it is likewise that as the other Sacrament is sometimes express'd with allusion to the Outward part when we speak of receiving the Bread and Wine and sometimes with allusion to the thing Signified when we speak of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ so Baptism is sometimes express'd with allusion to its outward part when we speak of baptizing with Water and washing with Water as the Apostle calls it and sometimes with allusion to the Inward part or thing
Signified when he speaks of baptizing with the Holy Ghost or baptizing with the Spirit for so says the Apostle again By one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 I add That it is no new thing for the Holy Spirit to be figur'd or represented by Water for thus in the Prophet of Old when God had said I will pour Water on him that is Thirsty He interprets himself immediately I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed Isai 44.3 and again when he had said in Ezekiel I will Sprinkle Clean Water upon you he adds as the meaning of it I will put my Spirit within you Ezek. 36.25 27. And again with allusion to Water is the promise of the Spirit express'd by pouring out I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh Joel 2.28 and to clear this matter from all doubt St. John quoting these Words of our Saviour He that Believeth in me out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water This he spake says that Evangelist of the Spirit which they that believe in him should receive John 7.38 39. Sir If you would see more and larger proofs of this you may read Mr. Mede's Discourse upon Titus 3.5 Indeed I cou'd hardly have thought that there cou'd have been any difference among Catechetical Writers as to this matter only I find in that same discourse of Mr. Mede that some would have the Blood of Christ to be the thing signified by the Water in Baptism as it is by the Wine in the other Sacrament To which he replies That the Blood of Christ is not once mention'd by the Fathers of the Primitive Church as the inward part of this Sacrament of Baptism no more than it is in our Liturgy and he further adds That the Opinion is Novel and That the Lutheran Divines make it peculiar and proper to the Followers of Calvin But now Sir give me leave to observe to you That Calvin himself seems not to have been always of this Opinion nay but he plainly asserts That the Holy Spirit is the Thing signify'd by the Baptismal Water For complaining of the Church of Rome for feigning Confirmation to be a Sacrament by which the Spirit of Regeneration is conferr'd he adds That they transferr'd to Confirmation what was proper to Baptism meaning that they made the Spirit of Regeneration which is the Inward part of Baptism to be the Thing signifi'd by the laying on of hands in Confirmation Calv. in Heb. 6.1 2. And here Sir if I was minded to enlarge I could confirm this Matter with abundance of Testimonies out of the best Writers and Fathers of the Primitive Church but I forbear being pretty confident that there is no great need of their Evidence in so plain a Case And now my good Friend are not your Eyes open Don't you clearly see from what I have said of the Inward part of Baptism how rightly the Outward part may be administred by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water The Gift of the Holy Spirit the thing signified in Baptism is exprest by Sprinkling or Pouring on And is there or can there be any Reason given why the Thing Signifi'd should be exceeded by the Sign God himself thought it not necessary but makes Sprinkling or Pouring on Water sufficient to represent and signifie his giving or pouring on the Spirit for when He I say promises his Holy Spirit he does not no not so much as once in the whole Bible say I will dip or plunge into Water but I will sprinkle or pour on Water Isa 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25 Dr. Towerson who had once said something which was a little too harsh as himself confesses against this way of Baptizing by Sprinkling whose very words our Adversaries have catch'd hold of and have boasted of him as a brave Man on their side yet when he came to enquire more narrowly into the Matter he industriously defends it and amongst other Arguments uses this very Text Ezek. 36.25 and proves from Maimonides That the Words were spoken with reference to the Times of the Messiah and affirms That they cannot be better interpreted than of the Water of Baptism applying them as I have here done as very well expressing the Outward Sign of that Sacrament And shall Men be wiser than God Or think it any Wit to mock at and deride his Words And be at the pains of making a Greek word English to make their mockery the plainer Sprinkling forsooth out of Sport and Rallery must be call'd Rantizing and Baptism when administer'd by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water must be nicknam'd Rantism But let me tell you Sir and you may tell the Author of your little * A little Book call'd The Reason why not Infant-Sprinkling but Believers Baptism ought to be approv'd c. Book you boast of That when he