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
any other instances it might be invincibly proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in the Heathen Notion of it signifie strictly a total immersion and no instance or evidence could be given of its ever signifying any other thing among them yet unless it could be as invincibly proved that no Ecclesiastical word did ever signifie any thing other in the Scriptures than just what it signified in Heathen Authors which is impossible to be made good no Argument can be drawn from the Heathenish import of the word to prescribe to the Christian use of it Now that less than a total immersion hath in the judgment of the Catholick Church been accounted a Baptism which could not have been if by that word it had designed nothing less than a total immersion is as clear as the Sun from its practice to baptize other ways which will be shewed in the process of this Discourse According to Christ's institution the Scripture where 't is plain should guide the Church And the Church where there is doubt or difficulty should expound the Scripture A. B. Laud Ep. Ded. to K. Ch. I. And to the Interpretation of Scriptural words referring unto Practice I know not how we may be more surely guided than by the judgment of the Catholick Church declared in the genuine Records and confirmed by undoubted Instances of the Practice of it CHAP. VI. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it doth not always import a total immersion § 1. WE have viewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it self as well as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root from whence it is derived let us now view it in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the branch that is derived from it § 2. And if we consult Lexicographers about it they tell us that besides the particular signification it hath in the Church to note the Sacrament of Baptism it signifies also more generally a washing as well as specially a dipping Thence Schrevelius and Pasor render it by lotio a washing and the former hath nothing else but that for it By Scapula 't is rendred mersio ilotio ablutio ipso immergendi item lavandi seu abluendi actus dipping washing cleansing the act it self of dipping washing or cleansing Stephanus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mersio lotio ablutio dipping washing cleansing understanding thereby the act it self of dipping and also of washing or cleansing Mr. Leigh in his Critic Sacr. from Danaeus Isag Christ l. 5. de Sacram. c. 21. tells us that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to immerse and more especially into water yet because those that come out of the water do appear washed and white and clean therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly put in Scripture pro lotione mundatione for washing and cleansing And Alsted saith the same in his Lexic Theolog. almost to a word c. 12. p. 310 311. Coulon in his Lexic Homeric having rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mergo tingo abluo saith thence is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he there defines to be a Sacred mystery of the entrance into Christianity administred in the Church mersione ablutione aspersione seu tinctione by dipping washing sprinkling or wetting Flacius Illyricus in his Clavis Scripturae saith that Baptismus propriè intinctionem significat properly signifieth intinction a word used by Tertullian and that by a Metalepsis it hath the signification of ablution and lotion And that that word doth not signifie always a total dipping in order unto dying but a wetting without such a dipping is not improbable in regard that as was noted before what we read in Dan. 4.25 prophesied of Nebuchadnezzar viz. that they should wet him with the dew of Heaven cannot mean that he should be all immersed or plunged into it but that he should be all over wetted with the falling or sprinkling of it upon him And yet the Syriac Vers reads that place rore coeli intingêris as Arias Montan. rore coeli infundêris i. e. thou shalt be wetted with or thou shalt have poured upon thee the dew of Heaven And this may clear Martinius when he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be mersio immersio seu intinctio to mean not the same thing by intinctio that he meant by immersio but to have intended as by the first a partial and by the second a total dipping so by the third a wetting whether by a dipping total or partial or whether by any other way § 3. Thus say the Lexicographers And if there be reason to believe them that are skilful in their own Art then so many Masters of words speaking of a word within the sphear of their own consideration and saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the special import of immersion hath also the general signification of lotion and ablution we may with reason believe it so to signifie and so not be necessitated by vertue of its proper signification always to understand it of a total immersion § 4. And this consideration undoubtedly besides what other they might have was that which sway'd so much both with Interpreters and Expositors and Didactical Divines so to understand and render the word § 5. Thence saith Pareus Baptismus Graecis quaevis est lotio seu ablutio sive immersione sive aspersione fiat Par. in Heb. 9.10 Baptismus with the Greeks imports any washing or cleansing whether it be done by dipping or sprinkling Piscator interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heb. 9.10 by ablutionibus washings as our English Version renders it and so does Beza too and Guilliandus upon the place And the like doth Gagnaeius adding this for a reason as Guilliandus also doth because if they had toucht any unclean thing statim ablui illos oportebat they ought presently to be washed So Erasmus Illyricus Pagnin so the Tigurine Arabic and Aethiopic Versions so Estius Menochius Ribera and others noted by Mr. Pool in his Synopsis on this place § 6. Baptismus est externum aquae lavacrum à Christo mandatum c. Ursin Explic. Catech. q. 69. Baptismus secundùm Etymi sui rationem communiter significat quâ—mvis ablutionem c. Trelcat Institut l. 2. c. de Baptismo p. 187. Baptismi vox immersionem aspersionem significat c. Wolleb Christ Theolog. l. 1. c 23. can 1. pag. 120. Bucan loc com 47. pag. 605. Baptismus dicitur intinctio id est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub formâ verborum praescriptâ P. Lomb. 4. Sent. dist 3. pars 1. Baptismus est lotio sive ablutio in aqua Nic. de Orbel 4. Sent. d. 4. qu. 1. de Baptismo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem Graecis etiam tinctio intinctio quod Latinè dicitur explicatur Isidorus l. 6. Etymolog cap. de officiis saepe Tertullianus in lib. de Baptismo contra Marcionem Sed
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
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
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
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