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
hold all Baptism unlawful but that which was administred by a Total immersion And this if his published Writings did not declare it I should be able to make good out of his private For taking notice of what he said of these things and foreseeing what use would by the Anabaptists be made of what he said I did by Letter advertise him thereof and he again by Letter to me did not only clear his own discourses of the strict import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from giving any advantage to the Dippers but also lay down several grounds whereon the Church proceeded to use sprinkling instead of dipping And because the communication of so much of those Letters of his as concerns the present debate might tend as I thought to the satisfaction of the Reader as well as to the vindication of the Doctor I once had thought to have made so much of his Letters publick But seeing his publick writings do declare it and particularly his Pract. Catechism l. 6. S. 2. p. 154. Edit 1674. where he saith that by Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his Family should be received with this Ceremony of Water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the Primitive ancient custom to be put under water three times or instead of that to be sprinkled with it Therefore I shall as thinking it a needless thing supersede the Reader all further trouble about them § 82. And thus I have fairly I think cleared the Field of this first Squadron I shall after a little pause for refreshment of the Reader attack the Second CHAP. XII Answers to Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers from Commentators c. § 1. THE Second Squadron consists most of Commentators and marches under the Banner of Holy Scripture several Texts whereof Mr. Danvers displays before them To their motions I shall now pay my attendance § 2. Secondly saith Mr. D. It appears to be so from the practice and usage we find hereof in Scripture and the Opinion of the Learned upon it § 3. Whether there be any rational ground from what appears to conclude what was or ought to be will be seen in the Issue But what it is let 's have it First saith he in the Story of Christs baptism we read Matth. 3.5 it should be v. 13. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him And v. 16. And when he was baptized he went up straightway out of the water § 4. The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith Christ ascended out of the water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by Sprinkling or pouring Water upon him but by Immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the water § 5. To the Text I have already spoke in ch 10. I shall now therefore speak to the Cardinal § 6. And that Cardinal who no doubt was learned enough to deserve that Emphatical Title of the Learned and from an Anabaptist especially when he seems to speak for Dipping in Baptism doth indeed make such Collection that because of its being said that Jesus straightway went up out of the water therefore he was baptized by John not by Sprinkling or pouring water upon him from above but by dipping in or bowing down his body But this Learned mans assertion being founded on a reason his word can be of no more weight than his reason is But his reason is none as I have shewed in these Papers ch 10. Nor could all the Learning he had ever prove from Christs ascending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab aquâ as Musculus the next Author that Mr. D. here cites doth render it from the water as that is in the Original which in his Translation is de aqua in ours out of the water that Christ was baptized by a total immersion It follows therefore that his word is nothing also And so with this I might dismiss him § 7. But further having consulted that Author himself and the place here quoted I find something not taken notice of by Mr. D. or thought fit by him to be slipped by that makes the Cardinal seem not altogether so peremptory in his Conclusion which is that having said Jesus was baptized by John per immersionem that is by dipping he adds seu submissionem corporis which Mr. D. Englishes not Baptizatus autem Jesus confestim ascendit de aqua Non ergo per aspersionem aut desuper effusionem sed per immersionem seu submissionem corporis baptizatus est Jesus in Jordane Cajetan in Matth. 3.16 unless plunging in the water be the English of it with him but it signifies only a bowing down of the body And who knows but that the Cardinal might speak those words by way of Correction of or explication to what went before and intend only thereby that he bowed down his body in order to the having of his head only dipped in water which hath been since if it were never before that a way of baptizing And if this be the meaning of the Phrase then the Cardinal having proposed two ways and having determined for neither cannot be produced as a positive witness for either unless by him that will do as Mr. D. hath done and leave what makes against him out § 8. But were it so as Mr. D. makes the Cardinal say and that by submissionem he meant nothing more nor other than what he meant by immersion though those words are far enough from being Synonymous yet it doth not follow that it must be necessarily so with us too unless there were a necessity of our conformity with Christ in all his Sacramental Circumstances which I think our Anabaptists will not say we should no not in those which concern Baptism For then we must not be baptized till above thirty years of Age we must be unmarried when baptized we must be baptized no where but in a River and that River must be Jordan in which circumstances yet some have been more zealous than judicious imitators of him In the mean time it may be taken notice of that by Baptism the learned Cardinal understood an Ablution Therefore in v. 5. of this Chapter upon the word Baptizabantur he saith the old Greek word remained among the Latines in their Ecclesiastick Mysteries and that it ought to have been abluebantur and that John himself did exercise ministerium abluendi and that the sinners offered themselves abluendos à Joanne tanquam exterior ablutio esset quaedam professio poenitentiae mundae deinceps vitae ducendae to be washed by John as if the external washing were a kind of profession of repentance and a new life thenceforth to be led So that with him washing seems to have been the most material thing in Johns Baptism and then no question but that where that is the Cardinal will allow of a Baptism though it be not performed by a total immersion § 9. From Cajetan Mr. D. passeth on to Musculus and saith he Musculus on Matth.
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
place Matth. 3.5 saith Christ ascended out of the water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or by pouring water upon him but by immersion that is by dipping or plunging in the water So is he quoted by Mr. H. Danvers Treat of Bapt. part 2. c. 4. p. 196. Edit 2. His own words are Baptizatus autem Jesus confestim ascendit de aqua Non ergo per aspersionem aut desuper effusionem sed per immersionem seu submissionem corporis baptizatus est Jesus à Johanne Where per submissionem corporis he may mean not what Mr. Danvers seems to understand a plunging in the Water but a bowing of his body downward and that may be only to have his head dipped into the water whether wholly or no will be left to the Reader 's judgment And that St. Bernard a Person of so great Learning and Piety as he is famed for who wrote after all these and may in reason be supposed to have read and considered all these did notwithstanding believe and deliver his judgment otherwise gives reason to conceive that he had in his mind some reason that did with him counterballance all these and that he knew how to give a satisfactory answer unto all these And to every one of them indeed something may be said perhaps sufficient to render them no objections at all § 13. And first for Lactantius He as well as St. Augustine learnt from Tertullian to use tinguo or tingo for baptizo Baptizabat enim quia ipse mundabat non baptizabat quia non ipse tingebat D. Aug. Tract 15. in Evang. Joh. Tom. 9. Col. 132. B. And so tinctus est in him signifies no more than baptizatus est he was baptized But that infers not necessarily that he was dipped Nay tingo from whence comes tinctus is used to denote a way of haptizing different from that of dipping * See Dr. Whitaker Praelect de Sacram. Bapt. p. 216. And as I shall afterwards produce Tertullians authority for aspersion so I shall shew in its proper time that Lactantius himself in that very place did not mean what he said of dipping but of sprinkling § 14. Then for St. Ambrose his expression is but in aquis se mersit that is he dipped himself in the waters not in aquas se mersit he dipped himself into the waters A great deal of difference betwixt in and into The first would import that being in the waters he dipped himself which might be said though he dipped but part of himself in them The second would import his dipping of himself into the waters which would lye fairliest to be understood of a total immersion But se himself seems to import his whole self whether he dipped himself into or but in the water It doth but seem so it doth not necessarily so import Nothing is more ordinary than such Synecdochical expressions wherein the whole is put for but a part Who that had casually slipt with but one leg or foot into a water would not presently say he had wet himself who would understand Aspersit me labe he aspersed me with a spot otherwise than by aspersit mihi labem he aspersed or sprinkled a blot or spot on me who would think the labes spot or blot so great as to co-extend to the whole person to spot or blot him all over Who understands our Saviour's saying to St. Peter Joh. 13.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I wash thee not to intend any thing more than if I wash not thy feet We have shewn before how the expression concerning our Saviour's not washing himself before meat was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was not dipped literally he as here whereas the meaning was his hands the manner of the Jews being not wholly to dip themselves but their hands nor always that neither but sometimes before they did eat So here se mersit in St. Ambrose is not all himself but some of himself and particularly his head the dipping of the head being a if not the manner of baptizing in St. Ambroses time as we shall after shew from St. Hierom and St. Augustine contemporaries with St. Ambrose and therefore in his time Nay who can tell whether that expression intend any more than his going into the water which he could not do without dipping himself into it unto John to be baptized of him Not to add what yet wholly overthrows this testimony of St. Ambrose and makes null all that can be pleaded from it more than what I last mentioned that the speech it self if referring unto Christs baptism is not true for it makes our Saviour to be his own baptizer which is directly contrary to the Text which saith not that he baptized himself but that he was baptized of John unless any will allow of Rebaptization and say that our Saviour was twice baptized once by St. John because the Scripture saith so and another time by himself because 't is so said by St. Ambrose but that Rebaptization I think in these days goes down with no party whether Paedo or Anti-Paedobaptists though it is thought that the baptizing of those who were by John Baptist baptized in Jordan was so performed See Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae on Matth. that being a way of baptizing in use among the Jews § 15. And by this which hath been said concerning St. Ambrose an Answer is already given to what is objected from St. Hierome For caput extulit de fluento he put or lift up his head out of or from under the water can signifie only that his head and not that his whole body was under water without better proof of it than so No more than that of the Poets Haec sanctè ut poscas Pers Sat. 2. v. 15 16. Tiberino in gurgite mergis Mane caput bis terque proves that the person he speaks to dipped his whole body two or three times in the river because he did so with his head unless it were impossible for a man to dip his head without dipping his whole body too which I think none will say § 16. But what shall we say to St. Mark That I confess looks like somewhat to the purpose yet will be capable of receiving an Answer whether satisfactory enough I dare not undertake But such as it is an Answer I have to return furnisht therewith from Beza a man whose skill in Critical learning I need not publish And 't is this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Enallage he had as he saith before made frequent mention of And then he was baptized of John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here will be no more than The Syriac Arabick and Persic Version render it so too the Aethiopic in fitivio Jordanis in the river of Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 9. in Jordan as our Translation as well as Tindals renders it agreeably to the rendring both of Beza and the
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
Translation interpreted so too And so St. Bernards opinion of our Saviour's being baptiz'd not by immersion of him into the water but by an affusion of water upon him may for ought I see to the contrary stand good still And then we neither need nor can have any better instance of or argument for baptismal affusion or aspersion than that § 22. Nor will what is observed from Matth. 3.16 where mention is made of Christs coming up out of the water prove against St. Bernard that Christ was baptized by immersion For 1. the true reading of that place is according to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ascended or went up not out of but away from the water And so might he do that never was in it but only had been by it And 2. the learned Cajetans collection from the place which I see quoted from him that H. D. p. 196. Ed. 2. because it is said Christ ascended out of the water therefore Christ was baptized by John not by sprinkling or pouring water upon him but by dipping or plunging him in the water is weak and proves nothing unless no man could be said to ascend out of the water who had not first been totally immersed that is dipped or plunged wholly into it which is contrary to reason sense and experience § 23. Nor is St. Bernard the only person among the Ancients that was of this opinion but we have intimation of several others and many hundreds of years before him that had the same thought as will be seen in the sequel of this discourse § 24. And there may be some reason assigned why our Saviour should will to be baptized not according to the then or formerly usual way of dipping but according to the way now most in use by sprinkling even by his example to shew a no necessity of persisting in that former way of more severity and less decency and to set the Christian Church at liberty from that part of the Yoke of Jewish bondage and especially in those places and countries where that Jewish Ceremony might prove to be either prejudicial to the health of the Weaker or scandalous to the minds of the more Modest Converts and either way a Yoke of Bondage § 25. Nor can I see any reason why he that departed from the then present way of baptizing in one circumstance may not as well be thought and especially on so weighty consideration to do it in another The way then was for the Proselytes to be the dippers or baptizers * Omnis baptizatus necesse habuit ut totum corpus suum intingeret jam nudatum mersione una Maim in Mikvaoth cap. 1. 4. Et tum immergit ea scipsum Id. ib. of themselves if Maimonides give a true account of the Tradition in that case But Christ did not baptize himself But to setle a distinction betwixt the baptizer and the baptized as well then by his example as he afterward did by his word he was baptized of John per manum Johannis by the hand of John if the Persic Version of Mark 1.9 mistake not as I know no reason to think it doth No more improbability then of his being baptized differently from others in respect of Manner than of Agent And so St. Bernards Conceit hath two legs the Opinion of Former Writers and Reason for that Opinion besides his own Authority to stand upon § 26. But it is time I should proceed to the next Century Now that like the first was an Age scant of Writers and of what was written little concerned or is left remaining that did concern Baptism And therefore here again our intelligence must be expected to be no other but dark and scanty And yet such glimmerings at least of light are left us as will enable us to discern some footsteps of this practice even in it And even if it said not the least thing for us whilst it saith nothing at all against us which yet hath its mouth wide open against other errors then broached or disseminated in the Church its silence is to be interpreted as a consenting to us And the same will be as rationally to be said for any following as for this former Age wherein through want of Writers on this subject our intelligence shall either wholly fail us or prove penurious and scanty to us § 27. Justin Martyr flourished in this Age about An. Chr. 150. By what the Centuriators say from this Author Magdeb. Cent. 2. col 110. l. 48. one would think he had been an asserter of total dipping saying as they report from him atque ita hoc lavacro mersati lustrantur i. e. and so being dipped in this laver they are cleansed But I suppose those Authors rather consulted some Translation than the Original or else mistook in their own Translating For in all that whole passage as it was penn'd by the Author there is not one word that signifies immersion mersasation or any thing of like import unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some derivative from it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie any such thing as they do not for there is no other word there so much as looking that way Rather there is something that favours Rantization or Sprinkling For having first spoken of that baptismal washing I say washing not dipping whereby men are regenerated in Baptism and having alledged as grounds for that practice first our Saviours saying except ye be born again ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of God and then that saying of the Prophet Isaiah wash ye make ye clean c. he proceeds to declare that the Daemons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having heard of this as it is by him interpreted baptismal washing preached by the Prophet in imitation thereof introduced the fashion of Rantization or Sprinkling to be used by their Worshippers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Apol. 2. Et est notandum quod pagani sive gentiles circae fontes templa sua facere solebant aut saltem ibi semper aquam habebant per cujus aspersionem purificari credebant inde delubra vocabantur quasi purificantia ita quodammodo figuraliter ad baptismum tendebant Guil. Durant Rational Divin Officior l. 6. fol. 147. col 1. when they approached to their Temples and addressed their Prayers and offered their Sacrifices unto them Which is an intimation of an use of Rantization in Baptism or at least of a fitness of that usage in baptizing and that that Author did not think otherwise than well of it whilest he does not discover and declare any erroneousness in that Heathen practice as differing from and so wronging by misrepresentation what was in use among the Christians but rather pleads the innocency of it whilst he shews to the Heathen Emperors that practice of the Christians to be but such as the very Gods themselves whom they did Worship did in some respect and measure approve of and conform unto and had taken up
that had been vouchsafed to them I need hot here again discourse what was the manner of baptizing sick persons having so lately whilest I was speaking of the Council of Neocaesarea shewn it to have been by way of sprinkling Nor need I for the same reason argue from the Councils not condemning the Baptism so administred nor ordering the re-baptizing of such as had been so baptized to their approving at least as to the sufficiency thereof that manner of Baptism § 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 643 644. Much about the time of that Council or a little after An. Chr. 370. flourished Gregory Nazianzen And by his most passionate arguing against mens deferring their baptism till their sickness was grown desperate and they almost if not wholly past either speech or sense it is evident that some did defer their baptizing so long And that yet in that condition they were baptized it is likewise evident from his pressing them to be baptized before they had so far lost the use of their tongue that they were not able well to utter what was on their part to be said at their baptizing and whilest their commencing Christians might be grounded on certain arguments and nor on uncertain opinion with much more to that purpose Now how persons in this condition could be baptized by a total dipping or any other way but by a gentle sprinkling unless the Baptizer meant to put them out of doubt and dispatch them quickly out of the way the indifferent Reader may with hope of a favourable judgment in the case be appealed unto In the mean time I cannot but take notice of it that whereas the unlawfulness of such a Baptism was the most powerful argument that possibly could be used to draw men off from such a course and hasten their baptizing if ever they meant at all to be baptized since that on death bed by sprinkling and those in that condition were incapable of any other was perfectly unlawful besides that it signified nothing at all to the baptized because not administred according to Christs institution which is supposed to be by dipping he doth not in the least press that argument nor do any of the Fathers else that I know of which is a clear evidence that though he and they wished men sooner baptized yet they thought that baptism which was administred so late to be in it self lawful though through their fault so late administred and in that manner § 49. In this Age flourished St. Hierom about An. Chr. 385. And though he speak not that I know of concerning sprinkling yet there is in him an intimation of a baptizing by less than a total dipping Many things saith he which are observed in the Church by Tradition Nam multa alia quae per traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur autoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurparunt velut in lavacro ter mergitare caput c. D. Hieron adv Luciferian have Usurped to themselves the authority of a written Law as for instance to dip the head thrice in baptism c. Here 's dipping indeed mentioned as a way used in baptizing but 't is not mentioned as the way nor is that dipping of the whole person but only of a part namely the head of the party baptized And so hence it appears that a total immersion was not always the only way of baptizing but that as sprinkling as we have shewed was sometimes so sometimes a partial mersation was used in stead of it § 50. Contemporary with S. Hierom was Siricius Bishop of Rome Spondan Epit. Baron An Chr. 385. Nam de Infantibus baptizandis qui nec dum baptizati nascuntur quoties necessitas exegerit Regula Ecclesiastica per beatum Siricium prolata demonstrat dicens c. Magdeb. cent 9. c. 4. col 140. elected to that See à clero populoque by the Votes both of Clergy and Laity An. Chr. 385. And his Authority as the Centuriators tell us is vouched and under the title of Regula Ecclesiastica an Ecclesiastical Rule by Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims for the baptizing of Infants as oft as necessity should require The necessity for baptizing of Infants can be no other but danger of death in regard of sickliness and weakness Now in what manner it was the use in those times to baptize persons in that condition we have before declared so that it is almost needless to say it was not by that severe way of a total immersion of them three times into water Vel his quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacri undá baptismatis omni volumus ecleritate succurri ne ad nostram perniciem tendat animarum c. Id. ib. but by the more safe and gentle way of aspersing or sprinkling water thrice upon them Nor was his care only for weak Infants but for all others in what necessity soever they were whom he willed should be baptized with all speed lest if any being in that condition denyed baptism should depart out of this world unbaptized and so lose both Kingdom and Life that loss of theirs should tend to the destruction of our Souls § 51. A little after him about An. Chr. 390. flourished Aurelius Prudentius a man of Consular dignity and a no less pious Christian than ingenious Poet. And in him we have a plain instance of such baptizing as that the party baptized was not dipped but only bedewed with the water of baptism and that must be by sprinkling or shedding water upon him Cultor dei memento c. O Worshipper of God saith he remember that thou didst go under the holy dew of the Font Cultor dei memento Te fontis lavacri Rorem subîsse sanctum Prudent Hymn ante somn and Laver that is in plain English that thou wast sprinkled in baptism for what else can be meant by the dew of the Font and going under that dew § 52. And let no man think this was a meer piece of Poetry and that he was compelled to this way of expressing himself by necessity of his verse for he was a person of such fluency of expression as that if there had been need for it he could have otherwise expressed himself And besides in another case when he could as well have used the word Immergit he dippeth or baptizeth by dipping he doth use Perfundit he poureth water on or doth baptize by pouring on water It is in the case of John the Baptist and so may be added as a superventional testimony Perfundit fluvio pastus Baptista locustis c. Prudent Enchirid or at least as a further light to St. Bernard's opinion before mentioned concerning our Saviour's being baptized by John in Jordan not by way of Immersion but of perfusion not by putting him under water but by pouring water upon him § 53. I will end this Century and begin the following with St. Augustin who lived in both being converted to the
by dipping into water but by having water poured upon him And whether that were so or not yet still the expression inevitably infers that Authors knowledge of a way of baptizing other than by a total dipping and even by a pouring on of water in his own age at least if not in former and even in the Primitive too to which the passage makes a fair pretension being quoted out of the Authors Poem of John the Baptist Item placuit ut quicunque parvulos ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat anathema sit Synod Milevit ap Magdeb cent 5. c. 9. col 835. Caranz fol. 123. § 60. In the same Age An. Chr. 418. the Council of Milevis decreed him anathematized who should deny baptism to Infants coming new from the Wombs of their Mothers Now certainly Infants in that condition cannot be looked upon as other than persons under great weakness and necessarily exposed to manifest danger of health and even life it self should they be put to the undergoing of the Severities of a threefold total Immersion which was the way of baptizing those that were dipped in those times even Infants and all if arrived at that hardiness for strength as to be able to endure it There must therefore be allowed a more favourable way of baptizing of new-born Infants which I presume also was never done but when the Infants were weak and not likely to live unless we will put such an Interpretation on the Councils decree as shall expose them to a severe censure for cruelty even to tenderest babes for that very thing whereby they designed the greatest mercy and kindness to them as if they meant to kill their bodies whilest they pretended to save their Souls Now I need not tell you what has been so oft already sufficiently intimated that the most favorable and so the most befitting way of baptizing in such case is that of Sprinkling § 61. Fst de Columbethra quae aquae in baptisterio receptaculum fuit ex qua aqua baptizato superfusa per interiorem meatum secedebat apud Socrat. l. 7. c. 17. The Centuriators tell us of a Font out of which baptizato aqua superfusa the water poured from above on the person baptized went away by a secret passage made for it below And this Font was in this Age. And this pouring water on the person baptized at it imports a baptism other than by way of immersion For this and the story appendent to it they refer us to Socrates l. 7. c. 17. That Author speaks of such a Font as had a conveyance for the water by a lower passage but mentions no pouring of the water from above on the baptized And because I am unwilling to force a meaning on them different perhaps from their mind though lying fair in their words it may be they did not by aqua baptizato superfusa intend water poured from above on but for the baptized Though by the way this is much the manner of baptizing in Russia Purchas Pilgrim part 3. p. 229. about An. Chr. 1557. according to a Relation of it that I meet with in Purchas's Pilgrimage For there as the Relation is when the water is Sanctified the Priest taketh the Child and holdeth it in a small Tub and one of the Godfathers poureth it all upon the Childs head Yet to come to the story in Socrates again there he tells us what is material to our purpose viz. a story of a deceitful Jew that having been baptized before by Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and made a practice of it in several places upon avaricious designs for mony to offer himself to baptism came to this Font offering himself to be baptized there also and that when he hanged his head over the Font the water vanished away once and again whereupon his fraud was discovered This happened in the Sixth Consulship of Theodosius An. Chr. 415. Now that which I note it for is this This hanging his head over the Font in order to his being baptized intimates what any man would think that should see a man in that posture hanging his head over one of our Fonts that his baptism was not to have been by an immersion or dipping of his whole body into the water but only by a Sprinkling of water upon his face or by a pouring of water upon his head at most by a dipping of his head only and no more of him into the water § 62. In the middle of this Century flourished Pope Leo advanced to the Papacy An. Chr. 440. He was for having the Solemn times of baptism observed Non interdictâ licentiâ quâ in baptismo tribuendo quolibet tempore periclitantibus subvenitur ut in periculo mortis in obsidionis discrimine in persecutionis angustiis in timore naufragii nullo tempore hoc verè salutis singulare remedium cuiquam denegemus Leo ep Decret 4. c. 6. pag 15 16. Nevertheless he would not inhibit that liberty which had formerly been taken to baptize at any time persons in danger of death in the difficulties of a Siege in the straits of persecution in the fear of Shipwrack Now this being so it must needs follow that he must allow of such ways of baptizing as the circumstances those persons were in would admit of Which might not be always by way of Immersion even for want of water as in sieges prisons ships and sometimes might not be safe as in case of dangerous sickness when to baptize by way of Immersion might be more destructive to the baptized than his very disease and a sure way to bring a certain death upon him here whilest we design to save him from a feared death hereafter And then not only partial mersation but even affusion and conspersion or Sprinkling will fall under the allowance of that 〈◊〉 and be the Practice which the Church in that â—â—ge took or had granted to it the liberty to make use of § 63. In the Year 499. was baptized Clodoveus King of the Franks Spondan Epitome of Baron An. Chr. 494. n. V. An. Chr. 499. n. IV. Georg. Cassand de Baptismo Infantum p. 713. Isle Clodovaeus primus Christianus fuit inter Reges Francorum à beato Remigio baptizatus Gotfrid Viterb Chron. part 17. col 433. See Werner Rolewinks Fascic Temp. fol. 53. Herm. Contract Chron. p. 419. Flosc Historici cap. 3. p. 204. Expedit ut per infusionem aquae fiat non per immersionem Cujus rei exemplum trahimus ab Apostolis Sancto Laurentio Remigio caeterisque pluribus qui aspergendo super infundendo aquam baptizabant Sic Sanctus Laurentius urcco aquae superinfuso baptizavit Romanum Sic etiam Remigius Regem Franciae baptizavit Agend Eccl. Mogunt Edit Mogunt An. 1551. fol. 22 23. first brought to believe the Christian Faith by his Queen Clotildis who was a Christian and after to profess it and be baptized partly by occasion of a vow which he had made to Jesus Christ
