Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	eunuch_n	philip_n	3,839	5	10.4025	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77397	Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, [double brace] Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed. Also the questions of pædobaptisme and dipping handled from Scripture. In a second part of the Disswasive from the errors of the time. / By Robert Baillie minister at Glasgow.	Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662.; Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662. Dissuasive from the errours of the time.	1647 (1647)	Wing B452A; Thomason E369_9; ESTC R38567	187,930	235

ears in Baptisme Matth. 3.13.16 Then commeth Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto Iohn to be baptized of him and Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water Iohn 3.23 And Iohn also was baptizing in Enon because there was much water there Act. 8.38 39. And he commanded the Chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and when they were come up out of the water c. Ans First suppose that in all these places dipping had been used it follows not that it was so universally we have proved that divers Scripturall baptismes were by sprinkling and not by dipping Secondly although dipping had been universall in the Primitive times yet th●s practise would not inferre any necessity of its continuance unlesse two things were made good first that practice and example alone is a sufficient ground for the institution of a Sacramentall rite again that every circumstance of a Sacrament generally practised in Scripturall times must be of an unchangeable and unvariable nature and so necessary that without sin it may not in any case be altered Thirdly none of the places alledged doe look towards the dipping of a naked person over head and ears which is the main question Fourthly there is no word expresly in any of the places of dipping and if they will admit us to dispute by consequences see if from any of those places there be a necessary inference of any dipping the multitude of waters in the third of John John 3.23 infers not the plunging of all who were baptized in them but onely the conveniency of baptizing a multitude rather in a place of many waters then in a desert void of water such as many places in Canaan were In the days of the Patriarchs the finding of a fountain in these bounds was a rare and singular benefit however we deny that the conveniency of much water for the baptizing of a multitude of people does import a necessity of dipping any who are baptized therein The other place of Act. 8.38 39. imports Philip and the Eunuchs going down from the coach towards the water and their ascending again into the coach from the lower place where the water was but doth either this descending or ascending infer Philips stripping of the Eunuch and dipping him over head and ears in that water The third place is not so important for it speaks nothing of Christs going down into the water and what it says of his comming up may well be expounded of the low situation of the river beneath the field where John did preach readily they have stood on the brink or within the river when they were sprinkled and had the water of the river poured upon them but that in the midst of that multitude Christ did discover himself and that John so oft as he baptized any did cause to strip both himself and them and went so naked with them into the river taking them in his arms and plunging them therein is a matter of so great unlikelihood that without Scripture or greater reason then yet appears it may not be admitted The third objection Immersion is necessarily to be practised because it signifies our buriall with Christ The third objection That Baptisme is a sign of the buriall of Christ has no reference at all to Immersion according to Rom. 6.3 4. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death therefore wee are buried with him by Baptisme unto death also Col. 2.12 Buried with him in Baptisme wherein also you are risen with him Ans First it is a presumption in any man to put a divine institution upon any rite which in its own nature is onely indifferent But it is a presumption in the highest degree to affixe a signification to any such rite we grant Baptisme for its signification has the death of Christ and all the fruits thereof also that it seals to us our fellowship not onely in Christs death but in his buriall his resurrection his ascension his sitting at the right hand of God but what divers Scriptures and particularly the places in hand do ascribe to Baptisme we have no warrant to apply it unto immersion Secondly if men would goe to make analogicall significations according to their own pleasure we might say that sprinkling did put water upon the head and so the whole person under the water and by this were a sign of buriall as well as immersion It makes nothing against this that by sprinkling a little quantity of water is applyed onely to the head and much water by dipping is applyed to the whole body for in Sacraments the quantity of the element the shortnesse of the outward action is not attended The tasting of a little bread and a little wine does signifie to us our full communion with the whole body and the whole blood of Christ as well as the largest banquet of wine and all delicates could do The cutting off a very little from one part of the body only did signifie the Circumcision and cutting off of the whole body of corruption as wel as if much skin much flesh had been cutted off from every member even so the sprinkling of a little water may signifie and seal up unto us our participation in Christs life death buriall resurrection and every thing else of his