ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΩΝ ΔΙΔΑΧΗ,  
THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS: OR, A DISCOURSE OF Dipping and Sprinkling; Wherein is showed the Lawfulness of other Ways of Baptization, besides that of a TOTAL IMMERSION; AND Objections against it Answered.  
By WILLIAM WALKER, B. D. sometimes of Trinity College Cambridge.  
In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente, & Deo indulgentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conferunt Divina compendia. D. Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 7.  
Let us draw near with a true Heart, in full assurance of Faith, having our Hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our Bodies washed with pure Water, Heb. 10.23.  
Imprimatur, Guil. Jane, Feb. 22. 1677.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Pawlet, at the Sign of the Bible in Chancery-Lane, near Fleetstreet, 1678.   

TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD WILLIAM SANCROFT By Divine Providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, WILLIAM WALKER RECTOR of COLSTERWORTH Wisheth all the Happiness of this Present, and of the Future State.  
MY LORD,  
HOw great a Happiness it is to this weatherbeaten Church to have a Person of so great Abilities, and known Integrity, advanced to that high Honour and Trust of being its Prime Steersman in these unsteady and tempestuous Times, is easier by much for me to conceive, than to declare. Nevertheless I do humbly assume the boldness to express the deep sense I have of it, and the high joy I have conceived for it, by dedicating unto Your Grace's Name the ensuing Treatise: in which I defend that Church, whereof You are constituted the Supreme Ecclesiastical Minister, against such a sort of Adversaries, as strike not only at its Wealth and Grandeur, but even at its very Life and Being, and most especially in their management of that particular Controversy, which is the Subject of these following Papers, whereby, whilst they go about to unchristen our Persons, they endeavour to unchurch our Church: for how that can be a true Christian Church, in which there is neither Magistrate, nor Minister, nor People, that have been baptised with a true Christian Baptism, (and none have been so, in the opinion of the Anabaptists, that have not been totally dipped) I am yet to learn. And I humbly beg, that Your Grace will vouchsafe Your Patronage to this particular Treatise, because of the weighty importance of this Controversy, and of the indispensable necessity of making good this Post against the insulting Adversary, and of clearing all difficulties about it, that so the unsettled Consciences of well-meaning men, who modestly doubt, or are unfactiously dissatisfied therein, and, as they soberly seek, so would gladly find, whereon they might safely, as well as finally settle, may at length have solid ground, whereon to build a clear satisfaction to themselves, that they are already in a state of true Christianity, and live in a truly Christian Community, and have no necessity in order thereunto, of turning Anabaptists, and being baptised over again; that so every stone of Offence, and Stumbling-block of doubt being removed out of the way, the Dissenters from the Church of England on this account, may cheerfully and conscientiously return to union with it; which as it is my hearts wish, and souls desire, so is it my principal aim, and main design in these Papers: or else may be known to all the World to continue perversely and unconscionably in their separation from it; which God, in his infinite mercy to this Church, and Them, forbidden. And now, as knowing that Your Graces concerns are both too many, and too weighty, to be diverted, or interrupted, with other men's little, and yet long impertinencies, I wish Your Grace much joy of, and the Church a long enjoyment of You in, that Honour, whereunto his Majesty, to the great content of all his People, hath so worthily advanced You; and in all dutiful affection remain  
MY LORD, Colsterworth near Grantham, May 1. 1678. Your Grace's most Humble and most devoted Servant, WILLIAM WALKER.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Courteous READER,  
IN the midst of Trouble by the death of my dear Wife, Sickness of myself, and Dissolution of my Family and School, by the Small pox, about the beginning of the Year 1677. came to me one Mr. Pan with a Challenge to a public Disputation with one Mr. Grantham, a Ringleader, it seems, of the Sect of the Baptists, as they are pleased now to call themselves, whom elder times used to call Anabaptists. This challenge I refused to accept of. That Refusal was Trumpeted up and down among their Party, and by them among others, to the disparagement both of my Person, and of the Cause I maintain. With the Refusal, I sent the Reasons of it also, which they have not been so ingenuous as equally to disperse; I will therefore beg the Readers Favour, that I may acquaint him therewith; which done, I shall leave both him and all the world, to judge as they please of me and it. And this Publication of my Reasons I make by the advice of my Prudent Friends; and I do it partly to give a stop to the boastings of that Party, and prevent prejudice to my Cause on that account, and partly to allay that Pruriency of mind to disputation, which may be in some, by showing them Reasons why they should decline Disputes, unless when they are as well Authorized to it, as Enabled for it. And but for this I could very contentedly have sat down under all my disparagements, being abundantly satisfied with that Approbation of my Refusal, which I found it to have, in the judgement of Wise men. The Reasons were these that follow, all in Substance, and much in Words.  
First, I alleged my want of a Memory necessary for such a Purpose. He, I said, that was to manage a Public Disputation, needed to be a man of a great Memory, able, not only to repeat Syllogisms, but also to quote Chapter and Verse of Scripture, and Book and Section of other Authors, to remember the Occasions and Scopes of Discourses incident, with their Contexts, Antecedents, and Consequents. But I was so far from all this, that if any thing should be quoted against me out of mine own Book, I could hardly be able to gainsay it, till I had seen, and read the place. And therefore as being utterly unfit in that respect for any such undertaking, I refused it.  
Secondly, I said, He, that was to engage in a Public Dispute, aught to be a Person of great boldness and confidence. And 'tis true; for else, though otherwise sufficiently learned and eloquent, he shall by some insolences in the words or carriage of a bold and confident Antagonist (or perhaps of some of the Company) be dashed out of countenance, if not quite baffled, and silenced; however he shall be troubled, and disturbed, if not utterly confounded, in his own reasonings; he shall lose many advantages by what he could speak, for want of confidence to speak them; and his Cause too shall suffer for his sake, in the opinion of at least one half of his Hearers, who will conclude the timidity of his Person to be the product of his own sense of the weakness of his Cause. But I (as I said) was a man of so much Modesty and diffidence, that if I did but appear in any greater Audience, I was ordinarily struck with such a Consternation, that I was hardly able to deliver any thing I had to say, unless I had my Notes before me to read, or cast my eye upon at pleasure. And having been all my life long used to privacy, and retirement, and never drawn forth into any such public contrast, I could not think I could be able to keep courage and countenance, and manage my undertaking with that boldness and confidence, which was necessary on such occasion, and in the presence of so vast a multitude, as would have been gathered together to hear us. And if my Memory was bad of itself, that Fear would have made it worse. And even the conscience of a bad Memory was enough, even of itself, to diffuse a diffidence into me, had I been otherwise endued with a better stock of Confidence, than I dare boast myself to have. And so, as utterly unfit on that account also to maintain a Public Disputation, I declined it.  
Thirdly, I alleged myself utterly unqualified for such an undertaking, if not by reason of Sorrow of Mind, yet on account of Infirmity of Body. He, I said, that was to manage a Public Dispute ought to be a man of a strong Body, and sound Lungs, able to speak long, and loud, that the Auditors might understand what was said, and especially since the humour now was to give the Cause, not according to the Soundness of the Reason, but according to the Loudness of the Voice of the Disputant. But I was a man far from this, being at present but in a recovering condition from two distempers, just got down out of my Chamber, not as yet got abroad, and at best subject to Infirmities enough, to procure me, from any man of Reason or Pity, a Writ of Ease from such an endangering Engagement. Should I have appointed a day for Dispute, I could not be sure I should be able to hold it, going many times well to bed, and being arrested ere the morning with the Stone or the Gout. And what interpretation would have been made upon a faileur on such occasion, though the reason had been never so just; and how much it must have been turned to the disparagement not of my Person only, but of my Cause too, let the Reader judge. And supposing it, that I had stood sound in these respects, yet that I should be able with a Cough of the Lungs, and a broken Vein, to speak so loud as to be heard by half the Company, and so long as till his Eight Questions were disputed through, is not imaginable. And if nothing else, yet that necessary care that I ought to have of my own preservation, for the sake of my children, new made Orphans by the death of their Mother, had reason enough in it to dissuade me from being so prodigal of my Life or Health, as, without greater Reason, and more Necessity for it, than any I yet saw, to throw away, or expose either unto hazard, in a brabbling contest; and on that account also I would not admit of it.  
Fourthly, supposing nothing of all this had been, yet the business itself, I said, was of a mighty concernment, not my private quarrel, but the Church's Cause; and that considering my own manifold deficiencies, I could not think myself Champion enough for such an Engagement. And therefore as being unwilling either that so great a weight should lie on so weak a shoulder, or that the Churches Cause should suffer by my insufficiency to maintain it, I would not dispute. It was excepted, I might take in others to my assistance, and so engage with an equal number on the other side. To this I replied, that I knew what I had to say myself; but what another might say I could not tell. And therefore being unwilling to hazard so great a concern on such an uncertainty, I would not engage, no not with the assistance of any other, in a Public Dispute. I added also that a plurality of Disputants was many times a hindrance in the disputation; whilst one by an unseasonable interposition prevented another of, or put him by, his Argument, or disturbed and confounded him in his Arguing. I said further that I had written what I had to say in the Cause, and Mr. Grantham, if he pleased, might answer that; and than it might by others be judged on which side the greatest probability of truth did lie. It was again excepted, that I might as well dispute, as write. But I answered, Nay; for besides my Personal indispositions rendering me unqualified for Disputation, when I wrote I could at my best leisure consider what I did, and by the help of Books or Notes recover, at one time or other, what was slipped out of my memory; also I could offer what I had written to the Eyes of learned Persons, and have their judgements thereon: but could not do so in an Oral Disputation. It was lastly urged that my Refusal to dispute would reflect upon me. But thereto I answered, that I would rather choose to suffer in my Credit for my Refusing to dispute, than that the Church should suffer in her Cause by my ill disputing.  
Fifthly, Supposing myself never so able to dispute, yet still I alleged, that I had no warrantable Call to engage in such a Public Disputation. Had the King, or the Bishop, or any of my Superiors commanded me to it, I must have obeyed, and would have done my best in it, not doubting but that God that gave me the Call, would also afford me his Assistance. But having no warrantable Call thereto, I would not unwarrantably engage therein. It was excepted, that I might easily obtain leave of the Bishop, if I would desire it. But I answered, that being neither personally fit for it, nor at all ambitious of it, I would not in the least seek after it.  
Sixthly, I alleged that I had seldom known any great good that came to the Church by Public Disputations. For the Disputants honour and credit lying at stake, Victory was more often aimed at than Truth. And in order to the obtaining of that, all advantages were by each Antagonist against his Adversary narrowly watched and catcht at; all arts and stratagems made use of to elude and evade Arguments (especially when they were likely to prove sharp and pinching;) and particularly that notorious one of endeavouring by perverse and intricating arguings, and cross and involved answerings, if not also by some exasperating words, or disobliging actions, to put the Antagonist besides his Reason, by putting him into Passion: so that seldom any Argument was driven to the head, or the Conference came to any good issue: but the Dispute mostly ended in impertinent squabble and endless contradiction, to no advantage towards the establishment of the truth, or edification of the Hearers: and therefore, were I never so able, I should be most unwilling, to engage in such a fruitless adventure.  
Besides, I asked, to whose umpirage we should stand, if we disputed, as believing it vain to dispute without an Umpire. It was answered the Company should be Judges. I replied, that I was least of all satisfied with that: in regard the Hearers, which would be sure to be of different Parties, usually judged as they were affected, and ran away, after all, with several stories of what was said and done; and placed the Crown of Victory on the head of their own Combatant; the consequent whereof was the filling of the Country with confused noises, and news of their triumphs, not at all tending to the good of the Church, but to the further unsettling of People in their minds and judgements, and to the disposing of them so much the more to Schism and Faction. And upon this account also, had I been never so able, I was unwilling to dispute. I added also, that neither I, nor any Minister of the Church of England could engage with any of their Party in a Public Dispute, but upon mighty disadvantage. For we, though never so ignorant, must be looked upon as great Scholars, and they, though never so learned, must be looked upon as ignorant Men. And then what comes of it? If we get the better of them, it is no disparagement to their Persons, nor disadvantage to their Cause: because we are supposed to carry the day, not by the goodness of our Cause, but by the greatness of our Learning, or however by our cunning and sophistry in disputing. And, a great piece of matter will it be said to be, for such learned University Scholars, to be too hard for such unlearned Country Men. But if they get the better of us, or be but able, though by mere wrangle, to hold us up, than a Song of Triumph is sung, then both our Persons, and our Cause suffers disparagement thereby, but theirs is superlatively magnified by all the Parties and Favourers of their Sect. And that Victory shall be solely imputed to the strength of their Cause, which was only owed to the weakness of their Adversary. And therefore to give them no such matter for Triumph over the Cause I maintained, I would not so disadvantagiously engage in the Dispute whereto I was challenged.  
And now having declared the Grounds of my Refusal of that Dispute, I leave myself to the Censure of all, whether I did as became me, in refusing it, or not.  
Notwithstanding I declared to Mr. Pan then, that as I had formerly held private Conferences with several Persons of their way, naming some unto him, so if either Himself then, or at any other time after, or Mr. Grantham, or any other of his Party whatsoever, without excepting any, would come singly, and one to one hold discourse with me, in a modest way, and a peaceable manner, in order to the satisfaction of his private doubts, he might freely come when he would; I would refuse none.  
But as that was then refused by Mr. Pan, saying, he came not upon that design, so neither He, nor any other of their Party hath ever been with me since upon any such occasion. And since I find so ill use made of what passed betwixt him and me then, I have cause to think it a mercy, that I have been troubled with no more of them; and for the future shall so think it. I mean the bold Disputers of the Faction, and not any modest doubters of that way.  
Having for my own, and others satisfaction made many researches into this difficult Point, and having at length settled upon, as I then thought, and still hope they will prove to be, solid grounds of satisfaction, and finding this to be one of the Questions, whereabout Mr. Grantham challenged me to dispute, and remembering what I had heard of his Abilities that way, I began with more earnestness of desire, and firmness of resolution, to pursue my design. So that if I have done the Church any service in this Treatise, that Challenge of Mr. Granthams is in a good measure to have the thanks for it: Perhaps else it had longer been in doing. And now, having through God's assistance brought it to an end, I have published it for the Common good; hoping it may in some measure be useful to inform the ignorant, resolve the doubtful, and silence at least, if not satisfy Gainsayers.  
I need not, to invite you to the Reading of it, make any long harangue about the weight and importance of the subject of it, or its concernment to yourself. 'Tis in short, no more, nor other, than this, whether you have been truly baptised, and so may go on with a satisfied conscience to reckon yourself to be a Christian, or whether your former Baptism, if not by a total immersion, were not a mere nullity, and you consequently of necessity to be by a new baptism, and that too by a total Dipping, initiated into a state of Christianity. If I have contributed any thing to your satisfaction in this so highly, and so nearly concerning an Inquiry, bless God that made me Instrumental thereunto. If I come short of my aim therein, then pray to God to put it into the hearts of those that guide the Helm of Church affairs, to press some other more able Person for that service. And the rather should both you and I desire this, lest, if we cannot prove our Baptism true, we be not able to prove our Christianity good; and if we cannot make good our Christianity, it be not hard for us to prove, either that there is such a thing as a Ministry in the Church, or such a thing as a Church in the Land, unless in the Community of Anabaptists. For a Church consisting of Magistrates, and Ministers, and People, which are all unbaptized Persons, (as all are by the Anabaptists so accounted, who were not, when baptised, totally dipped) is such a Riddle, as may not very easily be resolved. Let the wise in heart consider this.  
I have said enough, if not too much, by way of Preface; and therefore I will not detain you any longer with a discourse of my Phrase, Style, and Manner of handling of this Subject, 
* Only note, that sometimes I use sprinkling, as a generical word, comprehending all the ways of baptising different from Dipping.  but leave that to the judgement of your own candour and ingenuity, hoping that what is given you with the right hand, you will not take with the left. Farewell.   

A PRAYER.  
O Lord God, who hast given me power, and will, leisure and opportunity, to begin, go on with, and finish this Treatise, I bless Thee for all the gracious furtherances, and favourable assistances vouchsafed unto me therein. And I do most humbly, and most earnestly beg of Thee to bless it to the Ends whereunto I have designed it, which are the Advancement of thy Glory, and the promoting of the Peace of this Church, by the Satisfaction of Doubters, and the Conviction of Opposers. Put, I beseech Thee, into the hearts of all that shall read it, a readiness to receive the Truth in Love. And second the reading of it with such Light and Evidence from thy Word and Spirit, that the Truths herein delivered may be convincingly discovered. If to Thy Foundation, which is ever Truth, I have through Ignorance, Inadvertency, or Misapprehension, added any thing that is Erroneous, O let that Error be made to appear, that no Other may be deceived thereby, though I have been so. And when that Error comes to be justly condemned; O let thy Servant be mercifully pardoned. Grant this for Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.  
The Author hath lately put forth a Defence of the Baptising of Infants, called, A Modest Plea for Infant's Baptism.   

THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I. THE Text. Several ways of Baptising. The Grounds of all, the same. Page 1  
CHAP. II. Several Acceptions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and how 'tis taken here. p. 3  
CHAP. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how rendered by Divines and Grammarians. p. 6  
CHAP. IV. Of the Primitive Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that it doth not signify only to dip. p. 13  
CHAP. V. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify only to dip. p. 20  
CHAP. VI Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it doth not always import a total immersion. p. 35  
CHAP. VII. Of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Syriac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and that they do not universally signify a total immersion. p. 54  
CHAP. VIII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not restrained to a total immersion amongst Christians, by the practice of the Jews. p. 59  
CHAP. IX. The agreeableness of baptising by aspersion or affusion unto the Nature of Baptism. p. 64  
CHAP. X. Other ways of baptising besides that of a total immersion used in the Church, in all, or most Ages and Places of it p. 74  
CHAP. XI. Answers to Authorities produced to the contrary, by Mr. Danvers, from divers Grammarians, Divines and other Writers p. 158  
CHAP. XII. Answers to Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers from Commentators, etc. p. 195  
CHAP. XIII. Answers to more Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers, from Historians, Casuists, and other Polemical, as well as Didactical Writers p. 219  
CHAP. XIV. The Church's Grounds for admitting of Sprinkling, in General p. 258  
CHAP. XV. The Churches particular Inducements to admit of Sprinkling p. 265  
CHAP. XVI. The Institution of Christ not violated by Sprinkling, and the agreeableness of That; with the primary design of Baptism further manifested p. 276  
CHAP. XVII. A Conclusion by way of Paraenesis to the Dippers p. 292    

ERRATA.  
PAge 9 Line 17. read— sing by washing. p. 12. marg. l. 3. r. urget. p. 13. m. l. 6. r. tingo. p. 34. l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 41. l. 29 deal not. ib. l. 36. r. do understand. p. 67. m. l. 4. r. Christus. ib. l. 35. r. Juvenc. p. 77. m. l. 3. r. baptizare. p. 86. m. l. 15. r. Where by. p. 93. m. l 7, 8. r. seipsam. p. 103. m. l. 4. r. totum. ib. l. 10, 11. r. consequuntur. p. 105. l. 29. r. away sins. p. 117. m. l. 6. r. Neophyt. p. 121. l. 11. r. of, the. p. 126. l. 33 r. of any. p. 163. l. 8. r. it, like. p. 231. l. 2. r. that their. p. 237. m. l. 7. r. ergo. p. 248. l. 14. r. so when. p. 262. l. 10. r. then. ib. l. 27. r. about to confute. p. 273. m. l. penult. r. nudi. p 275. m. l. 7. for Id. r. Voss. p. 284. m. l. 18. for sacram, r. suorum. p. 295. m. l. 1. r. Nam. p. 297. m. l. 23. r. admisisse.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, THE DOCTRINE of BAPTISMS: OR, A DISCOURSE OF Dipping and Sprinkling, etc.  

CHAP. I. The Text. Several ways of Baptising. The Grounds of all, the same.  Matth. 28.19. 
Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptising them—  
§. 1. 
Baptizantes.] Non hîc instituit baptismum, lique● enim ex capite Joan. 4. discipulos Christi jam antè Baptizâsse, quod non puto quisquam absque Christi dicet factum esse praecepto, multo minus alium illic & alium hîc esse baptismum, Musc. in Matth. 28.19. Vid. P. Lombard. l. 4. Dist. 3. part. 2. & Mod. Plea for Inf. Bapt. c. 30. Sect. 2.  THese were the words of our ever Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to his Apostles. The time when he spoke them, was some while after his Resurrection, and but a very little before his Ascension. And so they are not his first Institution of his Baptism, which was administered by his Apostles, and therefore instituted by himself, before his Passion. But they are an Enlargement of that Commission, which he had formerly given to his Apostles, to preach to the Jews, and baptise them, to an authorising of them to preach to the Gentiles also, and to baptise them; and perhaps with some, Improvement of it in point of Form, End, or Use: whence some as well formerly as lately, have been apt to think them the first Institution of Baptism, especially as Christian.  
§. 2. That by his Apostles preaching and baptising, in pursuance of their Commission, both Jews and Gentiles were at first brought to be, and were made Disciples unto Christ, I think is a thing on all hands concluded; as also what is meant by Preaching.  
§. 3. But what is meant by Baptising, or after what manner Baptism was, and is to be administered, is not so well agreed upon.  
§. 4. Some are of opinion that it was, and aught to be performed by a total Immersion, or Dipping of the whole Person into the Water; that this is the only lawful, and effectual way of baptising, and consequently of absolute Necessity; and that all other ways are not only unlawful, but perfect nullities.  
§. 5. But the opinion of others is, that it was, and may be performed otherwise than so; viz. either by Dipping of some Principal part of the Person (as the Head or Face, 
Aliter pectus credentis abluitur, aliter mens hominis per fidei merita mundatur, D. Cypr. l. 4. Ep. 7.  etc.) into the water; or else by Pouring or Sprinkling of water upon some Principal part of him; that though Immersion be a lawful and an effectual way of baptising, yet it is not the only lawful and effectual way of doing it, nor absolutely necessary; but that the other usual ways of baptising are lawful also as well as it, and the baptism administered by them, to all intents and purposes as valid and effectual, as if performed by it.  
§. 6. Immersion, or Dipping, stands on three grounds, viz. the Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Agreeableness of Dipping with the Nature of Baptism; and the Practice of the Church to Dip when she baptised. Now if it can be shown, that the other usual ways of baptising are neither repugnant to the Signification of that word; nor to the Nature of the thing; nor to the Practice of the Church, but are agreeable unto all: then, I hope, it will appear, that they standing on the same grounds with Dipping, are also lawful as well as Dipping; and that baptism by dipping is not so necessary, as to nullify the other ways of baptising, or render them unlawful: And the declaring of this is the design of these Papers: and that declaration will be a competent exposition of our Saviour's meaning in this his Commission, given to his Apostles to make all Nations Disciples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising them.   

CHAP. II. Several acceptions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and how 'tis taken here.  
§. 1. THe Method of this Discourse, as it is already laid down, obliges me to begin with the consideration of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here made use of by our Saviour. And as it stands in this Text it may deserve an enquiry in what acception, whether Proper or Tropical, it is to be taken: for be the proper acception of it what it will, if it be not here taken in that proper acception, no argument can hence be drawn to infer a necessity of dipping.  
§ 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to baptise, is not always used in Scripture according to its literal import, but sometimes in a Tropical sense, is I think out of question. But if any doubt the truth of this point, 'tis easily demonstrated; and an instance or two may suffice to do it.  
§. 3. And that it is used sometimes in a Metaphorical sense is apparent by what the Author of the Acts of the Apostles reports our Saviour, after his Resurrection, to have promised to his Disciples, namely, that whereas John had baptised with water, they should be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days after, Act. 1.5. Where when our Saviour saith, ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost, no man that is right in his wits, will say he used the word baptise in its proper sense, but only in a Metaphorical one; as intimating thereby that within a short space they should be endued with the Holy Ghost, whose effusion on them in a larger measure, might seem to be a kind of baptism, the graces of it falling upon them, as the dew fell upon the Israelites, when they were baptised in the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10.2.  
§. 4. So when in Luke 15.20. our Saviour saith of himself, I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! he cannot be understood to speak of baptism in its proper notion. For with a proper baptism he had already long before been baptised by John in Jordan. His meaning then in so saying, was nothing else, but to express by a Metaphorical word, that grievous afflictions, those heavy sufferings of the Cross, 
Sanguinis inquit proprii tinctione prius habeo perfundi. Bed. in Luc. Evang. c. 12. v. 50.  were shortly to be endured by him, whereby he should be as it were overwhelmed, as a man is with waters, when he is baptised by dipping, or rather be bedewed all over with drops of blood through his scourging, or at his bloody sweeting, as a man is bedewed with water; that is baptised by Sprinkling.  
§. 5. But the word is not used in a Metaphorical sense only, but also in a Metonymical. And so one is said in Scripture to be baptised, who is imbued with, or instructed in the Doctrine of any Master, who initiates his Disciples with the Ceremony of Baptism. Hence Paul (Act. 19.3.) asks some Disciples found by him at Ephesus, who had said, that they had not so much as heard, whether there were any Holy Ghost, into what they had been baptised, whereto they answered, into John's baptism. The sense of which words is, as if the Apostle had asked, with what Doctrine they had been instructed, and they had answered, that they had been instructed in that doctrine, which John taught. Whence, as it follows (ver. 4.) Paul said, John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Which is, as if it had been said, that John had instructed the people in the doctrine of repentance, and of faith in Christ, who was to come after him. In this sense S. Mark (c. 1. v. 4.) reports how John did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, instruct the people, who were to be baptised, in the doctrine of repentance. And in the same manner is Apollo's by S. Luke reported (Acts 18.25.) to have diligently taught the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John, that is, being only instructed with that doctrine concerning Christ, wherewith John Baptist did imbue and season his Disciples.  
§. 6. And there are that earnestly contend, 
Vid. Christian. Beckman. Exercitat. Theolog. 17. p. 257, etc.  that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text, is to be taken, not in the proper, but in this Metonymical sense. And assuredly there is no mention here (as there is in other places where the word is properly taken) of water, wherewith the Nations were to be baptised, but only of the Faith wherein they were to be instructed. He saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising them in, or into water, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in, or into the name of the Trinity.  
§. 7. But in regard that way of interpreting would bring in a needless Tautology into this so short a Precept of our Saviour's, Go make all Nations disciples, teaching them, and teaching them, (and still worse, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be rendered teach, viz. teach, teaching, and teaching;) in regard I find not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where else in Scripture joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any the like word in the sense of teaching; in regard that the Apostles of Christ did baptise with water, and there is extant in Scripture no other precept of Christ's touching baptising therewith, whereon to found that practice, but this; and in regard the whole Catholic Church of Christ hath ever baptised with water, and hath interpreted this Text of such baptising, I will not for the gaining of any advantage to my Hypothesis by any sinister interpretation, recede from the Ecclesiastical way of interpreting, but shall freely grant, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood here in its proper notion; and yet hope nevertheless to evince, that there is no necessity from thence of so interpreting the word of a total immersion, as to exclude all other ways of baptising, as unlawful and null. And to that I will next address myself.   

CHAP. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how rendered by Divines and Grammarians.  
§. 1. AND as it is confessed and acknowledged by some, and those good Authors, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify that special way of applying water to a person, or thing, whereby he, or it, is immerged, totally dipped, or put under water; so it is declared and affirmed by others, both Divines and Grammarians, and those of good note, and well skilled in the language of the Greeks, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides its special way of signifying to dip, doth signify also a more general way of applying water to a person or thing, whereby he, or it, is sprinkled, rinsed, or any way washed; so as that a thing or person may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is any way washed, though not totally immerged, dipped, or put under water.  
§. 2. To begin with Divines. 
Etsi enim mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesiae observatum fuisse constat: tamen verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non solum mergi sed etiam quâvis aliâ ratione tingi aut lavari, abluíve significat. Joh. Piscat. Com. Loc. de Baptismo Aphoris. 1. pag. 157, 158. Baptismus unde dicitur? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod est mergere. tingere, madefacere, & à consequenti lavare: à quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est immergo, intingo, abluo, Bucan. loc. 47. 1. pag. 605. Verbum autem hoc tam significat tingere, & simpliciter lavare, quàm immergere. Hier. Zanch. l. 1. de cultu dei externo c. 16. Tom. 4. col. 493. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecis aquâ mergere, lavare, abluere, & ut Tertul. solet vertere, tinguere significat. Maldonat. in Matth. 28.19. Notandum est quòd Baptizare in Graeco tantum valet, quantum lavare in Latino, unde Judith descendebat in vallem Bethuliae & baptizabat seize. Bonaventur. in l. 4. sent. didst 3. art. 1. qu. 1. Rof. Neque verbum Graecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm significat mergi: sed quoquo modo tingi. Pet. Martyr. in Rom. 10. fol. 141. d. Baptizare Graecum verbum est, significat autem tingere, vel immergere. Fer. in Matth. 28. p. 603. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non immergere tantùm significat, sed & tingere, Dr. Whitaker, Praelect. de Sacram. Baptismi qu. 1. c. 2. p. 217. Baptizo ením in Graeco, idem est quod lavo in Latino. Vnde de Judith, c. 12. scribitur, Descendebat in vallem Bethuliae, & baptizabat seize, i. e. lavabat, Guil. Vorrilong. in lib. 4. sent. dist. 3. edit. Venet. An. 1502.  Learned Piscator speaks fully to the point, saying that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, not only to be dipped, but also any other way to be tinged, washed, or rinsed. The like speaks Bucanus, saying, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is (i. e. signifies) to dip in, to intinge, to wash. And just so saith Zanchy, this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as well signify to die, and simply to wash, as to immerge, or dip in. And accordingly Maldonat saith, that with the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip, to wash, to wash oft, and as Tertullian uses to turn it, to tinge, wet, or die. Bonaventure saith, that Baptizo in Greek signifies as much as lavo in Latin. Whence (saith he) Judith went down into the valley of Bethulia, & baptizabat se, i. e. and washed herself, according to his intent, else his instance is no proof, Judith 12.7. And though it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek, yet Jun. and Trem. render it, not as the vulgar Latin, baptizabat se, she baptised, or dipped herself, but abluebat se, i. e. (as Tindal translates it also) she washed herself. And the greek not being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though the vulgar Latin render it in fonte, and Tindal in the well, yet it cannot signify that she dipped herself, or was dipped by any other into the Fountain (the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case not admitting that Construction, so far as I can find; nay, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 2.1. is not into the Sea, nor in the Sea; but at the Sea, that is by the Sea, ad mare, as Hierom and Beza render it; juxta, as Dr. Busbie, beside, or nigh to it; and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is super mare, Matt. 14.25. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. v. 26. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super aquas, ib. v. 28, 29.) but that she washed herself ad fontem, as Jun. and Trem. render it, at or by the fountain. Peter Martyr saith that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify only to dip, but any way to tinge, and wet, or die. Ferus saith, baptizare is a Greek word, signifying to tinge, or to immerge. So again Dr. Whitaker saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to immerge, but also to tinge. William Vorrilong saith, Baptizo in Greek is the same that lavo is in Latin, proving what he saith, as Bonaventure before had done, from what is said of Judith, c. 12.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mergo, immergo, item abluo, lavo, Scap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intingo, mergo, lavo. Hinc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idem, Schrev. Robertson. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo, abluo, baptizo, Pasor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mergo seu immergo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abluo, lavo Steph. Ducta autem est Vox Baptisnius à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo, ac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immergo. Porro ter Metalepsin significat abluo, lavo. Flac. Illyric. clav. Scripturae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propriè notat mergere: sed quia fere aliquid mergi ac tingi solet, ut lavetur, ac abluatur, hîc pro lavare usurpatur. Voff. in Thes. ap. Leigh. Cri. Sac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est mergo, tingo, lavo, Martin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo, baptizo, Suidas.  §. 3. I go on to Grammarians. And John Scapula (an Author never the worse for being common, but rather so much the better) gives to this Verb, as the special signification to dip, so the general also to wash. Nor do his Abbreviators Schrevelius and Robertson say otherwise: but having given to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whence is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) both the special signification of dipping, and the general of washing, they say of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it signifies the same. Pasor, who writes particularly of the words of the New Testament, walks in the same steps with the former, giving to this Verb, not only the special signification of dipping, but the general also of washing. And if these seem little Authors, than Henricus Stephanus, a man every way great, and particularly for the goodness as well as bigness of his Thesaurus, saith the same that they do: first giving to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the special import of dipping or immerging, and then the general of cleansing or washing. To these we may add Flacius Illyricus, giving to the word the same significations that they do. And Mr. Leigh, who saith the word Baptise, signifies such a kind of washing as is by plunging, yet it is taken more largely for any kind of washing, rinsing or cleansing, by washing even where there is no dipping at all: quoting for it, Dr. Featly, and Vossius. Yet we may add further Martinius, who saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to die, and to wash: and also Suidas, who gives it not only the particular significations of dipping, and dying, but also the general of wetting, washing, purging and cleansing.  
§. 4. Now if there be any weight in these Author's words, when they affirm that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify in general to wash (and why may we not as well believe them saying so, as others when they say it signifies in particular to dip?) then the Party that is any way washed in Baptism, may be truly said to be baptised, though he be not dipped. And so, as far as their Authority is able to carry it out, the Point is proved therefrom.  
§. 5. And yet, before I leave them, give me leave to make one Remark upon their different renderings of the word. I find nine Latin words used to express the import of it, viz. mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lavo, abluo, madefacio, purgo, mundo, besides one made of itself, baptizo. Are all these words perfectly Synonymous, exactly and adequately signifying the same thing? or are they not? If the former, why so many of them used, not only scatteringly by all severally, but even together, by one singly, viz. Suidas? If the latter (which will appear to be true by a consultation both with Authors and Lexicographers) than they all do not signify a total immersion. And that's the thing that does our business. For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any thing less than a total immersion, or any thing else but that, than a Baptism may be, where one is not totally immersed.  
§. 6. I will not now stand upon it to examine the exact differences of all these words one from another: but shall only take notice of tingo, or as some read it, of tinguo; because Martinius, having said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that in Christianity it signifies a religious and Christian action, saith also, that when the Latins express the force of it, viz. as so used, they put the word tingere for it: which is apparent by instances both from Tertullian, and St. Cyprian, 
Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in singulas personas tinguimur. Tert. adv. Praxeam. Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, & forma praescripta. Id. de Bapt. p. 262. Non baptizabat, quia non ipse tingebat. D. Aug. Tract. 15. in Evang. Joh. Tom. 9 Col. 132. B. Qui in errorem seductus est, & foris tinctus. D. Cyprian, l. 1. Ep. 12. Adulterae aquae contagione tinctus. D. Cypr. add Jubaian. Dr. Whitak. Prael. de Sacram. Bapt. q. 1. c. 2. p. 216. Tinctione contenti, quam sufficere putârunt, immersionem non desiderabant. Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non immergere tantùm significat, sed & tingere. Id. ib. 217.  and St. Augustin too. Now if tingo be not a term convertible with immergo, then there will be a baptising, without a total dipping. And that those cannot be terms convertible, betwixt which there is not an identity of signification, nor those the same betwixt which there is any difference of acception, is evident to common reason. Now that there is a difference between tingo and immergo, I shall appeal to that so famous a Professor in his time, viz. Dr. Whitaker, who in saying, that of old the Adult, who were baptised, were not lightly tincti aut aspersi, but immersi, makes a clear difference betwixt tinction (whatever that means) and immersion: so as that the one was not the other. Which yet he more clearly delivers in saying, that, though so it had been, as he had said before, yet there had been another custom in some places, and among some persons, where contenting themselves with tinction, which they thought sufficient, they desired not immersion. And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to immerge or dip into, but also to tinge or wet. If than tingo, as Martinius saith, do express the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Christian use of it, and tingo, as Dr. Whitaker intimates, be not the same with immergo; then where there may be said to be a tinction, there may be said to be a Baptization, though there be not a total immersion.  
§. 7. 
Ter verò infans vel immergitur, vel tingitur aquâ baptismatis. Can. Concil. Provinc. Colon. sub Herm. celebrati, 1536. Habere institutorem suum Christum Baptismum omnes nôrunt, & habet tamen aliquam administratio ejus diversitatem. Nonnullis enim in Ecclesiis Baptismus per immersionem solus est in usu; aliis per aspersionem leuémque tinctionem— Dr. Rich. Holdsworth Lectio. 22. p. 687. Vtcunque enim tinctionis & mersionis, sive trinae sive unius, differentia non sit de essentia Institutionis Baptismi, at— Id. ib. See also the Testim. of Ferus, Sect. 2. and of Bede, c. 2. S. 4.  And according to this distinction made by the Doctor betwixt these Verbs, in the Canon of the Provincial Council of Colen, held in the Year of Christ, 1536. under Herman Archbishop thereof, it is said, The Infant is thrice either immerged, or tinged with the Water of Baptism; that is, it is either dipped into, sprinkled (or some other way than by immersion wetted) with the baptismal water. So also the no less pious than learned Dr. Holdsworth saith, in some Churches, the baptism by dipping is in use only, in others that by sprinkling, and a light ting: and admits the difference of tinction and mersion, whether once or thrice, not to be of the essence of the Institution of Baptism. So that Dr. Whitaker is not alone in this distinction, neither the first, nor the last that used it.  
§. 8. And in further Confirmation still of what that Doctor saith of the different use of tingo from immergo, which yet it also sometimes signifieth, it may not be amiss to give an instance or two of such use of it. Such is that of Martial, Ep. l. 2. Frange toros, pete vina, rosas cape, tingere nardo. For Men do not use to dip their Heads in Spikenard, but to pour, or rather have it poured on their Heads. Whence we read in Hor. Epod. 13. Achaemenia perfunde nardo. 
Quis multâ gracilis te puer in rosâ Perfusus liquidis unget odoribus? Hor. Od. 1.5.  And an instance we have of it in the Gospel, Mark 14.3. where a Woman having an Alabaster Box of Ointment of Spikenard poured it on our Saviour's Head. And such is that of Cicero, l. 3. de Nat. Deor. where he tells of Deianira's giving to Hercules tunicam sanguine Centauri tinctam, i. e. a Coat, 

