Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...

Baptist.

Are these your Examples of baptizing otherwaies then by dipping? certainly unlesse these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches, or willingly ignorant, or smitten with blindnesse, and given up in some measure at least, for their not imbracing this plain easie truth of dipping, in the love thereof, to deep dotage and stronge delusion, they could never believe, much lesse print such palpable untruths, absolute absurdities, and cleer self confutations, as are unavoidably to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcells they have published to the eye of all men.

See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause, we read of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers.

To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose, nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptized, for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on, least the vo∣lume should swell, is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptized, i. e. submersi, obruti, abluti immergendo, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies mainly, I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing, dip∣ping or swilling, specially since in places enough it is said they were baptized in Rivers, and places of much water: but to say nothing I say of that, mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines up∣wards from it, for there giving other reasons, then that of dipping, why Iohn chose to baptize in Rivers and running waters, among others he gives this as a speciall one, viz.

Because of the multitudes that were baptized, especially saith he, seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptized, and yet here were great

multitudes baptized even no lesse then 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where, which by Mr. Cooks own reason, if it be a reason, must be a place of running waters, and streams that many might be imploied at once in bap∣tizing along the river, for the more speedy dispatch, with so great multitudes, therefore these belike went not out to the rivers, though yet theres no more menti∣oned that they did not, then that they did.

There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it, and yet there is ground enough to believe they were all baptized, as well as the rest, yea Mr. Blake believes it, and in the same way as the rest whose baptism with the manner of it is expressed, for why should others be baptized in rivers because they were multitudes, and yet these multitudes be exempted from that and be dispached with so small a matter as sprinkling? therefore the not mentioning twas done, is an argument as good as nothing; and whereas he saies there is no mentioning of fetching in great store of waters, tis true, that we never read at all of water fetcht to the persons, but of persons going to the water we do, though he saies we do not, for even Lydia her self and her family, which is no other then his own in∣stance, were gone out to a river side to hear Paul preach, where being converted they were baptized, that being the wonted place of preaching and praying no doubt in order to the conveniency of baptizing, before ever the Apostles were so much as invited to her house.

Secondly, of this stamp also is Mr. Blakes conceit concerning the baptism of Paul, who because the particular place or sourse of water wherein he was baptized is not expressed, imagins that he must needs be baptized within doors, and no where else, and so consequently not by dipping, but some other way, whereas there is neither necessity nor probability of his being so, but rather evidence if not from the very place, yet at least from what Mr. Blake saies that it was other∣wise; For

First, it seemes to me that Paul was not to be baptized within, but to go some where or other to the dispatching of that businesse, wherefore else should Ananias rub him up to it as he doth in such wise as this, and now why tariest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins &c. Which as it Argues it was a service Paul was tardy to, and I know no mans flesh forward to it further then by faith it is overpowred, specially in such a weak case as Paul it seemes was in at that pre∣sent, so it was as who should say, why art thou so undisposed to thy duty in that particular, make hast, and linger not longer about it, but come away and be bap∣tized: now had aspersion or infusion been only the work, Paul could not have bin so backward as to need such sharp exsuscitation, when once convinced, for theres no such great unpleasantness to the flesh, as to engender any aversenesse unto that, but that Paul was more tardy then he should have been (and why he should be so I know not if among the other impediments, at least he was not sensible of some tediousnesse in the service) was uttered in a publique exercise once from that very text Acts. 22.16. by a friend of yours, and mine now deceased, at his sprin∣kling one of mine own children, in which Sermon the doctrine was this (and a good doctrine it was, and very truly grounded upon the Example of Pauls dulnesse in that Scripture, and further cleered by Lots loitering in Sodom) viz.

That by reason partly of the remainder of corruption in the best, presenting evill when they should do Good, and partly the great grand enemy of our salvation Sa∣tan, opposing himself to all good, the best that have even renounced their vile life, have an indisposition to holy duties, and have need of excitation and stir∣ring up.