wherein we have interest as well as a totall immersion in the whole Ocean for so long a time as Jonah lay under the billows of the great deep Thirdly this argument draws us to two great inconveniences The danger of dipping First a necessity as we would not abolish a Sacramentall and significant rite to keep every baptized person so long a time wholly under the water as may sensibly expresse Christs buriall under the ground now to be put for so long a time wholly under the water by the hand of a weak Minister though never so carefull to preserve cannot but bring an evident hazard of life or health to many Secondly consider if it bring not in the institution of a new Sacrament whereof none that yet I have heard of have spoken the Sacrament of emersion The new Sacrament of Emersion at least the addition of this as a new large half unto the old Sacrament of Baptisme or Immersion this their new rite of emersion does signifie and seal up to us as they say our resurrection with Christ this can be no part of baptisme or immersion nor rationally be comprehended under it though always it were conjoyned and did follow at its back for emersion and immersion are contraries and one contrary is not a part nor cannot goe under the name of the other except you will make bitter sweet and darknesse light Unto those Arguments of the Disputants the Treatiser adds nothing considerable in all his long Discourse except some testimonies partly from Protestant but most from Popish

condition as the children of Turks c. It was Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit that put all his posterity equally into a sinfull and miserable condition H Storming of Antichrist p. 53. This opinion puts all infants of beleevers into the same condition with Turks and Indians Answ As the infants of Turks and Christians dying infants are all alike free from actuall sin being onely guilty of originall why may they not partake of the same benefit of free grace why may we not have charitable thoughts concerning the salvation of Turkish infants seeing we know nothing of their damnation and we reade not of any one in Scripture damned meerly for originall sin the innocency of all infants so dying is the same in respect of actuall sin I Bakwels Answer p. 2. Here I doubt they exclude all infants that die in their infancy from salvation because they are not capable of such knowledge of God and Christ you answer saying you know not what is this knowledge neither hath the Scripture revealed any such that were saved K Tombs Apology p. 64. The truth is I neither leave infants in the Devils nor Gods visible Kingdome for I conceive they are in neither Kingdome visibly till they declare by their profession to whom they belong visibly Ibid. p. 66. I suppose in reference to the present point this is the truth that however every infant is either in the invisible Kingdome of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong either to the one or to the other I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews the infants were reckoned to the Church and the reason was from the peculiar Church State of the Jews L Gangren first Part p. 20. There is no originall sin in us only Adams first sin was originall sin M Ibid. p. 1. of the second division Henry Den in a conference with M. Strong delivered that Christ did satisfie for the sins committed against the first Covenant Being urged that the Heathen then must all be saved because their sins against the first Covenant were pardoned and they had never sinned against the second which was never revealed to them he answered the Heathen had Christ preached to them in the creatures Sun Moon and Stars N Ibid. p. 110. The Independent Churches in Somersetshire deliver that a Minister baptizing Infants is a false Prophet also that Adam was created in sin and that he was as sinfull before his fall as after and that Christ was a sinner his nature being defiled with sin as well as the nature of other men is O Vide supra N. P Gangren first Part second division p. 24. Nichols in Moore-fields maintained that God was the Author of all sin Q Treatise of Baptisme p. 148. It is not a hope you must goe upon for the giving of Ordinances and holy seals but a judgement Paul called the Saints positively faithfull and elect when we come to admit members if they give but onely ground of hopes we let them stay for their own profit and the discharge of our duty till they can give us the ground of a judgement the Apostle says positively they are holy you ought to assure your self they are so Ibid. p. 252. A male infant is the subject of circumcision but a beleever is the subject of Baptisme R The vanity of childish Baptism first Part p. 29. They of the separation grant that no children save onely beleevers children are in the Covenant or have right to Baptism their Parents by their own acknowlegement being ungodly whence it will follow that they themselves being baptized in their infancy had not the baptism of Christ and so by consequence are yet unbaptized persons Garner of Baptism p. 14 15. Beleevers by Baptism do orderly enter into the body or congregation of Christ hence I may take occasion to satisfie such if the Lord please as are opposite unto beleevers baptism and their entrance into the Church by baptism and contend much for their entrance into a Church estate by Covenant or contract without baptism S Declaration by Cocks c. p. 13. The baptizing of infants doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh T Tombs Apology p. 66. I confesse that they who hold that members are added to the Church by baptism and not otherwise and hold a nullity of paedobaptism must needs say the Churches that have no other then infant baptism are no true Churches nor their