cluendis corporibus vim sanguinis Christi in delendis peccatis declarant Tilen Disp 1. de Bapt. Thes 32. and even by Scripture Text it self as water is a suitable element to represent the blood of Christ whereby we are cleansed from our sins so washing with water is a suitable action whereby the application of Christs Blood unto us for our cleansing is expressed and so most agreeable unto the nature of Baptism and consequently that by what application of water we may be so washed as to be cleansed by such we may be said to be baptized Cùm nec minùs in aspersione quà m in immersione Sacramenti analogia servetur siquidem in legalibus purificationibus sufficicbant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tilen Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes 15. Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat adspersione illae etiam sordes abluantur Keckerman Theol. System l 3. c. 8. p. 452. § 7. Now that sprinkling is such a way of application of water as hath been designed and used for cleansing will appear from Scripture and then consequently it will follow that it may be so still And of that we have instance in Num. 8.5 6 7. where the Lord gives order unto Moses to cleanse the Levites and directs him too how to cleanse them And thus saith he shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them sprinkle water of purifying upon them and let them shave all their flesh and let them wash their clothes and so make themselves clean See! here is no other washing of them appointed for their cleansing but what was done by sprinkling of the water of purification upon them In Num. 19. order is given for making water of separation with the ashes of a red Heifer ver 1 c. This water was to be a purification for sin v. 10. The way of washing with this water for purification was to be by way of sprinkling and that so strictly that whosoever had touched the body of a dead man and had not so purified himself with it was to be cut off from Israel because the water of purification had not been sprinkled upon him v. 13. So again for the purifying of a Tent wherein any Man died and of the persons and vessels in it or any that touched any of them a purification was ordained to be made by this water and that purification was to be made by sprinkling v. 18 19. with the like menace of cutting off from the Congregation to him that was unclean on those accounts and had not so purified himself because he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord the water of purification hath not been sprinkled upon him ver 20. Which cleansing from the Legal pollution of the body by the sprinkling of the water of purification typified our cleansing from the moral defilement of the Soul by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ Whereto the Learned Dr. Jackson saith Tom. 3. Lib. 10. c. 50. Sect. 3. p. 271. the Apostle hath special reference more than allusion saying Heb. 9.13 14. If the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works And again that the water of sprinkling consecrated by the aspersion of the ashes of this legal sacrifice did truly resemble the water of Baptism by which we are washed from sin and consecrated unto God as clean persons that is made Members of his Church on Earth saith he is so evident in it self that it needs no Paraphrase or laborious Comment upon the forecited Law yet withal referring his Reader to Chytraeus his Commentaries on the Book of Numbers c. And I shall not be alone if I shall say Ad Sacramentum enim Baptismi Apostolus respicere videtur quo externa quidem corporum fit ablutio interna vero cordium purgatio per Christi sanguinem obsignatur D. Pareus in Heb. 10.22 that the Apostle hath a respect unto Baptism when in Heb. 10.22 he saith Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Which words having our hearts sprinkled c. to me seem not so much to declare with what qualification we should draw near unto God as upon what ground we may draw near unto him Est ergo sensus Cùm sanguine spiritu Christi à sordibus peccati purgati simus hujusque purgationis symbolum baptismum habeamus accedamus igitur purificatis cordibus per fidem non polluti peccatis conscientiam turbantibus per veram resipiscentiam Par. in loc even upon the account of our having been baptized and therein had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience with the blood of Christ as well as our bodies washed with the pure water of Baptism And to this sense the Original fairly leads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is literally being we have had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and have had our bodies washed with pure water that is being we have been baptized and so purged and cleansed from those sins which before kept us at a distance from God and made us afraid to come nigh him by the blood and spirit of Christ who is our High Priest and is at the right hand of God interceding for us let us with a true heart draw near to God in confidence of acceptance through his Intercession for us who by so purging and cleansing us hath fitted us for such access in full assurance of faith that upon our approaching we shall be accepted And when the inward washing from sin is stiled a sprinkling how fairly doth it intimate that the outward washing did hold correspondence with it and was performed by sprinkling also At least so much will be infallibly gained by it that washing by way of sprinkling is an action very suitable to and agreeable with the nature of baptism as outwardly representing that inward washing which is performed therein and correspondently thereunto termed a sprinkling § 8. And even God himself had long before shewed the agreeableness of the outward washing of the body from its filths with water by way of sprinkling with the inward washing of the Soul from its sins by his grace through the blood of Christ applied thereto for its cleansing when in Ezech. 36.5 he said to Israel in reference to their defilements wherewith they had been defiled in the Countries into which they had been scattered Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from all your filthiness and from all your Idols will I cleanse you That is I will render you as spiritually clean from your sin by my pardoning and purifying grace as you should be legally clean by having clean water even the water of separation and purification sprinkled upon you §
dipped her self and they whilst she came up out of the water turned their faces another way and departed Men I say and Women and so many of them and in the midst of a populous City and at noon-day going all together into a Pool and there dipped stark naked for none can imagine that either they would be dipped all over in their present wearing apparel or if that were allowable as it was not usual among the Jews that they had brought any Garments with them suitable to the action on that suddain and unexpected unforeseen and unforethought of occasion is a thing so far beyond all probability as to be without the bounds even of all credibility And especially when it may be considered that there was no necessity the excuse many times of indecent actions for it a much easier and more decent way of baptizing being to be had even by immersing their heads into vessels of water with much facility especially by the hands of so many assistants as were upon the place ready thereunto brought thither for that purpose or else by taking water out thence as we do now out of our Fonts and sprinkling them with it or pouring it upon them or yet else if the action must needs be done at a Pool or River by dispersing themselves in several companies some to that Pool others to several parts of the Brook Cedron or such other places of conveniency as the City might afford and there either sprinkling or pouring water upon them or else immersing their heads into water which might well enough be done without a necessity of that immodest way of putting off all their clothes and appearing stark naked in mixed company And now let the unbiassed Reader judge what probability there is of their being totally dipped and how far it is from being improbable that they were otherwise baptized § 7. I proceed to another instance viz. the Baptism of St. Paul himself Act. 9. He had seen a Vision by the way from Jerusalem to Damascus and that an astonishing one such an one as made him fall to the earth v. 4. such a sight as made him blind v. 8. Upon that he was led to the City and there whether in that Consternation or other Prophetick rapture or Penitential exercise of Mortification he continued three days and did neither eat nor drink After three days comes Ananias sent from God unto him opens his eyes declares unto him the design of God in this dispensation exhorts him to arise and be baptized in order to his further adaptment for the Service whereto God had designed him He comports with the Will of God and arose and was Baptized But how By a total immersion of him That is not said Nor is it in the least probable First consider the time of the year when it is supposed to have been done on the five and twentieth day of January the sternest and severest Season of all that cold Winter quarter Then consider the weakness of the Person a man first so enfeebled by an extraordinary Vision that he was not able to go or stand but fell to the earth and was fain to be led by others and then continuing after it three whole days together without eating or drinking Thirdly consider that his baptizing was in the time of his weakness and before he had received any meat to get strength v. 18 19. And now after all this let the impartial Reader judge what probability there is in it or rather how utterly improbable it is that under those circumstances he was baptized by a total immersion and how much more probable it is that water was brought to him that was not able to go to it and he more gently aspersed with it that was too weak to endure the severity of a total immersion into it or yet that if there were any dipping in the case it was but his head or perhaps no more than his face that was dipped and how far after Ages are from being to blame in consulting the healths and lives of their weak Infants at their baptizing by only aspersing or affusing water on them when they see in the Word of God such great probabilities of this dear chosen Vessel 's being so baptized § 8. There is a Third instance looking this way in Act. 10. I cannot pretend to a certainty from thence more than from any other place only methinks there is something of probability of a baptism by aspersion in it and no certainty of a total immersion more than can be drawn from the bare signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have long since shewn to have no such cogency in it that way as necessarily to infer a total immersion of the party to whom it is applied where-ever it is used St. Peter being sent for by Cornelius to Caesaria and being authorized by a Vision to go to him upon his sending immediately after he was come preached the Gospel to him and his company Whilest he was preaching the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word v. 44. St. Peter seeing them thus baptized before-hand with the Spirit concluded it but fitting that they though Gentiles should be also baptized with water v. 47. and thereupon commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. v. 48. And though their baptizing be not expressed yet it is but rational to conceive they were baptized By the last words in the Chapter which express their desiring of him then to tarry certain days it seems as if they had not gone out of his presence but had continued with him all the time of their baptizing which was performed betwixt his commanding them to be baptized and their desiring him to tarry Then they went not out of the House then the inconveniencies of a total immersion incline to believe the baptizing was by a way of less inconveniency especially when the Apostle's manner of expression when he argues from their inward baptism to their right unto an outward baptizing is considered v. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we He doth not say can any Man forbid them we may suppose going abroad to the water to be baptized therein but can any Man forbid water we may suppose to be brought hither that they may be baptized therewith As if he had said The Holy Ghost having in this place already begun and done his part of baptism in falling upon them it is but convenient that in the same place we should do our part and baptize them with water also that so they may not go away with a half baptism but have their baptism completed Therefore let even some water be brought hither and let them be sealed with the outward affusions of that upon their bodies who are already sealed with the inward effusions of the Spirit upon their Souls I cannot I say pretend hence invincibly to prove they were not dipped
