if we are faid to be buried with him in them, it must be in allufion to a perfon's being buried in water in that ordinance, which cannot be by pouring or sprinkling of water upon him, but by an immersion into it. So that our argument for plunging, from hence, is like to lofe nothing by this fenfe of the words. That Chrift's fufferings are called a baptifm, in Matt. xx. 22. Luke xii. 50. as also that by a Synechdoche, they are called the blood of his cross, is granted; but then the shedding of his blood was not the whole of Chrift's fufferings, but a part only, and this is called the blood of sprinkling, not with regard to its being called a baptism; but because it is fprinkled upon a believer's confcience, and being fo, fpeaks peace and pardon there; but when the greatnefs and multitude of Christ's sufferings are fet forth, they are represented, not by a sprinkling of water, but by mighty floods of water, which overflowed him, fo that he seemed, as it were, to be plunged into them, and overwhelmed with them; as he fays, in Pfalm lxix 2. I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me; where the Septuagint ufe the word narrow, as they do also in verse 15. which Mr B. W. in page 45. grants is very proper to exprefs plunging by; and therefore no wonder then that his fufferings are compared to a baptifm, and fuch an one as is administered by immerfion: So that the argument from hence, notwithstanding all those cavils and exceptions, ftands firm and unfhaken. As to the argument taken from the univerfality of Chrift's fufferings: every part of his body, which he makes his antagonist plead in page 32. he acknowledges it was never made use of by the greatest men of our perfuafion, why then does he produce it? If every thing that has been dropt by weak. chriftians, in private converfation on the fubject of infant-baptifm, was pub lifhed to the world, how filly and ridiculous would it appear?.

in

The fifth and last argument taken from the fignification of the word Baliw, which always fignifies to dip or plunge, with Mr B. W's. exceptions to it, confidered.

TH HE fifth and laft argument ufed by us, for immerfion in baptifm, taken from the conftant fignification of the word Ba(w, baptizo, to dip or plunge, Mr B. W. has thought fit to produce in p. 33. and except against, which we hope, notwithstanding, to make good, however we may be reprefented by our author, as uncapable of reading our mother tongue. And, 1. Mr B. W. denies that sala, bapto, and parli, baptizo, fignify one and the fame thing; but the reafon he gives, is not a fufficient one, and that is, because

because the holy Ghost never makes ufe of the former, when this ordinance is expreffed, but the latter; for the holy Ghoft may make ufe of what words he pleafes, without deftroying the fenfe of others; and by the way, then it may be oblerved, that earna, rantizo, and Barna, baptizo, do not fignify one and the fame thing; becaule the holy Ghoft never makes ufe of the former, when the ordinance is expreffed, but the latter. Befides, all the Lexicographers that I have been able to confult, tell me, that Bal and para do fignify one and the fame thing; for they render both by the very fame words, and they are both promifcuously used by Greek authors: And indeed, why should not Batlı(∞, baptizo, the derivative, fignify the fame as its primitive? what, is its fignification leffened by the addition of a fyllable to it? Dr Gale1 has given inftances enough of derivatives in C, which fignify the fame with their primitives. And indeed, fome have taken the word, under confideration, to be what grammarians call a frequentative, which fignifies more than the derivative does. But,

2. It seems our author will fcarcely allow Barlw, bapto, to fignify dip or plunge, and therefore puts it upon us to prove, that Judas, when he put his hand in the dish, thrust it all over in the fauce, Matt. xxvi. 23. where the word sμbafas, embapfas, is ufed; but he fhould have obferved, that it was not his hand, but the fop in his hand, by a metonymy of the fubject, as Pifcator obferves, which he dipt into the fauce, as he might have learned, by comparing the text with John xiii. 26. And in p. 45. he fays, "yea, with respect unto Bala itself, it "is very evident that the Greeks did not directly mean plunging thereby; for "when the Septuagint tell us in Dan. iv. 33. that Nebuchadnezzar's body was "wet with the dew of heaven, they make ufe of the very word;" and I would alio add, very justly, it exactly anfwered to the Chaldee word yas here ufed, which word always fignifies to tinge or dip, as dyers dip their clothes in their vatts, and fo is expreffive of what a condition Nebuchadnezzar's body was in, he being as wet with the dew of heaven, as if he had been dipt or plunged all over in water. But enough of this; let us consider,

