BAPTISM. account of; fince they addicted themselves to the miniftry of the faints: and now upon what a tottering foundation does Infant-baptism stand, having no precept from God for it, nor any one fingle precedent for it in the word of God? Come we now, VII. To the laft text in the controversy, Romans xi. 17, 24. and which is the decifive one, and yet purely allegorical; when it is an axiom with divines, that fymbolical or allegorical divinity is not argumentative: there is nothing, fays Dr Owen, "fo fottifh, or foolish, or contradictious in and to itself, as may not "be countenanced from teaching parables to be inftructive, and proving in "every parcel, or expreffion, that attends them;" of this we have an inftance in our author, about ingrafting buds with the cyon, and of breaking off and grafting in branches with their buds, which he applies to parents and their children; though the apostle has not a word about it: and indeed he is speaking of an ingrafture, not according, but contrary to nature; not only of an ingrafture of an olive-tree, which is never done, but of ingrafting a wild cyon into a good stock; whereas the usual way is to ingraft a good cyon into a wild stock. The general scope and defign of the allegory is to be attended to, which is to fhew the rejection of the unbelieving Jews from, and the reception of the believing Gentiles into the gospel-church; for though God did not caft away the people among the Jews whom he foreknew; or the remnant according to the election of grace, of which the apoftle was one; yet there was a cafting-away of that people as a body politic and ecclefiaftic, which now continues, and will till the fulness of the Gentiles are brought in; and then there will be a general converfion of the Jews, of which the conversion of some of them in the times of Chrift and his apoftles were the root, firft-fruits, pledge, and earnest; and which led on the apostle to this allegorical difcourfe about the olive-tree; which I understand of the gospel church-ftate, in diftinction from the Jewish church-state, now diffolved. This writer will not allow, that the Jewish church, as to its effential conftitution, is abolished, only as to its outward form of administration : but God has wrote a Lo-ammi upon that people, both as a body politic and ecclefiaftic; he has unchurched them; he has broke his covenant with them, and their union with each other in their church-ftate, fignified by his breaking his two staffs, beauty and bands; and if this is not the cafe, the people of the Jews are now the true church of God, notwithstanding their rejection of the Meffiah; and if the Gentiles are incorporated into that church, the gospelchurch is, and must be national, as that was, and the fame with it; whereas it differs from it, both as to matter and form, confifting of perfons gathered out of the world, and enjoying different ordinances, the former being utterly aboVOL. II. 3 M 9 On Perfeverance, p. 416. • Hosea i. 9. • Zech. xi. 10, 14. lished. lifhed. Our author objects to my interpretation of the good olive-tree being the gospel church-ftate, from the unbelieving Jews being faid to be broken-off, and the olive-tree called their own olive-tree, and they the natural branches: to which I answer, that the breaking of them off, ver. 17. is the fame with the cafting away of them, ver. 15 and the allegory is not to be ftretched beyond its scope. The Jewish church being diffolved, the unbelieving Jews lay like broken, withered, fcattered branches, and fo continued, and were not admitted into the gospel church ftate, which is all the apoftle means: if I have used too soft a term, to fay they were left out of the gospel-church, since severity is expreffed, I may be allowed to use one more harsh and severe; as that they were caft away and rejected, they were cut off from all right, and excluded from admiffion into the gospel church, and not fuffered to partake of the ordinances of it and as to the gospel church being called their own olive-tree, that is, the converted Jews in the latter day, of whom the apostle speaks; with great propriety may it be called their own, not only because of their right of admiffion to it, being converted, but because the first gospel-church was fet up in Jerufalem,. was gathered out from among the Jews, and confifted of fome of their nation, which were the first-fruits of thofe converted ones; and fo in other places, the first gospel churches confifted of Jews, into which, and not into the national church of the Jews, were the Gentiles ingrafted, and became fellow-beirs with them, and of the fame body, partaking of gospel-ordinances and privileges: and the natural branches are not the natural branches of the olive-tree, but the natural branches or natural feed of Abraham, or of the Jewish people,. who in. the latter day will be converted, and brought into the gofpel-church, as fome of them were in the beginning of it. This fenfe being established, it