so merrily calls our way of Baptizing Rantizing and our Baptism Rantism He makes a mock of the very Words of God himself and according to his reproachful way of Speaking when God promises to Sprinkle clean Water upon his People he must not then promise to Baptize but only to Rantize This puts me in mind how I had once the misfortune to hear a wild Wretch call the Lord's Supper He seem'd to quarrel with my Friend for calling that Sacrament the Supper of our Lord A Supper said he A Bite and a Sip you mean And he had as much to say for the Profane expression as any one can have for calling our Baptism Rantism Why Sir He urg'd that a Supper ought to be a full Meal that to Signifie our receiving the Body and Blood of Christ we ought to eat a piece of Bread as big as his Body and to drink as much Wine as he shed Blood And is it not at a like Rate that some plead against Baptizing by Sprinkling You have heard the reason why That profane Wretch call'd our way of Receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper a Bite and a Sip and is it not for a very like reason that our way of Baptizing is by some call'd Rantizing I will not here say with the Psalmist What shall be done to the false Tongue but rather with our most charitable Lord Father forgive them for surely they know not what they say or do But this 't is to be so Zealous for Externals when Men think that they can never have enough of the outward Signs of the Sacraments when yet perhaps the thing Signified which is the main and principal thing is as much neglected But Sir When we receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper if we Spiritually eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which is the inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Bread we eat or how little Wine we drink So when any are baptized if their Souls are purifi'd and cleans'd with the Holy Spirit which is the Inward part of this Sacrament as to the outward part it will not matter much how little Water
they are baptized with And if you good Sir resist not the Holy Spirit of God nor receive his Grace in vain but be thereby renew'd in the Spirit of your Mind and cleansed from all filthiness both of Flesh and Spirit My Soul for yours if you enter not into the Kingdom of God tho' you was but sprinkled with Water when you was baptized Whereas they whose hearts are not purified whose Conversations are not cleansed who wallow in foul Sins I must and will pronounce them too unclean to enter into the Kingdom of God tho' they were never so much Plung'd or Dipt into Water never so deep when they were baptized But I must remember my self that I am not now writing a Book but only a Letter and therefore I shall only further tell you that I design'd but in this to open the way to a fuller Vindication of the thing in Question And so I conclude at present with this promise That you shall God willing very speedily hear again of this matter from Dear Sir June 6. 1698. Your very Humble Servant T. H. LETTER II. SIR THO' I concluded my Last with a Promise to let you hear from me again very speedily about the Matter in Debate viz. Concerning the Validity and Lawfulness of our way of Baptizing by Sprinkling yet I had hardly time to breath or to take a little Air before I was alarm'd with your second Letter wherein you call out to me in great heat and haste to let you hear what I have to say to such and such Objections And dear Sir I 'll be your humble Servant here again and attend your Motion nor shall I be much out of my own intended way for in answering the Objections which you say seem to wound our Cause I doubt not but to blunt or to turn their Edge so as to make them defend it which is the very thing I aim at But First You say that the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing always signifies Dipping yes and so they 'll very confidently and peremptorily say too who yet never understood one Syllable of Greek in their Lives and above all the rest the Author of the little Book you sent me is almost perpetually saying so from one end of That book to the other But now to this I can give you a very short Answer and such an Answer as I believe will to you be very satisfactory and convincing For I know you dare depend upon Dr. Patrick now Bishop of Ely whose Writings you so justly admire for the signification of a Greek Word and therefore I will observe to you what he has noted in the Margin of his most excellent Discourse concerning Baptism Mr. Pocock says he hath largely shewn That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Baptized does not always signifie among the Jews the Washing of the whole Body which is to be observed against those who now make it necessary I may have occasion before I have done to consult Mr. Pocock himself and then you shall hear more from him And Sir if I might be Sophistical and play with Particles as it is the manner of our Adversaries to do I might here observe of our Pious and Learned Translators to whom we are obliged for our English Bibles that they do not seem to understand Dipping by Baptizing for in our English Bibles