Imágenes de página

attended with such circumstances, as manifestly show, to unprejudiced minds, in what manner it was performed.

1. The baptism of Christ administered by Jobn deserves to be mentioned, and considered first: This was performed in the river Jordan, Matt. iii. 6, 13. and the circumstance of his coming up out of the water, as soon as it was done, recorded ver. 16. is a full demonstracion that he was in it; now that he should


into the river Jordan, to have water poured, or sprinkled on him, is intolerable, and ridiculous to suppose. Mr M. in his debate, p. 6. tells us, that “the words “ only signify, that he went up from the water;" to which I replied, that the preposition am fignifies out of, and is justly rendered so here. I gave him an instance of it, which he has not thought fic to except against; yet still he says, “ the criticism delivers us from a necessity of concluding, that Christ was in the “ water :" though it has been entirely baffled; neither has he attempted to defend it. And, because I say, that “we do not infer plunging, merely from Christ's going down into, and coming up out of the water;" therefore he would have the argument from hence, as well as from the same circumstances attending the baptism of the Eunuch, wholly laid aside; which I do not wonder at, because it presies him hard. He seems to triumph, because I have not, in his positive and dogmatical way, asserted those circumstances, to be demonstrative proofs of immersion; as though they were entirely given up as such; bue he is more ready to receive, than I am to give. This is a manifest indication, I will not say, of a wounded cause only, but of a dying one, which makes him catch at every thing to support himself under, or, free himself from those prefsures, which lie hard upon him. We insist upon it, that those proofs are demonftrative, so far as proofs from circumstances can be so; and challenge him to give the like in favour of pouring or sprinkling. Is it not a wretched thing, to use our author's words; that not one text of scripture can be produced, which will vindicate the practice of sprinkling in baptism ; and that among alb the instances of the performance of the ordinance, which are recorded in scripture; not one single circumstance can render it so much as probable ?

2. We not only read of many others baptized by John, but also the places which he chose to administer it in, which will lead any thinking, and considering mind to conclude, that it was performed by immersion: Now, one of those places, where John baptized a considerable number, and among the rest Christ Jesus, was the river Jordan, Matt. iii. 6. Mark i. 59. the latter of which texts Mr M. says, p. 12. “ leads us to no other thought, than that Jesus was bap“ tized of John at Jordan; as the preposition ws, he fays, is sometimes tran“ Nated;" though he gives us no one instance of it. Now in his debate, p. 7. he says, “that the holy Ghost himself tells us, that nothing else is intended by



“ it than baptizing in Jordan;" and yet this man takes a liberty to differ from him. What will he be at' next? to such straits are men driven, who oppose the plain words of the holy Ghost, as he is pleased to say in another case.

Enon was another of those places, which John chose to baptize in ; and the reason of his making choice of it was, because there was much water there, John iii. 23. which was proper and necesary, for the baptizing of persons by immerfion. Mr M. says, p. 19. “ that the holy Ghost does not say that they were “ baptized there, because there was much water ; but that John was also bap:

tizing in Enon because there was much water there ;”. but what difference is there? Why only between John's administering the ordinance, and the persons to whom it was administered. He says, p. 21. “ that I have granted that the “ words, he means udka ta roma, literally denote, “ many rivulets or streams ;" which is notoriously false ; for I do in express words utterly deny it; and have proved from the use of the phrase in the New Testainent, and in the Septua. gint version of the Old, as well as from Nonnus's paraphrase of the text, that it signifies “ large waters, or abundance of them :" I do affure him, that neither of the editions of Nonnus, which he has the vanity to mention, was made use of by me; but if there had been any material difference in them, from what I have made use of, I suppose he would have observed it to me, if he has consulted them; and I would also inform him, that Nonnus has not always a Latin version printed along with it, as he wrongly asserts.