Nec enim Herculi nocere Deianira voluit, cùm ei tunicam sanguine tinctam dedit. Cic. 3. de N. Deor.  
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 died 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, 
Roar coeli intingeris. Te rore coeli intingendum. Intinctio est quum aliquid rem humidam contingit vel ex parte. vel totam. Pag●in. voc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Treb, Poll. Promptuarium. V●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 Pen, sure his meaning was not, that he dipped in all his Pen 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 baptising without a total dipping; and even where there is but a wetting, whether by affusion, or aspersion.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Primitive Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that it doth not signify 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 itself. 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 signify total immersion or dipping, but sometimes something less than so, and even in a manner, all washing. Thence in Scapula we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered, 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 mixed 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 'tis probable. Yes: but so 'tis probable also, though not written, that Infants in the Primitive times were baptised, and that both they, and other weak persons, unable to abide a total dipping, were baptised 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, than 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 signify 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 expressly saying that Infants were baptised; or that any were any otherwise baptised 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 baptising) yet gives an instance of an use of the word, which cannot agree to this sense. 'Tis this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not signify thy lips have been dipped, that is, swilled and rinsed in, or plunged into the blood of roses; but, have been died or coloured with it, that is, are of a rosy colour, as red as roses. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies not to dip, but to die. And though some things are dipped to be died; yet, dipping and dying are not terms convertible; not all things, that are died, are dipped: And to go no farther for an instance than the painting Females cheeks, I believe many of them are died with a delicate, fresh, rosy complexion, which yet are never dipped, when they are so died; they are not dipped into the complexion, but the complexion laid on them.  
§. 8. But if any think to come off from this instance with saying, the speech is but Metaphorical (though even so there must be a resemblance between the things compared, or else there can be no Metaphor) yet there is an instance of this use of the word in the Septuagint, which cannot be so evaded, nor any other way that I can foresee. It is said of Nabuchadnezzar (Dan. 4.33.) that he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven. So we, and so Tindal renders it. Now there the word for was wet is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that cannot possibly signify, that he was dipped into the dew of heaven, any more than what he could be by lying down upon the dewy grass, which no man will call an immersion; none will say of a man that lies him so down, that he dips himself into the dew, or is dipped into it, but that he wets himself, or is wetted with it. Or if any should, yet still will that Notion very well agree at least with their way of baptising, who dip, though but lightly, the Face in water, when they baptise. Nor, that I know, will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bear any such construction. If dipping into the dew had been meant, it would in all probability have been, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 
Vid. Septuag. Levit. 4.6. Num. 19.18. 1 Sam. 14.27. Deut. 33.24. Ruth 2.14. Psal. 68.23. 2 King. 8.15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I find not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor doth any Version, that I can meet withal, so render it. Montanus' Interlin. Version is the roar coelorum corpus ejus tingebatur; and so the Syriac, & de roar coeli tinctus est, i. e. His body was wet, or he was wetted by, or with the dew of heaven. And the Vulgar Latin Bible agreeing with the Particular Latin Translation of the Septuagint, renders it, roar [de roar] coeli corpus ejus infectum erat, his body was died, or stained with the dew of heaven. And the Arabic of all, methinks, most properly, perfusum fuit, that is, was all to sprinkled, or wetted, or all to shed upon with dew. No dipping then in the case. And yet the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip, which clearly shows that word to signify something other, more than, and besides dipping; even a wetting, and such a wetting as one is wetted withal by the falling of dew upon him, (which none, I think, will say is improperly expressed by sprinkling;) and so to be very agreeable with that wetting in Baptism, which is done by sprinkling the party Baptised.  
§. 9 In Rev. 19.13. I meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This, Ours and Tindals' Translation render a Vesture dipped in blood. Under correction, I conceive it ought to have been rendered, not dipped in, but died with blood.  
§. 10. For first the Construction of the words so requires it. Had it been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I should not at all have disputed it, nor much if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of such construction I find some example, though yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Dative Case sometimes signifies no more than a Dative Case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and does so sometimes, when it hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set with it, as we shall see afterwards. But of this Verb's signifying to dip into, with a mere Dative Case without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I find no example, and therefore I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here doth not signify that, into which the Vesture was dipped, but wherewith it was died: and that dying, not dipping is the import of the Verb in this place, and the construction is like that of the Septuagint, Gen. 37.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby was designed nothing more but their staining or besmearing of the Coat with blood, much after the manner as Nessus did the Coat which he gave to Deianira; or like that newly mentioned from Favorinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a place far enough from importing any thing of an immersion.  
§. 11. Secondly, besides the construction of the words, the nature of the thing is against its interpretation by dipping. Garments dipped in blood? to what end? for what use? who wears any such? Dipped in Scarlet, or dipped in Purple, they are for Kings, and Emperors, and persons of greatest eminency for place, and honour; but in blood, for no bodies wearing that I know of. But Garments died with blood are as ordinary as battles. Isai. 9.5. And not only the Conquereds, but the Conquerors. A memorable instance whereof is that of Leopoldus Duke of Austria, who fought so long at the taking of Ptolemais, till his Coat Armour was all died in blood save his Belt (as one saith) or rather (as another hath it) the place covered with his Belt. 
Cambd. Rem. p. 299. Fuller Holy War. l. 3. c. 8.  In memory whereof that Family hath ever since born for their Arms a Fez Argent in a Field Gules. And in allusion to such staining of Garments with the blood of slain enemies sprinkled upon them as befalls conquering Warriors in their battles, is this place interpreted of our Saviour, whose garment is by way of Prophecy said to be stained with blood, 

Tunc Christus hac specie se visendum praebebit indutum eruento sago & toto redundante sanguinc hostium. Brightman in Apocal. 19.13. Veste aspersa, sc. Saracenorum ab eo occisorum, Lyra in loc.  
Hosts ibidem comprehensi tantâ sunt occisione prostrati, ut in porticu Solomonis sanguis occisorum usque ad nostrorum equorum genua perveniret, Gotfr. Viterb. Chron. part. 17.  
Quod tempus videtur Isaias spectare, inquiens, Quis est hic? etc. Optimo jure Christus aspersus tunc conspicietur cruore caeforum immicorum, Bright. in Apoc. 19.13.  
Edom ru●icundum, Bozra vero vindemiam significat.— Ergo venire ab Edom est rubco vestitu incedere, & venire tinctis vestib●s de Bozra, est habere vestimenta mus●o respersa, Tor●ular calcavi, i. e. uvas in torculari: & quidem in furore, hoc est magno cum impetu & solus. Atque hinc vestes hostium sanguine respersas gero. Nec enim secus illos compressi, atque two qui mustum expressuri uvas conculcant, Scultet. in loc.   to signify (according to Mr. Brightman) the great slaughter he should make of his enemies; and (according to Lyranus) of the Saracens in particular; of whom so infinite a number was slain at the taking of Jerusalem, that (as Gotfridus Viterbiensis tells us) in Solomon's Porch the blood of the slain was up to the knees of the horses. And the time of the so great execution done by Christ on his enemies, the Prophet Isaiah (as Mr. Brightman notes) seems to have an eye upon in his Prophecy, ch. 63. v. 1, 2, 3. (which is set in the Margin of our Text to signify some reference that the one place hath to the other) Who is this that cometh from Edom, with died garments from Bozra? this that is glorious in his apparel: travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat? I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will slain all my raiment. But whether the reference of this Prophecy be to that Victory of the Christians over the Heathens, or rather (as Scultetus thinks, who entitles his Sermon on, this Text and the Context, Triumphus Dei habitu cruentato ex acie redeuntis) to the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity, to encourage them whereunto against the dreaded power of their enemies, the Prophet represents God their Leader, under the type of a Warrior triumphing over his enemies, and trampling them under his feet, as in the time of Vintage one treads and tramples grapes in the Wine-press, and staining his Garments with the sprinklings of their blood, after the manner as their garments are died and stained that tread Wine-presses, still there is nothing of dipping in the case, but only of dying; and of such dying as is done by sprinkling.  
§ 12. And therefore Thirdly, all Interpreters, that I as yet have met withal, except the two forenamed Translations, render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by words importing dying, or sprinkling. Ar. Montan. hath for it vestimentum tinctum sanguine, a vesture died with blood; and to the same sense Beza hath Veste tinctâ sanguine, and so the Arabic Version too. The Vulg. Lat. hath veste aspersâ sanguine, a vesture sprinkled with blood; and so the Aethiopic Version also. The Syriac hath Veste conspersâ sanguine, a vesture all to besprinkled with blood. All import such a dying as was done, not by dipping, but by sprinkling. And so here is a clear instance of this Verb's being used, where nothing of immersion was intended.  
§. 13. And of its being used to signify less than a total dipping, I shall add one instance beyond exception, from that Collection of Sentences containing the Primitives of the Greek Tongue formerly done, and now added to Schrevelius' and Robertson's Lexicons, in whose 19th. Chapter, I find this sentence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ He indeed dippeth a bottle, but it never goes under the moist water: If it go not under the water, there is then no total immersion: and yet that dipping which it hath is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A plain proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify a total dipping. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath something else besides a total immersion in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root of it.   

CHAP. V That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify only to dip.  
§. 1. FRom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive, I proceed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, derived from it. In Luke 11.37, 38. a Pharisee, by whom our Saviour had been invited to dinner, is said to have marvelled, when he saw him sit down to meat, and had not first washed. The Greek word here rendered washed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very same word by which our Saviour's baptism is expressed (Mark 1.9.) where it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was baptised of John in Jordan. A plain instance this, that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not always to be understood a total immersion of that whereto it is applied: and that a person may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be baptised it, who yet is not totally dipped, but only (whether by mersation, or affusion) in part washed. And accordingly Beza, in his rendering of the Text, makes the Pharisees wonder at our Saviour to be, not that, (as the Vulg. Lat. renders, non baptizatus esset) he had not been dipped, but that non ablutus esset, he had not been washed, or as we render it, had not washed.  
§. 2. But perhaps the custom of the Jews (and however among the Pharisees) was before dinner to wash themselves by a total immersion, or dipping of themselves. And that our Saviour had not done so, was the Pharisees wonder. And then the word here will signify a total immersion. Not so, whatever some may think, or say in the case. Neither the Vulgar Jews, nor the nicer Pharisees had any such custom. They washed their hands indeed before meat by dipping them into the hand-wrist, 
Vid Pocock Porta Mosis, Not. in c. 9 p. 396, 397, 398.  or by holding them up, that the water poured on them might run down to the hand-wrist: and that was all that was done, even by the Pharisees, before the eating of a common dinner. And for that, as dipping the hands, or pouring water on them, had made our Saviour fit enough, so dipping of his whole body, had he done it, had not made him more fit. Not then our Saviour's not dipping his whole body, but his not washing his hands at all, neither by mersation, nor affusion, was the Pharisees wonder. And accordingly Grotius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he had washed his hands. And so Beza saith, that here it means the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, whereof the one signifies in general to wash, the other in particular to wash the hands. And so still, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not necessarily always signify a total immersion, but some times in a more general way, a washing; and he may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose hands only are washed, and that whether by putting them into the water, or by pouring water upon them. And if upon the hands but being washed, and that either by mersation or affusion, a Man may be said Baptizari, to be baptised, then as well may he be said to be so, when (as it is now the use in baptising) his but head or face is dipped into the water, or hath water poured upon it.  
§. 3. And yet is not this the only instance that is produced in this case. There is another (in Mark 7.2, 3, 4.) proposed and urged by learned Persons. I will represent it in its due strengths, and advantages, and so leave it to be considered of by such as are concerned in this debate. The words are, And when they saw some of his Disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say with unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the Elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. The eating here spoken of is to be understood of common food: for it is said they eat not, that is not at all, not so much as ordinary and common food, except they wash. And the speech here is not only of the superstitious Pharisees, but of the generality of the People, all the Jews: and sure they did not all, and always feed on sacred viands. Now what is here said of their washing before that food? This, that they eat it not, except they wash their hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that, I conceive, is, (somewhat otherwise than it is ordinarily rendered) up to the hand-wrist, or joining of the hand to the arm. And this if they did, either by affusion of water upon their hands, so held that the water might run down so far, or else by immersing them so far into the water, this was all was required of them to render them sufficiently clean for eating of an ordinary meal. And there was no such thing required of them, or used by them, as wholly to immerse themselves in water, in order to the fitting of themselves for the eating of such a meal. And what pollution had made them unfit for such a meal without a total dipping of themselves, had made them unfit for any more sacred meal that day until the evening. And yet this washing, which was but of the hands, and might be indifferently performed either way, by affusion or immersion, is applied unto the persons, and spoken of them in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for so run the words in Ver. 4. And when they come from the Market, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or as Hen. Steph. has it in his Concord. Grac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) if they wash not, or be not washed; for the same Verb, in the same Voice, and in the same Tense, is applied unto St. Paul (Act. 22.16.) Passively, and aught to be so; as appears by comparing it with Act. 9.18. and so 'tis to the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10.2. And though Beza be positive for that Verb's signifying primarily and properly mergo to dip, and but consequentially lavo to wash, yet here he renders it, not according to the primary and special signification of the Verb, nisi mersati sint, unless they be dipped, but according to the secondary and general import of it, nisi loti fuerint, except they be washed: and so Pasor also. So that of whom it may be said, that he is in any part (for instance in his hands) washed, whether by affusion, or mersation (and especially, if the latter be used) of him it may be said that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptizatus (as the Vulg. Latin here renders the word) baptised. And so our Infants not being totally immersed, but only in part washed, whether by dipping or sprinkling, hinders not, but that, when that sacred action is performed upon them, they may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be baptised.  
§. 4. It may be answered, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here refers not to the whole Persons of the Jews, as if always, when they came from the market, they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is wholly immerse themselves, but to their Hands only: and that the meaning is, that whereas if the Jews kept at home, and did not go to the Market, they needed only to wash their hands by Affusion of water, but if they did go from home, and to the market, than they were to wash their hands by Immersion, as if, as it is said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except they wash their hands, namely by affusion, so it had been said here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except they wash their hands, by immersion; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hands being to be understood in the latter Text, as it is expressed in the former: and so from the word's being here applied to no more but a part, which was wholly immersed, no argument can be drawn to prove, that the whole may be said to be immersed, when the immersion is but of a part; and that so the Infants being dipped but in part, cannot be called their Baptism, much less the sprinkling or pouring of a little water on them.  
§. 5. But to this it may be replied, that the washing here must be understood according to the 
* S. Matt. 15.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Tradition of the Elders: but there was no such Tradition of the Elders, as that all that came from the Market should either immerse themselves, or but so much as their hands, wholly, before they eat bread. That they should wash before eating was the Tradition: but the manner how they should wash, whether by affusion, or immersion, was left at liberty, so they did it either way, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, up to the wrist. And though, because the defilements of their hands were like to be greater in the Market, than at home, therefore the nicer sort of them, especially the Pharisees, did rather choose to wash by immersion, than by affusion, as looking upon that as the higher degree of purification; yet they did not all; and few always washed that way. Nor were they obliged to it by any Tradition of the Elders. And ye may observe, that holding the Tradition of the Elders, is set with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet they are the same Persons, which are spoken of, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, that are spoken of, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, the Pharisees and all the Jews. So that the washing implied in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be such as was used, not only by the Pharisees, but all the Jews too, and that as holding the Tradition of the Elders: which (as has been said) was no more than to wash their hands up to the wrist; and for the performance of which so much water as was contained in a measure called by them Rebiit, (which held about the quantity of an Egg and a half) was enough. So that it is plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designs as well those that washed by affusion, as by mersation. And if it did not so, then John the son of Goodgodah, (who always used to dip his hands) and those few others, that chose to eat even common meat with that care of pollution, which they were to eat holy meat withal, had not observed the Tradition of the Elders, but must have by the others been condemned (like the Disciples here) for eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with defiled, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with unwashed hands, though they had not eaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with undipped hands, but had used baptization before their eating. And so then there is no necessity of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always of the strict singular way of immersion, but it may be used, when yet the washing is performed by but an affusion: and so our Infants and others may be said to be baptised, though not totally immersed, or but sprinkled.  
§. 6. And for the setting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that designs only thus much, that whereas those that had washed in the morning for all day, keeping themselves pure from defilement by polluting actions and occasions, needed not to wash any more before meat, they that went to the market, because of the almost impossibility that there was to avoid defilements there, were at their coming home to repeat their washing before they did eat, though they had washed before: which washing was by no Tradition of necessity to be by immersion, but might be performed by affusion, as was said before. And thus much for this instance.  
§. 7. I pass to another, 
Cui ritui [sc. adspersioni] quoque favet baptismus in nube & mari, de quo Paulus 1 Cor. 10. agit. Walaeus, Synops. Pur. Theolog. Disp. 44. Thes. 19 p. 606.  viz. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. Where the Apostle be-speaking his Jewish Brethren saith, all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptised into Moses, in the cloud, and in the Sea. A baptising we have here, that's plain; for they were all baptised, (and doubly too for fear of failing) in the cloud and in the Sea. But how were they baptised in the Sea? (to begin with that first) by being all totally immersed into it? by being dipped all over head and ears into the water of it? That must be, if baptised according to the notion our Anabaptists have of Baptism. But, no such matter. For, 'tis said, Exod. 14.21, 22. the Lord caused the Sea to go back by a strong East wind all that night, 
Vid. Christian. Beckman. Exercit. Theolog. 17. p. 251.  and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided: and the children of Israel went into the midst of the Sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. So then, no immersion of them into the Sea: no one of them had so much as a foot dipped into the water of it. And yet a baptism in the sea: they were all baptised, and baptised in it. There may then be a baptising without a total, yea or a partial immersion of the party into that thing, wherein he is said to be baptised. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not necessarily always signify either a total, or a partial immersion.  
§. 8. But if not dipped into the Sea, when baptised in it; much less were they dipped into the cloud, when baptised in that. Men walking on dry ground, and yet dipped into a cloud? who discerns not the incongruity of it? Had they been dropped from heaven to earth, much of that might have been by the way. But as, and where, they they were, it could not be. And yet they were baptised in the cloud. Plain again than it is, that there may be a baptism, without a total, or partial immersion of the party baptised into that wherein he is said to be baptised; and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not always necessarily signify immersion. And so our Infants, or others are, (and may be said to be) truly baptised, though they are no more dipped into the waters, than the Israelites were into the clouds or into the Sea, when they were baptised in both.  
§. 9 
Maris illius aquis capitibus ipsis transcuntium altiùs extantibus, obruti ac sepulti quodammodo poterant videri, & emergere, ac resurgere denuo cum ad litua objectum evasissent— Pluviá ergo copiosà cùm perfunderetur populus ille universus, sicut subter nubem extitisse omnes, ita nube baptizari omnes, commodè satis perhibentur, Gataker. Advers. c. 4. p. 30.  But how were they baptised in the cloud, and in the Sea? Why, by being bedewed with the sprinklings of the cloud whilst they walked through the Sea. And since Cyril of Alexand. 
* Non enim fieri aliter poterat, ut maculae animis peccantium aspersa aspergerctur, nisi sancto baptismo, cujus figaram nubem esse statuimus. D. Cyril. Alex. in Hesa. l. 2. c. 19 Tom. 1. col. 296.  resolves the cloud to be a figure of baptism, who can tell but that the two ways of baptising, viz. of dipping and sprinkling, might be typified by the two ways of baptising in the cloud, and in the sea? the way of sprinkling by the bedewings of the cloud, falling in drops upon them; and the way of dipping by their going so into the Sea, as that, to such as were on land, they might seem covered with it. For it is expressly said, ver. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these things were our examples, or figures, literally types, representations made then in that Church, of things that should be now in our Church.  
§. 10. But be that as it will; the Apostle saith, the Israelites were all baptised in the cloud, and in the sea: and yet none of them were dipped in either. No necessity then of an immersion to make a baptism; or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must always signify to dip.  
§. 11. And if an immersion were necessary to make a baptism, how shall we understand it, that the Apostles of our Saviour were baptised with the Holy Ghost, as our Saviour promised they should be? Act. 1.5. Nay and with fire too, as St. John Baptist foretold (Matth. 3 11. and Luke 3.16,) and was fulfilled (Acts 2.3, 4) What analogy is there between the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and Baptism, if Baptism must signify nothing but a total immersion? Sure the Apostles were not dipped, nor plunged into the Holy Ghost, that they might be said to be baptised with it. No such thing is said of them. But they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Yes, but that holds no proportion with baptising men by immersion into water. If the water be any thing the fuller for the persons baptised, so it is: but the person baptised are not filled with the water; they are put into the water, not the water into them. No resemblance then betwixt baptising by immersion, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, that they from that should be said to be baptised with it.  
§. 12. How then may they be said to be baptised with it? Or what resemblance is there betwixt that descent and any other way of baptising, that from thence they may be said to be baptised with it? 
Ab alterá verò notionc, quâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abluere significat, transfertur ad Donationem Spiritus Sancti; nempe quoniam hic, ut animam imbuat & abluat, aquae instar, in eam effunditur: prout loquitur SS. Joel 2.28. & exinde S. Petrus, Act. 2.17. item S. Paulus, Tit. 3.6. servavit nos per Lavacr●m Regenerationis, & Renovationem Spiritus sancti quem effudit in nos copiose, Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1. p. 344.  There is a great resemblance between baptising by aspersion or effusion of water on the parties baptised, and the descending of the Holy Ghost. For as the water, that is sprinkled, or poured on the parties baptised, falls usually from above upon them: so did the Holy Ghost fall from above on the Apostles. And accordingly this coming of his from above upon them is called effusion, Act. 2.33. where S. Peter speaking to the multitude concerning this action, saith, Christ, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, effudit) hath shed forth, poured out this which ye now see and hear. And this according to a prophecy long spoken before by the Prophet Joel, and recited newly (in ver. 16, 17.) which was, that it should come to pass in the last days, that God would pour out his spirit upon all flesh. Nor is it only called an effusion, but also a falling of it upon them. For when St. Peter reported to the Brethren in Judaea, what had befallen Cornelius and his company at Caesarea, and particularly the Holy Ghosts being communicated unto those Gentiles, as well as to themselves who were Jews, (which communication is also called a pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them, Acts 15.45.) he saith that as he began to speak to them, the Holy Ghost (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) fell on them, as it had done on themselves at the beginning, Acts 11.15. Now what can more fitly answer to this, than baptising by way of effusion, or pouring out of water on the baptised, whether out of the hand, or other vessel? So that there must be no resemblance betwixt the Holy Ghost falling on the Apostles and Baptism, (and then why is his falling on them called a baptising of them?) or else a baptism may be without an immersion.  
§. 13. And the like to what is said of their being baptised with the Holy Ghost, may be said of their being baptised with fire. The fire wherewith they were baptised came from above, and sat upon them: they were neither dipped into any fire below them, nor sat in it. So clear an evidence this, in my poor thoughts, that there needs nothing more to evince it, that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (especially as itself is baptised, and taken in from being a Heathen to become a Christian word) may signify to baptise, as well where there is but an effusion or an affusion of water on the party baptised, as where there is an immersion of him into the water.  
§. 14. And yet the word, even in its Heathen use, does not always signify a total immersion of that Person or Thing, whereto it is applied. For a Person first, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyr. de Styge, p. 282. cited by Mr. Whitbie in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 40.  
See Sydenham's Christian Exercitation on Ins. Baptism. ch. 15. p. 132.   we have an instance in Porphyry, who tells us of a river in India, into and through which if an innocent person went, he was taken but up to the knees; but if an offender went into it, by that time he had gone a little way, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is baptised up to the head. Here we have such an immersion as denominates a Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptised; and yet is that immersion, not total, but only partial, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, up to, but not over the head. Then for a Thing: This (as Mr. Sydenham observes) appears from that delivered by the Oracle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to plunge or put wholly under water, as it does, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify less, as it also does; no more than is compatible to a blown bladder, or bag, or bottle of leather, whose swimming in the top of the water cannot be called an immersion (at least not total) into it. And yet to signify such a kind of scarce partial mersation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used. Baptise or wash him, utris instar as a bottle in the water, but do not drown him, or utterly plunge him; so Mr. Sydenham englishes it.  
§. 15. And accordingly in St. Chrysostom, 
Nam mergi & aquam subire, & hinc remeare, descensus ad inferos symbolum est, & hinc reversionis: so one renders it. Baptizari enim, & demergi, deinde remeare & emergere est symbolum seu signum descensûs ad inferos, & ex eo ascensûs. So another. But still with both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; with neither, aquam subire, or demergi, to be totally immersed.  to express a total submersion we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did import a total submersion under the water, it had been needless to have added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Verb signifying the very same thing to it. And therefore in reason, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a total submersion, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify at most but a partial mersation in this place.  
§. 16. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signify a total immersion, is plain by that of S. Athanasius, where he uses that word to signify the whole of what was done in baptism by way of immersion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For our thrice dipping of the Infant into the water, and bringing him out again, signifies the Death of Christ, and his Resurrection after three Days. qu. 94. de Interpr. Parab. Script.  
§. 17. If any should think to evade the force of this argument by making such a distinction, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify to put the person wholly under the water, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sink him, so put, further down unto the bottom. I must return, first that it cannot be proved, that ever there was any such custom in baptising. Secondly for Infants, so great was the danger of their drowning by that means, that they would never do it. And thirdly that, for elder Persons, they were already at the bottom of the water before their baptism with the lower parts of their body, and wanted nothing, but the putting of their heads, or upper parts of their body under it by the Priest also. And so it remains that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth not signify a total submersion under the water.  
§. 18. But it is argued from the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compounded derivative from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be totally dipped; because a Cork swimming in the water is by Pindar, and a Ship floating on the Sea is by Plutarch called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which yet they could not be, if less than a total immersion were signified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 19 To which I answer first, that though it might be unanswerably proved, by this, or any other Medium, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in Heathen Authors signify nothing less than a total immersion, yet it will not follow that it must in Christian Authors, (whether the Scriptures, or other Writers) be always interpreted in exactness according to that signification. For the significations of words are to be widened, or straitened, according to the dimensions of the things they are to signify. And nothing is more ordinary than to find words familiar in Christianity (both in the Scriptures and Christian Authors) used in a sense somewhat remote from the signification of the same words in their Primitive use among Heathens. Sacramentum an Ecclesiastical Latin word, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Scriptural Greek word may serve for instances.  
§. 20. The first signified at first a Caution put into the hands of the Pontifie by Parties going to Law, whereby they were obliged to make good their Plea, or lose their money. Afterward it was made use of to signify a soldier's Oath, whereby he was obliged to be true to his General. If then it must signify still the same in the Christian Church, that it did in the Heathen Roman State, and nothing more, nor any thing less than that, we shall have much ado to make the word fit the things that are called by it. For then all that are baptised, or receive the Lords Supper, must be persons going to Law, or Soldiers, and they must put in money, and swear when they receive Baptism, or the Lord's Supper. But what money is put in by either? what Oath is taken by either, on either account? From the Title of Sacrament given to those Ceremonies we argue an obligation equivalent to a Caution, or Oath, lying in the Receivers: but how to make it good from the Scriptures, or the nature of the Sacraments, that there is any such obligation in a real and literal sense lying on the party as that word in its Heathen institution and use originally signified, is not so very clear.  
§. 21. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesych.  The second signified at first literally an Assembly of the people of Athens called together to consider and debate of the concerns of that Republic. But in the Scriptural use of it, sometimes it signifies only that company of Professors of the Christian Faith, which belong to one 
* Rom. 16.5. 1 Cor. 16.19. Col. 14.15. Philem. 2.  Family, with such as are admitted to join with them in the worship of God. Sometimes it signifies a collection of all the several Congregations of Christians that are in one 
* Act. 8.1. & 13.1. & 18.22. & 20.17. 2 Thess. 1.1. Col. 4.16. Rev 3.14. & 2.8, 12, 18. & 3.1, 7.  great City. Sometimes a Collection of all Christians dispersed throughout the 
* Matth. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28. Gal. 1.13. Eph. 1.22. Phil. 3.6. Col. 1.18. Heb. 12.23.  whole world. But all these, and more notions, in which the Scriptures use that word, are far remote from that Heathenish import of it. And the same may be said of other words, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which all have other significations in the Scriptures, than they are found to have amongst Heathen Authors. And we shall make mad work in the Church, and with the Scriptures too, if we shall go about to lop and prune, to frame and square the things signified by them in the Church, and in the Scriptures, to what they signify in Pagan writers.  
§. 22. And thus, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signify originally to dip all over amongst the Heathens, yet being taken in by the Christians to signify that Ceremony of washing with water, whereby members were admitted into actual Communion with the Church of Christ, it is, in their speakings and writings, to be understood in such a latitude, as may extend to all manner of admissions of any by that Ceremony into the Church, however differing in circumstances of acting, which have been used and allowed of in it. And for as much as it may undeniably be made good, that persons have anciently, as well as of late, had their baptismal admission into the Church by other ways than a total dipping into water, and the Church hath never by any Ecclesiastic censure expressed her disallowance of those ways, therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be extended to the signifying of every usual and allowed way of admission by that Ceremony into the Church, though not by a total dipping. Inasmuch as the design of the Church is one and the same in every way, whatever it be, of administering baptism, whether by a total immersion, or partial mersation, and whether by affusion, or aspersion, viz. to signify that the blood of Christ hath that virtue to cleanse the Soul from the guilt of sin; and the grace of the Spirit that virtue to cleanse it from the filth of sin, which water hath to cleanse the body from its pollutions and defilements; and that the party baptised, if no obstacle be put in on his part, is really cleansed from the spots and stains of his soul, when application is made of that cleansing water to his body; and so both fitted for, and actually received into, Communion with the Holy Catholic Church, which is the body of Christ, and consequently into union with Christ himself, who is the Head of that Church.  
§. 23. Secondly, I answer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being declared (as hath been showed) to signify not only an immersion or dipping, but also a tinction or wetting, though a Ship, or a Cork floating on the water, may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first sense, yet it cannot be said of it, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second sense. For wetted, and tinged, and dipped (if ye will) it is in part, even as the sols of the Priests feet were in Jordan, though it be not plunged or immersed all over. And though in some respect it be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being not dipped all over, yet in some respect it cannot be said so to be, as being dipped in part. And so our Infants cannot be truly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not baptised at all, though they be not wholly immersed at their baptism; since they are in part baptised, viz. tinged, or wetted, whether by a partial mersation or dipping of them into water, or by an affusion or sprinkling of water upon them.  
§. 24. But as I noted before, if by these or any other instances, it might be invincibly proved, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in the Heathen Notion of it signify 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 signify 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 judgement of the Catholic 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 baptise other ways, which will be showed in the process of this Discourse. 
According to Christ's institution, the Scripture, where 'tis 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 judgement of the Catholic 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 itself, 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 'tis rendered, mersio, ilotio, ablutio, ipso immergendi, item lavandi seu abluendi actus; dipping, washing, cleansing, the act itself of dipping, washing, or cleansing. Stephanus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mersio, lotio, ablutio, dipping, washing, cleansing, understanding thereby the act itself 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 rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mergo, tingo, abluo, saith, thence is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he there defines to be a Sacred mystery of the entrance into Christianity administered 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 signify 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 Nabuchadnezzar, 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 Verse. reads that place, roar coeli intingêris, as Arias Montan. roar 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 sphere 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 signify; and so not be necessitated by virtue 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 swayed 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 touched 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, etc. Ursin. Explic. Catech. q. 69. Baptismus secundùm Etymi sui rationem communiter significat qu●mvis ablutionem, etc. Trelcat. Institut. l. 2. c. de Baptismo, p. 187. Baptismi vox immersionem & aspersionem significat, etc. Wolleb. Christ. Theolog. l. 1. c 23. can. 1. pag. 120. Bucan. loc. come. 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 & 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 Cocytto. 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, etc. 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 quàm immersionis in Scriptures possint deprebendi, etc. 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 baptised, 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, etc. Keckerman defines Baptism by Perfusion. And Wàlaeus saith it hath always been held indifferent in the Church whether dipping or sprinkling were used, etc.  
§. 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 persuade, or satisfy us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily always import a total immersion, but is used more generally to signify 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 easy 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 always understand their washing to be by a total immersion. Who being bidden to rinse, or wash a pot or cup, presently chaps 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 dipped her son in the lake of Lethe, 

For not to have been dipped in Lethe Lake  
Can save the son of Thetis from to dic, etc. Spencer.   to render him invulnerable, who can say but he was dipped 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, than inside and outside and all must have been washed together, and that by mersation. And would they observe more strictness in the daily washings of every Pot and Cup, as oft as need was, than of that cup of blessing, which they employed as a Sacred Utensil in their giving of thanks to God after meat, and for whose washing they had a particular Tradition? He must be very sanguine, that can believe any such thing. And however that their cleansing of their Cups and Platters was but partial, and did not extend to the whole, as it must have been had their washing been by a total immersion, seems apparent by our Saviour's allusion to that custom of theirs (in Matth. 23.25.) where he tells them of their cleansing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the outside of the cup and platter.  
§. 10. And what? would nothing less than immersion, and that a total one, serve for the washing of their brazen vessels, and those not all small ones: but so big, 
Pocock, Porta Mos. p. 406.  some of them, that they held water, for the cleansing of other vessels by water poured out thence; nay, and the vessels themselves too, fitted for that purpose by the wideness of their mouths?  
§. 11. And must the Tables too, (or beds rather) be cleansed by mersation? and nothing less than a total immersion be sufficient for their cleansing? How difficult if at all practicable, is this, to dip whole tables, (or what is worse, whole beds) not untaken in pieces, and wholly into the water? And how troublesome, and chargeable too, to be always taking them in pieces in order to be dipped, as oft as they might hap to be defiled? and that (so many ways were there of their defilement) might happen to be very often.  
§. 12. And suppose we render it dipping, or by washing to understand such a washing as was performed by dipping: what? will nothing less than a total immersion of every thing serve to name it dipped? must there be a total immersion, or else not dipping? The Priest, when a Sin-offering was to be offered (Leu. 4.6.17.) was to dip his finger in the blood of the Bullock and sprinkle it. Can nothing serve here for the performance of his duty, but the dipping of his whole finger into the blood? must it all in? no part remain undipped? It is not so said. It might truly be said, he dipped his finger into it, if some part of his finger were but dipped therein; if he did but take some of the blood with his finger to sprinkle, as it is after in the same chapter said he should do, 
ver. 25, 30, 34.  to put upon the horns of the altar.  
§. 13. But to make this more plain; It is said in Leu. 14. that for the cleansing of a Leper, the Priest should take some of a log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and should dip his right finger in the oil, that was in his left hand, and should sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times. I would fain know how a man should hold in the palm of his hand (for so is the word, and not the hollow of his fist) so much oil as should be sufficient to dip all his whole finger (in the sense that our Anabaptists do understand dipping) in it. The improbability, or rather impossibility of which the LXX. discerning render the Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall (not dip his finger into, but) die, or wet his finger with the oil; that is the dipping, and all the dipping they understood in this place. And yet if that could not be, still his finger might be said to be dipped in it, though it were not all at once immersed into it, or though some part of it, after all, remained undipped. So then these washings here, suppose we grant them to be performed by mersation, might intent something less than a total immersion: and then still no necessity of interpreting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense.  
§. 14. Another is Heb. 9.10. where the Apostle enumerating the several sorts of external ordinances, besides Gifts and Sacrifices, which were imposed on the People of the Jews during that Levitical Oeconomy, that they were to be exercised under, until the time of reformation, mentions among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divers washings. Now unless those washings here intended were all immersions, and total ones too, it cannot be avoided, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only word here used to comprehend all those divers washings, is capable of signifying other ways of washing, than by a total immersion: and so cannot by the force of its signification compel us always to understand baptism to mean a total immersion, & to conclude that washing, which is not by such immersion, to be no baptism.  
§. 15. Now that these baptisms were not all immersions, may appear from the consideration of several Persons, and Things, appointed to be washed. There were three sorts of Persons amongst the Israelites that were to be washed: the Priests, the Levites, and the People after any pollution contracted upon them. Now if we consult the bare words of truth, we shall find, upon examination, all these sorts of Persons washed, and yet not necessarily always by immersion of their whole body, at least as far as appears by Text of Scripture, unglossed by Rabbinical Traditions, and unsensed with Anabaptistical Interpretations.  
§. 16. First the Priests, of all other, as being the most holy, one would think should have been dipped, if that in the esteem of God were a higher degree of sanctification, than other ways of washing, and especially at their consecration to holy Orders. And yet no such thing appears of them. Their Consecration is appointed in Exod. 29. Of the order whereof, as God gives it unto Moses, part was their washing. That is prescribed in the fourth Verse. But now? By dipping! Not a word of that there. How then? Hear, what God says. And Aaron and his Sons shalt thou bring unto the Door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and thou shalt wash them with water. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lavabis eos; LXX. Targe. O●kel. Samarit. Lava. Arab. Ablue, Syriac. cum laveris, vulg. lat.  Mark, 'tis said, thou shalt wash them; not, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est lavare & mundare quidpiam à sordibus, Lamb. Danae. Isagog. de Sacrament. c. 21. part. 4. pag. 497.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lavit, see Buxtorf.   thou shalt dip them. Nor does the Original word there used (which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signify any such thing, but only, as Pagnin tells us, abluere à sordibus corporis, to cleanse from the filths of the body by washing; and so Danaeus too. And accordingly when Moses did execute this command (Levit. 8.6.) the word used to express their washing is the same word still. When the Hebrews would express a dipping, they have another word for that, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they use in that case. And the not using of that word here, is intimation fair enough, that it was not the washing mostly signified by that word, that was here intended. Here's one Baptism or washing then, and yet not necessarily to be understood of dipping.  
§. 17. From the Priests let us go on to the Levites, and see after what manner they were to be washed, at their consecration to their office. That we have set down in Num. 8.5, 6, 7. And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, Take the Levites from among the Children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. See! not a word here of dipping them in order to their purification, nor any other way of washing prescribed, but that of sprinkling. Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle water of purifying upon them. And if it were not sufficiently apparent from hence, that sprinkling, and that of water, was used for cleansing, that of Ezek. 36.25. would make it appear; where by way of promise of what God would do for Israel in after times, he saith, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. Here's another Baptism, or washing: yet not by dipping, but even plainly by sprinkling.  
§. 18. From the Levites pass we on unto the People: and for their purification, after pollution, is prescribed washing. 