which they have put into our hands we usually read of Baptizing with Water But now Good Sir in all those places where we read of Baptizing with I can hardly think that they would have us there by Baptizing to understand Dipping because Dipping with is not good Sence to Dip in or into Water is good Sence but to Dip with Water is not And therefore I say I might be perswaded that it was not the meaning of those Translators that we should always understand Dipping by Baptizing or that we may read Dipping with Water which is not good Sense where they have Taught us to Read Baptizing with Water Yea to Baptize with Water is the common Language of all English Authors even of our Adversaries themselves but that they mean to Dip with Water when they say to Baptize with Water we may no more believe I say than we may believe Dipping with Water to be good Sence But 'T is true we Read that there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Baptism Ephes 4.5 which is an unanswerable Argument indeed for the only once Administration of it directly against Anabaptism but then we are also told that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diverse Baptizings for so the Original word signifies tho' translated Diverse Washings Heb. 9.10 which undeniably shews that the Ways and Modes of baptizing are various and different Yea and by the Diverse Baptizings here mention'd must certainly be meant among the rest those Sprinklings which we read of Numb 8.7 and Chap. 19.18 19. Again 'T is said of the Jews that when they come from Market they Eat not except they Wash Mark 7.4 The Original Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Eat not except they are Baptized where by Baptized we are not necessarily to understand Dipped for as Mr. Pocock has abundantly prov'd Lavantes à foro totum Corpus non Mersabant The Jews at their return from the Market did not always Wash or Dip the Whole body Not. Miscel c. 9. p. 390. And again Luke 11.38 where we read that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus that he did not Wash before Dinner the Greek Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was not first Baptized But now by Baptized in this Text we cannot possibly understand Dipped for there was no such Custom among the Jews as to dip themselves before their common Meals no not so much as to dip their Hands into Water For Even in the Case of washing their Hands Non Lavant Manus nisi è vase affusâ aquâ They wash not their Hands by Dipping them into any Vessel of Water but by having Water poured upon them says Mr. Pocock from their best Authors Not. Mis c. 9. p. 365. and again p. 371. Non Lavant Manus says He quoting Maimonides c. They wash not their Hands but with Water poured upon them And tho' some of their Authors allow of dipping their Hands into Water yet 't is only urgente necessitate in Cases of necessity for to do so ordinarily they all forbid them And so in this Text where it is said that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus that he was not first Baptized before Dinner says Mr. Pocock tho' it be meant according to Grotius's Note that the Pharisee wonder'd that Jesus did not first wash his Hands before Dinner yet he disagrees with Grotius as to the reason of the expression and adds That if our Lord's Hands had but been Washed aquâ affusâ by having water poured upon them there had been no cause for the Pharisee's wonder because the Pharisees themselves did not otherwise wash their Hands upon the like occasion Idem
or Commanded to be so Baptiz'd and not otherwise Yes say they Our Saviour himself was Dipped when he was Baptized of John in Jordan for the very Original Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be Translated He was dipped of John into Jordan Mark 1.9 To this it has been rightly answer'd that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not necessarily signifie He was Dipped as I have clearly shewn you in my last Letter and then as for the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Adversaries would fain translate into Jordan they have been shewn from several the like Expressions in the New Testament That they may as well be translated at Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated at Jordan says Mr. Horn just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at Azotus Acts 8.40 and just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at the City Mat. 2.23 and just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated at Capernaum Mat. 4.13 and as the like Instances may be seen in Acts 4.5 and 20.16 and 21.13 and 25.15 See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants Maintain'd p. 70. But 't is further Objected That our Saviour when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water Matth. 3.16 and Mark 1.10 Sir I wonder not that these Texts are urg'd by the Common People of our Adversaries as an Argument to prove our Lord's being Dipp'd but that any Man who has Learning enough to interpret our English Bibles as they ought to be interpreted so as to agree with the Original that any such Learned Man should take an Advantage from the English Words which he must needs know the Original will not bear This to me indeed is very wondrous But who then can sufficiently wonder at the Author of your little Book for his wild Note upon Matth. 