3. How we are like to come off with the word Ballo, baptizo; and here our author in p. 41. tells us, ore rotundo, and with confidence enough, in fo many words, that "it never does fignify plunging; washing with water by pouring or fprinkling, is the only meaning of it." The man has got a good afsurance, but yet by his writing, he does not feem to have fuch a ftock of learning; however what he wants in one, he makes up in the other. It is ftrange that all our Lexicographers, fo many learned critics, and good divines, fhould be so much mistaken, as to render the word to dip or plunge, and allow this to be the proper fignification of it. I have my felf confulted feveral Lexicons, as thofe of Suidas, Scapula,

Reflections on Mr Wall's Hiftory of Infant-baptifm, p. 217.

Scapula, Hadrian, Junius, Pafor, as alfo another made by Eudeus, Tufanus, Gefner, Junius, Conftantine, Hartung, Hopper, and Xylander, who all unanimoufly render the word by mergo, immergo, to plunge or dip into: And though ty afterwards add alfo, abluo, lavo, to wash, yet it is plain they mean fuch a walking, as is by dipping; and we are very willing to grant it, for we know that there can be no dipping without washing: But had they meant a washing by pouring or sprinkling, they would have rendered it by perfundo, or afpergo, to pour upon, or Sprinkle; but this they never do. And, to thefe I might add a large number of learned critics, and good divines, who grant, that the word in its first and primary fenfe, fignifies to dip or plunge only; and to wash only in a fecondary, remote, and confequential one; as Cafaubon, Camerarius, Grotius", Calvin", Alting, Alfied, Wendelin, and others. But what need I heap up authors, to prove that which no man of any tolerable learning will deny : But what will not ignorance, attended with a confiderable fhare of confidence, carry a man through? I might oppofe to him, the ufe of the word in many Greek authors, but this has been done better already than I am capable of doing it, to which I refer him, and fhall content myfelf, with just mentioning that paffage of Plutarch, Be a ess Saxaroar, which I think the author I have reference to, has took no notice of; and let him try how his fenfe of pouring or fprinkling will agree with it. I am fure it will found very harfh, to render the words pour or Sprinkle thyfelf into the fea, but will read very well to be rendered thus, plunge thyfelf into the fea: But I fuppofe he will take this to be a breach. of the first article agreed upon in this conference; but why the Greek authors fhould not be allowed as evidences, in the fenfe of a Greek word, I cannot fee: I am fure this is not very confiftent with right reason, which the thing in debate was to be cleared up from, as well as from the word of God. But let us confider the ufe of the word with the Septuagint, which I fuppofe he will not except againft, because he has himself brought it into the controverfy. And there are but two places, which I have as yet met with, where the word is used by them, and the first is in 2 Kings v. 14. where it is faid of Naaman the Syrian, that be went down, Carnaro, and baptized or dipped himself feven times in Jordan: I prefume our author will not fay, that this is to be understood of a washing, by pouring or sprinkling; efpecially, feeing it anfwers to the Hebrew word ha, which always fignifies to dip or plunge, and is the word, which is fo often rendered by part, bapto, and which, by the way, proves thefe two to be of the

m All three on Matthew iii. 6.

n Inftitut. 1. 4. C.15. f. 19.

fame

P Lexic. Theolog. p. 221, 222. Dr Ga'e's Reflections on Mr Wall's Hiftory of De Superfitione.

• Loc commun. p. 198, & Explic, Catech, p. 311. 9 Chrift. Theolog. 1. 1. c. 22. Infant-baptifm, letter 3.

fame fignification, feeing they are promifcuously used by them, to express one

and the fame word.