Maimonid. in Mikvaoth. c. 1. vid. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matth. 6.3. pag. 47.  
Ainsworth on Levit. 15.5, 11.   But how? by dipping? so indeed if the Anabaptists will give us leave to believe them, the Jewish Traditions say, and that of the whole body, hair and all, and all at one dip, and that so strictly, that if but the tip of the little finger miss dipping, he that is dipped is still in his uncleanness. But does the Text say any such thing? No such matter. And they that strictly hold us to Text, must press no more than Text upon us. They must claim no benefit by Tradition to themselves, that will not allow the benefit of it unto others. Let them but allow us that, and we shall have our Infants baptised presently. And let it be by dipping, with all my heart, so no unlawfulness be affixed on the doing it otherwise.  
§. 19 In Levit. 14. we have the cleansing of a Leper prescribed. And how is he to be cleansed? By dipping? That is not said. How then? Even by sprinkling. For so 'tis said in Ver. 7. And he (i. e. the Priest) shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the Leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean: Sprinkling then again appears to be a way of washing, and that for cleansing: for after the Priest had so washed him by sprinkling, he was to pronounce him clean. But it is said (v. 8.) that he shall wash himself in water that he may be clean; and again (ver. 9) he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean. True, in order to his coming into the Camp, and after that into his Tent. But still that washing is not said should be by dipping. The original word is here also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavit, eluit, abluit aquâ corpus, faciem, manus, pedes, vestes. Leigh. Crit. Sacr.  and signifies only in general to wash, and not specifically to dip, or totally immerse, as we have noted before. And as the LXX. here render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall wash; so lavo and abluo, general words to wash or cleanse with washing, are the only Latin expressions whereby the sentiments of other Interpreters, 
Et lavabitur aquâ, Vulg. Lat. Targum On●el. Lavabitur in aqua, Transl. Lat. Septuag. Se autem lavabit in aquis, Text. Heb. Samarit. & abluet se aquá, Syriac. & lavabit seize, Arab.  of what Language soever, are conveyed to us.  
§. 20. In Levit. 15. is prescribed the cleansing of Men and Women in their Issues; and of Persons defiled by touch of them. That cleansing among other rites is to be made, not necessarily by immersion (there is no dipping mentioned in the case) but by ablution, by such a washing as is termed bathing. He shall bathe himself in water: so 'tis said, v. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22, 27. He shall bathe his flesh in running water, v. 13. Now bathing surely doth not necessarily import in its signification a total immersion: Men do not use always to plunge themselves over head and ears into their Bath: a going into the water, and a partial mersation of some part of their bodies, with an application of water to other parts of them with their hands, and a frication added thereto, I think, takes in the whole of what is necessary to, or usual in bathing. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Sam. 11.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Susan. v. 17.  Nor can I discern any thing more to have been done, either by Bathsheba, or Susanna, to themselves, in that washing of themselves, which is vulgarly called bathing. 
In aquis se lavabit, Pagn. Interlin. lavabitur aquâ, LXX. Transl. lat. aquis, Targ. Onk. in aquis, Samarit. lavet se aquâ, Arab. totus aquâ, Vulg. Lat. Vid. Bib. Polyglot.  And the Hebrew word, the same we have noted before, signifies no such thing strictly and specifically; nor is so rendered by any Interpreter that I yet meet with: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and lavo in Latin, (and what comes of it) being all the words that the Oriental Versions are rendered by. So then no necessity of dipping in this case neither.  
§. 21. In Deut. 21. when uncertain murder was committed, the Elders of the City next adjoining are appointed to wash their hands over a beheaded heifer, v. 6. Here's washing of the hands appointed, but not dipping. The Original word here also is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so doth not enforce to interpret it of immersion. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which does not signify to dip, is the word the LXX use to render it by, so lavabunt, and laverint, which do not signify it neither (I mean strictly and specifically) are the words whereby the Oriental Versions of that place are interpreted unto us. So here is another washing, yet not by a total immersion.  
§. 22. In Exod. 30.18, 19, 20. Moses is appointed to make a laver of brass to wash withal, and to put water therein, for Aaron and his sons to wash thereat: and they are accordingly appointed, upon pain of death, to wash when they went into the tabernacle. But still not a word of immersion spoken of all this while. The word for washing here too is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose import we have often enough declared to be for ablution, not for immersion. And besides though Moses be appointed, when he had placed the laver, to put water therein, they are not appointed to put their hands and feet into it, and wash therein, but to wash them thereat. 
Fistulas multas habebat, per quas emittebatur aquae. Pool Synops. in loc.  And for conveniency thereof Mr. Pool tells us from Munster and Fagius, that it had many spouts or pipes, whereby water was let out for their use. And according to this appointment it is said in Exod. 40.43, 31. that Moses did set the laver between the Tent of the Congregation and the altar, and put water there to wash withal. And that Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and feet thereat, (not therein.) The original word for washing is here still the same: and lavo the only Latin word that I meet with, whereby the Oriental Versions of it are rendered.  
§. 23. In Levit. 6.27. The Garment, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavare, lavacro candidare. Pagnin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavit, purgavit, abluit, eluit pannum vel vestem, ut albescat Leigh. Crit. Sacr. Generale est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. candidum facere. Danaeus, Isag. part. 4. l. 5. c. 21. p. 497. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavit, abluit. Buxtorf.  whereon the blood of the Sin-offering was sprinkled, is appointed to be washed. And in Leu. 13.6. the garment of him, who had a white scab arising in his flesh, suspected to be the Leprosy, but judged by the Priest not to be that, is appointed to be washed. And in Leu. 14.8, 9 he who was to be cleansed from the Leprosy was appointed to wash his garments. And again in Levit. 15.6, 7, 8, 10, etc. persons having a running issue, or defiled by the touch of such persons, are appointed to wash their clothes. But still this washing is not expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to dip, but by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which only in general signifies to wash, or whiten with washing, not strictly to immerse or dip.  
§. 24. And suppose the way of washing of clothes were by a total mersation (as I am apt to think it was, though the Hebrew word do not necessarily enforce so much, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by the LXX. to express their way of washing) yet still that makes against a total immersion of the persons, at least according to the observation of the great St. Athanasius. 
D. Athanas. Dict. & Interpret. Parab. S. Scripturae, Tom. 2. p. 426.  For he speaking of the legal Baptism hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. every unclean person washed, (or was washed) with water, but he plunged his garments. So then the washing of the person was not the same with the washing of the garments. And then if the washing of the garments was by a plunging or total immersion of them into the water, than the washing of the person was not so. And so we have here a diversity of baptisms confirmed, and yet one of them not by a total immersion.  
§. 25. To conclude this enumeration of particulars appointed to be washed. In Exod. 29.17. we read that the inwards and legs of the ●am, Sacrificed at the Consecration of the Priest, were appointed to be washed. And the like we read appointed to be done to the inwards and legs of the burnt-offering brought by any of the people, whether it were of the herd, or of the flock, Levit: 1.9, 13. And this we find done by Aaron, when he offered up the burnt-offering for himself, Levit. 9.14. But still it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used to signify this washing, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ that washing is not appointed to be strictly by dipping, but only in such a way as might serve for cleansing, which might be by dipping, or other washing or rinsing; whereof our own kitchens, if we should look into them, might daily afford us visible instances: no doubt being but that many Joints of our meat are sufficiently washed and cleansed by pouring water on them, or rubbing them with water, which yet are never in formal manner wholly immersed.  
§. 26. And thus I have shown variety of washings under the law, and yet none of them necessarily, by virtue of the signification of the words whereby they are prescribed, implying dipping, exclusively as to all other ways of washing. Perhaps it might be a task, not easily performed, to show where any person, or thing, that was to be cleansed, was appointed to be dipped for the cleansing of it. For the cleansing of other things, we read of things appointed to be dipped, as the Priest's finger in oil, Leu. 4.6, 17. (which yet I have shown not to signify a total immersion, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the original of it;) a living bird, cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop in the blood of a bird slain over running water (which also I have spoke to before, showing the impossibility of proving thence a total immersion by him that strictly stands to Scripture text:) hyssop in the water of Separation for the purifying of the unclean, Numb. 19.18. (and yet even here reason will not suggest to a man a total immersion of that hyssop into the water, but that so much of it was left undipped, as was held by the hand of him that was to sprinkle the water with it, unless we suppose he dipped his hand too into the water: but that was to exceed the order prescribed, which was to dip the hyssop, not his hand into it:) but of things appointed to be dipped for their own purification, as my own memory suggests to me no instance, so perhaps it may not be very easy for another, upon the sudden, to give an example.  
§ 27. And now lay all these things together, and how little a share will immersions, especially total ones, have in our Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, washings? how much more agreeably to the nature of the things is that word there rendered washings? and how invincible an instance is that Text, of the word's signifying not always, and only a total imersion, but of its signifying other ways of washing, whether by a partial mersation, affusion, or conspersion, and so a fair evidence of the truth of a Christian baptism, without the strictness of an Anabaptistical dipping.  
§. 28. And yet for further strength, though we admit some, nay several of the washings here understood to have been total immersions, (as I am willing so far to credit the Hebrew Doctors, as to apprehend the cleansing of men and women in their issues, Leu. 15. might have been by a total dipping of them) yet still, unless they were all such, and there was no diversity in any from them, the case will be all one: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will still be to be understood of those washings that were no immersions, as well as of those that were. And that there was a diversity betwixt them, and that they were not all the same sort of washing, for instance, total immersions, is sufficiently intimated in the Epithet here added thereto by the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divers. If the washings were divers, than they were not all the same, and then not all total immersions, suppose some were such, but some partial mersations, some affusions, some sprinklings: which again proves the thing in question, that that may be a true baptism, which yet is not a total immersion.  
§. 29. It may be said that divers, doth not signify always a difference in species or sort, but in number: as appears, 2 Chron. 21.4. 2 Chron. 30.11. Mark 8.3. Act. 19.9. But I answer, that though that be true of the English word divers, which is so used in those four Texts: yet it is not so of the Greek word here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not the word for divers in any of those Texts, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some, as in Mark 8. and Act. 19 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men, as in 2 Chron. 30. or nothing expressed, as in 2 Chron. 21. as there are other words for it in other Texts of Scripture, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. as he that pleases upon examination may find, but not that. That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used in the Greek, either of the New Testament or Old, but where a diversity of kind or sort is intimated. In the New Testament I find it but once used, besides this Text, viz. Rom. 12.6. where we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differing gifts: but that must needs be in kind or sort, unless prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, be gifts all of a kind or sort. In the Old Testament I find it thrice, but every where signifying variety of sort or kind. As for instance, Leu. 19.19. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is [diverso semine, as the Vulg. Lat.] feeds of several sorts or kinds. And if it be not clear enough in itself, it may receive Light from the foregoing clause of the same Verse, and where we have the word divers too, (though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not in the Greek there) but fully to our purpose. Thou shalt not let thy  gender with a divers kind [alterius generis, of another kind or sort, according to the Vulg. Lat.] So that the field was no more to be sowed (immixtionibus, as Pagnin renders it) with mixed seeds, than  to be bred from promiscuous mixtures of beasts of divers kinds. So again, Deut. 22.9. the same precept is renewed, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek of the Septuagints Version of that Text, Thou shalt not sow thy Vineyard with divers seeds, that is [mixturis as Pagnin.] with mixtures of seeds, seeds of divers sorts, or kinds mingled together. Lastly in Dan. 7.7. after the fight of one beast like a Lion, and another like a Bear, and a third like a Leopard, appeared a fourth divers from all the beasts that were before it, that is, differing in sort or kind, as much from all them, as they one from another: and here the word for divers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint [dissimilis ab omni bestia, Transl. Lat. of LXX. variam à cunctis, Pagnin. diversa ab omnibus belluis, Arab. Syriac.] According then to the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures, it must import a diversity of kind or sort in the things whereto it is applied; and then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Text, must be meant washings of several sorts or kinds, and then not all of one sort or kind, suppose total immersion were one; then partial mersation, affusion, or aspersion must come within the compass of that word's signification; and then there may be a baptism without a total immersion.  
§. 30. After this I may add, perhaps not inconveniently, that whereas St. Athanasius, (or he whoever that Ancient Author was, 
Dict. & Interpret. Parab. Script. Tom. 2. p. 426.  who is mistaken for St. Athanasius,) reckons up eight several baptisms; the first of the flood; the Second that of Moses in the Sea; the Third the legal baptism of the Jews after uncleanness; the Fourth that of St. John Baptist; the Fifth that of Jesus; the Sixth of Tears (as when one washes his bed, as David did his every night, with Tears) the Seventh of Martyrdom, the Eighth of eternal fire, several of these are not immersions; and particularly not the first, for Noah and his family were not dipped into the flood (reigned upon they were, and so the resemblance of their baptising is made in baptising by affusing or sprinkling, if ye will;) nor the Second, as I have shown before; nor the Third universally, as I have also shown, and himself doth intimate, whilst he expresses the reason for the Jews having that baptism, by saying that every unclean person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was washed; nor the Sixth, for that cannot be by dipping the bed in tears, but by dropping tears upon the bed, and is more properly a baptism by sprinkling, than by dipping; and even the Fourth, however the Fifth will abide a dispute. There may then be a baptising, where there is no immersing, at least according to St. Athanasius; or that Ancient Writer. But not in this Author alone; but in other of the Ancients we read of a Baptism of Blood and Tears; I know saith Greg. Naz. of a Fourth Baptism, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gr. Naz. Orat. 39 Tom. 1. pag. 634. Edit. morel.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, D. Athan. Resp. ad qu. 72. add Antioch. Tom. 2. p. 360. edit. Sonnii & Morellii.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, D. Basil. Hom. de 40. Martyr. Tom. 1. p. 533. edit. Morellii.   that by Martyrdom and Blood, wherewith Christ himself was Baptised; and I know of a Fifth yet, that of Tears: And, (saith the Author of the Responses to Antiochus, attributed to St. Athanasius) God hath granted unto man Three purging Baptisms, that of Water, that of the Testimony of ones own Blood, and the Third, that of Tears: so St. Basil tells us of a Martyr that was Baptised into Christ in his own Blood.  
§. 31. Neither then from what is said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (root, body, nor branch) doth it appear, that the Baptismal washing is necessarily, by the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be by a total immersion: nor is our Saviour, when he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be understood, as if he had said, make all Nations disciples by dipping them, but by washing them; i. e. in such manner as the time, place, and person may admit, whether by immersion, affusion, or conspersion.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Syriac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and that they do not universally signify a total immersion.  
§. 1. BUT perhaps it will be said, that our Saviour did not deliver his mind in Greek. In what Language then? In Hebrew, or Syriac, doubtless: but in whether 'tis hard to say. But what then? what? why then, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either in its own native import, or in the Hellenistical use of it, might signify not always a total immersion, but sometimes something less than that, even an affusion or aspersion of water, yet it is not to be taken here, so as to signify any thing less than that word did, wherein our Saviour delivered his mind: and if that signified only a total immersion, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what ever it may signify in itself, ought with us to signify nothing less than so.  
§. 2. To this I answer first, that it being not certainly known in what Language our Saviour spoke, when he gave the order for baptising, the Language, that he spoke in, ought not to be urged in this case, so as to prescribe to the use of the word, that we have his mind delivered in unto us. Tell us exactly the particular word that he spoke, and what was the exact signification of that word, and, unless we can show a reason for a dispensation, we will do what that word requireth of us.  
§. 3. Secondly the Holy Spirit, which excited St. Matthew to write his Gospel, and assisted him in the writing of it, knew his mind, and suggested to his Evangelist such a word, as was expressive of his mind: and what that word doth import, that we take to be his mind, 
That passage in Tilenus, Alioqui Apostolis, Syrorum idiomate, quo videlicet Christus usus fuerat, utendum fuisset, (Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes. 17.) shows he thought that Syriac was the Language our Saviour spoke.  and the very thing designed by his word, in what Language soever he spoke, whether Hebrew, or Syriac. And so, for as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word dictated by the Spirit, as we suppose, to the Evangelist, admits of a latitude, at least in Sacred Authors, if not in profane also, so as to signify other ways of baptising, than by a total immersion, therefore we are to understand, that the word he delivered his mind in, were it Hebrew or Syriac, was also of the same import. And so we are where we were still.  
§. 4. But suppose he spoke Hebrew, or Syriac, What are the words he must be supposed to have spoken in this case? It will be said, if Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal, if Syriac, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amad. 
Dr. Pocock, Porta Mosis, pag. 393.  Here is but supposition all this while, and no proof: unless those Languages afforded no other words to express washing, and particularly that kind of washing, which was used as the ceremony for initiation of Disciples under the Discipline of a Master. And so, let those words signify what they will, there can no demonstrative Argument be framed from them against us, and we may baptise our children still, as we do, for all them.  
§. 5. Yet suppose we join issues, and take it for granted, that the one, or the other, of these words, was the word that our Saviour delivered his mind in, and that proportionably to the import of that word we are to understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by the Evangelist, whereby to express his mind, will it thence follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify a total immersion? I hope not. If they do not necessarily signify so much, then cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be affirmed to have so much necessarily imported in its signification.  
§. 6. But how shall we know the just import of these words? Undoubtedly by consulting Authors, or Lexicographers, skilful in those Languages. If that may be stood to, all is well yet. For the Learned Dr. Pocock proves, that though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) do import a further degree of purgation, than what is implied in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which signifies to wash the hands) yet it does not necessarily import the mersation or dipping of the whole body. 
— Nec tamen totius corporis mersationem necessariò indigitare. Dr. Pocock, ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tinxit, intinxit, mersit, immersit, tingendi, aut abluendi gratiâ demersit: ita lavit, ut res non mundetur, sed tantùm attingat humorem, vel tota, vel ex parte: baptizavit, Schindler.  And learned Schindler, as he allows this Verb the strict signification of immersion, dipping in, or plunging for ablutions sake, so he stints not its signification to that, but allows it to signify in a greater latitude, so to wash, not as that a thing may be cleansed, but only touch the moisture either in whole, or in part. And so Mr. Leigh, in his Critica Sacra.  
§. 7. And as this hath already been made appear, by the instance of the Priests right finger dipped in the Oil contained in the palm of his left hand: so it will appear by further instances of the same, interpreted according to what reason could direct as fit to be done in those cases, or is actually done in the like. In Exod. 12.22. order is given by Moses to the Elders of Israel, at the institution of the Passeover, first to kill a Lamb, and then to take a bunch of Hyssop, and dip it in the blood of it, and strike the Lintel, and the two side-Posts therewith. Now what Man of reason would ever think any more intended by Moses, but that he that took the Hyssop, as he held one end of the bunch in his hand, so he should dip the other end of it into the blood? Which of us being to act the same thing, and having no further directions than they appear to have had, would do any more than so? And who would not think the order exactly fulfilled in so doing? Who would ever dream of a necessity of immersing the whole bunch into the blood? or fancy it was not dipped at all, because not all dipped? Let us consult our reasons, and think like Men, and we cannot imagine any more than a partial mersation of the bunch into the blood (viz. the bushy end of it) to have been intended by Moses, or practised by Israel. And then here will be one instance of this word's signifying less than a total dipping of that, which yet is said to be dipped.  
§. 8. And, the more to confirm it, we may note, (and it is observable) that the Greek Interpreters of this place, though they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the case, yet they do not say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dipping it into the blood, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dying or smearing it with the blood, (which is a further instance, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth not necessarily signify always a total immersion, (at least, not in the judgement of those Writers) but sometimes somewhat less, even as here, a dying or besmearing.) And accordingly the Vulg. Lat. doth not render it intingite, or immergite in sanguinem, immerse, or dip it into the blood, but tingite sanguine, die, or besmear it with blood.  
§. 9 But if this instance be not clear enough and full enough (as to any reasonable and modest Inquirer it may seem to be) there is another that probably is. In Gen. 37. we have the story of Joseph's being sold to the Ishmaelites by his Brethren. Part of that story is their contriving how to blind their Father, and make him believe his Son was torn in pieces by some evil Beast. In order unto that they kill a Kid, and besmear the Coat with the blood thereof. We cannot imagine that the Coat was bebloodied all over, as it must have been, if it had been totally immersed into blood. Nor would the crafty Brethren do so with it: for their fraud could not possibly, had they so done, have escaped discovery by their prudent Father. So much of it therefore only was besmeared with blood, as might make it look like the Coat of one slain by a wild Beast, which would here be bloody, and there be without any tincture of blood, as the issues from the wounds should disperse the tinctures, and not be bloody all over, like a Vesture dipped in blood. No total immersion then of Joseph's Coat into the blood of the Kid, (if the blood of it saved at best advantage could be so much, as that the coat of a person so old, as Joseph then was, might be totally immersed into it:) there was but a besmearing of it, at most, by a partial mersation only into it. And accordingly the Septuagint render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not they dipped, but inquinârunt; they besmeared it. And yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (tinxerunt, intinxerunt) formed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the original word, whereby the Author describes that action of joseph's brethren. So then the case seems clear, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers in its signification, doth not necessarily import a total immersion; and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not so neither.  
§. 10. And what is said of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the comprehensiveness of its signification, the same is also said by the learned Schindler of the Syriac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answers both to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amad, baptizatus, in aquam immersus, tinctus, lotus fuit. ab Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stetit. stabant enim qui baptizabantur, Schindler. The son of Azalkefat in the Arab. Gospels useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amada to baptise; which also beareth the same sense in the Syriac, and is often mentioned by the Patriarch Severus in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Order of Baptising the Saints. The reason in both Dialects is the same, for that the word Amada is by the Syrians and Arabians derived from the Hebrew word Amad, which signifieth to stand up. J. G. on Sir Tho. Ridleys' View of the Civil Law, p. 176.  namely that it signifies not only strictly in aquam immersus fuit, he was dipped into water, but also more generally tinctus, & lotus fuit, he was died, and washed. So that whether our Saviour spoke Hebrew, or Syriac, the case is all one, the latter being of as great a latitude as the former.  
§. 11. And by this time, I hope, it sufficiently appears, that to baptise, though not by a total immersion, is not repugnant to the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (our Saviour's word in Matth. 28.19.) but comprehended within the compass of it: and thence it will follow, that such baptising as is not contrary to the word of Christ, is not contrary to the will of Christ, but is consonant to his mind, and consistent with his will; and so a true, lawful, and sufficient baptism, though but by a partial mersation, an affusion, or aspersion. And the showing of this was the first branch of my undertaking.   

CHAP. VIII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not restrained to a total immersion amongst Christians by the practice of it among the Jews.  
§. 1. AND yet before I proceed to the Second, I meet with a Rub, which it may be convenient to remove out of the way. For it may be said, that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify in that latitude, that we contend for; yet the custom of that Time and Place, when and where our Saviour spoke, was to baptise by way of a total immersion: and therefore his word ought to be understood with such restriction as is proper for that place and time; and so particularly of a total dipping.  
§. 2. But to this (not to dispute the custom of that time and place) I answer, First, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem de quâ hîc (viz. Matth. 28.18.) agitur, non significat illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei, quod omnipotentiam vocamus, sed imperium regium, & autoritatem constituendi Ecclesiam per ministerium Apostolorum, de quo munere regio vide Psal. 99, & 98. Item Matth. c. 11. & Joh. 13. Tostan. Praelection. in Matth. p. 383.  that our Lord Jesus Christ is in this concern to be considered as a Legislator, endued with power from him that sent him, both to reform old Laws, and change old customs, and to give new laws, and institute new customs: which power he asserts in the very next immediately foregoing words, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. And as acting by that power he gives this Commission of baptising to his Apostles, saying, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations baptising them. Whereupon it follows, that the Institutions, Laws, and Customs, appointed and ordained in, or brought into the Church by Christ, or those commissionated and empowered for that end by him, are not to be confined to, nor measured by, what was before, especially, if not infallibly of a divine institution, as the total immersion of Proselytes, (or even of Natives) whether for admission into discipleship to any Master, or for entrance into the Community of the Jewish people, or into the Covenant of God, can never be proved to be: but to be considered absolutely and independently as they are in themselves constituted by him, or by his appointment. And as, if his Laws and Constitutions do retrench any liberties, or enlargements that were given or permitted before, they are to be observed according to those restraints and retrenchments: So if his Laws and Constitutions do give a latitude, that was not before (as in the case of meats made lawful to be eaten under the Gospel, which were prohibited under the Law, etc.) in that latitude that he gives them, they are in all reason to be understood and observed. And consequently if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (his word) do signify any thing else besides a total immersion, as a partial mersation, affusion, or aspersion, according to that latitude of its signification is his mind to be taken, and his precept expounded. For he hath the Key of David, and as well openeth, and no man shutteth, as shutteth, and no man openeth, Rev. 3.7.  
§. 3. Secondly, if our Saviour had designed strictly that way of a total immersion, used in the time and place when and where he spoke these words, he could have used words of a lesser latitude than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which could not be capable of signifying any other way of baptising, short of, or less than a total immersion: Such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In that therefore he used a word of greater latitude than the then present use was, being no way in the least straitened for words, but having plenty at hand, to express his mind in, had he pleased it should have been otherwise, it is plain he designed a greater latitude in the performance of that action, than justly agreed with the then present way of baptising in that circumstance: and that according to that latitude we are to understand his mind in that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 4. Thirdly, if our Saviour had designed the administration of this Sacrament only in that Nation, it had been reasonable to conceive his meaning was, that in the administration of it the custom of that nation should be observed, not only because it would well agree with the temperature of that country, but also because the customariness of it to another, yet very near, almost the same purpose, would make the reception of it unto his purpose the more easy to that people. But being he designed it to be the Ceremony of Initiation of disciples into his Church throughout all nations, it is most reasonable to believe his intendment was, that it should be administered in such a way as would best agree with the temperature of all Countries, and be most readily received by the people of all nations, either upon that account, or on any other of a near nature that might be customary among them (as among some of them there were used purifications by water in reference to divine service; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. Name & sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithrae, ipsos etiam Deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Tertul. de Bapt. p. 257. Edit. Rigalt. Inter quae [sc. Cereris sacra] pracipuum fuit, ut sacris initiatos, calda primùm abluerent— Alex. ab Alex. l. 6. c. 19 ) people being much more easily induced to admit of such Ceremonies and Customs, as are in some respect domestic and home, and they in part acquainted with, than those that are utterly foreign and wholly new. And according to what in reason we believe his real intendment to have been, in reason we are to understand his word to be meant. And then that must be not universally of a total immersion, but sometimes of other ways of baptising: because those other ways are more agreeable to the temperature of some countries, than that is, and their receptions less liable to exception than that would have been.  
§. 5. Fourthly, if our Saviour had designed this Sacrament to be administered only to persons of strong constitution, and in healthful state, then in reason it might be believed, he intended its administration only in that way, which was in use in that Nation, and at that time, and was but such as persons in health and strength might without danger endure, and without fear undergo. But seeing he intended it as an universal door for the letting in persons of all estates, conditions, and constitutions, as well as Countries, into his Church (for he makes no limitation in that case, and the Church's practice hath so interpreted his precept) therefore it is most reasonable to believe, he would, and did, design it so wide, as that it might give entrance unto all, and not by the straitness of its severity, and dangerousness to the health and life of persons of sick, or sickly, and weak condition and constitution, exclude any, especially in cold seasons and climates, and before the use of Fonts, when there were only rivers, or pools to baptise in. But that could not be by a total immersion. Therefore he must in reason be believed to have intended it, when and where that could not be, by a partial mersation, affusion or aspersion, as the case and condition, the time, place, and person might require.  
§. 6. If any more were needful I might in the Fifth place add, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily so used, as besides the signification of an act of application of water to the person baptised, to consignify also all the other proper circumstances of baptising, both for matter and manner, that are omitted, where it is expressed: as for instance when 'tis said of S. Paul, 
It is taken for the whole work and action of the Sacrament, Matt. 28.19. Leigh. Critic. Sacra.  (Act. 9.18.) that he arose, and was baptised, it is meant that none of the proper circumstances of baptism were then omitted, though not one of them be expressed. So then our Saviour saying, Go and make Heathens disciples baptising them, must be understood to mean, that all the proper circumstances of baptism, both in point of matter and form, must accompany that act. Now if the manner of baptising at that time must determine our Saviour's order to one circumstance, then, no discrimination being made, it must determine it to the others also, and so we must in all points be baptised as the Jews were; only in Rivers or Lakes: not in the night, 
See Dr. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. 3.6. pag. 45, etc.  nor on the Sabbath day, nor on any holy day; the party must first be put naked by others into the water, and there sit, or stand, up to the neck; he must there learn some precepts of the Law, hard as well as easy, and then he must at one plunge wholly dip himself, or be dipped by another. And now let our Anabaptists say in good earnest, whether they think all this should be punctually observed in Christian baptism; and therefore comprehended under our Saviour's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because this was the manner of baptising in that time and place, when and where our Saviour spoke that word, I am of opinion they do not think so, because both the Apostles did, and the Church hath, and themselves do act differently in some respect from this manner and order. For the first company that ever the Apostles baptised after the sealing of their Commission to baptise with water, by their own being baptised with the Holy Ghost and with fire, was on the day of Pentecost, an holy day. Paul and Silas baptised the Jailor and his family in the night. And it has been the Church's practice in times of persecution to baptise in the night, and in latter times in Fonts, at first larger, after lesser, and for many ages by a threefold immersion. And as in the night the Anabaptists do, or (if they be now grown more confident,) have formerly baptised in the night; so their Proselytes, I suppose, are not put into the water by their Baptizer, but go in of themselves; neither (I think) are they now naked, but have some Linen Garment on; neither do so much as the Women dip themselves, but even they are dipped by their Baptizer, differently from the manner of baptising in our Saviour's days. Then neither the Apostles did, nor the Church hath, nor themselves do, think themselves obliged by virtue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to conform in all points to the manner and order of baptising in use, at that time, and in that place, where our Saviour spoke that word. They then who cannot but see, that the Church of Christ hath varied, and who themselves do vary in some circumstances, from the manner and order used then and there, when and where our Saviour spoke that word, cannot in reason, and ought not in justice, to tie us to the exact observation of others: unless they will be guilty of that high crime of uncharitableness, or rather injustice and partiality, which consists in condemning others for what they do themselves, i. e. varying from the order of baptising in use, in that time and place, wherein our Saviour gave his order for baptising: and then St. Paul will have somewhat to say to them, which I leave them to read, and consider of, Rom. 2.1, 2, 3, etc.  
§. 7. And now supposing my way to be sufficiently cleared by the removal of this obstacle, I will proceed to that which is in order to follow.   

CHAP. IX. The agreeableness of baptising by aspersion or affusion unto the Nature of Baptism.  
§. 1. IF we inquire into the Nature of Baptism, 

Nam ad materiam quod attinet, aqua res est, seu nitro plena esse dicitur, seu quavis aliâ qualitate, omnium maximè idonea, quae corporis sordes cluat. Amyrald. Thes. Salmur. De Bapt. Sect. 17. 1 Joh. 1.7.  
Nam sicut aquâ abluuntur sordes corporis, sic sanguine Christi in cruse effuso & cordibus per fidem asperso abluuntur sordes animae, id est peccata. Piscat. Com. Loc. 23. These 14. Item Loc. 24. Thes. 12.  
Baptismus est Sacramentum à Christo institutum, ut per illud Ecclesiae inseramur; cum hâc promissione, quòd non minus certò quàm aquâ extrinsecùs lavamur, etiam intrinsecùs à peccatis abluimur per sanguinem & Spiritum Christi. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1. Thes. 1. p. 342.  
Baptismus est primum N. T. Sacramentum, quo ex institutione Christi per ministrum ejus aquâ abluimur in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spir. Sancti, ut ita Receptio in Novum Gratiae Foedus, & intrinseca per sanguinem & Spir. Christi ablutio à peccatis & clarè nobis signotur, & certò obsignetur. Id. ibid. p. 345.   we shall find it to be a holy Sacrament, wherein, by the external washing of the baptised with Water, is principally signified his inward washing from sin by the blood of Christ: the water from the abundance of nitre, which is said to be contained in it, and its being thereby made the more apt for cleansing, very fitly representing the blood of Christ, which (as the Apostle saith) cleanseth from all sin: and the action of washing no less fitly representing the application of the blood of Christ to the sinner for the cleansing of him. In reference to which action the same Apostle hath told us of Christ's having loved us, and (as the best instance of that love imaginable) having washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev. 1.5.  
§. 2. 

Baptismus dicitur intinctio, i. e. ablutio cortoris exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta P. Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Dist. 3. part. 1. de Baptismo in speciali.  
Baptismus est primum Sacramentum N. Testamenti per externam aquae adspersionem & ablutionem, declarans & obsignans fidelibus internam ip●orum ablutionem per sanguinem & spiritum Christi. H. Alting. come. loc. Baptismus est prius novi Testamenti Sacramentum, quo qui in foedere sunt, à ministro Ecclesiae secundum institutionem Christi aquâ conspe●guntur & abluuntur ad internam animae à peccatis ablutionem, quae spiritus sancti operatione propter solum Christi sanguinem contingit, nec non cum Christo communionem, & in Ecclesiae Christi receptionem, significandam, obsignandam, & conserendam. Wendelin. Christ. Theolog. l. 1. c. 22. Thes. 4. Baptismus est primum novi foederis Sacramentum, in quo electis in Dei familiam receptis externâ aquae aspersione peccatorum remissio & regeneratio per sanguinem Christi & spiritum sanctum obsignatur. Wolleb. Christ. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. Baptismus est primum N. Foederis Sacramentum à Christo institutum ex analogis signo & signato & analogicá relatione ipsorum inter se & actione constans, quo foedcrati à Ministris Ecclesiae abluuntur, ut Christo insiti internae animae ablutionis per sanguinem & spiritum ipsius fiant participes. Luc. Trelcat. Loc. Com. Institut. l. 2. Tit. de Bapt. p. 187. Aqua assumitur in Sacramentum baptismi ad usum ablutionis corporalis, per quam significatur ablutio peccatorum. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art. 7. c. a. Quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem, certè non interest quantum quisque abluatur, quomodo in Eucharistia quantum quisquc comedat. Chamier l. 5. de Baptism. c. 2. Notum est aquam, quae est res permanens, non dici baptismum, nec Sacramentum Baptismi, sed ablutionem, quae est actio, dici Baptismum & Sacramentum Baptismi.— Et similiter certum est Sacramenti definitionem optimè congruere ablutioni, etc. Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l 4. c. 3. Tom. 2. Col. 790. C D. Est hic baptismus, primam novi Testamenti Sacramentum à Christo institutum, in quo apta & concinna signi & signati analogia, foederati— aquá abluuntur— Tilen Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes. 4. Baptismus, est Sacramentum N. T. quo aquae perfusione in nomine Patris, Filii & S. S facta significatur & obsignatur fidelibus beneficium purgationis à peccato per filium Dei & regenerationis ad vitam aet●rnam. Keckerman. System. Theolog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 451.—   And hence the Master of the Sentences defining Baptism saith, it is an intinction, that is, an outward washing of the body, done under a prescribed form of words. And later Divines define it to be a Sacrament, that by the outward washing of water, signifieth the inward washing of the Soul with the blood of Christ. It is saith Altingius, (a Learned Member of the Synod of Dort) the first Sacrament of the New Testament by the external sprinkling and washing of water, declaring and sealing unto believers their inward washing by the blood and spirit of Christ. So saith Wendelinus a later but no less Learned Divine than he, Baptism is the former Sacrament of the New Testament, wherein they, who are in the Covenant of God, are by a Minister of the Church, according to the Institution of Christ, sprinkled with, water and washed, to signify, seal, and confer the inward washing of the Soul from sin. So others to the same purpose. Voss. de Bapt. p. 345.  
§. 3. Hence also among the Fathers, 

Cur verò liquore corporis sordes abluente Sacramentum hoc perfici mandavit Jesus? in causâ est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter ablutionem externam quae Aquâ fit, & internam quae fit sanguine & Spiritu Christi Voss. de Bapt. Thes. 4. p. 347.  
Neque enim aquâ lavat animam, sed priùs ipsa lavatur spiritu, ut alios lavare spiritualiter possit. D. Hieron. adv. Luciserian. Felix Sacramentum aquae nostrae quâ abluti delictis pristinae caecitatis in vitam aet●rnam liberamur. Tertul. de Bapt.  
Non ideo abluimur, ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus, quia jam corde loti sumus Id. ib. Nulla distinctio est mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo diluatur. Id. ib. Hortandi sunt homines tunc se potiùs interimere, cùm lavacro sanctae regenerationis abluti universorum remissionem cep●rint peccatorum. D. Aug. de Civ. l. 1. c. 27. Ablutos' homines purgantibus undis Nomine sub sancto patris natique lavate. Juven. Lavamur igitur in baptismo, quia deletur chirographum damnationis nostrae, & gratia hac nobis confertur, ne jam nobis concupiscentia noceat. si tamen à consensu abstincamus. D. Bern. Serm. 1. de Coen. Dom. Divinae autom gratiae lavacrum, non corporis sed animae maculam sordesque mundare consuevit. D. Chrysost. ad Baptizandos. Considerantes ac scientes, quòd templa dei sint membra vestra ab omni faece contagionis antiquae lavacri vitalis sanctificatione purgata. D. Cyprian. de Habit. Virg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Mart. 2. Apolog. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ib. Quanquam ad simplicom actum competat similitudo, ut quoniam vice sordium ●elidis inquinamur, aquis abluamur. Tert. de Bapt. Edit. Rigalt p. 257. Quid est baptismus Christi? lavacrum aquae in verbo. D. Aug. Tract. 15. in Evang. Job. In Christo igitur baptizari, significat credentes in eum ablui. Damasc. de Orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 10. fol. 148. a. Accepit rex Eduinus cum cunctis gentis suae nobilibus ac plebe perplurima fidem & lavacrum sanctae regenerationis. Beda. Eccles. Hist. Ang l. 2. c. 14.— A manè ad vesperam nihibaliud ageret, quàm confluentem co de cunctis viculis ac locis plebem, Christi verbo salutis instruere. atque instructam in fluvio Gleni, qui proximus crat, lavacro remissionis abluere. Id. ib. Quid est baptismus Christi? Lavacrum aquae in verbo. Id. in Ephes. 5. fol. 234. E. Si vultis ablui fonte illo salutari, quo pater vester ablutus est, potestis etiam panis sancti, cui ille participabat, esse participes. Sin autem lavacrum vitae contemnitis, nullatenus valetis panem vitae percipere. Bed. Ec. Hist. l. 2. c. 5. fol. 63.   when they speak of the Sacrament of Baptism, we meet with frequent mentions [lavandi, abluendi, diluendi, lavationis, lavacri, etc.] of washing, cleansing, laver, etc. So saith St. Hierom. for indeed the water doth not wash the Soul, but first itself is washed by the Spirit, that it may be able spiritually to wash others. So Tertullian, Happy Sacrament of our water, wherewith we being washed from the delinquencies of our pristine blindness, are freed into eternal life. Again, we are not therefore washed to the end that we may leave sinning, but because we have left it, because we are in heart already washed. On supposition it were lawful for men to kill themselves, then saith St. Aug. were men rather to be exhorted to kill themselves, when being washed in the laver of holy regeneration, they shall have received the remission of all sins. And so others also speak.  

