1. That there must be the application of water; and that either by dipping the person that is to be baptized into the water, or by pouring or sprinkling water upon him; otherwise it doth not answer the proper and literal sense of the word _baptize_.[59] It is true, we sometimes find the word used in a metaphorical sense; as when our Saviour speaks of the _baptism_ that he _was to be baptized with_, Matt. xx. 22. Luke xii. 50. whereby he intends the sufferings he was to endure in shedding his blood upon the cross: And it is elsewhere taken, by a metonymy, for the conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which they were given to expect after Christ’s ascension into heaven, and the apostles were first made partakers of at the day of Pentecost, which immediately followed it; wherein there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them, as a sign that they should be filled with the Holy Ghost, and speak with other tongues, and be enflamed with a holy zeal for Christ’s glory and interest; which was accordingly fulfilled, and seems to be the sense of the word baptism, as taken in this figurative sense; but we understand the word in the most proper sense thereof; and therefore suppose that it must be performed with water. As to what respects the mode of baptism, or the application of water, whether the water is to be applied to the person baptized, or he put into it, that, I purposely wave the consideration of, till we are led to speak concerning the subjects of baptism, that we may insist on the several matters in controversy, between those that maintain, and others that deny infant baptism, together, which we shall have occasion to do under the next answer: Whereas, I am ready to persuade myself, that what I shall advance under this, together with that which respects the improvement of baptism, will not be much contested by those who are in a different way of thinking, with respect to the subjects of baptism, and the mode of administering it.