members Church members but those points of the necessity of right baptism not onely to the right order but also to the beeing of a visible Church and Church member and so voluntary separation barely for the defect of it I have ever disclaimed V Gangren second Part p. 8. A godly Minister related that Oats an Anabaptisticall Emissary was followed in Essex by many loose persons he spoke it upon his knowledge that notorious whoremongers and drunkards follow him such as have been convicted by witnesses and taken notice of by the Countrey and are such still yet go after him where he preaches from place to place X Vanity of childish Baptism p. 8. The institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water whosoever is not dipped is not baptized and he that is only sprinkled or hath water onely imposed upon him is not dipped whence this consequence clearly results That all those that have the administration of Baptism either by sprinkling or by any washing without dipping have not the Baptism of the New Testament and by consequence are unbaptized persons Y Vide Gangren first Part second division p. 5. Z M. Tombs exercitation presented to the Chairman of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines and an Apology for the two Treatises against the unjust censures of Doctor Homes M. Geere M. Marshall M. Lee M. Hussey M. Black M. Calamy M. Vines AA Tombs Apology p. 64. Why doth he make my opinion odious as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of grace as I do the children of the Turks and acknowledge no more promise for the one then for the other whereas when he hath said as much as he can for them he can bring no more promise for them then I doe nor dares reject the limitations I restraine them by M. Marshals defence pag. 85. To my understanding you here clearly yeeld the infants of beleevers to be in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace which the infants of Turks and Indians are in no more promise for the one then for the other which so oft as you consider me thinks your Fatherly bowels to your own children should be moved within you Ibid. p. 98. I confesse I suspect you have a further meaning not onely because you here mention the temporall blessings before the spirituall and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham but especially that expression which you own from Cameron

of the membership of any who is not an actuall and sincere beleever If such arguments be very apt to seduce those who understand the grounds of their religion in any tolerable measure I confesse I am much deceived As for M. Tombs eight Arguments M. Tombes 8. Arguments answered by others for the solution whereof he cals upon the whole body of the Assembly who are at the leisure to see every title of them answered at large let them look upon the Treatises of M. Marshall M. Black M. Geere and Doctor Homes to those M. Tombs replies in his Apology but how poorly and to how small a purpose let any Reader who will be at the pains to compare what is brought from both hands freely pronounce the sentence I shall but name the heads of his reasons First the doctrine of infant-baptisme has no testimony of Scripture for it There is no truth in any of them the particular Scriptures which are brought to prove this point he endeavours to answer but the chief of these answers we have met with in our positive arguments His second argument is this in the institution of Baptisme Mat. 28. Christ has not appointed infants to be baptized because they are not Disciples Ergo Their Baptisme is unlawfull To this we did speak at length The third is Infant-baptisme is not according to the practise of John the Baptist and the Apostles who baptized onely penitent beleevers to this also we have often spoken The fourth and the fifth is That infant-baptisme in the ages next to the Apostles was not in use and when it came in use that it was grounded upon divers errors and unwriten traditions Answer If the Anabaptists did any whit regard antiquity it were easie by formall testimonies to refell these two assertions and this the replyers to M. Tombs has done abundantly But it is well known that the Anabaptists generally have no regard to humane writers so it were but losse of time to bring passages of the Fathers for their conviction His sixt seventh and eighth arguments are these Infant-baptisme hath occasioned many humane inventions many errours many abuses in Discipline and worship Answer Some of these things which he cals humane inventions errors and abuses are denyed to be such and those which be such indeed are neither caused nor occasioned by Paedobaptisme But many grosse heresies errours and abuses are partly caused partly occasioned by the rejection of infant-baptisme as may be seen in our former Chapter M. L. Treatise of Baptisme needs no answer These are the eight Arguments which fils M. Tombs exercitation in which there seems not to be any thing which either for its novelty or strength did deserve the half of the noise that has been made about them I was minded to have examined at greater length the arguments of the third Treatise mentioned in the beginning of the Chapter for I did think that a prime member and eminent Officer of the Independent Church at Arnhem would never have turned a ring-leader to gross Anabaptism without some very convincing exceedingly pressing arguments yet finding nothing considerable in that Treatise but what was common and triviall and all that it had to be cast not so much in a way of argument as in a laxe popular discourse I chused rather to let it alone then to spend paper upon words which as I conceive doe rather detract then adde any strength at all to the old arguments of the Anabaptists CAP. VII The