3.16 Our Lord went down so far and deep into the River says he that the Text is express when he was baptized he went up straightway out of the water Mark He went up Out of the Water is the Curious Penning of the Matter by the Holy Ghost to shew the Considerable depth our Lord went into the Water to be dipt Thus your Author But Sir I will leave it to others to say That his wrested Observation belyes the Holy Ghost I will only tell you That he ought to have look'd into the Original before he had presum'd to make his Remarks upon what the Holy Ghost did Pen for the Greek Words were the Curious Penning of the Holy Ghost And I do affirm That the Greek Words in both these Texts Matt. 3.16 and Mark 1.10 only signifie That our Lord went up From the Water as every Man does who goes from the Water-side only And thus our Saviour's being in or dipt into the Water cannot be prov'd from these Texts by any one who can consult the Original Words which in Matth. 3.16 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went up from the water and in Mark 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coming up from the water which I say can never prove him to have been in but only by the Water-side for he who goes but from the Water-side goes up from the Water because I think that Rivers do always run in the lowest Ground But granting that our Blessed Lord went into the River to be Baptiz'd it will not yet follow that he was dipt For good Sir I cannot here but observe both of our Lord and of the Eunuch which is your next Objection and of the many thousands we read of to have been Baptiz'd that we never find the least hint of any of their Cloaths being put off Certainly if they were dipt Naked as some say which I can hardly believe because Men and Women were baptiz'd together or if they put off but some of their uppermost Garments as others contend we shou'd have heard something of it for we are told of our Lord 's laying aside his Garment upon a far less occasion John 13.4 And therefore I say that we never hearing one Syllable about their Cloaths whether any part of them or all or none were put off is a good Argument ad hominem that they were not dipt And now let me appeal to you Sir whether we may not give a good Account of this Matter by supposing them to have been baptized only by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water Why you very well know That it was their Custom in those Countries to go bare up to the Knees only with Sandals upon their Feet so that they might conveniently enough step into their shallow Rivers to be baptized by having Water sprinkled or poured upon their Faces without putting off or laying aside any part of their Garments and therefore I say considering that we never read of any such thing not one Tittle about putting off or altering their Garments 't is as good an Argument against their being dipt and as strong for their being sprinkled only as we can desire against our Adversaries In short That when they were Baptized they were stript and dipt naked I cannot believe for the aforesaid Reason because Men and Women were Baptized together or supposing that they were Baptized distinctly and separately the Men by themselves and the Women by themselves yet still they were Men who Baptized and had this been put upon the Apostles to Baptize Women naked what brave sport wou'd their Enemies have made of it To be sure the Devil with the spightful Jews and Gentiles would have rais'd from such a practise as this a whole Volume of Lewd stories as the Learned know they did from the Celebration of the other Sacrament upon a far less Occasion But if the Baptized were dipped in their Garments then what becomes of their Objection which we hear of from Heb. 10.22 where there is Mention made of our Bodies being wash'd with pure Water For how our Bodies can be wash'd with our Cloaths on I do not well understand But Sir I shall here add by the by that in that Text to the Hebrews there is no allusion to Baptism No but that it plainly alludes to the Washing of the High-Priest mentioned Levit. 16.4 is even demonstrated by Mr. Sydenham in his Exercitation on Infant-Baptism Cap. 16. And for a Conclusion of this whole matter I will here set down some of the very Words of that Learned Author If says he The Person Baptized be not Naked then this Baptism by Dipping is rather a Baptizing Mens Cloaths and upper Garments than their Bodies but if he or she be Naked how odious a Custom wou'd this be I cannot but think that that part which is Baptized ought to be naked that the Water may immediately fall upon that place or else something else must be Baptized primarily and the Flesh only secondarily and by Consequence And this says he is the Reason why we only pour Water on the Face because it is the most Principal part wherein the Image of God most appears and the Soul shines forth most Eminently on