Ecce venturi estis ad fontem sanctum, dilucmini baptismo, salutari lavacro regenerationis renovabi●ini: critis sine ullo peccato, ascendentes de illo lavacro: omnia quae vos peccata persequebantur ibi delebuntur. D. Aug. Serm. 119. de Temp. Cùm de illo sanctissimo lavacro novi natalis ascenditis. Tertul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Just. Martyr. Apol. 2.  §. 4. And from hence it is, that even the very Font itself, wherein men are by that Sacrament cleansed from the filth of their birth and life, hath the name of laver given unto it. When ye go up out of that laver, (saith S. Aug.) ye shall be without all sin. And so Tertul. When ye ascend out of that most holy laver of the New birth— And so others.  
§. 5. And no wonder, when under such like words as these is this holy Sacrament proposed in several places of the Sacred Scriptures. It is called by S. Paul (Tit. 3.5.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (as St. Hier. translates it) lavacrum regenerationis; (as we) the washing of regeneration. The same St. Paul writing to the Corinthians saith to and of them (1 Cor. 6.11.) And such (viz. as those were, whom he had reckoned up in the two foregoing verses,) were some of you, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are (or ye have been) washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, i. e. ye have been washed in baptism, sanctified by the Spirit of our God, and justified in, or by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again saith he to the Ephesians (c. 5. v. 25, 26.) Husband's love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, That he might sanctify and cleanse it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [lavacro aquae in verbo, as Vulg. Lat. renders it, that is, as we] with the washing of water by the word, that is, in or by Baptism. And in these his expressions to others, he speaks but suitably to what had by another been spoken to himself, even by Ananias, who, as it were to intimate unto him, that the nature of Baptism did principally consist in the washing of man from the guilt and stain of sin, mentions that, and nothing else but that, as the design of it, when he exhorts him to be baptised. And now (saith he, Act. 22.16.) why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Much after the rate of St. Peter's exhortation to the converted Jews (Act. 2.38.) to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; promising therewithal, as an inducement thereunto, their receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.  
§. 6. By all which it appears, that as well in the judgement of Ancient, as of Modern Divines, 
— Aquae proprietates in cluendis corporibus vim sanguinis Christi in delendis peccatis— declarant. Tilen. Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes. 32.  and even by Scripture Text itself, as water is a suitable element to represent the blood of Christ, whereby we are cleansed from our sins, so washing with water is a suitable action, whereby the application of Christ's Blood unto us for our cleansing is expressed, and so most agreeable unto the nature of Baptism; and consequently, that by what application of water we may be so washed as to be cleansed, by such we may be said to be baptised.  

— Cùm nec minùs in aspersione quàm in immersione, Sacramenti analogia servetur; siquidem in legalibus purificationibus sufficicbant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tilen. Disp. 1. de Bapt. Thes. 15.— Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat, & adspersione illae etiam sordes abluantur— Keckerman Theol. System. l 3. c. 8. p. 452.  §. 7. Now that sprinkling is such a way of application of water, as hath been designed and used for cleansing, will appear from Scripture, and then consequently it will follow, that it may be so still. And of that we have instance in Num. 8.5, 6, 7. where the Lord gives order unto Moses to cleanse the Levites, and directs him too how to cleanse them. And thus (saith he) shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. See! here is no other washing of them appointed for their cleansing, but what was done by sprinkling of the water of purification upon them. In Num. 19 order is given for making water of separation with the ashes of a red Heifer, ver. 1, etc. This water was to be a purification for sin, v. 10. The way of washing with this water for purification was to be by way of sprinkling; and that so strictly, that whosoever had touched the body of a dead man, and had not so purified himself with it, was to be cut off from Israel▪ because the water of purification had not been sprinkled upon him, v. 13. So again for the purifying of a Tent wherein any Man died, and of the persons and vessels in it, or any that touched any of them, a purification was ordained to be made by this water; and that purification was to be made by sprinkling: v. 18, 19 with the like menace of cutting off from the Congregation to him that was unclean on those accounts, and had not so purified himself: because he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord, the water of purification hath not been sprinkled upon him, ver. 20. Which cleansing from the Legal pollution of the body, by the sprinkling of the water of purification, typified our cleansing from the moral defilement of the Soul, by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Whereto the Learned Dr. Jackson saith, 
Tom. 3. Lib. 10. c. 50. Sect. 3. p. 271.  the Apostle hath special reference, more than allusion, saying, Heb. 9.13, 14. If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works? And again, that the water of sprinkling, consecrated by the aspersion of the ashes of this legal sacrifice, did truly resemble the water of Baptism, by which we are washed from sin, and consecrated unto God as clean persons, that is, made Members of his Church on Earth (saith he) is so evident in itself, that it needs no Paraphrase or laborious Comment upon the forecited Law; yet withal referring his Reader to Chytraeus his Commentaries on the Book of Numbers, etc. And I shall not be alone, if I shall say, 
Ad Sacramentum enim Baptismi Apostolus respicere videtur, quo externa quidem corporum fit ablutio, interna vero cordium purgatio per Christi sanguinem obsignatur. D. Pareus in Heb. 10.22.  that the Apostle hath a respect unto Baptism, when in Heb. 10.22. he saith, Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Which words [having our hearts sprinkled, etc.] to me seem not so much to declare with what qualification we should draw near unto God, as upon what ground we may draw near unto him; 
Est ergo sensus: Cùm sanguine & spiritu Christi à sordibus peccati purgati simus, hujusque purgationis symbolum baptismum habeamus, accedamus igitur purificatis cordibus per fidem, non polluti peccatis conscientiam turbantibus per veram resipiscentiam. Par. in loc.  even upon the account of our having been baptised, and therein had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience with the blood of Christ, as well as our bodies washed with the pure water of Baptism. And to this sense the Original fairly leads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is literally, being we have had our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and have had our bodies washed with pure water, that is, being we have been baptised, and so purged and cleansed (from those sins, which before kept us at a distance from God, and made us afraid to come nigh him) by the blood and spirit of Christ, who is our High Priest, and is at the right hand of God interceding for us, let us with a true heart draw near to God, in confidence of acceptance through his Intercession for us, who by so purging and cleansing us hath fitted us for such access, in full assurance of faith, that upon our approaching we shall be accepted. And when the inward washing from sin is styled a sprinkling, how fairly doth it intimate, that the outward washing did hold correspondence with it, and was performed by sprinkling also? At least so much will be infallibly gained by it, that washing by way of sprinkling, is an action very suitable to, and agreeable with, the nature of baptism, as outwardly representing that inward washing, which is performed therein, and correspondently thereunto termed a sprinkling.  
§. 8. And even God himself had long before shown the agreeableness of the outward washing of the body from its filths with water by way of sprinkling, with the inward washing of the Soul from its sins by his grace through the blood of Christ applied thereto for its cleansing, when (in Ezech. 36.5.) he said to Israel, in reference to their defilements wherewith they had been defiled in the Countries into which they had been scattered, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you: That is, I will render you as spiritually clean from your sin, by my pardoning and purifying grace, as you should be legally clean, by having clean water, even the water of separation and purification, sprinkled upon you.  
§. 9 And if the blood of Sacrifices may be thought to have a nearer resemblance with the blood of Christ, than water hath, yet as the application of Christ's blood to our Souls for the cleansing of them, is set forth by way of sprinkling, whence his blood is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
See Dr. Ham. in lo.  the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. so the application of the blood of Sacrifices for cleansing, was mostly made by sprinkling: whence the Apostle (Heb. 9.21, 22.) saith of Moses, that he sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle, and all the Vessels of the Ministry. And that almost all things are by the Law purged with blood. Thence we read of a Ram that was to be slain at the consecration of Aaron's Sons, and his blood to be sprinkled round about upon the Altar, Exod. 29.16. When a Bullock was to be offered for a  Sacrifice by any of the People, in order to an atonement to be made for him, the Sons of Aaron were to bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the Altar, Levit. 15. and so if it were of the Flocks, ib. v. 11. So if it were a Peace-offering, Levit. 3.8, 13. So also if it were a Trespass-offering, Levit. 7.2. So if it were a Sin-offering to be offered by the Highpriest for himself and for his House, the blood of it was to be sprinkled seven times upon the Mercy-seat, and before the Mercy-seat, Levit. 16.14. And the like was to be done if it were for the People, (ib. v. 15.) and that in order to the making an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins. (ib. v. 16.) And if the sin for which the Sacrifice was to be offered, whether of the Priests, or of the People's, were a sin of ignorance, the blood of it was to be sprinkled seven times before the Lord, Levit. 4.6, 17. Even whatsoever it was, Ox, Lamb, or Goat, that was to be sacrificed, so was his blood to be disposed of, Levit. 17.  
§. 10. If then the application of that which typified the blood of Christ, (whether it were water or blood) before the shedding of it, was conveniently made (and who dares question the conveniency of it, since it was by God's appointing to be made?) by sprinkling, how can then the application of water in baptism by sprinkling (whereby the washing of our Souls from sins, and the cleansing of our Consciences from defilements by the blood of Christ (that blood of sprinkling) now that it is shed, is represented and signified) be any other but a most agreeable action, and the party to whom it is so applied be most truly said to be baptised? And the remonstrating of this is the discharge of the Second part of my undertaking.  
§. 11. The Third, whereto I shall now advance, is the showing of the agreeableness of baptising by other ways than a total immersion, with the Practice of the Church.   

CHAP. X. Other ways of baptising besides that of a total immersion used in the Church, in all, or most Ages and Places of it.  
§. 1. LET no Man think here that I intent to demonstrate sprinkling, or any other way of baptising, less than a total immersion, to have been either the only, or the most general way of administering that Sacrament. I am too well assured, by a multitude of evidences, of the contrary thereunto to undertake that. But this is that which I design to evince, that how general soever the way of baptising by a total dipping may by some be imagined to be (and perhaps that may in the issue appear not to have been so general, as it is by them imagined) yet it was not the only way, but a baptism by aspersion, affusion, tinging or wetting with water, or however by a partial mersation, has been practised in the Church from the Primitive to the present times: whereof I shall give either real demonstrations, or probable arguments, in all, or most of the Ages  
§. 2. For the first Age, to begin with that, there were few, except the Apostles and Evangelists, that writ any thing: and of what they wrote little is left; and of that little, nothing, that I know of, concerns the question in hand. The Reason may well be conceived to have been, because it then was no question; and the rather because we find the Practice, we contend for, in being, in after Ages; which is a fair inducement to believe it to have been derived from thence to them, unless it could be certainly told when, where, and by whom, it was afterward first introduced into the Church. Our Intelligence then must be fetched (for this Age) all from the Holy Scriptures. And there also things do not appear with so bright a light, as to force a conviction upon a prejudiced or prepossessed understanding: but after all that can be said, contrary minded persons, if of stubborn temper, may think themselves to have sufficient matter, whereon to ground a contradiction. What probabilities then, (and I will not pretend to more than a probability) of such a practice in the Apostles Age, as I have either conceived of myself, or received from others, I will here fairly communicate, and then leave the Reader to make his judgement upon the matter; 
Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Authoritate Apostolicà traditum rectissimè creditur. D Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 4. c. 24.  only desiring him in the mean time to have an eye on St. Augustin's judgement touching such immemorial usages, as the Catholic Church holds, and ever hath held, and have not come into use by the institution of any Council, that they are rightly believed to have been delivered down to it by no less than an Authority Apostolical.  
§. 3. And I begin with the Baptism of those first Converts that the Apostles did, after the sealing of their Commission by the descent of the Spirit upon them, admit into the Church by that Ceremony. Upon the day of Pentecost St. Peter preached to a great, but confused multitude. By his Sermon thousands were converted; and of those Converts, whatever were afterward, no fewer, as is conceived, than three thousand were the same day baptised. The question here is in what way they were baptised; whether by immersion, or by aspersion. And the improbabilities of the former have made learned persons to conceive it was by the latter. It is not likely (saith Zanchie) that they were baptised any other way than by sprinkling. 
Confirmatur exemplo Petri in Acts, cap. 2. qui statim post concionem legitur baptizâsse 3000. Baptizati (inquit Lucas, nempe per Petrum, ut Interpretes exponunt) fucrunt. Non videtur autem veri simile fuisse aliâ ratione baptizatos, quàm aspersione aquae. Hier. Zanch. de cultu dei externo, l. 1. col. 494. Et verisimile est quòd non per modum immersionis, sed aspersionis baptizaverit Apostolus Petrus, ad cujus praedicationem legitur unâ die quinque millia, & aliâ die tria milliae conversos ad fidem baptizâsse. Lynwood. l. 3. de Bapt Quod in constitut. ad verb. immersio.  And it is very like, saith Lynwood, that the Apostle S. Peter baptised, not by way of immersion, but of aspersion, who at one Sermon converted three, and at another five thousand Souls; for the baptising of all whom, and by way of immersion, I suppose he thought him insufficient, as he might well do. The bare but pronouncing of the form of words, which the Learned generally judge were prescribed by our Saviour to be used in baptising, so many thousand times over (unless he used a plural form, of which yet there is no appearance, and the singular is more applicative, and affecting) had been enough to have tired one man; much more that, and the action of putting so many persons all wholly under the water.  
§. 4. But it is not said in the Text, that He alone, or that he at all baptised them: only that they were baptised. But it is rationally supposable, that as our Saviour had joined the rest of the Apostles in Commission with him, and had sealed that Commission to them by the descent of the Holy Ghost, as well as to him; and that as they stood up with him, as vouchers of what he would say, when he began to preach, so they assisted him in the action, when he began to Baptise. But still what are eleven or twelve men to the baptising of three thousand by way of total immersion? 
Quum enim plura nonnunquam millia hominum uno die baptizari necesse habuerint, verisimile non est homines in Evangelii praedicatione occupatos. tàntae rei & tam operosae suppeditare potuisse. Amyrald. Thes. Salm. de Bapt. Sect. 20.  How long must every man be in baptising his two hundred and fifty men? For so many must every man have to baptise, if the number were equally shared amongst them; nay more when five thousand were at once converted, and as 'tis probable, baptised also, though it be not expressed.  
§. 5. Yet supposing this not only possible but easy also, especially by the assistance of other disciples, and particularly the Seventy whom our Saviour had before in his life sent out to preach, and who may, perhaps not improbably, be conceived to have been with them at this time, and assistant to them in this action, yet where would they in Jerusalem have a water deep enough, and wide enough for the performance of such an action? Assuredly on this account, that they could not there have water for it, doth Bonaventure ground his Argument that they baptised not by dipping, 
Apostoli baptiza verunt tria. millia hominum unâ die, & constat quòd non mergendo, quia non haberent aquam: ergo aspergendo, sed aspergi non potest totus homo. Ergo. Bonaventur. in l. 4. sent. dist. 3. ar. 3. q. 2.  but by sprinkling. And that they could not have it is probable, because we read of no river that was in Jerusalem, of that depth that men might be totally immersed in it, whether they stood, or but so much as sat in the water, when they were baptised. And for the pool of Bethesda, if that may be conceived to be the place, it is hardly probable (if it were of that deepness) that it was of that capaciousress to afford room in any reasonable time for the baptising of three (much less of five) thousand men. And that it did not afford that conveniency, either upon account of the incapaciousness of it, or of some other use of it (as to wash the entrails of Beasts offered in Sacrifice, etc.) rendering it unfit for that people so studious of cleanness (even to a superstitiousness) to immerse themselves in it, is probable, because when John baptised, it is said there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan (St. Mark 1.5.) which had been needless had there been conveniency for their baptising at home. And when it is said that John was baptising in Aenon, because there was much water there, (Joh. 3.23.) it intimates a want of that conveniency in other places of Judea, and particularly in Jerusalem itself, for them of that place to be baptised in; where doubtless else he would have chosen to have baptised as most conducing to the purpose he came about, and baptised for, had there been in it that conveniency for it. And if there were not conveniency for the baptising of such numbers in the City, since we read not of their going out of the City to be baptised elsewhere, in all probability they were baptised in such a way, as suited with the circumstance of the place they were in; and than it must be by aspersion or affusion; since there was not conveniency in the City for their total immersion.  
§. 6. And yet still supposing the Baptizers never so many, and the waters there never so plentiful, their baptising by a total immersion is very improbable. For it must needs be granted, that it was a tumultuary convention, which the Apostle preached unto, which suddenly came together, upon the noise of what had befallen the Apostles, upon the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them. And it will not, I think, be denied that it was a confused multitude, a mixture of people of different Sexes, and ages, as well as conditions and countries. Now, not to note how strange a thing it would look like, to see three thousand people going all in a throng to a pool, to be all dowsed, and stark naked (as the manner than was) over head and ears there (and even the women, in their nakedness, by men, no deaconesses being as yet ordained in the Christian Church for that purpose) how unimaginable is it, that the modesty of many of the male Sex, and most, if not all, of the female Sex, should not start back, and recoil from so undecent and unbecoming an action; an action even for the heavens to have blushed at, as well as for the earth to be ashamed of. And still the more unimaginable it will appear, when it is remembered with how great a respect unto female modesty Baptism (as Maimonides tells us) was among the Jews administered to the feminine Proselytes; 
Foeminam foeminae sistunt in aquis, collo tenus: duoque discipuli sapientum, ab extra stantes, edocent eam de quibusdam levioribus praceptis legis, quibusdamque gravioribus, dum ca interea stat in aquis: & tum immergit ea seipsam: atque illi aversan facic excunt, dum ascendit ex aquâ. vid. Lightfoot. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. c. 3. v. 6. p. 46, 47.  the woman being set by women in the water up to the neck; and two disciples of the wise standing at some distance and teaching her, as she stood, some easy, and some harder precepts of the Law; which done she dipped herself, and they whilst she came up out of the water, turned their faces another way, and departed. Men (I say) and Women, and so many of them, and in the midst of a populous City, and at noonday, going all together into a Pool, and there dipped stark naked (for none can imagine, that, either they would be dipped all over in their present wearing apparel, or (if that were allowable, as it was not usual among the Jews) that they had brought any Garments with them suitable to the action, on that sudden and unexpected, unforeseen, and unforethought of occasion) is a thing so far beyond all probability as to be without the bounds even of all credibility. And especially when it may be considered, that there was no necessity (the excuse many times of indecent actions) for it: a much easier, and more decent way of baptising being to be had, even by immersing their heads into vessels of water, with much facility, especially by the hands of so many assistants as were upon the place ready thereunto, brought thither for that purpose; or else by taking water out thence as we do now out of our Fonts, and sprinkling them with it, or pouring it upon them: or yet else, if the action must needs be done at a Pool or River, by dispersing themselves in several companies: some to that Pool, others to several parts of the Brook Cedron, or such other places of conveniency as the City might afford, and there either sprinkling or pouring water upon them, or else immersing their heads into water: which might well enough be done without a necessity of that immodest way of putting off all their clothes, and appearing stark naked in mixed company. And now let the  Reader judge, what probability there is of their being totally dipped: and how far it is from being improbable, that they were otherwise baptised.  
§. 7. I proceed to another instance, viz. the Baptism of St. Paul himself, Act. 9 He had seen a Vision by the way from Jerusalem to Damascus: and that an astonishing one, such an one as made him fall to the earth, v. 4. such a sight as made him blind, v. 8. Upon that he was led to the City, and there, whether in that Consternation, or other Prophetic rapture, or Penitential exercise of Mortification, he continued three days, and did neither eat nor drink. After three days comes Ananias sent from God unto him, opens his eyes, declares unto him the design of God in this dispensation, exhorts him to arise, and be baptised in order to his further adaptment for the Service whereto God had designed him. He comports with the Will of God, and arose, and was Baptised. But how? By a total immersion of him? That is not said. Nor is it in the least probable. First consider the time of the year when it is supposed to have been done; on the five and twentieth day of January, the sternest and severest Season of all that cold Winter quarter. Then consider the weakness of the Person, a man first so enfeebled by an extraordinary Vision, that he was not able to go or stand, but fell to the earth, and was fain to be led by others: and then continuing after it three whole days together without eating or drinking. Thirdly, consider that his baptising was in the time of his weakness, and before he had received any meat to get strength. v. 18, 19 And now after all this, let the impartial Reader judge, what probability there is in it, or rather how utterly improbable it is, that under those circumstances he was baptised by a total immersion; and how much more probable it is, that water was brought to him that was not able to go to it; and he more gently aspersed with it, that was too weak to endure the severity of a total immersion into it; or yet that, if there were any dipping in the case, it was but his head, or perhaps no more than his face, that was dipped: and how far after Ages are from being to blame in consulting the healths and lives of their weak Infants at their baptising, by only aspersing or affusing water on them, when they see in the Word of God such great probabilities of this dear chosen Vessel's being so baptised.  
§. 8. There is a Third instance looking this way in Act. 10. I cannot pretend to a certainty from thence, more than from any other place; only (methinks) there is something of probability of a baptism by aspersion in it, and no certainty of a total immersion, more than can be drawn from the bare signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we have long since shown to have no such cogency in it that way, as necessarily to infer a total immersion of the party to whom it is applied, wherever it is used. St. Peter being sent for by Cornelius to Caesaria, and being authorized by a Vision to go to him upon his sending, immediately after he was come, preached the Gospel to him, and his company. Whilst he was preaching, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. (v. 44.) St. Peter seeing them thus baptised beforehand with the Spirit, concluded it but fitting that they, though Gentiles, should be also baptised with water, (v. 47.) and thereupon commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the lord (v. 48.) And though their baptising be not expressed, yet it is but rational to conceive they were baptised. By the last words in the Chapter, which express their desiring of him then to tarry certain days, it seems as if they had not gone out of his presence, but had continued with him all the time of their baptising, which was performed betwixt his commanding them to be baptised, and their desiring him to tarry. Then they went not out of the House; then the inconveniencies of a total immersion incline to believe the baptising was by a way of less inconveniency: especially when the Apostle's manner of expression, when he argues from their inward baptism to their right unto an outward baptising, is considered. (v. 47.) Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? He doth not say, can any Man forbidden them (we may suppose) going abroad to the water to be baptised therein? but, can any Man forbidden water (we may suppose) to be brought hither, that they may be baptised therewith? As if he had said, The Holy Ghost having in this place already begun, and done his part of baptism in falling upon them, it is but convenient that in the same place we should do our part, and baptise them with water also; that so they may not go away with a half baptism, but have their baptism completed. Therefore let even some water be brought hither, and let them be sealed with the outward affusions of that upon their bodies, who are already sealed with the inward effusions of the Spirit upon their Souls. I cannot, I say, pretend hence invincibly to prove they were not dipped: but how probable it is they were only sprinkled, I leave to the consideration, and resolution of the calm and unprejudicated Reader.  
§. 9 There is a Fourth instance, (in Act. 16.) wherein is no less, if not a greater probability of a baptism by aspersion, than in this. At Philippi St. Paul and Silas being apprehended and beaten, are thrust into the inner Prison, and have their Feet made fast in the Stocks. At Midnight there is an Earthquake, the Prison doors are opened, and the Prisoners bands loosed. The Jailor seeing what was done, is affrighted; asks Paul and Silas, what he should do to be saved? They preach the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his House. By their preaching he and his (all that were capable of understanding and believing) are converted. Upon his conversion he becomes as kind to them, as before he had been cruel. And remembering the severity of the stripes he gave them, he applies water for the washing away of the blood he drew from them. And at the same time is baptised both he himself, and all his. Baptised? Yes: that he was. But how! By dipping? or sprinkling? or other application of water, less than a total immersion? The Text says it not: it speaks nothing more than that he was baptised. We are wholly left then to conjecture. What should incline us to think of a total immersion here? There is no mention of their going from the Prison to any River or Pool to dip them there. Nor is there, though Grotius conjecture it, any mention of any Pool, that was within the precincts of the Prison, wherein they might be dipped. Nor was there any need of it: less water than a Pool would serve to wash their stripes; and another kind of washing, than that of dipping was more proper for that purpose. One would think a gentle bathing, and wiping off the blood, with a soft cloth, or a tender hand, the most proper action in that case. Let us but consult what we ourselves would do in the like concern, and our reason will do us right in it. No probability then of his going to dip them, but only of his calling for water to wash them. And then as little probability of their carrying him, and all his Family too, any whither else, in a strange place, and at mid night too, to dip them. 
Item multi (sc. baptizati) in domibus privatis, Act. 16. & 18. 1 Cor. 1.16. ubi ingressus ejusmodi in aquas vix esse potuit. Walaeus Synops. Theolog. Furior. Disp. 44. Thes. 19 p. 606.  All that can be imagined fairly, and without a violent detortion in this case is but this; that finding him to be a believer, the Apostles took the opportunity of his bringing water for the washing of their bodies, to make use of that water for the washing of his Soul, cleansing him from the stains of his sins, as he had cleansed them from the maculations of their stripes, by as gently bathing him from the one, as he had bathed them from the other. And now let the , and unpassionate Reader coolly judge, in whether Opinion is the greater probability, that, which is for his total immersion, or that, which is for some milder way of baptization; there being pleadable, as on the one side no necessity; so on the other great conveniency.  
§. 10. There is yet one instance more that may be insisted on, which, were it clear beyond exception, would be of mighty concernment in the case, even so far as to have the casting voice in the debate. But it is liable to exception: and therefore I shall only propose it as disputable, and leave the Reader, after all, to make what estimate he pleases of it, according to those degrees of probability, or improbability, that shall appear to him to be in it, yet not altogether without hope, but that, when what is said, for, and against it, shall be dispassionately considered, it may, to modest and sober inquirers, prove convincing and satisfactory. It is the Example of our Saviour: whose baptism to have been, according to the manifold usual representations of it in picture, 
Exuitur vestimentis rex gloriae, splendour luminis, & figura substantiae dei. Joannis manibus attrectatur caro illa desumpta de virgine, candidiorique derivata materia nudatur in flumine felicis baptistae manibus infundenda. Descendunt angeli, & coelorum agmina tota reverentia currunt ad creatorem. Baptizantem & baptizatum numina dominantia circumcingunt. Infundit aquam capiti creatoris creatura nobilior, & dei verticem mortalis dextra contrectat & contingit. Dr Bernard. Serm. de S. Jo. Baptista. Tom. 2. Col. 400. K. L. M.  by an infusion of water upon him, and particularly on his head, and that by the right hand of the Baptist, St. Bernard is most express and positive in. Infundit aquam capiti creatoris creatura, saith he, That very Noble Creature (meaning John the Baptist) poureth water on the head of his Creator; and the right hand of a Man, handles and toucheth the Head of a God. A clear and full instance, if it hold good.  
§. 11. But there are mighty exceptions against it. 
Cum primum coepit adolescere, tinctus est à Johanne propheta in Jordane flumine. Lactant. Instit. l. 4. c. 19  First Lactantius speaking of the Baptism of Christ, saith of him, Tinctus est, that to some may seem to signify, as if he were dipped of John the Prophet in the River of Jordan. Then St. Ambrose speaking of it, saith, in aquis se mersit; that seems to speak a dipping of himself in the waters. Again St. Hierom saith, caput extulit de fluento, he put up his head from out of the flood; 
Ex quo enim ille in aquis se mersit, ex eo omnium credentium peccata delevit. D. Ambr. Serm. 22. Tom. 3. p. 247. Ipse Dominus nost●r Iesus Christus statim ut caput extulit de fluento, spiritum sanctum accepit. H. Hieron. Dialog. Orthodox. adver. Luciserian.  that seems to import that he was, head and ears, all over immersed into it. Nay lastly, as St. Mark saith expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, (as the Interlineary Version renders it) baptizatus est à Johanne in Jordanem, he was baptised of John into Jordan. (Mark 1.9.) So St. Matthew saith as expressly, that Jesus, when he was baptised, went up out of the water. (Matth. 3.16.) Now whether one St. Bernard's single, and bare authority, will bear up, and be able to carry it against all these prejudices, is more than I dare he confident of.  
§. 12. However, mighty as these prejudices are, (so mighty as to have carried the assent of several along with them) they will in the sequel appear to be in a great measure removable: 
Dum corporis humilitate dominus undas Jordanis subiit, divinitatis suae potentia coeli nobis januas pandit. Bed. in Luc. Evang. c. 3. fol. 68 col. 3. The learned Cajetan upon the place (Matth. 3.5.) saith, Christ ascended out of the water; therefore Christ was baptised by John, not by sprinkling, or by pouring water upon him; but by immersion, that is by dipping or plunging in the water. So is he quoted by Mr. H. Danvers Treat. of Bapt. part. 2. c. 4. p. 196. Edit. 2. His own words are, Baptizatus autem Jesus confestim ascendit de aqua. Non ergo per aspersionem, aut desuper effusionem, sed per immersionem, seu submissionem corporis baptizatus est Jesus à Johanne. Where per submissionem corporis he may mean, not what Mr. Danvers seems to understand, a plunging in the Water, but a bowing of his body downward, and that may be, only to have his head dipped into the water.  whether wholly or no, will be left to the Reader's judgement. And that St. Bernard, a Person of so great Learning and Piety as he is famed for, who wrote after all these, and may in reason be supposed to have read and considered all these, did notwithstanding believe, and deliver his judgement otherwise, gives reason to conceive, that he had in his mind some reason, that did with him counterbalance all these, and that he knew how to give a satisfactory answer unto all these. And to every one of them indeed something may be said, perhaps sufficient to render them no objections at all.  
§. 13. And first for Lactantius. He, as well as St. Augustine learned from Tertullian to use tinguo or tingo for baptizo. 
Baptizabat enim quia ipse mundabat, non baptizabat, quia non ipse tingebat. D. Aug. Tract. 15. in Evang. Joh. Tom. 9 Col. 132. B.  And so tinctus est in him signifies no more than baptizatus est, he was baptised. But that infers not necessarily that he was dipped. Nay tingo, from whence comes tinctus, is used to denote a way of haptizing different from that of dipping 
* See Dr. Whitaker Praelect. de Sacram. Bapt. p. 216. . And as I shall afterwards produce Tertullias authority for aspersion, so I shall show, in its proper time, that Lactantius himself, in that very place, did not mean what he said, of dipping, but of sprinkling.  
§. 14. Then for St. Ambrose, his expression is but in aquis se mersit, that is, he dipped himself in the waters, not in aquas se mersit, he dipped himself into the waters. A great deal of difference betwixt in and into. The first would import that being in the waters he dipped himself, which might be said, though he dipped but part of himself in them. The second would import his dipping of himself into the waters, which would lie fairliest to be understood of a total immersion. But see himself, seems to import his whole self, whether he dipped himself into, or but in the water. It doth but seem so: it doth not necessarily so import. Nothing is more ordinary than such Synecdochical expressions, wherein the whole is put for but a part. Who, that had casually slipped with but one leg or foot, into a water, would not presently say, he had wet himself? who would understand Aspersit me labe, he aspersed me with a spot, otherwise than by aspersit mihi labem, he aspersed or sprinkled a blot or spot on me? who would think the labes, spot or blot, so great as to co-extend to the whole person, to spot or blot him all over? Who understands our Saviour's saying to St. Peter (Joh. 13.8.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If I wash thee not, to intent any thing more, than, if I wash not thy feet? We have shown before how the expression concerning our Saviour's not washing himself before meat, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was not dipped, literally he, as here, whereas the meaning was, his hands, the manner of the Jews being not wholly to dip themselves, but their hands, (nor always that neither, but sometimes) before they did eat. So here se mersit in St. Ambrose, is not all himself, but some of himself, and particularly his head, the dipping of the head being a (if not the) manner of baptising in St. Ambroses time, as we shall after show from St. Hierom and St. Augustine, contemporaries with St. Ambrose, and therefore in his time. Nay, who can tell whether that expression intent any more, than his going into the water, which he could not do without dipping himself into it, unto John to be baptised of him? Not to add what yet wholly overthrows this testimony of St. Ambrose, and makes null all that can be pleaded from it more than what I last mentioned, that the speech itself, if referring unto Christ's baptism, is not true: for it makes our Saviour to be his own baptizer, which is directly contrary to the Text, which saith not that he baptised himself, but, that he was baptised of John: unless any will allow of Rebaptisation, and say that our Saviour was twice baptised, once by St. John, because the Scripture saith so, and another time by himself, because 'tis so said by St. Ambrose; but that (Rebaptisation) I think in these days goes down with no party, whether Paedo-, or Antipaedobaptists: though it is thought that the baptising of those, who were by John Baptist baptised in Jordan, was so performed: 
See Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matth.  that being a way of baptising in use among the Jews.  
§. 15. And by this which hath been said concerning St. Ambrose, an Answer is already given to what is objected from St. Hierome. For caput extulit de fluento, he put, or lift up his head out of, or from under the water, can signify only, that his head, and not that his whole body was under water: without better proof of it than so: No more than that of the Poets, Haec sanctè ut poscas, 
Pers. Sat. 2. v. 15, 16.  Tiberino in gurgite mergis Mane caput bis terque— proves that the person he speaks to, dipped his whole body two or three times in the river, because he did so with his head: unless it were impossible for a man to dip his head, without dipping his whole body too: which I think none will say.  
§. 16. But what shall we say to St. Mark? That, I confess, looks like somewhat to the purpose, yet will be capable of receiving an Answer, whether satisfactory enough, I dare not undertake. But, such as it is, an Answer I have to return, furnished therewith from Beza, a man whose skill in Critical learning, I need not publish. And 'tis this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which Enallage he had (as he saith) before made frequent mention of. And then, he was baptised of John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, will be no more than, 
The Syriac, Arabic and Persic Version render it so too: the Aethiopic, in fitivio Jordanis, in the river of Jordan.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ver. 9) in Jordan, as our Translation, as well as tindal's renders it, agreeably to the rendering both of Beza, and the Vulg. Latin. And that will not necessarily infer a total immersion. For a Man might be baptised in Jordan, who was not wholly dipped into Jordan. Unless the mere 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. baptising them in the Name of the Father, etc. So Act. 19.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. So 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; were ye baptised in the Name of Paul? and (ver. 15.) lest any one should say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I had baptised in my own name. Again we read of being baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into Christ, Rom. 6.3. and Gal. 3.27. But surely that signifies not being immersed or dipped into Christ; no more than by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (1 Cor. 10.2.) is signified the Israelites being dipped 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 baptised? 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptised 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 baptise you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water; as also Mark 1.8. Luk. 3.16. Joh. 1.26. So when he said, (Joh. 1.31.) I am come baptising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water; and again, ver. 33. he that sent me to baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with water. And to show 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptised with water. And again (Act. 11.16.) where this saying of our Saviour is remembered, and commemorated by St. Peter, saying, Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptised with water. By which 'tis plain, that the meaning of John's baptising, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the same, and no more than, his baptising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (barely, and without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with water, and with that as the instrument wherewith he performed his action of baptising; or, more agreeable to the use of speaking, as the matter wherewith he baptised.  
§. 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 'tis used? Such is (1.) the Holy Ghost: as (Matt. 3.11.) He shall baptise 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 baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Holy Ghost; and again, Act. 11.16. Ye shall be baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 baptised. And such (2.) is Fire: as (Matth. 3.11.) where baptising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Fire, is joined with baptising with the Holy Ghost. So Luke 3.16. Now no man sure ever thought that by a baptising with Fire was meant an immersion or dipping into fire. And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not intended to be understood, as it is not expressed, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the form of Speech clearly points it out to be considered under some notion of Instrumentality in the business of that Baptising; 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 enforcing 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 baptised in Jordan, were enough, and so has been thought, to persuade, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the ninth verse were to be, as it is in our English Translation, interpreted so too. And so St. Bernard's opinion of our Saviour's being baptised, not by immersion of him into the water, but by an affusion of water upon him, may, for aught I see to the contrary, stand good still. And then we neither need, nor can have any better instance of, or argument for baptismal affusion, or aspersion, than that.  
§. 22. Nor will what is observed from (Matth. 3.16.) where mention is made of Christ's coming up out of the water, prove against St. Bernard, that Christ was baptised by immersion. For (1.) the true reading of that place is (according to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he ascended, or went up, not out of, but away from the water. And so might he do, that never was in it, but only had been by it. And (2.) the learned Cajetans' collection from the place, (which I see quoted from him) that, 
H. D. p. 196. Ed. 2.  because it is said, Christ ascended out of the water, therefore Christ was baptised by John, not by sprinkling or pouring water upon him, but by dipping or plunging him in the water, is weak, and proves nothing; unless no man could be said to ascend out of the water, who had not first been totally immersed, that is dipped, or plunged wholly into it; which is contrary to reason, sense, and experience.  
§. 23. Nor is St. Bernard the only person among the Ancients, that was of this opinion: but we have intimation of several others, and many hundreds of years before him, that had the same thought: as will be seen in the sequel of this discourse.  
§. 24. And there may be some reason assigned, why our Saviour should will to be baptised, not according to the then, or formerly, usual way of dipping, but according to the way now most in use by sprinkling; even by his example to show a no necessity of persisting in that former way of more severity, and less decency, and to set the Christian Church at liberty from that part of the Yoke of Jewish bondage, and especially in those places and countries, where that Jewish Ceremony might prove to be, either prejudicial to the health of the Weaker, or scandalous to the minds of the more Modest Converts, and either way a Yoke of Bondage.  
§. 25. Nor can I see any reason, why he that departed from the then present way of baptising, in one circumstance, may not as well be thought, and especially on so weighty consideration, to do it in another. The way than was for the Proselytes to be the dippers or baptizers 
* Omnis baptizatus necesse habuit, ut totum corpus suum intingeret, jam nudatum, mersione una— Maim. in Mikvaoth, cap. 1. & 4.— Et tum immergit ea scipsum. Id. ib.  of themselves, if Maimonides give a true account of the Tradition in that case. But Christ did not baptise himself. But, to settle a distinction betwixt the baptizer, and the baptised, as well then by his example, as he afterward did by his word, he was baptised of John, per manum Johannis, by the hand of John, if the Persic Version of Mark 1.9. mistake not: as I know no reason to think it doth. No more improbability then of his being baptised differently from others, in respect of Manner, than of Agent. And so St. Bernard's Conceit hath two legs, the Opinion of Former Writers, and Reason for that Opinion, besides his own Authority, to stand upon.  
§. 26. But it is time I should proceed to the next Century. Now that, like the first, was an Age scant of Writers: and of what was written, little concerned, or is left remaining, that did concern Baptism. And therefore here again our intelligence must be expected to be no other but dark, and scanty: And yet such glimmerings at least of light are left us, as will enable us to discern some footsteps of this practice even in it. And even, if it said not the least thing for us, whilst it saith nothing at all against us, which yet hath its mouth wide open against other errors then broached, or disseminated in the Church, its silence is to be interpreted as a consenting to us. And the same will be as rationally to be said for any following, as for this former Age, wherein through want of Writers on this subject our intelligence shall either wholly fail us, or prove penurious and scanty to us.  
§. 27. Justin Martyr flourished in this Age (about An. Chr. 150.) By what the Centuriators say from this Author, 
Magdeb. Cent. 2. col. 110. l. 48.  one would think he had been an asserter of total dipping, saying, as they report from him, atque ita hoc lavacro mersati lustrantur, i. e. and so being dipped in this laver they are cleansed. But I suppose those Authors rather consulted some Translation, than the Original, or else mistake in their own Translating. For in all that whole passage, as it was penned by the Author, there is not one word, that signifies immersion, mersasation, or any thing of like import: unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some derivative from it, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify any such thing, as they do not; for there is no other word there so much as looking that way. Rather there is something that favours Rantization, or Sprinkling. For having first spoken of that baptismal washing (I say washing not dipping) whereby men are regenerated in Baptism: and having alleged as grounds for that practice, first our Saviour's saying, except ye be born again, ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; and then that saying of the Prophet Isaiah, wash ye, make ye clean, etc. he proceeds to declare, that the Daemons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having heard of this (as it is by him interpreted) baptismal washing preached by the Prophet, in imitation thereof introduced the fashion of Rantization or Sprinkling to be used by their Worshippers, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just. Martyr. Apol. 2.  
Et est notandum, quod pagani sive gentiles circae fontes templa sua facere solebant, aut saltem ibi semper aquam habebant, per cujus aspersionem purificari credebant: & inde delubra vocabantur quasi purificantia: & ita quodammodo figuraliter ad baptismum tendebant. Guil. Durant. Rational. Divin. Officior. l. 6. fol. 147. col. 1.   when they approached to their Temples, and addressed their Prayers, and offered their Sacrifices unto them. Which is an intimation of an use of Rantization in Baptism, or at least of a fitness of that usage in baptising: and that that Author did not think otherwise than well of it; whilst he does not discover and declare any erroneousness in that Heathen practice as differing from, and so wronging, by misrepresentation, what was in use among the Christians: but rather pleads the innocency of it, whilst he shows to the Heathen Emperors, that practice of the Christians to be but such, as the very Gods themselves whom they did Worship, did in some respect and measure approve of, and conform unto; and had taken up from the same Prophetic promulgation, whereon the Christians had founded, or at least whereby they confirmed their baptismal purgation: and therefore such as they ought not to be offended at. In short the Rantization of the Heathens founded on that Prophecy, that was applied to baptism by the Christians, is some though but an obscure intimation of such a practice used by them in their baptismal introductions of Members into their Church. 
Quomodo autem populi veteris, sic & Christiani sacros ritus aemulatus est hostis ille humani generis. Tert. prescript. c. 40. [Ipsas res de quibus Sacramenta Christi administrantur aemulantes affectavit exprimere in negotiis Idololatriae] At quasnam illas? ea nimirum quae in Baptismo Christiano & in sacra coena adhibentur elementa. [Tingit enim inquit, & ipse quosdam, utique credentes & fideles suos: celebrat & panis oblationem.]. Gataker, Adversar. cap. 42. p. 418. See above ch. 8. S. 4. marg.  And for the Daemons imitation of the Christians in their Baptism, Tertullian is by Mr. Gataker produced as a further witness: as more, no doubt, might be, if there were need for it.  
§. 28. 