way that was compliant with their condition namely by a gentler application of water shed or sprinkled on them Si puer non baptizatus libere adducatur ad Presbyterum caveat ille ut cundem protinus baptizet ne forte moriatur Ethnicus Can. Aelfrici 26. ap Spelman Concil Angl. Tom. 1. pag. 579. § 86. And with the same gloss is to be read that Canon of Aelfric about An. Chr. 1052. whereby the Priest is ordered forthwith to baptize the Infant that is brought unto him lest haply he dye an Heathen § 87. In the Twelfth Century An. Chr. 1120. flourished St. Bernard And we cannot but think that he approved of the baptizing of Christians by way of perfusion or pouring of water on their heads whose Opinion was as we have shewed before that Christ himself was so baptized of John in Jordan But if he had said nothing of that yet that question of his in his Epistle to Hugo de Sancto Victore Quaenam enim natura seu ratio docet internam aeternamque salutem mortalium neminem posse percipere cujus foris corpus perfusu◠visibili non fuerit elemento D. Bernard Ep. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore col 1455. when he asks what nature or reason taught that no mortal Man could ever be a partaker of the internal and eternal Salvation whose body was not outwardly baptized by a perfusion of it with the visible element this question I say sufficiently shews his opinion of a baptism by such a way of administration namely that it like Baptism any other way administred conduced to the internal and eternal Salvation of the Soul though both to reason and nature it seemed strange and was a thing that neither of them ever taught that there was no being saved without it § 88. Contemporary with S. Bernard was S. Otho Bishop of Bamberg Spondan Epit. Baron An. Chr. 1124. called the Apostle of the Pomeranians from his Converting that people being invited to that work by Bolislaus King of Polonia An. Chr. 1124. He at his own charge built fifteen Monasteries and prescribed orders to be observed in the Churches founded by him Several concerned Baptism Among the rest this as Novarinus informs us from the History of his Acts that when any was to be baptized his Baptism was to be dispatched by a threefold immersion of his head So Sacerdos trinâ immersione capitis illius mysterii Sacramentum perfecit Novarin Schediasm Sacroprophan l. 3. num 57. p. 82. an immersion there was and that three times setled by him yet not a total one not of the whole body but only a partial one of the head the principal part § 89. In the same Century An. Chr. 1140. flourished Gratian. And he from the Capitulars l. 5. c. 76. cites a direction for any man that hath a mind to have the Consecrated water in his own house for Sprinkling Nullus ministrorum qui baptizandi recepit officium c. i. e. to baptize withal to take it out of the Font before the pouring in of the Chrism Nec quenquam debet movere quòd aspergi vel perfundi jubentur agri cùm gratiam divinam consequuntur c. And however that may be interpreted otherwise though against the meaning of the Author by such as have a kindness for Holy water sprinkling Hîc primò ostenditur quòd aqua benedicta qua homines qui baptizantur asperguntur valet ad corum sanctificationem Gratian. Decret 3. parte de Con ecrat dist 4. fol. 452. b. col 4. litera c. i. c. capitis satis innuit in pluribus locis quòd de baptismo intelligitur de illis qui propter aegritudinem immergi non possunt Id. ib. yet that which follows is clearly to be interpreted of sprinkling in Baptism and shews that this ought so to be interpreted too being Notes on St. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus before cited of that matter And here saith Gratian on St. Cyprians words first is shewn that the blessed i. e. Consecrated water wherewith men who are baptized are sprinkled is of avail to their Sanctification § 90. In the Thirteenth Century the Magdeburgensian Historians quote Hugo I suppose they mean him de S. Caro whom Bellarmin Si verò tanta copia aquae haberi non possit ut infans in eâ totaliter mergi possit cum scutello vel Scypho vel alio vase aliqua quantitas aquae super infantem effundatur à baptizante fundendo dicat baptizans Ego baptizo te in nomine patris filii Spiritûs sancti Et erit insans baptizatus Hugo in 16. in Johan ap Magdeb. cent 13. col 596. l. 6 7. c. as well as Alsted places An. Chr. 1245. for baptism not by total immersion And saith he if there cannot be had a sufficiency of water for the infant to be wholly dipt into it then let the Baptizer pour some quantity of water upon the Infant with a dish or other vessel and as he pours it let him say I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And the Infant will be baptized How baptized without being dipt yes in the Opinion of this Author a person of Reputation in his time for Judgment and Learning § 91. In the same Century about An. Chr. 1251 the said Authors tell us of a Synodical Constitution Et in libro ab Episcopo Nemansensi conscripto dicitur Praecipimus itaque ut infans quà m cito natus fuerit si periculum sibi mortis immineat ita quòd Presbytero praesentari nequeat à circumstantibus masculis baptizetur c. Magd. cent 13. c. 6. col 594. written by the Bishop of Nemans wherein 't is ordained that as soon as ever the Infant is born if there be any danger of death so as that it cannot be presented to the Priest then any either man or woman the very Father or mother of it so there be no body else present that can may baptize it But in such necessity who can imagine the Constitution intended the dipping of the Infant who can think any other but that Reason moved by pity swayed by Charity and guided by the Custome of the Church in such cases would dictate the more favourable way of sprinkling § 92. About the Year of Christ 1255. flourished Thomas Aquinas And he disputes the case whether immersion be of the necessity of Baptism and produces Arguments for it and Answers to them And grounding on what is said by the Apostle Heb. 10.22 Cùm in baptismo assumatur aqua ad corporis ablutionem non modò per immersionem verùm etiam per aspersionem vel etiam effusionem aquae baptismus dari potest c. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art 7. Conclus c. art Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience and our bodies
as Bellarmin saith an 1240 and was Canonized by Innocent IVth it seemed that baptism ought so to be administred in some kind of vessel that the party to be baptized might be dipped into the water he tells you Tamen hoc non intelligas de necessitate baptismi scilicet ut fiat immersio sed potest fieri etiam per modum effusionis vel aspersionis Et hoc maximè est verum quando consuetudo Ecclesiae hoc patitur vel quando necessitas incumbit propter defectum aquae sive periculum pueri de cujus morte timetur vel etiam propter imbecillitatem sacerdotis non potentis sustentare infantem In his enim casibus similibus sufficit quòd caput aspergatur vel super caput aqua effundatur vel in aquam mergatur tanquam pars principalior Lynwood Constitution l. 3. c. de Baptismo ejus effectu super verbum Vas illud in Constitutione Edmundi that you are not to understand it to be of the necessity of baptism that there be dipping but that it may be dispatched by way of effusion or aspersion that is sprinkling And this saith he is especially true when the custome of the Church permits it to be done or when there is a necessity for it by reason of want of water or fear of the Childs death or weakness of the Priest not able to bear up the Infant For in these and the like cases it is sufficient if the head be sprinkled or have water poured upon it or as being the more principal part if it be dipped into water Whether then it be any circumstance in the case that leads thereto or whether it be the custom of the Church that is the Inducer unto it baptism however performed by pouring or sprinkling of water on the Party baptized though he be not totally dipped is at least in the judgment of this Learned Man sufficient § 98. A little after about An. Chr. 1370. flourished John Wickliff and taught here in England And he having first declared it an Ordination of the Church that any believer might in case of necessity be baptized adds thereto that it mattered not Et ordinavit Ecclesia quòd qualibet persona fidelis in necessitâ—tis articulo peterit baptizari nec refert sive immergantur semel vel ter sive aquae super capita sua effundantur sed faciendum est secundùm consuetudinem loci quem quis incolit tam in uno legitimo ritu quà m in alio Jo. Wickliff Trialog l. 4. c. 11. whether they were dipped once or thrice or whether water were poured upon their heads but that every one was to act according to the custom of the place he lived in as well in one lawful rite as in another By which it is most evident that he held pouring of water on the head a lawful rite in baptism as well as dipping the body into water or else he would never have left it so at liberty as he did to have it done either way with a non refert it matters not which way it is done And so how much soever the Anabaptists think Wickliff was for them he was not for the necessity of a total immersion in baptizing § 99. In the Fifteenth Century about An. Chr. 1452. flourished Nicolaus de Orbellis And upon the question whether a Child could be baptized whilst in the Mother's Womb he resolves that if it were wholly in it could not be baptized but that if any principal part as the head were out it might be baptized in that part Aut patet pars principalis puta caput tunc potest baptizari in illa parte in hoc simpliciter baptizari Non enim est verisimile quòd in die Pentecostes quando baptizati sunt tria millia quòd quilibet lavaretur quantum ad totum corpus suum in aquâ sed praecisè quantum ad faciem aspergendo vel quantum ad caput perfundendo Nicol. de Orbellis in 4. Sentent dist 4. q. 1. de Baptismo fol. 10. a. and that such baptizing was sufficient without any more ado But that baptizing could not be of the whole person therefore his opinion was that less than a total immersion was sufficient to speak a complete baptism But his own reason which he adds to his opinion will put all out of doubt For saith he it is not probable that when on the day of Pentecost Three Thousand were baptized every ones Body was washed all over with water i. e. was dipped but his Face only by sprinkling or his Head by pouring water upon it § 100. In this Century about An. Chr. 1480. flourished Angelus Clavasius Author of the Angelic Summe of Cases of Conscience And he having delivered the several Opinions there were as to the manner of baptizing one holding that all was to be washed another the head or face or breast declares at last what the opinion was which was most commonly held namely that the Infant Tâ—netur tamen communis sc sententia quod qualitercunque contingatur est baptizatus quòd sufficiat aspersio quantumcunque modica in casu necessitatis Angel de Clavasio Summa Angelica fol. 25. b col 2. which way soever he be touched i. e. with the water was baptized and that a sprinkling how little soever it were was sufficient in case of necessity § 101. In this Century towards the latter end of it Sed detur quòd puer partim sit in utero pars extrà baptizetur nunquid est baptizatus V. Dicendum quòd si pars principalis est extra ut caput tunc potest baptizari nec est postmodum rebaptizandus Guil. Vorrilong in l. 4. Sent. dist 4. fol. 126. col 1. Edit Venet. An. 1503. flourished Guil. Vorrilong So I suppose because his Book was printed at Venice Anno 1502. And in case part of a Child in the Birth appeared out of the Womb whilst part was within if that part which appeared out was a principal part as the head his opinion was that then the Child might be baptized by an application of water to that part and was not after to be baptized again Which clearly shews that he held a baptizing by other than a total immersion lawful and sufficient § 102. In the Sixteenth Century to pass by the Christians of St. Thomas in India and the Habassins in Africa who baptize their Infants sooner than the time of Forty days if there be any danger of their dying before which so great care for their Souls cannot be without some care for their Bodies which would little appear if for the saving of the one they should unnecessarily destroy the other and so is like other examples of the same sort an intimation at least of a baptism by other gentler ways than that of a total immersion among those Christians We are told by Johannes Faber in an Epistle of his to Ferdinand King of the Romans dated An. 1525. Cùm puer
§ 114. About the year of our Lord 1589 flourished Nicolaus Hemingius and published his Commentary on St. John And saith he there as oft as we see Infants sprinkled with the water of baptism we are put in mind of the secret regeneration of Infants c. Quoties igitur videmus Infantes aquâ Baptismi aspergi admonemur arcanae regenerationis infantium quae fit non per aquam â—lementarem sed per spiritum sanctum cujus tamen aqua clementaris efficax symbolum est Heming in Joh. 3.5 col 132 133. No need of arguing hence either the practice of his time to have been to sprinkle in Baptism or his opinion of the lawfulness and sufficiency of such baptizing since it was symbolical of that secret regeneration that inwardly was wrought by the Holy Spirit § 115. A little lower down in this Century was Lambertus Danaeus Hodie autem aquâ férè tantùm asperguntur qui sunt baptizandi non autem immerguntur In quo ipso nulla est in fide dissentio inter nos veteres Lamb. Dan. Isagog Christian pars 4. de Sacramentis c. 29. pag. 522. Nam in baptismi administratione alia sunt aut substantialia aut Ceremontalia aut Accidentalia Substantialia sunt aqua illius applicatio c. Ceremonialia sunt reliqua Ac substantialia quidem neque possunt neque debent praetermitti vel immutari At Ceremonialia possunt immutari quaedam etiam praetermitti quaedam etiam omnino rejici repudiari debent Id. ib. p. 521. a learned Author who about An. Chr. 1591. published his Isagoge Christiana And having declared the ancient manner of baptizing to have been by dipping and that naked he saith At this day they who are to be baptized are mostly sprinkled only with water and not dipped into it Wherein yet he adds there is no disagreement in Faith between us and the Ancients His reason he had given before which was that Substantials of Baptism as water and an application of it might neither be omitted nor changed but the Ceremonials as the manner of applying the water by affusion or immersion and that once or thrice are may be changed § 116. In the year 1592. was published by Joh. Stephan Durantus Húncque ritum baptizandi sub trina immersione vel aspersione servavit Ecclesia ut ex Romanae Ecclesiae Sacerdotali apparet Et constat quòd in Ecclesiae Romanae Provinciis aspersione seu perfusione aquae baptismus confertur quod nec novum nec recens est Legimus quendam à S. Laurentio dum ad mortem ducebatur urceo allato baptizatum fuisse S. Cyprian Ep. 76. ad Magn. Nec quenquam movere debet quòd aspergi vel perfundi videntur aegri cùm gratiam dominicam consequuntur Notandum ait Walafrid Strabo de Reb Eccles c. 26. non solùm mergendo sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse adhuc posse baptizari c. Joh. Stephan Durantus de Ritib Eccles Cathol l. 1. c. 19. num 37. p. 135. Edit Colon. Agrippina 1592. a Book of the Rites of the Catholick Church Therein he declares how the Church of Rome had to that time kept but he says not how long before it had held the Rite of baptizing with a threefold dipping or sprinkling and that in the Provinces of the Church of Rome baptism is given by sprinkling or pouring on of water which he affirms to be no new thing nor lately come up and backs his affirmation with the example of St. Laurence and the Authorities of Walafrid Strabo and St. Cyprian In this testimony there seems to be great weight every circumstance considered whether the Dignity of that Church wherein it was the Church of Rome the leading Church of the World for many Ages or the Diffusedness of it not only through that Church but the Provinces also of it or the Antiquity of it from Strabo's time from St. Laurences time from St. Cyprians time who was martyred about An. Chr. 258. nay no beginning is set to its being in the Church of Rome as if it had been there held in practice from the beginning Which being the contrary thereto cannot be proved is with me an Argument of weighty force and how slightly soever some may look upon it yet others I hope of cooler temper may think it to be of some moment § 117. Much about the same time or a little after An. Chr. 1598. flourished Daniel Chamier a person whose learning needs none of my pen to commend it And his opinion was that forasmuch as the whole virtue of the water lay in signifying by washing Quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem certè non interest quantum quisque abluatur quomodo in Eucharistia non quantum quisque comedat l. an Chamier l. 5. de Bapt c. 1. p. 1404. parag 4. it mattered not how much every one was washed even as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist it did not matter how much every one did eat Then with him it was not material whether the baptism were by immersion affusion or aspersion so there were but water and any way an ablution with it § 118. In the beginning of this Seventeenth Century now current anno 1606. Mr. Attersol published his Treatise of the Sacraments And touching the Point in hand he delivereth his opinion thus Dipping into the water is not necessary to the being of a Sacrament Lib. 2. ch 1. p. 108 109. Sprinkling of water is not necessary to the being of a Sacrament but wetting and washing with water is necessary to the being of a Sacrament Now whether the whole body should be washed or the face only and whether it should be done once or thrice is not greatly material but left indifferent to the Church to decree and determine what shall be thought fittest to be received and practised Materia propinqua est ablutio est enim opus quod aâ—luat corpus Nota tamen quòd per ablutionem intelligimus vel immersionem sive unam sive trinam vel aspersionem vel effusionem quocunque modo horum fiat tenet baptismus Tamen quisque debet baptizare juxta ritum suae Ecclesiae nisi aliud petat necessitas vel honestas Necessitas quidem ut in loco ubi est trina vel una immersio cùm est periculum nocumenti infantis potest aspergi vel paucâ aquâ suffundi Honestas ut si adultus est non debet immergi sed sufficit effusio Tolet. Instruct Sacerdot l. 18. p. 372 373. § 119. In the year 1603. was Printed Colon. Agrippin Cardinal Tolets Cases of Conscience And therein he delivers it as necessary that there be an ablution of the body of the baptized with water But then he tells you that by ablution is meant either immersion once or thrice or aspersion or effusion and that which of these ways soever it be done the Baptism holds good c. Quid de
were baptized but for themselves to go into them or by others to be fairly put into them if they were such as could not go in of themselves or cover all over In plain English as Mr. D. speaks it 's like the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that and something else to dip in particular and to wash in general as the Learned in the Oriental Languages say and hath been shewed in these Papers Nor is this contradicted by Mincaeus And thus much for him The next that is brought in to charge us is Leigh as Mr. D. is pleased without any the least title of respect to introduce that honourable Gentleman and he as Mr. D. tells us in his Critica Sacra saith It s native and proper signification is to dip into water or to plunge under water for which he cites these Scriptures where so used viz. Matth. 3.6 it should be 16. Act. 8.38 And that it is taken from a Dyer's Fat and imports a Dying or giving a fresh Colour and not a bare washing only Rev. 19.13 And for which he quotes Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius He saith withal That some would have it signifie washing and which sence Erasmus he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by consequence for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for Dying of Clothes § 17. It is comfortable that the Author is to be easily had and the place consulted And for answer hereto little need be said to him that shall consult the place The first view that shall be taken of it will sufficiently vindicate Mr. Leigh and the truth And because it is material and all Persons that shall be concerned in this debate may not be in condition to consult or make the best advantage of that passage of that Author therefore I will here by degrees give a total transcription of it § 18. It is true Mr. Leigh saith That the native and proper signification of it is to dip into water or to plunge under water for which he cites Matth. 3.16 Act. 8.38 and also what Mr. D. omits John 3.22 23. § 19. But first I have made it appear in these Papers that neither Matth. 3.16 nor Act. 8.38 prove that signification of the word A baptizing they prove but not a dipping § 20. Secondly though it be probable from John 3.22 that the baptizing in Aenon was by dipping yet that is not so much from the force of the word as from that addition of the reason of John's baptizing there which was because there was much water there And yet if a Man would dispute it stifly even that reason will not demonstratively prove it This it will prove that it was a place of great conveniency for John's purpose to baptize confluences of People in 1. Because there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not deep but many waters there That may mean this and nothing else but this that there were there many several places of conveniency for baptizing by reason of the windings in and out of the Brook Maeander-wise so that one company might be privately fitting and preparing themselves for baptism in one place whilst John was administring it to another company in another place or here a company of Men by themselves and there a company of Women by themselves as afterward in the Christian Church there were distinct apartments in the Baptisteries for the Men and for the Women and so the actions of stripping themselves and going into and coming out of the water naked might be performed with more decency and less observance not with that disturbance to the company not with that violence unto modesty which must needs be where the baptizing place was but one and the multitudes to be baptized all together And 2. this is still the more probable if we imagine any Women were baptized there also as well as Men. And it is reasonable enough to imagine it when it is said Matth. 3.5 6. that there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Region round about Jordan and were baptized of him and when it is remembred that the Women also among the Jews were admitted unto Proselytism by Baptism as well as the Men. For great caution and respect unto the Feminine modesty was had amongst that jealous as well as lustful People in the baptizing of their Women that neither themselves might be put to the blush nor others have any lascivious thoughts stirred up in them by any thing seen or observable in the baptizing of them And if this be a probable account of the reason given for John's baptizing in Aenon because of the many waters there and I appeal even unto Mr. D. himself whether it be not then can that reason conduce nothing to the proving that the baptism performed there was by dipping For not the multitude of waters but the deepness and wideness of the water had been proper to have been alledged in that case And John might baptize many persons and companies of Persons in these many several and not far distant waters and yet dip none of them totally in any of them And this is all it will prove § 21. But thirdly though it might be infallibly proved from these or any other places that the baptism then and there was by dipping yet that can only prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip and is sometimes used in that sense and we that are for dipping as well as for sprinkling are willing it should signifie the one as well as the other but it cannot prove that it signifies nothing more but to dip and is never used in any other signification And this indeed is the great mistake that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth and if ye will primarily and properly to dip therefore they will not grant that it signifieth any thing else especially in the administration of Baptism Whereas it hath a latitude in its import and use as well as most words else have and is granted so to have by Learned Authors in that Sacrament and particularly by Mr. Leigh the Author quoted by Mr. D. against it as we shall see instantly § 22. For so he begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo often And then he goes on whether as speaking his own sense or Dr. Featlyes or his own sense in Dr. Featlyes words whose name I see set in the end of the Period The word Baptize though it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ringo to dip or plunge into the water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged and dipt yet it is taken more largely for any kind of washing rinsing or cleansing even where there is no dipping at all as Matth. 3.11 and 20.22 Mark 7.4 and 10.38 Luk. 3.16 Act. 1.5 and 11.16 1 Cor. 10.2 This Mr. D. should methinks have taken notice of as well as of that which he transcribed and reported this too to
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
3. calls Baptism Dipping and saith ' the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled § 10. But he telleth us not on what verse of that Chapter nor in what Page of that Volume he saith it The discovery had saved me some time and labour in searching And what is the worst of it after all my pains in reading two and twenty pages in folio with care to find the place and all those places where there seemed to be any probability of finding it twice over all the Return I can make upon my Inquest is this Non est inventus there is no such place or passage in all that Musculus saith on that Chapter that I could find § 11. This indeed there is that he uses the word tinctio for baptizing in several places Adumbrat enim externa illa tinctio mystica ablutio quae fit in corpore renovationem mentium ablutionem sordium c. Baptisâ—a quo tincti sunt Christus Christiani p 28. Baptiâ—mus quo non mentes sed corpora tinguntur p. 36. But surely tinctio doth not signifie precisely dipping but wetting or dying be it what way it will that a thing is wetted or dyed whether by dipping into or pouring on that which wetteth or dyeth And I have shewed in these Papers that as tingo is sometimes put to signifie baptizing in general however performed viz. when it stands alone so it is sometimes put to signifie baptizing by Sprinkling or pouring on water in particular and in opposition to dipping His calling baptism then tinction if that be it which Mr. D. means no more proves his calling it dipping than sprinkling § 12. But as for his saying that the Parties baptized were dipped not sprinkled there is no such thing said by him there And I cannot but wonder with what confidence Mr. D. should say any such thing Had I said it a crime would have been charged on me which out of respect and honour to that Gentleman because a Gentleman though unknown to me I shall forbear so much as to name All I shall say is that Truth needs no Untruths to defend it and that the Champion that goes about by such supports to maintain a cause rather ruines it than upholds it And those of his Party may do well to take heed how they trust his reports from other Authors who hath so unbecomingly to say no worse misreported this The best excuse that I can make for him is that it is not impossible but that either himself or his Amanuensis might mistake the place in writing or that it might be amiss ordered by the Compositor in the Printing such things very ordinarily happening to be and if that will any way salve his reputation as I wish it may much good d'it him with it § 13. But to go on A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3.23 And John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim and the reason why he pitcht upon this place is given because there was much water there § 14. To this Text I have already spoken in ch 11. and so I think it needless to say any thing farther here But § 15. Piscator upon the place as Mr. D. tells us says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Rivers as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular number signifies the River of Jordan This saith he is mentioned to signifie the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in dipping or plunging the whole body of man standing in the River whence he saith Christ being baptized by John in Jordan is said to ascend out of the Water § 16. Not to trouble Mr. D. with asking him how the body of a man can be plunged which is Mr. D's word and none of Piscators in the River whilst he is standing in it I shall acknowledge Piscators words to be much to this purpose only a little more clear Those to the present purpose are these Commemoratur autem hoc ad significandum ritum Baptismi quo Johannes utebatur immergens scilicet totum corpus hominis in fluvio stantis Vnde Christus à Johanne in Jordane baptizatus ex aquâ ascendisse dicitur Matth. 3. v. 16. It is not material what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies whether many waters or many rivers or much water only by the way if it signifie many waters and those distinct in place or many Rivers it the better confirms the Notion I have of it where I speak concerning it We will suppose the water or waters deep enough for a man to be dipped in and that it was John's way to baptize by dipping But Christs ascending out of the water proves it not as I have shewed ch 10. And though Dipping were John's as well as other Jews way of baptizing yet it doth not necessarily follow that ours must be so too as I have shewed ch 8. § 17. Nor did Piscator think so Else he would never have delivered it for a Theological Aphorism That whether the Baptized Party were dipped and that thrice or once or were only sprinkled or wetted with water poured on that ought to be at liberty in the Churches Caeterùm mergatúrne totus qui tingitur idque ter an semel an infusâ tantum a quâ aspergatur nut perfundatur id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesiis liberum esse debet Etsi enim mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesie observatum fuisse constat tamen verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non solum mergi sed etiam quâvis aliâ ratione tingi aut lavari abluive significat Piscat Loc. 24. Aphorism 9. according to diversity of Countries Adding also as a reason for what he had said for though it be certain that the rite of dipping was observed by the ancient Church yet the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to be dipped but also to be wetted washed or cleansed with washing any other way So then Piscator is no witness for the Anabaptists nor his Testimony any thing to the prejudice of baptism by Sprinkling § 18. Calvin upon these words Caeterùm ex his verbis colligere licet Baptismum fuisse celebratum à Johanne Christo totius corporis submersione Calv. in loc saith That from this place you may gather that John and Christ administred Baptism by plunging the whole body into water § 19. I answer It is probable they did so and that they so did 'tis probably conjectured from this place But first probability is no proof of certainty Secondly that they did administer Baptism by plunging in this place doth not prove that they did not administer it also by sprinkling neither in this nor in any other place And without that all 's nothing § 20. And is this all that Calvin saith of the matter in this place what then means that which follows spoken by him as it were on purpose to prevent that ill use that he foresaw would be made of those his words Notwithstanding we ought not with so great anxiety to
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
Vide Stephani Lexic Historicum ex Edit Nicol. Lloydii in Voc. Deianira Nessus Illita Nessaeo misi tibi texta veneno Ovid. Ep. 9. ver 163. not all dipped into but tinged wetted smeared and consequently dyed with the blood of the Centaur that must be because it could be no otherwise but as it ran from his Wound which Hercules gave him when he shot at him And accordingly the learned Lexicographer calls it vestem sanguine perfusam and vestem sanguine imbutam and vestem sanguine infectam And so by Seneca it is called Tabe Nessaea illita palla and by Ovid. Illita Nessaeo texta veneno By all a wetting imbuing infecting is intended by none a total immersion § 9. Nay even the compound Verb intingo we find used in the Translation of the Syriac Version of Dan. 4.25 32. to express a wetting with the dew of Heaven Rore coeli intingeris Te rore coeli intingendum Intinctio est quum aliquid rem humidam contingit vel ex parte vel totam Pagâ—in voc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Treb Poll. Promptuarium Vâ—c Intinge which cannot be by a total dipping into it Yea and Pagnin from Kimchi tells us that Intinction is when any thing toucheth a thing that is moist either in part or in whole And when Quintilian as Trebellius quotes him saith of one that was writing that he did calamum intingere dip in his Penn sure his meaning was not that he dipt in all his Penn into the Ink but only the nib of it Now by this more strong confirmation of the difference between immergo and tingo is the conclusion still the more strongly confirmed viz. that there may be a baptizing without a total dipping and even where there is but a wetting whether by affusion or aspersion CHAP. IV. Of the Primitive Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it doth not signifie only to dip § 1. BUT that I may not seem to erect so weighty a superstructure on such a slender foundation as the names and credits of a few Grammarians or Divines I will proceed towards the consideration of the word it self And to make my consideration of it the more complete and full I will not only view it in its self but in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence it is derived and in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived from it § 2. And to begin at the Fountain head the Primitive Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Verb it is apparent by Lexicographers and other Authors that it doth not always signifie total immersion or dipping but sometimes something less than so and even in a manner all washing Thence in Scapula we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred not only by mergo immergo to dip but also by lavo to wash The same we have again in Schrevelius Explic. Catech. pars 2. q. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem non tantùm immergo sed aspergo significat Keck Syst Theol. l. 3. c. 8. p. 452. And accordingly Zech. Vrsinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mergo tingo abluo aspergo to dip die wash sprinkle And so Keckerman saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to dip but also to sprinkle § 3. But waving their Authorities we may judge of the import of the simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the use of its compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Saviour saith Matth. 26.23 He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish the same shall betray me The original for he that dippeth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Participle of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not imaginable that any of our Saviour's Disciples as mean Persons as they were should be so ill bred as at Table and in his Presence too to dip his whole hand in the Dish It cannot be thought any of them would do more than it were scarce good breeding to do so much as with a finger or two and a thumb to take some part out of it And yet of him that did put but some little part of his hand or rather fingers into the dish our Saviour saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that dippeth his hand A clear instance this that the compound Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily enforce a total immersion of that thing whereto it is applied And can we think there is more in the simple Verb than in the compound and so compounded as this is with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying into This were against all analogy of speaking It may therefore hence be concluded that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be applied to a thing which yet is not totally immersed into that wherein it is said to be dipped § 4. So that I shall not stand upon what is ordered in Levit. 14. for the cleansing of a Leper and his House namely to take two birds alive and first to kill one of them and then to dip the live bird with cedar wood scarlet and hyssop in the blood of the bird that was killed The word used here by the LXX for dip is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet it is not imaginable how one whole live bird with other things should be wholly immersed into the blood of another of but the same bigness with it § 5. Perhaps it may be answered that the dipping was not into the blood alone but mixt with running water contained within that earthen Vessel in which the Bird was commanded to be killed § 6. I reply this is not written O but 't is probable Yes but so 't is probable also though not written that Infants in the Primitive times were baptized and that both they and other weak persons unable to abide a total dipping were baptized by but a partial mersation into or by a lighter conspersion with water Let them yield to what is probable or not contend for what is but probable If we must stand strictly to what is written then a living bird must be dipped in the blood of a killed bird that could not be but by a smearing of it with it or a partial mersation into it And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signifie somewhat less than to dip all over If we must not stand strictly to what is written then let them not exact from us a Scripture expresly saying that Infants were baptized or that any were any otherwise baptized than by being wholly dipped But this by the by § 7. Favorinus who glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Suidas also doth they rinse or swill as when one washes nets or clothes which sure would be but an odd manner of dipping if used in baptizing yet gives an instance of an use of the word which cannot agree to this sense 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie thy lips have been dipped
