fea; and were all baptized unto Mofes in the cloud, and in the fea; which when our author has mentioned, he very brifkly afks, "Pray how were our fathers bap"tized there?" to which, I hope, we fhall be capable of returning an answer, without appearing to be fo bitterly gravelled with this place, as he is pleased to make his friend fay we are. As for the manner in which he reprefents fome of our friends accounting for it; namely, that when the people of Ifrael paffed through the Red fea, they had the waters ftood up, both on their right hand, and on their left, and a cloud over them; fo that there was a very great resemblance of a perfon's being baptized, or plunged under water. This, I fay, is not fo much to be defpifed, nor does it deferve fo much ridicule and contempt, as he has pleased to caft upon it; and I believe will appear to any unprejudiced perfon, a much better way of accounting for it, than he is capable of giving, confiftent with his way of adminiftering the ordinance: Though I cannot but think that the Ifraelites were first baptized in the cloud, and then in the fea, according to the order of the apostle's words; and agreeable to the story in Exodus xiv. where we read, that the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them, and was between the two camps, to keep off the Egyptians from the Ifraelites. I am therefore of opinion, with the learned Gataker *, that the cloud when it paffed over them, let down a plentiful rain upon them, whereby they were in fuch a condition, as if they had been all over dipt in water; so that they were not only covered by it, but baptized in it: Therefore our author very improperly directs us to Pfalm lxxvii. 17. the clouds poured out water, as the better way of refolving the cafe; for the apostle does not fay, that they were baptized in the clouds, but in the cloud which went before them, but now paffing over them, in order to stand behind them, they were, as it were, immerfed in it. But fuppofing that the text in Pfalm lxxvii. may be a direction in this cafe, and ferve to explain what the apoftle means by baptizing, it will no ways agree either with our author's fenfe of the word, nor his way of adminiftering the ordinance: For were the Ifraelites baptized under the clouds, by their pouring or sprinkling a fmall quantity of water upon their faces? the Hebrew word here used, fignifies an overflow, or an inundation of water: And Ainfworth reads it streamed down or gushed with a tempeft; fo that they were as perfons overwhelmed, and plunged over head and ears in water; and therefore the apoftle might well call it a being baptized. But now let us confider alfo, how they might be faid to be baptized in the fea; and there are several things, in which the Ifraelites paffage through the Red fea, refembled our baptifm. As for inftance, their following of Mofes into it, which may be meant by their being baptized into him, was an acknowledgment of their In Adverfar. Mifcellan. p 30. regard regard unto him, as their Guide and Governor; as our baptifm is a following of Christ as our Prophet, who has taught and led us the way; as well as a profeffion of our faith in him, as our Surety and Saviour, and a fubjection to him, as our King and Governor: Theirs was at their firft entrance upon their journey to Canaan, as ours is, when, in a way of profeffion, we publicly begin our christian race: They, when they came out of it, could fing and rejoice, in the view of all their enemies being destroyed; as the believer also can in this ordinance, in the view of all his fins being drowned in the fea of Christ's blood, witness the instances of the Eunuch and Jailor. But in nothing is there a greater resemblance between them, than in their defcending into it, and coming up out of it; which is very much expreffive of the mode of baptifm by immerfion. And this I choose to deliver in the words of the judicious Gataker". "The defcent, (that is, of the Ifraelites) says he, into the inmoft and lowest parts of the fea, and their ascent out of it again upon dry land, hath a very great agreement with the rite of chriftian baptifm, as it was administered in "the primitive times; feeing in baptizing they went down into the water, and "came up again out of the fame; of which defcent and ascent express mention "is made in the dipping of the Ethiopian Eunuch, Ats viii. 38, 39. Moreover, "as in the chriftian rite, when they were immerfed, they were overwhelmed "in water, and as it were buried; and in fome measure, seemed to be buried together with Chrift. And again, when they emerfed, they seemed to rife, < even as out of a grave, and to be rifen with Chrift, Rom. vi. 4, 5. and Col. ii. 12. "So likewife, the waters of the sea standing up higher than the heads of those "that paffed through it, they might feem to be overwhelmed; and in some refpects, to be buried therein, and to emerfe and rife out again, when they "came out fafe on the other fide of the fhore." 