Vulg. Latine And that will not necessarily infer a total immersion For a Man might be baptized in Jordan who was not wholly dipped into Jordan Unless the meer force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will infer it the contrary whereto hath been I hope sufficiently made out § 17. Now towards the making good of the Enallage here of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall note first that this Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never that I find in all the New Testament besides this place used after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any derivative from it before a word signifying any River Pool Fountain or Water whatsoever so that it is in this sense but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word used but once § 18. Next I shall note that it is very frequently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set before other words where it is incapable of having any such signification as must necessarily infer an immersion into that thing which it is set before Hence we read Matth. 28.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. So Act. 19.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus So 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were ye baptized in the Name of Paul and ver 15. lest any one should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I had baptized in my own name Again we read of being baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Christ Rom. 6.3 and Gal. 3.27 But surely that signifies not being immers'd or dipt into Christ no more than by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.2 is signified the Israelites being dipt into Moses or by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.3 is signified our being literally immersed or dipped into the death of Christ or by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.13 is signified our being literally dipped into one body And when Act. 19.3 the question is asked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto so we read it even there not into what were ye baptized the answer is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into water nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Jordan but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto again not into John's baptism But John's baptism was not water but a baptism or washing with Water unto Repentance whence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptism of repentance Act. 13.24 and elsewhere And there in ver 5. St. Paul said John verily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized with the baptism of repentance So then no more appearance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conjunction with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where any proper immersion or dipping is signified § 19. Let us now see how the case stands with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that we meet with frequently joined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet never signifying an immersion or dipping into that be it what it will be Water River or Sea that follows it but signifying either 1. the Place in which the Baptism was performed as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 3.6 in Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.5 in the River of Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.2 in the Sea or else 2 the Instrumental Matter wherewith it was performed as when John said Matth. 3.11 I indeed baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water as also Mark 1.8 Luk. 3.16 Joh. 1.26 So when he said Joh. 1.31 I am come baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water and again ver 33. he that sent me to baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water And to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies water to be the Instrument of Baptism we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Dative case the case of the Instrument set without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in several places and particularly Act. 1.5 where saith our Saviour to his Apostles John truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized with water And again Act. 11.16 where this saying of our Saviour is remembred and commemorated by St. Peter saying Then remembred I the word of the Lord how that he said John indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized with water By which 't is plain that the meaning of John's baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same and no more than his baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely and without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water and with that as the instrument wherewith he performed his action of baptizing or more agreeable to the use of speaking as the matter wherewith he baptized § 20. Shall I add to all this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used and still with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before such things as there can be no immersion or dipping into or was none intended in the places where 't is used Such is 1. the Holy Ghost as Matt. 3.11 He shall baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Holy Ghost So Mark 1.8 So Luke 3.16 Again Joh. 1.33 the same is he which baptizeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Holy Ghost So Acts 1.5 Ye shall be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Holy Ghost and again Act. 11.16 Ye shall be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Holy Ghost Sure none will be so absurd as to talk or think of immersing or dipping men into the Holy Ghost or to think any other but that as water is the outward and visible instrument of Baptism so the Holy Ghost was the inward and Spiritual instrument wherewith the parties concerned in these Scriptures were to be baptized And such 2. is Fire as Matth. 3.11 where baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Fire is joyned with baptizing with the Holy Ghost So Luke 3.16 Now no man sure ever thought that by a baptizing with Fire was meant an immersion or dipping into fire And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not intended to be understood as it is not expressed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the form of Speech clearly points it out to be considered under some notion of Instrumentality in the business of that Baptizing and even determines the former member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood so too § 21. So then no proper immersion or dipping pointed at by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherever it is set in conjunction with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole New Testament Now whether all the so many other Texts wherein is no immersion must without any necessity inforcing thereunto be interpreted by that only one where there but seems one to be or whether that that only one ought not to have an Enallage allowed in it and be interpreted with conformity to all the rest let the impartial Reader judge Only to observe that in the fifth verse going before there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were baptized in Jordan were enough and so has been thought to perswade that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ninth verse were to be as it is in our English
shall mention is Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptizing in our Death and Resurrection with Christ. § 30. Cajetan upon the place saith Thus we are buried with him by Baptism into Death By our burying he declares our death from the Ceremony of Baptism because he who is baptized is put under the Water and by this carries a similitude of him that is buried who is put under the Earth Now because none are buried but dead men from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism we are assimilated to Christ buried or when he was buried § 31. To the Text I answer First That it is plain by it that there was such a custome in those days as to baptize by immersion which carried a very sensible shew of a Burial and a Resurrection But the Negative cannot be thence concluded that there was no other way of baptizing but that Nor is it probable there was no other way First because there are other Texts of Scripture which allude to sprinkling in Baptism as this cloth to dipping And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one that is made from the other Secondly because there may be and is a baptismal representation made of a burial and of a Resurrection not only in partial mersation but in aspersion or affusion of water as well as in immersion as we shall more at large shew hereafter § 32. And now to the Cardinal I answer that not having the Book by me to examine I must stand to the Quoter's ingenuity for the Truth of the Quotation which yet if truly made is not much to the Quoter's advantage All that I can find in it to the purpose is in these words He who is baptized is put under the water and by this carries a similitude of him that is buried But what makes this against sprinkling or what more for dipping than for sprinkling He that is dipped is put under the water True And where is he put that is sprinkled Above it That were a new fashion of baptizing indeed In short he that is sprinkled as well as he that is dipped is put under the water and the water 's falling upon him that is sprinkled fairly represents the Earth's falling upon him that is buried and so in sprinkling as well as in dipping there is a similitude of a burial and by the one as well as by the other we may be said to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death And so the Cardinal's testimony might have been spared unless to fill up room and make a shew being every whit as much for us as it is for them that are against us § 33. If it be replied that by putting under water the Cardinal meant such a putting under water as is done in a total immersion and not by affusion or aspersion I answer it may be or may not be so for ought I know But however that affirmative that he that is put so under the water carries a similitude of a burial doth not imply a negative of contrary in it that none carries a similitude of a burial but he that is so put under the water That representation is made both ways though in the one it is more lively than in the other And so the passage is impertinent and proves nothing § 34. Keckerman as Mr. D. tells us in his Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. says That Immersion not Aspersion was the first Institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6.3 § 35. To that purpose Keckerman doth indeed speak in that place Yet that he nevertheless did not think Immersion necessary abundantly appears in the same place which for the vindication of him I will set down at large since Mr. D. thought good only to pick so much out of him as might serve for his turn and intitle Keckerman to a piece of Patronship to Anabaptism § 36. Coming to give the Definition of Baptism Baptismus est Sacramentum N.T. quo aequae perfusione in nomine Patris Filii S. S. factâ significatur obsignatur fidelibus beneficium purgationis à peccato per filium Dei regenerationis ad vitam aeternam Keck Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. he doth it thus Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament wherein by a perfusion of Water made in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost there is signified and sealed to the Faithful the benefit of Purgation from sin by the Son of God and of Regeneration unto Eternal Life § 37. And going to set down the Canons of Baptism Eisi Baptismus propriè significet immersionem in vetere etiam Ecclesia per regiones Orientis non adspersione sed immersione Baptismus celebrabatur tamen in regionibus Christianismi frigidioribus adspersio loco immersionis recepta est propter infantes quia charitas necessitas dispensant de Ceremoniis easque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam temperant quatenus id salvâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri potest Keckerm ib. his second he makes to be this Though Baptism do properly signifie immersion and in the ancient Church throughout the Eastern Countries baptism was administred not by aspersion but by immersion yet in the colder Countries of Christendom sprinkling is entertained in stead of immersion by reason of Infants because Charity and Necessity dispense with Ceremonies and temper them with a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 moderation clemency gentleness as far as it may be done with safety to the Analogy § 38. Then proceeding to a Note upon this Canon he sets down that Non possumus diffiteri primam institutionem Baptismi immersione non verò aspersione constitisse quod disertè patet ex cap. 6. Rom. versu tertio quarto Sed quia primae institutio Baptismi facta est in regione calidiori quia tunc temporis potissimùm baptizabantur adulti ideo de hîc Ceremoniâ in regionibus frigidioribus ho◠tempore quo infantes plerumque rarissimè adulti baptizantur potuit Ecclesia dispensare praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat adspersione etiam sordes abluantur cúmque etiam non homo propter Baptismum sed Baptismus propter hominum factus sit ut propter necessitatem infantum Charitas aliquid in ritu illo potuerit mutare Praesertim cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit à verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem non tantùm immergo sed aspergo significat Keck ib. which Mr. D. quotes from him which is this as it stands all together in him We cannot deny but that the first institution of Baptism stood in immersion and not in aspersion as plainly appears from Rom. 6.3 4. But because the first institution of Baptism was made in a hotter Country and because at that time adult