Nec enim secus illos compressi atque ii qui mustum expressuri uvas conculcant Scultet in loc to signifie according to Mr. Brightman the great slaughter he should make of his enemies and according to Lyranus of the Saracens in particular of whom so infinite a number was slain at the taking of Jerusalem that as Gotfridus Viterbiensis tells us in Solomons Porch the blood of the slain was up to the knees of the horses And the time of the so great execution done by Christ on his enemies the Prophet Isaiah as Mr. Brightman notes seems to have an eye upon in his Prophecie ch 63. v. 1 2 3. which is set in the Margin of our Text to signifie some reference that the one place hath to the other Who is this that cometh from Edom with died garments from Bozra this that is glorious in his apparel travelling in the greatness of his strength I that speak in righteousness mighty to save Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat I have troden the wine-press alone and of the people there was none with me for I will tread them in mine anger and trample them in my fury and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments and I will stain all my raiment But whether the reference of this Prophecie be to that Victory of the Christians over the Heathens or rather as Scultetus thinks who entitles his Sermon on this Text and the Context Triumphus Dei habitu cruentato ex acie redeuntis to the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity to encourage them whereunto against the dreaded power of their enemies the Prophet represents God their Leader under the type of a Warrior triumphing over his enemies and trampling them under his feet as in the time of Vintage one treads and tramples grapes in the Wine-press and staining his Garments with the sprinklings of their blood after the manner as their garments are dy'd and stained that tread Wine-presses still there is nothing of dipping in the case but only of dying and of such dying as is done by sprinkling § 12. And therefore Thirdly all Interpreters that I as yet have met withal except the two forenamed Translations render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by words importing dying or sprinkling Ar. Montan. hath for it vestimentum tinctum sanguine a vesture dy'd with blood and to the same sense Beza hath Veste tinctâ sanguine and so the Arabic Version too The Vulg. Lat. hath veste aspersâ sanguine a vesture sprinkled with blood and so the Aethiopic Version also The Syriac hath Veste conspersâ sanguine a vesture all to besprinkled with blood All import such a dying as was done not by dipping but by sprinkling And so here is a clear instance of this Verb's being used where nothing of immersion was intended § 13. And of its being used to signifie less than a total dipping I shall add one instance beyond exception from that Collection of Sentences containing the Primitives of the Greek Tongue formerly done and now added to Schrevelius's and Robertson's Lexicons in whose 19th Chapter I find this sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He indeed dippeth a bottle but it never goes under the moist water If it go not under the water there is then no total immersion and yet that dipping which it hath is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A plain proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie a total dipping And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath something else besides a total immersion in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root of it CHAP. V. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie only to dip § 1. FRom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive I proceed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from it In Luke 11.37 38. a Pharisee by whom our Saviour had been invited to dinner is said to have marvelled when he saw him sit down to meat and had not first washed The Greek word here rendred washed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same word by which our Saviour's baptism is expressed Mark 1.9 where it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized of John in Jordan A plain instance this that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not always to be understood a total immersion of that whereto it is applied and that a person may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be baptized it who yet is not totally dipped but only whether by mersation or affusion in part washed And accordingly Beza in his rendring of the Text makes the Pharisees wonder at our Saviour to be not that as the Vulg. Lat. renders non baptizatus esset he had not been dipped but that non ablutus esset he had not been washed or as we render it had not washed § 2. But perhaps the custom of the Jews and however among the Pharisees was before dinner to wash themselves by a total immersion or dipping of themselves And that our Saviour had not done so was the Pharisees wonder And then the word here will signifie a total immersion Not so whatever some may think or say in the case Neither the Vulgar Jews nor the nicer Pharisees had any such custom They washed their hands indeed before meat by dipping them into the hand-wrist Vid Pocock Porta Mosis Not. in c. 9. p. 396 397 398. or by holding them up that the water poured on them might run down to the hand-wrist and that was all that was done even by the Pharisees before the eating of a common dinner And for that as dipping the hands or pouring water on them had made our Saviour fit enough so dipping of his whole body had he done it had not made him more fit Not then our Saviours not dipping his whole body but his not washing his hands at all neither by mersation nor affusion was the Pharisees wonder And accordingly Grotius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had washed his hands And so Beza saith that here it means the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth whereof the one signifies in general to wash the other in particular to wash the hands And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not necessarily always signifie a total immersion but some times in a more general way a washing and he may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose hands only are washed and that whether by putting them into the water or by pouring water upon them And if upon the hands but being washed and that either by mersation or affusion a Man may be said Baptizari to be baptized then as well may he be said to be so when as it is now the use in baptizing his but head or face is dipped into the water or hath water poured upon it § 3. And yet is not this the only instance that is produced in this
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
verò notionc quâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abluere significat transfertur ad Donationem Spiritus Sancti nempe quoniam hic ut animam imbuat abluat aquae instar in eam effunditur prout loquitur SS Joel 2.28 exinde S. Petrus Act. 2.17 item S. Paulus Tit. 3.6 servavit nos per Lavacrâ—m Regenerationis Renovationem Spiritus sancti quem effudit in nos copiose Voss de Bapt. Disp 1. p. 344. There is a great resemblance between baptizing by aspersion or effusion of water on the parties baptized and the descending of the Holy Ghost For as the water that is sprinkled or poured on the parties baptized falls usually from above upon them so did the Holy Ghost fall from above on the Apostles And accordingly this coming of his from above upon them is called effusion Act. 2.33 where S. Peter speaking to the multitude concerning this action saith Christ being by the right hand of God exalted and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effudit hath shed forth poured out this which ye now see and hear And this according to a prophecie long spoken before by the Prophet Joel and recited newly in ver 16 17. which was that it should come to pass in the last days that God would pour out his spirit upon all flesh Nor is it only called an effusion but also a falling of it upon them For when St. Peter reported to the Brethren in Judaea what had befallen Cornelius and his company at Caesarea and particularly the Holy Ghosts being communicated unto those Gentiles as well as to themselves who were Jews which communication is also called a pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them Acts 15.45 he saith that as he began to speak to them the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fell on them as it had done on themselves at the beginning Acts 11.15 Now what can more fitly answer to this than baptizing by way of effusion or pouring out of water on the baptized whether out of the hand or other vessel So that there must be no resemblance betwixt the Holy Ghost falling on the Apostles and Baptism and then why is his falling on them called a baptizing of them or else a baptism may be without an immersion § 13. And the like to what is said of their being baptized with the Holy Ghost may be said of their being baptized with fire The fire wherewith they were baptized came from above and sat upon them they were neither dipt into any fire below them nor sat in it So clear an evidence this in my poor thoughts that there needs nothing more to evince it that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially as it self is baptized and taken in from being a Heathen to become a Christian word may signifie to baptize as well where there is but an effusion or an affusion of water on the party baptized as where there is an immersion of him into the water § 14. And yet the word even in its Heathen use does not always signifie a total immersion of that Person or Thing whereto it is applied For a Person first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Porphyr de Styge p. 282. cited by Mr. Whitbie in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 40. See Sydenham's Christian Exercitation on Ins Baptism ch 15. p. 132. we have an instance in Porphyrie who tells us of a river in India into and through which if an innocent person went he was taken but up to the knees but if an offender went into it by that time he had gone a little way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is baptized up to the head Here we have such an immersion as denominates a Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized and yet is that immersion not total but only partial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 up to but not over the head Then for a Thing This as Mr. Sydenham observes appears from that delivered by the Oracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to plunge or put wholly under water as it does then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie less as it also does no more than is competible to a blown bladder or bag or bottle of leather whose swimming in the top of the water cannot be called an immersion at least not total into it And yet to signifie such a kind of scarce partial mersation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used Baptize or wash him utris instar as a bottle in the water but do not drown him or utterly plunge him so Mr. Sydenham englishes it § 15. And accordingly in St. Chrysostom Nam mergi aquam subire hinc remeare descensus ad inferos symbolum est hinc reversionis so one renders it Baptizari enim demergi deinde remeare emergere est symbolum seu signum descensûs ad inferos ex eo ascensûs So another But still with both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with neither aquam subire or demergi to be totally immersed to express a total submersion we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did import a total submersion under the water it had been needless to have added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Verb signifying the very same thing to it And therefore in reason as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a total submersion so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie at most but a partial mersation in this place § 16. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie a total immersion is plain by that of S. Athanasius where he uses that word to signifie the whole of what was done in baptism by way of immersion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For our thrice dipping of the Infant into the water and bringing him out again signifies the Death of Christ and his Resurrection after three Days qu. 94. de Interpr Parab Script § 17. If any should think to evade the force of this argument by making such a distinction as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie to put the person wholly under the water and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sink him so put further down unto the bottom I must return first that it cannot be proved that ever there was any such custom in baptizing Secondly for Infants so great was the danger of their drowning by that means that they would never do it And thirdly that for elder Persons they were already at the bottom of the water before their baptism with the lower parts of their body and wanted nothing but the putting of their heads or upper parts of their body under it by the Priest also And so it remains that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth not signifie a total submersion under the water § 18. But it is argued from the
signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compounded derivative from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be totally dipped because a Cork swimming in the water is by Pindar and a Ship floating on the Sea is by Plutarch called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet they could not be if less than a total immersion were signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 19. To which I answer first that though it might be unanswerably proved by this or any other Medium that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in Heathen Authors signifie nothing less than a total immersion yet it will not follow that it must in Christian Authors whether the Scriptures or other Writers be always interpreted in exactness according to that signification For the significations of words are to be widened or straitned according to the dimensions of the things they are to signifie And nothing is more ordinary than to find words familiar in Christianity both in the Scriptures and Christian Authors used in a sense somewhat remote from the signification of the same words in their Primitive use among Heathens Sacramentum an Ecclesiastical Latin word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Scriptural Greek word may serve for instances § 20. The first signified at first a Caution put into the hands of the Pontifie by Parties going to Law whereby they were obliged to make good their Plea or lose their mony Afterward it was made use of to signifie a souldiers Oath whereby he was obliged to be true to his General If then it must signifie still the same in the Christian Church that it did in the Heathen Roman State and nothing more nor any thing less than that we shall have much ado to make the word fit the things that are called by it For then all that are baptized or receive the Lords Supper must be persons going to Law or Souldiers and they must put in money and swear when they receive Baptism or the Lords Supper But what money is put in by either what Oath is taken by either on either account From the Title of Sacrament given to those Ceremonies we argue an obligation equivalent to a Caution or Oath lying in the Receivers but how to make it good from the Scriptures or the nature of the Sacraments that there is any such obligation in a real and literal sense lying on the party as that word in its Heathen institution and use originally signified is not so very clear § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych The second signified at first literally an Assembly of the people of Athens called together to consider and debate of the concerns of that Republick But in the Scriptural use of it sometimes it signifies only that company of Professors of the Christian Faith which belong to one * Rom. 16.5 1 Cor. 16.19 Col. 14.15 Philem. 2. Family with such as are admitted to joyn with them in the worship of God Sometimes it signifies a collection of all the several Congregations of Christians that are in one * Act. 8.1 13.1 18.22 20.17 2 Thess 1.1 Col. 4.16 Rev 3.14 2.8 12 18. 3.1 7. great City Sometimes a Collection of all Christians dispersed throughout the * Matth. 16.18 1 Cor. 12.28 Gal. 1.13 Eph. 1.22 Phil. 3.6 Col. 1.18 Heb. 12.23 whole world But all these and more notions in which the Scriptures use that word are far remote from that Heathenish import of it And the same may be said of other words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which all have other significations in the Scriptures than they are found to have amongst Heathen Authors And we shall make mad work in the Church and with the Scriptures too if we shall go about to lop and prune to frame and square the things signified by them in the Church and in the Scriptures to what they signifie in Pagan writers § 22. And thus though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie originally to dip all over amongst the Heathens yet being taken in by the Christians to signifie that Ceremony of washing with water whereby members were admitted into actual Communion with the Church of Christ it is in their speakings and writings to be understood in such a latitude as may extend to all manner of admissions of any by that Ceremony into the Church however differing in circumstances of acting which have been used and allowed of in it And for as much as it may undeniably be made good that persons have anciently as well as of late had their baptismal admission into the Church by other ways than a total dipping into water and the Church hath never by any Ecclesiastick censure expressed her disallowance of those ways therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be extended to the signifying of every usual and allowed way of admission by that Ceremony into the Church though not by a total dipping Inasmuch as the design of the Church is one and the same in every way whatever it be of administring baptism whether by a total immersion or partial mersation and whether by affusion or aspersion viz. to signifie that the blood of Christ hath that virtue to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of sin and the grace of the Spirit that virtue to cleanse it from the filth of sin which water hath to cleanse the body from its pollutions and defilements and that the party baptized if no obstacle be put in on his part is really cleansed from the spots and stains of his soul when application is made of that cleansing water to his body and so both fitted for and actually received into Communion with the Holy Catholick Church which is the body of Christ and consequently into union with Christ himself who is the Head of that Church § 23. Secondly I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being declared as hath been shewed to signifie not only an immersion or dipping but also a tinction or wetting though a Ship or a Cork floting on the water may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first sense yet it cannot be said of it that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second sense For wetted and tinged and dipped if ye will it is in part even as the soals of the Priests feet were in Jordan though it be not plunged or immersed all over And though in some respect it be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not dipped all over yet in some respect it cannot be said so to be as being dipped in part And so our Infants cannot be truly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not baptized at all though they be not wholly immersed at their baptism since they are in part baptized viz. tinged or wetted whether by a partial mersation or dipping of them into water or by an affusion or sprinkling of water upon them § 24. But as I noted before if by these or
ipse Magister Sententiarum l. 4. dist 3. c. 1. Item lotio dicitur ablutio non solùm immersio Vnde illud Juvenal Sat. 2. de Sacerdotibus Eleusinae Cereris Cecropiam soliti Baptae lassare Cotytto Ergo non soli baptizantur qui toti aquis merguntur aut immerguntur ut iste sc Bellarminus putat scipsum infra c. 26. refutat sed qui aquâ solùm tinguntur ex verâ Baptismi significatione Can. de Trinâ Consecr dist 4. Danae Responsio ad Bellarm. Tom. de Sacram c. 1. pag. 311 312. Baptismus si etymon vocis spectemus immersionem significat atque etiam aspersionem quo scusu usurpatur Mar. 7 4. à consequenti ablutionem c. Tilenus de Baptismo Disput 1. Thes 2. p. 883. Baptismus in genere vel mersionem significat vel ablutionem aut perfusionem Id. Theolog. Systema Disp. 37. Th s 1. p. 1077. Baptismus est Sacramentum N. T. quo aquae perfusione in nomine Patrii Filli S.S. factâ significatur obsignatur fidelibus beneficium purgationis à peccato per filium Dei regenerationis ad vitam aeternam Keckerman System Theolog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 451. See the Author where is much more and very substantial and pertinent Signum rituale seu Ceremoniale in hoc Sacramento est baptizatio seu lotio in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti sicut Christus expresse mandavit Matth. 28. Marc. 16. Vnde lavacrum aquae in verbo Eph. 5.26 Et lavacrum regenerationis Tit. 3.5 depositio sordium corporis ab Apostolo Petro per Metonymiam effecti dicitur 1 Pet. 2.29 An verò unâ an trinâ mersione sit baptizandum indifferens semper judicatum fuit in Ecclesiâ Christianâ quemadmodum etiam an immersione an verò aspersione utendum cum expressum illius mandatum nullum extet exempla adspersionis non minus quà m immersionis in Scripturis possint deprebendi c. Anton. Walaeus Synopsis pur Thelog Disp 44. Thes 18 19. p. 605. Et ita baptismus loquendo secundùm vim vocabuli nihil dicit nisi lotionem limitatur tamen in proposito ad signandum unum de 7. Sacramentis novae legis Guil. Vorrilong in l. 4. Sent. dist 3. Thence Vrsin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well by ablutio a washing as by mersio a dipping and in his definition of baptism makes lavacrum a washing to be the Genus of it Trelcatius saith Baptismus according to the Etymology of it signifies commonly quamvis ablutionem any ablution or cleansing which is made by water but especially the Legal and Judaical lustrations and purgations Wollebius saith the word Baptism signifies dipping and sprinkling and from the consequent thereto ablution or cleansing by washing Bucanus saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is signified immersion intinction and from the consequent thereto ablution And that the word Baptismus is taken properly in Scripture pro simplici ablutione simply for washing whether Levitical or Pharisaical Pet. Lombard explains the intinction in baptism by ablution So Nicol. de Orbellis saith Baptism is a washing or ablution in water Lambert Danaeus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by tinction and intinction Yet adds that it signifies also lotion and ablution and not only immersion and that not only are they baptized who are dipped wholly into water but they also that are tinged or wetted with water Tilenus saith if we regard the etymology of the word Baptismus it signifies dipping and also sprinkling c. Keckerman defines Baptism by Perfusion And Wà laeus saith it hath always been held indifferent in the Church whether dipping or sprinkling were used c. § 7. What weight now there is in the word of these Writers who were men of eminency in the Church for their learning that we have to perswade or satisfie us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily always import a total immersion but is used more generally to signifie any kind of washing even though by perfusion or aspersion § 8. If it be enquired what might move these learned Persons to think the word capable of this Interpretation it is easie to suppose them drawn so to think by some application of the word to such things as were either not capable of a total mersation or were not used at least in their times to be necessarily wholly immersed whenever washed And one place wherein the word is by them reputed so to be used is Mark 7.4 where among the Traditions received by the Jews from the Elders the Evangelist reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English not the Baptisms nor the dippings but by the more general word the washing or washings of cups and pots and brazen vessels and of tables And so again in ver 8. we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing or washings of pots and cups And as we render it washing as Tindal also doth so accordingly the most Interpreters render it by lotiones that is washings So Montan. Pagnin Beza Piscator the Syriac and other Versions Quae vox ad sequentiae aepplicata non semper tinctionem aut immersionem sed interdum lotionem tantùm vel etiam aspersionem denotat ut notat Maimon praecipuè poculum benedictionis Lightfoot Vid. Pool Synops in loc And the learned Dr. Lightfoot saith that the word applied to the things following doth not always denote dipping or plunging in but sometimes washing only or even an aspersion or sprinkling § 9. And first for their cups and pots it is not necessary that we alway understand their washing to be by a total immersion Who being bidden to rinse or wash a pot or cup presently chops the whole pot or cup into the water and thinks it not washed unless it be totally immersed what leaves he no part of it out not so much as ear start or handle not that part of it by which he holds it And what if the pot or cup be to be rinsed or washed at a pump or cock where 's the total immersion of it then When Thetis dipt her son in the lake of Lethe For not to have been dipt in Lethe Lake Could save the son of Thetis from to dic c. Spencer to render him invulnerable who can say but he was dipt in Lethe and yet that part still remained undipped whereby she held him and where afterward Alexander wounded him His dipping was not a total immersion No more was it necessary so to be in the washing and even mersation of these things If they were any more than rinsed yet hardly were they totally immersed And to render it probable we read that the cup of blessing was but to be dipped on the outside the inside rinsed Pocock Porta Mos p. 404. But if it must have been totally immersed then inside and outside and all must have been washed together and that by
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
the night so their Proselytes I suppose are not put into the water by their Baptizer but go in of themselves neither I think are they now naked but have some Linnen Garment on neither do so much as the Women dip themselves but even they are dipped by their Baptizer differently from the manner of baptizing in our Saviour's days Then neither the Apostles did nor the Church hath nor themselves do think themselves obliged by vertue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conform in all points to the manner and order of baptizing in use at that time and in that place where our Saviour spake that word They then who cannot but see that the Church of Christ hath varied and who themselves do vary in some circumstances from the manner and order used then and there when and where our Saviour spake that word cannot in reason and ought not in justice to tie us to the exact observation of others unless they will be guilty of that high crime of uncharitableness or rather injustice and partiality which consists in condemning others for what they do themselves i. e. varying from the order of baptizing in use in that time and place wherein our Saviour gave his order for baptizing and then St. Paul will have somewhat to say to them which I leave them to read and consider of Rom. 2.1 2 3 c. § 7. And now supposing my way to be sufficiently cleared by the removal of this obstacle I will proceed to that which is in order to follow CHAP. IX The agreeableness of baptizing by aspersion or affusion unto the Nature of Baptism § 1. IF we inquire into the Nature of Baptism Nam ad materiam quod attinet aqua res est seu nitro plena esse dicitur seu quavis aliâ qualitate omnium maximè idonea quae corporis sordes cluat Amyrald Thes Salmur De Bapt. Sect. 17. 1 Joh. 1.7 Nam sicut aquâ abluuntur sordes corporis sic sanguine Christi in cruce effuso cordibus per fidem asperso abluuntur sordes animae id est peccata Piscat Com. Loc. 23. Thesâ— 14. Item Loc. 24. Thes 12. Baptismus est Sacramentum à Christo institutum ut per illud Ecclesiae inseramur cum hâc promissione quòd non minus certò quà m aquâ extrinsecùs lavamur etiam intrinsecùs à peccatis abluimur per sanguinem Spiritum Christi Voss de Bapt. Disp 1. Thes 1. p. 342. Baptismus est primum N. T. Sacramentum quo ex institutione Christi per ministrum ejus aquâ abluimur in nomine Patris Filii Spir. Sancti ut ita Receptio in Novum Gratiae Foedus intrinseca per sanguinem Spir. Christi ablutio à peccatis clarè nobis signotur certò obsignetur Id. ibid. p. 345. we shall find it to be a holy Sacrament wherein by the external washing of the baptized with Water is principally signified his inward washing from sin by the blood of Christ the water from the abundance of nitre which is said to be contained in it and its being thereby made the more apt for cleansing very fitly representing the blood of Christ which as the Apostle saith cleanseth from all sin and the action of washing no less fitly representing the application of the blood of Christ to the sinner for the cleansing of him In reference to which action the same Apostle hath told us of Christ's having loved us and as the best instance of that love imaginable having washed us from our sins in his own blood Rev. 1.5 § 2. Baptismus dicitur intinctio i. e. ablutio cortoris exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta P. Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Dist 3. part 1. de Baptismo in speciali Baptismus est primum Sacramentum N. Testamenti per externam aquae adspersionem ablutionem declarans obsignans fidelibus internam ipâ—orum ablutionem per sanguinem spiritum Christi H. Alting com loc Baptismus est prius novi Testamenti Sacramentum quo qui in foedere sunt à ministro Ecclesiae secundum institutionem Christi aquâ conspeâ—guntur abluuntur ad internam animae à peccatis ablutionem quae spiritus sancti operatione propter solum Christi sanguinem contingit nec non cum Christo communionem in Ecclesiae Christi receptionem significandam obsignandam conserendam Wendelin Christ Theolog. l. 1. c. 22. Thes 4. Baptismus est primum novi foederis Sacramentum in quo electis in Dei familiam receptis externâ aquae aspersione peccatorum remissio regeneratio per sanguinem Christi spiritum sanctum obsignatur Wolleb Christ Theol. l. 1. c. 23. Baptismus est primum N. Foederis Sacramentum à Christo institutum ex analogis signo signato analogicá relatione ipsorum inter se actione constans quo foedcrati à Ministris Ecclesiae abluuntur ut Christo insiti internae animae ablutionis per sanguinem spiritum ipsius fiant participes Luc. Trelcat Loc. Com. Institut l. 2. Tit. de Bapt. p. 187. Aqua assumitur in Sacramentum baptismi ad usum ablutionis corporalis per quam significatur ablutio peccatorum Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art 7. c. a. Quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem certè non interest quantum quisque abluatur quomodo in Eucharistia quantum quisquc comedat Chamier l. 5. de Baptism c. 2. Notum est aquam quae est res permanens non dici baptismum nec Sacramentum Baptismi sed ablutionem quae est actio dici Baptismum Sacramentum Baptismi Et similiter certum est Sacramenti definitionem optimè congruere ablutioni c. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l 4. c. 3. Tom. 2. Col. 790. C D. Est hic baptismus primam novi Testamenti Sacramentum à Christo institutum in quo apta concinna signi signati analogia foederati aquá abluuntur Tilen Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes 4. Baptismus est Sacramentum N. T. quo aquae perfusione in nomine Patris Filii S. S facta significatur obsignatur fidelibus beneficium purgationis à peccato per filium Dei regenerationis ad vitam aetâ—rnam Keckerman System Theolog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 451. And hence the Master of the Sentences defining Baptism saith it is an intinction that is an outward washing of the body done under a prescribed form of words And later Divines define it to be a Sacrament that by the outward washing of water signifieth the inward washing of the Soul with the blood of Christ It is saith Altingius a Learned Member of the Synod of Dort the first Sacrament of the New Testament by the external sprinkling and washing of water declaring and sealing unto believers their inward washing by the blood and spirit of Christ So saith Wendelinus a later but no less Learned Divine than he Baptism is the former Sacrament of the New Testament
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 §