The other place is in Ifai. xxi. 4. where what we read, fearfulness affrighted me, they render n avoμia μe Battila, iniquity bath plunged me; for to tranflate the words, iniquity bath washed, or poured, or sprinkled me, would be intolerable; but both the language and the sense are smooth and easy, by rendering them, iniquity bath plunged me; that is, into the depths of mifery and diftrefs; fo that I am overwhelmed with horror and terror: And hereby also the sense of the Hebrew word nya, here ufed, is very beautifully expreffed. But let us now confider,

4thly, What exceptions Mr B. W. makes against this univerfal fenfe of the word, and there are three places in the New Teftament which he opposes to it. The first is in Mark vii. 4. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not, and many other things there be, which they have received to bold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Whereupon Mr B. W. obferves, that the words of the holy Ghoft are, except they first baptize themselves; and many other fuch things they have, as the baptizing of tables. Excellent obfervations indeed! But how does this prove that the word fignifies only a washing, by pouring or sprinkling? I believe it will appear, that this is meant of the washing of the whole body by dipping, which might be done, without their going into a pond or a river before they came home; for they had, no doubt, proper conveniencies for immersion, when they came home, seeing bathing was in many cafes required of the people, as well as of the priests; and to understand it of such a washing, feems better to express their fuperftitious folicitude to cleanse themselves from all impurity they might contract by converfing with others in the market; it seems to be distinct from washing of hands in the former verfe, where a different word is used. But supposing that washing of hands was intended here, does not every body know, that the ufual manner of doing that, is not by pouring or sprinkling water upon them, but by putting them into it. And here I cannot but take notice of the obfervation of Beza upon this text; "Barned, fays he, in this for the former feems to refpect the whole body, the latter only the hands, nor does ẞane fignify to wafh, but only by confequence, for it properly denotes to immerse for the fake of dipping." As for the washing or baptizing of cups, pots, &c. it is well known that the cleanfing of veffels, which were polluted by the falling of any dead creature

.66

place, is more than

that

• Plus autem eft Barriga, hoc in loco, quam xegle, quod illud videatur de corpore univerfo, iftud de manibus duntaxat intelligendum. Neque To BarTen fignificat lavare, nifi à confequenti, nam proprie declarat tingendi caufa immergere. Beza in Marc. 7. 4.

that was unclean into them, was by putting into the water, and not by pouring or fprinkling water upon them. The exprefs command in Levit. xi. 32, is, that it must be put into the water, or as the Septuagint render it Bala, it must be dipt into water. Moreover, their fuperftitious washing of veffels, which our Lord feems here to mean, and justly reprehends, of which we read many things in their Misnah", or oral law, their book of traditions, was performed this way, where they make ufe of the word by to exprefs it by, which always fignifies to dip or plunge. But what need I ufe many words to prove this, when every old woman could have informed him of the usual manner of washing their veffels, which is not by pouring or sprinkling water upon them, but by putting them into it: And if he asks, did the Jewish women wafh their tables fo? There appears no reason to conclude the contrary; and if he should fay, how and where could they do it? I anfwer, in or near their own houfes, where they had conveniencies for bathing themselves, and washing their garments, at proper times, without carrying them to a river.

The next place inftanced in by him, is Heb. ix. 10. where the ceremonial law is faid to ftand only in meats and drinks, and divers washings; it is in the Greek text, in divers baptifms; and, fays our author, "it is evident from the "word of God, that those washings generally ftood in pouring or sprinkling of "water;" but that is a mistake of his, for they neither ftood in them generally, nor particularly; for thofe ceremonial ablutions were always performed by bathing or dipping in water, and are called apogio, divers, or different, not because they were performed different ways, as fome by fprinkling, others by pouring, and others by plunging, but because of the different perfons and things, the fubjects thereof; as the priests, Levites, Ifraelites, veffels, garments, &c. And here it may not be amifs to observe what Maimonides", who was one of the most learned of the Jewish writers, fays concerning this matter, "Wherever, fays he, the washing of the flesh or garments is mentioned in the “law, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body; for if a man "washes himself all over, excepting the very tip of his little finger, he is ftill " in his uncleannefs." Nay, he fays it is neceffary that every hair of his head should be washed; and therefore the apoftle might well call thefe washings, baptifms.

The third and last instance produced by him, is 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. where the apoftle fays, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all paffed through the

W

VOL. II.

G G

" Tract. Mikvaoth. c. 10. f. 1, 5, 6.

fea

Ubicunque in lege memoratur ablutio carnis aut veftium, nihil aliud vult, quam ablutionem totius corporis, nam fiquis fe totum abluat, excepto ipfiffimo apice minimi digiti ille adhuc in immunditie fua, Maimon, in Mikvaoth. c. 1, 4. in Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. in Matt. p. 47.