Magdeb. cent. 2. c. 6. col. 109, 110. Niceph. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 37.  
Whitgift Answ. to T.C. Tract. 9 p. 519.   But a clearer intimation we have of it in a story related to us by the Centuriators of Magdeburg from Nicephorus Callistus, in whom it is; and which is also referred to by Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to T. C. The Story is this; that in the time of Marc. Aurel. Antoninus (who began his reign An. Chr. 161.) a certain Jew travelling together with some Christians was Converted, and falling very sick, desired Baptism: but that they, having neither Priest to do it, nor Water to do it withal, at first refused him: yet afterwards, overcome by his urgent importunities, yielded, as far as they could, to his request, and sprinkling sand instead of water three times upon him, they baptised him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Whereupon the man recovered. Now if sprinkling of water in Baptism, at least in some cases, had not been an use, and that a known one, at that time, how should it have come into their heads to have used any such action? As in the form of words it is certain they kept close to the Ecclesiastic usage, so it is not to be doubted, but they did so in the manner of acting. And when report was made of what was done to the Bishop of Alexandria, or more probably of Corinth, and his opinion asked in the case, he after consultation had with the Church about it, thereunto answered, that the man was baptised, si modo aquâ denuo perfunderetur (as they say) were he but sprinkled again with water, or had he but water poured on him again. Where 'tis plain, nothing was disapproved of in that action, or declared insufficient, not the Baptizer, not the form of Words, not the manner of application by sprinkling, but only the want of that Element which was proper for Baptism: which if used, though in the same way of application to him, that the Sand had been, the Baptism was pronounced to be sufficient. Than which what proof can be desired more clear or more full? A like Story to this, if not the very same with this, Johannes Moscus, who lived about the year 600 relates to have happened in his time, as Vossius saith de Baptismo, pag. 348.  
§. 29. We have yet in this Age another intimation of this usage in Tertullian, who flourished in the latter end of this Century, and in the beginning of the Century following. His words are, Quis enim tibi tam infidae poenitentiae viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit? 
Tertull. l. de Poenit. c. 6.  Who will pleasure you, who are a Man, to whose penitence so little trust is to be given, with one sprinkling of any water? Now that the speech hath reference unto baptism, the words immediately foregoing do sufficiently intimate. For, saith he, I do not deny the Divine benefit, that is, 
Neque enim renuo divinum beneficium, i. e. abolitionem delictorum inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse. Tertull. ib.  the abolition of sins, to be every way safe [that is secure] to those that shall go into the water, that is, be baptised. Now such an allusion unto baptismal sprinkling would not have been made by Tertullian, a Man so accurately skilful in all the rites of the Church, had it not been a rite, and that a known one too, of the then present Church, to baptise, if not always, or ordinarily, yet in some cases, by sprinkling. An evidence this of such importance, at least as to me it seems, as were sufficient to oversway with, and carry away the assent of any modest Inquirer: as assuredly it did his, in whose favours to their cause the Anabaptists do so much glory, I mean B. Taylor. Whence that acknowledgement which he makes hereof, in his Cases of Consc. (l. 3. ch. 4. Rul. 15. S. 13. n. 9 pag. 644.) the very place where his greatest liberalities on them, as to this matter, are bestowed. And of this sprinkling, besides what is implied in the former testimonies, there was some little use in the Primitive Church. Quis enim tam infidae poenitentiae viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit? 
De Poenit. c. 6.  says Tertullian, speaking to an impenitent Person: Who will afford thee so much as one sprinkling of water? (meaning) for his baptism. So he.  
§. 30. But because there may be others, not of altogether so sanguine a belief as I am in these concerns, who yet are waxy enough to take other more sinister impressions, I will prosecute my Inquest into Ages of the Church more remote than this, and farther distant from the first: as hoping that, if we shall find this to have been an use, not only begun in the first, but continued in the following Ages of the Church, and, if in any Age, or Ages of it, it seem interrupted, for want of a full intelligence of what was done in those Ages, yet again revived, and still continued on in the following, it will neither be refused as novel, nor rejected as antiquated, but revived as Catholic, so far at least as to be thought lawful, yea and fitting too to be used on just occasion for it.  
§. 31. If we go on then to the Third Century, 
See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 5.  early in that (about the Year of Christ, CCXX.) we find Potamiaena a Noble Virgin of Alexandria, and a Disciple to Origen, Martyred. Basilides a Soldier led her to Execution. But not long after, himself (whether wrought upon by her communication in the way to, or by her courage and constancy at, her Execution, or by appearing to him afterward in a Vision, I know not) becomes a Convert, and professes himself a Christian: and upon his avowed profession of it is cast into Prison. There he is visited by the Brethren, that is the Christians, and having satisfied them touching his conversion, by them received the Seal of the Lord, that is, was baptised, and the next Day suffered Martyrdom by beheading. Taking it for granted, that by receiving the Seal of the Lord, is meant being baptised, as not only Dr. Hanmer in his English Marginal Notes on Eusebius glosses it, but the Centuriators of Magdeburg report it, and that most agreeably to the Primitive Idiom, calling baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 4. p. 638, 639.  a Seal, I shall refer it unto the indifferent Reader to consider and determine, all circumstances of the Place, Persons, and occasion duly weighed, with what probability this baptism could be performed by a Total immersion, or rather how utterly improbable it must be for any such thing to be then done. And if that could not be, than it must needs be yielded to be done some other way, that had more of privacy, and less of danger to be discovered in it, namely by an aspersion or sprinkling of water on him: where not so much the quantity of water applied, as the application of that water for such purpose as in that Sacrament is designed, is the thing most principally to be considered.  
§ 32. And that the baptising of this Person thus on this occasion was not one single swallow, 
Ita & in Carcere baptizabantur conversi. Magdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 123, & 126.  but that it was an usual thing so to do, we are assured, as far as the Authority of the Centuriators is able to assure us of it. For they, speaking of the usages of this Age in Baptism, tell us, not only that even in Prison Converts were baptised, but that to them at least it seemed receptum a received thing, that is, received into use as an ordinary practice: and it may be I may give some further instance of it by and by.  
§. 33. But if there could be any doubt of this, there can be no doubt of the baptising of Novatus, (or Novatianus, for he is called by both names) about An. Chr. CCL. not by a total immersion, 
See Euseb. Eccl Hist. l. 6. c. 43. Surius Concil. Tom. 1. pag. 222.  nor so much as a partial mersation, but by an affusion, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Historian reports it from Cornelius Bishop of Rome at that time) being sprinkled, when he was baptised, in the very same bed, whereon he lay dangerously sick, and like to die. And for a further confirmation hereof, if need were, it might be alleged, that when Fabian Bishop of Rome (who was crowned with Martyrdom, An. Chr. CCLIII.) designed to make the same Novatus a Priest, he was withstood by the Clergy in general, and by many of the Laity, upon the account of the unlawfulness of making any one a Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who had been sprinkled, that is baptised by sprinkling on his Bed. Which unlawfulness, if not before, (as 'tis supposed by Surius to have been) was afterward fixed by Canon, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Ordinatus est Presbyter ab Episcopo, sed contra Canon's, quibus minime licebat, quenquam in lecto propter morbum baptizatum, sicut huic contigerat, in clerum assumi. Surius Concil. Tom. 1. p. 223.   in the Council of Necocaesaria in the 12th. Canon of that Council, custom Ecclesiastic in the mean time prevailing as, and having the power of, a Law. Which notwithstanding, Fabian finding some relaxation allowable by Law, even towards persons so baptised, upon weighty reasons (such as notable diligence, and faithfulness in persons fit for the Priesthood, besides scarcity of Men) prevailed to have him ordained, giving assurance, that he would ordain no more such. Now this neither would he have done, nor the other have suffered, had not both he and they judged him sufficiently baptised. And, as I suppose, the Ordination of such Persons to the Priesthood was not prohibited by the Fathers, because they thought them not sufficiently baptised, but because they thought it unfit that ever they should be Priests who deferred so long before they would declare themselves to be christian's (whatever B. Tailor, or the Anabaptists from him, 
Dust. Dubitant. l. 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9 H.D. Treat. of Bapt. part 2. c. 3. pag. 203. Edit. 2.  suggest to the contrary) so I presume the Clergy and Laity of Rome to have opposed his ordination in particular, upon other accounts than the nullity and insufficiency of his baptism: and particularly, among the rest, for his neglecting, after his recovery, to have the Confirmation of the Bishop, according to the Custom or Canon of the Church, 

Niceph. l. 6. c. 3. Et Cornelius apud Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. narrat Novatum in morbo in lecto baptizatum. Et addit; si tamen accepisse dicendus est. Neque enim reliqua consecutus est, quorum oportet participem fieri secundum Ecclesiae Canonem, neque oblignatus est ab Episcopo. Chemnit. examp. part. 1. pag. 84. Polyd. Virg. de Rerum Invent. l. 5. c. 3. Qui autem sic baptizabantur, non morgebantur, nec perfundebantur, sed aquâ, solùm aspergebantur, Magdeb. cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 126.  
Vbi & ipse baptizatus prius fuerat, D. Cypr. add Jubaian.   as Nicephorus shows, and Chemnitius notes, and as Pope Cornelius himself declares: which Confirmation (instituted, as Polydore Virgil tells us, by Clem. 1.) was so necessary, that no man was supposed a perfect Christian man, if that Rite and Ceremony were by negligence omitted. Which notwithstanding, Cornelius sufficiently owns his Baptism, whilst he accuses him for forsaking the Church of God, wherein he was baptised; and so does St. Cyprian too, whilst he acknowledges him to have been baptised therein. Nor do I discern any exception made against the manner of his baptising, but either against his staying so long before he was baptised, or against his omitting some Rites, then usual in the Church, after his baptism. And yet those that were so baptised, the Centuriators of Magdeb. tell us, were only sprinkled, not dipped, nor dowsed with water in any great quantity poured upon them.  
§ 34. But what stand I so long, and so hard pressing one instance; 

Hinc erat quòd olim quamplurimi baptismum ad extremum usque vitae terminum differebant, quò puri ac puti ex hac vita migrarent, atque ita non nisi in articulo mortis per aspersionem se in lecto baptizari sinebant, quos eam ob causam clinicos vocabant. Wolfg. Muscul. loc. Com. de Baptismo, p. 741. Qui in lecto baptizabantur, ab aliquibus (ut auctor est Cyprianus. ep. 76.) none Christiani, sed Clinici appellabantur. Quae vox etiam apud Hieronymum, ep. 26. ad Eusto hium, & ep. 30. ad Ocean. accipitur pro aegro qui lecto decumbit, nec inde se movere potest: à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lectus. Vtiturque ea voce eâdem significatione Plinius lib. 15. c. 5. Et Paralyticum, cujus fit mentio, Joh. 5. idem Cyprianus ep. 76. clinicum vocat, eò quòd 38. annos in infirmitate fuisse dicatur, Spondan. Epit. Baron. an. Chr. 254. p. 269. Et in lecto quidem aegrotantes [baptizabantur] quod prolixè ostendit, Cyprianus in ep. ad Mag. Magdeb. cent. 3. c. 6. col. 126.  
Quaesisti etiam frater charissime, quid mihi de illis videatur qui in infirmitate & languore gratiam dei consequuntur, an habendi sint legitimi Christiani, cò quòd aquâ salutari non loti sint sed perfusi. D. ep. 7. l. 4. Nos quantum concipit mediocritas nostra, existimamus in nullo mutilari & debilitari posse beneficia divina, nec minus aliquid illic posse contingere, ubi plenâ & totâ fide & dantis & accipientis accipitur, quod divinis muneribus hauritur. Id. ib. In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente, & deo indulgentiam suam largiente totam credentibus conferunt divina compendia. Id. ib. Nec quenquam movere debet, quòd aspergi vel perfundi videntur agri, cùm gratiam dominicam consequantur, quando Scriptura sancta per Ezekielem Prophetam loquatur & dicat, Et aspergam super vos aquam mundam, & mund ibimini ab omnibus immunditiis vestris, etc. Vnde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar lavacri salutaris obtinere. Idcirco quantum concipere & sentire nobis datur, mea sententia haec est, ut Christianus judicetur legitimus, quisquis fuerit lege & jure fidei divinam gratiam consecutus, Id. ib. Hoc denique & rebus ipsis experimur, ut necessitate urgente in aegritudine baptizati & gratiam consecuti, careant immundo quo antca movebantur, & laudabiles ac probabiles in Ecclesia vivant, plusque per dies singulos in augmentum coelestis gratiae per fidei incrementa proficiant, Id ib.   when the baptising of sick persons in their beds, which must be done by way of affusion or aspersion, was no rarity in those days? which persons, from their being baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their beds, were called Clinics, as Musculus telleth us briefly, and Spondanus more largely. And for proof thereof the Centuriators truly refer us to S. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Ep. 7. In which Epistle he doth prolixly show to that Magnus, what was his opinion touching them that were baptised in their weakness and languishment; and answers that question proposed by Magnus to him, whether those that were so baptised were to be accounted lawful Christians, in regard they had not been so baptised as could properly and strictly be called a lotion, but rather a perfusion, that is, not being carried to the water, and there washed with it, but having water brought to them, and in sprinkling: drops poured on them. And to the point he answers, that he conceives that the divine benefits can in none be maimed and weakened: that is, as I conceive his meaning to be, there is never the less grace of God bestowed in baptism for the littleness of the water wherewith one is baptised, where there is no defect of Faith in the Giver and Receiver. And that in the wholesome Sacraments, when man's necessity compels him to seek, and God is pleased to bestow his indulgence, divine compendiums do the whole business for believers. And that none ought to be troubled at it, because sick persons are seen to be sprinkled, or to have water shed upon them, when they are baptised, being they read in several places of Scripture mentions of sprinkling of water for purifications from uncleanness, even natural as well as legal. Whence he conceives it apparent, that in Baptism even the sprinkling of water is as good as other washing with it. And declares, that according to his opinion whosoever shall in the Church, by the law and right of Faith, have obtained the divine grace, (that is, be baptised, even though by sprinkling, as by the subject of this discourse it must necessarily be understood) is to be accounted a lawful Christian. And in fine appeals to the experience, which was had, how free some were from that foul spirit, which they were troubled withal before; how laudably and commendably they lived in the Church; how by the increasing of their Faith, they every day grew more and more in heavenly grace, who upon urgent necessity had been Baptised in their sickness. Which so clear and full an evidence from so eminent a Father, and Martyr as St. Cyprian, and so early in the Church as he was, should methinks be of mighty weight to satisfy even the nicest scrupulosity of any sober doubter in the case.  
§ 35. In this same Century (an. Chr. 261. 
Romanus urceum afferens cum aqua opportunitatem captavit, quae eum offerret Laurentio, ut baptizaretur, etc. Act. S. Lauren. p. 588. ) was the Martyrdom of S. Laurence. In the Acts of that Martyr it is related, how one of the Soldiers called Romanus, bringing with him a Pitcher of water (and by this instance we are informed how baptisms were privately administered in times of persecution, 

Item scribitur in passione beati Laurentii, quòd Romanus attulit urccum cum aquâ, & tunc non fuit immersus: patet ergo. So Bonaventure argues from this instance against a total immersion, l. 4. dist. 3. art. 2. q. 2.  
Romanus autem accedens ad Laurentium cum urceolo aquae fecit se baptizari ab co. Quod cum audisset Decius, de Romano— cum decollari mandavit. Anthonini Histor. par. 1. Tit. 7. c. 8. fol. 91. col. 1.  
And Surius in the life of S. Laurence tells, that as he was going to his Martyrdom, one Romanus a Soldier brought to him a Pitcher of water that he might be baptised of him as he went: which in that case must needs have been done by pouring water upon him. Fudit aquam super caput ejus— B. Tailor Dust. Dubitant. l 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9 p. 644.   even to persons in prison, as to Basilides before mentioned) watched an opportunity to offer it to St. Laurence, that so he might be baptised, and at length obtained his desire: which (saith Bp. Tailor) in that case must needs have been done by pouring water on him. Had that holy Martyr, who had the courage to die for the Truth, thought it to be an erroneous practice to baptise by any other way but that of immersion, and that the baptism administered any other way, had been a mere nullity in itself, and but a mockery of the baptised, (nothing more but the throwing of a little water in his face, as some are pleased in their drollery to call our most Holy Baptism) he would not upon any terms have consented to it: he could not by any means have been prevailed upon to do it. His doing it then is at once an instance of the thing, and an argument of his approbation of it: which yet had not been, had that glorious Martyr judged that way of baptising to have been repugnant, either to the nature of the thing, or to the command of Christ, or yet unto the practice of the Church.  
§. 36. Of the same St. Laurence it is also said that, 
Anthonini Historiae Par. 1. Tit. 7. c. 8. fol. 191. col. 1.  at his entering into Prison, he found there one Lucillus, who had wept himself blind, to whom he promised sight, on condition of his Faith in Christ; and that, upon his conversion, being baptised he received his sight. But how can it possibly come into our minds, that he should there be tolly immersed? No fancy in its utmost extravagancy can imagine any other, but that water being either allowed for the Prisoner to drink, or otherwise privately in some small quantity stolen in, he therewith sprinkled him, or poured it upon him. 
B. Tailor Dust. Dub. l. 3. c. 4. S. 13. n. 9 p. 644. Wal●frid. Strabo, de Reb. Eccles. cap. 26.  Indeed Bp. Tailor from the Historian saith, he poured it upon his head. And from these examples, Walafridus Strabo (as that Bishop tells us) did conclude (and why may not we as well do so too?) that in cases of necessity it is lawful to use sprinkling.  
§. 37. I should here end this Century, but that Lactantius, 
Tinctus est à Joanne Propheta in Jordane flumine: ut lavacro spiritali peccata non sua, quae utique non habebat, sed carnis quam gerebat, aholeret: ut quemadmodum Judaeos susceptâ circumcisione, sic etiam Gentiles baptismo, id est, purifici roris perfusione salvaret. Lactant. l. 4. c. 15.  who flourished (an. Chr. 290.) stands so fair in my way, inviting my attendance to his evidence, that I cannot civilly pass him by. And indeed the rather am I willing to take notice of him, in regard I have before declared my intention to give a more full account of his sense in the proper place for it, which is this. Now he speaking of the baptism of Christ saith, that he was baptised by John the Prophet in the river Jordan, that by that spiritual washing he might put away his sins, not his own, which (to be sure) he had none of, but of that flesh, which he did bear; that he might save, as the Jews, by undergoing Circumcision, so the Gentiles also, by baptism, that is the perfusion or sprinkling of the purifying dew. Where his Paraphrasing of Baptism by the sprinkling of the purifying dew, intimates Baptism to have been performed purifici roris perfusione, by the sprinkling of purifying dew, that is shedding of water on the party baptised; it not being to be doubted, but that he founded his expression on the then present usage of the Church, at least in some cases, if not generally: nor can it well be said whence else he should borrow it. And these Testimonies without more, I think enough for this Age.  
§. 38. If we step forward from hence into the Fourth Age, we shall find, about the Thirteenth Year of that, 
Anno 313.  a Council held at Neocaesarea (somewhat before that famous one at Nice) and afterward confirmed in the Sixth Council at Constantinople in Trullo. In that Council Fourteen Canons were made. Amongst them one viz. the 12th. is concerning those who got to be baptised in their sickness. 

De his qui in aegritudine baptisma consequuntur. Siquis in aegritudine constitutus baptizatus fuerit, presbyter ordinari non debet. Concil. Neocaes'. can. 12. Carang.  
Ordinatus est Presbyter (sc. Novatus) sed contra Canon's, quibus minimè licebat quenquam in lecto propter morbum baptizatum, sicut buic contigerat, in clerum assumi. Surius, Concil. Tom. 1. p. 223.   And touching them, the decree is, that no one baptised in his sickness should be ordained a Priest. Now if we remember but, after what manner the Centuriators tell us the persons called Clinics were baptised, namely not by immersion, for they were baptised in their beds; nor by any larger effusion of water upon them as they lay in their beds; for that were as ill as, perhaps worse than, to take them out of their beds and put them into water, and a sure way to give them, or hasten their death, or highly endanger it; then we must conclude, that the way of baptising such persons was by an aspersion, or conspersion of water upon them, or in plainer terms by sprinkling. The decree of the Council than is, that such as had by reason of sickness been baptised by sprinkling, should be incapable of Ordination to the Priesthood. The consequent hereof infallibly is this, that there was such a way of baptising, and persons so baptised then.  
§. 39 But here we must note, that the Council doth not condemn the way of baptising, but the Persons that drive their baptism so long, till they could not other way be baptised. Nor do they forbidden any from thenceforward to be so baptised: but only declare the incapability of such, as would not sooner be baptised, to be ordained to the Priesthood. They do not evacuate their baptism as null, and put them out of the state of Christians: but judge them unworthy to be of the Clergy, 
In clerum assumi. Sur.  and forbidden them to be ordained Priests. In a word, they do not order them to be rebaptised, but decree they shall not be ordained. So, no quarrel here lies against the Baptism, but against the Baptised: and that, not for being baptised so, but, no sooner.  
§. 40. And if we consult the reason, on which the Council grounded this Canon, it will appear to be so. That was, not because their Baptism was unlawful, and a mere nullity (as some say by ours) but because the faith (i. e. as I conceive, the confession of the faith) of those that would not be baptised, till they believed themselves to be no longer Men of this World, 
Non enim fides illius voluntaria, sed ex necessitate est.  but just departing out of it, was not voluntary, but merely upon necessity. And high reason certainly was on that Councils side: It being unfit that they upon choice should be made Shepherds, who would not but upon necessity declare themselves Sheep. No hope being that they would ever die for the Faith, who till they were going to die, would never declare themselves to be of the Faith. Little expectation, that they should ever by example at their Death encourage others to be Martyrs, who never in their life, before they were going to die, had the courage to own themselves so much as Professors.  
§. 41. And yet was not the Council so rigid neither in its censure, as utterly to exclude them from the very Priesthood itself, but left a Door open for them, even unto that. There was a nisi, an exception in the case: 
Nisi forte postea ipsias studium & fides probabilis fuerit, aut hominum raritas cogat. Caranz. Vid. D. Hammond de Confirmatione c. 4. S. 1. Paragr. 11. pag. 112.  and upon several considerations they might be admitted thereunto. One was in case they did (after their recovery) by very great diligence in their future actings approve themselves fitted for it. Another was in case their faith did evidence itself such, as was like to abide in the day of Trial. And lastly, in case there was a scarcity of other Men fit to be taken up into holy Orders. Now certainly they would never in any case have admitted them to be Priests, whom they had not judged to be Christians. They would never have permitted them to be ordained, whom they did not believe to have been baptised. It is plain therefore it was the doubt, which they had of the truth of their faith, not any question they made of the validity of their baptism, that was the ground of their making this Canon. Which yet may receive further confirmation from another custom in the Church, 
Concil. Carthag. 4. c. 68  which was, to admit none to be of the Clergy, who had been put to penance. For this shows that the thing required to capacitate Men for the Clergy, was unexceptionable Christianity. But the Clinics deferring their baptism so long, and on such reasons as they deferred it, rendered their Christianity suspicious and questionable. And so thence it was, not from the manner of their baptising, that they were debarred the Priesthood.  
§. 42. And so, upon all accounts, this Council is a fair evidence of a practice of baptising by way even of sprinkling, so early in the Church as the beginning of the Fourth Century.  
§. 43. And as this Council, and consequently this Canon of it, was afterward confirmed in the sixth Council of Constantinople, so there is fair reason to think something established by Canon (though my small reading serves me not at present to tell when, or where) long before. For when Pope Fabian ordained Novatus a Priest (about An. Chr. CCL.) it is said by Surius, 
Ordinatus est Presbyter, sed contra canon's, etc. Sur. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 223.  as we noted before, to have been done contra canon's, against, or contrary to, the Canons. Canon's then there must have been against it, and more Canons than one, and all before that time, or else his Ordination could not have been against the Canons. And Pope Cornelius' objecting against Novatus, 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 43.  that after his recovery he did not obtain that, which he should have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Canon of the Church, viz. Confirmation of the Bishop, is a bright intimation of something established in the Church about this matter, and by Canon too.  
§. 44. And if there were no Canon, yet there was something equivalent to a Canon, something that made it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unlawful to ordain a Clinic Priest, before the time of Fabian's ordaining of Novatus; else the Clergy and Laity of Rome could not have objected that against it. And if that unlawfulness were not founded on any Canon, but Custom [and even Dr. Hammond (that accurate searcher into, 
Ideoque cum illa sive lex sive recepta in Ecclesia consuetudo, de non promovendis ad sacros ordines clinicis— D. Ham. de confirm. c. 4. Sect. 1. Parag. 11. pag. 112.  and observer of Church-Antiquities) seems not to have been punctually resolved in the case, while he speaks doubtfully of it, saying, that whether Law, or Custom received in the Church,] then the Antiquity of it may, for aught I know, reach much higher than this, or the foregoing Century, even unto the Apostles days.  
§. 45. However from that resolution of the Church in the case, whether by Canon, or Custom, I shall conclude, that wherever hereafter we shall meet with a baptism permitted, or persons baptised upon the account of sickness, or, (what is equivalent thereunto) natural weakness, before the Customary times of the Church for more solemn baptizations, there we are to conclude the Baptism so permitted, and received, to have been sprinkling, the case of the parties concerned therein rendering them incapable of being baptised (without eminent danger of their healths, and even lives) any other way; and that Sprinkling till good evidence be brought to the contrary, (which must be some Law of the Church ordaining, or some instance of the Churches practising the Rebaptising of the persons formerly so baptised) to have been in the judgement of the Catholic Church held lawful, and a sufficient baptising.  
§. 46. Not long after the Council of Neocaesarea (about the Year of Christ, 326.) shone in the Church with an illustrious glory that great Luminary of it St. Athanasius, from whose Rays we shall borrow a beam, to light us on further towards the discovery of this Practice in this Age. This great Author in his 3d. Oration against the Arians, 
Edit. Paris à Michaele Sonnio, etc. An. Dom. 1627. Tom. 1. p. 413. Edit. Commelin. Tom. 1. pag. 219.  speaking of their colluding with the Form of Baptism, as meaning other things by the words of it, than they truly imported, by way of parallel tells, that other Heresies besides them, and they not a few, named the names expressed in the Form of baptising, but had perverse sentiments concerning the persons therein named, and did not retain the sound Faith, and thereupon gave water that was insignificant through the defect of piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Adeo ut qui ab illis adspergantur, sordescant potius prauâ religione, quàm redimantur, Lat. Verse.  i. e. insomuch that he that was sprinkled by them, was through their impiety rather defiled, than redeemed (I should rather say washed or cleansed, if in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we might read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for so the Antithesis seems to require, and so I believe the Author intended.) Here 'tis plain he puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkled, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptised, which is so fair an evidence of Baptisms being in that Age, if not generally, yet sometimes, and on some occasions, administered by way of Sprinkling, as renders that practice indisputable for that time; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. p. 413.  it being beyond all controversy, that he is there speaking of Baptism, and of the Arian, and other Heretical abuses of the Form of it.  
§. 47. In the same Century (an. Chr. 364.) was the Council of Laodicea. And whereas that Council had decreed in the 46th. Canon of it, that such as were to be baptised should before learn the Creed, and upon the Fifth day of the last week say it to the Bishop or Priest, it makes another (the very next) decree, 
Qui in aegritudine constituti baptismum perceperunt, sani facti fidei symbolum doceantur, etc. Concil. Laodic. can. 47.  the his qui in aegritudine baptizantur, concerning those that were baptised in their sickness, namely, that such as in that condition had received Baptism, should be taught the Creed after their recovery, that they might be made sensible of the favour that had been vouchsafed to them. I need hot here again discourse what was the manner of baptising sick persons, having so lately, (whilst I was speaking of the Council of Neocaesarea) shown it to have been by way of sprinkling. Nor need I for the same reason, argue from the Councils not condemning the Baptism so administered, nor ordering the rebaptising of such as had been so baptised, to their approving, at least as to the sufficiency thereof, that manner of Baptism.  
§. 48. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 643, 644.  Much about the time of that Council, or a little after (An. Chr. 370.) flourished Gregory Nazianzen. And by his most passionate arguing against men's deferring their baptism till their sickness was grown desperate, and they almost, if not wholly, past either speech or sense, it is evident, that some did defer their baptising so long. And that yet in that condition they were baptised, it is likewise evident from his pressing them to be baptised before they had so far lost the use of their tongue, that they were not able well to utter, what was on their part to be said at their baptising; and whilst their commencing Christians might be grounded on certain arguments, and nor on uncertain opinion; with much more to that purpose. Now how persons in this condition could be baptised by a total dipping, or any other way but by a gentle sprinkling (unless the Baptizer meant to put them out of doubt, and dispatch them quickly out of the way) the indifferent Reader may with hope of a favourable judgement in the case be appealed unto. In the mean time I cannot but take notice of it, that whereas the unlawfulness of such a Baptism was the most powerful argument that possibly could be used, to draw men off from such a course, and hasten their baptising, if ever they meant at all to be baptised, since that on death bed (by sprinkling, and those in that condition were incapable of any other) was perfectly unlawful, (besides that it signified nothing at all to the baptised) because not administered according to Christ's institution, which is supposed to be by dipping, he doth not in the least press that argument; nor do any of the Fathers else, that I know of: which is a clear evidence, that though he and they wished men sooner baptised, yet they thought that baptism, which was administered so late, to be in itself lawful, though through their fault, so late administered, and in that manner.  
§. 49. In this Age flourished St. Hierom: about An. Chr. 385. And though he speak not, (that I know of) concerning sprinkling, yet there is in him an intimation of a baptising by less than a total dipping. Many things (saith he) which are observed in the Church by Tradition, 
Name & multa alia quae per traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur, autoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurparunt, velut in lavacro ter mergitare caput, etc. D. Hieron. adv. Luciferian.  have Usurped to themselves the authority of a written Law: as for instance, to dip the head thrice in baptism, etc. Here's dipping indeed mentioned as a way used in baptising, but 'tis not mentioned as the way; nor is that dipping of the whole person, but only of a part; namely the head of the party baptised. And so hence it appears, that a total immersion was not always the only way of baptising; but that as sprinkling, (as we have showed) was sometimes, so sometimes a partial mersation was used in stead of it.  
§. 50. Contemporary with S. Hierom, was Siricius Bishop of Rome, 

Spondan. Epit. Baron. An Chr. 385.  
Nam de Infantibus baptizandis, qui nec dum baptizati nascuntur, quoties necessitas exegerit. Regula Ecclesiastica per beatum Siricium prolata demonstrat dicens, etc. Magdeb. cent. 9 c. 4. col. 140.   elected to that See (à clero populoque) by the Votes both of Clergy and Laity (An. Chr. 385.) And his Authority (as the Centuriators tell us) is vouched, and under the title of Regula Ecclesiastica, an Ecclesiastical Rule by Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims, for the baptising of Infants, as oft as necessity should require. The necessity for baptising of Infants can be no other but danger of death, in regard of sickliness and weakness. Now in what manner it was the use in those times to baptise persons in that condition, we have before declared; so that it is almost needless to say, it was not by that severe way of a total immersion of them three times into water, 
— Vel his quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit, sacri undá baptismatis omni volumus ecleritate succurri, ne ad nostram perniciem tendat animarum, etc. Id. ib.  but by the more safe and gentle way of aspersing, or sprinkling water thrice upon them. Nor was his care only for weak Infants, but for all others, in what necessity soever they were: whom he willed should be baptised with all speed, lest if any, being in that condition denied baptism, should departed out of this world unbaptised, and so lose both Kingdom and Life, that loss of theirs should tend to the destruction of our Souls.  
§. 51. A little after him (about An. Chr. 390.) flourished Aurelius Prudentius, a man of Consular dignity, and a no less pious Christian, than ingenious Poet. And in him we have a plain instance of such baptising, as that the party baptised was not dipped, but only bedewed with the water of baptism, and that must be by sprinkling or shedding water upon him. Cultor dei memento, etc. O Worshipper of God (saith he) remember that thou didst go under the holy dew of the Font, 
Cultor dei memento Te fontis & lavacri Rorem subîsse sanctum, Prudent. Hymn. ant somn.  and Laver, that is, in plain English, that thou wast sprinkled in baptism: for what else can be meant by the dew of the Font; and going under that dew?  
§. 52. And let no man think this was a mere piece of Poetry: and that he was compelled to this way of expressing himself by necessity of his verse: for he was a person of such fluency of expression, as that if there had been need for it, he could have otherwise expressed himself. And besides in another case, when he could as well have used the word Immergit, he dippeth or baptizeth by dipping, he doth use Perfundit, he poureth water on, or doth baptise by pouring on water. It is in the case of John the Baptist: and so may be added as a superventional testimony, 
Perfundit fluvio pastus Baptista locustis, etc. Prudent. Enchirid.  or at least as a further light to St. Bernard's opinion before mentioned, concerning our Saviour's being baptised by John in Jordan, not by way of Immersion, but of perfusion, not by putting him under water, but by pouring water upon him.  
§. 53. I will end this Century, and begin the following with St. Augustin, who lived in both, being converted to the Christian Faith, (An. Chr. 385.) and in the (31.) Year of his own Life. And he in his Confessions (l. 1. c. 11.) tells us, that in his Childhood, (and therefore this passage of his Life must of necessity be referred unto this Century) being in a fit of sickness and like to die, he earnestly desired to be baptised: and that, had he not recovered, through his Mother's hastening care, he had then been baptised. But sure he had not been baptised by dipping (pene moriturus) when he was just at the point of Death. That pious care of his Mother, which made her hasten his baptism to save his Soul, would have provided, that, in the manner of his baptising, nothing should be done that might destroy his Body. There was a way then for baptising of Persons in danger of Death: that's the thing I hence observe: and I leave it to the Reader to think, if he can, how it should be done by dipping; or what other so convenient a way there was, or could be for it, as sprinkling.  
§. 54. In the beginning of the Fifth Century (to proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and turn at Lands end) flourished St. Augustin, with whom I ended the last Century. And as in the first Book of his Confessions, he tells us of his own being like to have been baptised, so in the Fourth Book, he tells us of a friend of his, that really was baptised, in his sickness: 
Cùm enim laboraret ille febribus, & jacuit diu sine sensu, in sudore letali, & cum desperaretur, baptizatus est nesciens. D. Aug. Confess. l. 4. c. 4. See D. Aug. ad Pollent. l. 1. c. 26. Tom. 6. col. 854.  and that, being in a high Fever, and in a deadly sweat, given over for life, and utterly ignorant of what was done. That the Baptism administered to this Person, be it after what manner it would, or could, was a baptism, is clearly intimated by St. Augustin, whilst he saith expressly of him, baptizatus est, he was baptised. But whether this baptism was administered by a total dipping of the Person under these circumstances, (in his sickness; in a high Fever; in a deadly sweat; given over for life; past sense;) or whether he was not rather baptised by sprinkling of water upon him, I leave even to the most prejudicated Reader in the World to judge.  
§. 55. The same St. Augustin, whilst Bishop of Hippo, tells us (in his 22th. Book, the Civ. Dei, c. 8.) how one Martialis was converted on his Deathbed, and baptised. Therefore not dipped: but, what is most probable, because most usual, in cases of necessity, sprinkled at his baptising.  
§. 56. But he that shall read the Fourth Chapter of St. Augustin's sixth Book against Julian the Pelagian, 
Non enim frustra crederis noluisse dicere, quòd renascitur, sed quòd perfunditur.  and there find perfundi used for baptizari; and perfusio for baptismus, and perfusus for baptizatus (though St. Augustin find fault with Julian for using that word out of a design to put a contempt upon Baptism, 
Hoc enim verbum [sc. baptizatur] ex Graeco Latina consuctudo sic habet, ut non soleat alibi nisi in Sacramento Regenerationis intelligi. Nihil horum dicere voluisti, sed elegisti verbum, quo fieret contemptibile quod dicebas. Nemo enim legentium praeferre potest natum renato, vel regenerato, vel baptizato, sed facilè putâsti natum praeferri posse perfuso. Si autem quantum distat coelum & terra, tanto melius est perfundi, ut portetur hominis imago coelestis, quàm nasci, ut portetur hominis imago terreni, evanuit jam tua ista invidiosa partitio. Neque enim mirandum est, si coelestis hominis imaginem, quae sacrâ perfusione suscipitur, sibi vendicat Deus, etc. D. Aug. contr. Julian. Pelag. c. 4. Tom. 7. col. 1110.  telling him that this word Baptizari, though originally Greek, yet was by the custom of the Latins appropriated to the Sacrament of Regeneration) will be out of doubt, that Baptism was administered in those days by way of perfusion, pouring or shedding on of water. For wherein else can that appellation be founded? And St. Augustin, that found fault with his using of that word, only because not so customarily applied to the thing, as baptism was, would not have failed to have found fault with him, if there had been no such thing in use as was signified by that word.  
§. 57 And that Baptism was performed in those days, not only by pouring, but also by sprinkling of water on the baptised, is beyond exception declared by that Father in his Book de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, if that Book were his. But because though inserted among his Works, it is, and I suppose more truly, imputed to Gennadius, who flourished too in this same Century, though somewhat after St. Aug. I shall refer it to its proper place.  
§. 58. I will not say, 

In hoc ergo fonte antequam vos toto corpore tingeremus, interrogavimus, Credis Deum Patrem omnipotentem? D. Aug. ad Neophyl. apud Gratian. de Consecr. dist. 4. fol. 449. col. 3.  
De trinâ immersione Aug ait, Postquam nos credere promisimus, tertiò capita nostra in sacro fonte demersimus. P. Lomb. l. 4. dist. 3. Tit. de Immersione. Or as Gratian reports it, Postquam vos credere promisistis, capita vestra— (which reading I rather approve of) Gratian. de Consecr. dist. 4. sol. 449. col. 4.   but that there might be baptizings of Persons in that Age by a total immersion of them. Yet what Peter Lombard quotes from St. Augustin, seems to intimate it to have been a fashion also to baptise, not by a total immersion of the whole Person, but by a demersion of the head of the Party baptised. After that we had professed ourselves to believe, we did three times demerse, or dip our heads, in the holy Font. So he.  
§. 59 Contemporary with St. Augustin, (and even in both the Centuries) was Paulinus Bishop of Nola, flourishing about An. Chr. 420. And from him I find quoted, by Rigaltius, a passage, which seems to intimate even the Baptism of John the Baptist to have been, not by dipping of the Party baptised into the water, but by pouring of water on him. Diluit infusis, 
Diluit infusis credentum crimina lymphis, Absolvitque metus hominum, poenasque remittit. Paulin. Ep. Nolan. ap. Rigalt. Not. in Tertull. p. 70.  etc. i. e. He washes away the sins of believers by waters poured on. The waters poured on here must certainly be meant to be poured on the baptised person: or else into the River; for he baptised in the River. To conceive the later is ridiculous: for what should he pour water into the river for? Therefore it must be on the parties baptised. And then here is another proof yet more, besides those of St. Bernard, Lactantius, and Prudentius, to strengthen the opinion, that our Saviour was not baptised by dipping into water, but by having water poured upon him. And whether that were so, or not, yet still the expression inevitably infers that Author's knowledge of a way of baptising, other than by a total dipping, and even by a pouring on of water, in his own age at least, if not in former, and even in the Primitive too, to which the passage makes a fair pretention, being quoted out of the Author's Poem of John the Baptist.  