baptizaverit Apostolus Petrus ad cujus praedicationem legitur unâ die quinque millia aliâ die tria milliae conversos ad fidem baptizâsse Lynwood l. 3. de Bapt Quod in constitut ad verb. immersio And it is very like saith Lynwood that the Apostle S. Peter baptized not by way of immersion but of aspersion who at one Sermon converted three and at another five thousand Souls for the baptizing of all whom and by way of immersion I suppose he thought him insufficient as he might well do The bare but pronouncing of the form of words which the Learned generally judge were prescribed by our Saviour to be used in baptizing so many thousand times over unless he used a plural form of which yet there is no appearance and the singular is more applicative and affecting had been enough to have tired one man much more that and the action of putting so many persons all wholly under the water § 4. But it is not said in the Text that He alone or that he at all baptized them only that they were baptized But it is rationally supposable that as our Saviour had joyned the rest of the Apostles in Commission with him and had sealed that Commission to them by the descent of the Holy Ghost as well as to him and that as they stood up with him as vouchers of what he would say when he began to preach so they assisted him in the action when he began to Baptize But still what are eleven or twelve men to the baptizing of three thousand by way of total immersion Quum enim plura nonnunquam millia hominum uno die baptizari necesse habuerint verisimile non est homines in Evangelii praedicatione occupatos tà ntae rei tam operosae suppeditare potuisse Amyrald Thes Salm. de Bapt. Sect. 20. How long must every man be in baptizing his two hundred and fifty men For so many must every man have to baptize if the number were equally shared amongst them nay more when five thousand were at once converted and as 't is probable baptized also though it be not expressed § 5. Yet supposing this not only possible but easie also especially by the assistance of other disciples and particularly the Seventy whom our Saviour had before in his life sent out to preach and who may perhaps not improbably be conceived to have been with them at this time and assistant to them in this action yet where would they in Jerusalem have a water deep enough and wide enough for the performance of such an action Assuredly on this account that they could not there have water for it doth Bonaventure ground his Argument that they baptized not by dipping Apostoli baptiza verunt tria millia hominum unâ die constat quòd non mergendo quia non haberent aquam ergo aspergendo sed aspergi non potest totus homo Ergo. Bonaventur in l. 4. sent dist 3. ar 3. q. 2. but by sprinkling And that they could not have it is probable because we read of no river that was in Jerusalem of that depth that men might be totally immersed in it whether they stood or but so much as sate in the water when they were baptized And for the pool of Bethesda if that may be conceived to be the place it is hardly probable if it were of that deepness that it was of that capaciousress to afford room in any reasonable time for the baptizing of three much less of five thousand men And that it did not afford that conveniency either upon account of the incapaciousness of it or of some other use of it as to wash the entrails of Beasts offered in Sacrifice c. rendring it unfit for that people so studious of cleanness even to a superstitiousness to immerse themselves in it is probable because when John baptized it is said there went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan St. Mark 1.5 which had been needless had there been conveniency for their baptizing at home And when it is said that John was baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there Joh. 3.23 it intimates a want of that conveniency in other places of Judea and particularly in Jerusalem it self for them of that place to be baptized in where doubtless else he would have chosen to have baptized as most conducing to the purpose he came about and baptized for had there been in it that conveniency for it And if there were not conveniency for the baptizing of such numbers in the City since we read not of their going out of the City to be baptized elsewhere in all probability they were baptized in such a way as suited with the circumstance of the place they were in and then it must be by aspersion or affusion since there was not conveniency in the City for their total immersion § 6. And yet still supposing the Baptizers never so many and the waters there never so plentiful their baptizing by a total immersion is very improbable For it must needs be granted that it was a tumultuary convention which the Apostle preached unto which suddenly came together upon the noise of what had befallen the Apostles upon the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them And it will not I think be denied that it was a confused multitude a mixture of people of different Sexes and ages as well as conditions and countries Now not to note how strange a thing it would look like to see three thousand people going all in a throng to a pool to be all dowsed and stark naked as the manner then was over head and ears there and even the women in their nakedness by men no deaconesses being as yet ordained in the Christian Church for that purpose how unimaginable is it that the modesty of many of the male Sex and most if not all of the female Sex should not start back and recoile from so undecent and unbecoming an action an action even for the heavens to have blushed at as well as for the earth to be ashamed of And still the more unimaginable it will appear when it is remembred with how great a respect unto female modesty Baptism as Maimonides tells us was among the Jews administred to the feminine Proselytes Foeminam foeminae sistunt in aquis collo tenus duoque discipuli sapientum ab extra stantes edocent eam de quibusdam levioribus praceptis legis quibusdamque gravioribus dum ca interea stat in aquis tum immergit ea seipsam atque illi aversā facic excunt dum ascendit ex aquâ vid. Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. in Mat. c. 3. v. 6. p. 46 47. the woman being set by women in the water up to the neck and two disciples of the wise standing at some distance and teaching her as she stood some easie and some harder precepts of the Law which done she
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
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
profession of it is cast into Prison There he is visited by the Brethren that is the Christians and having satisfied them touching his conversion by them received the Seal of the Lord that is was baptized and the next Day suffered Martyrdom by beheading Taking it for granted that by receiving the Seal of the Lord is meant being baptized as not only Dr. Hanmer in his English Marginal Notes on Eusebius glosses it but the Centuriators of Magdeburg report it and that most agreeably to the Primitive Idiom calling baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 4. p. 638 639. a Seal I shall refer it unto the indifferent Reader to consider and determine all circumstances of the Place Persons and occasion duly weighed with what probability this baptism could be performed by a Total immersion or rather how utterly improbable it must be for any such thing to be then done And if that could not be then it must needs be yielded to be done some other way that had more of privacy and less of danger to be discovered in it namely by an aspersion or sprinkling of water on him where not so much the quantity of water applied as the application of that water for such purpose as in that Sacrament is designed is the thing most principally to be considered § 32. And that the baptizing of this Person thus on this occasion was not one single swallow Ita in Carcere baptizabantur conversi Magdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col 123 126. but that it was an usual thing so to do we are assured as far as the Authority of the Centuriators is able to assure us of it For they speaking of the usages of this Age in Baptism tell us not only that even in Prison Converts were baptized but that to them at least it seemed receptum a received thing that is received into use as an ordinary practice and it may be I may give some further instance of it by and by § 33. But if there could be any doubt of this there can be no doubt of the baptizing of Novatus or Novatianus for he is called by both names about An. Chr. CCL not by a total immersion See Euseb Eccl Hist l. 6. c. 43. Surius Concil Tom. 1. pag. 222. nor so much as a partial mersation but by an affusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Historian reports it from Cornelius Bishop of Rome at that time being sprinkled when he was baptized in the very same bed whereon he lay dangerously sick and like to die And for a further confirmation hereof if need were it might be alledged that when Fabian Bishop of Rome who was crowned with Martyrdom An. Chr. CCLIII designed to make the same Novatus a Priest he was withstood by the Clergy in general and by many of the Laity upon the account of the unlawfulness of making any one a Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had been sprinkled that is baptized by sprinkling on his Bed Which unlawfulness if not before as 't is supposed by Surius to have been was afterward fixed by Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinatus est Presbyter ab Episcopo sed contra Canones quibus minime licebat quenquam in lecto propter morbum baptizatum sicut huic contigerat in clerum assumi Surius Concil Tom. 1. p. 223. in the Council of Necocaesaria in the 12th Canon of that Council custome Ecclesiastick in the mean time prevailing as and having the power of a Law Which notwithstanding Fabian finding some relaxation allowable by Law even towards persons so baptized upon weighty reasons such as notable diligence and faithfulness in persons fit for the Priesthood besides scarcity of Men prevailed to have him ordained giving assurance that he would ordain no more such Now this neither would he have done nor the other have suffered had not both he and they judged him sufficiently baptized And as I suppose the Ordination of such Persons to the Priesthood was not prohibited by the Fathers because they thought them not sufficiently baptized but because they thought it unfit that ever they should be Priests who deferred so long before they would declare themselves to be Christians whatever B. Taylor or the Anabaptists from him Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9. H.D. Treat of Bapt. part 2. c. 3. pag. 203. Edit 2. suggest to the contrary so I presume the Clergy and Laity of Rome to have opposed his ordination in particular upon other accounts than the nullity and insufficiency of his baptism and particularly among the rest for his neglecting after his recovery to have the Confirmation of the Bishop according to the Custom or Canon of the Church Niceph. l. 6. c. 3. Et Cornelius apud Euseb l. 6. c. 33. narrat Novatum in morbo in lecto baptizatum Et addit si tamen accepisse dicendus est Neque enim reliqua consecutus est quorum oportet participem fieri secundum Ecclesiae Canonem neque oblignatus est ab Episcopo Chemnit examp part 1. pag. 84. Polyd. Virg. de Rerum Invent. l. 5. c. 3. Qui autem sic baptizabantur non morgebantur nec perfundebantur sed aquâ solùm aspergebantur Magdeb. cent 3. cap. 6. col 126. Vbi ipse baptizatus prius fuerat D. Cypr. ad Jubaian as Nicephorus shews and Chemnitius notes and as Pope Cornelius himself declares which Confirmation instituted as Polydore Virgil tells us by Clem. 1. was so necessary that no man was supposed a perfect Christian man if that Rite and Ceremony were by negligence omitted Which notwithstanding Cornelius sufficiently owns his Baptism whilest he accuses him for forsaking the Church of God wherein he was baptized and so does St. Cyprian too whilest he acknowledges him to have been baptized therein Nor do I discern any exception made against the manner of his baptizing but either against his staying so long before he was baptized or against his omitting some Rites then usual in the Church after his baptism And yet those that were so baptized the Centuriators of Magdeb. tell us were only sprinkled not dipped nor dowsed with water in any great quantity poured upon them § 34. But what stand I so long and so hard pressing one instance Hinc erat quòd olim quamplurimi baptismum ad extremum usque vitae terminum differebant quò puri ac puti ex hac vita migrarent atque ita non nisi in articulo mortis per aspersionem se in lecto baptizari sinebant quos eam ob causam clinicos vocabant Wolfg. Muscul loc Com. de Baptismo p. 741. Qui in lecto baptizabantur ab aliquibus ut auctor est Cyprianus ep 76. non Christiani sed Clinici appellabantur Quae vox etiam apud Hieronymum ep 26. ad Eusto hium ep 30. ad Ocean accipitur pro aegro qui lecto decumbit nec inde se movere potest à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lectus
Vtiturque ea voce eâdem significatione Plinius lib. 15. c. 5. Et Paralyticum cujus fit mentio Joh. 5. idem Cyprianus ep 76. clinicum vocat eò quòd 38. annos in infirmitate fuisse dicatur Spondan Epit. Baron an Chr. 254. p. 269. Et in lecto quidem aegrotantes baptizabantur quod prolixè ostendit Cyprianus in ep ad Mag. Magdeb. cent 3. c. 6. col 126. Quaesisti etiam frater charissime quid mihi de illis videatur qui in infirmitate languore gratiam dei consequuntur an habendi sint legitimi Christiani cò quòd aquâ salutari non loti sint sed perfusi D. ep 7. l. 4. Nos quantum concipit mediocritas nostra existimamus in nullo mutilari debilitari posse beneficia divina nec minus aliquid illic posse contingere ubi plenâ totâ fide dantis accipientis accipitur quod divinis muneribus hauritur Id. ib. In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente deo indulgentiam suam largiente totam credentibus conferunt divina compendia Id. ib. Nec quenquam movere debet quòd aspergi vel perfundi videntur agri cùm gratiam dominicam consequantur quando Scriptura sancta per Ezekielem Prophetam loquatur dicat Et aspergam super vos aquam mundam mund ibimini ab omnibus immunditiis vestris c. Vnde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar lavacri salutaris obtinere Idcirco quantum concipere sentire nobis datur mea sententia haec est ut Christianus judicetur legitimus quisquis fuerit lege jure fidei divinam gratiam consecutus Id. ib. Hoc denique rebus ipsis experimur ut necessitate urgente in aegritudine baptizati gratiam consecuti careant immundo quo antca movebantur laudabiles ac probabiles in Ecclesia vivant plusque per dies singulos in augmentum coelestis gratiae per fidei incrementa proficiant Id ib. when the baptizing of sick persons in their beds which must be done by way of affusion or aspersion was no rarity in those days which persons from their being baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their beds were called Clinics as Musculus telleth us briefly and Spondanus more largely And for proof thereof the Centuriators truly refer us to S. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Ep. 7. In which Epistle he doth prolixly shew to that Magnus what was his opinion touching them that were baptized in their weakness and languishment and answers that question proposed by Magnus to him whether those that were so baptized were to be accounted lawful Christians in regard they had not been so baptized as could properly and strictly be called a lotion but rather a perfusion that is not being carried to the water and there washed with it but having water brought to them and in sprinkling drops poured on them And to the point he answers that he conceives that the divine benefits can in none be maimed and weakned that is as I conceive his meaning to be there is never the less grace of God bestowed in baptism for the littleness of the water wherewith one is baptized where there is no defect of Faith in the Giver and Receiver And that in the wholesome Sacraments when mans necessity compels him to seek and God is pleased to bestow his indulgence divine compendiums do the whole business for believers And that none ought to be troubled at it because sick persons are seen to be sprinkled or to have water shed upon them when they are baptized being they read in several places of Scripture mentions of sprinkling of water for purifications from uncleanness even natural as well as legal Whence he conceives it apparent that in Baptism even the sprinkling of water is as good as other washing with it And declares that according to his opinion whosoever shall in the Church by the law and right of Faith have obtained the divine grace that is be baptized even though by sprinkling as by the subject of this discourse it must necessarily be understood is to be accounted a lawful Christian And in fine appeals to the experience which was had how free some were from that foul spirit which they were troubled withal before how laudably and commendably they lived in the Church how by the increasing of their Faith they every day grew more and more in heavenly grace who upon urgent necessity had been Baptized in their sickness Which so clear and full an evidence from so eminent a Father and Martyr as St. Cyprian and so early in the Church as he was should methinks be of mighty weight to satisfie even the nicest scrupulosity of any sober doubter in the case § 35. In this same Century an Chr. 261. Romanus urceum afferens cum aqua opportunitatem captavit quae eum offerret Laurentio ut baptizaretur c. Act. S. Lauren. p. 588. was the Martyrdom of S. Laurence In the Acts of that Martyr it is related how one of the Souldiers called Romanus bringing with him a Pitcher of water and by this instance we are informed how baptisms were privately administred in times of persecution Item scribitur in passione beati Laurentii quòd Romanus attulit urccum cum aquâ tunc non fuit immersus patet ergo So Bonaventure argues from this instance against a total immersion l. 4. dist 3. art 2. q. 2. Romanus autem accedens ad Laurentium cum urceolo aquae fecit se baptizari ab co Quod cum audisset Decius de Romano cum decollari mandavit Anthonini Histor par 1. Tit. 7. c. 8. fol. 91. col 1. And Surius in the life of S. Laurence tells that as he was going to his Martyrdom one Romanus a Souldier brought to him a Pitcher of water that he might be baptized of him as he went which in that case must needs have been done by pouring water upon him Fudit aquam super caput ejus B. Taylor Duct Dubitant l 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9. p. 644. even to persons in prison as to Basilides before mentioned watched an opportunity to offer it to St. Laurence that so he might be baptized and at length obtained his desire which saith Bp. Taylor in that case must needs have been done by pouring water on him Had that holy Martyr who had the courage to die for the Truth thought it to be an erroneous practice to baptize by any other way but that of immersion and that the baptism administred any other way had been a meer nullity in it self and but a mockery of the baptized nothing more but the throwing of a little water in his face as some are pleased in their drollery to call our most Holy Baptism he would not upon any terms have consented to it he could not by any means have been prevailed upon to do it His doing it then is at once an instance of the thing and an argument of his approbation of it which yet had
not been had that glorious Martyr judged that way of baptizing to have been repugnant either to the nature of the thing or to the command of Christ or yet unto the practice of the Church § 36. Of the same St. Laurence it is also said that Anthonini Historiae Par. 1. Tit. 7. c. 8. fol. 191. col 1. at his entring into Prison he found there one Lucillus who had wept himself blind to whom he promised sight on condition of his Faith in Christ and that upon his conversion being baptized he received his sight But how can it possibly come into our minds that he should there be tolly immersed No fancy in its utmost extravagancy can imagine any other but that water being either allowed for the Prisoner to drink or otherwise privately in some small quantity stoln in he therewith sprinkled him or poured it upon him B. Taylor Duct Dub. l. 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9. p. 644. Walâ—frid Strabo de Reb. Eccles cap. 26. Indeed Bp. Taylor from the Historian saith he poured it upon his head And from these examples Walafridus Strabo as that Bishop tells us did conclude and why may not we as well do so too that in cases of necessity it is lawful to use sprinkling § 37. I should here end this Century but that Lactantius Tinctus est à Joanne Propheta in Jordane flumine ut lavacro spiritali peccata non sua quae utique non habebat sed carnis quam gerebat aholeret ut quemadmodum Judaeos susceptâ circumcisione sic etiam Gentiles baptismo id est purifici roris perfusione salvaret Lactant. l. 4. c. 15. who flourished an Chr. 290. stands so fair in my way inviting my attendance to his evidence that I cannot civilly pass him by And indeed the rather am I willing to take notice of him in regard I have before declared my intention to give a more full account of his sense in the proper place for it which is this Now he speaking of the baptism of Christ saith that he was baptized by John the Prophet in the river Jordan that by that spiritual washing he might put away his sins not his own which to be sure he had none of but of that flesh which he did bear that he might save as the Jews by undergoing Circumcision so the Gentiles also by baptism that is the perfusion or sprinkling of the purifying dew Where his Paraphrasing of Baptism by the sprinkling of the purifying dew intimates Baptism to have been performed purifici roris perfusione by the sprinkling of purifying dew that is shedding of water on the party baptized it not being to be doubted but that he founded his expression on the then present usage of the Church at least in some cases if not generally nor can it well be said whence else he should borrow it And these Testimonies without more I think enough for this Age. § 38. If we step forward from hence into the Fourth Age we shall find about the Thirteenth Year of that Anno 313. a Council held at Neocaesarea somewhat before that famous one at Nice and afterward confirmed in the Sixth Council at Constantinople in Trullo In that Council Fourteen Canons were made Amongst them one viz. the 12th is concerning those who got to be baptized in their sickness De his qui in aegritudine baptisma consequuntur Siquis in aegritudine constitutus baptizatus fuerit presbyter ordinari non debet Concil Neocaes can 12. Carang Ordinatus est Presbyter sc Novatus sed contra Canones quibus minimè licebat quenquam in lecto propter morbum baptizatum sicut buic contigerat in clerum assumi Surius Concil Tom. 1. p. 223. And touching them the decree is that no one baptized in his sickness should be ordained a Priest Now if we remember but after what manner the Centuriators tell us the persons called Clinics were baptized namely not by immersion for they were baptized in their beds nor by any larger effusion of water upon them as they lay in their beds for that were as ill as perhaps worse than to take them out of their beds and put them into water and a sure way to give them or hasten their death or highly endanger it then we must conclude that the way of baptizing such persons was by an aspersion or conspersion of water upon them or in plainer terms by sprinkling The decree of the Council then is that such as had by reason of sickness been baptized by sprinkling should be incapable of Ordination to the Priesthood The consequent hereof infallibly is this that there was such a way of baptizing and persons so baptized then § 39. But here we must note that the Council doth not condemn the way of baptizing but the Persons that drive their baptism so long till they could no other way be baptized Nor do they forbid any from thence-forward to be so baptized but only declare the incapability of such as would no sooner be baptized to be ordained to the Priesthood They do not evacuate their baptism as null and put them out of the state of Christians but judge them unworthy to be of the Clergy In clerum assumi Sur. and forbid them to be ordained Priests In a word they do not order them to be rebaptized but decree they shall not be ordained So no quarrel here lies against the Baptism but against the Baptized and that not for being baptized so but no sooner § 40. And if we consult the reason on which the Council grounded this Canon it will appear to be so That was not because their Baptism was unlawful and a meer nullity as some say by ours but because the faith i. e. as I conceive the confession of the faith of those that would not be baptized till they believed themselves to be no longer Men of this World Non enim fides illius voluntaria sed ex necessitate est but just departing out of it was not voluntary but meerly upon necessity And high reason certainly was on that Councils side It being unfit that they upon choice should be made Shepheards who would not but upon necessity declare themselves Sheep No hope being that they would ever die for the Faith who till they were going to die would never declare themselves to be of the Faith Little expectation that they should ever by example at their Death encourage others to be Martyrs who never in their life before they were going to die had the courage to own themselves so much as Professors § 41. And yet was not the Council so rigid neither in its censure as utterly to exclude them from the very Priesthood it self but left a Door open for them even unto that There was a nisi an exception in the case Nisi forte postea ipsias studium fides probabilis fuerit aut hominum raritas cogat Caranz Vid. D. Hammond de Confirmatione c. 4. S. 1. Paragr 11. pag. 112.
Christian Faith An. Chr. 385. and in the 31. Year of his own Life And he in his Confessions l. 1. c. 11. tells us that in his Childhood and therefore this passage of his Life must of necessity be referred unto this Century being in a fit of sickness and like to die he earnestly desired to be baptized and that had he not recovered through his Mothers hastening care he had then been baptized But sure he had not been baptized by dipping pene moriturus when he was just at the point of Death That pious care of his Mother which made her hasten his baptism to save his Soul would have provided that in the manner of his baptizing nothing should be done that might destroy his Body There was a way then for baptizing of Persons in danger of Death that 's the thing I hence observe and I leave it to the Reader to think if he can how it should be done by dipping or what other so convenient a way there was or could be for it as sprinkling § 54. In the beginning of the Fifth Century to proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and turn at Lands end flourished St. Augustin with whom I ended the last Century And as in the first Book of his Confessions he tells us of his own being like to have been baptized so in the Fourth Book he tells us of a friend of his that really was baptized in his sickness Cùm enim laboraret ille febribus jacuit diu sine sensu in sudore letali cum desperaretur baptizatus est nesciens D. Aug. Confess l. 4. c. 4. See D. Aug. ad Pollent l. 1. c. 26. Tom. 6. col 854. and that being in a high Fever and in a deadly sweat given over for life and utterly ignorant of what was done That the Baptism administred to this Person be it after what manner it would or could was a baptism is clearly intimated by St. Augustin whilest he saith expresly of him baptizatus est he was baptized But whether this baptism was administred by a total dipping of the Person under these circumstances in his sickness in a high Fever in a deadly sweat given over for life past sense or whether he was not rather baptized by sprinkling of water upon him I leave even to the most prejudicated Reader in the World to judge § 55. The same St. Augustin whilest Bishop of Hippo tells us in his 22th Book de Civ Dei c. 8. how one Martialis was converted on his Death-bed and baptized Therefore not dipped but what is most probable because most usual in cases of necessity sprinkled at his baptizing § 56. But he that shall read the Fourth Chapter of St. Augustin's sixth Book against Julian the Pelagian Non enim frustra crederis noluisse dicere quòd renascitur sed quòd perfunditur and there find perfundi used for baptizari and perfusio for baptismus and perfusus for baptizatus though St. Augustin find fault with Julian for using that word out of a design to put a contempt upon Baptism Hoc enim verbum sc baptizatur ex Graeco Latina consuctudo sic habet ut non soleat alibi nisi in Sacramento Regenerationis intelligi Nihil horum dicere voluisti sed elegisti verbum quo fieret contemptibile quod dicebas Nemo enim legentium praeferre potest natum renato vel regenerato vel baptizato sed facilè putâsti natum praeferri posse perfuso Si autem quantum distat coelum terra tanto melius est perfundi ut portetur hominis imago coelestis quà m nasci ut portetur hominis imago terreni evanuit jam tua ista invidiosa partitio Neque enim mirandum est si coelestis hominis imaginem quae sacrâ perfusione suscipitur sibi vendicat Deus c. D. Aug. contr Julian Pelag. c. 4. Tom. 7. col 1110. telling him that this word Baptizari though originally Greek yet was by the custom of the Latins appropriated to the Sacrament of Regeneration will be out of doubt that Baptism was administred in those days by way of perfusion pouring or shedding on of water For wherein else can that appellation be founded And St. Augustin that found fault with his using of that word only because not so customarily applied to the thing as baptism was would not have failed to have found fault with him if there had been no such thing in use as was signified by that word § 57. And that Baptism was performed in those days not only by pouring but also by sprinkling of water on the baptized is beyond exception declared by that Father in his Book de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus if that Book were his But because though inserted among his Works it is and I suppose more truly imputed to Gennadius who flourished too in this same Century though somewhat after St. Aug. I shall refer it to its proper place § 58. I will not say In hoc ergo fonte antequam vos toto corpore tingeremus interrogavimus Credis Deum Patrem omnipotentem D. Aug. ad Neophyl apud Gratian. de Consecr dist 4. fol. 449. col 3. De trinâ immersione Aug ait Postquam nos credere promisimus tertiò capita nostra in sacro fonte demersimus P. Lomb. l. 4. dist 3. Tit. de Immersione Or as Gratian reports it Postquam vos credere promisistis capita vestra which reading I rather approve of Gratian. de Consecr dist 4. sol 449. col 4. but that there might be baptizings of Persons in that Age by a total immersion of them Yet what Peter Lombard quotes from St. Augustin seems to intimate it to have been a fashion also to baptize not by a total immersion of the whole Person but by a demersion of the head of the Party baptized After that we had professed our selves to believe we did three times demerse or dip our heads in the holy Font. So he § 59. Contemporary with St. Augustin and even in both the Centuries was Paulinus Bishop of Nola flourishing about An. Chr. 420. And from him I find quoted by Rigaltius a passage which seems to intimate even the Baptism of John the Baptist to have been not by dipping of the Party baptized into the water but by pouring of water on him Diluit infusis Diluit infusis credentum crimina lymphis Absolvitque metus hominum poenasque remittit Paulin. Ep. Nolan ap Rigalt Not. in Tertull p. 70. c. i. e. He washes away the sins of believers by waters poured on The waters poured on here must certainly be meant to be poured on the baptized person or else into the River for he baptized in the River To conceive the later is ridiculous for what should he pour water into the river for Therefore it must be on the parties baptized And then here is another proof yet more besides those of St. Bernard Lactantius and Prudentius to strengthen the opinion that our Saviour was not baptized
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
such like occasions will determine the most befitting way of baptizing to be that of sprinkling not only in regard of the want of conveniencies of Vessels fit for a total immersion that might be in some private houses but also in regard that sick Infants were then to be baptized whom to dip in that condition and as the manner of baptizing them that were dipped then was viz. three times over head and ears were enough to kill And he that will consult Baronius may perhaps find an instance of one Ann. Chr. 370. 51. and him the Son of an Emperour by name Galates the Son of Valens killed in Baptism The inconsistency whereof with the Charity of the Church is so visible or rather palpable as to need no further demonstration § 69. They tell us also how in the Eighth Council of Toledo which was held An. Chr. 633. and in the Sixth Council of Constantinople held in the Trullus the name of a Room within the Emperor's Palace where the Council sate An. Chr. 680. it was decreed that Baptism should by no means be denyed to any sick Infant adding as an Enforcement to their Decree Parvulo aegrotanti nullo modo baptismus denegetur si quis neglexerit ejus morientis animam ille pro eâ reddet Deo rationem Concil Tolet. Constantinop ap Magdeb. Cent. 7. c. 6. col 146. that if any should neglect the Soul of any such dying one he should give an account thereof to God And it is certain that in the Second Canon of this Council of Constantinople was confirmed the Council of Neocaesarea and consequently that Canon of that Council which concerned such as were baptized in their sickness whereof we made mention before Well now sick Infants were to be baptized and their Baptism by no means to be neglected The way of baptizing then was a three-fold immersion But what if the Baptizer saw he could not so baptize the Infant without endangering the death of it Must he not baptize the Infant at all Then he violated the Decree of the Council and incurred the hazard of answering for the Soul of the Infant if it perished for want of Baptism Must he baptize it by the three-fold immersion Then he endangered the death of the Infant which though very sick yet possibly might not die unless drowned or starved by that baptizing but recover as many no doubt in the like case have done and so incurred the guilt of homicide which he could not but be loth to have his Conscience charged withall What must he do then What Even take the middle course neither neglect to baptize it nor dip it in the baptizing but do as Reason would dictate in the case and as the Custom of the Church on such occasions would direct him and baptize it in a gender kinder safer way by Sprinkling § 70. And the same Observation may be made upon and drawn from the Law of Ina King of the West Saxons about An. Chr. 692. That Infants shall be baptized within Thirty days after their birth under penalty of Thirty shillings a great sum in those days Infans intra triginta dies postquam in lucem prodierit baptizator Id si non fiat ter denis solidis culpa pensator Sin prius vitam cum morte commutârit quà m sacro baptismate tingatur rebus suis omnibus mulctator Leg. Inae c. 2. ap Spelman Concil Anglic. Tom. 1. p. 183. And that if any of them died unbaptized he through whose default that came to pass should forfeit all his goods § 71. In the Eighth Century flourished the Venerable Bede An. Chr. 731. Obiit An. 735. in the one and thirtieth year of which he wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation And though he do not therein that I yet find tell us of any that were expresly baptized by way of Sprinkling yea so far is he from that that he is produced as an Author against it because he in that work tells us of many that were baptized in Rivers viz. Glen and Swale yet still methinks he looks favourably on that way § 72. First because he there l. 2. c. 14. Igitur accepit rex Edwinus cum cunctis gentis suae nobilibus ac plebe perplurimâ fidem lavacrum sanctae regenerationis anno regni sui 11o. qui est An. Dom. incarn 627. Baptizatus est autem Eboraci die Sancto Paschae prid id April in Eccles Sancti Petri Ap. quam ibidem ipse de ligno cùm catechizaretur atque ad percipiendum baptisma imbueretur citato opere construxit Bed Hist Eccles Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 14. tells us of a baptism of a King by name Edwin who with many of his Nobles and People was baptized in a Church and then sure not in a River but in a Font and then most probably by Sprinkling or pouring of water upon him there being no remains that I know or hear of in England wherein this was done if any Fonts of that capacity to receive into them the whole body of a man so as to dip it therein especially if the Rite of being baptized standing upright in the waters as the ancient manner of baptizing is by some said to have been were to be observed and it is strange that if the Fonts in our Churches ever were of that capacity there should in no part of the land be any one of them remaining especially seeing there has been since that time no such universal inundation of Heathens as destroyed all those Sacred Utensils of Christianity but the Churches themselves wherein they may be supposed to have been as that of York and Lincoln are standing still and that particular Church being but a Wooden one erected in haste for that present purpose and so probably unfurnished of such a capacious Baptistery as was requisite for the total immersion of a person of that Stature § 73. Secondly because in that whole passage Quibus diebus cunctis à mane usque ad vesperam nihil aliud ageret quà m confluentem eò de cunctis viculis ac locis plebem Christi verbo salutis instruere atque instructam in fluvio Gleni qui proximus erat lavacro remissionis abluere Id. ib. and the rest that follows in that Chapter where he speaks of baptizing confluences of people and in Rivers he never mentions one word of their being dipped either in Font or River unless Baptizo do necessarily infer it as I have shewn it doth not neither immergo nor mergo neither immersio nor mersio being used to express that action but words of a more general import which coextend to any manner of Baptismal washing such as lavacrum and abluere and Baptizing in a River doth not necessarily infer a dipping into it And yet as shie as he is of using immergo in the case of Baptism he is not shie to use it in other concerns Whence in his Relation of the Severities of Drithelm the Anchoret
