Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n book_n brief_a great_a 41 3 2.1025 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A75550 Arguments Pro and Con about the Right of baptizing; viz. Whether it ought to be by putting the whole body under water, or only Sprinkling a little water thereon. 1675 (1675) Wing A3647; ESTC R225438 8,839 6

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

three thousand in one day Acts 2. And how could the Jailor be so baptized in his own house Acts 16. The Baptistr Roly That the three thousand mentioned in Act 2. were dipt not sprinkled is clear not only from the words because 't is said in plain terms they were dipt Acts 2.41 And they wanted not help in that great Administration the Twelve and Seventy were witnesses besides others of the 120 Disciples that if need required were capable to be helpful in the work And as to the Jailor's being baptized in his own house as suggested 't is a mistake for after he was baptized 't is said Vers 34. he brought them into his house VI. From the practice of the Ancients and confest change from Dipping to Sprinkling The Baptists say Sixthly As a further Confirmation by way of Illustration that dipping was the Rite of this Ordinance not sprinkling may further appear from the Confest practice of the Ancients for the first Ages and the acknowledged change and alteration of it afterwards In testimony whereof Daille on the Fathers lib. 2. p. 148. saith That it was the custom heretofore in the Ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over head and ears into the water as saith he Tertullian in Book 3 Cor. Mil. Cyp. in Ep. 7. p. 211. Epipha Pa. 30. p. 128. and others testifie (a) De Reb. Eccles Walafrid Strabo saith That at first Believers were baptized simply in Floods and Rivers (b) Ad Theol. wit Resp 11. c. 8. Jeremias Pat. of Constant saith That the Ancients baptized not by sprinkling but immerging following the example of the Evangelist who came up out of the water therefore did he descend Zopperus de Sacram. saith from the Etymology of the word it doth appear what was the custom of old of administring Baptism which is since changed into Rantizing Chrysostome as Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Conscience Book 4. c. 4. tells us That the old man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under water 〈◊〉 and when the baptized person is afterwards raised up from the water it represents the Resurrection of the new-man to newness of life Mr. Jos Mead upon Tit. 3. tells us there was no such thing as Rantism or sprinkling in the Apostles time nor many Ages after And Dr. Tayler as above saith That the ancient Church did not in their Baptism sprinkle water with their hands but did immerge and therefore saith we find in the Records of the Church that the persons baptized were to be quite naked for which he gives divers instances and Authorities for divers Ages Dr. Cave in his Prim. Christ saith That of old the baptized party was immerged or wholly put under water which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times (c) Vossius de Bap. 14 to 64. Vossius in p. 40. gives not only the nature of the word from the old Glossers and the Septuagint and the best Criticks to be dipping but from the sayings and usage of the Ancients from the trine Immersion till Gregory and then the single Immersion by the Council of Tolitan and how in these cold Climates it came to be altered (d) Annimad p. 297 to 319. Sir Norton Knatch in p. 40. gives the usuage of it from the Scripture and Antiquity to be dipping and that it so continues in the Greek Churches to this day (e) Ut sup And as Daille tells us is still the practice of the Grecian and Russian Churches at this day Cassander de Bap. p. 193. and that it was the confest custom of the Church of England their English Liturgy will determine which required the party to be baptized to be dipt in water except in great extremity and weakness Secondly As to the change and alteration of this Rite we have the following Confessions viz. (a) a Disput of the Rise to Sacraments Mr. Baxter in his third Augument to Mr. Blake saith as to the manner of it it is commonly confest by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles time the baptized were dipt over head in water and though since it hath been thought meet to disuse the manner of dipping and to use less water (b) Pau. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. Chamier confesseth That the ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole body into the Element which is the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore did John baptize in a River which is nevertheless changed into Aspersion though uncertain when and whence that custom was taken The Marquis of Worcester in his Certam Relig. confesseth that the Church of Rome hath changed dipping the party over head and ears into sprinkling upon the face Calvin upon Acts 8.38 confesseth they have varied from the Apostolical practice which was by plunging the body into the water Beza upon Gal. 3. acknowledgeth that it was the custom of old to baptize the Adult by immerging (c) Ut supra Daille further saith as before Though this custom of dipping be ancient and universal yet it is now abolished by the Church of Rome and this is the reason saith he that the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized because they despised this ancient Ceremony of Dipping The Rantists answer That sprinkling was very ancient in the Church as well as dipping