Item placuit, ut quicunque parvulos ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat, anathema sit Synod. Milevit. ap. Magdeb. cent. 5. c. 9 col. 835. & Caranz. fol. 123.  §. 60. In the same Age (An. Chr. 418.) the Council of Milevis decreed him anathematised, who should deny baptism to Infants coming new from the Wombs of their Mothers. Now certainly Infants in that condition, cannot be looked upon as other than persons under great weakness, and necessarily exposed to manifest danger of health, and even life itself, should they be put to the undergoing of the Severities of a threefold total Immersion, which was the way of baptising those that were dipped in those times, even Infants and all, if arrived at that hardiness for strength as to be able to endure it. There must therefore be allowed a more favourable way of baptising of newborn Infants (which I presume also was never done, but when the Infants were weak and not likely to live) unless we will put such an Interpretation on the Councils decree, as shall expose them to a severe censure for cruelty, even to tenderest babes, for that very thing whereby they designed the greatest mercy and kindness to them, as if they meant to kill their bodies, whilst they pretended to save their Souls. Now I need not tell you, what has been so oft already sufficiently intimated, that the most  and so the most befiting way of baptising in such case is that of Sprinkling.  
§. 61. 
Fst de Columbethra (quae aquae in baptisterio receptaculum fuit) ex qua aqua baptizato superfusa per interiorem meatum secedebat, apud Socrat. l. 7. c. 17.  The Centuriators tell us of a Font, out of which baptizato aqua superfusa— the water poured from above on the person baptised, went away by a secret passage made for it below. And this Font was in this Age. And this pouring water on the person baptised at it, imports a baptism other than by way of immersion. For this, and the story appendent to it they refer us to Socrates, l. 7. c. 17. That Author speaks of such a Font, as had a conveyance for the water by a lower passage: but mentions no pouring of the water from above on the baptised. And (because I am unwilling to force a meaning on them different perhaps from their mind, though lying fair in their words) it may be, they did not by aqua baptizato superfusa, intent water poured from above on, but for the baptised. Though, by the way, this is much the manner of baptising in Russia, 
Purchas Pilgrim. part. 3. p. 229. about An. Chr. 1557.  according to a Relation of it, that I meet with in Purchas' Pilgrimage. For there, as the Relation is, when the water is Sanctified, the Priest taketh the Child, and holdeth it in a small Tub, and one of the Godfathers poureth it all upon the Child's head. Yet (to come to the story in Socrates again) there he tells us, what is material to our purpose, viz. a story of a deceitful Jew, that having been baptised before by Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, and made a practice of it in several places, upon avaricious designs for money, to offer himself to baptism, came to this Font, offering himself to be baptised there also: and that when he hanged his head over the Font, the water vanished away, once, and again: whereupon his fraud was discovered. This happened in the Sixth Consulship of Theodosius, (An. Chr. 415.) Now that, which I note it for, is this. This hanging his head over the Font, in order to his being baptised, intimates (what any man would think, that should see a man in that posture, hanging his head over one of our Fonts) that his baptism was not to have been by an immersion or dipping of his whole body into the water, but only by a Sprinkling of water upon his face, or by a pouring of water upon his head, at most by a dipping of his head only, and no more of him, into the water.  
§. 62. In the middle of this Century flourished Pope Leo, advanced to the Papacy, An. Chr. 440. He was for having the Solemn times of baptism observed. 
Non interdictâ licentiâ quâ in baptismo tribuendo quolibet tempore periclitantibus subvenitur:— ut in periculo mortis, in obsidionis discrimine, in persecutionis angustiis, in timore naufragii; nullo tempore hoc verè salutis singulare remedium cuiquam denegemus. Leo, ep. Decret. 4. c. 6. pag 15, 16.  Nevertheless he would not inhibit that liberty, which had formerly been taken, to baptise at any time persons in danger of death, in the difficulties of a Siege, in the straits of persecution, in the fear of Shipwreck. Now this being so, it must needs follow, that he must allow of such ways of baptising, as the circumstances those persons were in would admit of. Which might not be always by way of Immersion, even for want of water, as in sieges, prisons, ships; and sometimes might not be safe, as in case of dangerous sickness, when to baptise by way of Immersion might be more destructive to the baptised, than his very disease, and a sure way to bring a certain death upon him here, whilst we design to save him from a feared death hereafter. And then not only partial mersation, but even affusion, and conspersion, or Sprinkling, will fall under the allowance of that 〈◊〉, and be the Practice, which the Church in that ●●ge took, or had granted to it, the liberty to make use of.  
§. 63. In the Year 499. was baptised Clodoveus King of the Franks, 
Spondan. Epitome of Baron. An. Chr. 494. n. V & An. Chr. 499. n. IV. Georg. Cassand. de Baptismo Infantum, p. 713. Isle Clodovaeus primus Christianus fuit inter Reges Francorum, à beato Remigio baptizatus. Gotfrid. Viterb. Chron. part. 17. col. 433. See Werner Rolewinks Fascic. Temp. fol. 53. Herm. Contract. Chron. p. 419. Flosc. Historici cap. 3. p. 204. Expedit ut per infusionem aquae fiat, & non per immersionem. Cujus rei exemplum trahimus ab Apostolis, Sancto Laurentio, Remigio, caeterisque pluribus, qui aspergendo & super infundendo aquam baptizabant. Sic Sanctus Laurentius urcco aquae superinfuso baptizavit Romanum. Sic etiam Remigius Regem Franciae baptizavit. Agend. Eccl. Mogunt. Edit. Mogunt. An. 1551. fol. 22, 23.  first brought to believe the Christian Faith by his Queen Clotildis who was a Christian, and after to profess it, and be baptised, partly by occasion of a vow, which he had made to Jesus Christ, in a battle with Alaricus, by whom he was at the instant of being overthrown, but became the overthrower of the battle immediately turning upon his Vow (the like whereto befell Amurath the Emperor of the Turks in his battle with Ladislaus King of Hungary) and he not only Routing his Enemy's Army, but also killing his Enemy himself with his own hand; and partly by the solicitation of St. Remigius Archbishop of Rheims to perform his Vow, to whom he yielded, and by whom he was baptised: and not he alone, but also Albofledis his sister, and a great number of his people amounting to some thousands. But how was he baptised? Not by Immersion, but by superfusion, as we are told in the Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis published by Sebastian, Arch B. of Ments, and Prince Elector. Where this Example is amongst others alleged in justification of baptising by pouring on of water. Whereof (saith the Agenda) we fetch example from the Apostles, St. Laurence, Remigius, and many others, who baptised by Sprinkling, and pouring on of water. And as the King himself was baptised, so no doubt was his Sister, and all his people (Regis ad exemplum) baptised also: it being not well to be imagined, why they, who followed him in his believing, should not follow him in his baptising, and be baptised as he was, whose baptism was the cause of their being baptised, especially seeing the baptism of both, (his, and theirs) were at the same time; unless some good Record shall appear in contradiction to it, which I have not as yet met withal.  
§. 64. And now no wonder if Gennadius, 
Dr. Cave Life of St. Steph. p. 17.  who flourished towards the latter end of this Century (An. Chr. 490. and many Years before) were dogmatical in his opinion of the sufficiency either of dipping or sprinkling: to whose 74th. dogma we are referred for proof hereof by the Right Reverend, 

Dr. Sparrow Rationale of the Common-Prayer, p. 298. Ed. 1661.  
Baptizandus consitetur fidem coram sacerdote, & interrogatus respondet: hoc & martyr coram persecutore facit, quia & confitetur fidem, & interrogarus respondet. Ille post confessionem vel aspergitur, vel intingitur: & hic vel aspergitur sanguine, vel contingitur igne. Gennad. de Dogm. Eccles. c. 74. ap. D. Aug. Tom. 3. col. 207.   the Author of the Rationale of the Common-Prayer. And with his Testimony I will end this Century. The Person (saith he) to be baptised makes Confession of his Faith before the Priest, and being asked, makes answer, and after his confession, he is sprinkled with water, or dipped into it. To such indifferency was it grown even in that Age.  
§. 65. In the fore-end of the Sixth Century, An. Chr. 517. and in the Seventh Year of Theodoric King of Spain, was held at Gerunda in Catalonia a Provincial Council of Seven Bishops. And in the 4th. Canon of that Council it was Decreed, 
 parvuli, si infirmari contingat, eodem die. quo nati sunt, baptizentur. Concil. Gerund. Can. 4.  That Infants, in case of weakness, should be baptised the same day that they were born. That they should be baptised, this they Decree. But how, they say not. Whence 'tis plain, their meaning was, that they might be baptised in such manner, as was most suitable to their condition, and had been usual in the like cases in the Church, (for else they would have given their determination otherwise) and then their baptism must not have been by dipping, but sprinkling, or something more favourable and safe than a total immersion. And especially is it rational so to conclude, when the way of baptising (and for aught I know in public as well as private) was grown to such an indifferency in the Century foregoing, as we see by the new cited Testimony from Gennadius.  
§. 66. And agreeably to what that Council decreed in the fore-end of it, 

Item liberum esse Infantes mox in ipsa horâ, si est periculum mortis, baptizare, Gregorius testatur, l. 12. Ep. 10. ap. Magdeburg. Cent. 6. c. 6. col. 367. l. 21.  
Baptizare autem vel enixam mulierem, vel hoc quod genuerit, si mortis periculo urgetur, vel ipsâ horâ câdem quâ gignit, vel hoc quod gignitur cádem quâ natum est, nullo modo prohibetur, etc. Greg. Respons. ad Interrogat. Augustini ap. Bedae Eccles. Hist. Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 27. fol. 36. a.   it was declared by Pope Greg. I. in the latter end of it (for he was chosen Pope An. Chr. 590. and died An. Chr. 604.) that it should be free to baptise Infants, in case of danger of death, the same hour that they were born. A great Charity was no doubt in this Concession designed to the Souls of the poor Babes, namely to secure them, as far as Man could do it, from the future infelicities of those that died in an unbaptized estate. But we must not think, that charity to their Souls could consist with cruelty to their bodies, and intent the destruction of the one, whilst it pretended the salvation of the other. Therefore we must think also, that the rigours either of a threefold, or but a single total immersion, especially in this cold climate of ours, in reference to which that declaration was made by that Bishop, were not imposed upon those Infants (in periculo mortis) but that a more benign and gentle way, and which better suited with the weakness of their Infant-state, especially in such danger, was permitted to them. And then we can think of no so fit a way for their baptising, as that of sprinkling.  
§. 67. Nay more, the Centuriators from the same Authority tell us, 
Mulieres gravidas, vel recens enixas licitum esse baptizare— Greg. testatur, l. 12. Ep. 10. Magdeb. Cent. 6. col. 367. Vid. Bed. Eccl. Hist. Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 27.  that it was lawful to baptise Women big with Child, or even newly brought to bed, (yea even in the very same hour, that they were delivered,) as Bede relates it from him. But sure to dip the former was very dangerous, and the latter, certain death. And therefore it is without question, that the baptism allowed them was one more safe, viz. that of sprinkling.  
§. 68 In the Seventh Century the Magdeburgensians tell us, that Baptism was administered publicly in Temples: 
Baptizabant in templis:— In privatis tamen domibus etiam interdum, cùm necessitas postulabat, baptizatum est. Magd. Cent. 7. col. 144, 145, 146.  yet not so, but that sometimes, when necessity required, it was administered in private houses also. Now that necessity, which would keep them from coming to the Temple to be baptised, must in reason be supposed also to be so great, as to keep them from being totally dipped: there being greater danger to them from that manner of baptising, than from the place where they should be baptised. And then both Reason, and the Usage of the Church in the former Ages of it upon such like occasions, will determine the most befiting way of baptising to be that of sprinkling: not only in regard of the want of conveniencies of Vessels fit for a total immersion that might be in some private houses; but also in regard that sick Infants were then to be baptised, whom to dip in that condition, and as the manner of baptising them that were dipped then was, (viz. three times over head and ears) were enough to kill. And he that will consult Baronius may perhaps find an instance of one, 
Ann. Chr. 370. 51.  (and him the Son of an Emperor) by name Galates the Son of Valens, killed in Baptism. The inconsistency whereof with the Charity of the Church is so visible, or rather palpable, as to need no further demonstration.  
§. 69. They tell us also how in the Eighth Council of Toledo, which was held An. Chr. 633. and in the Sixth Council of Constantinople held in the Trullus (the name of a Room within the Emperor's Palace where the Council sat) An. Chr. 680. it was decreed that Baptism should by no means be denied to any sick Infant; adding as an Enforcement to their Decree, 
Parvulo aegrotanti nullo modo baptismus denegetur; si quis neglexerit ejus morientis animam, ille pro eâ reddet Deo rationem. Concil. Tolet. & Constantinop. ap. Magdeb. Cent. 7. c. 6. col. 146.  that if any should neglect the Soul of any such dying one, he should give an account thereof to God. And it is certain, that in the Second Canon of this Council of Constantinople was confirmed the Council of Neocaesarea, and consequently that Canon of that Council, which concerned such as were baptised in their sickness, whereof we made mention before. Well now, sick Infants were to be baptised: and their Baptism by no means to be neglected. The way of baptising then, was a threefold immersion. But what if the Baptizer saw he could not so baptise the Infant without endangering the death of it? Must he not baptise the Infant at all? Then he violated the Decree of the Council, and incurred the hazard of answering for the Soul of the Infant, if it perished for want of Baptism. Must he baptise it by the threefold immersion? Then he endangered the death of the Infant (which though very sick, yet possibly might not die, unless drowned or starved by that baptising, but recover, as many no doubt in the like case have done) and so incurred the guilt of homicide, which he could not but be loath to have his Conscience charged withal. What must he do then? What? Even take the middle course; neither neglect to baptise it, nor dip it in the baptising: but do as Reason would dictate in the case, and as the Custom of the Church on such occasions would direct him, and baptise it in a gender, kinder, safer way, by Sprinkling.  
§. 70. And the same Observation may be made upon, and drawn from the Law of Ina King of the West Saxons, (about An. Chr. 692.) That Infants shall be baptised within Thirty days after their birth, under penalty of Thirty shillings (a great sum in those days. 
Infans intra triginta dies postquam in lucem prodierit, baptizator. Id si non fiat, ter denis solidis culpa pensator. Sin prius vitam cum morte commutârit, quàm sacro baptismate tingatur, rebus suis omnibus mulctator. Leg. Inae. c. 2. ap. Spelman, Concil. Anglic. Tom. 1. p. 183. ) And that if any of them died unbaptised, he through whose default that came to pass, should forfeit all his goods.  
§. 71. In the Eighth Century flourished the Venerable Bede: 
An. Chr. 731. Obiit An. 735.  in the one and thirtieth year of which he wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. And though he do not therein, that I yet find, tell us of any that were expressly baptised by way of Sprinkling (yea so far is he from that, that he is produced as an Author against it, because he in that work tells us of many that were baptised in Rivers, viz. Glen and Small) yet still methinks he looks favourably on that way.  
§. 72. First because he there (l. 2. c. 14. 
Igitur accepit rex Edwinus cum cunctis gentis suae nobilibus, ac plebe perplurimâ, fidem, & lavacrum sanctae regenerationis, anno regni sui 11o. qui est An. Dom. incarn. 627.— Baptizatus est autem Eboraci die Sancto Paschae, pride. id. April. in Eccles. Sancti Petri Ap. quam ibidem ipse de ligno, cùm catechizaretur, atque ad percipiendum baptisma imbueretur, citato opere construxit. Bed. Hist. Eccles. Gent. Angl. l. 2. c. 14. ) tells us of a baptism of a King, by name Edwin, who with many of his Nobles and People, was baptised in a Church; and then sure not in a River, but in a Font: and then most probably by Sprinkling, or pouring of water upon him; there being no remains that I know, or hear of, in England, wherein this was done, if any Fonts, of that capacity, to receive into them the whole body of a man, so as to dip it therein; especially if the Rite of being baptised standing upright in the waters, as the ancient manner of baptising is by some said to have been, were to be observed (and it is strange that, if the Fonts in our Churches ever were of that capacity, there should in no part of the land be any one of them remaining, especially seeing there has been since that time no such universal inundation of Heathens, as destroyed all those Sacred Utensils of Christianity, but the Churches themselves, wherein they may be supposed to have been, as that of York and Lincoln are standing still) and that particular Church being but a Wooden one, erected in haste for that present purpose, and so probably unfurnished of such a capacious Baptistery, as was requisite for the total immersion of a person of that Stature.  
§. 73. Secondly, because in that whole passage, 
Quibus diebus cunctis à mane usque ad vesperam nihil aliud ageret quàm confluentem eò de cunctis viculis ac locis plebem Christi verbo salutis instruere, atque instructam in fluvio Gleni, qui proximus erat, lavacro remissionis abluere. Id. ib.  and the rest that follows in that Chapter, where he speaks of baptising confluences of people, and in Rivers, he never mentions one word of their being dipped, either in Font or River (unless Baptizo do necessarily infer it, as I have shown it doth not) neither immergo nor mergo, neither immersio nor mersio being used to express that action; but words of a more general import, which coextend to any manner of Baptismal washing, such as lavacrum and abluere: and Baptising in a River doth not necessarily infer a dipping into it. And yet as  as he is of using immergo in the case of Baptism, he is not  to use it in other concerns. Whence in his Relation of the Severities of Drithelm the Anchoret to himself, 
Solebat hunc creber ob magnum castigandi corporis affectum ingredi, ac saepius in eo supermeantibus undis immergi.— refluentibus circa cum semifractarum crustis glacierum, quas & ipse aliquando contriverat, quò haberet locum standi sive imm●rgendi se in fluvio, Bed. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 13. fol. 223. a. b.  he hath it twice, and within the compass of a few lines.  
§. 74. Thirdly, because the Reason, 
Sed in Provinciâ Deirorum, ubi saepius manere cum rege solebat, baptizabat in fluvio Sualva, qui vicum juxta Cataractam praeterfluit. Nondum enim Oratoria vel baptisteria in ipso exordio nascentis ibi Ecclesiae poterant aedificari. Id. ib. l. 2. c. 14.  which he gives, why men were then baptised in Rivers, is not fetched from any thing in the nature of baptism requiring baptization in such places; as because men should be totally dipped, when baptised, and the best conveniency for such baptising was there: but because in the Infancy of that Church, which was then but in its Nativity, Oratories, or Baptisteries could not be builded. Which supposes, that it was not choice, but want of other conveniency, which then led to that River-baptizing: and that, had there been Fonts in Churches, in those Churches, and at those Fonts, should the people too have been baptised, as well as the King, we spoke of before, had been.  
§. 75. Fourthly, in several parts of his works he expresses baptising by such words and phrases, 
Non baptizabat, quia ipse non tingebat. Bed. in Eph. 5. fol. 234. D. Quasi vero alterius dono, quàm illius quisquam etiam Sacramento corporalis, & visibilis baptismatis imbuatur, Id. ib. Ipse instructos eos verbo veritatis ac fonte salutari ablutos de ingressu regni aeterni certos reddidit, Id. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 16. Etsi fonte baptismatis non est ablutus: Id. ib. l. 1. c. 7. Cum rex ipse Catechizatus fonte baptismi cum suâ gente ablueretur— Id. ib. l. 3. c. 7. fol. 98. b Itaque Episcopus— primos provinciae duces ac milites Sacrosancto fonte abluebat, ib. l. 4. c. 13. fol. 165. a Omnes fide Christi institutos undá baptismatis abluit, ib. fol. 166. b.— Plebem Christi— lavacro remissionis abluere, ib. l. 2. c. 14. fol. 80. b. Nec multo post plene curatus vitali etiam undâ perfusus sum. Id. ib. l. 5. c. 6. fol. 209. b.  as not only, do not by the mere power of their own significancy import dipping, but are sometimes used to denote a distinct manner of baptising, differing from that: as is sufficiently shown in these Papers, such as tingo, and undâ perfundo, etc.  
§. 76. Lastly, I meet in Bede with a Relation of a Baptism, in the beginning of this, or the latter end of the foregoing Century, that was performed by perfusion, which we have seen from St. Cyprian to denote a distinct way of baptising differing from a total immersion. The person baptised was Heribaldus Clerk to John Bishop of York. And the Relation, as made by Heribaldus himself, in short is, that being by that John, in the time of his weakness by a fall from an horse, Catechised and Exorcized, 
Bede Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 6. fol. 209. a. b.  shortly after his recovery he was baptised, and that by way of perfusion.  
§. 77. And now who can think, but that this Author did judge it, not only lawful, but even necessary, that Baptism, (in some cases, as that of women new brought to bed, and children new born, if in danger of death; touching which himself hath declared the judgement of St. Grégory, with the reason also of his judgement) should be administered in a way of more mercy and less danger, 
— quia sancti mysterii gratia sicut viventibus atque discernontibus cum magnâ discretione providenda est: ita his quibus mors imminet, sine ullâ dilatione offerenda, ne dum adhuc tempus ad praebendum redemptionis mysterium quaeritur, interveniente paululum morâ inveniri non valeat qui redimatur. Bed. Eccl. Hist. Gent. Angl. l. 1. c. 27. fol. 36.  than that of a total immersion; even by Sprinkling or pouring on of water?  
§. 78. And with the same caution of not baptising by a total immersion, but by affusion or aspersion, is that Constitution of Egbert Archbishop of York (ordered about the Year of Christ, 750.) unquestionably to be understood: whereby all Priests are enjoined, 
 omnes Sacerdotes, quibuscunque horis, omnibus indigentibus baptismum infirmitatis causa diligentissime tribuant. Excerpt. 10. Dom. Egberti Archiep. Eborac. ap. Spelman. Concil. Anglic. Tom. 1. p. 259.  in case of infirmity, with greatest diligence to administer baptism at any hours whatsoever, to all that need it. For it is unreasonable to think, that the cruelty of a total immersion was ever designed in so merciful a Constitution.  
§. 79. In the Ninth Century, (An. Chr. 826.) as Baronius in his Annals informs us, came Herialdus, King of the Northmen, or Danes, with his Wife, and a great company of his People to Mentz, and in St. Alban Church, together with the rest of his Followers, sacri baptismatis undâ est perfusus, had the water of holy Baptism poured upon him. In which one expression the Historian notifies unto us two things; first the Baptism of that King and his People: and then the manner of their baptising; which was not by immersion, but by perfusion, or pouring of water upon them, whether in greater or lesser quantity.  
§. 80. In the same Century flourished Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims (An. Chr. 845. or according to Bellarmin, 860.) He had a Nephew of the same name Bishop of Laudum. That Bishop upon private injuries, excommunicated all the Priests of his Church, interdicting them the baptising of Infants, absolving of Penitents, and even burying of the Dead. This incenses his Uncle the Archbishop of Rheims, who thereupon pleads the cause of the Infants against him: urges the authority of Pope Siricius upon him, declaring for the speedy baptising, not of Infants only, but of all persons in necessity, as we have noted before. Now this pressing of the decree of Siricius by the Uncle on the Nephew, shows his approbation of, and consenting to what that Pope had declared for: and that amounted to a baptising them in a way agreeable to their necessity, which could not be a total immersion, but a pouring, or sprinkling of water upon them.  
§. 81. Yet again in this Century (An. Chr. 850.) flourished Walafridus Strabo. (the Anabaptists grand Patron.) And yet even he, as luck serves, is a most full, and express witness on our side. He speaking of the baptism of Lucillus recorded in the Acts of St. Laurence, which is expressly delivered to have been by pouring the water on his Head, (if, fudit super caput ejus, can signify so much) saith upon that occasion, It is to be noted, that many have been baptised, not only by dipping them, but also by pouring water from above upon them; 
Notandum, non solum mergendo, sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse, & adhuc posse baptizari, etc. Hoc etiam solet evenire cùm provectiorum granditas corporum in minoribus vasis hominem tingi non patitur. Walafrid. Strabo de Rebus Eccles. c. 26. p. 415.  and that they may still be so baptised—. This also uses to come to pass, when the greatness of the overgrown bodies suffers not a Man to be dipped in the lesser Vessels: which is the present condition of most, if not all the Fonts in England, so that there can be no way of baptising persons of ripe years in them, but by affusion, or a partial mersation. I wish those that give such credit to this Author in other things, would be impartial, and give the like credit to him in this, wherein he is so full and clear, as nothing can be more, both as to what hath been, and what may be.  
§. 82. Yet further in this Century (An. Chr. 858. 
Praeterea si tibi ad Baptismum Baptismi cupiditas propositumque sufficit, atque idcirco corum qui purificâ aquâ perfusi sunt, gloriam quaeris; ad gloriam quoque tibi sufficiat sola gloriae cupiditas. Nicet. Not. 21. in Gr. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Col. 1062. Edit. Paris. 1611. ) flourished Nicetas Serronius, who wrote Commentaries on several Orations of St. Greg. Nazianzen. And in his Commentary on the Fortieth Oration of that Father (which is of Baptism) If, saith he, a desire and purpose to be baptised serves you for baptism, and you therefore seek the glory of those, qui purificâ aquâ perfusi sunt, who have had the purifying water shed or poured upon them, i. e. have been baptised, let then the only desire of the glory serve you too for the glory. This, if the Author be rightly translated (who, I suppose wrote in Greek) is a clear intimation of that Author's having in his mind a notice of a baptising by way of perfusion, shedding or pouring on of water, which made him paraphrase baptism so; nay more, that he supposed others had the same notice of it too, and would understand what he writ, or else he would not so have written it. Commentaries being designed, not to obsuscate the Authors commented on, by words less usual and of greater obscurity, but to illustrate them, by words more known, and of greater perspicuity, than their own.  
§. 83. In the Tenth Century amongst other Ecclesiastical Constitutions of King Edgar, 
Si infans infirmus [absque baptismo] obierit Ethnicus, & hoc ex culpâ Sacerdotis evenerit, amittat ille ordinationis gradum, & solicit componat. Et si amicorum negligentiâ acciderit, jejunent illi 3. annos; unum sc. pane & aquâ, & per reliquos 3. dies in hebdomada, & id semper lugeant. Can. dati sub Edgaro Rege, apud Spelman. Concil. Anglic. Tom. 1. pag. 467. Can. 44.  (about An. Chr. 967.) there is one Canon, deposing from (at least one degree of) Order, the Priest, that, through his default, should suffer any weak Infant to die unbaptised: and imposing the penance of a three Years Fast on the Infant's friends, if the fault were theirs. Now surely he must either never have had, or else have lost his understanding, who imagines that the Infant, in the case supposed by the Canon, was necessarily to be dipped. For that were to oblige both the Priest and Parents, under so great penalties as neither would be willing to undergo, to expose the Child to a manifest peril of death, rather than let it go unbaptised. But the Church than could not but know, what had been the practice of the Church in former Ages in the like case: which was to baptise by aspersion, or a gentler affusion: and therefore it is to be understood to mean, that the Children so strictly ordered to be baptised, should be baptised after such a way, as was most agreeable unto the condition they then were in; and that must be by sprinkling; and not that they must be dipped, come on't what could come (life or death) by their dipping.  
§. 84. And much about the same time, or a little after, 
Infans omnis intra 9 noctes matarè baptizetur, sub poena sex orarum. Et si infans aliquis intra 9 noctes per negligentiam mortuus fucrit, componatur apud Deum absque mulctâ seculari. Sed si exactis 9 noctibus per negligentiam mortuus fuerit: componatur utique apud Deum, & solvantur praeterea illi parochiae 12. orae, quòd infans tam diu fuisset Ethnicus. Leges Presbyter. Northumbr. ap. Spelm. Concil. Angl. Tom. 1. pag. 469. Can. 10.  were composed the Laws of the Northumbrian Priests, probably by Oswald Archbishop of York. Amongst which there is one, that under a certain penalty order all Children to be baptised within nine Nights. But what if a Child were so sick, as not to be able to endure dipping? Must it, rather than not be dipped, be let die without being baptised? That was not the Lawmakers meaning, which was to prevent the Child's dying without baptism. Must he be dipped then, though that dipping should cost him his life? That is too irrational to conceive to have ever been meant by any wise Lawgiver; the end of whose Laws is the preservation, and not the destruction of lives. What then? 'Tis plain, nothing else could be meant, but that, as the Child was not to be suffered to die unbaptised, so it was to be baptised in such a way as would not endanger its death; and that is by sprinkling, or pouring water in a befiting quantity upon it, according to the practice of former Ages on the like occasions.  
§. 85. In the Eleventh Century the Magdeburgensian Historians tell us, that Infants, if weak, 
Cent. 11. c. 6. col. 260.  were baptised even presently after their birth. And (as I have noted in another place) they instance, from Schafnaburgensis, in the Son of an Empress, baptised, by reason of his weakness, and fear of his death, within three days after his birth. They tell us also of a Son of the Queen of Moguntia, who was baptised presently after his birth, and died presently after his Baptism. But now, who is able to imagine, that any ordinary Parent, much less Persons of such high Nobility, would ever endure that their tender Infants, in that extremity of weakness and sickness, should be put to endure the hardship of a threefold (or even but one single) total immersion into cold water? How could they expect any other, but that the Font, which should be the Mother of their Spiritual birth, would become the causer of their natural death? and that they should be realy, as well as Sacramentally, buried in Baptism? But Reason inviting, and long Custom of otherwise baptising Persons in such condition authorising thereunto, no doubt is to be made, but that they were baptised in a way that was compliant with their condition, namely by a gentler application of water shed, or sprinkled on them.  