usual especially in Judaea and other hotter Countries than Sprinkling yet seeing neither this circumstance doth pertain to the substance of baptism and that the Analogy of the Sacrament is kept no less in sprinkling than in dipping since even in the legal purifications sprinklings did suffice finally seeing that dipping especially in tender Infants such as are most that now adays are baptized is not without danger of health we think that as each Rite is signified by the word baptism in Matth. 3.16 Luk. 11.38 Mar. 7.4 so by the Law of Charity and necessity the use of either of them may be retained by the Church § 52. This is indeed a most remarkable Testimony in the case And I thank Mr. D. for it which probably else I should not have enquired after But why Mr. D. concealed thus much of it from us when he gave us the rest himself can better declare than I divine In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to take notice of these remarks in it 1. That the Etymology of the word signifies dipping and also sprinkling 2. That he saith that dipping was formerly more usual than sprinkling but not that it only was usual 3. That this circumstance doth not pertain to the substance of baptism 4. That the Analogie of the Sacrament is kept no less in sprinkling than in dipping 5. That each Rite is signified by the word in Mat. 16. c. 6. That by the Law of charity and necessity the use of either of them and then sprinkling as well as dipping may be retained in the Church A remarkable Testimony indeed this especially from an Author quoted against us by an Anabaptist § 53. After this Mr. D. claps two Theses more viz. the 32. and 34. to the rest so still as if all had been one continued discourse and as if that learned Writer had made one long continued harangue of dipping in Baptism and spoken nothing between of any thing else But because what follows consists only in a fair declaration of the Analogy between dipping into water continuing under it and coming up again out of it and things said by him to be signified by those actions which are no matter of controversie between us and the Anabaptists therefore I forbear to transcribe any further but leave the Reader to make his estimate of this Testimony and of the Quoter of it § 54. Mr. Leigh was a Commentator as well as a Critical Writer and upon that account he is brought in by the Major in this Squadron also and charging us thus Mr. Leigh in his Annotat. upon Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism unto death Baptism saith he is an Instrument not only of thy death with Christ which is the killing of sin but also of thy Burial with him which is a perpetual mortification or abiding under that death He alludes to the manner in which Baptism was then administred which was to plunge them in the water the plunging of them into water which were baptized was a sign of their death and Burial with Christ So Mr. D. reports him § 55. His words are He alludes to the manner in which baptism was then administred which was to strip them naked whom they baptized and plunge them in the water after which they put on new garments whence those manners of speaking used in Scripture to put on Christ to put off the old man and put on the new Gal. 3.27 Eph. 4.12 13. Coloss 2.11 and 3.9 10. And he addes in the Margin the plunging of them into the water which were baptized was a sign of their death and burial with Christ § 56. To this I answer First it is not to be doubted but that putting wholly under the water was one manner of baptizing then used But if in calling it the manner it be meant it was the only manner this is easilier said than proved and better proof must be given of it than hath yet appeared before it be consented unto Not Mr. Leigh's bare word though a very worthy and learned Person he were hath authority enough for that whilest there are so many and strong presumptions of the contrary § 57. Secondly though in that place and at that time and by that Apostle Baptism by a total dipping were the only baptism that were used yet who can say but that at another time and in another place and by the same or some other Apostle there was a baptizing by sprinkling pouring on of water or partial mersation We have these other ways of baptizing in the Church and in the Church they have anciently been had and their original cannot be shewn and therefore we have reason to believe them to have been from the beginning though as being not the general way which acknowledgedly was dipping and as being administred but in cases of necessity there appear not so many nor so bright instances of them and it is some matter of difficulty to trace them particularly up so high § 58. Thirdly I wonder Mr. D. did not as well mention their stripping too as their dipping If I might guess it should be this that he was loth it should be known that the present practice of the Dippers were in any thing different from the Primitive But that it most apparently is For in the Primitive times they were dipped naked as this Author of Mr. Danvers's doth declare but as far as I understand those whom our Dippers now baptize are not naked when dipped but have some Garment on And this to avoid indecency Now if in one thing to avoid indecency they may vary from the Primitive practice whereto the manner of baptizing among the Jews also contributes its obligations Why may not we for the same end vary from it in another I shall not need to add that anciently the baptized did put on new Garments after their baptizing as Mr. Leigh saith and for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Leigh But I hear nothing of that practice among the Dippers nor any thing but that the same Garments which they did put off before their baptizing they do put on again after their baptism Which is another difference in theirs from the Primitive way And since the Primitive Saints did wholly strip themselves to signifie that they did wholly put off the old Man as concerning their former conversation they should be afraid lest their not stripping themselves wholly should signifie that they did put off the old Man not wholly but in part and their putting on again the same Clothes they had on before should signifie their being wholly the same that they were before Those that stand so nicely upon it to be in all punctilio's of Rites conform to the Apostolick and Primitive practice should methinks think of these things for others that are not so scrupulous about them there is not the like necessity of observation of them Lastly The Assembly Divines who bring up the Rere of this Squadron of Commentators do as Mr. D. tells us in their Annotations
which having spoken before I shall say nothing but that if in that Century it was admitted it hath a fair antiquity to plead for it self But what probabilities there are of its having been practised before I have already shewed and therefore will not here repeat but pass on to his next Authors § 75. Aquinas Scotus and others of the Schoolmen conclude as he tells us that Dipping is most agreeable to the Institution but admit that in case of necessity viz. when either many are to be baptized scarcity of water or sickness or weakness they may Sprinkle Voss p. 38. § 76. Suppose they do conclude Dipping to be most agreeable to the Institution yet things are well enough With us since they do not conclude it only to be agreeable to it And if they admit it in case of necessity then in that case they hold it lawful For in no case would they admit of that which they judged unlawful Because evil is not to be done that good may come thereof But to come closer to him § 77. In what part of Vossius this is set down Mr. D. names not But I guess it is in his first Disput de Baptismo Thess 9. and pag. 358. for which the Printer by mistake put 38. Touching which if that be the place I observe first that it is not Scotus that is named there but Sotus not Jo. Scotus that was an opposer but Dominicus Sotus that was a follower of Aquinas But this might be a mistake of the Printers § 78. Secondly that no others of the Schoolmen are there named but those two Aquinas and Sotus But it may be he put that in of his own head besides what he had in his Author And yet if so he should not have vouched his Author for more than he named § 79. Thirdly that neither any School-men there named nor Vossius from them saith That Dipping is most agreeable to the Institution Indeed Vossius saith of Aquinas that he saith mersionem quidem magis congruam esse that dipping is indeed more congruous but he saith not to what Mr. D. supplies it to the Institution I blame him not it would make well for his cause if it were so But if we consult Aquinas in the place referred to as I suppose Cùm in baptismo assumatur aqua ad corporis ablutionem non modò per immersionem verùm etiam per aspersionem vel effusionem aquae baptismus dari potest tutius tamen est quia hoc habet communior usus per modum immersionis baptizare Aquin 3. q. 66. art 7. Conclus by Vossius 3. q. 66. art 7. conc there is no mention of the Institution of Baptism to which Dipping is either most agreeable as Mr. D. saith or more agreeable than sprinkling but of the Common use of the Church in respect of which he saith it is the safer to baptize by way of immersion A great deal of difference betwixt more safe in respect of common use and most agreeable to the Institution So that neither these Schoolmen nor the Quoter of them afford Mr. D. any the least patronage to his cause which may justly be suspected so much the worse in regard such shifts are used for the maintaining of it § 80. Fourthly I will fairly relate what these Schoolmen say and then leave the Reader to make his judgment on the case The words of Dominicus Sotus as Vossius quotes them from dist 3. qu. un art 7. are these In baptismo aliquid est de essentiâ ut ablutio juxta illud ad Eph. 5. ubi Apostolus baptismum appellat lavacrum aquae aliud verò accidentarium nempe ut ablutio hoc vel illo modo fiat In baptism something is essential as washing according to that Eph. 5. where the Apostle calls baptism the washing of water and something is accidental as that the washing be made this or that way Now if so then dipping is not of the Essence of Baptism and so not necessarily to be always used in baptizing But herein saith Vossius he followed Thomas Aquinas who also himself saith that dipping is truly the more congruous viz. to the common use as I said before and therefore thinks it ought not to be done otherwise unless for a reason that is either necessary or honest or at least agreeable unto reason Yet notwithstanding inasmuch as water is taken in the Sacrament to signifie the washing of the Soul by the washing of the body and that washing may be made not only by immersion but also by effusion and aspersion he thinks truly that baptism may be administred after every one of these ways And he adds four Causes for which it may be otherwise done than by dipping which are 1. great multitudes of persons to be baptized 2. Scarcity of water as when there is not enough for dipping 3. Weakness of the Baptizer unable to bear the person to be baptized 4. Sickness of the person to whom the baptism is to be administred by reason of which he would be endangered if dipped And now Reader I leave you to make what estimate you please of these Authors Aquinas Sotus and Vossius and of their Quoter Mr. Danvers And I leave him to triumph as much as he pleaseth in the advantage he hath gotten by this or any other the like Quotations § 81. After the Schoolmen he proceeds to draw to a conclusion by way of Recapitulation of Arguments from the Genuine sence of the word Nature of the Ordinance and Usuage of the Ancients which he saith were excellently inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon preached at his Lecture in Michaels Cornhil London April 15. 1673. from Rom. 6.4 Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death proving from thence that dipping or plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in that Ordinance and how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to enforce Holiness and Mortification the thing signified thereby § 82. That that Reverend Divine did preach a Sermon in that place and at that time and on that Text I am apt to believe But what he said in it is not so easie to know For not Mr. D. gives us his words And after many inquiries in the Country and at last sending for it to London I understand that Sermon was never yet Printed And therefore Mr. D. whom we have not found over candid in things that have been Printed must excuse us if we be not over hasty to take his word in things that never yet came at the Press As to the matter I easily believe that from the Rite of Dipping in Baptism there alluded unto by the Apostle the Doctor did rationally deduce and powerfully inculcate Arguments to enforce to Holiness and Mortification But that the Doctor did prove or had any such design in that Sermon as to prove from that Text that dipping or plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in that Ordinance meaning by the proper the only
