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 §
lawful Rite whence must follow that there was therefore a necessity of Dipping in Baptism I am not satisfied nor shall be till he tell us so himself A proper Ceremony and Rite I shall easily grant he might affirm it to be because no body denies it But that it was the proper Rite and Ceremony in the sense newly expressed and explained I am very confident he never said he never thought Partly because the Doctor is too learned not to know better things than so Partly because I suppose his own practice as well as other mens hath been to baptize after another manner And partly because I am assured from himself that what he said of the Apostles alluding in those words being buried with him in Baptism to the ancient Rite or Manner of Baptizing Letter dated Jan. 31. 1677. which was immersion was without any mention or so much as thought of any necessity thereby laid upon Christians of observing punctually all the Circumstances used in the Institution of this Sacrament any more than of the other Which not the Anabaptists themselves will say there is And therefore the Reader may be satisfied that whatever Mr. D. suggest to the contrary that Reverend Person is no more conformable in judgment than in practice to the Anabaptists nor is by any thing that he hath writ or said a witness for them and against the Practice of the Church of England when by the allowance of the Church of England they baptize otherwise than by a total dipping as in several cases they do and may do it by her allowance § 83. And now the field being thus far clear'd I might fairly retreat But because I discern two straglers behind and coming up at a distance I will stand a while and receive their charge § 84. The first is Ainsworth who as we are told by Mr. D. saith upon Lev. 15.5 To baptize or wash his flesh as is expressed v. 13.16 meaning his whole body and so the Greek Translateth shall wash his body The Hebrews say every place where ought is said in the Law of Bathing the flesh and washing the Cloaths of the unclean it is not meant but of baptizing the whole body in water Maim in Makraoth c. 1. s 2. Figuring out our Sanctification by Christ and his Spirit by whom we draw near to God having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience and bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10.22 v. 11. If a man be baptized all over saving the tip of his little finger he is yet in his uncleanness And if clay or any such thing cleave to the flesh of a man it is unclean still as it was and the baptizing profiteth them nothing c. 1. sc 2 7 12 c. § 85. The Greek Translateth indeed v. 13. shall wash his body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 16. shall wash all his body But they do not Translate it shall dip his body I hope a thing may be washed and washed all over and yet not dipped So their Translation helpeth the cause nothing at all And suppose the Hebrews say true as I am not so much a Rabby as to manage dispute on this head of discourse yet then this only follows that baptizing the whole body is meant whereever bathing of the flesh is mentioned but not that it is meant other where And there is mention often enough of cleansing with washing where yet bathing is not mentioned Though I am not satisfied that bathing doth in the notion of it necessarily imply dipping Again there can be no Arguing from this sort of washing but to washings of the same sort But washing of Proselytes for admission into the Covenant is another thing from washing of Persons from pollutions by Issues And this washing is of divine Institution but whether the other were so is uncertain Of this the Institution clearly appears in the Word and so it may be better judged of but of the other there is not the like if any appearance and so of that we cannot be so certain in our judgment Further though it were never so much as they say yet still is that no obligation unto us who are under another Dispensation and have Liberties conferred on us by Christ from that yoke of bondage which was imposed on them by Moses until the times of Reformation See Ch. 8. of this Treatise Lastly I argue thus If there is to be so much scrupulosity in the baptizing of Christians as the Rabbies say there was in the baptizing of Jews and the same things rendered the baptism of the one of no effect which rendered the baptism of the other ineffectual then it would follow that though the whole body of a Man were put under water as the Dippers would have it yet through the adherency of clay or some other adventitious perhaps excrementitious matter to his body he might still be unbaptized and we should be as uncertain on that account when any Person were truly baptized as they are in the Church of Rome on account of the Priests Intention to baptize If there is not to be that scrupulosity among us as was amongst them then why are their customs in that kind so scrupulously urged upon us This for Ainsworth § 86. Then for Dr. Goodwin To this purpose we have Dr. Goodwin in his support of faith p. 54. very excellently viz. That the eminent thing signified and represented in Baptism is not simply the blood of Christ as it washeth us from our sins but there is a further representation therein of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection in the Baptized being first buried under Water and then rising out of it and this is not in a bare conformity to Christ but in a representation of communion with Christ in that his Death and Resurrection Therefore it is said we are buried with him in baptism and wherein we are risen with him c. § 87. That the blood of Christ as it washeth us from sin is represented in Baptism is tacitly consented to by that Doctor in this place and that it is the eminent thing signified and represented in it But that it is not simply so I suppose he means that it is not only so or that that is not all the thing which is signified and represented in it but there is a further representation therein c. is the thing if I understand the Doctor asserted by him Wherein I know none will contradict him provided he make not that which was the primary design of baptism to truckle to other secondary designations by it § 88. But here I observe the Doctor is not writing about Dipping or Sprinkling in a way of Dispute for the one and against the other nor meddles in the least in those Points in a way of controversie only shows how that by the baptized's being first buried under Water and then rising out of it which is a way of speaking familiar to Divines even those that own and avow the lawfulness of sprinkling a