Si puer non baptizatus libere adducatur ad Presbyterum [caveat ille] ut cundem protinus baptizet, ne forte moriatur Ethnicus. Can. Aelfrici. 26. ap. Spelman. Concil. Angl. Tom. 1. pag. 579.  § 86. And with the same gloss is to be read that Canon of Aelfric (about An. Chr. 1052.) whereby the Priest is ordered forthwith to baptise the Infant that is brought unto him, lest haply he die an Heathen.  
§. 87. In the Twelfth Century (An. Chr. 1120.) flourished St. Bernard. And we cannot but think that he approved of the baptising of Christians by way of perfusion, or pouring of water on their heads, whose Opinion was, as we have showed before, that Christ himself was so baptised of John in Jordan. But if he had said nothing of that, yet that question of his, in his Epistle to Hugo de Sancto Victore, 
Quaenam enim natura seu ratio docet internam aeternamque salutem mortalium neminem posse percipere, cujus foris corpus perfusu● visibili non fuerit elemento? D. Bernard, Ep. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore, col. 1455.  when he asks, what nature or reason taught, that no mortal Man could ever be a partaker of the internal and eternal Salvation, whose body was not outwardly baptised by a perfusion of it with the visible element? this question, I say, sufficiently shows his opinion of a baptism by such a way of administration, namely that it, like Baptism any other way administered, conduced to the internal and eternal Salvation of the Soul, though both to reason and nature it seemed strange, and was a thing that neither of them ever taught, that there was no being saved without it.  
§. 88 Contemporary with S. Bernard was S. Otho Bishop of Bamberg, 
Spondan. Epit. Baron. An. Chr. 1124.  called the Apostle of the Pomeranians, from his Converting that people, being invited to that work by Bolislaus King of Polonia, An. Chr. 1124. He at his own charge built fifteen Monasteries, and prescribed orders to be observed in the Churches founded by him. Several concerned Baptism. Among the rest this (as Novarinus informs us from the History of his Acts) that when any was to be baptised, his Baptism was to be dispatched by a threefold immersion of his head. So, 
Sacerdos trinâ immersione capitis illius mysterii Sacramentum perfecit. Novarin. Schediasm. Sacroprophan. l. 3. num. 57 p. 82.  an immersion there was, and that three times, settled by him, yet not a total one, not of the whole body, but only a partial one, of the head, the principal part.  
§. 89. In the same Century (An. Chr. 1140.) flourished Gratian. And he from the Capitulars, l. 5. c. 76. citys a direction for any man that hath a mind to have the Consecrated water in his own house for Sprinkling, 
Nullus ministrorum qui baptizandi recepit officium, etc.  (i. e. to baptise withal) to take it out of the Font before the pouring in of the Chrism. 
Nec quenquam debet movere, quòd aspergi, vel perfundi jubentur agri, cùm gratiam divinam consequuntur, etc.  And however that may be interpreted otherwise, though against the meaning of the Author, by such as have a kindness for Holy water sprinkling, 
Hîc primò ostenditur quòd aqua benedicta qua homines qui baptizantur asperguntur, valet ad corum sanctificationem, Gratian. Decret. 3. part de Con ecrat. dist. 4. fol. 452. b. col. 4. & litera c. i. c. capitis satis innuit in pluribus locis quòd de baptismo intelligitur, & de illis qui propter aegritudinem immergi non possunt. Id. ib.  yet that which follows is clearly to be interpreted of sprinkling in Baptism, and shows that this aught so to be interpreted too; being Notes on St. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus, before cited, of that matter. And here, saith Gratian (on St. Cyprians words) first is shown, that the blessed, (i. e. Consecrated) water, wherewith men who are baptised, are sprinkled, is of avail to their Sanctification.  
§. 90. In the Thirteenth Century the Magdeburgensian Historians quote Hugo (I suppose they mean him de S. Caro) whom Bellarmin, 
Si verò tanta copia aquae haberi non possit, ut infans in eâ totaliter mergi possit, cum scutello vel Scypho, vel alio vase aliqua quantitas aquae super infantem effundatur à baptizante, & fundendo dicat baptizans, Ego baptizo te in nomine patris, & filii & Spiritûs sancti. Et erit insans baptizatus. Hugo in 16. in Johan. ap. Magdeb. cent. 13. col. 596. l. 6, 7. etc.  as well as Alsted, places, An. Chr. 1245. for baptism not by total immersion. And (saith he) if there cannot be had a sufficiency of water for the infant to be wholly dipped into it, then let the Baptizer pour some quantity of water upon the Infant, with a dish or other vessel, and as he pours it, let him say, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And the Infant will be baptised. How? baptised without being dipped? yes, in the Opinion of this Author, a person of Reputation in his time for Judgement and Learning.  
§. 91. In the same Century (about An. Chr. 1251) the said Authors tell us of a Synodical Constitution, 
Et in libro ab Episcopo Nemansensi conscripto dicitur, Praecipimus itaque ut infans quàm cito natus fuerit, si periculum sibi mortis immineat, ita, quòd Presbytero praesentari nequeat, à circumstantibus masculis baptizetur, etc. Magd. cent. 13. c. 6. col. 594.  written by the Bishop of Nemans: wherein 'tis ordained, that as soon as ever the Infant is born, if there be any danger of death, so as that it cannot be presented to the Priest, than any either man or woman, the very Father, or mother of it (so there be no body else present that can) may baptise it. But in such necessity who can imagine the Constitution intended the dipping of the Infant? who can think any other, but that Reason moved by pity, swayed by Charity, and guided by the Custom of the Church, in such cases, would dictate the more favourable way of sprinkling?  
§. 92. About the Year of Christ, 1255. flourished Thomas Aquinas. And he disputes the case whether immersion be of the necessity of Baptism: and produces Arguments for it, and Answers to them. And grounding on what is said by the Apostle, Heb. 10.22. 
Cùm in baptismo assumatur aqua ad corporis ablutionem, non modò per immersionem verùm etiam per aspersionem, vel etiam effusionem aquae baptismus dari potest, etc. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art. 7. Conclus. etc. art.  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, he answers to the question, that inasmuch as Water is made use of in the Sacrament of Baptism for bodily washing, whereby is signified the inward washing away of sins; and a washing with water may be made not only by way of immersion, but also of aspersion or effusion: therefore, though it be the safer, because the more common way, to baptise by dipping; yet may a baptism be made by way of sprinkling, or pouring on of Water, the way (as he also saith) S. Laurence is said to have baptised. And that this may be done through necessity, either by reason of the multitude to be baptised, or scarceness of Water, or feebleness of the Minister, or weakness of the party, whose death may be eminently endangered by dipping.  
§. 93. His Contemporary Bonaventure, 
Dicendum quòd praesumitur quòd Apostoli baptizaverunt aspergendo; & mos ille servatur adhuc in pluribus Ecclesiis, & maxim in Ecclesiâ Gallicanà. Servari autem potest propter hoc, quòd ibi est integra ratio Sacramenti: & servari debet cùm necessitas imminet. etc. Bonavent. l. 4. dist. 3. art. 2. q. 2.  yet a little behind him, (An. Chr. 1263.) does just as he doth, disputes the question, (An immergendus, vel tantummodo aspergendus sit baptizandus?) and gives Arguments pro, and con. But his Answer to the question is, that it is presumed, that the Apostles baptised by sprinkling; which way is yet kept in many Churches, and most in the Gallican. And kept it may be, because therein is the whole Reason of the Sacrament; and kept it ought to be in case of necessity, by reason of the weakness or timerousness of the Baptizer, the feebleness of the party to be baptised, or the scarceness of Water to baptise withal.  
§. 94. In this Century the Magdeburgensians tell us of a Synod at Colonia under the Emperor Rudolphus, who was elected to the Empire (An. Chr. 1274.) wherein (if it were not rather the Council of Lions held that year) it was decreed, That if there were any fear the Infant would die before it was born, 
Si timeatur de morte infantis antequam nascatur, & caput ejusdem appareat extra uterum, infundat aquam, quae adfuerit, super caput nascentis, dicens, Ego te baptizo— Synod. Colon. sub Rudolpho Imperatore, apud Magdeb cont. 13.  so the head did but appear out of the Womb, the Baptizer should pour such water as was present upon the head of the child now in the birth, saying, I baptise thee, etc. Now this, a Synod, especially of so many Bishops (500 if it were the Concilium Lugdunense that made this decree) would never have ordained, had they not judged the act to be lawful and valid to all intents and purposes; and that there was a baptism performed, when to that action was added (and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) I baptise thee.  
§. 95. In the same Century the said Authors quote Gulielmus, (I suppose they mean Durantus) who lived (as Bellarmin saith) in the time of Pope Nicholas the Third (An. Chr. 1280. 
Quandoque datur per immersionem, ita quòd totus puer immergitur in aquâ. Quandoque etiam datur per aspersionem, quando puer aspergitur, & super eum aqua infunditur. Guil. Durant. de ritu baptizandi, c. 2. ) and flourished about An. 1286. And he speaking of the several ways of Baptising saith, sometimes Baptism is given by Immersion, so that the whole child is dipped in Water. And sometimes it is given by Aspersion, when the child is Sprinkled, and water is poured upon him. This is a report from him of what was done in his time. As to what was his own Opinion in the case, I shall report that from the Author himself, whom since the reading of their quotation, and the writing it from them, I have had the opportunity to consult; and he having said concerning the baptismal ablution, 
Quintum est baptismi ablutio. Circa quod notandum est quòd trina fit immersio seu lotio in baptismo in nomine Trinitatis, etc.— Si tamen quis ita aeger sit, ut non possit ter since laesione immergi, sufficit illum aquâ aspergi, ut probatur multipliciter in Canone Cypriani. Licèt quidem illud intelligunt de aquae benedictae aspersione. Sed & si magna corporis pars praeter caput infunditur, vel saltem caput, baptizatus quis reputatur, & non aliter. Licèt quidem etiamsi super pedem aqua ceciderit, reputent baptizatum. Guil. Durantus l. 60. Rationalis Divinorum Officiorum. Fol. 148. col. 1.  that it is a threefold dipping, or washing in baptism, in the name of the Trinity; adds this to what he had said, Yet if any be so sick, that he cannot without hurt be thrice dipped, it is sufficient that he be thrice sprinkled with water. He adds also, that if a good big part of the body besides the head, have water poured upon it, or at least the head, the party is held to be baptised; and not otherwise: though some think him baptised, if water do but fall upon his foot.  
§. 96. In this Century also I suppose I may place Johannes Duns Scotus; but whereabouts I cannot tell: so different are the accounts that are given of his time. For Alsted places him Anno 1300. Bellarmin (in his book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, pag. 381.) saith he died An. Dom. 1380; who yet (in Chronologiae parte alterâ, pag. 107.) places him about An. 1294. The Author of the Flosculi Historici, about An. 1295. Balaeus saith that he died An. 1208. I suppose the figures in Bellarmin, and Bale are mistaken, and both should be, 1298. But be that as it will, which is not material to the point, his judgement was for a sufficiency of a Baptism by less than a total immersion. For (saith he) if the principal part of a child (not yet wholly born) as the head, 
Si principalis pars, ut caput, appareat, sic illa parte baptizata simpliciter baptizatur [sc●puer] nec est iterum baptizandus, quia in illa parte sunt omnes sensus humani, & per consequens totus homo, etc. Joh. Duns Scotus in sent. l. 4. dist. 4. q. 3.  do appear, that part being baptised so, (which cannot be by dipping, but must be by Sprinkling, or such like shedding of water upon it) the child is fully baptised, nor is he again to be baptised, because in that part there are all man's senses, and consequently in a manner the whole man. So then with this acute School-man a principal part being baptised, the whole person is baptised, which yet could not be, if baptism were nothing less than the total immersion of the whole person.  
§. 97. In the Fourteenth Century (An. Chr. 1360.) flourished Dr. William Lynwood, who wrote Commentaries on the Constitutions of several of our Bishops. And whereas by the words of a Constitution of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury, (who died as Bellarmin saith, an. 1240, and was Canonised by Innocent IVth.) it seemed that baptism ought so to be administered in some kind of vessel, that the party to be baptised might be dipped into the water, he tells you, 
Tamen hoc non intelligas de necessitate baptismi, scilicet ut fiat immersio, sed potest fieri etiam per modum effusionis, vel aspersionis. Et hoc maximè est verum, quando consuetudo Ecclesiae hoc patitur, vel quando necessitas incumbit propter defectum aquae, sive periculum pueri de cujus morte timetur, vel etiam propter imbecillitatem sacerdotis non potentis sustentare infantem. In his enim casibus & similibus sufficit, quòd caput aspergatur, vel super caput aqua effundatur, vel in aquam mergatur tanquam pars principalior. Lynwood. Constitution. l. 3. c. de Baptismo & ejus effectu. super verbum [Vas illud] in Constitutione Edmundi.  that you are not to understand it to be of the necessity of baptism, that there be dipping; but that it may be dispatched by way of effusion or aspersion, that is sprinkling. And this (saith he) is especially true, when the custom of the Church permits it to be done, or when there is a necessity for it, by reason of want of water, or fear of the Child's death, or weakness of the Priest not able to bear up the Infant. For in these, and the like cases, it is sufficient if the head be sprinkled, or have water poured upon it, or, as being the more principal part, if it be dipped into water. Whether then it be any circumstance in the case that leads thereto, or whether it be the custom of the Church, that is the Inducer unto it, baptism however performed, by pouring or sprinkling of water on the Party baptised, though he be not totally dipped, is, at least in the judgement of this Learned Man, sufficient.  
§. 98. A little after (about An. Chr. 1370.) flourished John Wickliff, and taught here in England. And he, having first declared it an Ordination of the Church, that any believer might in case of necessity be baptised; adds thereto, that it mattered not, 
— Et ordinavit Ecclesia quòd qualibet persona fidelis in necessit●tis articulo peterit baptizari; nec refert sive immergantur semel vel ter; sive aquae super capita sua effundantur: sed faciendum est secundùm consuetudinem loci, quem quis incolit, tam in uno legitimo ritu, quàm in alio. Jo. Wickliff. Trialog. l. 4. c. 11.  whether they were dipped once, or thrice; or whether water were poured upon their heads; but that every one was to act according to the custom of the place he lived in, as well in one lawful rite as in another. By which it is most evident, that he held pouring of water on the head a lawful rite in baptism, as well as dipping the body into water: or else he would never have left it so at liberty as he did, to have it done either way, with a non refert, it matters not which way it is done. And so how much soever the Anabaptists think Wickliff was for them, he was not for the necessity of a total immersion in baptising.  
§. 99 In the Fifteenth Century (about An. Chr. 1452.) flourished Nicolaus de Orbellis. And upon the question, whether a Child could be baptised whilst in the Mother's Womb? he resolves, that if it were wholly in, it could not be baptised; but that if any principal part, as the head, were out; it might be baptised in that part; 
Aut patet pars principalis, puta caput, & tunc potest baptizari in illa parte, & in hoc simpliciter baptizari. Non enim est verisimile quòd in die Pentecostes quando baptizati sunt tria millia, quòd quilibet lavaretur quantum ad totum corpus suum in aquâ: sed praecisè quantum ad faciem aspergendo, vel quantum ad caput perfundendo. Nicol. de Orbellis in 4. Sentent. dist. 4. q. 1. de Baptismo, fol. 10. a.  and that such baptising was sufficient without any more ado. But that baptising could not be of the whole person: therefore his opinion was, that less than a total immersion was sufficient to speak a complete baptism. But his own reason which he adds to his opinion will put all out of doubt. For, saith he, it is not probable that, when on the day of Pentecost Three Thousand were baptised, every one's Body was washed all over with water (i. e. was dipped) but his Face only by sprinkling, or his Head by pouring water upon it.  
§. 100 In this Century (about. An. Chr. 1480.) flourished Angelus Clavasius Author of the Angelic Sum of Cases of Conscience. And he, having delivered the several Opinions there were, as to the manner of baptising, one holding that all was to be washed, another the head, or face, or breast, declares at last, what the opinion was, which was most commonly held, namely that the Infant, 
T●netur tamen communis [sc. sententia] quod qualitercunque contingatur, est baptizatus: & quòd sufficiat aspersio quantumcunque modica in casu necessitatis. Angel. de Clavasio, Summa Angelica. fol. 25. b— col. 2.  which way soever he be touched [i. e. with the water] was baptised: and that a sprinkling, how little soever it were, was sufficient in case of necessity.  
§. 101. In this Century, towards the latter end of it, 
Sed detur quòd puer partim sit in utero, & pars extrà baptizetur, nunquid est baptizatus? V Dicendum quòd si pars principalis est extra ut caput, tunc potest baptizari: nec est postmodum rebaptizandus. Guil. Vorrilong. in l. 4. Sent. dist. 4. fol. 126. col. 1. Edit. Venet. An. 1503.  flourished Guil. Vorrilong: So I suppose, because his Book was printed at Venice, Anno 1502. And, in case part of a Child in the Birth appeared out of the Womb, whilst part was within, if that part which appeared out was a principal part, as the head, his opinion was, that then the Child might be baptised by an application of water to that part, and was not after to be baptised again. Which clearly shows, that he held a baptising by other than a total immersion, lawful and sufficient.  
§. 102. In the Sixteenth Century, to pass by the Christians of St. Thomas in India, and the Habassins in Africa, who baptise their Infants sooner than the time of Forty days, if there be any danger of their dying before; which so great care for their Souls, cannot be without some care for their Bodies, which would little appear, if for the saving of the one, they should unnecessarily destroy the other; and so is, like other examples of the same sort, an intimation at least of a baptism by other gentler ways, than that of a total immersion among those Christians. We are told by Johannes Faber, in an Epistle of his to Ferdinand King of the Romans, dated (An. 1525. 
Cùm puer fortioribus naturae viribus apparet, ter totus immergitur, alioquin, aquâ tingitur, rarò tamen: conspersio enim minus sufficiens judicatur. De Russorum, Tartarorum & Moscovitarum Religione, pag. 176. ) concerning the Muscovites, that they baptise their Infants, if strong, by a threefold immersion, else by a ting or sprinkling them with water, though this latter way they do use but seldom, as holding sprinkling not altogether so sufficient. Now these having received their Religion, as they say of themselves, from St. Andrew; and being very firm to what they have once received, as he saith of them, may be an instance of a baptising by pouring on of water, as well as by putting into water, not only for the time that Author writ in, but for all the time since the first reception of their Religion, which may, for aught I know, reach up to the Apostles days; and does so, if their own Tradition be true; and why it may not, may perhaps be more than every one can tell.  

Tunc Sacerdos puerum sinistrae manui suae impositum teneat supra fontem, & manu dextrâ de fonte hauriens aquam fundat super caput pueri tribus vicibus: ita quòd aqua tangat caput & scapulas, dicens Ego te baptizo in nomine patris, fundat semel capite ad Orientem verso. Et filii, secundò superfundat aquam Baptismi, capite verso ad Aquilonem: Et Spiritûs Sancti, fundat tertiò, capite verso ad meridiem. Notandum circà Baptismum, sive ipse actus baptizandi siat p●r trinam immersionem, sive per trinam superinfusionem aquae, utrumque ritum & modum Ecclesia recepit. Vtrùm autem semel aut ter immergatur, aut si aquâ superinfundatur tertiò, non variat Baptismi essentiam: Ita tamen ut Ecclesiae consuetudo observetur, quam non observans peccat. Magis tamen amplectendum, si aliàs illius Ecclesiae fuerit consuetudo, quòd ter aqua superinfundatur. Si enim Sacerdos sit senex, aut tremulas habens manus, aut si sit vehemens frigus. si infans sit debilis, aut adultus, aut perfectioris aetatis, qui commodè immergi non possunt: expedit, ut per infusionem aquae fiat, & non per immersionem. Cujus rei exemplum trabimus ab Apostolis, Sancto Laurentio, Remigio, caeterisque pluribus, qui aspergendo & superinfundendo aquam baptizabant. Sic sanctus Laurentius urceo aquae superinfuso baptizavit Romanum. Sic etiam Remigius Regem Franciae baptizavit. Quare ne ritus alius ad sanos, alius ad infirmos, alius ad pucros, alius ad adultos varietur, sed unus permaneat modus: expedit, ut hujus Sacramenti ministri tutiorem amplexantes modum, superinfundendo ter baptizent, nisi consuetudo contrarium habeat. Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis per Reverendiss. in Christo Patrem, etc. Dom. Sebastianum Archiep. Moguntin. & Princip. Electorem. Edit. Moguntiae, Anno 1551. fol. 22, 23.  §. 103. Of the manner of baptising in the Archbishopric of Mentz, we have an account given in the Agenda of that Church, published by Sebastian Archbishop of that See, An. Dom. 1551. and that is, that the Priest holding the Child over the Font in his left hand, shall take water out of the Font with his right hand, and pour it upon the head of the Child three times. Nor is there only this Order given, but a Note also added, declaring the indifferency of both the Ceremonies Immersion and Superinfusion, neither way varying the Essence of Baptism, and both ways being received by the Church: whose custom in either is to be observed: though on divers accounts pouring on of water is judged more expedient than dipping into it: and that practise justified by the example of the Apostles, St. Laurence, Remigius, and divers others.  
§. 104. Of the Russian manner of baptising I find different accounts given. According to one relation made by Dr. Giles Fletcher (An. Dom. 1588.) the manner is, 
Purchas. Pilgrim. part. 3. pag. 451.  that after certain prayers, the Priest plungeth the child thrice over head and ears. For this, as that Relator saith, they hold to be plain necessary, that no part of the child be undipped. But according to another account given in another relation (An. Dom. 1557.) recorded by Purchas, the manner is, that when the water is sanctified, 
Purchas Pilgrim part. 3. pag. 229.  the Priest taketh the child, and holdeth it in a small Tub, and one of the Godfathers taketh the Pot with warm water, and poureth it all upon the child's head. And with this in part agrees that Relation which was made in an Epistle written to David Chytraeus, (dated Aug. 1. 
Post longas tandem Caeremonias Flamen toto congio perfundere solet infantem, ita inquiens, Baptizo te, etc. Lib. de Russorum, Moscovitarum, & Tartarorum Religione, pag. 240.  1576) wherein 'tis shown, that their manner of baptising their Infants, was by pouring a large quantity of water on them. The Priest (as saith that Author relating the manner of their baptising) useth to pour a whole gallon of water upon the Infant, saying, I baptise thee, etc. So that, according to this relation, pouring on of water is with them a baptising. And for the diversities of the Relations, they may easily be reconciled, by considering, that they might be founded in the different accounts, that in different times and places, might be given to the Relators; that thing being in use at one time, which was not in another, and that in one place, which was not in another; as it were easy, were it needful, to prove by instance without going half so far as Russia for the proof of it: indifferent rites and customs in the Church, being quickly taken up, or laid down, as the Pleasure of the Governors, or Fancy of the people is.  
§. 105. And truly as the general custom now in England is to Sprinkle, 
Deinde accipiat sacerdos infantem per latera in manibus suis, & interrogato nomine ejus baptizet eum sub trinâ mersione, tantùm sanctam Trinitatem invocando. ita dicens [N. Et ego baptizo te in nomine patris] & mergat eum semel versa facie ad aquilonem, & capite versus orientem [& filii] & iterum mergat semel versa facie ad meridiem [& Spiritus Sancti. Amen] & mergat tertiò rectâ facie versus aquam. Tunc Patrini accipientes infantem de manibus Sacerdotis levent cum de Fonte. Manuale ad Vsum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis, fol. 41. b. Edit. An. 1530.  so in the fore end of this Centurie the general custom was to dip. And yet at the same time in Belgia it was the manner to baptise by pouring of water on. Thence that Note set in the Margin of St. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus in the Edition of that Author set forth by Erasmus, and Printed at Leyden, by Gryphius, An. 1537. Perfunduntur apud nos, merguntur apud Anglos, i. e. They are sprinkled or baptised by the pouring of water on, in our Country, they are dipped in England; that is, as I suppose, some were so baptised, and perhaps the greater number, though others, whose weakness required more favourable dealing with them, were sprinkled; which within the time of half a Century prevailed to be the more general, 
Then the Priest shall take the child in his hands and ask the Name. And Naming the Child, should ll dip it in the Water Thrice: first dipping the right side, secondly the left side, the third time dipping the Face toward the Font, so it be discreetly and warily done, saying, N. I baptise thee, etc. And if the Child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying the foresaid words. K. Edward's Com. Prayer book, of the first Edition Printed, An. 1549.  as now it is almost the only way of baptising. And no marvel, when as by the Rubric of that Office, (as the Administration of it was settled by Queen Elizabeth, and by King Edward the Sixth before her) whereas dipping was the appointed way of baptising, yet it was declared, that if the Child were weak, it should suffice to pour water upon it. And when the liberty of Sprinkling was allowed, what tender mother would not think her newborn child too weak to endure to be dipped? especially if once some instance really were, or were but fancied, and famed, of some child's taking cold, or being otherwise prejudiced by its being dipped. And when withal some learned Persons of the Nation declared for the lawfulness of baptising otherwise than by dipping: of whom, for an instance, I shall name one without exception, and that is Dr. Whitaker, who flourished a little after the middle of this Century dying in the year of our Lord, 1595.  
§. 106. And though that then learned, and still famous man, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immersionem significat, quia olim qui adulti baptizabantur, non leviter aquâ tincti aut astersi fuerunt, sed immersi; & quibusdam in locis ter immersi: qui mos in Ecclesiâ diu permansit— Alia tamen locorum & populorum quorundam consuctudo fuit, ubi tinctione contenil, quam sufficere putabant, immersionem non desiderabant.  
Quanquam autem in adultis & sanis immersionem meliorem esse putem, tamen sufficere in parvulis & clinic s aspersionem arbitror. Nam Christus jussit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non modum praescripsit: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò non immergere tantùm significat, sed & tingere, etsi nusquam, quòd sciam, aspergere, nam illud est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dr. Whitaker Praelection. de Sacram. de Baptismo. qu. 1. c. 2. p. 216.   Master of St. John's College in Cambridge, and the King's Professor of Divinity in that University, do say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify immersion, and thinks immersion the better way for those that are of grown Age, and in Health (wherein I believe he is not alone) yet he thinks Sprinkling sufficient for little Children, and such as keep their beds; adding that for a reason, which is much to the purpose, namely, because Christ did command to baptise, but did not prescribe the manner of baptising; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify, not only to dip, but to wet, though it did not, that he knew of, signify to sprinkle, that being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another word. Thus we have this learned man declaring his judgement and in his Lectures too, for a sufficiency of Sprinkling for children, and sick persons; and that grounded on a no prescription of the manner of baptising by Christ the Ordainer of the Sacrament of baptism, which is as much as can be desired to be said by any.  
§. 107. And no wonder if that Custom prevailed at home, 
Caeterùm mergatúrne totus qui tingitur, idque ter a semel, an infusâ tantùm aquâ aspergatur, minimum refert: sed id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesiis liberum esse debet. Quanquam & ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat, & mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesiae observatum fuisse constat. Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 14. Sect. 19 fol. 443. Hîc perspicimus quisnam apud veteres baptizandi ritus fuerit: totum enim corpus in aquam immergebant: nunc invaluit usus, ut minister corpus vel caput tantùm asp rgat. Calvin. in Act. Apost. c. 8. v. 38. p. 144. a. Promissione factá nomen infanti imponitur▪ tum in cum aquam Baptismi minister effundit, inquiens, N. Baptizo te, etc. Calvin. Tract. Theolog. de Baptismo, p. 45.  which our Reformed Divines in the time of the Marian persecution, had found to be the judgement of other Divines, and seen to be the practice of other Churches abroad: and especially of Mr. Calvin, and his Church at Geneva. For that great and leading man, Mr. Calvin, whose glory needs not my Taper to show it to the world, as illustriously shining therein by its own native light, (whose time was about An. Chr. 1535.) though he grant the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify to dip, and say it for a certainty, that the rite of dipping was observed by the ancient Church, yet he saith it is not material at all, whether he that is baptised be totally dipped, and that once or thrice; or whether he be only sprinkled with water poured on him: but that it ought to be free for the Churches to do as they think good in that, according to the diversity of Countries wherein they are. In this learned Man's judgement then sprinkling is lawful, notwithstanding the signification of the word, and use of the Church to dip, unless, as I suppose he means, though he mention it not, in case of necessity, wherein it appears to have been the custom to sprinkle, etc. or else it could not be free for Churches to use it. Yea in the Forth of Administration of Baptism written by this Great Man, for the Church of Geneva, the way of baptising, as it is there by him set down, is by pouring out of water on the Infant to be baptised.  
§. 108. Contemporary with Calvin, and somewhat before him, was Martin Bucer, flourishing about An. Chr. 1520. And he tells us, that God commended unto men such a rite, as that by either the tinction, ablution, 
Porro quòd Deus ejusmodi ritum hominibus commendavit, ut aquae vel tinctione vel ablutione, aut aspersione peccatorum à se ablutionem acciperent, & eam per publicos religionum administros, & hinc denique suum cultum semper auspicarentur, causa est, quòd initium & caput salutis nostrae, fidem remissionis peccatorum, hoc est gratuitae justificationis confirmare hominibus ●o pacto, & excitare voluerit. M. Bucer. enarrat. Ep. Pauli ad Roman. c. 6. p. 289. Edit. 1536.  or aspersion of water they should receive remission of sins, and that by the public Ministers of the religions, and lastly would always have them begin his worship with this, because he would have the prime and principal point of our salvation, the belief of remission of sins, that is of free justification, by that means confirmed unto men, and more powerfully stirred up. His speaking so indifferently of all these ways of baptising, tinction, ablution, and aspersion, speaks his allowance and approbation of every one.  
§. 109. But not Calvin only, and the Men of his judgement, were so minded, but Persons also of a different persuasion from him, and that both at home and abroad. 

Ter verò infans vel immergitur, vel tingitur aquâ baptismatis.—  
Tertiò quoque repetita immersio vel tinctio typum triduanae domini sepulturae exprimit, per quam Christo consepulti sumus in baptismo, & cum Christo resurreximus in fide, ut à peccatis abluti, in sanctitate virtutum vivamus, imitando Christum. Canon. Concil. Provincial. Coloniens. sub Hermanno celebrati, Anno 1536.   For instance, Herman Archbishop of Colen, for the Reformation of his Diocese held a Provincial Council in the Year of our Lord, 1536. for which he was after by the Emperor forced to leave his Bishopric. In that Council the Canon, which concerns the baptising of Infants, is delivered in such terms, as speak differing ways of baptising, viz. either by immerging, or by tinging, that is, by dipping or sprinkling, (or otherwise wetting than by dipping) in use in that Church. It adds also, that the thrice repeated immersion or tinction, expresses a type of our Lord's three days Sepulture or burial. Now it is plain, that though tingo, where it stands alone, doth not denote any particular way of baptising, but notes baptising in general, without reference to any particular way of it, and is so used in the writings of Church Authors both ancient, and Modern; yet when it is set with immergo, and in contradistinction to it, than it notes another way of baptising than that, whether by aspersion, affusion, or perfusion, and not dipping, as I have before sufficiently showed, Ch. 3. S. 6, 7. And it must do so here unless we will in so few words make a ridiculous tautology, as if the Council had said, But the Infant is thrice either dipped, or dipped: which would be very little becoming the gravity of so wise and learned a Council as that was. And tingitur cannot be here said to be added to immergitur by way of exegesis, or explication; for it is the particular that is to explain and determine the general, and not the general the particular. And if but one and the same thing had been meant by both the words, it must have been, The Infant is tinged, or dipped; not dipped, or tinged. Besides dipping is a word of a more known and determinate use than ting is. And 'twere absurd to explain notum per ignotius, a more known term, by a term of whose import there was less knowledge. And so here is a fair evidence for a baptism by other than a total immersion in that Church.  
§. 110. And thus at home, in the Year 1558. Thomas Watson Bishop of Lincoln published a Volume of Sermons about the Sacraments: in the fourth of which (fol. 226.) he saith, concerning the matter in hand, although the old and ancient Tradition of the Church hath been from the beginning to dip the Child three times in the water, as Christ lay three Days in the Grave, yet that is not of such necessity, but that if he be but once dipped in the water it is sufficient: yea and in time of great peril and necessity, if the water be but poured on the head, it will suffice.  
§. 111. About that time flourished Wolfgangus Musculus, a Man of great Learning, and equal Modesty. And he An. Chr. 1560. published his Common Places of Divinity, wherein, 
Postremò, quod immersionem infantis attinet, judicamus hanc non sic esse necessariam, ut non sit liberum Ecclesiis baptizare vel mergendo vel aspergendo. Libertatem hanc servatam esse in Ecclesiis videre est in Augustino de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus (more truly Gennadius was that Author) c. 74. & Cypriano, l. 4. Ep. 7.  when he comes to speak of the manner, how baptism ought to be administered, he saith, as to the immersion of the Infant that is to be baptised, we do not judge it so necessary, as that the Churches may not be at liberty to baptise either by dipping or sprinkling. And then goes on to prove that this liberty had been kept in the Churches, by two testimonies (already mentioned) from St. Augustin, and St. Cyprian. This was the judgement of this Man worth a World, as I have somewhere read him reckoned.  
§. 112. Much about the same time, or a little after, Ann. Chr. 1565. flourished Martin. Chemnitius. And he tells us that St. Paul, the best Interpreter of what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sed Paulus certissimus interpres dicit baptizare esse mundare, seu purgare per lavacrum in verbo. Sive igitur per ablutionem quae fiat adh bitâ aquâ, Eph. 5. Tit. 3. Act. 2. sive adhibitio aquae fiat mergendo, tingendo, perfundendo seu aspergendo, est baptizatio: est enim purgatio, seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae. Nec ad lavacrum necessario requiritur immersio sub aquam— Christi igitur mandatum est, ut in baptismo fiat purificatio seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae. Quo verò modo illa fieri deb●at, sive mergendo, tingendo, perfundendo, sive aspergendo, Christus non praescripsit. Chemnitii Exam. Concil. Trident. part. 2. p. 122. a.  saith, that to baptise is to cleanse or purge by the washing of water with the Word. Therefore (concludes he thence) whether the washing be performed by mersion, tinction, perfusion, or aspersion, it is a baptising: for it is a purgation or cleansing by the washing of water. Nor unto this washing is necessarily required an immersion under Water—: And again, The command of Christ is, that there be in Baptism a purification or cleansing by the washing of Water. But how that cleansing aught to be made, whether by dipping, ting, pouring on, or sprinkling, Christ hath not prescribed. So then at great liberty is the Church of Christ in this case, to baptise which way she pleases, by dipping, or sprinkling, or otherwise, and all without sin; at least in the judgement of this Learned Author, the Tridentine Council's severe Examiner.  
§. 113. In the year 1586. was printed at Wirtzburg, the Confessors Manual by Martinus ab Azpilcueta, and as in his opinion there must be an ablution in Baptism, 
Add quòd ad hoc, ut aliquis sit verè baptizatus, sufficit quòd quantulacunque pars ejus tingatur aquâ quamlibet modicâ, etc. Martin. ab Azpilcueta, Dr. Navarrus, Confession Manual. c. 22. n. 7. p. 693.  so the wetting of but a little part, and that but with a little water, is sufficient to speak the party baptised.  
§. 114. About the year of our Lord, 1589 flourished Nicolaus Hemingius, and published his Commentary on St. John. And (saith he there) as oft as we see Infants sprinkled with the water of baptism, we are put in mind of the secret regeneration of Infants, etc. 
Quoties igitur videmus Infantes aquâ Baptismi aspergi, admonemur arcanae regenerationis infantium quae fit, non per aquam ●lementarem, sed per spiritum sanctum, cujus tamen aqua clementaris efficax symbolum est. Heming. in Joh. 3.5. col. 132, 133.  No need of arguing hence either the practice of his time to have been to sprinkle in Baptism; or his opinion of the lawfulness and sufficiency of such baptising; since it was symbolical of that secret regeneration that inwardly was wrought by the Holy Spirit.  
§. 115. A little lower down in this Century was Lambertus Danaeus, 

Hodie autem aquâ férè tantùm asperguntur qui sunt baptizandi, non autem immerguntur. In quo ipso nulla est in fide dissentio inter nos & veteres. Lamb. Dan. Isagog. Christian. pars 4. de Sacramentis, c. 29. pag. 522.  
Name in baptismi administratione alia sunt aut substantialia, aut Ceremontalia, aut Accidentalia. Substantialia sunt aqua, & illius applicatio, etc. Ceremonialia sunt reliqua. Ac substantialia quidem neque possunt, neque debent praetermitti, vel immutari. At Ceremonialia possunt immutari, quaedam etiam praetermitti, quaedam etiam omnino rejici & repudiari debent. Id. ib. p. 521.   a learned Author: who (about An. Chr. 1591.) published his Isagoge Christiana. And having declared the ancient manner of baptising to have been by dipping, and that naked, he saith, At this day, they who are to be baptised are mostly sprinkled only with water, and not dipped into it. Wherein yet (he adds) there is no disagreement in Faith between us and the Ancients. His reason he had given before, which was, that Substantials of Baptism, as water, and an application of it, might neither be omitted, nor changed: but the Ceremonials (as the manner of applying the water by affusion or immersion, and that once or thrice are) may be changed.  
§. 116. In the year 1592. was published by Joh. Stephan. Durantus, 
Húncque ritum baptizandi, sub trina immersione vel aspersione, servavit Ecclesia, ut ex Romanae Ecclesiae Sacerdotali apparet.— Et constat quòd in Ecclesiae Romanae Provinciis aspersione seu perfusione aquae baptismus confertur, quod nec novum, nec recens est. Legimus quendam à S. Laurentio, dum ad mortem ducebatur, urceo allato baptizatum fuisse. S. Cyprian. Ep. 76. ad Magn. Nec quenquam movere debet, quòd aspergi vel perfundi videntur aegri, cùm gratiam dominicam consequuntur. Notandum, ait Walafrid. Strabo de Reb, Eccles. c. 26. non solùm mergendo, sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse, & adhuc posse baptizari, etc.— Joh. Stephan. Durantus de Ritib. Eccles. Cathol. l. 1. c. 19 num. 37. p. 135. Edit. Colon. Agrippina, 1592.  a Book of the Rites of the Catholic Church. Therein he declares how the Church of Rome had to that time kept (but he says not how long before it had held) the Rite of baptising with a threefold dipping, or sprinkling: and that in the Provinces of the Church of Rome baptism is given by sprinkling or pouring on of water: which he affirms to be no new thing, nor lately come up; and backs his affirmation, with the example of St. Laurence, and the Authorities of Walafrid Strabo, and St. Cyprian. In this testimony there seems to be great weight, every circumstance considered; whether the Dignity of that Church, wherein it was, the Church of Rome, the leading Church of the World for many Ages; or the Diffusedness of it, not only through that Church, but the Provinces also of it; or the Antiquity of it, from Strabo's time, from St. Laurences time, from St. Cyprians time (who was martyred about An. Chr. 258.) nay no beginning is set to its being in the Church of Rome, as if it had been there held in practice from the beginning. Which (being the contrary thereto cannot be proved,) is with me an Argument of weighty force: and how slightly soever some may look upon it, yet others I hope, of cooler temper, may think it to be of some moment.  
§. 117. Much about the same time, or a little after (An. Chr. 1598.) flourished Daniel Chamier; a person whose learning needs none of my pen to commend it. And his opinion was, that forasmuch as the whole virtue of the water lay in signifying by washing, 
Quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem, certè non interest quantum quisque abluatur, quomodo in Eucharistia non quantum quisque comedat. l. an. Chamier. l. 5. de Bapt c. 1. p. 1404. parag. 4.  it mattered not how much every one was washed; even as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist it did not matter how much every one did eat. Then with him, it was not material whether the baptism were by immersion, affusion, or aspersion, so there were but water, and any way an ablution with it.  
§. 118. In the beginning of this Seventeenth Century now current (anno 1606.) Mr. Attersol published his Treatise of the Sacraments. And touching the Point in hand he delivereth his opinion thus. Dipping into the water is not necessary to the being of a Sacrament: 
Lib. 2. ch. 1. p. 108, 109.  Sprinkling of water is not necessary to the being of a Sacrament: but wetting and washing with water is necessary to the being of a Sacrament. Now whether the whole body should be washed, or the face only: and whether it should be done once or thrice, is not greatly material, but left indifferent to the Church to decree and determine, what shall be thought fittest to be received and practised.  

Materia propinqua est ablutio: est enim opus, quod a●luat corpus Nota tamen quòd per ablutionem intelligimus vel immersionem sive unam sive trinam, vel aspersionem, vel effusionem: quocunque modo horum fiat, tenet baptismus. Tamen quisque debet baptizare, juxta ritum suae Ecclesiae, nisi aliud petat necessitas, vel honestas. Necessitas quidem, ut in loco, ubi est trina, vel una immersio, cùm est periculum nocumenti infantis, potest aspergi, vel paucâ aquâ suffundi. Honestas, ut, si adultus est, non debet immergi, sed sufficit effusio. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerdot. l. 18. p. 372, 373.  §. 119. In the year 1603. was Printed (Colon. Agrippin.) Cardinal Tolets Cases of Conscience. And therein he delivers it as necessary, that there be an ablution of the body of the baptised with water. But then he tells you, that by ablution is meant either immersion (once, or thrice) or aspersion, or effusion; and that which of these ways soever it be done, the Baptism holds good, etc.  

Quid de immersione sentiendum, nam Baptizare significat immergere? Nihil prorsus refert, sive immergantur, sive aspergantur aquâ qui baptizantur. Sicut & illud planè Adiaphorum est, utrum unâ, duabus vel tribus vicibus id fiat, & sive front, sive pectore, sive corpore toto. Quia nullum ea de re Verbum aut Mandatum divinum extat. Modo Aqua secundum Institutionem debitâ ratione adhibeatur. Hafenreffar. Theolog. Loc. l. 3. Loc. 7. de Sacrament. p. 493.  §. 120. In the Year 1611. was Printed at Tubing, Hafenreffars Common Places, wherein, though he grant that Baptizo doth signify to dip, yet he saith, it matters not at all, whether the Baptised be dipped, or sprinkled with water, and whether on the forehead, breast, or whole body.  
§. 121. And thus without adding more, we have seen the judgement and practice of our Particular Church, agreeing with the judgement and practice of the Church Catholic, in all the former Ages of it. That the Church hath ever allowed of other Baptisms, besides a total immersion, and upon befitting occasions hath admitted of them. That the Church hath never declared any unlawfulness to be in other ways of baptising, besides that of a total dipping, nor pronounced the baptisms of such to be null and void, as were otherwise baptised. Let the Council, either General, or but Provincial, be produced, wherein any such Decree hath passed, and it shall have all becoming respect paid unto it. And can now any man, that owns any degree of Communion with the Catholic Church, be so uncatholick, (not to say ) as to charge upon that Church so high a crime, as to continue, through all the Ages of it, so gross an Error in it, as baptising by other ways than a total immersion is made, without so much as attempting the Reformation of it; yea, suffering it by degrees to gain such ground in it, as to become at length the General, almost the Universal practice of it? Can any man think that Church so deserted of the Spirit of Christ, and the gracious influences of his assisting presence, as not to be able to discern an error to be in this practice, if there were one? Or can any man think her so deficient in her fidelity to Christ, and care to keep what hath been committed to her, as not to have disowned it, opposed it, and condemned it, if she had judged any erroneousness to have been in it? She that hath appeared so brisk and vigorous in her oppositions of other errors, as to resist them even unto Blood, enduring the sharpest and heaviest of persecutions, rather than give way in the least unto them, how came she to be so staunch and tame in this, as calmly and coolly to let it slide along in her, from Age to Age, without giving the least stop or check unto it, or so much as setting any brand of infamy, or even remark of dislike upon, precisely upon the account of its being such? What? are all Baptisms, but total immersions, mere nullities? nay worse, mockages, and abusings; yea frauds and cheats, put upon the parties baptised? and would never a Church, never a Council, never a Father, once in so many years appear, in one Decree, in one Canon, in one Homily, in one Condemnation of them, and in vindication of the one only lawful, effectual way of baptising? What? had they all lost their senses? all their courages? all their honesties? that there should be never a one to stand up for the truth, and bid battle unto so pernicious an error? What? the Catholic Church turning Conspirator against itself, and contriving or conniving at a way of bringing members into itself, which must in the issue prove a turning of itself out of the Church, and a returning of it into the state of Heathen, or a condition next it? Let man endued with reason admit of so wild a thought if he can. He must efface all rationality from off his Soul, that can think any other, but that the Church in this concern hath demeaned herself with all integrity, neither acting therein without judgement, nor yet against her judgement. And if the Catholic Church be so innocent, than the Church of England cannot be guilty, which walks but in Communion with her, in the same judgement, and in the same practice.   