representation is made of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection And no doubt it is so and very eminently where the Baptism is that way administred But there is a representation also made of these things by aspersion and perfusion as will be further shewed in Ch. 16. And therefore there being no opposition between what that Doctor asserts and I affirm I dismiss his Testimony as a thing alledged impertinently by Mr. D. as to the purpose in hand if it were as doubtless it was by him designed to be exclusive of other ways of baptizing besides Dipping And I conclude that by the alteration of this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling the Symbol is not as Mr. D. saith it is quite spoiled nor made any other thing than the Institutor of it did design it viz. a Sacrament whereby his washing us from our sins with his blood is represented as the primary design of it and his Death Burial and Resurrection as the secondary And now after this Interruption to my Discourse in Answer to Authorities alledged by Mr. D. against my Hypothesis I shall proceed in what I intended CHAP. XIV The Churches Grounds for admitting of Sprinkling in general § 1. THat Baptism by other ways than that of a total immersion and particularly by pouring or sprinkling of water on the baptized hath been practised in the Church of ancient as well as later times hath sufficiently I hope been made to appear by what hath on that Subject already been delivered in these Papers Perhaps it may not be unprofitable to make Inquiry into the Reasons or Occasions of the Churches gradual declining from the first more general way of dipping to that less usual way of sprinkling which yet is now grown to be the more general way § 2. And truly I cannot think it proceeded from any wanton humour in the Church causlesly to throw off any Precept of Christ's or Practice of the Apostles Far be that from being thought of that Company of Men who are called to be Saints and who know themselves to be no further such than they keep both to his Precepts and to their Practice in things wherein their conformity thereunto is indispensably required What shall we think then in the case This as I humbly conceive and no more but this That when the Church saw that there was nothing in the Precept of Christ nothing in the Practice of the Apostles whereby it was bound up into so strait a room as to be confined in all even the greatest cases of necessity to one way of baptizing and particularly to that of a total immersion it made use of that power about the Rituals of Religion and Circumstantials of Worship wherewith Christ as his Trustee on Earth after his departure to Heaven for the managing of the affairs of his Kingdom here till his coming again had endued it * Vt instituendi alicujus ritûs si usus exigat ita ejus abrogandi si abusus requirat Ecclesia habet potestatem Voss de Bapt. disp 1. Thes 8. pag. 347. and in order both to the fulfilling of that which being the declared will of his Father must needs be interpreted to be his will too even that of having mercy and not i. e. rather than sacrifice and to the performing of that Precept of his Apostle whereby he commanded that all things in the Church should be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an honest decency on just occasions waved that severer way of baptizing by a total immersion and admitted the other more benign ways of affusion and conspersion § 3. How far the Church was from being enforced by any indispensable Precept of Christ's to keep solely to the way of a total immersion has been shewn and I would fain hope sufficiently in the foregoing Papers And if nothing else had been said to any modest Inquirer this methinks might be sufficient to perswade that our Saviour intended only a prescription of the substance of the Ceremony that Men should be baptized and not a description of the Circumstance of it or manner how they should be baptized in that whereas he knew there were in use among the Jews diverse washings called baptisms some total of all the Body some partial only of the hands c. having in a general term prescribed the matter he adds not one syllable to determine the manner neither saying baptizing their Heads nor baptizing their Hands nor baptizing their whole Bodies neither sprinkling them with water nor dipping them into water nor pouring water upon them nor particularizing any manner of way how he would have the application of water made to them and consequently that the Church keeping to the substance was by him left at liberty to determine her self as to the circumstance baptizing this that or the other way as reason from conveniency expedience or necessity should perswade § 4. And that she was not bound up to a total immersion by the Practice of the Apostles it sufficiently appears from this that whereas there are several Instances of baptisms by the Apostles which with great probability may be presumed to have been performed by sprinkling or pouring of water on the baptized no one example can be produced of any one Apostles baptizing any which carries with it any more than a probability of its being performed by dipping of no one of them by what is expressed in the Text can it certainly be said that it was a total immersion So then there being but probability against probability and no infallible certainty on either side what could the Church think other or what other can any Man imagine the Church should think but that in such case she had power to determine her self to one way or to be at liberty to use both or neither according to her discretion § 5. But methinks I hear such a Thunder in mine Ears about Philip's baptizing the Eunuch Act. 8.38 that I am not able to get any further before I say something to it Well then let us calmly consider the Case Philip having converted the Eunuch by preaching unto him Jesus as they went on their way v. 36. they came unto a certain water and the Eunuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip hereupon consenting to it upon his further profession of faith in Jesus Christ v. 37. He commanded the Chariot to stand still and they both went down into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him This is the case Now what is here that necessarily infers a total immersion The Eunuch said Here is water True but he doth not say how much of the water there was Here is water he saith that 's true indeed but he doth not say here is a River here is a Pool here 's water enough for me to be dipped into It is said John was baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there But here the muchness if I may so speak or quantity of the water is not by the
agreeable unto all then I hope it will appear that they standing on the same grounds with Dipping are also lawful as well as Dipping and that baptism by dipping is not so necessary as to nullifie the other ways of baptizing or render them unlawful And the declaring of this is the design of these Papers and that declaration will be a competent exposition of our Saviours meaning in this his Commission given to his Apostles to make all Nations Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them CHAP. II. Several acceptions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how 't is taken here § 1. THe Method of this Discourse as it is already laid down obliges me to begin with the consideration of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here made use of by our Saviour And as it stands in this Text it may deserve an enquiry in what acception whether Proper or Tropical it is to be taken for be the proper acception of it what it will if it be not here taken in that proper acception no argument can hence be drawn to infer a necessity of dipping § 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to baptize is not always used in Scripture according to its literal import but sometimes in a Tropical sense is I think out of question But if any doubt the truth of this point 't is easily demonstrated and an instance or two may suffice to do it § 3. And that it is used sometimes in a Metaphorical sense is apparent by what the Author of the Acts of the Apostles reports our Saviour after his Resurrection to have promised to his Disciples namely that whereas John had baptized with water they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days after Act. 1.5 Where when our Saviour saith ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost no man that is right in his wits will say he used the word baptize in its proper sense but only in a Metaphorical one as intimating thereby that within a short space they should be endued with the Holy Ghost whose effusion on them in a larger measure might seem to be a kind of baptism the graces of it falling upon them as the dew fell upon the Israelites when they were baptized in the Cloud 1 Cor. 10.2 § 4. So when in Luke 15.20 our Saviour saith of himself I have a baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished he cannot be understood to speak of baptism in its proper notion For with a proper baptism he had already long before been baptized by John in Jordan His meaning then in so saying was nothing else but to express by a Metaphorical word that grievous afflictions those heavy sufferings of the Cross Sanguinis inquit proprii tinctione prius habeo perfundi Bed in Luc. Evang. c. 12. v. 50. were shortly to be endured by him whereby he should be as it were overwhelmed as a man is with waters when he is baptized by dipping or rather be bedewed all over with drops of bloud through his scourging or at his bloudy sweating as a man is bedewed with water that is baptized by Sprinkling § 5. But the word is not used in a Metaphorical sense only but also in a Metonymical And so one is said in Scripture to be baptized who is imbued with or instructed in the Doctrine of any Master who initiates his Disciples with the Ceremony of Baptism Hence Paul Act. 19.3 asks some Disciples found by him at Ephesus who had said that they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost into what they had been baptized whereto they answered into Johns baptism The sense of which words is as if the Apostle had asked with what Doctrine they had been instructed and they had answered that they had been instructed in that doctrine which John taught Whence as it follows ver 4. Paul said John verily baptized with the Baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Christ Jesus Which is as if it had been said that John had instructed the people in the doctrine of repentance and of faith in Christ who was to come after him In this sense S. Mark c. 1. v. 4. reports how John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins that is instruct the people who were to be baptized in the doctrine of repentance And in the same manner is Apollos by S. Luke reported Acts 18.25 to have diligently taught the things of the Lord knowing only the baptism of John that is being only instructed with that doctrine concerning Christ wherewith John Baptist did imbue and season his Disciples § 6. And there are that earnestly contend Vid. Christian Beckman Exercitat Theolog. 17. p. 257 c. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text is to be taken not in the proper but in this Metonymical sense And assuredly there is no mention here as there is in other places where the word is properly taken of water wherewith the Nations were to be baptized but only of the Faith wherein they were to be instructed He saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them in or into water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or into the name of the Trinity § 7. But in regard that way of interpreting would bring in a needless Tautologie into this so short a Precept of our Saviours Go make all Nations disciples teaching them and teaching them and still worse if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be rendred teach viz. teach teaching and teaching in regard I find not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where else in Scripture joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any the like word in the sense of teaching in regard that the Apostles of Christ did baptize with water and there is extant in Scripture no other precept of Christ's touching baptizing therewith whereon to found that practice but this and in regard the whole Catholick Church of Christ hath ever baptized with water and hath interpreted this Text of such baptizing I will not for the gaining of any advantage to my Hypothesis by any sinister interpretation recede from the Ecclesiastical way of interpreting but shall freely grant that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood here in its proper notion and yet hope nevertheless to evince that there is no necessity from thence of so interpreting the word of a total immersion as to exclude all other ways of baptizing as unlawful and null And to that I will next address my self CHAP. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how rendred by Divines and Grammarians § 1. AND as it is confessed and acknowledged by some and those good Authors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie that special way of applying water to a person or thing whereby he or it is immerged
