among the Jws, it will not feem fo ftrange, where, and how they fhould be fo eafily provided with plunging garments. Our objector goes on, and adds, "In what a poor condition was Paul, when he was plunged, having been fo ill, "and fo long without eating or drinking! and after that, how unfit must Paul "himself be under his wounds and bruises, and in the dead of the night, to go "into fome deep water, and take up the jailor and plunge him!" Here I cannot but remark the wretched blunder that our author makes, or at least the inadvertency, to say no worse of it, that he is guilty of, in talking as if the baptifm of Paul and the jailor was in one and the fame night. But if he objects this is not his meaning, why did he write in fuch a blundering manner, and many times with want of fenfe, as when he talks of Paul's taking up the jailor, and many fuch like paffages which are to be found in this his performance. But to proceed, that Paul was three days before his baptism without eating or drinking, is true, but that he was fo very ill as our author reprefents, does not appear fo manifeft; however, it is plain, that he was not fo ill, but he was able to arife and be baptized, which he need not have done, had it been performed by pouring or sprinkling water upon him. As to Paul's unfitnefs, under his wounds and bruises, to plunge the jailor, I need only ask, how he and Silas were capable of praying and finging the praises of God, and that so loud as the other prisoners heard them? and after that preached the gospel to the jailor and his family, which must be a much more laborious work, and more spending and fatiguing to them, than baptizing of them was; but that fame God who enabled them to perform the one, carried them through the other. καλύσαι, Again, he fays, "how improperly did Peter fpeak in Cornelius's houfe, when "he talked of forbidding water! whereas he should have faid, can any man for"bid thefe men from going to the river to be plunged ?" to which I answer, if there is any impropriety in this text, it is not to be charged upon the words or fense of the holy Ghoft, but upon our tranflation; for vdwg, "water," ought not to be put in conftruction with xavou, "forbid," but with Barlivou, "to be bap"tized;" and fo the whole be rendered thus, "Can any man forbid, that these fhould be baptized with water, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we?" and then the fenfe is this; has any man any thing to object why these who have received the holy Ghoft, even as we, fhould not be admitted to the ordinance of water-baptifm? for feeing they have received the greater privilege, why should they be deprived of the leffer? And this reading and fenfe of the words are confirmed by the learned Erafmus, in his notes upon the text, which are thefe," the Greeks, fays he', read after this manner, vg, &c. and the fense 1 Græci legunt in hunc modum unti udwg, &c. et apparet hunc effe fenfum: num quis vetare poteft, quo minus aqua baptizentur ii, qui fpiritum fanétum acceperunt, ficut & nos? veluti plus fit fpiritus quam fense appears to be this: Can any man forbid that these fhould be baptized "in water, who have received the holy Ghoft as well as we ? for as the fpirit "is preferable to water, and feeing they have him, it will be no great matter "if this be added alfo: Moreover the accufative To us, "water;" either depends upon the prepofition, which may be understood, or else adheres to "the verb BanTiwa, "to be baptized;" juft in the fame form in which we fay, Barrioμes Balioua, "to be baptized with a baptifm." 66 As to what Mr B. W. fays, concerning the ufe of plunging garments in baptifm, that therefore the water comes to the body only a filtering, or as it can work its way through, which, fays he, at beft is only equivalent to fprinkling. I need only reply, it is fufficient in baptifm that the whole body be plunged into and covered under water; nor does it much concern us, to observe and know, how it works its way through to the body. I hope he will acknowledge, that a corps may be said to be truly buried, when covered with earth, though it is wrapt up in a shroud, or in its funeral clothes, and put up clofe in a coffin, fo that the earth with which it is covered, does not as yet touch it; even so a perfon may be truly faid to be baptized, when in the name of the three Divine Perfons, he is plunged into, and covered over with water, even though the water may not be supposed to have had time enough to have worked its way through to his body; and when it has done fo, how that is equivalent to sprinkling, no man can devife. But enough of this, I proceed to the next argument. The fourth argument taken from Romans vi. 4. Coloffians ii. 12. with the fenfe given of thofe fcriptures, by Mr B. W. confidered. UR next argument for baptifm by immersion, which Mr B. W. has thought fit to produce in p. 24. and except against, is taken from Rom. vi. 4. Col.ii. 12. where this ordinance