66 66 And having now confidered all thofe exceptions, which our author has made against this fenfe of the word, which is contended for, I hope it will appear, that he has little reafon to make that vain triumph he does, in p 38. where, he afks, "Where now is your baptizo, that fignifies nothing else but plunging and "overwhelming?" As for his comparing the paffage of the Ifraelites through y Magnam habet convenientiam ille in maris intima infimaque defcenfus, ex eodem afcenfus denuo in aridam, cum baptifmi chriftiani ritu, prout is primis temporibus adminiftrabatur. Siquidem inter baptizandum in aquas defcendebant, & ex eifdem denuo afcendebant: Cujus καταβάσεως και αναβασεως in Εunuchi Ethiopis tinatione mentio exprefia reperitur, Adt. viii. 38, 39. Quin &, ficuti in ritu chriftiano, quum immergerentur aquis obruti, & quafi fepulti & Chrifto ipfi confepulti quodammodo videbantur; rurfufque cum emergerent, a fepulchro quodammodo refurgere, ac cum Chrifto refufcitare præ fe ferebant. Rom. vi. 4, 5. Col. ii. 12. Ita maris illius aquis capitibus ipfis tranfeuntium altius extantibus obruti ac fepulti quodammodo poterunt videri & emergere ac refurgere denuo, cum ad littus objectum exeuntes evafiffent. Gatak, ibid. the Red fea, to his travelling to Scotland with the Irish fea on his left hand, and the German on his right, and to his journeying to Cornwal, with the British channel at fome distance from him, on his left hand, and the channel of Bristol on his right, I cannot fee it can be of any fervice, unless it be to lay afide the Ifrael, ites paffage through the fea as a miracle, and fo furnish the atheift and deift with an argument, fuch an one as it is, for their purpose. As for his fneer upon plunging in it, I can easily forgive him, and pafs it by, as well as that of the plunging of the Egyptians, with the fame contempt in which he delivers them. Having thus confidered his exceptions to thofe arguments produced for plunging, I fhall in the next chapter take notice of his reafons against it. MR CHA P. VII. Mr B. W's. reafons against plunging in baptifm, confidered. R B. W. in the next place, proceeds to give us some reasons in p. 43. why he is against the administration of the ordinance of baptifm by plunging. And his First reason is, "Because there is not any foundation for it in the word of "God; no precept, no example, fays he, no neceffary confequence, no words. 66 nor found of words to favour it ;" and a little lower, "There is not a word, he means of plunging, nor the fhadow of a word; and therefore I think I "have good reason against it." Words are the shadows, representations, and expreffions of our minds; but what the shadow of a word is, I cannot devife, unless he means the leaft appearance of a word, as perhaps he may; and that I fuppofe is an initial letter of a word, or an abbreviation, &c. But the holy Ghost does not write in fuch a manner, and therefore we expect to find whole words, or none at all. But to proceed, does he want a precept? let him read Matt. xxviii. 19. or an example? let him take Chrift for one, Matt. iii. 16. and the Eunuch, Acts viii. 38, 39. And is no neceffary confequence to be deduced from the places John and the apoftles baptized in? nor from the circumstances which attended it, of going down and coming up out of the water? I hope it will appear to every thinking, and unprejudiced perfon, that it has been proved that not only the found of words, but the true fenfe of words favour it. His other reafon is, "Because it is not only without foundation in the word "of God, but it is directly against it," but how does that appear? Why, “fuppofe fome poor creatures, fays he, upon a bed of languishing, under consump❝tions, catarrhs, pains, fores, and bruifes, be converted, and that perhaps "in the depth of winter, it is their duty to be baptized, that is true? but is it "their duty to be plunged? no, to be fure; for the whole word of God com"mands felf-preservation; and therefore it is evident, that plunging is against "the commands of God." I fuppofe he takes it to be contrary to the fixth command; but if it is the duty of perfons to be baptized, it is their duty to be plunged; for there is no true baptifin without it? But what, in the depth of winter? why not? what damage is like to come by it? Our climate is not near fo cold as Mufcovy, where they always dip their infants in baptifm, to this very day; as does alfo the Greek church in all parts of the world. But what, plunge perfons when under confumptions, catarrhs, &c. ? why not? perhaps it may be of ufe to them for the refloration of health; and its being performed on a facred account, can never be any hindrance to it. Whoever reads Sir John Floyer's Hiftory of Cold-bathing, and the many cures that have been performed thereby, which he there relates, will never think that this is a fufficient objection against plunging in baptism; which learned physician has also of late published An Effay to restore the dipping of Infants in their Baptifm; which he argues for, not only from the fignification of baptifm, and its theological end, but likewife from the medicinal ufe of dipping, for preventing and curing many