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.
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 The Baptists or Dippers give the following Arguments I. From the natural signification of the word The Baptists or Dippers say FIrst That it is to be by Dipping not by Sprinkling or pouring is manifest from the nature of the Greek word Baptiso which all our Lexicons and Learned Criticks with one consent do tell us doth signifie to Dip yea such a Dipping as is used in Bucks where clothes are washed or as Dyers in their Dying-Vats Leigh's Crit. Sac. Therefore Scapula Stephens Plantan Tingo quod fit mergendo a Dying by plunging Causabon Tanquam ad tingendum mergo Erasmus Tingendi causa immergere to dye by immerging and Beza a tinction by Washing or Dipping and as Bucan Bulinger Zanchy Spanhemius to Dip into water or plung under water Vossius to wash the whole body as Leigh Crit. p. 50. Grocius to Dip over head and ears Therefore the Latins render it sometimes by Tingo to dye sometimes by Baptismus to Dip the English and French for the most part by the Greek word Baptism or Baptim to Dive or Duck not Rantize or Sprinkle the Saxons call it Gefullad from fulling of clothes where they are duck'd or plunged the Dutch always Doopselor or Doopen to Dip dipping being the only proper sense and which is also confirmed by * Lisput p. 25. Vossius (a) Pan. Cath. Tit. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Chamier (b) Diat on Tit. 3.2 Mead (c) on Mat. 3. Causabon (d) de Prim. pap p. 193. Salmatius (e) de Jure nat l. 2. c. 2. Pindorus (f) Ode 2. Selden (g) Rule Consc l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Tayler (h) Annot. New Test Mat. 3. Mark 7. c. Dr. Hamond (i) Tract Sac. p. c. 8. p. 177. Mr. Dan. Rogers (k) Dict. Mincheus Scotus Aquinus c. The Rantists or Sprinklers answer That it may be by sprinkling or pouring by applying the Element to the person not the person to the Element appears by the nature of the word which signifies to Wash as well as to Dip as most Criticks acknowledge Item Lavo saith Beudeus Scapula Stephens Scriverius Pasor yea to sprinkle as Schimdjus Dr. Featly The Baptistt Reply That a word may have divers Significations nay sometimes contrary one to the other is no ways doubtful for the Hebrew Kodesh the proper word for Holiness sometimes may signifie Whoredom or Sodomy Deut. 23.17 Hosea 4.14 2 Kings 23.17 And Barack the word for Blessing is taken sometimes for Cursing Job 1.5 11. 2.9 Therefore the genuine and proper Signification is mainly to be eyed and when respecting Divine things the usuage of Scripture nature of the thing and scope of the place is to rule about it It is true the word may sometimes import washing but as (a) Beza on Mark 7.4 which in the Treat of Bap. is mistakenly said to be Erasmus Beza observes only by consequence not properly because you cannot dip a thing but you must wet or wash it But never is taken for sprinkling II. From the Scripture-Acceptation of the word The Baptists say Secondly That it is by Dipping may yet further be confirmed from the Scripture-Acceptation of the word both in the Old and New-Testament First in the (a) Exod. 12.22 Lev. 4.6 17. 9.9 〈…〉 16.52 Numb 10.18 Josh 3.15 Ruth 2.14 1 Kings 〈…〉 4.6 〈…〉 Ezek. 23.15 〈…〉 24.27 2 Kings 8.15 Job 9.31 2 Kings Mark 4. â—â— Deut. 33.29 Old-Testament the word Tabal one and the same with Baptise as the Septuagint renders it and as Beza Hamond Minchius Kircherus c. and others do assert is always in every place by all our English Translators rendred to Dip. And in the (b) Luke 16.24 John 13.26 Mat. 5.14 26.23 〈…〉 10. Rev. 19.13 New-Testament several times also to Dip but most frequently by the Greek word it self Baptise or Dip not Rantise or Sprinkle Loise or wash Keiose or pour And therefore saith (c) Treat of Sacraments part 1. ch 8. p. 177. Mr. Rogers The word imports nothing else but to Dip for the Greek wanted not other words to express any other act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it as he saith is exceeding material to the Ordinance as Scripture and Antiquity informeth and without exception to Countreys hot or cold The Rantists answer That it may be by pouring or sprinkling we have Confirmation from the Scripture Acceptation of the word 1. Because the word Tabal is by Gen. 30.37 38. rendred by Moluno poluo which by the circumstances must be sprinkling And the Chald. Jitztabah