lawfulnesse of sprinkling and needlesnesse of dipping in Baptisme HOw abundant and copious in the faculty of lying and inventing of errours The lying spirit of Anabaptism the spirit of Anabaptisme was of old how much superiour in an extreamly malignant fruitfulnes he hath been to any evil spirit that ever appeared in the Christian Church before him we have I hope demonstrate in our first two Chapters That the younger Anabaptists who thus trouble the Church of England are nothing inferiour to their Fathers in the art of erring being sure where ever they are ashamed of any one of their predecessors tenets to give us two much worse in the place thereof we have endeavoured to make appear in our third and fourth Chapters Among the new inventions of the late Anabaptists there is none which with greater animosity they set on foot then the necessity of dipping over head and ears then the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration of baptisme The pressing of dipping and exploding of sprinkling is but an yesterday conceit of the English Anabaptists Among the old Anabaptists or these over sea to this day so far as I can learn by their writs or any relation that yet has come to my ears the question of dipping and sprinkling came never upon the Table As I take it they dip none but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same manner as is our custome The question about the necessity of dipping seems to be taken up onely the other year by the Anabaptists in England as a point which alone as they conceive is able to carry their desire of exterminating infant-baptisme for they know that parents upon no consideration will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants by plunging them over head and ears in a cold river Let us therefore consider if this sparkle of new light have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanctuary or the Sun of righteousnesse if it be according to Scripturall truth or any good reason For the stating of the question The state of the question the tearms of dipping and sprinkling must be a little cleared by sprinkling we understand according as our adversaries not unfitly expresse it an application of water to the person whether in greater or smaller measure whether by drops severally scattered or poured on all together so that there be no sensible disgregation of the water applyed The distinction of affusion from sprinkling in this matter seems to be but a needlesse curiosity By dipping they understand an application of the whole person to the water a putting of the whole person in the water not a pouring of the water upon the person an intinction not of one member but of the whole body a ducking an immersion of the whole body under the water Consider farther that we doe not oppose the lawfulnesse of dipping in some cases but the necessity of it in all cases Neither doe they impugne the expediency of sprinkling in some cases but the lawfulnesse of it in any case So both their doctrine and practise makes the state of the question to be this Whether in Baptisme it be necessary to put the whole baptized person over the head and ears in the water or if it be lawfull and sufficient at least in some cases to poure or sprinkle the water upon the head of the person baptized For the lawfulnesse of sprinkling and against the necessity of dipping Sprinkling is sufficient and dipping is

the subject to those things much contrary to the credulity and bold assertion of the late Anabaptists Our second Argument The 2. Arg. the thing signified by Baptisme is oftner expressed in Scripture by sprinkling then dipping That action whereby Scripture does frequently represent the main thing signified by baptisme is lawfull and sufficient to be used in baptisme But Scripture frequently represents the main thing signified in baptisme by sprinkling or pouring out of water Ergo. The major is grounded on the nature of Sacramentall rites they are signs fitly proportioned to the spirituall blessings they signifie and seal when we finde in the signe not onely a clear representation and similitude of the thing signified but the holy Ghost in Scripture making use of that representation and relation it is to us a ground of the lawfull use of that sign This is the adversaries owne argument in their great reason for dipping that it does fitly represent our buriall with Christ and is used in Scripture as they alledge for the expressing of that representation As for the minor that pouring and sprinkling frequently in Scripture represents the main thing ●●gnified and sealed in baptisme our participation of the benefits of Christ his blood and Spirit In Scripture sprinkling is made a sign of the application of Christs blood to the soul many Scriptures doe evidence as first Heb. 10.22 Heb. 10.22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Here both the sign and the thing signified of baptisme are set down together the outward washing with water is made to signifie the sprinkling of the heart from an evill conscience That washing by outward sprinkling represents the inward sprinkling of the heart by the blood of Christ as fitly as washing by outward dipping or immersion can doe appears by 1 Pet. 1.2 1 Pet. 1 2. Through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Iesus Christ here the application of Christs blood unto the soul is expressed in the similitude of sprinkling And so fit is this representation that the holy Ghost styles the blood of Christ whereby we are washed and saved the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 Heb. 12.24 The other great blessing sealed up in baptisme is our communion in the Spirit of Jesus Also of Ch●ists Spiri● this blessing also the Spirit delights to expresse by the act