distempers. If it may be useful for the health of tender infants, and is in many cafes now made ufe of, it can never be prejudicial to grown perfons: He argues from the liturgy and rubric of the church of England, which requires dipping in baptifm, and only allows pouring of water in case of weakness, and never fo much as granted a permiffion for Sprinkling. He proves in this book, and more largely in his former, that the conftant practice of the church of England, ever fince the plantation of chriftianity, was to dip or plunge in baptifm; which he fays continued after the reformation until King Edward the fixth's time and after: Nay, that its difuse has been within this hundred years: And here I cannot forbear mentioning a paffage of his, to this purpofe", "Our fonts are built, fays he, with"a fufficient capacity for dipping of infants, and they have been so used for "five hundred years in England, both Kings and Common people have been "dipped; but now our fonts ftand in our churches as monuments, to upbraid "us with our change or neglect of our baptifmal immerfion." And I with he had not reafon to fay as he does, that fprinkling was first introduced by the Affembly of Divines, in 1643, by a vote of 25 against 24, and established by an ordinance of parliament in 1644. Which complaint Mr Wall has taken up, who wrote the laft in this controverfy, having ftudied it for many years; and has fairly acknowledged, that immerfion is the right mode of baptifm; for which reafon he calls upon his brethren, the clergy, to a reformation in it: As for those who Ibid. p. 4, 12, 32. Effay to reftore the Dipping of Infants in their Baptism, p. 60. who would willingly conform to the liturgy, he lays before them the difficulties they must expect to meet with; which, befides the general one of breaking an old cuftom, he mentions two more: The one is from those who are prefbyterianly inclined, who as they were the first introducers of it, will be tenacious enough to keep it. And the other is, from midwives and nurfes, &c. whofe pride in the fine dreffing of the child will be entirely loft. But to return from whence I have digreffed. Mr B. W. it feems, is of opinion, that baptism by plunging, is not only against the fixth, but also against the seventh command, for which reason he must be against it. To baptize by plunging, he infinuates is a practice contrary to the whole current of Chrift's pure precepts, of an un"comely afpect, and feemingly fcandalous and ignominious to the honour of "christianity; and that one would think a man would as foon deny all right ❝ reason, and religion, as believe Chrift would ever command fuch a practice." But I appeal to any, even our worst adverfaries, that make any confcience of what they fay or do, who have seen the ordinance administered, whether it is of fuch an uncomely afpect, and fo feemingly fcandalous, as this defamer has represented it. "And, fays he, to ufe the words of a servant of Christ, can we "therefore imagine, that Chrift's baptifm fhould intrench fo much upon the "laws of civility, chastity, and modefty, as to require women and maids to "appear openly in the light of the fun, out of their wonted habit, in transpa"rent and thin garments, next to nakedness, and in that posture be took by "a man in his arms, and plunged in the face of the whole congregation, be"fore men and boys!" Who this fervant of Chrift is, whose words he uses, and has made his own, he does not tell us. I fhall therefore inform the reader, they are the words of one Ruffen, an author he might well be ashamed to mention in the manner he does: However I fhall not be ashamed to give Mr Stennett's reply to this paragraph, in his excellent answer to that fcurrilous writer, which I have put in the margent; and would alfo recommend that book to the It does not fhock me fo much, to find Mr R. ufe fuch terms as are fcarce reconcileable to good fenfe, as it does to find him ufing fuch expreffions, and making fuch defcriptions, as are hardly confiftent with that civility and modesty, for which he would appear to be an advocate. I can bear with him, when, on this occafion, he calls thin garments a posture instead of a habit, and tells us of things that are ignominious to the honour of christianity, being now pretty well acquainted with his file. But I must confefs myself offended with that air of levity, and those indecent terms, in which he condemns the pretended immodefty of others. For the words by which he sometimes defcribes the vicious acts and inclinations which he cenfures, feem not fo much adapted to excite horror and averfion in the reader, as to defile his imagination, and to dispose him to that imprudent temper of making a mock of fin. And the true reason why I do not quote Mr R's words at large in this place, as I do in many others, is not to evade the force of his argument, but to avoid the mode of his expreffion, by which he has given too much occafion of offence to virtuous minds, and perhaps too much gratified thofe that are viciously inclined. Stennett's Anfw. to Ruffen, p. 137. |