been baptized not only by dipping them but also by pouring water from above upon them Notandum non solum mergendo sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse adhuc posse baptizari c. Hoc etiam solet evenire cùm provectiorum granditas corporum in minoribus vasis hominem tingi non patitur Walafrid Strabo de Rebus Eccles c. 26. p. 415. and that they may still be so baptized This also uses to come to pass when the greatness of the over-grown bodies suffers not a Man to be dipped in the lesser Vessels which is the present condition of most if not all the Fonts in England so that there can be no way of baptizing persons of ripe years in them but by affusion or a partial mersation I wish those that give such credit to this Author in other things would be impartial and give the like credit to him in this wherein he is so full and clear as nothing can be more both as to what hath been and what may be § 82. Yet further in this Century An. Chr. 858. Praeterea si tibi ad Baptismum Baptismi cupiditas propositumque sufficit atque idcirco corum qui purificâ aquâ perfusi sunt gloriam quaeris ad gloriam quoque tibi sufficiat sola gloriae cupiditas Nicet Not. 21. in Gr. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Col. 1062. Edit Paris 1611. flourished Nicetas Serronius who wrote Commentaries on several Orations of St. Greg. Nazianzen And in his Commentary on the Fortieth Oration of that Father which is of Baptism If saith he a desire and purpose to be baptized serves you for baptism and you therefore seek the glory of those qui purificâ aquâ perfusi sunt who have had the purifying water shed or poured upon them i. e. have been baptized let then the only desire of the glory serve you too for the glory This if the Author be rightly translated who I suppose wrote in Greek is a clear intimation of that Author 's having in his mind a notice of a baptizing by way of perfusion shedding or pouring on of water which made him paraphrase baptism so nay more that he supposed others had the same notice of it too and would understand what he writ or else he would not so have written it Commentaries being designed not to obsuscate the Authors commented on by words less usual and of greater obscurity but to illustrate them by words more known and of greater perspicuity than their own § 83. In the Tenth Century amongst other Ecclesiastical Constitutions of King Edgar Si infans infirmus absque baptismo obierit Ethnicus hoc ex culpâ Sacerdotis evenerit amittat ille ordinationis gradum sollicite componat Et si amicorum negligentiâ acciderit jejunent illi 3. annos unum sc pane aquâ per reliquos 3. dies in hebdomada id semper lugeant Can. dati sub Edgaro Rege apud Spelman Concil Anglic Tom. 1. pag. 467. Can. 44. about An. Chr. 967. there is one Canon deposing from at least one degree of Orders the Priest that through his default should suffer any weak Infant to die unbaptized and imposing the penance of a three Years Fast on the Infants friends if the fault were theirs Now surely he must either never have had or else have lost his understanding who imagines that the Infant in the case supposed by the Canon was necessarily to be dipped For that were to oblige both the Priest and Parents under so great penalties as neither would be willing to undergo to expose the Child to a manifest peril of death rather than let it go unbaptized But the Church then could not but know what had been the practice of the Church in former Ages in the like case which was to baptize by aspersion or a gentler affusion and therefore it is to be understood to mean that the Children so strictly ordered to be baptized should be baptized after such a way as was most agreeable unto the condition they then were in and that must be by sprinkling and not that they must be dipped come on 't what could come life or death by their dipping § 84. And much about the same time or a little after Infans omnis intra 9. noctes matarè baptizetur sub poena sex orarum Et si infans aliquis intra 9. noctes per negligentiam mortuus fucrit componatur apud Deum absque mulctâ seculari Sed si exactis 9. noctibus per negligentiam mortuus fuerit componatur utique apud Deum solvantur praeterea illi parochiae 12. orae quòd infans tam diu fuisset Ethnicus Leges Presbyter Northumbr ap Spelm. Concil Angl. Tom. 1. pag. 469. Can. 10. were composed the Laws of the Northumbrian Priests probably by Oswald Arch-Bishop of York Amongst which there is one that under a certain penalty orders all Children to be baptized within nine Nights But what if a Child were so sick as not to be able to endure dipping Must it rather than not be dipped be let dye without being baptized That was not the Law-makers meaning which was to prevent the Child's dying without baptism Must he be dipped then though that dipping should cost him his life That is too irrational to conceive to have ever been meant by any wise Law-giver the end of whose Laws is the preservation and not the destruction of lives What then 'T is plain nothing else could be meant but that as the Child was not to be suffered to dye unbaptized so it was to be baptized in such a way as would not endanger its death and that is by sprinkling or pouring water in a befitting quantity upon it according to the practice of former Ages on the like occasions § 85. In the Eleventh Century the Magdeburgensian Historians tell us that Infants if weak Cent. 11. c. 6. col 260. were baptized even presently after their birth And as I have noted in another place they instance from Schafnaburgensis in the Son of an Emperess baptized by reason of his weakness and fear of his death within three days after his birth They tell us also of a Son of the Queen of Moguntia who was baptized presently after his birth and dyed presently after his Baptism But now who is able to imagine that any ordinary Parent much less Persons of such high Nobility would ever endure that their tender Infants in that extremity of weakness and sickness should be put to endure the hardship of a three-fold or even but one single total immersion into cold water How could they expect any other but that the Font which should be the Mother of their Spiritual birth would become the causer of their natural death and that they should be realy as well as Sacramentally buried in Baptism But Reason inviting and long Custom of otherwise baptizing Persons in such condition authorizing thereunto no doubt is to be made but that they were baptized in a
washed with pure water he answers to the question that inasmuch as Water is made use of in the Sacrament of Baptism for bodily washing whereby is signified the inward washing away of sins and a washing with water may be made not only by way of immersion but also of aspersion or effusion therefore though it be the safer because the more common way to baptize by dipping yet may a baptism be made by way of sprinkling or pouring on of Water the way as he also saith S. Laurence is said to have baptized And that this may be done through necessity either by reason of the multitude to be baptized or scarceness of Water or feebleness of the Minister or weakness of the party whose death may be eminently indangered by dipping § 93. His Contemporary Bonaventure Dicendum quòd praesumitur quòd Apostoli baptizaverunt aspergendo mos ille servatur adhuc in pluribus Ecclesiis maxime in Ecclesiâ Gallicanà Servari autem potest propter hoc quòd ibi est integra ratio Sacramenti servari debet cùm necessitas imminet c. Bonavent l. 4. dist 3. art 2. q. 2. yet a little behind him An. Chr. 1263. does just as he doth disputes the question An immergendus vel tantummodo aspergendus sit baptizandus and gives Arguments pro and con But his Answer to the question is that it is presumed that the Apostles baptized by sprinkling which way is yet kept in many Churches and most in the Gallican And kept it may be because therein is the whole Reason of the Sacrament and kept it ought to be in case of necessity by reason of the weakness or timerousness of the Baptizer the feebleness of the party to be baptized or the scarceness of Water to baptize withal § 94. In this Century the Magdeburgensians tell us of a Synod at Colonia under the Emperor Rudolphus who was elected to the Empire An. Chr. 1274. wherein if it were not rather the Council of Lyons held that year it was decreed That if there were any fear the Infant would die before it was born Si timeatur de morte infantis antequam nascatur caput ejusdem appareat extra uterum infundat aquam quae adfuerit super caput nascentis dicens Ego te baptizo Synod Colon. sub Rudolpho Imperatore apud Magdeb cont 13. so the head did but appear out of the Womb the Baptizer should pour such water as was present upon the head of the child now in the birth saying I baptize thee c. Now this a Synod especially of so many Bishops 500. if it were the Concilium Lugdunense that made this decree would never have ordained had they not judged the act to be lawful and valid to all intents and purposes and that there was a baptism performed when to that action was added and in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost I baptize thee § 95. In the same Century the said Authors quote Gulielmus I suppose they mean Durantus who lived as Bellarmin saith in the time of Pope Nicholas the Third An. Chr. 1280. Quandoque datur per immersionem ita quòd totus puer immergitur in aquâ Quandoque etiam datur per aspersionem quando puer aspergitur super eum aqua infunditur Guil. Durant de ritu baptizandi c. 2. and flourished about An. 1286. And he speaking of the several ways of Baptizing saith sometimes Baptism is given by Immersion so that the whole child is dipped in Water And sometimes it is given by Aspersion when the child is Sprinkled and water is poured upon him This is a report from him of what was done in his time As to what was his own Opinion in the case I shall report that from the Author himself whom since the reading of their quotation and the writing it from them I have had the opportunity to consult and he having said concerning the baptismal ablution Quintum est baptismi ablutio Circa quod notandum est quòd trina fit immersio seu lotio in baptismo in nomine Trinitatis c. Si tamen quis ita aeger sit ut non possit ter sinc laesione immergi sufficit illum aquâ aspergi ut probatur multipliciter in Canone Cypriani Licèt quidem illud intelligunt de aquae benedictae aspersione Sed si magna corporis pars praeter caput infunditur vel saltem caput baptizatus quis reputatur non aliter Licèt quidem etiamsi super pedem aqua ceciderit reputent baptizatum Guil. Durantus l. 60. Rationalis Divinorum Officiorum Fol. 148. col 1. that it is a threefold dipping or washing in baptism in the name of the Trinity adds this to what he had said Yet if any be so sick that he cannot without hurt be thrice dipped it is sufficient that he be thrice sprinkled with water He adds also that if a good big part of the body besides the head have water poured upon it or at least the head the party is held to be baptized and not otherwise though some think him baptized if water do but fall upon his foot § 96. In this Century also I suppose I may place Johannes Duns Scotus but whereabouts I cannot tell so different are the accounts that are given of his time For Alsted places him Anno 1300. Bellarmin in his book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis pag. 381. saith he died An. Dom. 1380 who yet in Chronologiae parte alterâ pag. 107. places him about An. 1294. The Author of the Flosculi Historici about An. 1295. Balaeus saith that he died An. 1208. I suppose the figures in Bellarmin and Bale are mistaken and both should be 1298. But be that as it will which is not material to the point his judgment was for a sufficiencie of a Baptism by less than a total immersion For saith he if the principal part of a child not yet wholly born as the head Si principalis pars ut caput appareat sic illa parte baptizata simpliciter baptizatur scâ—puer nec est iterum baptizandus quia in illa parte sunt omnes sensus humani per consequens totus homo c. Joh. Duns Scotus in sent l. 4. dist 4. q. 3. do appear that part being baptized so which cannot be by dipping but must be by Sprinkling or such like shedding of water upon it the child is fully baptized nor is he again to be baptized because in that part there are all mans senses and consequently in a manner the whole man So then with this acute School-man a principal part being baptized the whole person is baptized which yet could not be if baptism were nothing less than the total immersion of the whole person § 97. In the Fourteenth Century An. Chr. 1360. flourished Dr. William Lynwood who wrote Commentaries on the Constitutions of several of our Bishops And whereas by the words of a Constitution of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury who dyed
fortioribus naturae viribus apparet ter totus immergitur alioquin aquâ tingitur rarò tamen conspersio enim minus sufficiens judicatur De Russorum Tartarorum Moscovitarum Religione pag. 176. concerning the Muscovites that they baptize their Infants if strong by a three-fold immersion else by a tinging or sprinkling them with water though this latter way they do use but seldom as holding sprinkling not altogether so sufficient Now these having received their Religion as they say of themselves from St. Andrew and being very firm to what they have once received as he saith of them may be an instance of a baptizing by pouring on of water as well as by putting into water not only for the time that Author writ in but for all the time since the first reception of their Religion which may for ought I know reach up to the Apostles days and does so if their own Tradition be true and why it may not may perhaps be more than every one can tell Tunc Sacerdos puerum sinistrae manui suae impositum teneat supra fontem manu dextrâ de fonte hauriens aquam fundat super caput pueri tribus vicibus ita quòd aqua tangat caput scapulas dicens Ego te baptizo in nomine patris fundat semel capite ad Orientem verso Et filii secundò superfundat aquam Baptismi capite verso ad Aquilonem Et Spiritûs Sancti fundat tertiò capite verso ad meridiem Notandum circà Baptismum sive ipse actus baptizandi siat pâ—r trinam immersionem sive per trinam superinfusionem aquae utrumque ritum modum Ecclesia recepit Vtrùm autem semel aut ter immergatur aut si aquâ superinfundatur tertiò non variat Baptismi essentiam Ita tamen ut Ecclesiae consuetudo observetur quam non observans peccat Magis tamen amplectendum si alià s illius Ecclesiae fuerit consuetudo quòd ter aqua superinfundatur Si enim Sacerdos sit senex aut tremulas habens manus aut si sit vehemens frigus si infans sit debilis aut adultus aut perfectioris aetatis qui commodè immergi non possunt expedit ut per infusionem aquae fiat non per immersionem Cujus rei exemplum trabimus ab Apostolis Sancto Laurentio Remigio caeterisque pluribus qui aspergendo superinfundendo aquam baptizabant Sic sanctus Laurentius urceo aquae superinfuso baptizavit Romanum Sic etiam Remigius Regem Franciae baptizavit Quare ne ritus alius ad sanos alius ad infirmos alius ad pucros alius ad adultos varietur sed unus permaneat modus expedit ut hujus Sacramenti ministri tutiorem amplexantes modum superinfundendo ter baptizent nisi consuetudo contrarium habeat Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis per Reverendiss in Christo Patrem c. Dom. Sebastianum Archiep. Moguntin Princip Electorem Edit Moguntiae Anno 1551. fol. 22 23. § 103. Of the manner of baptizing in the Archbishoprick of Mentz we have an account given in the Agenda of that Church published by Sebastian Arch-Bishop of that See An. Dom. 1551. and that is that the Priest holding the Child over the Font in his left hand shall take water out of the Font with his right hand and pour it upon the head of the Child three times Nor is there only this Order given but a Note also added declaring the indifferency of both the Ceremonies Immersion and Superinfusion neither way varying the Essence of Baptism and both ways being received by the Church whose custome in either is to be observed though on diverse accounts pouring on of water is judged more expedient than dipping into it and that practice justified by the example of the Apostles St. Laurence Remigius and divers others § 104. Of the Russian manner of baptizing I find different accounts given According to one relation made by Dr. Giles Fletcher An. Dom. 1588. the manner is Purchas Pilgrim part 3. pag. 451. that after certain prayers the Priest plungeth the child thrice over head and ears For this as that Relator saith they hold to be plain necessary that no part of the child be undipped But according to another account given in another relation An. Dom. 1557. recorded by Purchas the manner is that when the water is sanctified Purchas Pilgrim part 3. pag. 229. the Priest taketh the child and holdeth it in a small Tub and one of the Godfathers taketh the Pot with warm water and poureth it all upon the childs head And with this in part agrees that Relation which was made in an Epistle written to David Chytraeus dated Aug. 1. Post longas tandem Caeremonias Flamen toto congio perfundere solet infantem ita inquiens Baptizo te c. Lib. de Russorum Moscovitarum Tartarorum Religione pag. 240. 1576 wherein 't is shewn that their manner of baptizing their Infants was by pouring a large quantity of water on them The Priest as saith that Author relating the manner of their baptizing useth to pour a whole gallon of water upon the Infant saying I baptize thee c. So that according to this relation pouring on of water is with them a baptizing And for the diversities of the Relations they may easily be reconciled by considering that they might be founded in the different accounts that in different times and places might be given to the Relators that thing being in use at one time which was not in another and that in one place which was not in another as it were easie were it needful to prove by instance without going half so far as Russia for the proof of it indifferent rites and customs in the Church being quickly taken up or laid down as the Pleasure of the Governours or Fancy of the people is § 105. And truly as the general custom now in England is to Sprinkle Deinde accipiat sacerdos infantem per latera in manibus suis interrogato nomine ejus baptizet eum sub trinâ mersione tantùm sanctam Trinitatem invocando ita dicens N. Et ego baptizo te in nomine patris mergat eum semel versa facie ad aquilonem capite versus orientem filii iterum mergat semel versa facie ad meridiem Spiritus Sancti Amen mergat tertiò rectâ facie versus aquam Tunc Patrini accipientes infantem de manibus Sacerdotis levent cum de Fonte Manuale ad Vsum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis fol. 41. b. Edit An. 1530. so in the fore end of this Centurie the general custom was to dip And yet at the same time in Belgia it was the manner to baptize by pouring of water on Thence that Note set in the Margin of St. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus in the Edition of that Author set forth by Erasmus and Printed at Leyden by Gryphius An. 1537. Perfunduntur apud nos merguntur apud Anglos i. e. They are
sprinkled or baptized by the pouring of water on in our Country they are dipped in England that is as I suppose some were so baptized and perhaps the greater number though others whose weakness required more favourable dealing with them were sprinkled which within the time of half a Century prevailed to be the more general Then the Priest shall take the child in his hands and ask the Name And Naming the Child sh ll dip it in the Water Thrice first dipping the right side secondly the left side the third time dipping the Face toward the Font so it be discreetly and warily done saying N. I baptize thee c. And if the Child be weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it saying the foresaid words K. Edwards Com. Prayer book of the first Edition Printed An. 1549. as now it is almost the only way of baptizing And no marvel when as by the Rubric of that Office as the Administration of it was setled by Queen Elizabeth and by King Edward the Sixth before her whereas dipping was the appointed way of baptizing yet it was declared that if the Child were weak it should suffice to pour water upon it And when the liberty of Sprinkling was allowed what tender mother would not think her new-born child too weak to endure to be dipped especially if once some instance really were or were but fancied and famed of some childs taking cold or being otherwise prejudiced by its being dipped And when withal some learned Persons of the Nation declared for the lawfulness of baptizing otherwise than by dipping of whom for an instance I shall name one without exception and that is Dr. Whitaker who flourished a little after the middle of this Century dying in the year of our Lord 1595. § 106. And though that then learned and still famous man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immersionem significat quia olim qui adulti baptizabantur non leviter aquâ tincti aut astersi fuerunt sed immersi quibusdam in locis ter immersi qui mos in Ecclesiâ diu permansit Alia tamen locorum populorum quorundam consuctudo fuit ubi tinctione contenil quam sufficere putabant immersionem non desiderabant Quanquam autem in adultis sanis immersionem meliorem esse putem tamen sufficere in parvulis clinic s aspersionem arbitror Nam Christus jussit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non modum praescripsit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò non immergere tantùm significat sed tingere etsi nusquam quòd sciam aspergere nam illud est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Whitaker Praelection de Sacram. de Baptismo qu. 1. c. 2. p. 216. Master of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge and the Kings Professor of Divinity in that University do say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie immersion and thinks immersion the better way for those that are of grown Age and in Health wherein I believe he is not alone yet he thinks Sprinkling sufficient for little Children and such as keep their beds adding that for a reason which is much to the purpose namely because Christ did command to baptize but did not prescribe the manner of baptizing and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie not only to dip but to wet though it did not that he knew of signifie to sprinkle that being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another word Thus we have this learned man declaring his judgment and in his Lectures too for a sufficiency of Sprinkling for children and sick persons and that grounded on a no prescription of the manner of baptizing by Christ the Ordainer of the Sacrament of baptism which is as much as can be desired to be said by any § 107. And no wonder if that Custom prevailed at home Caeterùm mergatúrne totus qui tingitur idque ter an semel an infusâ tantùm aquâ aspergatur minimum refert sed id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesiis liberum esse debet Quanquam ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesiae observatum fuisse constat Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 14. Sect. 19. fol. 443. Hîc perspicimus quisnam apud veteres baptizandi ritus fuerit totum enim corpus in aquam immergebant nunc invaluit usus ut minister corpus vel caput tantùm asp rgat Calvin in Act. Apost c. 8. v. 38. p. 144. a. Promissione factá nomen infanti imponitur tum in cum aquam Baptismi minister effundit inquiens N. Baptizo te c. Calvin Tract Theolog. de Baptismo p. 45. which our Reformed Divines in the time of the Marian persecution had found to be the judgment of other Divines and seen to be the practice of other Churches abroad and especially of Mr. Calvin and his Church at Geneva For that great and leading man Mr. Calvin whose glory needs not my Taper to shew it to the world as illustriously shining therein by its own native light whose time was about An. Chr. 1535. though he grant the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie to dip and say it for a certainty that the rite of dipping was observed by the ancient Church yet he saith it is not material at all whether he that is baptized be totally dipped and that once or thrice or whether he be only sprinkled with water poured on him but that it ought to be free for the Churches to do as they think good in that according to the diversity of Countries wherein they are In this learned Man's judgment then sprinkling is lawful notwithstanding the signification of the word and use of the Church to dip unless as I suppose he means though he mention it not in case of necessity wherein it appears to have been the custom to sprinkle c. or else it could not be free for Churches to use it Yea in the Forth of Administration of Baptism written by this Great Man for the Church of Geneva the way of baptizing as it is there by him set down is by pouring out of water on the Infant to be baptized § 108. Contemporary with Calvin and somewhat before him was Martin Bucer flourishing about An. Chr. 1520. And he tells us that God commended unto men such a rite as that by either the tinction ablution Porro quòd Deus ejusmodi ritum hominibus commendavit ut aquae vel tinctione vel ablutione aut aspersione peccatorum à se ablutionem acciperent eam per publicos religionum administros hinc denique suum cultum semper auspicarentur causa est quòd initium caput salutis nostrae fidem remissionis peccatorum hoc est gratuitae justificationis confirmare hominibus â—o pacto excitare voluerit M. Bucer enarrat Ep. Pauli ad Roman c. 6. p. 289. Edit 1536. or aspersion of water they should receive remission of sins and that by the publick Ministers of the
religions and lastly would always have them begin his worship with this because he would have the prime and principal point of our salvation the belief of remission of sins that is of free justification by that means confirmed unto men and more powerfully stirred up His speaking so indifferently of all these ways of baptizing tinction ablution and aspersion speaks his allowance and approbation of every one § 109. But not Calvin only and the Men of his judgment were so minded but Persons also of a different perswasion from him and that both at home and abroad Ter verò infans vel immergitur vel tingitur aquâ baptismatis Tertiò quoque repetita immersio vel tinctio typum triduanae domini sepulturae exprimit per quam Christo consepulti sumus in baptismo cum Christo resurreximus in fide ut à peccatis abluti in sanctitate virtutum vivamus imitando Christum Canon Concil Provincial Coloniens sub Hermanno celebrati Anno 1536. For instance Herman Arch-Bishop of Colen for the Reformation of his Diocese held a Provincial Council in the Year of our Lord 1536. for which he was after by the Emperor forced to leave his Bishoprick In that Council the Canon which concerns the baptizing of Infants is delivered in such terms as speak differing ways of baptizing viz. either by immerging or by tinging that is by dipping or sprinkling or otherwise wetting than by dipping in use in that Church It adds also that the thrice repeated immersion or tinction expresses a type of our Lord 's three days Sepulture or burial Now it is plain that though tingo where it stands alone doth not denote any particular way of baptizing but notes baptizing in general without reference to any particular way of it and is so used in the writings of Church Authors both ancient and Modern yet when it is set with immergo and in contradistinction to it then it notes another way of baptizing than that whether by aspersion affusion or perfusion and not dipping as I have before sufficiently shewed Ch. 3. S. 6 7. And it must do so here unless we will in so few words make a ridiculous tautology as if the Council had said But the Infant is thrice either dipped or dipped which would be very little becoming the gravity of so wise and learned a Council as that was And tingitur cannot be here said to be added to immergitur by way of exegesis or explication for it is the particular that is to explain and determine the general and not the general the particular And if but one and the same thing had been meant by both the words it must have been The Infant is tinged or dipped not dipped or tinged Besides dipping is a word of a more known and determinate use than tinging is And 't were absurd to explain notum per ignotius a more known term by a term of whose import there was less knowledge And so here is a fair evidence for a baptism by other than a total immersion in that Church § 110. And thus at home in the Year 1558. Thomas Watson Bishop of Lincoln published a Volume of Sermons about the Sacraments in the fourth of which fol. 226. he saith concerning the matter in hand although the old and ancient Tradition of the Church hath been from the beginning to dip the Child three times in the water as Christ lay three Days in the Grave yet that is not of such necessity but that if he be but once dipped in the water it is sufficient yea and in time of great peril and necessity if the water be but poured on the head it will suffice § 111. About that time flourished Wolfgangus Musculus a Man of great Learning and equal Modesty And he An. Chr. 1560. published his Common Places of Divinity wherein Postremò quod immersionem infantis attinet judicamus hanc non sic esse necessariam ut non sit liberum Ecclesiis baptizare vel mergendo vel aspergendo Libertatem hanc servatam esse in Ecclesiis videre est in Augustino de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus more truly Gennadius was that Author c. 74. Cypriano l. 4. Ep. 7. when he comes to speak of the manner how baptism ought to be administred he saith as to the immersion of the Infant that is to be baptized we do not judge it so necessary as that the Churches may not be at liberty to baptize either by dipping or sprinkling And then goes on to prove that this liberty had been kept in the Churches by two testimonies already mentioned from St. Augustin and St. Cyprian This was the judgment of this Man worth a World as I have somewhere read him reckoned § 112. Much about the same time or a little after Ann. Chr. 1565. flourished Martin Chemnitius And he tells us that St. Paul the best Interpreter of what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sed Paulus certissimus interpres dicit baptizare esse mundare seu purgare per lavacrum in verbo Sive igitur per ablutionem quae fiat adh bitâ aquâ Eph. 5. Tit. 3. Act. 2. sive adhibitio aquae fiat mergendo tingendo perfundendo seu aspergendo est baptizatio est enim purgatio seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae Nec ad lavacrum necessario requiritur immersio sub aquam Christi igitur mandatum est ut in baptismo fiat purificatio seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae Quo verò modo illa fieri debâ—at sive mergendo tingendo perfundendo sive aspergendo Christus non praescripsit Chemnitii Exam. Concil Trident. part 2. p. 122. a. saith that to baptize is to cleanse or purge by the washing of water with the Word Therefore concludes he thence whether the washing be performed by mersion tinction perfusion or aspersion it is a baptizing for it is a purgation or cleansing by the washing of water Nor unto this washing is necessarily required an immersion under Water And again The command of Christ is that there be in Baptism a purification or cleansing by the washing of Water But how that cleansing ought to be made whether by dipping tinging pouring on or sprinkling Christ hath not prescribed So then at great liberty is the Church of Christ in this case to baptize which way she pleases by dipping or sprinkling or otherwise and all without sin at least in the judgment of this Learned Author the Tridentâ—ne Council's severe Examiner § 113. In the year 1586. was printed at Wirtzburg the Confessors Manual by Martinus ab Azpilcueta and as in his opinion there must be an ablution in Baptism Adde quòd ad hoc ut aliquis sit verè baptizatus sufficit quòd quantulacunque pars ejus tingatur aquâ quamlibet modicâ c. Martin ab Azpilcueta Dr. Navarrus Confession Manual c. 22. n. 7. p. 693. so the wetting of but a little part and that but with a little water is sufficient to speak the party baptized