the Disciples here for eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with defiled because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with unwashed hands though they had not eaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with undipped hands but had used baptization before their eating And so then there is no necessity of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always of the strict singular way of immersion but it may be used when yet the washing is performed by but an affusion and so our Infants and others may be said to be baptized though not totally immersed or but sprinkled § 6. And for the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that designs only thus much that whereas those that had washed in the morning for all day keeping themselves pure from defilement by polluting actions and occasions needed not to wash any more before meat they that went to the market because of the almost impossibility that there was to avoid defilements there were at their comeing home to repeat their washing before they did eat though they had washed before which washing was by no Tradition of necessity to be by immersion but might be performed by affusion as was said before And thus much for this instance § 7. I pass to another Cui ritui sc adspersioni quoque favet baptismus in nube mari de quo Paulus 1 Cor. 10. agit Walaeus Synops Pur. Theolog. Disp 44. Thes 19. p. 606. viz. 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Where the Apostle be-speaking his Jewish Brethren saith all our Fathers were under the cloud and all passed thorough the sea and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the Sea A baptizing we have here that 's plain for they were all baptized and doubly too for fear of failing in the cloud and in the Sea But how were they baptized in the Sea to begin with that first by being all totally immersed into it by being dipped all over head and ears into the water of it That must be if baptized according to the notion our Anabaptists have of Baptism But no such matter For 't is said Exod. 14.21 22. the Lord caused the Sea to go back by a strong East wind all that night Vid. Christian Beckman Exercit. Theolog. 17. p. 251. and made the sea dry land and the waters were divided and the children of Israel went into the midst of the Sea upon the dry ground and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left So then no immersion of them into the Sea no one of them had so much as a foot dipped into the water of it And yet a baptism in the sea they were all baptized and baptized in it There may then be a baptizing without a total yea or a partial immersion of the party into that thing wherein he is said to be baptized And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not necessarily always signifie either a total or a partial immersion § 8. But if not dipped into the Sea when baptized in it much less were they dipped into the cloud when baptized in that Men walking on dry ground and yet dipped into a cloud who discerns not the incongruity of it Had they been dropt from heaven to earth much of that might have been by the way But as and where they they were it could not be And yet they were baptized in the cloud Plain again then it is that there may be a baptism without a total or partial immersion of the party baptized into that wherein he is said to be baptized and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not always necessarily signifie immersion And so our Infants or others are and may be said to be truly baptized though they are no more dipped into the waters than the Israelites were into the clouds or into the Sea when they were baptized in both § 9. Maris illius aquis capitibus ipsis transcuntium altiùs extantibus obruti ac sepulti quodammodo poterant videri emergere ac resurgere denuo cum ad litua objectum evasissent Pluviá ergo copiosà cùm perfunderetur populus ille universus sicut subter nubem extitisse omnes ita nube baptizari omnes commodè satis perhibentur Gataker Advers c. 4. p. 30. But how were they baptized in the cloud and in the Sea Why by being bedewed with the sprinklings of the cloud whilest they walked thorough the Sea And since Cyril of Alexand. * Non enim fieri aliter poterat ut maculae animis peccantium aspersa aspergerctur nisi sancto baptismo cujus figaram nubem esse statuimus D. Cyril Alex. in Hesa l. 2. c. 19. Tom. 1. col 296. resolves the cloud to be a figure of baptism who can tell but that the two ways of baptizing viz. of dipping and sprinkling might be typified by the two ways of baptizing in the cloud and in the sea the way of sprinkling by the bedewings of the cloud falling in drops upon them and the way of dipping by their going so into the Sea as that to such as were on land they might seem covered with it For it is expresly said ver 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things were our examples or figures litterally types representations made then in that Church of things that should be now in our Church § 10. But be that as it will the Apostle saith the Israelites were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea and yet none of them were dipped in either No necessity then of an immersion to make a baptism or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must always signifie to dip § 11. And if an immersion were necessary to make a baptism how shall we understand it that the Apostles of our Saviour were baptized with the Holy Ghost as our Saviour promised they should be Act. 1.5 Nay and with fire too as St. John Baptist foretold Matth. 3 11. and Luke 3.16 and was fulfilled Acts 2.3 4 What analogie is there between the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and Baptism if Baptism must signifie nothing but a total immersion Sure the Apostles were not dipt nor plunged into the Holy Ghost that they might be said to be baptized with it No such thing is said of them But they were filled with the Holy Ghost Yes but that holds no proportion with baptizing men by immersion into water If the water be any thing the fuller for the persons baptized so it is but the person baptized are not filled with the water they are put into the water not the water into them No resemblance then betwixt baptizing by immersion and the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles that they from that should be said to be baptized with it § 12. How then may they be said to be baptized with it Or what resemblance is there betwixt that descent and any other way of baptizing that from thence they may be said to be baptized with it Ab alterá
openeth Rev. 3.7 § 3. Secondly if our Saviour had designed strictly that way of a total immersion used in the time and place when and where he spake these words he could have used words of a lesser latitude than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which could not be capable of signifying any other way of baptizing short of or less than a total immersion Such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that therefore he used a word of greater latitude than the then present use was being no way in the least straitned for words but having plenty at hand to express his mind in had he pleased it should have been otherwise it is plain he designed a greater latitude in the performance of that action than justly agreed with the then present way of baptizing in that circumstance and that according to that latitude we are to understand his mind in that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. Thirdly if our Saviour had designed the administration of this Sacrament only in that Nation it had been reasonable to conceive his meaning was that in the administration of it the custom of that nation should be observed not only because it would well agree with the temperature of that country but also because the customariness of it to another yet very near almost the same purpose would make the reception of it unto his purpose the more easie to that people But being he designed it to be the Ceremony of Initiation of disciples into his Church throughout all nations it is most reasonable to believe his intendment was that it should be administred in such a way as would best agree with the temperature of all Countries and be most readily received by the people of all nations either upon that account or on any other of a near nature that might be customary among them as among some of them there were used purifications by water in reference to divine service 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. Nam sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur Isidis alicujus aut Mithrae ipsos etiam Deos suos lavationibus efferunt Tertul. de Bapt. p. 257. Edit Rigalt Inter quae sc Cereris sacra pracipuum fuit ut sacris initiatos calda primùm abluerent Alex. ab Alex. l. 6. c. 19. people being much more easily induced to admit of such Ceremonies and Customs as are in some respect domestick and home and they in part acquainted with than those that are utterly foraign and wholly new And according to what in reason we believe his real intendment to have been in reason we are to understand his word to be meant And then that must be not universally of a total immersion but sometimes of other ways of baptizing because those other ways are more agreeable to the temperature of some countries than that is and their receptions less liable to exception than that would have been § 5. Fourthly if our Saviour had designed this Sacrament to be administred only to persons of strong constitution and in healthful state then in reason it might be believed he intended its administration only in that way which was in use in that Nation and at that time and was but such as persons in health and strength might without danger endure and without fear undergo But seeing he intended it as an universal door for the letting in persons of all estates conditions and constitutions as well as Countries into his Church for he makes no limitation in that case and the Churches practice hath so interpreted his precept therefore it is most reasonable to believe he would and did design it so wide as that it might give entrance unto all and not by the straitness of its severity and dangerousness to the health and life of persons of sick or sickly and weak condition and constitution exclude any especially in cold seasons and climates and before the use of Fonts when there were only rivers or pools to baptize in But that could not be by a total immersion Therefore he must in reason be believed to have intended it when and where that could not be by a partial mersation affusion or aspersion as the case and condition the time place and person might require § 6. If any more were needful I might in the Fifth place add that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily so used as besides the signification of an act of application of water to the person baptized to consignifie also all the other proper circumstances of baptizing both for matter and manner that are omitted where it is expressed as for instance when 't is said of S. Paul It is taken for the whole work and action of the Sacrament Matt. 28.19 Leigh Critic Sacra Act. 9.18 that he arose and was baptized it is meant that none of the proper circumstances of baptism were then omitted though not one of them be expressed So then our Saviour saying Go and make Heathens disciples baptizing them must be understood to mean that all the proper circumstances of baptism both in point of matter and form must accompany that act Now if the manner of baptizing at that time must determine our Saviours order to one circumstance then no discrimination being made it must determine it to the others also and so we must in all points be baptized as the Jews were only in Rivers or Lakes not in the night See Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 3.6 pag. 45 c. nor on the Sabbath day nor on any holy day the party must first be put naked by others into the water and there sit or stand up to the neck he must there learn some precepts of the Law hard as well as easie and then he must at one plunge wholly dip himself or be dipt by another And now let our Anabaptists say in good earnest whether they think all this should be punctually observed in Christian baptism and therefore comprehended under our Saviours word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because this was the manner of baptizing in that time and place when and where our Saviour spake that word I am of opinion they do not think so because both the Apostles did and the Church hath and themselves do act differently in some respect from this manner and order For the first company that ever the Apostles baptized after the sealing of their Commission to baptize with water by their own being baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire was on the day of Pentecost an holy day Paul and Silas baptized the Jaylor and his family in the night And it has been the Churches practice in times of persecution to baptize in the night and in latter times in Fonts at first larger after lesser and for many ages by a threefold immersion And as in the night the Anabaptists do or if they be now grown more confident have formerly baptized in