is took notice of by the apoftle, as a burial, and as reprefenting the burial and refurrection of Chrift; which argument may be formed thus, and not in the loose rambling way, in which he has reprefented it, and which, no doubt, he thought would best answer his purpose; namely, “If the "end and defign of baptifm are to reprefent the burial and refurrection of Chrift, "then it ought to be performed by plunging into, and overwhelming with "water; but the end and design of baptifm, are to represent the burial and reVOL. II. F F "furrection quam aqua, cumque ille contingerit, nihil effe magni fi hoc accefferit: Cæterum To vowę accufativus aut pendet a præpofitione fubaudita zara, aut adhæret verbo Baliva, ea forma qua dicimus, βαπτίζομαι βαπλισμα. Erafmus in Αct. x. 47. cr "furrection of Chrift, therefore it ought to be performed by plunging into, and overwhelming with water; the reafon is, because no other mode of baptizing "either by pouring or fprinkling a little water on the face, can anfwer this end." But let us attend to what Mr B. W. has to except. And, 1. He feems to deny this to be the end and defign of the inftitution of this ordinance, when he afks," But did Chrift ever inftitute baptifm for any fuch "end? As for the Lord's Supper, he hath faid, Do this in remembrance of me; "and it is plain from the word, that in the Lord's Supper we fhew forth his "death till be come: but where has he faid, be plunged or baptized, to repre"fent my burial or refurrection?" To which I answer, that though we have not the end of this inftitution declared, in fo many exprefs words, yet we think it may be fairly concluded from thofe texts now mentioned, and must continue to be of the fame mind, for ought Mr B. W. has advanced against it: Nor are we alone in our fentiments: For that Chrift's burial and refurrection are reprefented by baptifm, has been acknowledged by many, both ancient and modern divines, whofe words I forbear to tranfcribe, partly because they have been many of them produced by others already, and partly because I would not fill my book with citations, and therefore fhall only direct the reader to the reference in the margent *. Though Mr B. W. is of opinion, that to infer this from those words, buried with him in baptism, is very abfurd and inconclufive; and that "we may as well be hanged up against a tree, to reprefent "Christ crucified, because it is faid, that we are crucified with Chrift." can any mortal fee this to be a parallel cafe? to fay nothing how fhocking this expreffion must be to every ferious mind, and not to be borne with; no more than the wretched jargon which follows it, when he fays, " and to make a fair "end of you, be fure to fee you dead under the earth or under the water; which, I doubt not, to every impartial intelligent reader, will appear to have as little of argument as it has of fenfe in it. Befides, who does not fee that all this, whatever he can mean by it, may be levelled as much against the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, as that of Baptifm. Moreover, there are other texts, befides thefe mentioned, which demonftrate the reprefentation of Christ's refurrection, which fuppofes his burial to be the end of baptifm; as for instance, 1 Peter iii. 21. where baptifm is faid to fave us, by the refurrection of Jefus Chrift. But how does it do that, but by reprefenting the refurrection of Chrift unto us, and thereby leading our faith to it, to behold our juftification and difcharge, by a rifen Saviour? To which I might also add, 1 Cor. xv. 29. where the apostle But Gregory Nazianzen, Bafil, Chryfoftome, Ambrofe, Daille, Fowler, Cave, Towerfon, cited by Mr Stennett, in his answer to Ruffen, p. 144, 145, 147, 156, 157. See alfo Dr Goodwin's Chrift fet forth. Sect. 3. Ch. 7. apostle evincing the truth of the refurrection of the dead, thus argues, elfe what fball they do, which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rife not? that is, "Who are baptized into the faith of the refurrection of Chrift, which is re"prefented thereby, and which is the confirmation of our refurrection; thing that is there debated; and which, if not true, the apostle argues that their baptifm, as well as their faith, and his preaching, was in vain. Befides, if our author removes this end of baptifm, he ought to have fubftituted another, and have told us what was the end and defign of it, which he has not done; for all the ordinances of the gospel are, no doubt, defigned for the comfort and edification of believers, and the confirmation of their faith in the person of Chrift; and feeing there appears nothing more manifeftly to be the end of it, than what has been mentioned, we shall think fit to abide by it. But, 2dly, Our author afks, "What there is in your plunging that reprefents "Chrift's burial and refurrection;" and to fhew that there is no agreement, he runs the parallel between them, and obferves, that Chrift was carried to his