have been Mr. Leigh's sense of the word as well as the other if he had meant to do right to Mr. Leigh and not be disingenuous both to the truth and him For whilst unwary people hear only what Mr. D. saith from Mr. Leigh and hear not also what Mr. Leigh saith of himself they are apt to think that what Mr. D. reports from him is all that Mr. Leigh said of the thing and that he was of Mr. Danvers's judgment imbued with the same Sentiments with him dipt into the same error that he is § 23. But Mr. Leigh goes on and from himself and others tells us of six several acceptions of the word the five first of which Mr. D. slips by and reports only the Sixth and last as if that were as who that saw no more reported from him could think any other but that it was Mr. Leighs only sense of the word with how much ingenuity I leave to himself and others to judge § 24. It is put saith Mr. Leigh 1. generally for washing Luk. 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they baptized themselves This he strengthens by the Authority of Dr. Featly and Vossius as follows Christ no where requireth dipping but only baptizing which word as Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budaeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by very many instances and allegations out of Classic Writers importeth no more than ablution or washing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they in their Lexicons and Commentaries lavo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavatio ablutio which may be done without dipping Dr. Featly against the Anabaptists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propriè notat mergere sed quia ferè aliquid mergi ac tingi solet ut lavetur atque abluatur hinc pro lavare usurpatur Mark 7.4 8. Luk. 11.38 A priore notione quae mergere significat profluxit ea quae pro affligere usurpatur Quia qui affliguntur calamitatum gurgite quasi merguntur Vossius in Thesibus Then goes on Mr. Leigh descanting as I suppose on Mark 7.4 the Text last named by himself the Two Testimonies from Dr. Featly and Vossius coming in by way of Parenthesis It implieth the washing of the whole body There we read also of the washing of cups pots vessels tables After this account of what it signifies generally he goes on to shew that it is put 2. Figuratively to plunge into great afflictions Matth. 20.22 Mark 10.38 Luk. 12.50 Baptismus non significat afflictionem quamlibet sed vehementem forinsecus irruentem ut sunt in Scripturis undae persecutionum tribulationum quibus qui merguntur obruuntur baptizari videantur Estius ad 1 Cor. 15. v. 29. 3. To sprinkle or wash ones body Sacramentally Matth. 3.11 This Mr. D. should in justice to the Author have taken notice of 4. It is taken for the whole work and action of the Sacrament of Baptism as Matth. 28.19 5. To wash the Conscience Spiritually Matth. 3.11 Act. 1.6 6. The native and proper signification of it which Mr. D. only takes notice of overleaping all the rest is to dip into water or to plunge under water Joh. 3.22 23. Matth. 3.16 Act. 8.38 To all which places I have spoken in these Papers shewing it not proved even from them § 25. After this immediately Mr. D. adds as if spoken by Mr. Leigh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all the rest that went before is And that it is taken from a Dyers Fat and imports a Dying or giving a fresh colour and not a bare washing only Rev. 19.13 And for which he quotes Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius But not to urge upon Mr. D. that thence it would follow that in Baptism men ought to be dyed and have a fresh colour given them or else they are not baptized Mr. Leigh saith not this of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by the way are not words of exactly equal import for why else is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for baptizing as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders intingor from Rev. 19.13 which yet I have shewn to signifie nothing of dipping in that place but to be meant only of dying or staining and that without dipping Nor doth he quote those Authors to prove this but to prove what he had said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the last signification he had given it to which he immediately subjoyns their Testimonies however Mr. D. pulls them asunder from what they were set to prove and chops in other matter betwixt Their Testimonies as Mr. Leigh quotes them are Tanquam ad tingendum mergo Casaub Immergo abluo Bucan Mergo tingo Bullinger Propriè significat immergo submergo obruo aquâ Zanchius Videtur copiam abundantiam perfectam quandam perfusionem denotare Aret. I wonder why Mr. D. did not Transcribe their Testimonies unless it were because he saw among them abluo and tingo as differing from mergo which he was not willing his Reader should know And why he left out Aretius unless it was because he makes it to signifie perfusionem a pouring on of water which he had no mind neither to have known As for Spanhemius he saith nothing there Only Mr. Leigh refers to him to see what he saith of these Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dub. Evang. part 3. Dub. 24. And it may be wondered also why he skipt over what Mr. Leigh saith by the way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that there was something fitter to be concealed On the first word Mr. Leigh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptisma 1. Dipping into water that would have done well but the next that follows would not and so it was left out or washing with water often 1 Pet. 3.21 2. Ministery and Doctrine of John Act. 19.3 Mark 1. ver 4. On the second Mr. Leigh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismus Mark 7.18 Heb. 6.2 and 9.10 Then he adds a quotation from Zepperus de Sacramentis which Mr. D. could well have found in his heart doubtless to have added for he doth quote it afterward in another place when he hath drawn it from its company as if from his own reading whereas I make no question but he had it here and I shall answer it when I come at it but that there followed it immediately a quotation from Danaeus which he had no mind to which is this Deducitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 è quibus illud propriè tingere significat hoc autem immergere maxime verò aquae Quia verò qui ex aquis emergunt loti candidi mundi apparent idcirco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro lotione mundatione in Sacrâ Scripturâ ferè accipitur Heb. 9. ver 10. Luk. 11.38 Mark 7.4 Danaeus Isag Christ l. 5. de
〈◊〉 a going down and coming up again § 32. Mr. Casaubon doth indeed say This was a baptizing Rite or Ceremony in Baptism that they were dipped into the waters But he doth not say either that immersion was total of the whole Person which is the thing in question Hic enim fuit baptizandi ritus ut in aquas immergerentur or that if it were so it was the proper rite of baptism as if there were no other rite but that That word proper wherein the whole stress of the Testimony lies is an Addition to his words And at this rate what may not any Man make any Man say Yea but that was his meaning for the word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently declares it which as it signifies not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a going down to the bottom without ascending so not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a swimming like a Cork above the water as Mr. D. reports him But Mr. Casaub doth not so explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He only saith it means to go to the bottom to ones hurt or destruction if ye will Est fundum petere cum sua pernicie But one may go down to the bottom and come up again without either his destruction or hurt any way And so many have done in their baptizing And what ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive use imports it is not in the Ecclesiastical use of it exclusive of what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies else those that went down to the bottom must not be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then many supposed anciently to have been baptized will prove not to have been so For contrary to what he saith both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to go down to the bottom is by St. Athanasius * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas q. 94. de Interp. Parab Script 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil de S. Sp. c. 15. used of baptizing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by St. Basil used to express the act of baptizing unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not signifie the same with the verbs compounded of it And then if they signifie to go down to the bottom it must not signifie so much which yet it doth if fundum petere do so signifie And then if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be neither to swim at the top nor to go down to the bottom What will it signifie other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet is quite contrary to Mr. Casaubon who saith non significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it signifies not that § 33. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Casaubon explains it not But Mr. D. doth calling it a swimming like a Cork above the water And truly I think the manner of baptizing was never such as that Children or others swam in the waters on that fashion like Corks whilest they were baptizing But as for some other words by which Scapula explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. in superficie sum exto existo to be on or appear out of the surface or top I think that which they signifie reconcileable with some ways of baptizing and theirs particularly whose baptizing is but a partial mersation a dipping of their heads or faces into the water § 34. But supposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Casaubon saith What signifies it then Mr. D. tells you not Mr. Casaubon that it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Good It puts me in mind of the story of the old Country-man who being to explain what was meant by an inundation very gravely did it thus An inundation is as if a Man should say an inundation So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 35. But however we are told what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a going down and coming up again Going or putting down may be in the import of it but coming up again is not Unless to go down be the same thing with coming up or coming up the same thing with going down And the Fathers have other words for that part of the Ceremony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. D. Chrys viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears from St. Athanasius in the place before mentioned as also from St. Chrysostome Hom. 40. on 1 Corinth § 36. But after all this was Mr. Casaubon an Anabaptist or did he in his judgment think a total immersion necessary unto Baptism so as that nothing less than that was a baptizing but all a meer nullity No such matter He tells you indeed that some who long before had disputed for that Ceremony had somewhat whereon they grounded their dispute for they urged the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But saith he these Mens opinion hath long since been deservedly exploded in as much as the force and energie of this mystery doth not lye in that So then with him baptism is good though not by a total immersion And it is plain he was satisfied on other accounts in the lawfulness of sprinkling whatever he thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie And this should have been told us with the rest upon fair play § 37. Pindarus to go on with his Authors in his Ode 2. calls a Cork swimming upon the face of the waters unbaptized and Plutarch a ship floating on the water unbaptized § 38. This looks like an Argument indeed and is in a manner the only one that I have met withal that hath the look of one And if we were of necessity bound up by the Heathenish signification of the word and had no way of relaxation from it it would be of some moment But both the force of it is taken off in general and it is at large answered to in particular in these Papers ch 8. ch 5. Sect. 18. c. § 39. Beza to proceeed saith as Mr. D. tells us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to Dye by dipping or washing and differs from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to drown or go down to the bottom as a stone § 40. Supposing Mr. D. to have rightly quoted him and that Beza did say so hence it will follow that in strict speaking according to the propriety of the word none now are baptized even amongst the Dippers themselves 1. Because none of those whom they dip are dyed by their dipping the deepest water they dip them in gives them a wash if ye will but not a dye If it do 't were well we knew it that we might know them as well as they one another by it 2. Because in regard they baptize no Infants whose way of baptizing when dipped as anciently most were was to be put so under the water as neither to swim at the top nor
Christians had been indispensably obliged by some Precept to an exact conformity herein with the Jews their practice is no Tye on us But as the Dippers I think are unable to prove the one so I hope I have satisfactorily in these Papers proved the other v. ch 8. § 49. Mr. Daniel Rogers to pass on to him in his Treatise of Sacraments Part. 1. c. 8. p. 177. it should be ch 5. p. 69. and 70. saith as Mr. D. reports him That the Minister is to dip in Water as the meetest Act the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it What resemblance of the Burial or Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling All Antiquity and Scripture saith he confirm that way To dip therefore is exceeding material to the Ordinance which was the usage of old without exception of Countries hot or cold § 50. A very smart and pressing Testimony this if all be as Mr. D. reports it But here to see the luck of it good or bad let Mr. D. look to that he hath not given us Mr. Rogers's words in full nor in the order he spake them but hath pickt out here and there what he thought good leaving the rest A way of proceeding this by which a man may be made to say what one will But I will not go about to charge him with wronging Mr. Rogers in the whole of his sense who speaks much to the same purpose though not exactly in those words And yet I cannot find in Mr. Rogers the very first and those very material words That the Minister is to dip in water as the meetest Act. Nor those words the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it But something there is that is near it if Mr. D. would have spoke it out And it is pity he should either muzzle his Author or ham-string his own Pen. But then it would not have been for his purpose For he says the word baptized signifieth the true Act of the Minister to dip or dop the body or some part of it into the water This one word or some part of it hath quite spoil'd all Mr. Rogers Testimony as to the doing of the Dippers any service in their cause For nothing will serve their turn to be done in baptism or signified by the word baptize but a total dipping of the whole body and Mr. Rogers Testimony reaches but a dipping of the body or some part of it into the water § 51. And that this was not an expression that fell casually from him but was his very judgment appears by what he said before That it ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution especially it being not left arbitrary by our Church to the discretion of the Minister but required as it then was to dip or dive the Infant more or less except in case of weakness A dipping total or partial the Man would have but so there was but either the Institution was cleaved to and the Churches order observed so far as I can perceive in his judgment § 52. And that as warm as Mr. Rogers was for retriving the use of Dipping as witnessed to by Antiquity approved by Scripture required by the Church as then it was with not so much appearance of liberty in the case granted to the Minister as now is and Symbolical with the things signified in Baptism which I could wish as well as and as heartily as he in order to the making of peace in the Church if that would do it I say that he was only so for dipping as yet not to hold any unlawfulness to be in sprinkling there is sufficient evidence because he thinks that for the allowance of that in case of weakness we have cause to be thankful And I presume his zeal was only against those that stretcht the liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further than either the Church her self could or the solemness of this Sacrament might well and safely admit as himself speaks And as in the beginning of this Section he saith I would not be understood as if Schismatically I would instill a distast of the Church into any weak minds by the act of sprinkling water only so in the end of it he saith again I do not speak this as a thing meet to disturb a Churches peace but as desiring such as it concerns in their places to look to their liberty and duty in this behalf § 53. And I shall conclude with a wish that the Quoter of him would have but the same thoughts of it as his Author had and there would soon be an agreement with him and the Church which requires dipping but allows sprinkling on just reason for it And if he had any Children to be baptized he might have them dipped and totally too in it if he desired it And I must needs say that if there be any failure in this case and perhaps there may be some it is not in the Church nor in her Orders for by them dipping is prescribed unless where an inability well to endure it in the Infant is certified but in the Actors and if any way at all in the Baptizer yet mostly if not solely in the Bringers of the Infants unto Baptism which every Man may have as to his own concern amended and reformed at his pleasure Nay if I may speak my thoughts I believe the Ministers of the Nation would be heartily glad if the People would desire or be but willing to have their Infants dipped after the ancient manner both in this and in other Churches and bring them to Baptism in such a condition as that they might be totally dipped without fear of being destroyed § 54. Dr. Taylor so Mr. D. goes on in his Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. If you would attend to the proper signification of the word Baptism signifies plunging in water or dipping with washing § 55. I am not willing to say it yet am apt to suspect it that Mr. D. is the Author of those words and not Dr. Taylor My reason is because he gives us no particular direction to the place where they may be found He quotes indeed l. 3. c. 4. but he names not the Section Rule Number nor Page And he had need have more time and leisure than I that shall make it his business to read over a Chapter of an hundred and ten pages in Folio to find whether he speak true or no. He names afterward when he had a mind to be found l. 3. c. 4. p. 644 645. Why not here I have shewed my suspicion and my reason to suspect And I am strengthened therein by this that as I shall shew afterwards he quotes a saying of Musculus on Matth. 3. at large without naming verse of the Chapter or Page of the Book and as upon diligent search I have found there are no such words said by
and from his Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. Mr. D. quotes this The ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element which is the force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore did John Baptize in a River which is nevertheless changed into aspersion though uncertain when and from whence that Custom was taken § 62. To this I Answer First that if Chamier did say that the Ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole body into the Element then his meaning only was that it was anciently the more general or more constant or publick and solemn but not the only manner so to baptize But this hurts not our cause who do not contend that Sprinkling was the only or the more general or the more publick and solemn way of baptizing in the ancient Church but only that it was sometimes and mostly in private and in cases of great necessity charity or conveniency made use of in it And as this hath been I hope sufficiently manifested in these Papers so the words of Chamier even as Mr. D. reports them do not contradict it they only affirming what anciently was in use but not denying any thing else to have been then done Suppose it should be said that the Modern use of Baptism in this Kingdom for this last Century has been to sprinkle water on the face of the baptized Would this conclude that none in this Kingdom have been otherwise baptized in this last Century than by such Sprinkling I suppose not Nor do I believe the thing true if it should be asserted No more doth the affirming of the ancient use to have been dipping conclude that there was none then any other way baptized than by dipping As some therefore in the late times of the prevalency of Sprinkling have been dipped so no doubt some in the ancient times of the prevalency of dipping were sprinkled § 63. But secondly Chamier doth not say so In usu verò Elementi ab initio immersio totius corporis adhibita fuit Chamier Contract l. 5. c. 1. p. 1404. parag 4. if Spanhemius his Contracter report him truly His words are That in the use of the Element at the beginning immersion of the whole body was practised These words do only imply that at the first beginning to baptize dipping of the whole body was in use which we grant But they do not imply that no other way of baptizing besides dipping was then also used Though that then were yet there might be other ways also besides that for ought here said by Chamier And admitting that to have been the only way of baptizing at the very beginning of the use of that Sacrament suppose in our Saviour's life or just immediately after his death yet if other ways of baptizing came into use presently or a little after suppose in the time of the Apostles then will those ways of baptizing be good enough though dipping have a little the start of them and be in priority of time somewhat before them But this Chamier doth not contradict only telling us what was at the beginning but not denying what might presently after follow § 64. As for his saying that the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip the whole body into the Element Quae vis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chamier ib. I answer if his meaning be that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath that force we freely grant it But that hurts not us But if his meaning be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no other force but that and that it is never used in any either profane or sacred Writer but in this only signification then we as freely deny it And I suppose the contrary thereunto hath in these Papers been already made sufficiently manifest § 65. As for what Mr. D. adds as said by Chamier viz. that therefore John did baptize in a River this if Chamier did say it is capable of a double meaning either that John did baptize in a River because that was the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath that force because John baptized in a River § 66. If the first be meant it is said without proof nor can be credible unless we could be assured of two things 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies always exactly so and never otherwise 2. That the Commission by vertue of which John did baptize was given in Greek and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the particular word in that Commission But these two things will never be attempted to be shown unless I take my measures much amiss § 67. If the Second be meant and the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be concluded to be to dip the whole body in the Element because John did baptize in a River I answer first it is ridiculous to think that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should take its signification from any action of John's which was a word in possession of its being and signification long before John's either Baptism or Birth Secondly the vanity of concluding that Baptism ought to be by dipping the whole body because John baptized in a River if that be it that is meant and was designed by the Author or Reporter as I am apt to believe it was and only by the Later the vanity I say and unconcludingness if I may so speak of that Argument hath already so oft been detected in these Papers that I shall not vex the Reader with a tedious repetition thereof In short therefore it signifies nothing unless it were impossible for a man to go into a River and be baptized therein by sprinkling or pouring water on him or dipping some part of him as namely his face or head into it without his whole body be immersed into it also which no man of reason or even of common sense will adventure to say § 68. But I am apt to think that Chamier did not say any such thing partly because it is too inconsequent and ridiculous to be affixed on a man so judicious and learned and partly because there is no such word reported from him by his Contracter Spanhemius And then it must remain that it be an Addition made to Chamier by Mr. Danvers § 69. As for those words reported by Mr. D. as Chamiers Which is nevertheless changed into aspersion though uncertain when and from whence that custom was taken they are not exactly the words of Chamier but these as his Contracter reports them postea mutata fuit in aspersionem incertum quando aut quo initio it was afterwards changed into aspersion though it be uncertain when or at what beginning It is and it was are different words and speak of differing times the first of the Present the second of the Past The first makes the alteration seem to be Modern the second entitles it to Antiquity And we must not be wrenched from any thing of our right
trouble our selves about the external rite Quanquam de externo ritu minus anxiè laborandum est modò cum spirituali veritate Domini instituto ac regulâ congruat Calv. in loc so it do but agree with the spiritual truth and the Appointment and Rule of the Lord. And I hope it doth sufficiently elsewhere appear in these Papers that there is no discongruity betwixt those things and the now prevailing Ceremony And so Mr. Calvins name is but used here for the Authority of his name which is truly great against himself and those that follow that way now which he followed in his time and Church on what design Mr. D. knows and with how much ingenuity let others judge But we shall have more of this presently § 21. A Third Scripture worthy our notice is Acts 8.36 38. As they went on their way they came to a certain water and the Eunuch said see here is water and they both went down into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and when they were come up out of the water Upon which place § 22. Calvin saith We see what fashion the Ancients had to administer Baptism for they plunged the whole Body into the Water The use is now saith he that the Minister casts a few drops of Water only upon the Body or upon the Head § 23. To this Scripture my Answer will be given in ch 14. Perhap Reader you may wonder why I refer my Answers to these Scriptures to other places and answer them not here where it might seem most proper to answer them Know therefore that these Three Chapters which contain Answers to the Authorities alledged by Mr. Danvers are postnate to the rest of the Treatise which was gone out of my hand before much of these Three Chapters was finished and so these Scriptures being considered in other places of the Treatise I think it needless to say any thing to them here and that I make not particular References is because I have neither the Treatise nor so much as any Copy of it by me whereby I might be enabled to give certain Directions Herein therefore I humbly beg a favourable construction of my doings And now to what is alledged from Mr. Calvin I answer § 24. First That Mr. Calvin doth not say that we here see what was the only fashion of baptizing the Ancients had but what rite of baptizing was among the Ancients That dipping was one fashion we shall give them leave to believe but that it was the only fashion is the dispute and not proved from hence § 25. Secondly Mr. Calvin's saying Hîc perspicimus we see here is no proof that dipping was the Ancient way of baptizing unless it were to be seen here But that no such thing is here to be seen I shall make sufficiently to appear chap. 14. And so this place on that supposition is nothing to the purpose § 26. Thirdly This place is an intimation that the use for the Minister to sprinkle not as Mr. D. renders it to cast a few drops only on the Body or Head was formerly in being First because he calls it an use and that must have some time to be begun in and continued in to make it an use And secondly because he saith not as Mr. D. renders him the use is but invaluit usus it was grown to be an use or the use that was begun was grown strong and had gained confirmation by custome for the Minister to baptize by sprinkling § 27. Fourthly Was Mr. Calvin against sprinkling in Baptism by any thing that appears in this place Far be it from any to think so It had been more ingenuous in Mr. D. to have given us the rest that follows wherein Mr. Calvin speaks as much to the purpose in vindication of sprinkling as any Rhantist as some call those that are for baptizing by sprinkling would desire Which because Mr. D. has not done as well for vindication of Mr. Calvin as the truth I will do it § 28. But saith he so little a difference of a Ceremony Caeterùm non tanti esse nobis debet tantillum Caeremoniae discrimen ut ecclesiam propterea scindamus vel rixis turbemus Pro ipsa quidem Baptismi Caeremonia quatenus nobis à Christo tradita est centies potius ad mortem usque digladiandum quà m ut eam nobis cripi sinamus Sed quum in aquae symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostrae quà m novae vitae quum in aqua velut in speculo sanguinem nobis suum Christus repraesentat ut munditiem inde nostram petamus quum docet nos spiritu sâ—â—o refingi ut mortui peccato justitiae vivamus nihil quod ad Baptismi substantiam faciat dâ—esse nobis certum est Quare ab initio libere sibi permisit Ecclesia extra hanc substantiam ritus habere panlulum dissimiles Nam alii ter alii autem semel tantùm mergebant quare non est quòd in rebus non ita necessariis nimiùm morosi simus modò ne adventitiae pompae simplicem Christi institutionem contaminent Calvin in Act. 8.36 ought not to be of that esteem with us as that for it we should rend the Church or trouble it with Brawls Truly for the Ceremony of Baptism it self in as much as it was delivered to us by Christ we ought to fight to the death an hundred times over rather than suffer it to be taken away from us But seeing that in the Symbol of water we have testimony as well of our washing as of our new life Seeing that in the water as in a Looking-glass Christ represents unto us his Blood that from thence we may seek our cleansing seeing that he teacheth that we are fashioned again by his Spirit that being dead to sin we may live to righteousness it is certain that we want nothing which can make for the substance of Baptism Wherefore from the beginning the Church took free liberty to it self save in this substance to have rites a little unlike For some dipped thrice but some only once wherefore we have no reason in things of not so great necessity to be too morose so that adventitious pomps do not defile the plain institution of Christ O that our Dippers would but be so tender as not to rend and trouble the Church about so little a difference as this is Sure they would not be so stiff about it if they did not think that whilest we have not the Ceremony of dipping we want something that is of the substance of the Sacrament which is quite contrary to the judgment of their here-appealed-unto witness Mr. Calvin who looks upon it as one of those things which are not so necessary and thinks that the present Church may as the Primitive Church did and mark that from the beginning allow it self some liberty in the use of several not greatly differing Rites and Ceremonies § 29. A fourth Scripture we
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
contrary For having said that in Baptism when the Party baptized is let down into the water thereby is designed the burial of the Body of sins or the old Adam as the Resurrection when he is brought out he adds this as a reason In veteri enim Ecclesia non tingebant solummodo sed in aquam immergebant cos quos baptizabant For in the ancient Church they did not only tinge but immerse into water those whom they baptized I have shewed that tingo though when it is set alone it is often put to signifie baptizing in general whether by dipping or sprinkling yet when it is set in opposition to dipping it signifies only sprinkling or some other way of baptizing distinct from dipping So then as this Author speaks not at all of Christ's time in particular but only of the ancient Church in general so what he speaks of that time reaches as well to sprinkling as to dipping and asserts the antiquity of the one as well as of the other Non tingebant solummodo sed immergebant signifies plainly that they did both tingere and immergere And if both were Rites in that time then was not only one of them namely dipping the i. e. the only Rite in that time And so Mr. D. gains nothing to his cause by the Testimony of this no less learned than honourable Father of our Church § 48. After this triumvirate of learned Men follows a Man who alone was a triumvir in Learnirg Tilenus a learned Protestant Writer as Mr. D. himself stiles him and he in his Disputation p. 886 889 890. gives as Mr. D. tells us a most remarkable testimony in the case Baptism saith he is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most pat and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signified those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in Water The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the water 3. Resurrection out of the water The form of Baptism viz. Internal and Essential is no other than the Analogical proportion which the signs keep with the things signified thereby For the properties of water in washing away the defilements of the Body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christ's blood in blotting out of sin so dipping into the Water doth in a most lively similitude set forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the Water the vivification of the New The same plunging into the Water holds forth to us that horrible gulf of Divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abiding under water how little a while soever denotes his descent into Hell even the very deepest of lifelesness while lying in the sealed and guarded Sepulcher he was accounted as one dead Rising out of the Water holds out to us a lively similitude of that Conquest which this Dead man got over Death which he vanquished in his own Den as it were that is the Grave In like manner therefore saith he it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should also rise with him and so go on in newness of life Rom. 6.3 4. Coloss 2.12 § 49. I close with Mr. D. in his judgment of Tilenus that he was a learned Protestant Writer and also that he gives a most remarkable Testimony in the case But how Mr. D. will clear himself from disingenuity in the case when he so cries up Tilenus and his Testimony as being for them and yet conceals what he could not but know that he is one of the most positive and clear witnesses for us that ever writ I leave it to himself to consider The words cited by Mr. D. viz. the six first lines ending with washed in water are in his 4th Thesis and signifie nothing on either side and therefore might as well have been spared But how came he to skip over the Second Thesis where that Learned man plainly saith Baptism if you consider the Etymology of the word signifies dipping and also sprinkling Baptismus si Etymon vocis spectemus immersionem significat atque etiam aspersionem quo sensu usurpatur Mar 7.4 à consequenti ablutionem cujusmodi non paucas praecipiebat lex vetus quam deinde etiam hac in parte auctariis suis cumularunt Pharisaei Tiâ—en in which sense it is used Mark 7.4 and from the consequence a washing such as the old Law prescribed many of which also even in this part the Pharisees augmented with their own eekings It was not for the turn it should be known so learned a Protestant Writer said thus much for the side against which his name authority and testimony was to be produced and therefore it was warily passed over § 50. But to go on with Mr. D. from the Fourth Thesis he skips to the Fifteenth without ordering his Testimony any otherwise than so as if the whole of what Tilenus said had been one continued speech quò pertinent etiam reliquae actiones ritus externi puta immersio vel aspersio cum adjectione verborum emersio ex aqua Id. ib. Thes 15. and without taking notice of what he might have observed by the way in the Twelfth Thesis that speaking of the action and external Rites belonging to the external part of Baptism he names them dipping or sprinkling with an addition of words and appearing out of the water And whit saith Tilenus there Much-what as Mr. D. reports from him Ritus in baptismo est triplex immersio in aquam mora sub aquà emersio ex aquâ i. e. as Mr. D. Englisheth it the outward Rite in Baptism is Threefold 1. Immersion into the Water 2. Abiding under the water 3. Resurrection out of the water But is this all that the Learned man there saith All I suppose Mr. D. was willing should be known was there But to do the Author right and to preserve the Reader from being imposed upon by a lame quotation I will add the rest of that Thesis in which the words immediately following to those quoted by Mr. D. are these * Quamvis autem immersio usitatior olim suerit praesertim in Judaea aliis regionibus calidioribus quam aspersio tamen cum neque ad baptismi substantiam perticat haec circumstantia nec minus in aspersione quam in immersione Sacramenti analâ—gia â—â—rvetur siquinem etiam in legalibus purificationibus sufficiebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum denique immersio praesertim in tenellis infantibus quales hodie sunt plenaque qui baptizantur non carcat valetudinis periculo nos quemadmodum uterque ritus voce baptismi significatur Matth. 3.16 Luc. 11.38 Marc. 7.4 sic utriuslibet usum ex charitatis necessitatis lege ab Ecclesià retineri posse existimamus Id. ib. But though dipping were formerly more