but how probable it is they were only sprinkled I leave to the consideration and resolution of the calm and unprejudicated Reader § 9. There is a Fourth instance in Act. 16. wherein is no less if not a greater probability of a baptism by aspersion than in this At Philippi St. Paul and Silas being apprehended and beaten are thrust into the inner Prison and have their Feet made fast in the Stocks At Midnight there is an Earth-quake the Prison doors are opened and the Prisoners bands loosed The Jaylor seeing what was done is affrighted asks Paul and Silas what he should do to be saved They preach the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his House By their preaching he and his all that were capable of understanding and believing are converted Upon his conversion he becomes as kind to them as before he had been cruel And remembring the severity of the stripes he gave them he applies water for the washing away of the blood he drew from them And at the same time is baptized both he himself and all his Baptized Yes that he was But how By dipping or sprinkling or other application of water less than a total immersion The Text says it not it speaks nothing more than that he was baptized We are wholly left then to conjecture What should incline us to think of a total immersion here There is no mention of their going from the Prison to any River or Pool to dip them there Nor is there though Grotius conjecture it any mention of any Pool that was within the precincts of the Prison wherein they might be dipped Nor was there any need of it less water than a Pool would serve to wash their stripes and another kind of washing than that of dipping was more proper for that purpose One would think a gentle bathing and wiping off the blood with a soft cloth or a tender hand the most proper action in that case Let us but consult what we our selves would do in the like concern and our reason will do us right in it No probability then of his going to dip them but only of his calling for water to wash them And then as little probability of their carrying him and all his Family too any whither else in a strange place and at mid night too to dip them Item multi sc baptizati in domibus privatis Act. 16. 18. 1 Cor. 1.16 ubi ingressus ejusmodi in aquas vix esse potuit Walaeus Synops Theolog. Furior Disp. 44. Thes 19. p. 606. All that can be imagined fairly and without a violent detortion in this case is but this that finding him to be a believer the Apostles took the opportunity of his bringing water for the washing of their bodies to make use of that water for the washing of his Soul cleansing him from the stains of his sins as he had cleansed them from the maculations of their stripes by as gently bathing him from the one as he had bathed them from the other And now let the unbiassed and unpassionate Reader coolly judge in whether Opinion is the greater probability that which is for his total immersion or that which is for some milder way of baptization there being pleadable as on the one side no necessity so on the other great conveniency § 10. There is yet one instance more that may be insisted on which were it clear beyond exception would be of mighty concernment in the case even so far as to have the casting voice in the debate But it is liable to exception and therefore I shall only propose it as disputable and leave the Reader after all to make what estimate he pleases of it according to those degrees of probability or improbability that shall appear to him to be in it yet not altogether without hope but that when what is said for and against it shall be dispassionately considered it may to modest and sober inquirers prove convincing and satisfactory It is the Example of our Saviour whose baptism to have been according to the manifold usual representations of it in picture Exuitur vestimentis rex gloriae splendor luminis figura substantiae dei Joannis manibus attrectatur caro illa desumpta de virgine candidiorique derivata materia nudatur in flumine felicis baptistae manibus infundenda Descendunt angeli coelorum agmina tota reverentia currunt ad creatorem Baptizantem baptizatum numina dominantia circumcingunt Infundit aquam capiti creatoris creatura nobilior dei verticem mortalis dextra contrectat contingit Dr Bernard Serm. de S. Jo. Baptista Tom. 2. Col. 400. K. L. M. by an infusion of water upon him and particularly on his head and that by the right hand of the Baptist St. Bernard is most express and positive in Infundit aquam capiti creatoris creatura saith he That very Noble Creature meaning John the Baptist poureth water on the head of his Creator and the right hand of a Man handles and toucheth the Head of a God A clear and full instance if it hold good § 11. But there are mighty exceptions against it Cum primum coepit adolescere tinctus est à Johanne propheta in Jordane flumine Lactant. Instit l. 4. c. 19. First Lactantius speaking of the Baptism of Christ saith of him Tinctus est that to some may seem to signifie as if he were dipped of John the Prophet in the River of Jordan Then St. Ambrose speaking of it saith in aquis se mersit that seems to speak a dipping of himself in the waters Again St. Hierom saith caput extulit de fluento he put up his head from out of the flood Ex quo enim ille in aquis se mersit ex eo omnium credentium peccata delevit D. Ambr. Serm. 22. Tom. 3. p. 247. Ipse Dominus nostâ—r Iesus Christus statim ut caput extulit de fluento spiritum sanctum accepit H. Hieron Dialog Orthodox adver Luciserian that seems to import that he was head and ears all over immersed into it Nay lastly as St. Mark saith expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as the Interlineary Version renders it baptizatus est à Johanne in Jordanem he was baptized of John into Jordan Mark 1.9 So St. Matthew saith as expresly that Jesus when he was baptized went up out of the water Matth. 3.16 Now whether one St. Bernard's single and bare authority will bear up and be able to carry it against all these prejudices is more than I dare he confident of § 12. However mighty as these prejudices are so mighty as to have carried the assent of several along with them they will in the sequel appear to be in a great measure removable Dum corporis humilitate dominus undas Jordanis subiit divinitatis suae potentia coeli nobis januas pandit Bed in Luc. Evang. c. 3. fol. 68. col 3. The learned Cajetan upon the
from the same Prophetick promulgation whereon the Christians had founded or at least whereby they confirmed their baptismal purgation and therefore such as they ought not to be offended at In short the Rantization of the Heathens founded on that Prophecie that was applied to baptism by the Christians is some though but an obscure intimation of such a practice used by them in their baptismal introductions of Members into their Church Quomodo autem populi veteris sic Christiani sacros ritus aemulatus est hostis ille humani generis Tert. praescript c. 40. Ipsas res de quibus Sacramenta Christi administrantur aemulantes affectavit exprimere in negotiis Idololatriae At quasnam illas ea nimirum quae in Baptismo Christiano in sacra coena adhibentur elementa Tingit enim inquit ipse quosdam utique credentes fideles suos celebrat panis oblationem Gataker Adversar cap. 42. p. 418. See above ch 8. S. 4. marg And for the Daemons imitation of the Christians in their Baptism Tertullian is by Mr. Gataker produced as a further witness as more no doubt might be if there were need for it § 28. Magdeb. cent 2. c. 6. col 109 110. Niceph. Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 37. Whitgift Answ to T.C. Tract 9. p. 519. But a clearer intimation we have of it in a story related to us by the Centuriators of Magdeburg from Nicephorus Callistus in whom it is and which is also referred to by Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to T. C. The Story is this that in the time of Marc. Aurel. Antoninus who began his reign An. Chr. 161. a certain Jew travelling together with some Christians was Converted and falling very sick desired Baptism but that they having neither Priest to do it nor Water to do it withal at first refused him yet afterwards overcome by his urgent importunities yielded as far as they could to his request and sprinkling sand instead of water three times upon him they baptized him in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Whereupon the man recovered Now if sprinkling of water in Baptism at least in some cases had not been an use and that a known one at that time how should it have come into their heads to have used any such action As in the form of words it is certain they kept close to the Ecclesiastick usage so it is not to be doubted but they did so in the manner of acting And when report was made of what was done to the Bishop of Alexandria or more probably of Corinth and his opinion asked in the case he after consultation had with the Church about it thereunto answered that the man was baptized si modo aquâ denuo perfunderetur as they say were he but sprinkled again with water or had he but water poured on him again Where 't is plain nothing was disapproved of in that action or declared insufficient not the Baptizer not the form of Words not the manner of application by sprinkling but only the want of that Element which was proper for Baptism which if used though in the same way of application to him that the Sand had been the Baptism was pronounced to be sufficient Than which what proof can be desired more clear or more full A like Story to this if not the very same with this Johannes Moscus who lived about the year 600 relates to have happened in his time as Vossius saith de Baptismo pag. 348. § 29. We have yet in this Age another intimation of this usage in Tertullian who flourished in the latter end of this Century and in the beginning of the Century following His words are Quis enim tibi tam infidae poenitentiae viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit Tertull. l. de Poenit. c. 6. Who will pleasure you who are a Man to whose penitence so little trust is to be given with one sprinkling of any water Now that the speech hath reference unto baptism the words immediately foregoing do sufficiently intimate For saith he I do not deny the Divine benefit that is Neque enim renuo divinum beneficium i. e. abolitionem delictorum inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse Tertull ib. the abolition of sins to be every way safe that is secure to those that shall go into the water that is be baptized Now such an allusion unto baptismal sprinkling would not have been made by Tertullian a Man so accurately skilful in all the rites of the Church had it not been a rite and that a known one too of the then present Church to baptize if not always or ordinarily yet in some cases by sprinkling An evidence this of such importance at least as to me it seems as were sufficient to over-sway with and carry away the assent of any modest Inquirer as assuredly it did his in whose favours to their cause the Anabaptists do so much glory I mean B. Taylor Whence that acknowledgment which he makes hereof in his Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 4. Rul 15. S. 13. n. 9. pag. 644. the very place where his greatest liberalities on them as to this matter are bestowed And of this sprinkling besides what is implied in the former testimonies there was some little use in the Primitive Church Quis enim tam infidae poenitentiae viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit De Poenit. c. 6. says Tertullian speaking to an impenitent Person Who will afford thee so much as one sprinkling of water meaning for his baptism So he § 30. But because there may be others not of altogether so sanguine a belief as I am in these concerns who yet are waxie enough to take other more sinister impressions I will prosecute my Inquest into Ages of the Church more remote than this and farther distant from the first as hoping that if we shall find this to have been an use not only begun in the first but continued in the following Ages of the Church and if in any Age or Ages of it it seem interrupted for want of a full intelligence of what was done in those Ages yet again revived and still continued on in the following it will neither be refused as novel nor rejected as antiquated but revived as Catholick so far at least as to be thought lawful yea and fitting too to be used on just occasion for it § 31. If we go on then to the Third Century See Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 5. early in that about the Year of Christ CCXX we find Potamiaena a Noble Virgin of Alexandria and a Disciple to Origen Martyred Basilides a Souldier led her to Execution But not long after himself whether wrought upon by her communication in the way to or by her courage and constancy at her Execution or by appearing to him afterward in a Vision I know not becomes a Convert and professes himself a Christian and upon his avowed