9. And if the blood of Sacrifices may be thought to have a nearer resemblance with the blood of Christ than water hath yet as the application of Christ's blood to our Souls for the cleansing of them is set forth by way of sprinkling whence his blood is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Dr. Ham. in loe the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 so the application of the blood of Sacrifices for cleansing was mostly made by sprinkling whence the Apostle Heb. 9.21 22. saith of Moses that he sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and all the Vessels of the Ministry And that almost all things are by the Law purged with blood Thence we read of a Ram that was to be slain at the consecration of Aaron's Sons and his blood to be sprinkled round about upon the Altar Exod. 29.16 When a Bullock was to be offered for a burnt Sacrifice by any of the People in order to an atonement to be made for him the Sons of Aaron were to bring the blood and sprinkle the blood round about upon the Altar Levit. 15. and so if it were of the Flocks ib. v. 11. So if it were a Peace-offering Levit. 3.8 13. So also if it were a Trespass-offering Levit. 7.2 So if it were a Sin-offering to be offered by the High-Priest for himself and for his House the blood of it was to be sprinkled seven times upon the Mercy-seat and before the Mercy-seat Levit 16.14 And the like was to be done if it were for the People ib. v. 15. and that in order to the making an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins ib. v. 16. And if the sin for which the Sacrifice was to be offered whether of the Priests or of the Peoples were a sin of ignorance the blood of it was to be sprinkled seven times before the Lord Levit. 4.6 17. Even whatsoever it was Ox Lamb or Goat that was to be sacrificed so was his blood to be disposed of Levit. 17. § 10. If then the application of that which typified the blood of Christ whether it were water or blood before the shedding of it was conveniently made and who dares question the conveniency of it since it was by God's appointing to be made by sprinkling how can then the application of water in baptism by sprinkling whereby the washing of our Souls from sins and the cleansing of our Consciences from defilements by the blood of Christ that blood of sprinkling now that it is shed is represented and signified be any other but a most agreeable action and the party to whom it is so applied be most truly said to be baptized And the remonstrating of this is the discharge of the Second part of my undertaking § 11. The Third whereto I shall now advance is the shewing of the agreeableness of baptizing by other ways than a total immersion with the Practice of the Church CHAP. X. Other ways of baptizing besides that of a total immersion used in the Church in all or most Ages and Places of it § 1. LET no Man think here that I intend to demonstrate sprinkling or any other way of baptizing less than a total immersion to have been either the only or the most general way of administring that Sacrament I am too well assured by a multitude of evidences of the contrary thereunto to undertake that But this is that which I design to evince that how general soever the way of baptizing by a total dipping may by some be imagined to be and perhaps that may in the issue appear not to have been so general as it is by them imagined yet it was not the only way but a baptism by aspersion affusion tinging or wetting with water or however by a partial mersation has been practised in the Church from the Primitive to the present times whereof I shall give either real demonstrations or probable arguments in all or most of the Ages § 2. For the first Age to begin with that there were few except the Apostles and Evangelists that writ any thing and of what they wrote little is left and of that little nothing that I know of concerns the question in hand The Reason may well be conceived to have been because it then was no question and the rather because we find the Practice we contend for in being in after Ages which is a fair inducement to believe it to have been derived from thence to them unless it could be certainly told when where and by whom it was afterward first introduced into the Church Our Intelligence then must be fetcht for this Age all from the Holy Scriptures And there also things do not appear with so bright a light as to force a conviction upon a prejudiced or prepossessed understanding but after all that can be said contrary minded persons if of stubborn temper may think themselves to have sufficient matter whereon to ground a contradiction What probabilities then and I will not pretend to more than a probability of such a practice in the Apostles Age as I have either conceived of my self or received from others I will here fairly communicate and then leave the Reader to make his judgment upon the matter Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicà traditum rectissimè creditur D Aug. de Bapt. contr Donat. l. 4. c. 24. only desiring him in the mean time to have an eye on St. Augustin's judgment touching such immemorial usages as the Catholick Church holds and ever hath held and have not come into use by the institution of any Council that they are rightly believed to have been delivered down to it by no less than an Authority Apostolical § 3. And I begin with the Baptism of those first Converts that the Apostles did after the sealing of their Commission by the descent of the Spirit upon them admit into the Church by that Ceremony Upon the day of Pentecost St. Peter preach'd to a great but confused multitude By his Sermon thousands were converted and of those Converts whatever were afterward no fewer as is conceived than three thousand were the same day baptized The question here is in what way they were baptized whether by immersion or by aspersion And the improbabilities of the former have made learned persons to conceive it was by the latter It is not likely saith Zanchie that they were baptized any other way than by sprinkling Confirmatur exemplo Petri in Actis cap. 2. qui statim post concionem legitur baptizâsse 3000. Baptizati inquit Lucas nempe per Petrum ut Interpretes exponunt fucrunt Non videtur autem veri simile fuisse aliâ ratione baptizatos quà m aspersione aquae Hier. Zanch. de cultu dei externo l. 1. col 494. Et verisimile est quòd non per modum immersionis sed aspersionis
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
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