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
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
unto his mind he is alive of age and ability to answer for himself And I rather wish he would be pleased to do it himself who can do it infinitely better than I dare presume my self able to do § 14. The next that we are to encounter is Daillé on the Fathers who as Mr. D. tells us l. 2. p. 148. saith That it was a Custom heretofore in the Ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water There is some little mistake in these quotations which may be rectified by Mr. Daille's Margent thus Tertul. l. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. Cyprian Ep. 76. p. 211. Edit Pamel Epiphan Pan. Haer. 30. p. 128. Cassand l. de Bapt. Ins p. 693. as saith he Tertullian in his Third Book De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his seventh Ep. p. 211. Epiphanius Pan. 30. p. 128. and others testifie And this saith he is still the practice both of the Greek and Russian Church at this day as Cassander De Bapt. p. 193. And yet saith he notwithstanding this Custom which is both so ancient and so universal is now abolished by the Church of Reme and this is the reason saith he that the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized because they are not wont to use this Ancient Ceremony in their Baptism § 15. Either Mr. D. misunderstands Mr. Daille or Mr. Daille mistook the matter Possibly both may be true First Mr. D. might misunderstand Daille For he might think Daille meant that Dipping was the only custom in the Ancient Church But Daille doth not say so He only saith it was a custom but he doth not say it was the only custom And 't is true a custom it was so to baptize healthy Persons but it was not the custom so to baptize all Persons for Clinicks were baptized in their Beds Now for Mr. D. from an expression of a custom that is one custome to conclude for the custom that is the only custom is as I humbly conceive a misunderstanding § 16. But secondly if that were Mr. Daille's meaning as it may seem probable by his after words when he saith this custom which is both so ancient and so universal is now abolished then yet under correction I say that great Man herein shewed himself to be but Man and liable like other inferiour mortals to mistake For though the custom was so ancient as to reach up to the Primitive times yet it was not so universal as to extend to all Persons in all either of the ancient or later times as I think I have invincibly demonstrated in these Papers And perhaps the consideration hereof was the reason why that great Man did not speak positively in the case and say absolutely that it was the Vniversal custom of the Ancient Church but in a modified strain so ancient and so universal i. e. so ancient as to have been in the Primitive and so universal as still to be in the Greek and Russian Church A great piece of matter § 17. But after all this it may not be amiss to make some few further Remarks on this Quotation As First that Mr. Danvers leaves our after these words and others testifie these which follow And indeed they plunged them thus three times as the same Tertullian and St. Hierom both inform us But why left he out this passage Let the Reader judge He espied in Mr. Daille's Margent where St. Hierom's testimony was referred to these words at length and not in figures In lavacro ter caput mergitare by which it is plain that this plunging over head and ears at least as far as St. Hierom gives testimony to it was but of the whole Head and not of the whole Body Now that had it been put in would have spoiled all For that would have proved but a partial mersation and then it would have been no proof of a total immersion and so have signified nothing to the purpose that by Mr. Danvers it was quoted for § 18. Secondly whereas Mr. Daille saith that this is still the practice both of the Greek and of the Russian Church even at this very day I am not so well skilled in the present Rites of those Churches as peremptorily to contradict him Yet that it hath been universally the practice of both those Churches from the first to this day to baptize at all times by a total immersion I cannot consent unto it And that the Russian Church at least hath formerly if it do not at this day baptize by pouring of water on the baptized I have shewed in these Papers Ch. 10. § 19. Thirdly after those words wherewith Mr. Danvers concludes in their baptism Mr. Daille adds which they say is expresly injoyned them in the Canons of Joannes Metropolitanus whom they hold to have been a Prophet But why did not Mr. Danvers add this The Reader may easily conjecture the reason of it even because the Muscovites did ground their custom for non-observance whereof they say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized not on the Word of God but on the Canons of a Man one Joannes Metropolitanus Now to make it a Humane Institution or the Institution of a Man of whose Divine Inspiration and to such purpose too as to give Laws to the Church in the name of God we have no infallible assurance would not do the Total Dippers business who urge the universal observation of their Baptismal Rite on no less an Authority than that of a Divine command and so Mr. D. wisely let it alone But others may observe it and make of it what use they can § 20. Fourthly whereas Mr. Daille and from him Mr. Danvers saith this is the reason that the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized because they are not wont to use this ancient Ceremony it may be noted that the Muscovites even taken according to what is here said of them do not charge the Latines with not being baptized at all but with not being rightly and duly baptized This then is as clear an intimation of their allowing of the Baptism of the Latines for substance and granting that it is a Baptism as it is of their disallowing of it for circumstance and denying it to be rightly and duly performed For he that says a Man is not rightly baptized grants him baptized whilst he denies his baptism to have been rightly administred For there can be no right or wrong no due or undue baptism where there is no baptizing at all Sublato subjecto tollitur proprietas And so this part of the Testimony clearly destroys that which it was produced to prove and makes the Muscovites witness to the truth of a Baptism amongst the Latines whereas the contrary was designed by their Testimony which I wonder Mr. Danvers did not see and consider and for the sake thereof pass that by § 21. Lastly whereas Mr. Daille saith this custom is now abolished by the Church of
Rome I ask what he means by Abolishing If he say the cessation of it by vertue of any Canonical Decree of that Church then I shall require the Council and Canon by which its abolition was decreed and be of opinion till I see the contrary that none such will be produced If by Abolishing he mean Disusing then I grant that in that sense this custom was indeed that abolished when that Author writ But I must say withal that it was not then first abolished but long before and that the beginning of such its abolition is like the head of Nilus undiscoverable the custom growing by insensible degrees from being at first almost universal to become at last almost quite out of use if yet at all it be used in that Church So little grist is by this Testimony brought to the Anabaptists mill § 22. From him Mr. D. proceeds to Walafridus Strabo who De Reb. Eccles tells us That we must know that the first Believers were baptized simply in Flouds and Fountains § 23. Well admit this it follows not First that all that were baptized in flouds and fountains were totally immersed into them they might be but sprinkled or but partially dipped in floud or fountain § 24. Secondly it follows not hence that if any Believers were totally immersed all were so The expression is but Indefinite and not Vniversal and it is true if but some Believers were so baptized But that all Believers were so baptized as he doth not say so it is if he had said it without convincing evidence to prove its truth § 25. Nay Thirdly that he did mean his words but Indefinitely and not Vniversally is plain by his own words that follow which Mr. D. thought it not for his interest to discover It is saith he to be noted that many have been baptized not only by dipping but also by pouring water from above upon them and he had given before an instance in Lucillus baptized by St. Laurence that way and that they may still be so baptized Notandum non solùm mergendo sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse adhuc posse baptizari c. Hoc autem solet evenire cùm provectiorum granditas corporum in minoribus vasibus hominem tingi non patitur Walafrib Strabo de Reb. Eccles c. 26. adding also an account on which it was usual to baptize otherwise than by dipping even when the Fonts were too little to contain the greater bodies § 26. His next Author is Mr. Fox and he as Mr. D. saith tells us in his Acts and Monuments part 1. pag. 138. out of Fabian c. 119 120. That Austin and Paulinus did in the Seventh Century baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent and the River Swol where note by the way saith Mr. Fox it followed there was no use of Fonts The like also as you 'l hereafter find Germanus and Lupus the two French Evangelists did in the Fifth Century baptize multitudes in the River Allin near Chester § 27. Grant all this and what then Then it follows that 't is probable that some were baptized in England in two several Centuries by immersion because many were baptized in Rivers Yet I say 't is but probable not certain unless appearing from other evidence because a man may be baptized in a River without being totally immersed into it And in that multitudes are said to have been baptized in those Rivers it makes it the more probable that the baptism was not by a total immersion because the labour and time was more in baptizing so than otherwise and when the Baptizer was but one or but a few and the Persons to be baptized many reason would prompt that the more compendious and less troublesome way should be taken and that was sprinkling pouring on of water or partial mersation into it § 28. And if there were no Fonts as Mr. Fox notes then there was the more reason they should go to Rivers Though their going to Rivers does not prove there were no Fonts For where many were to be baptized Fonts unless of large capacity were not so convenient as Rivers where many Ministers at once might be doing the work whereas at a Font hardly any more baptized than one at once But be that as it will doth this prove that none either in England or in any other country either in those or any other Ages were baptized by sprinkling or any other way than by a total dipping It is impossible it should especially when the contrary to it is evidenced by Fact as I have made appear in these Papers ch 10. This then only follows hence that this whole passage is a grand impertinence and proves nothing of what is disputed of in this question which is not whether any or what number were baptized by dipping but whether never any in the Church were baptized by Sprinkling or other way than by a total immersion § 29. Having written thus much on supposition of integrity in the quotation I resolved to consult the Author himself And though not according to the quotation made by Mr. D. of Part 1. p. 138 c. yet in pag. 107. col 2. l. 70 c. I found this which follows But to return to Austin again who by report of Authors was departed before this cruelty was done after he had baptized and Christened ten thousand Saxons or Angles in the West river that is called Swale beside York on Christmass-day perceiving his end to draw near he ordained a Successor named Laurentius to rule after him the Archbishops See of Dorobernia Where note by the way Christian Reader that whereas Austin baptized then in Rivers it followeth there was then no use of Fonts Again if it be true that Fabian saith he baptized Ten thousand in one day the rite then of baptizing at Rome was not so Ceremonial neither had so many Trinkets at that time as it hath since or else it could not be that he could baptize so many on one day Upon this Relation I shall crave the Readers leave to make some remarks § 30. And first supposing Augustine to have been a man of great strength and then at the fulness of it yet the number of the Persons said to be baptized by him and all in one day viz. 10000. is so great as that it exceeds all measures of credibility that so many could be baptized of him by a total dipping of them When we read of but Three thousand baptized in one day by twelve persons wise and learned men think it reasonable from the difficulty if not impossibility of it that so many should by a total immersion be baptized by so few in so short a time to conclude that there baptizing was performed not by dipping but by sprinkling Now much more strongly is the same to be argued when against three thousand to twelve is set Ten thousand to one § 31. But then Secondly if we consider the time of his Life
D. that saith it But how they baptized there whether by aspersion affusion partial mersation or total immersion is not said no not by Mr. D. himself Yet thirdly I examined several Chronicles and Historians about it viz. Fox and Holinshead Marian. Scotus Sigebert Gemblac Fascic Temp. Magdeburg Cent. Vincent Belluacens Spondan Baronius and Bedes History but not a word in them all appears by which their total dipping in that River is necessarily concluded Fourthly then it must be concluded that because it was in a River that they were baptized therefore at their baptism they were dipped But that as we have already shewed is a weak inference and grounded on no certain bottom And if River-baptizing infer total immersing then by the same consequence or as good Baptism out of a River infers Sprinkling or some other way distinct from total dipping And if that be good then from Bede's relation of the baptizing of a great multitude in a Church erected for that purpose so far as I can gather from the circumstances of that History Bed Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 20. fol. 23. a. Holinsh Hist of Eng. l. 5. c. 6. p. 8. a l. 10. c. against the day of our Lord's resurrection as Bede words it or Easter day as Holinshead interprets it by the same Germanus it may be concluded that the said Germanus did baptize a great multitude otherwise than by dipping And so his baptizing in Allin though we suppose it to have been done there by dipping is no prejudice to our cause Let Mr. D. give us the one or not ask of us the other Though in truth neither way of arguing is demonstrative what probability soever may be supposed to be in either But § 38. Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople his next Author ad Theol. Witebergenses Resp 11. c. 4. saith The Ancients baptized not by sprinkling the baptized with water with their hands but by immersion following the Evangelists who came up out of the water therefore did he descend which must needs be Immersion and not Aspersion § 39. The words as thus translated are not in my apprehension reconcilable with good sense Therefore I will set down the original as I find them in B. Taylor Cas Consc p. 644. Baptizabant enim veteres non manibus suis aquam baptizando aspergentes sed trinâ immersione hoc Evangelii sequentes Ascendit ex aquâ ergo descenderat Ecce immersio non aspersio § 40. Whom does he mean by the Veteres the Ancients here The Predecessors of Christianity in any one Age or more And does he speak of them universally so as to mean that in any one or more of the first Ages no one was baptized by sprinkling but all without exception by dipping and that thrice It will be long before his Patriarchship will be able to prove either the Affirmative or Negative part of his Proposition § 41. First to prove an Immersion meaning a total one in the first Age is not very easie much less a threefold one by any witness that lived in that Age. By the Scripture I am sure he cannot For that speaks indeed of baptizing into the name of three persons but not of three dippings at the three namings of those Persons though I rationally believe it to have been so in the first Age because I find it to have been so in the second and yet find no original of it there § 42. And secondly to prove that none were baptized by sprinkling is more hard For finding sprinkling in the after Ages and finding no rise of it when first it began in any one of them it is as supposable that it also came from the first as that the trine Immersion did Which as I noted none of the first Age more speak to than they do of sprinkling § 43. But the Patriarch gives us their ground of that practice the words of the Gospel Ascendit ex aquâ and thence he supposed that they gathered ergo descenderat therefore he went down into it And thereupon infers his Conclusion with an Ecce of Triumph Ecce immersio non aspersio Behold an immersion not an aspersion § 44. But I think those Ancients lived nearer Aristotles time than he and were better Logicians than to infer such a conclusion from such premisses For first the word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ascended not out of but from the water now that he might do that was not at all in it but only by it at the brink or bank of it A going down to the water they might gather but not a going down into the water And secondly unless it had been impossible for any man to go into the water without going so into it as to be covered all over with it neither his going into it nor his coming out of it can ever prove his total immersion in it If from any Topic else it may be inferred well and good but from this it can never be as I have shewn in these Papers ch 10. where this matter is particularly and at large debated on So that there is no need to seek for shelter in the Patriarchs only gathering from hence an Immersion and not expressing that Immersion to be a total one less than which nothing will serve our Total Dippers and therefore I shall pass on and receive the charge of his next Author § 45. And as he tells us Zepperus * Si vocis notationem attendere velimus vocabulum baptismi mersionem significat in aquam vel ipsum mergendi abluendi actum ex ipsâ erga vocis notatione Etymologiâ apparet quae baptismi administrandi consuetudo fuerit initio cùm nos pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potius hoc est aspersionem nunc habeamus Zepper de Sacram. ap Leigh Crit. Sacra De Sacramentis from the Annotation and Etymology of the word saith it doth appear what was of old the Custom of administring Baptism which though we have changed into Rhantizing or Sprinkling § 46. I suppose Mr. D. had this quotation from Mr. Leigh in whom it is but was loth any body should look for it there for fear of what follows from Danaeus by whom we are told that and told the reason too why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly in Scripture taken pro lotione mundatione for washing and cleansing § 47. But be that as it will the Testimony will not trouble us much to answer it For if the Author meant that of old it was a custom to administer Baptism by dipping or the more usual or more general custom so to administer it we shall easily grant it But if he meant that it was the only custom of old so to administer it I have given so sufficient evidence of other customs besides that even of old that we must and with good reason enter our dissent from him § 48. And whereas the Quoter
compelling and God permitting § 58. And this he goes on is the sense and Law of the Church of England not that it be indifferent but that all Infants be dipped except in the case of sickness and then sprinkling is permitted And so it was in those times when the Doctor first wrote this But the sense and Law of the Church of England is since that grown still a little more favourable For in the Office of Publick Baptism of Infants the dipping of the Infant is appointed with an If if they shall certifie that the Child may well endure it So then no such certification being made the Minister is not appointed to dip it nor is he required to ask whether the Child may well endure it or no and seeing them offer the Child to Baptism in such a condition as it is unfit to dip it in he may in reason presume without their certifying either way that it may not endure it Their very offering it in that condition is an Interpretative Certification of its inability to suffer baptization by a total immersion And being that in the Office of Baptism of persons of riper years dipping in the water or pouring water on is indifferently prescribed and clearly left to the Minister's liberty without ifs or ands where yet the Person is of age and strength enough to endure it he may rationally presume he is at the same liberty with Infants of whose strength in regard of their age there is no ground for such presumption § 59. After this the Doctor goes on to confirm the use of sprinkling from instance of some though little use of it in the Primitive Church which he shews from Tertullian the Acts of St. Laurence in Surius and Walafrid Strabo and for further confirmation adds the Opinion of Aquinas that the Three Thousand and Five Thousand Converts in the Acts were so baptized All which Mr. Danvers is pleased to over-pass § 60. But then having weakened this last proof from Aquinas by calling it but a conjecture and saying it hath no tradition nor record to warrant it he draws towards the conclusion of that which all this discourse about dipping and sprinkling is brought to prove viz. that a custom in the administration of a Sacrament introduc'd against the Analogy and mystery the purpose and signification of it is not to be complied with saying And therefore although in cases of need and charity the Church of England does not want some good Examples in the best times to countenance that permission yet we are to follow her command because that command is not only according to the meaning and intent of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the commandment but agrees with the mystery of the Sacrament it self For we are buried with him in baptism saith the Apostle adding thereto this testimony from St. Chrysostom which Mr. D. transcribes from him In aquâ tanquam in sepulchro caput immergentibus vetus homo sepelitur immergitur deinde nobis emergentibus novus resurgit inde The old Man is buried and drowned in the immersion under water and when the baptized Person is lifted up from the water it represents the Resurrection of the new Man to newness of life § 61. In which part of the discourse I cannot but note three things which Mr. D. was not pleased to advert unto First an acknowledgment that the Church of England does not want some good examples in the best times to countenance her permission of sprinkling Good Examples and in the Best Times are very material words for us and give us an Antiquity as old and as good as we can desire and utterly overthrow all that ever can be said against us especially on the account of Antiquity Secondly that the Analogy betwixt Immersion and Emersion and the Death or Burial of the old Man and Resurrection of the new Man is made the mystery of the Sacrament and by the manner of speech so made the mystery as if it were the only mystery of it our washing from sin by the blood of Christ which is the prime signification and mystery of the Sacrament being passed by on no account that I know of unless because if that were either the whole or any part of the mystery of the Sacrament that would hold analogy with sprinkling and so weaken the Inference for Dipping Thirdly that whereas the Immersion St. Chrysostom speaks of is as far as his words will bear but an immersion or dipping of the head caput immergentibus is his word both the Doctor and Mr. D. slip that by without the least notice of it and hide it under a general ambiguous term of immersion under the water which is apt to carry away the mind to think of a total immersion of the whole man whilest it is but the head whose immerging the Father speaks of At this rate who may not be made to say even what one wills § 62. At length both the Doctor and Mr. Danvers come to a Conclusion And therefore saith Mr. D. he concludes That the contrary custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and mystical signification of the Sacrament is not to be complied with § 63. But why did Mr. D. stop there and not do the Doctor and the truth right in adding the Exception following Unless in such cases that be of themselves sufficient to justifie a liberty in a Ritual and Ceremony that is a case of necessity § 64. To Mr. D. I shall answer first That as I conceive the allowance of any such case or cases were not consistent with his Hypothesis and that the adding of those words would have made the Doctor 's testimony unserviceable to his turn and therefore he thought fit to leave them out With how great ingenuity I leave to his own judgment § 65. Then to the Doctor I say first that the Custom of sprinkling is not now against our Ecclesiastical Law which hath prescribed dipping or pouring on of water indifferently in the case of the publick baptism of persons of riper age and hath appointed pouring on of water in the case of the sick Infant baptized privately and hath neither appointed dipping nor sprinkling in the case of Infants brought to Publick Baptism but accordingly as certification of their ability or inability to endure dipping shall be made And then as to the Analogy and mysterious signification of the Sacrament that sprinkling or pouring on of water is not against that but very agreeable with it I have shewn at large in the Ninth Chapter of this Book and shall further shew in the Sixteenth whither I refer the Reader for his satisfaction And in the mean time I think I may conclude that the advantage which Mr. D. hath gained to his cause by this great Man's testimony signifies as much as comes to nothing § 66. I wonder Mr. D. slipt what the Doctor saith in the close of his 15th Paragr p. 646. viz. that because it is better to
use dipping and it is more agreeable to the mystery to use it three times and that so the Ancient Church understood it therefore these things are a sufficient warrant to acquit us from the obligation of the contrary custom because a custom against which there is so much probability and in which there is no necessity and no advantage is to be presumed unreasonable The reason if I may presume to guess was partly because he saw the Doctor 's dispute lay not against the unlawfulness but obligatoriness of the contrary custom And he might see that as the probability against it was not so great as the Doctor fancied so the necessity of it was sometimes so much and the advantages in cases of necessity and charity so considerable as that it could not be presumed unreasonable but on the contrary ought to be judged very rational Partly it was because the Doctor doth in the very next words in the former clause of the same period assert that because there is even in sprinkling something of the analogy of the mystery as is rightly observed by Aquinas and Dominicus à Soto and because it is not certain that the best representation and the most expressive ceremony is required therefore the Church upon great cause may lawfully do either Which he was unwilling any of his Party should know And thus much for Dr. Taylor § 67. From this Champion of our own Church we are next called to receive a charge from a brisk Champion of the Church of Rome nay from the Church of Rome it self as Mr. D. words it The Church of Rome saith he confesseth by a Learned Pen the Marquis of Worcester in his Certam Relig. That she changed dipping the Party baptized over Head and Ears into sprinkling upon the Face § 68. Mr. D. should rather have said as I think a Learned Pen of the Church of Rome confesseth For not the writing of every Learned Man is presently the Confession of the Church he is of for when so Learned Men of the same Church are of contrary judgments and write contrary things then the Church they are of must be judged to be so too and that is to speak her a Church of no judgment And the Church of Rome will not endure that Nor would Mr. Danvers's Church I believe be willing to espouse all his assertions as her Confessions But that is to be taken for the Confession of a Church which is professed by her in her publick Writings compiled by Persons authorized thereunto confirmed by the Subscription of her Ministers and made authentick by the attestation of her Supreme Magistrates § 69. But what is it that the Marquis saith she did That she changed dipping into sprinkling This cannot signifie that before that change there was no sprinkling at all in that Church but that it wholly left off to dip which had been the publick and solemn way of baptizing in that as well as in other Churches and in stead thereof even in the publick and solemn baptizings as well as in the private baptisms upon cases of necessity she baptized by way of sprinkling § 70. And what was the change in this respect made Dipping all the whole Body under the water into sprinkling upon the Face The Marquis even as Mr. Danvers quotes him saith not so but dipping the Party baptized over Head and Ears That may mean no more but dipping his Head only all over and by a Pleonasm of speech his Ears too under water and not his whole Body And that such a way of baptizing has been in use in the Western Church I have shewed before Ch. 10. And if that were the Church of Romes meaning in what she confesseth here by her Learned Pen then Mr. D. gets nothing to his Cause by her Confession But if not yet still what change soever she made therein she did no more than she lawfully might being invested with the same power in such cases as other Churches have and the thing it self being no substantial part but only an accidental circumstance of that Sacrament wherein Churches have power to continue or alter as they shall see best conducing to order decency and edification and proceed upon grounds of necessity charity or great conveniency § 71. But I am of opinion it was not the Church of Rome that made this Change but a Church that had more power than that Church ever had even the Catholick Church which Rome is not any more than any other particular National Church is even so far as she holds union and fellowship with the Church Catholick in truth of Doctrine Essentials of Worship and Substantials of Discipline And this appears because the Church the Marquis there speaks of is that Church that could deposite the observation of the Jewish Sabbath and introduce the observation of the Christian Lord's Day which sure was not done by that particular Church but by the whole Catholick Church throughout the World And that Church indeed that could do that could without doubt change the dipping over Head and Ears in Water into a little sprinkling upon the Face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the differences of Seasons and Countries as the Marquis there adds and may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her administration of her Sacraments For sure to deposite the observation of a day expresly commanded to be kept holy and to introduce the like observation of another day touching the keeping of which holy never any Command was given as none that we know of was ever given for its sanctification though in all probability it was founded in Apostolical Practice partly intimated in the Scriptures and further notified by Tradition implies a power as great as if not greater than to change a Rite in a Sacrament not more commanded than the Sanctification of the Sabbath day nor so much as that if it were ever at all under any command which is denyed by Learned men as in those Papers is shewn § 72. So then if there were no change made then we are as we were at first And if there were a change made it was made by a Church whether the Catholick or Roman that had power to make it Either way will serve our turn For which way soever it be our practice will be free from guilt either as being it self Primitive and Apostolick or as being taken up into use instead of somewhat that then was used by a Church that had power to make that change § 73. Though after all I shall not grant any change made herein other than what I have already said from a practice but privately used in case of necessity to become the general practice even where Baptism is administred with greatest solemnity § 74. Having done with the Marquis he goes on to tell us that until the Third Century we find not any that upon any consideration did admit of Sprinkling and that the first we meet with is Cyprian To
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