Dan. 4.20 which by the LXX is rendred Ebephe is translated wet which must be by aspersion And Rev. 19.13 the word Bapto compared Isa 63.3 must be sprinkled and Mark 7.48 to wash not dip The Baptists Reply That if it should be taken for granted that the word in these four places may be taken otherwise than in all other places will it be judged reasonable that those four should out ballance and over-rule all the rest which are above a hundred times rendred to dip But in the next place if the particulars be considered you will not find them make good the thing pretended For 1. As to Joseph's Coat Gen. 37.31 if dipt in blood as we render it it may well be said to be polluted dyed or smeared therewith And as to Dan. 4.20 the word Jitztabah is by Montanus rendred intingatur vel aspergetur And if the Scripture do render it Ebaphe which we translate wet yet it must be granted to be such a weting as is by by dipping viz. A thorough weting a weting all over A wetting by the dew of Heaven from above by aspersion and a wetting by the dew of Heaven resting upon the long grass by applying the body thereto and so a dipping also yea every part of the body And as for Rev. 19.13 it is parallel with Isa 63.12 as saith our English great Annotations dyed red Garments and garments dipt in blood being one and the same though as in Vers 3. Blood may be sprinkled upon Red Garments also As for Mark 7.3 the word rendred wash is Nipto not Bapto which fignifies when respecting washing of hands a dipping up to the Elbows as Dr. Hamond and Theophilact as in the margent upon the place observe And to which purpose they had Water-pots containing two or three Firkins apiece always ready in their houses as John 2.6 so that we should always as the Dutch do read it dip and therefore in Vers 8. it is explained to be such a washing by the word dip or baptize III. From the Scripture-Metaphors explaining it The Baptists say Thirdly That it is by Dipping and wherein much water is required and not by Sprinkling wherein a small quantity of water sufficeth appears from the Scripture-Metaphors alluding
to this Rite viz. When persons are said to be over-whelmed in great sufferings they are said to be baptized therein Matth. 20.22 23. Luke 12.5 When said to have greet measures of the Spirit it is to be Baptized with the Spirit Acts 5.11 16. When the children of Isral were covered with a Cloud behind them and over their heads and the Sea on both sides were then said to be Baptized in the Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10.2 with Exod. 14.22 When Asher had the promised Blessing of great plenty he is said to have his feet dipt in oyl And when great victory over enemies 't is said that feet are dipt in their Blood Psal 68.23 IV. From the nature and ends of the Ordinance The Baptists say Fourthly It is to be by Dipping not Sprinkling from the nature and ends of the Ordinance viz. To a figure or sign in the outward Visible act of spiritual things held forth thereby that by the sign the thing signified might be exemplified viz. 1. To figure out the Covenant on mans part that he visibly declares to enter into thereby viz. To dye to sin and to live to Christ in newness of life By that figurative Death Burial and Resurrection being put under the the water and taken out thereof and therefore said to be buried with Christ in Baptism as Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.11 12 13. as so fully own'd by Piscator Tilenus Diodat Assemblies and Leigh's Annotations Dr. Cave Tillotson Goodwin Kekerman Baxter Magdiburg as Treat Bapt. B. 2. chap. 4. doth particularize 2. To be a sign of the Covenant on Gods part viz. of washing away of sins cleansing the whole man and every part and to give spiritual Life and Salvation Acts 2.32 22.16 1 Pet. 3.21 And to the end that whole and every part is be to washed that as every part is defiled and needs cleansing and purifying so must not one part be left unbaptized Therefore Ainsworth treating upon Baptizing the Lepers under the Law the Type hereof saith Lev. 15.5 That every part must be baptized and if so much as the tip of the finger was left unbaptized it was esteemed no Baptism And therefore saith the Learned (a) de Jure Nat. l. 2. c. 2. Selden That the Jews from whom this Rite is conceived to come took that Baptism wherein the whole body was not baptized to be void And to this end (b) Upon John 