is a clear and plain cafe, that nothing from hence can be concluded in favour of Infantbaptifm; of which there is not the least hint, nor any manner of reference to it. This chapter, you will remember, Sir, is concluded with proofs of womens right to the ordinance of the Lord's fupper and which are fuch, as cannot be produced, and fupported, to prove the right of infants to baptifm. It is granted by our author, that my "arguments are in the main conclufive, and he "must be a wrangler that will dispute them;" and yet he disputes them himfelf, and fo proves himself a wrangler, as indeed he is nothing else throughout the whole of his performance. However, he is confident, there are as good proofs of the baptifm of infants; as, from their being accounted believers and difciples; from their being church-members"; from the probability of some infants baptized in the whole houfholds mentioned; all which we have seen are weak, foolish, impertinent, and inconclufive. This author does wonderful feats feats in his own conceit, in his knight-errantry way; he proves this, and confutes that, and baffles the other; and though he brings the fame arguments, that have been used already; as he owns, and I may add, baffled too already, to use his own language; yet he has added fome new illuftration and enforcement to them, and fuch as have not occurred to him in any author he has feen; fo that he would have his reader believe, he is fome extraordinary man, and has performed wonderful well; and in this vainglorious fhew, I leave him to the ridicule and contempt of men of modefty and good fenfe, as he justly deferves, and proceed to The fixth and laft chapter of my treatife, which is concerning the mode of adminiftering the ordinance of baptifm, whether by immerfion, or fprinkling; and here, Sir, I obferve, 1. That our author reprefents the controversy about this as one of the most trifling controverfies that ever was managed: but if it is so trifling a matter, whether baptism is administered by immersion or sprinkling, why do he and his party write with fo much heat and vehemency, as well as with fo much fcorn and contempt against the former, and fo heavily load with calumnies thofe that defend it, and charge them with the breach of the fixth and Seventh commands, as it has been often done? But if it is fo indifferent and trifling a matter with this writer, it is not fo with us, who think it to be an affair of great importance, in what manner an ordinance is to be administered; and who judge it effential to baptifm, that it be performed by immerfion, without which it cannot be baptifm; nor the end of the ordinance answered, which is to reprefent the burial of Chrift; and which cannot be done unless the perfon baptized is covered in water. 2. It is allowed that the word Bank, with the lexicons and critics, fignifies to dip; but it is alfo obferved, that they render it to wash: which is not denied, fince dipping neceffarily includes washing; whatever is dipped, is washed, and therefore in a confequential fenfe it fignifies washing, when its primary fenfe is dipping. Our author does not attempt to prove, that the lexicons and critics ever say it fignifies to pour or Sprinkle; which ought to be done, if any thing is done to purpose: indeed he says, with claffical writers, it has the fignification of perfufion, or sprinkling; but does not produce one inftance of it. He charges me with partiality in concealing part of what Mr Leigh fays in his Critica Sacra; which I am not confcious of, fince my edition, which indeed is one of the former, has not a fyllable of what is quoted from him; and even that is more for us than against us. Hence with great impertinence are thofe paffages of scripture produced, Mark vii. 3, 4. Luke xi. 30. Heb. ix. 10. which are fuppofed to have the fignification of wafhing; fince thefe do not at all militate against the fenfe of dipping, feeing dipping is washing; and to as vain a purpose are those scriptures 3 M 2 fcriptures referred to, Ephes. v. 26. Tit, iii. 5. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Peter i. 9. Act's xxii. 16. which call baptifm a washing of water, and the washing of regeneration, &c. even fuppofing they are to be understood of baptifm; which, at least in feveral of them, is doubtful; fince nobody denies, that a perfon baptized, may be faid to be washed, he being dipped in water. 4. It is affirmed that we do not read of one inftance of any person who repaired to a river, or conflux of water, purely on the defign of being baptized therein. But certain it is, that John repaired to fuch places for the convenient administration of that ordinance; and many repaired to him at thofe places, purely on a defign of being baptized by him in them; and particularly it is said of Christ, then cometh Jefus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him; and I hope it will be allowed, that he repaired to Jordan, on a pure defign of being baptized in it; and though it was in a wilderness where John was, yet fuch an one in which were many villages, full of inhabitants, as our author might have learned from Dr Lightfoot; where John might have had the convenience of veffels for bringing water, had the ordinance been performed by him in any other way, than by immersion. 