Again had he not either been to be baptized within by dipping▪ or been to re∣ceive within an aspersion or infusion upon his face only he need not to have bin bid to arise, or stand up in order to either of these, so much as from the present posture

he was in, for if he were then sitting, face rantism might have been done as well, and if he were lying down (which in his then case is the more likely of the two) much better then in a standing posture, in which tis not so easie to dispence a pour∣ing upon the face, least pouring so little as you do it prove rather a Rantism then a baptism, or pouring so much as the baptizer should do on the disciple, if he will needs do it by pouring i. e. till he hath buried him in baptism, or wholly covered him with water, in resemblance of the spiritual, he make way for his bodily buriall in the earth also.

Whereas therefore Mr. Blak•• saies thus, viz. that though the Eunuch com∣ing to the River might saie heres wa••er what hinders why I should not be dipped, yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Iudas his house in straight street in Damascus, or the Iaylor at his Prison in Phillippi, I say it is very like∣ly it was so indeed, that they had not any Ponds or Rivers in their houses, to dip in, but will it follow therefore that they were baptized in the house without dip∣ping? no such matter by Mr. Bls. favour, but rather that sith there was not water enough for their dipping within doors, as there was for the Eunuchs dipping with∣out, therefore they went out to some water or other that they might be baptized, i. e. dipped conveniently, as the Eunuch was, and that may possibly not be farre, for many a one that hath not brooks nor ponds in their houses, yet have them oft not far from their doors, and that Iudas had not so who can tell? but whether he had or no, the matter is not great, sith he lived not far from much water however whilest he was living in Damascus, for were not Abana and Parphar Rivers of Da∣mascus though not for Namans disease, yet for dipping full as good as Iordan it self, and all other waters of Israel.

Thirdly, See how miserably Mr. Baxter is mistaken, he would make men be∣lieve, if they would be such Idiots, as to take his single word for it, against the expresse word of God, that in the Countrey of the Iaylor water was so scarce that he could not be dipped over head, whereas (oh that Mr. Baxter would see how the Lord hath left him to discover his too hasty galloping over the Sripture) it is related that a River ••an just by the same City of Phillippi where he dwelt, even that, by the side of which Paul preached, and prayer was wont to be made, where also Lidy 1, and her houshold were converted and baptized, and all this no further off then in the very same chapter, where the Iaylors baptism is spoken of viz. Acts 16.13, 14, 15.

I perceive this scarcity of water is made a mighty Argument among you against dipping, some saying that water for dipping was not to be had in the houses of the disciples that were baptized, therefore they received no more then some asper∣sion▪ or infusion within, some speaking as though water for dipping were not to be had in whole Cities and Countreys where the disciples dwelt, thus doth not onely Mr. Baxter, who denies a sufficiencie of water for dipping over head to be in that Country where the Jaylor dwelt, but also Senior Mr. Simpson one of you my Ash∣ford opposers, who in a letter under his hand to a neighbor of his (much of which is partim directe & verbatim partim oblique & collateraliter, out of Mr. Blake, so that it stands or falls in him, and of the rest that is not translated thence into his turn, some already is, and some that is not yet, is to be spoken to as I go along) tells us that there was not any water in Jerusalem wherein so many as were there baptized, in so short a time, at that time of the year when water was more scanty, could possibly have been dipped.

What a strange conceit is this? what not water enough in nor yet about all Ie∣rusalem to dipp a man over head in? for sith he saies not so many, the same water course I hope that one can be dipped in, may also serve to dipp a thousand; shall we think that in the greatest drought that could happen all those brooks the Scrip∣tures mentions viz. Cedron and Siloam, and the fountain of Gyhon, and the Conduit of the upper pool, which ran with several streams, and were at one place all coincident with Cedron, were dryed up so that not a place could be found of

any competent depth for men to dip in?

But perhaps what Mr. Baxter saies concerning Aenon upon the report of tra∣vellers viz. that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water, is found to be a small brook, that a man may almost step over, or as I find it expressed to me in a letter to a neer and deer friend of mine, upon the credit of eye witnesse historians, Aenon was but a small purl scarcely knee deep at the deepest, so Mr. Simpson may say, but it is on his own head if he do, concerning these brooks, that were about Ierusalem, to all which I shall for brevities sake dispatch this answer here now I am about it.