of pouring or sprinkling of water Act. 2.16 17. Acts 2.16 17. But this is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel And it shall come to passe in the last days saith God I will poure out my Spirit upon all flesh Isay 44.3 Is 44.3 For I will poure water upon him that is thirsty and flouds upon the dry ground I will poure my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thy off-spring Also Is 52.15 So shall I sprinkle many Nations And Ezek. 36.25 Ezek. 36 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean a new heart will I give unto you and a new spirit will I put within you As the application of the blood and Spirit of Christ to the soul of the baptized is expressed so often in the tearm of sprinkling so under the Law Sprinking under the Law a figure of the thing signified in Baptisme the action of sprinkling sometimes of blood alone sometimes of water alone sometimes of both together were used for the prefiguring of that blood and water which in the days of the Gospel by the Word and Sacrament were more abundantly to be communicate Exod. 12.7.13 Ex. 12.7.13 And they shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side postes and on the upper door-poste of the houses wherein they shall eat it And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are and where I see the blood I will passe over you and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you when I smite the Land of Egypt Leviticus 16.14 Lev. 16.14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullocks and spri●kle it with his finger upon the Mercy-seat East-ward and before the Mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times here blood alone is sprinkled Numb 19.18 Num. 16.18 And a clean person shall take hyssope and dip it in the water and sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels and upon all the persons that were there and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day here water alone for purification is sprinkled at least water without blood for this water of purification had no mixture except of the ashes of the burnt Heifer Lev. 14.5 6 7. Lev. 14.5 6 7. And the Priests shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessell of running water as for the living bird he shall take it and the Cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssope and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water and he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosie seven times and shall pronounce him clean In this place blood and water together are sprinkled upon the leper at least with the sprinkling of the blood the presence of water is injoined The chief end of applying water to any body whether by dipping of it in the water or sprinkling the water upon it is to purge it from soile Sprinkling serves as much for purging as dipping can do that the use of water in baptisme is to remove and wash away albeit not the defilement of the body yet the guilt of sin from the soul we read in the 1 Pet. 3.21 1 Pet. 3 21. The like figure whereunto even baptisme doth also now save us not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God and Acts 22.16 Acts 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. This being the onely end why water in baptisme is used that way of using of it must be lawfull which is fit for that end now common experiences teaches that pouring and sprinkling is as meet for purifying as dipping can be a vessell often dipped if not rubbed may keep all its soile and sprinkling or pouring out of water is nothing lesse but oftentimes more effectuall for purging A third Argument If dipping be necessary and sprinkling unsufficient then in all Scripturall approved baptismes dipping was used and not sprinkling But no such thing does appear in Scripture Whether in any Sacramentall baptisme mentioned in Scripture dipping over head and ears was ever practised we shall consider in our answer to the objections but that in divers Sacramentall baptismes approved in Scripture no

dipping at all was used In many Scripturall baptisms there was no dipping we prove by three examples At the first and greatest Baptisme we read of Acts 2.41 Acts 2.41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand soules there could be no dipping for that baptizing so far as the text intimates was in the streets in the same place wherein the people did hear Peters Sermon Now how was it possible to dip in the streets of Jerusalem three thousand persons There was no river in that place yea in all Jerusalem we remember not of any river unlesse it were the brook Kedron which run through the Suburbs in the valley under the Town which was so small a strand that at no time especially not at the Pentecost in the midst of Summer it was any ways meet for the immersion of aged people I grant they had in Jerusalem divers fountains and pools and in some families were vessels for bathing but that either the Apostles went to these fountains and pools or that any bathing vessels were brought out to them there is not the least appearance in any Scripture Also which way soever you can imagine the matter to have been carried the dipping over head and ears of three thousand persons could not in one half day bee performed by the hands of twelve weak men though you should give to them the assistance of the whole seventy Disciples and if any such action had been performed it behoved to have made such a din and noise as would certainly have commoved the whole City and being so notable and new a circumstance could hardly have been past in silence by the Penmen of that holy History Those and many more inconveniences and impossibilities cannot be satisfied upon the supposition of dipping but admitting of sprinkling the case is made not onely possible but very easie for the twelve Apostles in a few houres to baptize not onely three but five thousand and if need had been many more The other example is that of the baptisme of Paul by Ananias Acts 9.18 19. Acts 9.18 19. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales and he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptized and when he had received meat he was strengthned Paul is here baptized in his lodging house being yet sick and weak and having fasted three whole days Suppose whereof there is no probability that in his lodging house there had been accommodations for his plunging and immersion yet being in so weak a condition as the miraculous vision of Christ and the extraordinary long fasting put him into he was very unfit to be stripped and plunged over head and all in cold water To assert this without any appearance of ground from Scripture is but rashnesse The third example we have in Acts 16.33 Acts 16.33 And he took them the same houre of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straightway Which way could the Gaoler and all his houshold in the midst of the night be brought to any deep river and plunged over head and ears by Paul and Silas newly washed of their sores can hardly be imagined A fourth reason Nothing is necessary in Baptisme which naturally is hurtfull to the life or chastity of any Arg. 4. Dipping is hurtfull to the life of man for the unchangeable God is never contrary to himself all his laws and ordinances have an harmonious consonancy one with another the Lord having discharged in the sixth and seventh Commandements the practise of all things hurtfull to the life and chastity of men he will not in any of his Sacraments appoint that to be practised which is of such a nature But so it is that dipping over head and ears in baptisme is naturally hurtfull both to the life and chastity to the life though we speak nothing of young infants many of riper years in divers places of the earth yea in the hottest climates at some times of the year cannot be plunged over the head in cold water without evident hazard sometimes of life and often of health and this much experience among our selves does teach in that short time wherein this noysome ceremony has been brought in fashion As for chastity Also to his chastity must it not be a great scandall in the face of all the Congregation where alone Sacraments can be duly celebrated for men and women to stand up naked as they were born and naked men to goe into the water with naked women holding them in their arms till they have plunged them in the water it is true one of the great Anabaptistick Masters David George made it a part of his art to teach all his Disciples to look one upon anothers nakednesse and to doe much more then behold without any carnall motion but such villanous hypocrisie cannot be but detestable to all honest minds Some hundred years agoe when the chastity and simplicity of the world was greater then in these our wretched days the dipping of naked persons was so full of scandall that it occasioned a number of humane inventions about Baptisme as the Deaconesses the white garments c. and thereafter caused th● change of that ceremony where it had gotten place into the much more convenient rite of sprinkling One other reason That is not necessarily required in baptisme which lays both upon the baptized and the baptizer burthens which they are not able to bear But dipping does so Ergo. The major is grounded upon the nature of Gods ordinances especially of the New Testament they are an easie yoak and portable The minor is thus clear by the necessity of this rite the baptizer is obliged to dip the whole baptized persons under the water and to lift them up again above the water but this for the most part of baptizers is altogether unpossible A fifth argument dipping makes baptisme insupportable No Preacher will be able to baptize How many Preachers are of that bodily strength as to lift up in their arms a man to dip him in the water and again to lift him clear out of the water for according to our adversaries baptisme is the dipping of the whole man into the water and the lifting of the whole man again out of the water the putting of his head and breast into the water is but a dipping of a part of the body the lifting of the head and upper parts of the body and not of the lower and whole parts is not a full and compleat baptisme now for this dipping of the whole man under the water and lifting of the whole man above the water the strength of more men then one is necessary And yet Scripture requires for the administration of baptisme no more agents then one Again this dipping puts upon the baptized burthens which neither nature nor civility nor religion permits them to bear Dipping whether of

cloathed or naked persons is insupportable We read not in Scripture that persons in baptisme did strip themselves of their garments and if this had been the custome it 's very like that Scripture had not always past it over For ordinarily in Historicall narrations Scripture marks the casting off of the cloaths so in the prophecying of Saul 1 Sam. 19.24 And he stripped off his cloaths also and prophesied before Samuel in like manner and lay down naked all that day and all that night So in the young man who followed Christ at his taking Mark 14.52 And he left the linnen cloth and fled from them naked So in the crucifying of Christ Mark 15.24 And when they had crucified him they parted his garments so in many other Histories wherefore if always in baptisme the persons had been stripped we know no reason why sometimes Scripture would not have remarked this considerable circumstance Supposing therefore the dipping of the baptized