I have consulted Calvin upon the place directed to by him : the text says, chat Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea; and Calvin upon it says, that “ he came into that part of the country which was nigh to Enon;" but neither the text, nor Calvin upon it, say that they were both at Enon, as our author insinuates ; so that from hence there appears no necessity of concluding that choice was made of this place for the accommodation of the large number of people which attended, either upon the ministry of Christ or Jobn; that so both chey and their cattle might be refreshed, as he ridiculously enough suggests. As to the account he has given of the land of Canaan, it is manifest, notwithstanding all his shifts and cavils, that he did represent it in general as a land that wanted water, especially a great part of it; now whatever little spots (for the land itself was not very large) might not be so well watered, yet it is certain, that in general it was; and is therefore called a land of brooks of water, &c. But since he acknowledges there was plenty of water at Enos, where John was baprizing, which is sufficient for our purpose, we need not further inquire about the land.

3. Another remarkable instance of baptism is that of the Eunuch's, in Aets viii. 38. which is attended with such circumstances, as would leave any person,



that is seriously inquiring after truth, without any scruple or hesitation, in what manner it was performed. In verse 36 we are told, that they came unto a certain water, where the Eunuch defiring baptism, and Philip agreeing to it, after he had made a confession of his faith, it is said, verse 38. that they went down both into the water ; they first came to it, and then went into it; which leaves that observacion without any real foundation, which supposes that their going down into the water fignifies no more than the descent which led to the river, for they were come thither before, as appears from verse 36. where a phrase is made use of different from this in verse 38. Now though I had observed to our author, that it was not 10, but into the water they went, to which he has not thought fit to reply; yet he ftill produces his impertinent instance of going down to the sea in ships; which is all that can be obtained from him, to set aside the force of this evidence; which, how weak and ridiculous it is, will easily appear to every judicious reader.

Now if persons will but diligently consider those plain instances of baptism, in an humble and hearty search after truth, they will find that they amount to lictle less than a full demonstration thac it was performed in those early times of Jobn, Christ, and his apostles, by an immersion or plunging of the whole body under water, as has been fully acknowledged by many great and excellent divines. But now let us consider Mr M's demonstrative proofs for pouring or sprinkling water in baptism, produced by him, p. 14.

He says, “pouring water in baptism, is a true representation of the donation “ of the Spirit; being, according to God's word, instituted for that enda." But the word of God no where expresses, or gives the least intimation, that baptism was instituted for any such end; it is true, the donation of the Spiric is sometimes called a baptism, and so are the sufferings of Chrift; but do we make use of such mediums as these to prove the representation of them to be the end of this ordinance ? though it would with equal frength conclude the one as the other : Belides, he might as well argue, that the end of baptism is to represent the passage of the Israelices through the Red sea, because that is called a Baptism also. But how does pouring of water in baptism, according to the practice of our modern Pædobaptists, represent the donation of the Spirit, when they only let fall a few drops of water upon the face ? But the Spirit's grace is expressed by pouring floods of water upon his people in Isaiab xliv. 3. one of the texts referred to by our author. Though I have acknowledged, and still do, that the ordinary donation of the Spiric is sometimes expressed by pouring, and sometimes by sprinkling, yet that it was the extraordinary one which the disciples received on the day of Pentecost, that is particularly called the baptism of the Spirit and of fire,

by Ifai. xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Matt, iii. il, Cor. xii. 13.


by Jobn and Christ. Now says Mr M. p. 17. if this was by pouring, then you are undone : perhaps not. But what does he think will undo us? why the prophecy of Joel, cited in Aits ii. 16, 17. I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh. To which I reply, that though this extraordinary instance of the Spirit's grace is expressed, as well as the more ordinary ones are, by pouring, under the Old Testament-dispensation, in allusion to those frequent libations, or drinkofferings, which were then used; yet it need not seem strange, that when this prophecy was nearer accomplishing, and there was a greater display of divine grace, that another word should be used which more largely expressed the abundance of it : It is no wonder that it should be more abundant in the exhibi. tion than in the prophecy ; besides this text, and all others in the Old Testament, which express the Spirit's grace in this, or any other form of language whatever, can never be looked upon as sufficient proofs of the manner in which a New-Testament-ordinance is to be administered, which was never instituted with a view to represent it.