And first I intreat Mr. Simpson to consider that this serves not his turn howe∣ever, if Cedron and Siloam, and the rest that were without the City, and the stream also that ran through the City, from the fountain of the old pool into Ce∣dron, should be all such as Aenon is supposed to be, sith the fishpool Bethesda, at which lay a great multitude of impotents, and into which one amongst the rest desired to be put, or cast (for the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) but could not, was both deep∣er and broader then so, and convenient for many to dip in at once, for if we may credit Bethesda it self, the very name instructs us in no lesse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being in english no other then the house of flowing down, so called for the concurrence, and confluence of many waters thereinto, see Calvin upon the place, who tells you that it was a pool he thinks, into which water did flow down continually, through either channels or pipes, that the Priests (for it was neer the Temple) might as well be furnisht with water for their sacrifices, as the people were with sacrifices themselves in the sheep market wherein it was; others think, and as I take it Be∣za in his Anotations, that it was a pool at which cattel drank, and in which they used to be plunged; whereof saith he there could not but be great store in Ieru∣salem: so much may well serve without any more to salve the sore eyes of Mr. Simpson.

As for Mr. Baxter ile bate him his almost, and yet he will not get much by the matter, for as I have seen others baptized by totall dipping in the like, so was I seen to be baptized my self in a place of so little latitude, that an active man might make shift to step over, not almost but altogether, in which yet there is wa∣ter enough left behind to baptize a thousand, if not a million more in the same man∣ner, and so, not to say how possible it is, if not a thousand to one that Ae∣nons eye witnesses never sounded Aenons depth in all places, nor secondly how possi∣bly a brook might be much swerved up since then, & somwhat shallowed in so ma∣ny Generations, nor thirdly how possible it is to deepen the shallowest stream that is very easily in order to such a purpose, for I have seen ancle deep streams so ordered as I speak of, more then once or twice for a need, though that Aenon had need to be made deeper in those places, where Iohn did baptize, may be twenty times told by some Travellers, that love to hear themselves talk, before I shall believe it once;

Not to say any thing I say of these, let Aenon be but knee deep if you will, ex¦perience hath so taught the expedience of knee deep to dip in to my self, and other Baptizers that I know, that as we have dipt persons oft where it hath not bin so deep, so, except in such a channel where we cannot well avoid it, we choose now not to go in much deeper.

See Fourthly how all your three Worthies Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook do deceive you, as being indeed deceived themselves, and that in a manner so plain that none but Blind Seers can look beside it, for though each of the three were a∣lone in each of those other errors, which they severally utter in your last joint quo∣tation, and confident commendation of them, yet (wo is me may England say that my leaders are so mifled) the whole Trinity of them is at unity, but against all veri∣ty in this, even in the very thing in which principally you would have us mind them, for whereas, as an instance that baptism was not by dipping, they all alledge that

the Iailor was baptized at midnight in his house, and therefore probably not in such a way as dipping, that he was baptized about midnight is true enough, but that he was baptized in his house, is so contrary to truth, that a very child may find the falsenesse of that assertion, for howbeit Mr. Cook saies plain-ly, its like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed, and Mr. Baxter more plain-ly, that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house, and Mr. Blake most plain-ly, tis sure there was not many waters nor rivers in the Iailors dwel∣ling, and it is as sure that they i. e. the Iailor and the Apostles went not out in the night to any such places as were fit to dip in, yet what saith the word in plain truth? no lesse then this, that the Iailor after he was baptized brought them in∣to his house and set meat before them, and rejoiced: for it is said first, that upon the earth-quake, and Pauls crying out to him, that he should do him∣self no harm, the Iailor hasted into Paul and Silas and brought them out, se∣condly that they upon his then inquiry told him what he should do to be saved, and preached the word to him and all his, whereupon in this intertime, i. e. between the time of the Iailors bringing them out, and his bringing them in again, he took them and washed their stripes, and was baptized he and all his straightwav. Thirdly, that when he had brought them into his house, which words compared with verse the 30. where it is said he brought them out, shew clearly that he, and his were with them still without hearing the word, washing them, and sub∣mitting to be baptized i. e. immergendo washed of them, he made them eat, and rejoiced: now what man, but one minded to overlook what likes him not, can chuse but see this to the confutation of these three mens opinions? which I doubt because it is theirs more then any thing else, may be the opinion of 3000: that the Iailor first brought them out, and then washed their stripes, and was baptized, and then brought them in, and rejoiced with them is clear.