grave, where, being dead, he was buried, and lay there three days, and three nights, and that in the earth, where a great stone was rolled at the mouth of the fepulchre, and when he arose, it was by his own power, and thereby declared to be the Son of God: But as for us, we go ourselves into the water, are plunged alive, and that not three minutes, in water; and that our plunger dares not leave us, nor roll a stone upon us; and it is he that puts us in that pulls us out, and we are declared to be what we are: What would the man have us be declared to be, what we are not? and then in a taunting manner fays, " and this is the repre"fentation and the mighty resemblance." Thefe are fome of our author's masterly ftrokes, and when the candor of the reader has fupplied the want of fenfe in his expreffion, and charitably conjectured at his meaning, I need only reply, that the things inftanced in are only circumftantial, and not effential to a burial, and therefore unneceffary to be reprefented in baptifm; nay, it would have been abfurd to have had them: It is enough that the things themselves are, namely, the burial and refurrection of Chrift, which are fufficiently reprefented by an immerfion into water, and an emerfion out of it. But who does not fee that a Quaker, or any other perfon that denies the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, may argue after the fame manner, and say, you say that this ordinance reprefents a crucified Chrift, and fhews forth his death and fufferings, but pray how does it appear? you take a loaf of bread, and break it in pieces, and a bottle of wine, and pour it out; but Chrift, when he was crucified, was hanged on a tree, his head was crowned with thorns, his hands and feet were pierced with nails, and his fide with a fpear; but here are no thorns, nails, or fpear made ufe of by you, his real body was treated after this FF 2 this manner, but yours is only a loaf of bread; he poured out his blood, you only wine;" and this is the reprefentation, and the mighty resemblance." And I think all this may be faid with as much juftnefs as the other. But, 3. Mr B. W. has got another way of getting off the argument taken from thefe texts, in Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. and that is, by afferting that the baptifm of Christ's sufferings, and not water-baptifin, is intended in them. It would be endless, and perhaps our author will fay needlefs, to oppofe to him the feveral expofitors and interpreters, who understand, by baptifm, the ordinance of water-baptifm, in those texts; as well as a large number of them who think the allufion is made to the ancient practice of baptizing by immerfion; as Grotius, Vorftius, Paraus, Pifcator, Diodate, and the Affembly of Divines on Romans vi. 4and Zanchy and Davenant on Col. ii. 12. I fuppofe that Mr B. W. will reply, that these are but men, and their judgment fallible; I hope he does not think that he is more than a man, or that his judgment is infallible; and it will fcarcely be accounted modefty in him, to fet himself upon a level with them: Though I confess that his fenfe of the words is not difagreeble to the analogy of faith, yet I wonder that he fhould be fo pofitive as to fay that this is the only meaning of them, as he does in p. 31. As to what he fays with respect to those texts, one of them being produced as an argument to promote holiness in believers, and the other to strengthen their faith in the doctrine of juftification; I cannot fee, but to understand them of water-baptifm, fuits very well with the scope thereof, however it is ridiculed by our author: For why may not our baptisın, wherein we profess our faith in a buried Christ, and that we are dead by him to the law, the world, and particularly to fin, be urged and made use of by the fpirit of God, as an argument why we fhould not live any longer therein. And are there no force, power and cogency in this argument? Again, in baptism we profess our faith in the refurrection of Chrift, which is reprefented hereby, and that we are rifen with him, and therefore are under the highest obligations to walk in newness of life, as the apoftle himfelf argues. Moreover, what can have a greater tendency to ftrengthen our faith in the doctrine of juftification, than this ordinance has? by which it is led to fee where our Lord lay, and how our fins were left in the grave by him; and he, as our glorious representative, rifing again for cur juftification, by whom we are acquitted and difcharged from all fin and condemnation; and is fuch a way of arguing from hence, to promote holiness, and strengthen us in the doctrine of justification, to be wondered at, what is meant by it? But to proceed, 4thly, Suppofing that the baptifin of Chrift's fufferings is intended here, and that we are buried with him therein, as our head and reprefentative, it must be allowed, that Chrift's fufferings are called fo, in allufion to water-baptifm; and |