Eunuch insisted on as any reason why he should here be baptized He doth not say here is much water but only here is water without much what doth hinder me to be baptized which fairly intimates unto us that where there is water be it much or little there a baptism may be § 6. But it is said that both Philip and the Eunuch went into the water Now sure that they might do though the water were far from being so much as to be capable of receiving a mans whole body into it so to be baptized in it as the manner of the Jews was sitting or rather standing up to the neck in it He that goes into the water but up to the knees as truly goes into it as he that goes up to the breasts Their going into it then enforces not the Eunuchs being wholly dipped in it § 7. And then no more does their coming out of it For cannot a man be said to come out of the water unless he have been first all over head and ears in it He that is in the water but up to the ancles as truly when he leaves it comes out of it as he that goes into it up to the neck § 8. Yea but it is not barely said they came out of it but they came up out of it Well then if coming up out of the water signifies a having first been all in it then it seems Philip was dipped too as well as the Eunuch for it is not said of the Eunuch singly that he came up out of the water but of him and Philip joyntly that they that is they both came up out of the water If then no total dipping of Philip follows upon his coming up out of the water a thing never pretended by any and unimaginable in it self there follows none from the numerically same expression of the Eunuchs coming up out of it No more being said of him than of Philip but the self and same of both § 9. Yea but it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they ascended out of the water Yes just as it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they descended into the water The Objection is too trifling to deserve a serious answer How can there be a going into the water especially such a one as this is supposed to be a water in or by the high way without going down into it where lie confluences of waters but in low places which must be gone down to by those that will go into them where is there such a water though on the top of the hill that is not lower at the bottom of it than the earth that bounds it so that there can be no going into it but there must be a going down to it Descending then or going down unto it or even into it does not necessarily suppose a going so far into it as till one be over head and ears in it No more than doth ascending or coming up out of it One may well enough ascend or come up out of the water who has been no further than knee deep in the water § 10. But still it is said of the Eunuch that being in the water Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized him Yes and that he might well enough do without a total dipping of him He might sprinkle water in his face pour water upon his head wash him with taking water by handfuls and casting it upon his body or rubbing him therewith or might dip his head and no more of him into it and yet still here was a baptizing though no total immersion of him Here 's nothing then but the mere force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to perswade to it And then any other Text of the New Testament where St. Peter or St. Paul or any other Apostle is said to have baptized any might to as much purpose be alledged as this Text that there is such a stir about Now to go about to go to confute the Inference drawn from the signification of the word is needless here for that were but to say over again all that hath already been said on that subject which I hope the Reader bears in mind and therefore I shall neither trouble my self nor him with it but leave it to him to judge of it § 11. And yet again that this Baptism was by Conspersion or affusion rather than immersion unless of the head or face only may seem probable Because First there is no mention of their putting off their clothes when they went into the water which indeed it was but necessary as the case stood with them that they should keep on unless they meant to catch their deaths the season being supposed to be in Winter not long after the stoning of St. Stephen and they in a journey upon the high-way where they could have no fire to warm them after their coming up almost starved with going naked into the cold water and unnecessary they should put off being the business might be done without it by going but only with their legs bare into the Water Secondly the Eunuch being as I suppose a Black Moor may be well thought to be unwilling to be wholly stripped naked before St. Philip who was a White Thirdly there is no mention of the manner of Philips baptizing him expressed that enforces to think it otherwise it being not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he dipped him into the water but only that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he baptized him which might be as well nay more conveniently as circumstances might be by conspersion as by immersion And fourthly I can find no water in the way that the Eunuch travelled in fit for the purpose of a Jewish total immersion but a Brook in a Vally or a Spring bubling up at the foot of a hill to do it in See Dr. Caves Life of St. Philip the Evangelist Sect. 11. pag. 30. neither of which probably were deep enough for it and the rather because it is not said that he dipped him into it § 12. But suppose it probable notwithstanding all that I have said that his Baptism was by dipping yet probability is no certainty and so can afford no demonstration And if it be but probable that it was so then it may be probable nay I have shewn something of a probability that it was not so And then what 's all the noise of Philips dipping the Eunuch come to To nothing else but mere noise And I wish that they who use that Argument would weigh it better before they use it again to confront therewith the Authority and Practice of the Church when she makes use of that Liberty and Power wherewith Christ the Head of his Church hath invested her and ordereth or practiseth baptism any other way than by a total immersion § 13. I might add after all this that had all things been here as their hearts could wish yet still this had been no example of any Apostle For it
destroy themselves and open her Arms to relieve their Souls at the last gasp of their bodies § 5. Whether upon these or any other Reasons as there were many I say not but so it was that the baptism of very many was deferred to the utmost extremity and there was a necessity either of baptizing them then in that condition or of letting them depart out of this world unbaptized or venturing it at least § 6. What should the Church do in this condition should she stop her ears against their cries shut her eyes against their tears harden her heart against their prayers and deny them baptism Where were then her compassion to Souls How should she shew herself merciful as her heavenly Father is merciful with what heart could she shut any out of Gods Kingdom that sought with prayers and tears to be let into it Why should she let any be damned or but dye in danger of damnation that by her means might be delivered and saved Yea why should she let any dye in despair or disconsolate when she was able to open to them a door of hope and draw out for them a breast of consolation § 7. Should she grant them baptism but on condition they would be totally dipped Alas that were either as ill as a denyal because it would propound a condition they were incapable of performing or else whilst the exercised mercy towards their Souls to be acting cruelty to their bodies to make sure of sending some out of this World who else might have lived longer in it an act so like murder and so near killing that it would be hard amongst any that were Christians to find either a hand or a heart that could do it much more amongst Ministers who would never be perswaded it were either any part of their office to kill Men for their salvation or any of God's methods to destroy Mens lives for the preserving of their Souls § 8. What then should she do What but take the middle way neither deny them nor dip them but what would neither endanger Body nor Soul neither destroy Life nor endamage Health baptize them by a gentle application of water to them in the way of Sprinkling And this is the way which the Church in the Primitive times did take and hath persevered in on such like occasions as hath I hope been competently evidenced in these Papers § 9. And what Necessity real or but supposed Et servari debet cùm necessitas imminet propter infirmitatem vel impotentiam baptizati Bonavent l. 4. dist 3. a. 2. qu. 2. Potest etiam fieri per modum effusionis vel aspersionis propter periculum pueri de cujus morte timetur Lynwood Constitut l. 3. c. de Baptismo Vel propter debilitatem baptizandi cui potest imminere periculum mortis ex immersione Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. a. 7. c. Praeterea cur Aspersionem quae jam obtinet in Ecclesiis nostris retineri posse credamus charitatis necessitatis Lege compellimur Siquidem ut Nuda Corpora praesertim Infantûm quaeles ferè sunt qui nunc Baptizantur aeri frigido exponantur Aquis Tota immergantur in hisce ad septentrionem sitis regionibus prasertim hyberno tempore sine valetudinis periculo fieri non potest Voss de Bapt. Disp. 1. Thes 9. 356 357. for that 's all one could perswade to in one case was the easilier yielded to in other the like cases Such as is that of new born Infants of whom many are really sick when born so sick that as if they came into the World only to cry for a Tomb to be buried in it they depart almost as soon as born scarce nay sometimes not at all living till they can though with the expedition of the most compendious method be got baptized And of those whose condition appears more sound and healthful many suddainly have alterations and are gone in a moment when any such thing was least expected And therefore the condition of the whole sort of them hath been held but the same with or near a kin to that of elder persons in sickness and so they thereupon to prevent the worst which they might feel or others fear have been thought proper Subjects of baptism and admitted in all Ages thereunto if offered to it And truly of the two favour would cast the scale on their side in regard that as they need it as well as the others so though they do not desire it as others do yet they have neither refused it nor neglected it when they might have had it as others have done § 10. Et hoc maximè est verum quando necessitas incumbit etiam propter imbecillitatem sacerdotis non potentis sustentare infantem Lynwood Constitut l. 3. c. de Baptis Quandoque autem potest imminere necessitas propter debilitatem Ministri quia non potest sustentare baptizandum Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. a. 7. c. Et servari debet cùm necessit◠imminet aut propter infirmitatem baptizantis quia manus sunt debiles c. Bonaventur l. 4. dist 3. a. 2. q. 2. And if weakness in the baptized might excuse them from being dipped then might Infirmity in the Baptizer excuse him also from dipping This may be a very real case for ought I know unless the Ministry were by some special priviledge exempted from weakness by Age or sickness And if it were not supposable such learned and judicious Persons as not Lynwood only but Aquinas and Bonaventure would never have pleaded for sprinkling upon the account of it For this they make one piece of that necessity upon account whereof a total immersion is abatable and conspersion admittable § 11. And what Necessity there is to allow of baptizing by way of sprinkling in case the Minister by reason of natural or adventitious weakness be unable to lift into and out of the Font any heavy Child the same will be pleadable for its allowance in case the Number of Persons to be baptized be such as exceeds the strength of him that otherwise is not weak to dispatch their baptism by dipping For weariness reduces him that is strong for the present into the condition of weakness And he that has lost his strength with labour is so far equal with him that had it not to labour with § 12. Now this case hath no doubt already many a time happened not only when multitudes of Heathen Nations turning Christians have come flocking Men and Women Pontifex nocte sanctâ Pentecostes vigiliis celebratis ad baptisterium foras muraneum egressus est ibique omnis multitudo coram to prostrata baptismum flagitavit At ille prae gaudio lacrymans cunctos aquâ abluens Chrismate liniens in sinu matris Ecclesiae congregavit Fuerunt autem qui baptizati sunt amplius quingenti Baron Ann. Chr. 579. N. xxvi The time when Baptism was wont to be administred at first all times were alike and persons were
down of the Feasts of Love Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victûs omnibus mandatum à Domino etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus Tertul. de Corona c. 3. the Orders of Widows and of Deaconesses thence also proceeded the change of the Time and Manner of celebrating the Eucharist from Evening and after Supper unto Morning and Fasting and from lying along on beds to sitting standing or kneeling at the receiving of it and all this notwithstanding our Saviours having said at the Institution of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this do Quum Christus tum Verbi tum Sacramentorum Author his verbis Hoc facite certam veris Pastoribus regulam sacrarum istarum actienum praescripscrit Theod. Beza Tract Theolog. Vol. 3. ep 8. p. 211. Nam quis prudens simul ac Ecclesiasticae memoriae peritus dubitet perfundendi ac mergendi corporis morem praecepto significari Atqui introducto parvulorum baptizandorum more quin nè introducto quidem more sed quod semper factum constat cùm mortis necessitate parvuli baptizarentur quis sanus dubitet ita baptizatos ut sanitatis eorum ratio constaret Nam cùm primùm in Ecclesiis baptizatum est necesse fuit ab immersionis ritu qui in aquâ profluente vel stante usurpari poterat discedi Idque ratione idoneâ si verè S. Petrus salutis rationem per Baptismum non in sordium carnis lavacro sed in sincerâ Christianismi professione positam ostendit Neque enim ad salutem interest vel decori in Ecclesiâ vel sanitatis ac vitae rationem in administrando Baptismo nullam haberi Herb. Thorndike de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesiae p. 260. Deinde cui dubium est Apostolos sacram temporum itemque locorum personarum rationem in externis ritibus summam habuisse adeò quidem ut cosdem ritus per omnia ubique custoditos fuisse non sit probabile sicut ex illâ Irenaei ad Victorem insigni Epistola satis liquet Quid quod quaedam etiam illorum instituta veluti communes illas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsa necessitas abolevit Itaque quicquid ab Apostolis factitatum est quod ad ritus attinet nec statim sine aliqua exceptione pro regula sequendum existimo Nec sanè miror veteres illos habitâ suorum temporum ratione quaedam illis primis detraxisse quaedam adjecisse quaedam denique immutâsse Theod. Beza Tract Theolog. Vol. 3. ep 8. ad Edmund Grindal Ep. Lond. p. 210. Etsi Baptismus propriè significet immersionem in veteri 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 quaetenus id salvâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri potest Keckerman System Theolog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 451. Non possumus diffiteri primam institutionem Baptismi immersione non verò adspersione constitisse quod disertè patet ex cap. 6. Rom. ver 3 4. Sed quia institutio Baptismi facta est in regione calidiori quia tunc temporis potissimùm baptizabantur adulti ideò de hac Ceremonia in regionibus frigidioribus hoc tempore quo infantes plerunque rarissimè adulti baptizantur potuit Ecclesia dispensare praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat adspersione illá etiam sordes abluantur cúmque etiam non homo propter Baptismum sed Baptismus propter hominem factus sit ut propter necessitatem infantum charitas aliquid in ritu illo poterit mutare Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit à verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem non tantùm immergo sed aspergo significat Id. ib. p. 452. In baptismo aliud est de Essentia ut ablutio juxta illud ad Ephes 5. ubi Apostolus baptismum appellat Lavacrum Aquae aliud verò accidentarium nempè ut Ablutio hoc vel illo modo fiat Dominic Sot Distinct 3. qu. un Art 7. which can refer to nothing less than the whole performance substance and circumstances and all And thence to be short proceeded this change of dipping in Baptism into Sprinkling as also that of baptizing naked into baptizing clothed which was necessary to be if the Church would have any regard either to decency in the Baptism or to Charity towards the Baptized and that notwithstanding the word in our Saviours precept for baptizing dig signifie to dip and the way of the Jews baptizing in our Saviours time was by dipping § 12. I answer Thirdly that this supposed alteration in the Institution of Baptism from Immersion to Aspersion Affusion or Pouring on of water if we grant it an alteration is not repugnant to but well enough comporting with the proper end and primary design of baptism as a Sacrament § 13. If there be any repugnancy in aspersion or affusion of water to the Institution of Baptism it is because it represents not the burial and resurrection of Christ and that conformity to him in both which we undertake and vow in baptism a lively representation whereof is made by a total immersion of the baptized into the water and his emersion after some short stay in it from under it without which the Symbol is said to be spoiled and quite made another thing But if that be all things will do well enough there will be no cause of quarrel against the Churches way of baptizing For the Burial and Resurrection of Christ and consequently our conformity to him in both See Sydenhams Christian Exercitation chap. 15. p. 139. c. is as well represented by pouring of water on the baptized party as by putting him into it For whilest water is poured upon the body especially as it lies along it represents a burial especially still as the manner of burying is with us For we do not dip the body into the earth when we bury it but pour earth upon the body neither was the body of Christ when buried immersed into loose earth but laid in a Sepulchre of stone hewn out of a Rock And if the pouring on of water represent a burial then the appearing again after and from under that affusion especially if of a larger quantity of water as in some places of Christendom represents also a Resurrection and still the better by how much the affusion is made of the larger quantity of water And the Symbol is not spoiled here nor made any other thing than what it should be It was to represent our conformity with Christ in his burial and resurrection and that it doth Tertiò quoque repetita immersio vel tinctio typum triduana domini sepulturae
exprimit per quam Christo consepulti sumus in baptismo cum Christo resurreximus in fide ut à peccatis abluti in sanctitate virtutum vivamus imitando Christum Can. Concil Provincial Colon. sub Hermanno celebrati anno 1536. And accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen Tinction as well as Immersion i. e. Sprinkling as well as dipping is indifferently spoken of as expressive of a Type of Christ's three days burial and our conformity to him in that and his resurrection § 14. And if the Representation be not altogether so effigiative In immersione expressiùs repraesentatur figura sepulturae Christi sed in aliis modis baptizandi repraesentatur aliquo modo licèt non ita expressé Nam quocunque modo fiat ablutio corpus hominis vel aliqua pars ejus aquae supponitur sic ut corpus Christi sub terra fuit positum Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. ad 2. art 7. Res ipsa baptismi est aspersio sanguinis Jesu Christi in remissionem omnium peccatorum imputationem justitiae ipsius quae velut oculis nostris subjiciuntur adbibito externae aspersionis signo Theod. Bez. Tract Theolog. vol. 1. de S. Sp. c. 4. p. 28. Haec de signo baptismi Res ejus in genere est ipse Christus cum omnibus meritis ac beneficiis suis speciatim verò hîc proponitur nobis remissio peccatorum in ipsius sanguine sanctificatio in ipsius spiritu c. Tilen Syntag De Baptismo Disp. 1. Thes 10. p. 887. lively and full as it is in immersion yet so it be done in any reasonable measure so as that by a person duly instructed in the nature of that Sacrament it may competently be discerned and apprehended it is sufficient and the design of no Sacramental action we have that I can think of is self-evident without instruction that representation being not the primary design and principal end of Baptism as a Sacrament but quite another thing What may that be Even our washing and cleansing from the guilt of sin by the sprinkling of the bloud of Christ upon us which Beza faith is Res ipsa Baptismi the main or only thing of Baptism or the substantial part of it And Mr. Attersol defining this Sacrament saith Baptism is the first Sacrament wherein by the outward washing of the Body with water the inward cleansing of the Soul by the blood of Christ is represented Treat of Sacr. l. 2. c. 1. p. 108. § 15. Now this may as well be represented by any other way of ablution Verùm quod naturam germanam Baptismi proprietatem attingit est emundatio à peccatis Vnde in Epistola ad Ephesios Christus dicitur Ecclesiam emundà sse lavacro aquae in verbo praedicamur in remissionem peccatorum baptizari Haec autem repurgation sive mergamur sive perfundamur sive aspergamur aut quocunque modo aquis abluamur in Baptisme appositissimè demonstratur Pet. Martyr in 1 Cor. 10. fol. 141. a He had said newly before and in opposition to which this is added Scio veteres quando per atatem valetudinem licuit usos fuisse mersione quae in veteri Testamento adumbrata fuit cùm Israelitae mare transmitterent non tamen est necessaria neque and mark it de illâ praeceptum extat Cùm adhibetur praeclaram habet significationem quia cùm mergimur cum Christo denotamur mori quando emergimus demonstramur cum illo resurrexisse ad vitam aeternam Caterùm significatio istae non est quemadmodum diximus necessaria Id. ib. Ad hanc ablutionem Sacramentali signo denotandam satis est aspersio aquae aeque ac in aquam immersion cum revera ablutionem ac purificationem haec arguat aeque ac ista Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraic in Matth. 3.6 pag. 49 Cùm nec minus in aspersione quà m in immersione Sacramenti analogia servâ—tur Tilen Disp. 1. de Baptismo Thes 15. Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat adspersione illâ sordes abluantur Keckerman System Theol. l. 3. c. 8. p. 452. though it be but that of Aspersion as by Immersion Whence pertinently saith Peter Martyr to the purpose As to what concerns the nature and genuine property of Baptism that is the cleansing from sins Whence in the Epistle to the Ephesians Christ is said to have cleansed the Church by the washing of water with the word and we are preached to be baptized into the remission of sins But this cleansing whether we be dipped or have water poured or sprinkled on us or whatever way we are washed with water is most appositely shown in Baptism So he and to the same purpose speaks our Learned Doctor Lightfoot and Tilenus also § 16. Nay perhaps somewhat better may it be represented by some other way of baptizing than by Immersion For as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.22 almost all things are by the Law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission And indeed in the 19th Verse before he had said that when Moses had spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all or the whole Commandment every Precept as we read it to all the People according to the Law he took the blood of Calves and of Goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book and all the People Moreover v. 21. he sprinkled with the blood both the Tabernacle and all the Vessels of Ministry which I humbly conceive was done in order to the purifying them from all legal pollution that might be adherent to them or attracted by them and consecrating them to that purity which becomes the service of God And as alluding to this sprinkling of that blood the blood of Jesus Christ which is by Jesus Christ himself called the blood of the New Testament because by this blood the New Testament was dedicated as the old one was by the blood of Calves and Goats is by the Apostle called Heb. 12.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blood of sprinkling And as having respect to our purgation and sanctification by that blood St. Peter 1 Pet. 1.2 writes to Believers in Christ under the title of Persons Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ which as that beloved bosom Disciple of Christ St. John tells us cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Whence again he tells us Rev. 1.5 of Christ's having loved us and washed us from our sins in his own Blood But now never is the blood of Christ which is several times called the blood of sprinkling to which expression a fair allusion is made by baptismal sprinkling Cui ritui sc adspersioni favet vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est adspersionis quae de Sanguine Christi ad peccatorum nostrorum abolitionem usurpatur Heb. 9.14 Walaeus Synops pur Theolog. Disp. 44. Thes 19. p. 606. and
especially being that by that sprinkling of water on our Bodies is peculiarly designed a representation of that which is done by the blood of Christ to both our Bodies and Souls even the cleansing them from all sin I say never is the blood of Christ called the blood of dipping nor are we ever said to be dipped into Christ's blood only to be washed and cleansed with it § 17. Now the primary design of this Sacrament being to signifie our washing from sin by vertue of the shedding of Christ's blood and our conformity with Christ in his Burial and Resurrection being but the secondary who sees not how unfitting it is for the primary to give way to the secondary and that what more directly signifies the primary should be omitted that what signifies the secondary may be performed especially when that which signifies the primary signifies the secondary also sufficiently if not altogether so fully And not that only but something more too For the pouring out and sprinkling of the baptismal water upon us represents not only God's applying of Christs blood shed to us for our justification but also Christ's shedding of his own blood for us that thereby we might be justified Ac simul ut ex eiâ—quae consummabantur in Christo cognosceremus post aquae lavacrum de coelestibus portis sanctum in nos Spiritum involare coelestis nos gratiae unctione perfundi D. Hilar. in Matth. can 2. p. 253. and besides that the effusion of the spirit of grace and infusion of the grace of the spirit on us and into us for our sanctification here in order to our glorification hereafter which effusions I cannot see how they are any way representable by an immersion into water § 18. Well then not only our washing from sin by the blood of Christ the signification of which is the primary design of Baptism as a Sacrament being represented by affusion or conspersion of water but also the burial and resurrection of Christ and our conformity to him in both which is a secondary design of it it follows that no violation is in this respect done to the Institution of Christ by this alteration of no more but an accidental or circumstantial Rite in it Applicatio aquae necessario fuit de essentia Baptismi ast applicatio hoc vel illo modo circumstantiam sonat Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Hebra in Matth. 3.6 p. 50. whereby conspersion affusion or a partial mersation is put for a total immersion the substance of the Sacrament not being varied by a variation of what is but accidental in it Ea quae sunt per accidens non variant substantiam rei Per se autem requiritur corporalis ablutio per aquam unde Baptismus lavacrum nominatur secundum illud Eph. 5. Mundans cam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae Sed quòd ablutio fiat hoc vel illo modo accidit Baptismo Et ideo talis diversitas non tollit unitatem Baptismi Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art 7. ad 1. Nec ad lavacrum necessariò requiritur immersio sub aquam Christi igitur mandatum est ut in baptismo fiat purificatio seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae Quo verò modo ablutio illa fieri debeat sive mergendo tingendo perfundendo sive aspergendo Christus non praescripsit Nulla igitur in hac re mutatio fit in Substantialibus Baptismi Chemnitii Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. pag. 122. Pro ipsa quidem Baptismi Ceremonia quatenus nobis à Christo tradiâ—a est centies potius ad mortem digladiandum quà m ut eam nobis eripi sinamus Sed quum in aquae symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostrae quà m novae vitae quum in aquâ velut in speculo sanguinem nobis suum Christus repraesentat ut munditiem inde nostram petamus quum docet nos spiritu suo refingi ut mortui peccato justitiae vivamus nihil qued ad Baptismi Substantiam faciat deesse nobis certum est Quare ab initio liberè sibi permisit Ecclesia extra hanc substantiam ritus habere paulum dissimiles Nam alii ter alii autem â—emel tantùm mergebant Calvin in Act. Apost 8.38 p. 244. At enim inquiunt jubemur facere quod fecit Dominus concedo sed ita ut in illis quae facienda praecepit primariam consilii ipsius intentionem ut loquuntur ob oculos semper habeamus formam autem non temere mutemus imo ne mutemus quidem ullo modo si praecisè mandata sit nec tamen quod per se non est necessarium amplius quà m par sit urgeamus Jussit nos Christus baptizari quo verbo certum est significari immersionem Num igitur malè baptizantur qui aquá tantùm injectá asperguntur Imo quod est in illa actione merè substantiale nempe aquae abiutio rectè observatum est ab Ecclesiâ Immersio verò pro aetatis regionum conditione vel retenta est vel in simplicem aspersionem nullâ cum baptismi imminutione quodammado commutata Theod. Beza Tractat. Theolog. Vol. 3. Ep. 2. pag. 195 Praeterea non est par ratio abluendi rationem mutare ac totum simul auferre Quia in iis qui asperguntur vel persunduntur elementum Baptismi nimirum aqua conservatur suam habet significationem P. Martyr Com. in Rom. 10. fol. 141. a In Baptismi administratione alia sunt aut Substantialia aut Ceremonialia aut Accidentalia Substantialia sunt Aqua illius applicatio c. Ceremonialia sunt reliqua Ac Substantialia quidem neque possunt neque debent praetermitti vel immutari At Ceremonialia possunt immutari c. Lamb. Danaeus Isagog Christ pars 4. de Sacramentis c. 29. p. 521. Quamvis autem immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesertim in Judaea aliis regionibus calidioribus quà m aspersio tamen cùm neque ad baptismi substantiam pertineat haec circumstantia nec minùs in aspersione quà m in immersiono sacramenti analogia servetur c. Tilen Disp. 1. de Baptismo Thes 15. pag. 886. Vtrum autem semel aut ter immergatur aut si aqua superinfundatur tertiò non variat Baptismi Essentiam Agend Eccles Moguntinens fol. 23. § 19. And if the Institution of Christ do signifie a putting of the whole Party to be baptized under the Water by the Baptizer which I apprehend to be the Anabaptists notion of the word and that Institution be violated unless that order be exactly observed and if not why do they quarrel us then the Anabaptists are guilty of the same thing that they charge us withall For they in strictness of speaking according to this notion of baptizing never baptize any at all agreeably to the Institution of Christ For as they baptize no Infants at all which are the most capable subjects of such baptization so they baptize no Men no not even the most adult
so They do not take Men and Women that are all out of the Water and so immerse them wholly into it but of Persons that are already in part in the Water it may be up to the middle they immerse the rest which as yet is not in it And so the work is divided betwixt the Baptizer and the Baptized the Baptized first dipping one half of himself by going so deep into the water and then the Baptizer dipping the other half possibly might be consistent with Decency of baptizing utroque modo baptizari tamen convenientius aptius securius est baptizare immergendo si satis est de aqua totum corpus debet demergi si parum sufficit si sit tantum de aqua quòd immergi possit pars principalis c. Bonavent lib. 4. dist 3. Art 2. q. 2. Scias tamen quòd licèt per aspersionem vel effusionem aquae possit fieri baptismus ubi esset talis consuerudo laudabilior tamen est consuerudo ut fiat per immersionem Lynwood Constit l. 3. c. de Baptismo ejus effectu Vas. illud in Constit Edmundi and safety to the Baptized § 3. But I must also be so just as to say and I hope too that I have made it to appear that there is much to be said for the way that ye oppose Ye see it to be repugnant neither to the Word of Institution but lying within the circle of its comprehension nor yet to the Nature of that Sacrament but eminently expressing the Primary Design of it and competently the Secondary Ye see it now practised in most Churches of the world and may trace its practice through all former Ages of the Church Ye neither find it contradicted by any Scripture but countenanced by many nor condemned by any Council but left uncensured by all Among all the ancient Catalogues of Heresies ye find not the Rhantists as you are pleased to name us reckoned for any nor any Separation made from any Community on account of their being such Ye find none of the ancient Fathers disputing against it for its unlawfulness nor disswading from it upon account of its insufficiency Nor of the many baptized by Sprinkling in their Sickness do ye find any on either of those accounts baptized by Dipping after their recovery Ye find those learned and judicious Reformers who threw erroneous Doctrines and Superstitious Practices out of the Church continuing this Doctrine and confirming this Practice in it And ye see it still maintained and defended by Persons of greatest eminency both for Learning and for Judgment in the Reformed Churches In the Primitive Times the same effects were observed to be wrought on Persons baptized in Sickness and in health Non sicut scorpii serpentes c. D. Cyprian l. 4. ep 7. so at this day may ye observe Persons baptized by Sprinkling as richly furnished with all spiritual graces as any now you can tell us of baptized by Dipping In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente deo indulgentiam suam largiente totum credentibus conserunt divina compendia Id. ib. the great God that is above means and is not tyed to means working the like effect by little as by great means and as fully and effectually communicating the graces of baptism by a few drops as by a whole ocean It is a way of kindness to the weak of mercy to the sick and of safety to all It is a way agreeing with the conditions of all Times and with the tempers of all seasons It suits with the Conveniencies of all countries and with the Necessities of all places It complies with the State of all Persons and with the Constitution of all Ages It provides for the Modesties of the bashful and prevents unchastities in the Lustful In a word 't is the way which most Churches in the world after many hundred years tryal of dipping have at length in their practice and consequently in their judgments preferred before it having generally laid that down and as generally taken this up § 4. O why then should you persist in a contrariety to that which is not contrariant to the word of Institution Why should you impugn that which is not repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament Why should you quarrel that which agrees with the practice of the Catholick Church Why should you contradict that which is not contradicted by any Text of the Sacred Scriptures Why should you condemn that which never yet fell under the Censure of any Orthodox Council Why should that be unlawful with you whose lawfulness was never questioned by the ancient Fathers Why should that be a Nullity with you which was ever a Reality amongst the Primitive Believers Why should any on that account be rebaptized by you on which never any was rebaptized in any Community of Catholick Professors Why should that be turned out of the Church by you which was deliberately continued in it by our pious learned and judicious Reformers Why should that be made a Mockery of by you which hath been sealed by the communication of the graces of Gods Spirit Why should the Sentiment of your handful of illegal Conventicles that can no more pretend to extraordinary Inspiration than any other Community of Christians be preferred before the judgment of so many legally constituted national Churches Why should you retrench that liberty which hath been estated on the Church of Christ by him that was the Law-giver to it Why should you deprive weak sickly dying creatures of the benefit of that Mercy which hath been indulged to them by God the Creator of them Must no consideration be had of Countries and Places no respect to Times and Seasons no regard to Persons and Conditions but your Opinion and Practice be made a Rule and a Measure universally to all and in spite of all not only inconveniencies but even incapacities and necessities too And must all the Churches in the world and all the Christians in the world that consent not to and concurr not with you therein be unchurched and unchristned too for this Is this cause enough for you to separate your selves from the acknowledgedly best reformed Church upon earth Consider I beseech you your ways with the sad consequents of them § 5. O how great is the Guilt you contract upon your selves by your running into and continuing in a Schism upon this account even the guilt of being carnal and sensual according to (a) 1 Cor. 3.4 Jude v. 19. St. Paul and St. Jude the guilt of walking contrary both to (b) Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet tenere se fidem credit D. Cyprian de Vnit Eccles Faith and (c) Quam verò dilectionem custodit cogitat qui discordiae furore vesanus Ecclesiam scindit pacem turbat charitatem dissipat D. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles charity according to St. Cyprian the guilt of a crime as bad as (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