in a battel with Alaricus by whom he was at the instant of being overthrown but became the overthrower of the battel immediately turning upon his Vow the like whereto befel Amurath the Emperor of the Turks in his battel with Ladislaus King of Hungary and he not only Routing his Enemies Army but also killing his Enemy himself with his own hand and partly by the sollicitation of St. Remigius Archbishop of Rheims to perform his Vow to whom he yielded and by whom he was baptized and not he alone but also Albofledis his sister and a great number of his people amounting to some thousands But how was he baptized Not by Immersion but by superfusion as we are told in the Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis published by Sebastian Arch B. of Ments and Prince Elector Where this Example is amongst others alledged in justification of baptizing by pouring on of water Whereof saith the Agenda we fetch example from the Apostles St. Laurence Remigius and many others who baptized by Sprinkling and pouring on of water And as the King himself was baptized so no doubt was his Sister and all his people Regis ad exemplum baptized also it being not well to be imagined why they who followed him in his believing should not follow him in his baptizing and be baptized as he was whose baptism was the cause of their being baptized especially seeing the baptism of both his and theirs were at the same time unless some good Record shall appear in contradiction to it which I have not as yet met withall § 64. And now no wonder if Gennadius Dr. Cave Life of St. Steph. p. 17. who flourished towards the latter end of this Century An. Chr. 490. and many Years before were dogmatical in his opinion of the sufficiency either of dipping or sprinkling to whose 74th dogma we are referred for proof hereof by the Right Reverend Dr. Sparrow Rationale of the Common-Prayer p. 298. Ed. 1661. Baptizandus consitetur fidem coram sacerdote interrogatus respondet hoc martyr coram persecutore facit quia confitetur fidem interrogarus respondet Ille post confessionem vel aspergitur vel intingitur hic vel aspergitur sanguine vel contingitur igne Gennad de Dogm Eccles c. 74. ap D. Aug. Tom. 3. col 207. the Author of the Rationale of the Common-Prayer And with his Testimony I will end this Century The Person saith he to be baptized makes Confession of his Faith before the Priest and being asked makes answer and after his confession he is sprinkled with water or dipped into it To such indifferency was it grown even in that Age. § 65. In the fore-end of the Sixth Century An. Chr. 517. and in the Seventh Year of Theodoric King of Spain was held at Gerunda in Catalonia a Provincial Council of Seven Bishops And in the 4th Canon of that Council it was Decreed Vt parvuli si infirmari contingat eodem die quo nati sunt baptizentur Concil Gerund Can. 4. That Infants in case of weakness should be baptized the same day that they were born That they should be baptized this they Decree But how they say not Whence 't is plain their meaning was that they might be baptized in such manner as was most suitable to their condition and had been usual in the like cases in the Church for else they would have given their determination otherwise and then their baptism must not have been by dipping but sprinkling or something more favourable and safe than a total immersion And especially is it rational so to conclude when the way of baptizing and for ought I know in publick as well as private was grown to such an indifferency in the Century foregoing as we see by the new cited Testimony from Gennadius § 66. And agreeably to what that Council decreed in the fore-end of it Item liberum esse Infantes mox in ipsa horâ si est periculum mortis baptizare Gregorius testatur l. 12. Ep. 10. ap Magdeburg Cent. 6. c. 6. col 367. l. 21. Baptizare autem vel enixam mulierem vel hoc quod genuerit si mortis periculo urgetur vel ipsâ horâ câdem quâ gignit vel hoc quod gignitur cádem quâ natum est nullo modo prohibetur c. Greg. Respons ad Interrogat Augustini ap Bedae Eccles Hist Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 27. fol. 36. a. it was declared by Pope Greg. I. in the latter end of it for he was chosen Pope An. Chr. 590. and died An. Chr. 604. that it should be free to baptize Infants in case of danger of death the same hour that they were born A great Charity was no doubt in this Concession designed to the Souls of the poor Babes namely to secure them as far as Man could do it from the future infelicities of those that died in an unbaptized estate But we must not think that charity to their Souls could consist with cruelty to their bodies and intend the destruction of the one whilst it pretended the salvation of the other Therefore we must think also that the rigors either of a three-fold or but a single total immersion especially in this cold climate of ours in reference to which that declaration was made by that Bishop were not imposed upon those Infants in periculo mortis but that a more benign and gentle way and which better suited with the weakness of their Infant-state especially in such danger was permitted to them And then we can think of no so fit a way for their baptizing as that of sprinkling § 67. Nay more the Centuriators from the same Authority tell us Mulieres gravidas vel recens enixas licitum esse baptizare Greg. testatur l. 12. Ep. 10. Magdeb. Cent. 6. col 367. Vid. Bed Eccl. Hist Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 27. that it was lawful to baptize Women big with Child or even newly brought to bed yea even in the very same hour that they were delivered as Bede relates it from him But sure to dip the former was very dangerous and the latter certain death And therefore it is without question that the baptism allowed them was one more safe viz. that of sprinkling § 68. In the Seventh Century the Magdeburgensians tell us that Baptism was administred publickly in Temples Baptizabant in templis In privatis tamen domibus etiam interdum cùm necessitas postulabat baptizatum est Magd. Cent. 7. col 144 145 146. yet not so but that sometimes when necessity required it was administred in private houses also Now that necessity which would keep them from coming to the Temple to be baptized must in reason be supposed also to be so great as to keep them from being totally dipped there being greater danger to them from that manner of baptizing than from the place where they should be baptized And then both Reason and the Vsage of the Church in the former Ages of it upon
by any man 's never so subtle Sophistry It was changed says Chamier and so say we though neither he nor we know when nor what it was that gave the occasion to its change And Mr. D. had done himself and his Cause more right if he had made a Right report from his Author § 70. But is this all that Chamier saith Nisi quod videntur 3000. uno die à paucis Apostolis non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent nec carcerario intra carcerem fuisse ad manum tantum aquae quantum mergendo opus erat Cham. ib. surely no. We find a nisi in the case and even no less than a double exception to what went before the first is of the baptizing of three thousand in one day by a few Apostles which saith he seems impossible to have been done by the immersion of every single person The other is of the Gaoler baptized in the prison who seems not to have had there so much water at hand as was needful for a baptism by dipping So here at one of these times to Chamier it seems aspersion might begin and if at either it was early enough begun and by Authority good enough done to justifie its practice and but for these instances the beginning of it would be uncertain But if neither of those was the beginning time of Sprinkling yet his very confessing the uncertainty of it when and from whence was taken that custom of Aspersion into which the way of total immersion was afterwards changed is a plain confession of the very great Antiquity and even Primitiveness of that custom those Ecclesiastical Usages being Rationally to be presumed such whose practice is derived to us from ancient times by the Catholick Church but of whose Original in after times that are short of the Primitive no account can be given § 71. Nor yet hath Chamier done but adds what Mr. D. could not but be unwilling his people should have reported to them from a Protestant Author so learned and judicious as Chamier that certainly the use of Sprinkling is the more commodious Certè commodior aspersionis usus propter tempestatum incommoda propter pudorem cujus gratiâ adhibitae olim Diaconissae mulicribus nudandis Vnde Constit Apost l. 8. c. 28. munus earum dicitur ministrare presbyteris dum baptizantur foeminae propter decorem Cham. ib. both in regard of the discommodities of Seasons and in respect of Modesty on account whereof Deaconnesses were in time past made use of for the stripping of women naked Whence in the Apostolical Constitutions it is said to be their office to wait on the Priests whilst the Baptism of women was a performing for decencies sake § 72. Nor yet to go on still with Chamiers words in the case was the nature of the Sacrament altered for that Nec ob id fuit alterata Sacramenti natura Nam quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem non interest quantum quisque abluatur ut in Eucharistia non quantum quisque comedat Est enim unius partis ablutio ejusdem naturae cum totius ablutione Id. ib. For because the whole vertue of the water is in signifying by ablution or washing it matters not how much every one is washed as it matters not in the Eucharist how much every one eats For the washing of one part is of the same nature with the washing of the whole § 73. How ought not Mr. D. here to commune with his own heart about his dealing thus with Authors so as in the quoting of them to put in and leave out at his pleasure and as may best serve his interest without regard to truth or justice and from henceforth to be still and deal no more so injuriously with any as he hath done with Chamier § 74. The Rere of this Squadron is brought up by Dr. Hammond a man of that singular goodness as well as Learning as was able to give credit to any party that he should appear to own or but countenance And therefore he as the best is reserved for the last I might saith Mr. Danvers add many more but shall conclude with that observable Remark that Dr. Hammond gives us hereon in his Annotations upon John 13.10 Telling us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing of the whole body which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament And therefore upon Matth. 3.1 tells us that John baptized in a River viz. Jordan Mark 1.5 in a confluence of much water as Aenon John 3.22 That as the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Ancients called their Baptisterions or vessels containing their Baptismal water Columbethras i. e. swimming or diving places being made very large with Partitions for Men and Women And upon Mark 7.4 tells us that the Washing or Baptizing of Cups Vessels Beds c. was no other than a putting them into the water all over rinsing them § 75. I believe he may add many more and to as little purpose as any thing that yet hath been produced But as to his Triumphant Conclusion with that observable Remark from Dr. Hammond thereto I shall answer by degrees § 76. And first that if Dr. Hammond did say That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie an Immersion or washing of the whole Body though in the place mentioned Joh. 3.10 he doth not strictly say those words no not in his first Edition but these The Hebrews had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former washing of the whole Body which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other of the hands or feet which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifying and those words and answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament are none of Dr. Hammonds at least not in that place yet it doth not follow even upon supposition of his so saying that he did think it signified nothing else nor any otherwise than to immerse but that as sometimes it might signifie immersion so sometimes it might signifie also a perfusion or an affusion And the rather if as Mr. Danvers tells us the Dr. said it did answer to that Hebrew word which I have shown in these Papers as well to signifie in general lotion or washing as in special immersion or dipping Nay to take notice of that before we pass any further it is observable that whereas both to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the English word Immersion Dr. Hammond adds other words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the first in Edit 1. and washing to the second those added words are both of a general import and the addition of them might intimate that the Doctor thought the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be so