persons with their garments upon them we say that this did bring a burthen upon them which to nature had been insupportable for immediately after Baptism we read of their going to the Table Act. 16.33 34. also Acts 9.18 19. without any change of apparell so far as Scripture expresses it or by any circumstance of any text can be collected Now how intolerable it is to nature for any person to be dipped in their garments over head and ears and without any shifting of their wet cloathes to goe to the Table or any other employment sense can inform a very simple man If you suppose their nakednesse in baptisme as the most of our dippers doe though without any Scripturall warrant then how extreamly contrary to all civility will every modest person finde it to discover himselfe before a whole Congregation of people Though it be a part of the Georgian and Familistick Anabaptisme to lay down all naturall shame yet God has imprinted so much shamefastnesse in the hearts of all since the fall of Adam that no honest and ingenuous person can endure to stand naked before any company and if this should be put upon them by any necessity they could not but take it for a great and disgracefull affliction As dipping puts more upon the baptized then nature and civility can bear so likewise then can consist with religion Divinity admits not of Se-baptisme Dipping brings in Se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others now in dipping the most part of the body is put under the water by the parties baptized themselves for as they say the custome is they goe into the water and stand there above the middle why therefore are they not to be reputed as well baptizers who put the most parts of the body in the water as they who put the lesse Against all this the grand disputants object First that the word Baptizein does signifie onely to dip or wash and never to sprinkle The first objection That the originall word Baptzein does signifie always dipping and never sprinkling removed to prove this they bring the authority of the Septuagints of Nonnus of Vossius Answer If this argument were cast in form the major of it would lye upon such a generall proposition No rite may be used in any Sacrament which differeth from the common signification of the word used in Scripture to expresse that rite If this were universally true what gesture would be necessary to be used by the communicants at the Lords Table The word expressing Christ and his Ap●stles gesture in the last Supp●r is Anaceisthai Anapyptein Anaclinein relative to the ancient form of lying about the Table in their Triclinia these words doe no more signifie to sit Cath●zein then Baptizein signifies to sprinkle If any upon such a grammatication would call in question the lawfulnesse of sitting at the Lords Table his criticisme would not be judged solid by any judicious person The minor also That baptisme does always signifie dipping and never sprinkling we deny in our first argument for the affirmative we gave eight instances to the contrary out of the New Testament to which we may adde beside other places Luke 11.38 Lu● 11. ●8 And when the Pharisee saw it he marvailed that he had not fi●st washed before dinner in the originall that he was not first baptized before dinner Could it be a matter of any wonder that Jesus or any other person before dinner did not plunge themselves over head and ears in water or rather was not the Pharisaicall superstition in the necessity of pouring water upon the hands for a legall purification The authorities mentioned are nothing to the purpose that of the Septuagints 2 Kings 5.14 Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan according to the saying of the man of God it onely proves a washing of Naamans body in Jordan according to the Prophets direction every true washing is not by a totall immersion as daily experience and many Scriptures prove the woman washed Christs feet with her tears and David washed his bed with his tears onely by sprinkling But suppose the Septuagints in this place had taken the word for a dipping over head and ears will it follow that the word is no otherwise taken by any Authour any where else Goe to the same Septuagints Dan. 4.33 Dan. 4.33 His body was wet with the dew of heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebrew tabal and the Chaldee jits tabang which ordinarily are translated by baptizo and here by its root bapto which oft is more and never lesse then baptizo can no otherwise be taken then for sprinkling for which other way did the rain and dew fall upon Nebuchadnezars body then by drops We grant that Nonnus expounds baptizo by cathairo but this makes nothing at all for dipping for many more purifications were by sprinkling and affusion then by immersion and dipping As for Vossius suppose his criticisme were well founded that baptizein did signifie principally to dip which may very well be questioned for why may we not make the first signification of the word to be washing and the second dipping the first being the end and the other but the mean as well as to make dipping the first signification and washing the second because the one is the cause and the other the effect yet all this is for no purpose for though the word did signifie first to dip yet if in the second third fourth fifth or any place it signified to sprinkle it is enough for all that we affirm now that the word baptizo has truly this signification of sprinkling Vossius in this very place alledged to the contrary does prove it from many passages both of Scripture and Antiquity Their second objection they take from these Scriptures where the baptized seem to have been dipped The second objection No evidence in Scripture that any were ever dipped over head and