appears out of Eusebius witnessing that Novatus was baptized by pouring water upon him Walafrid Strabo is peremptory that it was done both ways And Cyp. Ep. to Mag. evidenceth it to have been of very ancient practice Clem. Alex. p. 387. testifieth the same and though 't is confest they did in some places of old dip the baptized yet it was in hot Countries The Baptists Reply That sprinkling of the sick or Clinical Baptism did early creep in is confest But (a) Rule Cons ut supra Dr. Tayler tells us from Cornelius Ep. to Fabianus Euseb lib. 6. c. 43. and out of Magnus Ep. That they scrupled to receive into holy Orders any that had only received the Clinical Baptism yea so much as to esteem them Christians that had only been sprinkled And as Voss us in his Book of Baptism tells us is was questioned whether they did not lye when they said they baptized a person when they only sprinkled him And as to baptizing in cold Countries by dipping as well as hot we have Authentick proof there being as Dan. Rogers saith no distinction of hot or cold Russia as is well known an extraordinary cold Country whereas you have heard they have and do still use the Rite of dipping to this day And in England of old how frequent was it to baptize in Rivers witness Germanus and Lupus baptizing multitudes in the River Allin in Cheshire Treat of Bapt. p. 228. Paulinus great numbers in the River Swol in York shire and Trent in Notinghamshire Bed Book 2. ch 16. besides the appointment in the English Liturgy to dip little
Children in this Country and which hath been the practice in some places formerly but especially the known constant practice of the Baptists in Holland Germany and England both Winter and Summer without the least detriment or inconveniency A brief Corrollary containing some necessary Quaeries upon the whole Quaer 1. WHether is it not demonstrably evident by this Six-fold Argument confirmed by so great Testimony both Divine and Humane that Dipping not Sprinkling was the instituted Rite of this great Ordinance of Baptism Quaer 2. Whether this of Dipping having been Christs positive Appointment from all those holy ends and spiritual Reasons inforcing it as well as his own and all the primitive Saints express practise it will not appear to be very dangerous and savour of too much Presumption and Arrogancy upon such gross mistakes and upon nothing but Human Institution to alter and change the same to a clear other Rite inverting thereby so solemn a piece of Gods holy Worship and introducing instead thereof so groundless a Tradition and Invention of man and doth not justly fall under the Reproofs and Threatnings of the following Scriptures Matth. 15.9 In vain they do worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men Mark 7.7 For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Traditions of men rejecting and frustrating the Commandments of God to keep your own Traditions Isa 24.5 They have transgressed the Law changed the Ordinances therefore c. And no less then a Violation of the First and Second Commandment intrenching upon God's Prerogative-Royal wherein he is so jealous the Presumption whereof cost Israel so dear Quaer 3. Whether sprinkling only a few drops of water upon the face instead of dipping the whole person doth not as much spoil the Symbol and vacate the instituted significant ends of the Ordinance as to eat only the Wafer and reject the Cup spoils the Ordinance of breaking of Bread and drinking of Wine in remembrance of the broken Body and Blood of our Lord Or as some of old when God commanded the foreskin to be circumcised should have satisfied themselves to circumcise their nails if they did but keep the name and ends of the Ordinance And whether one is not as provoking to the Lord as the other Quaer 4. Whether to conform hereto is not to yield obedience to the Institution and Injunction of Antichrist for though 't is granted it was in use before it was imposed by the Popes as Infant-Baptism was yet was it by them especially enjoyned as the other was as confest by so many of their own And whether in so doing there is not as great indignity offered to the Authority of Christ and contempt to his Wisdom as there is a declared subjection to and owning and honouring such a gross Usurpation Quaer 5. Whether it may not rationally be supposed that one great end of the Popes enjoyning theeeof was not with more Pomp and Solemnity to establish and confirm Infant-Baptism so much the Pillar and Foundation of his Church And whether it doth not appear he did upon as good ground change the Rite as so alter the subject And that he doth as warrantably and by as good Scripture-Authority sprinkle Bells and Church Walls and Standards and call it Baptism as the other Quaer 6. Whether for any to sprinkle an Infant and to say they Baptize it in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit is not as much to tell a lye in the Name of the Lord and to prophane a holy Ordinance of his as they do who use the same Form in Baptizing of Bells c. Quaer Whether Learned and good men may not from the consideration of their mistake in the Rite have cause to conclude they have mistaken the subject also And that being neither right in the matter or manner of the Ordinance it is a mear nullity and therefore should engage them to the right performance in both as they would approve themselves Christ's Disciples and Followers and not err in so great a foundation of the Christian Religion LONDON Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange 1675.