upon the place say That in this phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing which was to dip the Parties unbaptized and as it were to bury them under water for a while and then to raise them up again out of it to represent the burial of the old Man and our Resurrection to Newness of Life The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place § 59. Mr. Danvers here fairly reports them only in stead of those words to raise them up again the Divines have to draw them out of it and lift them up which change why he made I cannot discern unless it were this That he feared those words to draw out and lift up should import that the Persons then baptized were such as were capable of being so drawn and lifted and so make the Reader think that Infants the properest persons for such actions to be done to it being no easie thing to imagine how they could be performed to persons that were Adult nor did I ever to my remembrance in any ancient Author read of any such action done to them were then baptized and then this testimony would do as much hurt to his cause one way whilst it proved Infants Baptism as old as the Epistle to the Romans as it did it good another way whilest it asserted their Baptism to have been by dipping And perhaps he feared too that the lifting up might make some think that the use of God-fathers the things so horribly decried by the Men of his way was Primitive too that work levare de fonte to lift up out of or from the Font being so proper to the God-fathers as that it is made the common Phrase to import ones being a God-father Thus much to him § 60. Now to his Authors I say the same that I said to Mr. Leigh that if by those words the ancient manner they meant only that it was a way or one manner and that the most general way and manner so to baptize I shall grant it But if they mean that it was the only way and manner then their word signifies no more with me than the ground which they give for it amounts unto which is none at all Now that being none their word is nothing § 61. And the same I say to Piscator and Diodate if they so say as the Assembly Divines have said Though I rather think it was the Assembly Divines that said the like to them than they to the Assembly Divines as being and writing before them But however it were to the same or the like Argument the same or the like Answer is to be returned § 62. And thus I have also cleared the Field of this Squadron of Commentators The third and last which consists of a mixed multitude of Writers Historical Didactical Polemical Scholastical and Casuistical comes up so close to and near with this that I cannot defer the encounter but must instantly cope with them CHAP. XIII Answers to more Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers from Historians Casuists and other Polemical as well as Didactical Writers § 1. DOctor Cave whom Mr. D. truly calls a great Searcher into Antiquity and who I truly believe has digested more of that than many others have read leads up the last Squadron And he as Mr. D. tells us in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith p. 320. That the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under water which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great End and Effects of Baptism for as in immerging there are in a manner three several acts the putting the Person into water his abiding there for some time and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and in conformity thereto our dying unto sin the destruction of its power and our Resurrection to a new course of life By the Persons being put into water was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh and being washed from the filth and pollution of them By his being under it which is a kind of Burial into water his entring into a state of Death or Mortification like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of Death therefore it is said As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death c. And then by his emersion or rising up out of the water is signified his entring upon the new course of life that like as Christ was raised from the Dead by the Glory of the Father so we should walk in newness of life Thus Mr. D. reports him § 2. But for all this 1. that Doctor is no Anabaptist nor against sprinkling in Baptism For he doth not say that immerging was absolutely the constant and universal custom of those times but with a restriction almost the constant and universal custom that is it was not the constant nor the universal custome but yet very much in use the common practice of those times as he after explains himself p. 321. Which is a clear confession of some other way of baptizing then in use besides immerging though not so much in use as that § 3. Secondly after the Doctor 's discourse of the signification of the Persons being put under and being under the water and rising up out of it which is all that Mr. D. takes notice of and stops when he comes at the end of it the Doctor goes on to speak of Sprinkling and saith But though by reason of the more eminent signification of these things immersion was the common practice in those days and therefore they earnestly urged it and pleaded for it yet did they not hold sprinkling to be unlawful especially in cases of necessity of weakness danger of death or where conveniency of immerging could not be had in these and such like cases Cyprian does not only allow Ep. 76. ad Magn. p. 153. but plead for it and that in a discourse on purpose when the question concerning it was put to him Upon this account it is that immersion is generally disused in these parts of the World and sprinkling succeeded in its room because the tender bodies of most Infants the only Persons now baptized could not be put under water in the cold Northern Climats without apparent prejudice to their health if not their lives and therefore in this as in other cases God requires mercy rather than Sacrifice especially considering that the main ends of Baptism are attained this way and the Mystical effects of it as truly though not so plainly and significantly represented by Sprinkling as by putting the body under water § 4. In which discourse of his these remarks are so obvious that 't is loss I fear of time to take notice of them to the Reader 1. That the practice of dipping was but almost and was not absolutely universal in the Primitive times 2. That sprinkling was not
then held unlawful 3. That Sprinkling was especially allowed in cases of necessity weakness danger of death or want of conveniency for immerging 4. That in this case God requires mercy rather than Sacrifice 5 That the main ends of baptism are this way obtained 6. That the Mystical effects of it are as truly represented this way as by dipping though not so plainly So grave a witness was Dr. Cave against Sprinkling in Baptism § 5. Bishop Jewel is the next that Mr. Danvers makes to appear in this cause And he as Mr. D. tells us in his Apologie p. 308. brings the Council of Wormes determining the manner of Baptism thus viz. That the dipping into the water is the going down into Hell or the Grave and that the coming out of the water is the Resurrection § 6. But B. Jewel hath nothing of this in his Apology which I read all over to find it Missing it there I sought for it in Caranzas Epitome of the Councils but that hath nothing of it neither Then I searched the Councils at large in Surius and there I found what that Council said in reference to this matter as also at last in B. Jewels Defense of his Apology part 2. pag. not 308 but yet 309 And it is plain to every man that has but a drachm of brains in his Skull that the Council there doth not determine the manner of Baptism as Mr. D. would make the B. say it doth but only declareth the meaning of that way of Baptizing when persons are dipped namely that going into the water represents going down into a grave or a burial and that coming out of the water represents a coming out of the grave or a resurrection The words of the Council as they are in Surius are these Et nè fortè cuiquam sit dubium hujus simplex mysterium Sacramenti Vormatiense Concil Can. 5. de Baptismi Sacramento ap Surium Tom. 3. p. 522. videat in eo mortem resurrectionem Christi significari Nam in aquis mersio quasi in infernum descensio est rursum ab aquis emersio resurrectio est Therefore so B. Jewel reports part of them in the Council of Wormes it is written thus In aquas demersio in Infernum descensio est rursus ab aquis emersio resurrectio est The dipping into the water is the going into hell and the coming out from the water is the Resurrection So no determination here of the manner of Baptism to be by dipping but only a declaration of the meaning of that Ceremony when the person baptized is dipped § 7. Now to requite Mr. D. for his Quotation out of B. Jewel Et credimus baptismum quidem Sacramentum esse remissionis peccatorum ejus ablutionis quam habemus in Christi sanguine ab eo neminem qui velit profiteri nomen Christi ne infantes quidem Christianorum hominum quoniam nascuntur in peccato pertinent ad populum dei arcendos esse Juelli Apol. p. 38. edit Londin 1581. I will before I part give him one out of that his Author also telling him that Bishop declares the Church of Englands belief of Baptism to be a Sacrament not of immersion or dipping which is but the Secondary consideration in that Sacrament but of that which is primary and principal in it namely that ablution or washing which we have in or by the blood of Christ and also that she believeth not only that none who are willing to profess the name of Christ but no Infants of Christian Parents in regard they are born in sin and belong to the people of God are to be kept from it § 8. Next to B. Jewel succeeds Mr. Baxter And saith Mr. D. most remarkable is the Testimony Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth wherein he also owns the changing of the Ceremony in his third Argument against Mr. Blake in these words viz. § 9. Quoad modum To the manner saith he it is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles time the Baptized were dipped over head in water and that this signifieth their profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh or dying to sin and living to Christ or rising again to newness of life or being buried and risen again with Christ as the Apostle expoundeth in the forecited Texts of Coloss 2. and Rom. 6. And though saith he we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping and to use less water yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it So then he that signally professeth to die and rise again in Baptism with Christ doth signally profess saving Faith and Repentance but this do all they that are baptized according to the Apostles practice § 10. I answer that I see nothing in this Testimony that merits so triumphant a Remark to be set upon it for any advantage that is given to Mr. Danvers Cause by it Mr. Baxter confesseth that in the Apostles time the baptized were dipped over head in water But he doth not confess that they were dipped over Body too Plainly that which Mr. Baxter confesseth amounts but to a partial mersation of the head and doth not necessarily imply a total immersion of the Body unless it were impossible for a man to have his head dipped in water except his whole body were dipped into it also And if that will do Mr. D. any service much good d'it him with his Testimony The like we have shewn in these Papers from St. Augustin and St. Hierom c. But that will not do the Dippers business whom nothing will serve but a total Judaical immersion of the whole Body And the change Mr. Baxter speaks of I suppose to be from this partial dipping into sprinkling which granted signifies nothing § 11. But suppose he meant what he said of a total immersion then I judge his sense was that generally the baptized were in the Apostles time dipped over head in water not universally that most were so baptized not that none were baptized otherwise And then his Confession will neither hurt himself nor us § 12. But if he meant more than so then since he hath at the same time declared himself to have thought it lawful to difuse the i. e. that manner of Dipping and to use less water it is plain he thought the Church not to be obliged by that Apostolical practice to an universal observance thereof through all successions of Ages but to have power to make alteration even in Sacramentals so they were but Circumstantial and not Essential parts of Worship And so the producing of his Testimony seems to be but a wresting of his words to signifie what was not in his mind which whether it be fair or no I leave to Mr. D. himself to consider § 13. If I have not spoken Mr. Baxter's mind or have not spoken it