saith it was of old the Custom the Authors word is initio at first or in the beginning Now it is to be suspected by his rendring that word of old that he designed to put a slur upon us as if that Author had intended to declare or intimate that sprinkling was no custom of old but a new practice come up but of late into the Church whereas it pleads Antiquity for it self and that so high that none can find any original of it lower than the Primitive times And so though it might not have been a custom initio at the very first to baptize that way but dipping may claim the priority of it for that yet it might very soon after the first beginning upon reasons thought well of by the Apostles or Apostolical persons come into practice and so become a custom of old though it were not a custom initio in or at the first beginning Deacons as distinct Officers from Apostles were of old in the Primitive times even in the Apostles days and yet they were not initio at the first beginning of Christianity or constitution of the Christian Church but ordained some time after its beginning and by the Apostles themselves Acts 6.5 6. § 49. And whereas that Author saith that we now rather have pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Rhantism instead of Baptism I answer that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken two ways first more strictly for the act of immersion or dipping or more largely for the Sacrament of Baptism however administred And so though instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipping we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling yet we have not that sprinkling instead of baptism as if our sprinkling were no baptizing but somewhat else instead of it but we have it for what it really is a true baptism in the larger sense though it be not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strict sense of that word as it signifies dipping though sprinkling be not strictly dipping yet it is truly baptizing § 50. From Zepperus he is in haste to go to Dr. Taylor a Champion he often glories in and saith he Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. p. 644 645. The Ancient Church did not in their Baptism sprinkle Water with their hands but did immerge and therefore we find in the Records of the Church that the Persons to be baptized were quite naked as it is to be seen in many places particularly in the Mystagogy Chat. as he writes it of St. Cyril and many others as you have before in the second Chapter of this Part from Vossius p. 133. And I shall follow him as fast to attend the motions of that Doctor And I answer § 51. Bishop Taylor did as I and all good men I believe would do i. e. wish'd as near a conformity in the present Church to the Primitive as the Circumstances of both may well permit and therefore represents things tending that way as favourable as he could but his words must not be tenter-hook'd and stretch't to a meaning beyond his mind And whether they be not so here will be left to the Readers judgment In this very Section and Paragraph he tells you that of this Sprinkling besides what is implyed in the former Testimonies there was some little use in the Primitive Church And he backs this saying of his with proofs from Tertullian Surius and Walafrid Strabo When therefore he saith that the Ancient Churches did not in their Baptisms sprinkle water with their hands but immerged the Catechumen or the Infant for those are his words which Mr. D. disguises and curtails and shrinks up into a barely but did immerge for ends best known to himself but easily guessable at by any man though of no greater abilities than I am I say in so saying his words cannot in reason be taken as if he meant that absolutely and universally all without exception were then immerged and none were sprinkled for that is contradictory to what himself afterward in the same Paragraph saith and proveth as I have already noted but that mostly and generally it was so the contrary practice being so infrequent as not used in ordinary cases but only such as were of high charity and great necessity that it was little taken notice of in publick So that speaking according to what was generally done and publickly observed he might infer from the Authorities by him insisted on that the custom of the Ancient Churches was not sprinkling but immersion But though it may be granted that the custom was not sprinkling but dipping yet it will not follow thence that there was never any thing of that nature done in those times contrary to the custom for the contrary is apparent And therefore D. Cave in his Testimony cited by Mr. D. p. 200. speaks warily and safely in the case saying not absolutely that it was the constant and universal custom of those times but the almost constant and universal custom And so B. Taylor is to be understood if we will make him consistent with himself as we must do or else his Testimony will be nothing worth on either side and he will be no more against us than for us and his quoting will signifie nothing more but that the Quoter had a mind to make a noise with his Name and object him to us as being an eminent not only member of but Minister in our Church and a Bishop in that Church wherein he lived when he published that Writing at least the second time I wonder the Quoter did not take notice of this conclusive passage of his and especially of what follows immediately added to the words recited by me viz. That that custom of the Ancient Churches was in pursuance of the sense of the word in the Commandment and the example of our Blessed Saviour Which if he had I have given answer thereto in these Papers ch 10. and 16. I shall only make this remark upon it in favour of Mr. D. That he is the more pardonable if he sometimes takes no notice of what is against him when he can pass by some and such notices that seem to be for him But if there be wilfulness on the one side and but inadvertency on the other side I shall then plead nothing for him but leave him there to plead for himself § 52. But Mr. D. goes on and I shall follow him And this Immersion saith he from Dr. Taylor was of so Sacred an account in their esteem that they did not account it lawful to receive him into the Clergy who had been only Sprinkled in his Baptism as we learn from the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabianus of Antioch Euseb l. 9. c. 43. It is not lawful that he who is sprinkled in his Bed by reason of sickness should be admitted into Holy Orders doubting whether such a Sprinkling should be called Baptism § 53. I wonder Mr. D. should produce this instance because it is an unanswerable