5. The use of the words, baptize and baptifm, in fcripture, comes next under confideration; and, (1.) the word is used in Acts i. 5. of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit to the apoftles on the day of Pentecoft, which is called a being baptized with the holy Ghost; and the house in which the apostles were, being filled with it, had in it a resemblance to baptifm by immerfion; and hence the ufe of the phrase. The main objection our author makes to this, is, that the difciples were in the house before it was filled with the holy Ghoft; whereas it fhould have been first filled, and then they enter into it, to carry any refemblance in it to immersion: but it matters not, whether the houfe was filled before or after they entered, inafmuch as it was filled when they were in, whereby they were encompaffed and covered with it; which is fufficient to fupport the allufion to baptifm, performed by immerfion; or covering the person in water: it is reprefented as diffonant from common fenfe, to fay, Ye shall be plunged with the holy Ghoft? and is it not as diffonant from common fenfe to fay, Ye shall be poured with the holy Ghost? (2.) The sufferings of Chrift are called a baptifm ; and a very apt word is used to express the abundance of them, as that fignifies an immersion into water; and though the leffer fufferings of men, and God's judgments on them, may be expreffed by the pouring out of his wrath, and the vials of it on them; yet fince the holy Ghoft has thought fit not to make use of such a phrase, but a very peculiar word to express the greater fufferings of Chrift, this the more confirms Matt. iii. 13. * Vol. II. p. 113, 297 Mark x. 38. Luke xii. 50. the the sense of the word contended for. The phrafe in Pfalm xxii. 14. I am poured out like water, doth not exprefs the fufferings of Chrift, but the effect of them, the faintness of his fpirits under them. The paffages in Psalm lxix. 1, 2. which represent him as overwhelmed with his fufferings, as in water, do most clearly illuftrate the use of the word baptifm in reference to them, and strongly support the allufion to it, as performed by immerfion, which this writer has not been able to fet afide. 66 (3.) Mention is made in Mark vii. 4. of the Jews washing, or baptizing themfelves, when they came from market, before they eat; and of the washing, or baptizing of their cups, pots, brazen veffels, tables or beds; all which was done by immersion. This writer fays, I am contradicted by the best masters of the Jewish learning, when I fay, that the Jews upon touching common people, or their clothes, at market, or in any court of judicature, were obliged by the tra dition of the elders to immerse themselves in water, and did. To which I reply, that Vatablus and Drufius, who were great mafters of Jewish learning, affirm, that according to the tradition of the elders, the Jews washed or immersed the whole body before they eat, when they came from market; to whom may be added the learned Grotius, who interprets the words the fame way; and which seems most reasonable, fince washing before eating, ver. 4. is diftinguished from the washing of hands, ver. 3. But not to reft it here; Maimonides", that great mafter of Jewish learning, affures us, that "if the Pharifees touched but the garments of the common people, they were defiled, all one as if they had "touched a profluvious perfon, and needed immerfion," and were obliged to it and though Dr Lightfoot, who was a great man in this kind of learning, yet not always to be depended upon, is of opinion, that the plunging of the whole body is not here understood; yet he thinks, that plunging or immersionof the hands in water, is meant, done by the Jews, being ignorant and uncertain what uncleannefs they came near unto in the market; and obferves, the Jews used the washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands; and that the word wash in the Evangelift, feems to answer to the former, and baptize to the latter; and Pococke himself, whom this writer refers to, confeffes the fame, and fays, that the Hebrew word ba to which Banda anfwers in Greek, fignifies a further degree of purification, than bor (the words used for washing of hands) though not fo as neceffarily to imply an immersion of the whole body; fince the greatest and most notorious uncleannefs of the handsreached but to the wrift, and was cleanfed by immerfing or dipping up to it; and though he thinks the Greek word used in the text does not only and neceffarily fignify immerfion, which yet he grants, fpecially agrees to it, as he thinks In Mifnah Chagigah, c. 2. §. 7. a Not. Mifcell. 390, 397. appears |