2. He says, it, that is, “pouring water in baptism, exactly answers to John's

baptism : he said that be baptized with water b." But it seems, according to him in p. 15. that the phrase of baprizing with water, regards the strength of the administrator's arms, wherewith he performs, and not the mode of baptizing; so that he can pretty easily tell us wherein and wherewith a person may be plunged, though he still says plunging with water is an expression without sense; but he cannot yet inform us how a man can be plunged in it, without being plunged with it. I urged that in all the evangelists the words are er udtett, “in “ water,” excepting Luke iii. 16. where the preposition is omitted, which has occasioned some to think it redundant in the other Evangelists, which I observe no ways hurts our sense and reading of the words ;. now. he wonders that this should make for our reading, or be of any use to us ;. when all that I observe is, that it does not make against us; if it does, let him make it appear. Jobn baptized in water, persons were baptized by him in the river Jordan, and not. with it.

3. Another demonstrative proof of " pouring water in baptism, is, that it is “ exactly agreeable to the signification of the word, as the Lord gives it to us « in the New Testament." Which place I shall more fully consider hereafter, and make it appear, that it is there to be understood in the sense of dipping or plunging.

4. His last proof is, “ that it directly answers the promise of what Christ “ should do, Isaiah liii. 15. So skall be sprinkle many nations ;” to this text he. says, p. 43. the commission in Matthew xxviii. 19. refers, which if it does,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

though Lake iii, 16.

er Cor, X. 2:

though I cannot see it can without a very large stretch, it must be only in that part of it which concerns the teaching of the Gentiles by the ministry of the apostles, and not that which respects the baptizing of them; for the word here rendered Sprinkle, is 7237 ray expressive of Speaking, as Kimchi on the place observes; and the meaning is, that Christ shall speak to the Gentiles in the ministry of the gospel by the apostles, with so much power, majesty, and autho rity, that Kings themselves shall put their mouths at him; that is, iball filently submit to the scepter of his grace, and to the doctrines of his gospel; for that which had not been told them, fball they fee; and that which they had not beard, Jhall they consider. Moreover, who, in the world, could ever imagine, that the ordinance of water baptism, with the mode of its administration, should be intended here? a man inust have his imagination prodigioully heated indeed, and his mind captivated with a mere jingle of words, that can look upon such proofs as these, fetche out of the Old Testament, as demonstrative ones of the true mode of baptizing under the New. Thus we have had a taste, as he calls it, of his demonstrations of pouring or sprinkling water in baptism.


с нА Р.
A vindication of Erasmus, and of his version of Acts x. 47.


HE author of the debate in p. 22. urges the impropriety of Peter's speech

in Cornelius's house, when he talked of forbidding water in baptism, if plunging was the right mode of its administration ; to which I replied, that if there was any impropriety in the text, it was not to be charged, either upon words or sense of the holy Ghost, but upon our translation ; and urged, that the word water should be put in construction with the word to be baptized, and not with the word forbid, and the whole text be rendered thus, Can any man forbid that these pould be baptized in water, which have received the holy Gbojt as well as we? and produced the testimony of Erasmus to confirm ic. Now let us attend to Mr M’s animadversions upon it. And,

1. Within the compass of four or five lines, he tells two palpable and notorious untruths; for first, he affirms that I say that the words in Arts X. 47. are not good sense, when it is he that insinuates an impropriety in Peter's manner of speaking, supposing plunging to be the mode of baptisin ; what I say, is, that

if there is any impropriety in it, it is not to be charged upon the words or « sense of the holy Ghost, but upon our translation ;” and yet he would have it, that I assert that the words are not good sense ; where do I say so? It is true, I think the words are better rendered according to Erasmus's version; and, for


« AnteriorContinuar »