13.10 saith Dr. Hamond they had large Diving-places or Baptisterions containing divers Baths of water which they called Columbethro's or Diving-places 3. To figure out Regeneration being as so generally own'd a Symbol of Regeneration wrought therefore being born of spiritual water by Regeneration John 3.5 We are in the figure taken out of literal water or born out of the Bowels of it as we are really taken out of the Womb in the first birth 4. To figure out our Sanctification or newness of life for as in Baptism we are all covered over as with a garment so we are said thereby to put on Christ Gal. 3.27 viz. his white Garment of Righteousness and Holiness and therefore to expect from him to that end according to promise the being dipt or baptized into or with the Spirit Acts 11.16 2.38 The Rantists answer It is to be by Sprinkling not Dipping 1. From the Analogy it hath with sprinkling Christs blood upon the Conscience Heb. 12.24 2. Effusion of the Spirit Acts 2.17 3. Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 4. Pouring water upon the Ark 1 Pet. 3.23 the figure of Baptism The Baptists Reply It is true 1. Christs blood is said to be sprinkled but that is in allusion to the sprinkling of the blood under the Law Heb. 9.12 13. 19.21 with Lev. 14.6 7 8. Numb 19.17 18 19. but not to express and point out to us the external Rite of Baptism to which it bears no proportion either in name or nature 2. That the Spirit is said to be poured out is very true which respects that great measure and quantity of the Spirit not the outward mode and Rite of Baptism though that pouring out of the Spirit as before is Metaphorically called the Baptism of the Spirit in allusion to that of water wherein was quantities of water and whereof every member of the baptized person did partake But similies do not run of all four 3. As to the pouring water upon the Ark no question when the windows of Heaven were opened in that Deluge great measures were poured down upon it but that is not the Figure of Baptism The figure wherein the Ark and Baptism are said in that place to hold Analogy is in this that as those persons that entred into the Ark in Noahs time were saved in that Deluge so they that enter into Christ the spitual Ark by Faith and the Visible Ark the Church by Baptism the visible door thereof do enter into the promised savation Therefore for any to use Srpinkling instead of Dipping saith Dr. Taylor in his Rul Con. c. 4. p. 644. is not only against Ecclesiastical Law but against the Analogy and mystical signification of the Sacrament and therefore he saith is not to be complyed with As to that of the washing of Regeneration I refer to that which is said in the Treatise of Baptism part 2. chap. 4. V. From Scripture-Practice and Command The Baptists say Fifthly Dipping not Sprinkling is the Rite of this great Ordinance if we respect the Scripture Practice or Command confirming the same 1. The Practice Mat. 3.15 When Jesus was baptized or dipt he came straightway out of the water Therefore Cajetan upon the place saith that Christ's ascending out of the water proves that he was baptized by John not by sprinkling but by Immersion or dipping And Musculus saith upon it that the baptized parties were dipt not sprinkled And John 3.13 John baptized at Enon because there was much water Upon which place saith Calvin you may gather that John and Christ administred Baptism by plunging the whole body into the water And Acts 8.38 Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water And therefore saith Calvin upon it We see what fashion the Ancients had to administer Baptism for they plunged the whole body into water c. And the command to this was express Mat. 28.19 Go teach all Nations dipping not sprinkling them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And Acts 10.48 't is said Peter commanded them to be dipt not sprinkled in the name of the Lord c. And therefore whether this is not as plain a Conmand for a Believer to be dipt and which he should no more shift or alter than when we are commanded Fagate to eat of the Bread c. that we are literally and plainly to do so without any changing or altering the same as sone have done in that and the like case also The Rantists answer That Sprinkling not Dipping was the usage in the Scripture because how could they baptize by dipping
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