CHAP. XI. Answers to Authorities produced to the contrary, by Mr. Danvers, from divers Grammarians, Divines, and other Writers.  
§. 1. BUT methinks I see an Army of Authors drawn up in Battalia, 
Mr. Danvers Treat. of Bapt. Part. 2. ch. 4.  by a Major in Arts as well as Arms, and standing ready to attack my Hypothesis. I will first clear the way of them, and then pass on to other matter. And I am the more encouraged to the encounter, in regard I discern few, or no Volunteers among them, but most, or all Prest-men: which, when disengaged from the force put upon them by their Commander, may hap to face about and be for us, or at least to march off, without doing any thing at all on either side.  
§. 2. And the first that appear are Scapula and Stephens, two (as Mr. D. tells us) as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as any we have (and also great Defenders of Infant's Baptism) and they (as he saith) do tell us in their Lexicons, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo, immergo, submergo, obruo, item tingo, quod fit immergendo, inficere, imbuere, viz. To dip, plunge, overwhelm, put under, cover over, to die in colour, which is done by plunging.  
§. 3. If (say I) they be so great Masters of the Greek Tongue, than it is fit that their word be of suitable Authority with those that appeal to them; and in one thing as well as in another: else the Appellants take the Authority out of their hands, and make themselves the Judges of those, whose judicature they appeal unto. If that may be, things will do well enough. For then as we are to believe them, when they say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more especially to dip, so also when they say, that it signifies more generally to wash. And that they both do, though Mr. D. is not pleased to take notice of any such thing.  
§. 4. For Scapula, having first rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tingendi, aut abluendi gratiâ aquae immergimus, and again, mergo, submergo, obruo aquâ, adds, Item, (and it is an item fit to be adverted unto) abluo, lavo, to cleanse with washing, (and in general) to wash. So then by the judgement of this great Master of the Greek Tongue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, not only strictly to dip, but also more largely to wash: and then a baptism may be said to be, where there is a washing, though there be no dipping.  
§. 5. Then for Stephanus, having first (as did Scapula, who verbatim transcribes Stephanus) rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mergo, seu inmergo, ut quae tingendi, aut abluendi gratiâ aquae intingimui, and again mergo, id est, submergo, obruo aquâ, he afterwards adds (as Scapula from him hath done) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abluo, lavo; and after all renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by mersio, lotio, ablutio. So then with him, as with the other great Master of the Greek Tongue, to baptise is not only strictly to dip, but more largely to wash; and baptising is not only in strictness dipping, but in general any washing. And thus much for these two.  
§. 6. The next Mr. Danvers quotes is Grotius. And (saith he) Grotius tells us, it signifies to dip over head and ears.  
§. 7. Like enough: but we are not told where, that we might see, whether, if he say so, he do not say something more. And all he saith, being granted, signifies nothing, unless he had said, it always signifies so, and never (either in profane, or sacred Authors) any thing other, or less than so. But that is not said: and this great Man's saying, without that, stands but like a cipher without a Figure.  
§. 8. Pasor comes next, and tells, as Mr. D. informs us, that it signifies, an Immersion, Dipping, or Submersion.  
§. 9 But either Pasor saith not so: or else my eyes are so bad, that they cannot, no not with the help of Spectacles, read those words in him. In Pag. 133. he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by baptisma, and per Metaph. Afflictio; and pag. 134. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lotio and baptismus: but not a word of What he is quoted for. But perhaps the meaning is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion, Dipping, or Submersion. He doth indeed render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by immergo, but (what was not minded, or wilfully omitted) he adds also in the very next abluo: and after renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in Luc. 11.38.) by lavisset, had washed; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Marc. 7.4. by loti fuerint, wash. So then his bare saying of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it signifies immergo to dip, signifies nothing at all, unless he had spoken exclusively, as to all other significations of the Verb: whereas he doth not that; but expressly allows it the general signification of washing, according to the then current exposition of the Texts he citys for that signification of it. And so here's nothing to the purpose out of this Author neither.  
§. 10. Vossius succeeds him, and (as Mr. D. saith) tells us, ' that it implieth a washing the whole Body.  
§. 11. 'Twas modestly said by Vossius, if he did say it, and will find no contradiction, provided his meaning be not, that it always signify so, and never any thing other, or less. But where did Vossius say so? Mr. D. doth nor here tell us. But I suppose he means in his Disp. 1. de Baptismo, Thes. 1. pag. 343. For there he speaks directly, and distinctly of the import of the word. And Mr. D. hath said here nothing contrary unto what he there saith, only he tells us not all he said. He saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly notes mergere to dip, and that it is so explained in the old glossaries, first put forth by H. Stephanus, so as that it is more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to swim lightly at the top, and less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to go to the bottom to ones own destruction.  
§. 12. But first, if this be the proper import of the word in Profane Authors, unless it could be proved, that it were used in no other acception in the Holy Writers, the Argument makes nothing against the Church of England's Hypothesis: as I have elsewhere in these Papers made good.  
§. 13. Secondly Vossius saith (what Mr. D. was not pleased to take notice of) that because a thing uses commonly therefore to be dipped and wetted, that it may be washed, thence it is that, as the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which the LXX. render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is taken also for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to wash, so likewise among the Greeks is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Metalepsis used for the same, giving several instances thereof in Jud. 12.7. Sirac. 34.30. Marc. 7.4. Luk. 11.38. And that the baptisms of Pots, and Cups, of brazen Vessels and Beds, in Marc. 7.4, 8. ought not otherwise to be understood.  
§. 14. Thirdly, that, notwithstanding what the word in its proper acception did note out of the Church, Vossius thought sprinkling to suffice for a baptism in the Church, is evident by his express assertion hereof in his Thes. 9 p. 356. To which he adds as the reason, because in that there remains the substance of the Sacrament. And that in as much as in both there is an ablution, there may be seen a Sacramental analogy between the sprinkling of water, and that which is made with the blood of Christ. Now in fair dealing Mr. D. should as well have told us, what he said of the thing, as of the word; and of the grounds and way of his reconciliation of the one with the other: and then he had done ingenuously indeed. And if there had been no way of fair accommodation, then might this great Author, with all the weight of his reputation for deepness of Learning, and soundness of Judgement, have passed for as clear a witness for him, as he is now against him.  
§. 15. Mincaeus (as Mr. D. saith) in his Dictionary (tells us) That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus, in the Dutch Doopsel, or Doopen, English Baptism or Baptism, viz. to Dive, or Duck in water, and the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip.  
§. 16. I will not say, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify to dive or duck (if he will) in water (though I am not altogether satisfied with those words, when I remember they are words (especially the latter) whereby is expressed the manner of Ducks going into the Water, and consider what pleasances it would afford some Persons to see naked Men and Women go into the Water after that manner; and cannot call to mind, that ever any Men, or Women went, or were put, so, into the Water, when they were baptised, but after a way of more gravity and modesty) nor but that it is the same in sense with the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip: But then I must add, that its signifying thus much, doth not prove that it signifies no more; it's signifying this doth not prove (what Mr. D. undertakes to prove, and for the proof whereof, as I suppose, he produces all these Testimonies) that the word we call Baptism is nothing else, but to dip, plunge (as they love also to speak, though I am not over-well satisfied with that neither, it having never been the use of the Church to plunge Men, according to the propriety of that word, into Rivers or Fonts, when they were baptised, but for themselves to go into them, or by others to be fairly put into them, if they were such as could not go in of themselves) or cover all over. In plain English, (as Mr. D. speaks) it's like the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies that, and something else; to dip in particular, and to wash in general, as the Learned in the Oriental Languages say, and hath been showed in these Papers. Nor is this contradicted by Mincaeus. And thus much for him.  
The next, that is brought in to charge us, is Leigh (as Mr. D. is pleased without any the least title of respect to introduce that honourable Gentleman) and he (as Mr. D. tells us) in his Critica Sacra, saith, It's native and proper signification is to dip into water, or to plunge under water; for which he citys these Scriptures, where so used, viz. Matth. 3.6. (it should be 16. Act. 8.38. And that it is taken from a Dyer's Fat, and imports a Dying, or giving a fresh Colour, and not a bare washing only, Rev. 19.13. And for which he quotes Casaubon, Bucan, Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius. He saith withal, That some would have it signify washing, and which sense Erasmus, he saith, opposed, affirming, that it was not otherwise so, than by consequence, for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging, as Dyers use for Dying of Clothes.  
§. 17. It is comfortable, that the Author is to be easily had, and the place consulted. And for answer hereto little need be said to him, that shall consult the place. The first view, that shall be taken of it, will sufficiently vindicate Mr. Leigh, and the truth. And because it is material, and all Persons, that shall be concerned in this debate, may not be in condition to consult, or make the best advantage of that passage of that Author; therefore I will here by degrees give a total transcription of it.  
§. 18. It is true, Mr. Leigh saith, That the native and proper signification of it is to dip into water, or to plunge under water, for which he citys Matth. 3.16. Act. 8.38. and also (what Mr. D. omits) John 3.22, 23.  
§. 19 But first I have made it appear in these Papers, that neither Matth. 3.16. nor Act. 8.38. prove that signification of the word. A baptising they prove; but not a dipping.  
§. 20. Secondly, though it be probable from John 3.22. that the baptising in Aenon was by dipping, yet that is not so much from the force of the word, as from that addition of the reason of John's baptising there, which was, because there was much water there. And yet, if a Man would dispute it stiffly, even that reason will not demonstratively prove it. This it will prove, that it was a place of great conveniency for John's purpose to baptise confluences of People in: (1.) Because there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not deep, but many waters there. That may mean this, and nothing else but this, that there were there many several places of conveniency for baptising, by reason of the wind in and out of the Brook, Maeander-wise, so that one company might be privately fitting and preparing themselves for baptism in one place, whilst John was administering it to another company in another place, or here a company of Men by themselves, and there a company of Women by themselves, as afterward in the Christian Church there were distinct apartments in the Baptisteries for the Men, and for the Women; and so the actions of stripping themselves, and going into, and coming out of the water naked, might be performed with more decency, and less observance; not with that disturbance to the company, not with that violence unto modesty, which must needs be, where the baptising place was but one, and the multitudes to be baptised all together. And (2.) this is still the more probable, if we imagine any Women were baptised there also, as well as Men. And it is reasonable enough to imagine it, when it is said, Matth. 3.5, 6. that there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him; and when it is remembered, that the Women also among the Jews were admitted unto Proselytism by Baptism, as well as the Men. For great caution and respect unto the Feminine modesty was had amongst that jealous as well as lustful People in the baptising of their Women, that neither themselves might be put to the blush, nor others have any lascivious thoughts stirred up in them by any thing seen, or observable, in the baptising of them. And if this be a probable account of the reason given for John's baptising in Aenon, because of the many waters there (and I appeal even unto Mr. D. himself whether it be not) than can that reason conduce nothing to the proving, that the baptism performed there was by dipping. For not the multitude of waters, but the deepness and wideness of the water, had been proper to have been alleged in that case. And John might baptise many persons, and companies of Persons, in these many several, and not far distant waters, and yet dip none of them totally in any of them. And this is all it will prove.  
§. 21. But thirdly, though it might be infallibly proved from these, or any other places, that the baptism, then and there, was by dipping, yet that can only prove, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip; and is sometimes used in that sense: (and we that are for dipping as well as for sprinkling, are willing it should signify the one, as well as the other) but it cannot prove, that it signifies nothing more but to dip, and is never used in any other signification. And this indeed is the great mistake, that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth (and, if ye will, primarily and properly) to dip, therefore they will not grant, that it signifieth any thing else, especially in the administration of Baptism. Whereas it hath a latitude in its import and use, as well as most words else have, and is granted so to have by Learned Authors, in that Sacrament, and particularly by Mr. Leigh, the Author quoted by Mr. D. against it, as we shall see instantly.  
§. 22. For, so he gins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptizo, often. And then he goes on (whether as speaking his own sense, or Dr. Featlyes', or his own sense in Dr. Featlyes' words, whose name I see set in the end of the Period) The word Baptise, though it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ringo, to dip, or plunge into the water, and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks, where Linen is plunged and dipped: yet it is taken more largely for any kind of washing, rinsing, or cleansing, even where there is no dipping at all, as Matth. 3.11. and 20.22. Mark 7.4. and 10.38. Luk. 3.16. Act. 1.5. and 11.16. 1 Cor. 10.2. This Mr. D. should, methinks, have taken notice of, as well as of that which he transcribed, and reported this too to have been Mr. Leigh's sense of the word, as well as the other, if he had meant to do right to Mr. Leigh, and not be disingenuous both to the truth and him. For whilst unwary people hear only what Mr. D. saith from Mr. Leigh, and hear not also what Mr. Leigh saith of himself, they are apt to think, that what Mr. D. reports from him, is all that Mr. Leigh said of the thing, and that he was of Mr. Danvers' judgement, imbued with the same Sentiments with him, dipped into the same error that he is.  
§. 23. But Mr. Leigh goes on, and from himself and others tells us, of six several acceptions of the word; the five first of which Mr. D. slips by, and reports only the Sixth and last, as if that were (as who, that saw no more reported from him, could think any other, but that it was?) Mr. Leighs only sense of the word; with how much ingenuity I leave to himself and others to judge.  
§ 24. It is put (saith Mr. Leigh) 1. generally, for washing, Luk. 11.38. Heb. 9.10. Mark 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they baptised themselves. This he strengthens by the Authority of Dr. Featly and Vossius, as follows. Christ no where requireth dipping, but only baptising: which word (as Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula, and Budaeus, the great Masters of the Greek Tongue, make good by very many instances, and allegations out of Classic Writers) importeth no more than ablution or washing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (say they in their Lexicons and Commentaries) lavo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavatio, ablutio, which may be done without dipping. Dr. Featly against the Anabaptists. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propriè notat mergere: sed quia ferè aliquid mergi ac tingi solet, ut lavetur atque abluatur, hinc pro lavare usurpatur, Mark 7.4, 8. Luk. 11.38. A priore notione quae mergere significat, profluxit ea, quae pro affligere usurpatur: Quia qui affliguntur, calamitatum gurgite quasi merguntur. Vossius in Thesibus. Then goes on Mr. Leigh, descanting as I suppose on Mark 7.4. (the Text last named by himself, (the Two Testimonies from Dr. Featly and Vossius coming in by way of Parenthesis) It implieth the washing of the whole body: There we read also of the washing of cups, pots, vessels, tables. After this account of what it signifies generally, he goes on to show that it is put 2. Figuratively, to plunge into great afflictions, Matth. 20.22. Mark 10.38. Luk. 12.50. Baptismus non significat afflictionem quamlibet, sed vehementem, & forinsecus irruentem, ut sunt in Scriptures undae persecutionum & tribulationum, quibus qui merguntur & obruuntur, baptizari videantur. Estius ad 1 Cor. 15. v. 29. 3. To sprinkle or wash one's body Sacramentally, Matth. 3.11. (This Mr. D. should in justice to the Author have taken notice of.) 4. It is taken for the whole work and action of the Sacrament of Baptism, as Matth. 28.19. 5. To wash the Conscience Spiritually, Matth. 3.11. Act. 1.6. 6. The native and proper signification of it (which Mr. D. only takes notice of, overleaping all the rest) is to dip into water, or to plunge under water. Joh. 3.22, 23. Matth. 3.16. Act. 8.38. To all which places I have spoken in these Papers, showing it not proved even from them.  
§. 25. After this immediately Mr. D. adds, (as if spoken by Mr. Leigh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as all the rest that went before is) And that it is taken from a Dyers Fat, and imports a Dying, or giving a fresh colour, and not a bare washing only, Rev. 19.13. And for which he quotes Casaubon, Bucan, Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius. But (not to urge upon Mr. D. that thence it would follow, that in Baptism men ought to be died, and have a fresh colour given them, or else they are not baptised) Mr. Leigh saith not this of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which, by the way, are not words of exactly equal import, for why else is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for baptising, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?) which he renders intingor from Rev. 19.13. which yet I have shown to signify nothing of dipping in that place, but to be meant only of dying or staining, and that without dipping. Nor doth he quote those Authors to prove this: but to prove what he had said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to the last signification he had given it: to which he immediately subjoins their Testimonies, however Mr. D. pulls them asunder from what they were set to prove, and chaps in other matter betwixt. Their Testimonies, as Mr. Leigh quotes them, are. Tanquam ad tingendum mergo. Casaub. Immergo, abluo. Bucan. Mergo & tingo. Bullinger. Propriè significat immergo, submergo, obruo aquâ. Zanchius. Videtur copiam, & abundantiam, perfectam quandam perfusionem denotare. Aret. I wonder why Mr. D. did not Transcribe their Testimonies, unless it were because he saw among them abluo, and tingo as differing from mergo, which he was not willing his Reader should know. And why he left out Aretius, unless it was because he makes it to signify perfusionem a pouring on of water, which he had no mind neither to have known. As for Spanhemius he saith nothing there. Only Mr. Leigh refers to him to see what he saith of these Verbs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Dub. Evang. part. 3. Dub. 24. And it may be wondered also, why he skipped over what Mr. Leigh saith by the way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but that there was something fit to be concealed. On the first word Mr. Leigh saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptisma (1.) Dipping into water, (that would have done well; but the next that follows would not, and so it was left out) or washing with water, often. 1 Pet. 3.21. (2.) Ministry, and Doctrine of John, Act. 19.3. Mark 1. ver. 4. On the second Mr. Leigh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptismus, Mark 7.18. Heb. 6.2. and 9.10. Then he adds a quotation from Zepperus de Sacramentis; which Mr. D. could well have found in his heart doubtless to have added, (for he doth quote it afterward in another place, when he hath drawn it from its company, as if from his own reading, whereas I make no question, but he had it here; and I shall answer it, when I come at it) but that there followed it immediately a quotation from Danaeus, which he had no mind to, which is this. Deducitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, è quibus illud propriè tingere significat: hoc autem immergere, maxim verò aquae: Quia verò qui ex aquis emergunt, loti & candidi & mundi apparent, idcirco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro lotione, & mundatione in Sacrâ Scripturâ ferè accipitur. Heb. 9 ver. 10. Luk. 11.38. Mark 7.4. Danaeus Isag. Christ. l. 5. de Sacramentis. c. 21. He saw there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered tingere; and tingere contradistinguished from immergere; that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was frequently in Scripture taken for washing, and cleansing; and that, if I may guests, was the thing that scared him.  
§. 26. But after all this Mr. D. hath a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a salvo to save himself whole from any thing that can be said against him for his omissions; and to that I shall now attend him. He tells us, that he [i. e. Mr. Leigh] saith withal, that some would have it to signify washing (he might have been so kind as to have told us who) and which sense Erasmus (he saith) opposed, affirming that it was not otherwise so, than by consequence: for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of clothes.  
§. 27. He should have told us, that it was the sense of Mr. Leigh himself, as well as of others. But then Mr. Leigh's Testimony had been against him, as well as for him, and so had signified nothing to his advantage. For to grant it signifies dipping, and yet to say (as Mr. Leigh doth) that it signifies sprinkling too, spoils all, and will do the Dippers no service.  
§. 28. And whereas he tells us, that Mr. Leigh saith, Erasmus opposed that sense, affirming that it was not otherwise so, than by consequence. I answer first, that if it be but any way so, whether directly, or by consequence, it is all one to our purpose, and will do our business as well. Let it but signify washing, and that as distinct from dipping, and then whether it signify so directly, or by consequence, baptising will not necessarily import dipping. Secondly, I answer, that Mr. Leigh doth not say, that Erasmus opposed that Sense. But that which he saith is this, that whereas the Vulg. Latin rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Mark 7.4. by baptizentur, he tells us in his Margin from Beza on Mark 7. that Erasmus deservedly changed it: inasmuch as in that place the discourse is not of that solemn washing, whereunto (saith Beza) now by long usage of all Churches the term of Baptism hath been Dedicated and Consecrated. Nor indeed, saith Beza, (not Erasmus) doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify lavare, but by consequence: for properly it signifies to dip in order unto dying: which he proves by instances from Plutarch and Nazianz. as may be seen in his Notes, on Mark 7. v. 4. Nor does any body deny its signifying to dip, the granting of it being no way prejudicial to our Hypothesis, which proceeds not on what the word primarily and strictly noteth in its first imposition and use, but on what it is used, secondarily and more generally, to import in the Scriptures and Ecclesiastical Writers; and that as we have showed in these Papers, is a washing in order unto the attaining of those Spiritual ends ordained by the Institutor of that Sacrament, however performed, whether by Dipping or by Sprinkling, by putting into water, or by pouring of water on the Party baptised. And the Reader of this Author's Writings may do well from hence to take warning, that he be not too hasty in giving credit to such a Writer's quotations, as in his reports from Authors takes a liberty to chop and change, to put in or leave out, as may best serve, not the truth, but his own advantage.  
§. 28. I cannot, before I pass hence, but propose to the consideration of Mr. D. or any else that insist on that Notion of Beza's, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to dip in order unto dying; whether any dipping that is done, not in order unto dying, be properly a Baptism, or no? If not, then, unless they dip, when they baptise, in order unto dying, theirs is no baptism, no more than ours: because though theirs be a dipping, yet it is not a Dipping in order unto Dying. If it be, as they must say it is, because it is impossible otherwise to justify their own way to be a lawful baptising; then I infer, either that Christians are not bound to stand always, no not in Sacramental rites, to the proper and strict significations of words, and so we are free from blame, as to that, in what we practise, as well as they: or else they are guilty in what they practise, as well as we; in that they deviate in their practice from the Divine Institution, not acting according to the proper import of the word in it. For though they stick close to the Act, and dip, yet they deviate from the End of the Act, and dip not for dying. And it is the End that specifies the Action.  
§. 29. And again I propose, whether the insisting so strictly on this Notion of the word do not tend to the strengthening of the Papists in their notion of an Indelible Character introduced by Baptism on the Soul. For if baptising be, according to the proper signification of the word, a dipping in order unto dying; and there is no Dye brought by the baptismal water on the body; it remains that by baptising there be a die brought upon the Soul, and that is, or may be the Character they contend for. If this be not to be granted, then is not that Notion fit to be received, or insisted on, but to be cashiered. The next Author that calls for our attendance is Salmatius. And he in his Book de Prim. Papae, p. 193. saith (as Mr. D. tells us) That is not Baptism they give to Children, but Rhantism.  
§. 30. I hope Mr. D. reports the Author right; not having him by me to examine. And if it be true, that he so say, (which the Reader may do well to demur upon, till he have the opportunity to see it in the Author) than I answer to him, that the word Baptism may be considered either more strictly, as signifying in particular, immersion or dipping, as it is mostly used in Profane Authors; or more largely, as signifying in general, any washing, and, as it is used in Christian Writers, to denote that Sacramental washing, whereby we are initiated into the Church, however performed, whether by putting into water, or by pouring water upon. If we take Baptism in the first and strict sense, than it is not Baptism they give to Children: for sprinkling is not dipping. But if we take it in the second, than it is: for to sprinkle with the due form of words is to baptise. And so this Testimony is either impertinent, or untrue. Let Mr. D. choose which he will have it to be.  
§. 31. After him follows Casaubon, and He in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. annexed to the New Testament set forth by Stephens, (as Mr. D. tells us) saith, That immerging was the Proper Right in Baptism, which the word itself (he saith) sufficiently declares, which as it signifies not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a going down to the bottom, without any ascending; so not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a swimming like a Cork above the water, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a going down, and coming up again.  
§. 32. Mr. Casaubon doth indeed say, This was a baptising Rite (or Ceremony in Baptism) that they were dipped into the waters. But he doth not say, either that immersion was total of the whole Person, which is the thing in question; 
Hic enim fuit baptizandi ritus, ut in aquas immergerentur.  or that, if it were so, it was the proper rite of baptism, as if there were no other rite but that. That word [proper] wherein the whole stress of the Testimony lies, is an Addition to his words. And at this rate what may not any Man make any Man say? Yea but that was his meaning, for the word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently declares it, which as it signifies not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a going down to the bottom without ascending; so not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a swimming like a Cork above the water, as Mr. D. reports him. But Mr. Casaub. doth not so explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He only saith it means to go to the bottom to ones hurt or destruction, if ye will. 
Est fundum petere cum sua pernicie.  But one may go down to the bottom, and come up again without either his destruction or hurt any way. And so many have done in their baptising. And what ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive use imports, it is not in the Ecclesiastical use of it exclusive of what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, else those that went down to the bottom, must not be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and then many supposed anciently to have been baptised, will prove not to have been so. For, contrary to what he saith, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to go down to the bottom, is by St. Athanasius 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Athanas. q. 94. de Interp. Parab. Script. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. de S. Sp. c. 15.  used of baptising; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by St. Basil used to express the act of baptising; unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not signify the same with the verbs compounded of it. And then, if they signify to go down to the bottom, it must not signify so much (which yet it doth, if fundum petere do so signify.) And then if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be neither to swim at the top, nor to go down to the bottom, What will it signify other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which yet is quite contrary to Mr. Casaubon, who saith, non significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it signifies not that.  
§. 33. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mr. Casaubon explains it not. But Mr. D. doth, calling it a swimming like a Cork above the water. And truly I think the manner of baptising was never such, as that Children, or others, swum in the waters on that fashion, like Corks, whilst they were baptising. But as for some other words, by which Scapula explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. in superficie sum, exto, existo, to be on, or appear out of the surface or top, I think that which they signify reconcileable with some ways of baptising, and theirs particularly, whose baptising is but a partial mersation, a dipping of their heads or faces into the water.  
§. 34. But supposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Mr. Casaubon saith, What signifies it then? Mr. D. tells you (not Mr. Casaubon) that it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Good. It puts me in mind of the story of the old Countryman, who being to explain, what was meant by an inundation, very gravely did it thus, An inundation is, as if a Man should say, an inundation. So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 35. But however we are told, what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, a going down, and coming up again. Going or putting down may be in the import of it, but coming up again is not. Unless to go down be the same thing with coming up, or coming up the same thing with going down. And the Fathers have other words for that part of the Ceremony, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. D. Chrys.  viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as appears from St. Athanasius in the place before mentioned; as also from St. chrysostom. Hom. 40. on 1 Corinth.  
§. 36. But after all this, was Mr. Casaubon an Anabaptist? or did he in his judgement think a total immersion necessary unto Baptism, so as that nothing less than that was a baptising? but all a mere nullity? No such matter. He tells you indeed, that some, who long before had disputed for that Ceremony, had somewhat whereon they grounded their dispute: for they urged the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But, saith he, these men's opinion hath long since been deservedly exploded: in as much as the force and energy of this mystery doth not lie in that. So then with him baptism is good, though not by a total immersion. And it is plain he was satisfied on other accounts, in the lawfulness of sprinkling, whatever he thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signify. And this should have been told us with the rest upon fair play.  
§. 37. Pindarus (to go on with his Authors) in his Ode 2. calls a Cork swimming upon the face of the waters unbaptised; and Plutarch a ship floating on the water unbaptised.  
§. 38. This looks like an Argument indeed, and is in a manner the only one that I have met withal, that hath the look of one. And if we were of necessity bound up by the Heathenish signification of the word, and had no way of relaxation from it, it would be of some moment. But both the force of it is taken off in general; and it is at large answered to in particular, in these Papers. ch. 8. & ch. 5. Sect. 18. etc.  
§. 39 Beza (to proceed) saith (as Mr. D. tells us) that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to Die by dipping or washing, and differs from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to drown, or go down to the bottom as a stone.  
§. 40. Supposing Mr. D. to have rightly quoted him, and that Beza did say so, hence it will follow, that in strict speaking according to the propriety of the word, none now are baptised, even amongst the Dippers themselves, (1.) Because none of those whom they dip, are died by their dipping; the deepest water they dip them in, gives them a wash, if ye will, but not a die. If it do, 'twere well we knew it, that we might know them, as well as they one another by it. (2.) Because, in regard they baptise no Infants, (whose way of baptising, when dipped, as anciently most were, was to be put so under the water, as neither to swim at the top, nor go down like a stone to the bottom, but to be for the time they stayed in the water, betwixt both) but baptise all Adult persons, all the persons, whom they baptise, go down to the bottom, though indeed not hurled into the River, and sinking to the bottom like Stones, yet going into it of themselves on their feet, and having their heads and upper parts of their bodies put down further towards the bottom by their Dipper. Now methinks they should not press upon us, strictness of significations of words, whose own practice is liable to be pressed, even by us, with strictness of significations of words, of their own giving, or owning.  
§. 41. But having consulted the place here referred to by Mr. D. I do not find one such word in it. So that unless he quoted from an Edition differing from mine, instead of being a Quoter, Mr. D. is become the Author of those words.  
§. 42. But suppose there had, what is the advantage to his cause by it, when the truth by us contended for is granted, even by the Testimony produced by him against it? For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify to die by dipping, or washing, then, unless dipping and washing be exactly Synonymous, and signify just the same thing, which not Mr. D. himself will say, if there be a Dying by washing, though not by dipping, yet that will be a Baptism by this Testimony, which tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to Die by washing, as well as by dipping; which is the thing in question.  
§. 43. Yet there is something said by Beza on that Text, which may seem to favour Mr. Danvers. And 'tis a wonder, that he, that can find an advantage, where there is none, would overlook one, where it seems to be. For Beza saith, Baptizandi verbum, the word to Baptise, rather answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if it do, still that will not do the business, for I have shown in these Papers (ch. 7.) from Dr. Pocock, that that word also is not always necessarily to be understood of a total immersion. And Beza himself doth not contradict this, For he doth not say, that it answers absolutely and strictly to this, and not at all to the other, but rather to this than to the other word. Which in English is thus much, that it answers to both, but yet is seldomer used in the sense of the latter, than of the former; which I believe to be the very truth. But it is not the least tittle of advantage that Mr. D. gains to his cause thereby, if granted him with the greatest liberality of Concession, as I have elsewhere showed.  
§. 44. And there is something also on that Text, which it need not be wondered if Mr. D. did overlook. This it is, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by an Idiotism of the Hebrews, amongst whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declares every sort of cause, and is omitted by Luke, who followed not the Hebrew Dialect so much as the other three Evangelists. His meaning was, that was, here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a redundant, needlessly added to the case of the Instrument, as is apparent from what he saith after, of the same Particle when joined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter end of the verse. And he tells you, that he notes this, lest any should think there was any force in this Particle, which they seem to be persuaded of, who do not think children rightly baptised, unless they be totally dipped. And in his Note on Mark 1.8. where the same Preposition comes again with the same words, he saith, of the Pleonasm (i. e. redundancy) of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have spoke elsewhere, which truly is to be noted in this place, lest any altogether unskilful person should take in aqua for intra aquam: of which kind of fopperies the books of Sophisters are full.  
§. 45. And though Beza do elsewhere declare that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signify tingendi causâ immergere, to dip in order unto dying, and that it signifies not to wash, but by consequence: yet (1.) he doth not always render it by immergo, but sometime by lavo; and particularly in Mark 7.4. where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath loti fuerint, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lotiones: and on Luke 11.38. he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 means the same in that place, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do, i. e. in general to wash, and particularly to wash the hands: of which I have spoke before, ch. 5. And (2.) in his Ep. 2. (Tract. Theolog. Vol. 3. p. 195.) he maintains them to be rightly baptised, who are baptised but by sprinkling, though the word do signify dipping; no diminution being made of baptism by the change of a circumstance in it, whilst what is substantial in it is retained, as I shall show more at large in these Papers, c. penult. But to go on,  
§. 46. Selden (that University of Scholars in one man, and a Gentleman not to be mentioned without some signification of respect, though here he have none given him.) De Jure Nat. etc. l. 2. c. 2. (as Mr. D. tells us) saith, That the Jews (from whom this Rite is conceived to come) took the Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptised, to be void.  
§. 47. I believe Mr. D. to be fair in this report, though I have not the Author to consult. But I Answer, First, that Christians are not so scrupulous about the business as the Jews were. Nor do I believe, Mr. Danvers himself, or any of his party, would think a baptism void, in case one hair of a head should chance to miss dipping, as a Jew would. Some few may have anciently questioned the lawfulness of the baptism, that is not administered by a total immersion (though I remember but one, that did it:) and of late some more have done it. But the generality of Christians both are; and have been anciently satisfied with it, though done other ways. And in some circumstantial point, a thing may fail of being exactly according to the accurate prescription of the Law, or Rule of Custom, and yet not be invalid for all that, whilst nothing of substance is omitted, as for instance, a Marriage without a Ring; or a Baptism without a Cross. Though it should not have been done so, yet being so done it will stand good. Fieri non debuit, factum valuit. Yea Mr. Selden quotes a saying from the Rabbis,— Ideo nec Sabbato Baptismus rite satis adhibebatur, nec die festo, nec noctu. Quibus temporibus nihilominus si forte adhiberetur, Proselytus quidem is erat qui sic baptizatus. Actus scilicet (saith Mr. Selden) non irritus erat, tametsi fieri non debuisset. Seld. de Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 2. p. 143.  
§. 48. Secondly, I answer, that unless Christians had been indispensably obliged by some Precept, to an exact conformity herein with the Jews, their practice is no Tie on us. But as the Dippers, I think, are unable to prove the one, so I hope I have satisfactorily in these Papers proved the other, v. ch. 8.  
§. 49. Mr. Daniel Rogers (to pass on to him) in his Treatise of Sacraments, Part. 1. c. 8. p. 177. (it should be ch. 5. p. 69. and 70.) saith, as Mr. D. reports him, That the Minister is to dip in Water, as the meetest Act; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it, for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides Dipping, if the Institution could bear it. What resemblance of the Burial or Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling? All Antiquity and Scripture, saith he, confirm that way. To dip therefore is exceeding material to the Ordinance; which was the usage of old, without exception of Country's hot or cold.  
§. 50. A very smart, and pressing Testimony this; if all be as Mr. D. reports it. But here to see the luck of it, (good or bad, let Mr. D. look to that) he hath not given us Mr. Rogers' words in full, nor in the order he spoke them, but hath picked out here and there, what he thought good, leaving the rest. A way of proceeding, this, by which a man may be made to say what one will. But I will not go about to charge him with wronging Mr. Rogers in the whole of his sense, who speaks much to the same purpose, though not exactly in those words. And yet I cannot find in Mr. Roger's the very first, and those very material words, [That the Minister is to dip in water as the meetest Act.] Nor those words [the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it.] But something there is, that is near it, if Mr. D. would have spoke it out. (And it is pity he should either muzzle his Author, or ham-string his own Pen.) But than it would not have been for his purpose. For he says, the word baptised signifieth the true Act of the Minister to dip or dop the body, or some part of it into the water. This one word [or some part of it] hath quite spoiled all Mr. Roger's Testimony, as to the doing of the Dippers any service in their cause. For nothing will serve their turn to be done in baptism, or signified by the word baptise, but a total dipping of the whole body, and Mr. Roger's Testimony reaches but a dipping of the body, or some part of it into the water.  
§. 51. And that this was not an expression, that fell casually from him, but was his very judgement, appears by what he said before, That it ought to be the Church's part to cleave to the Institution, especially it being not left arbitrary by our Church to the discretion of the Minister, but required (as it then was) to dip or dive the Infant more or less, except in case of weakness. A dipping, total or partial, the Man would have: but so there was but either, the Institution was cleaved to, and the Church's order observed, so far as I can perceive, in his judgement.  
§. 52. And that, as warm as Mr. Rogers was for retriving the use of Dipping, as witnessed to by Antiquity, approved by Scripture, required by the Church (as then it was, with not so much appearance of liberty in the case granted to the Minister, as now is) and Symbolical with the things signified in Baptism, which I could wish as well as, and as hearty as he, in order to the making of peace in the Church, if that would do it, I say, that he was only so for dipping, as yet not to hold any unlawfulness to be in sprinkling, there is sufficient evidence, because he thinks, that for the allowance of that, in case of weakness, we have cause to be thankful. And I presume his zeal was only against those, that stretched the liberty of the Church in this case deeper and further, than either the Church herself could, or the solemnness of this Sacrament might well and safely admit, as himself speaks. And as in the beginning of this Section he saith, I would not be understood, as if Schismatically I would instill a distaste of the Church into any weak minds by the act of sprinkling water only: so in the end of it he saith again, I do not speak this as a thing meet to disturb a Church's peace, but as desiring such as it concerns, in their places to look to their liberty and duty in this behalf.  
§. 53. And I shall conclude with a wish, that the Quoter of him would have but the same thoughts of it, as his Author had, and there would soon be an agreement with him and the Church, which requires dipping, but allows sprinkling, on just reason for it. And if he had any Children to be baptised, he might have them dipped, and totally too in it, if he desired it. And I must needs say, that if there be any failure in this case, and perhaps there may be some, it is not in the Church, nor in her Orders; for by them dipping is prescribed, unless where an inability well to endure it in the Infant is certified; but in the Actors, and if any way at all in the Baptizer, yet mostly, if not solely, in the Bringers of the Infants unto Baptism; which every Man may have, as to his own concern, amended and reform at his pleasure. Nay, if I may speak my thoughts, I believe the Ministers of the Nation would be hearty glad, if the People would desire, or be but willing to have their Infants dipped, after the ancient manner both in this and in other Churches, and bring them to Baptism in such a condition, as that they might be totally dipped, without fear of being destroyed.  
§. 54. Dr. Taylor (so Mr. D. goes on) in his Rule of Conscience, l. 3. c. 4. If you would attend to the proper signification of the word, Baptism signifies plunging in water, or dipping with washing.  
§. 55. I am not willing to say it, yet am apt to suspect it, that Mr. D. is the Author of those words, and not Dr. Taylor. My reason is, because he gives us no particular direction to the place where they may be found. He quotes indeed, l. 3. c. 4. but he names not the Section, Rule, Number, nor Page. And he had need have more time and leisure than I, that shall make it his business to read over a Chapter of an hundred and ten pages in Folio, to find whether he speak true or no. He names afterward, when he had a mind to be found, l. 3. c. 4. p. 644, 645. Why not here? I have showed my suspicion, and my reason to suspect. And I am strengthened therein by this, that (as I shall show afterwards) he quotes a saying of Musculus, on Matth. 3. at large, without naming verse of the Chapter, or Page of the Book, and, as upon diligent search I have found, there are no such words said by Musculus on that Chapter. And though I have not read all this Chapter, yet I have read all the places in it, which speak of Baptism, as far as I can find direction thereto by the Index: And no such words appear to me therein. Nay, a Friend of mine, that hath twice perused the whole Chapter, upon the mere design of finding that passage in it, assures me that it is not there. And if it were, the answer thereto is very easy, that though what he names were the proper signification of the word, it doth not follow, that it must be taken in no other but that proper signification in Baptism; in regard words are not in all places, and upon all occasions, used in no other but that which is their proper signification; but sometimes in acceptions very different, and remote from the first; as he that is but a little acquainted with Rhetoric can tell. And this word in particular hath in the Ecclesiastical use of it (by a Metalepsis, or a Synecdoche of the Species for the Species) been of ancient time, even up to the beginning, for aught that any Man can prove to the contrary, used to signify that Sacramental washing, which we call baptism, though not performed by that specifical way of dipping, but by any other way of washing, whether it be perfusion, affusion, or aspersion.  
§. 56. Mr. Joseph Mede is the next witness produced by Mr. Danvers. And he in his Diatribe, on Tit. 3.2. saith, That there was no such thing as sprinkling or Rhantism used in Baptism in the Apostles days, nor many Ages after them.  
§. 57 To this I answer, (1.) If Mr. Mede had said, he knew of no such thing, or had read of no such thing, it had been an expression suitable to his modesty. But positively to say, There was no such thing, seems a stretch somewhat too far beyond what ought to have been said. It is easy to say of a thing, that it was done in the Apostles days, when there appears just evidence for it. But who can say what was not done in the Days of the Apostles? Unless he had read (what yet I am apt to think Mr. Mede himself, as great a Searcher into Antiquities as he was, would not have pretended to have read, viz.) all that has been writ of what was done in the Apostles days: and withal unless all that was done in their days had been written too, which no Man with any the least appearance of reason can pretend to say. But great Men sometimes take a pleasure to say great things, and think that their greatness carries authority enough with it to bear them out in all they say. But it will not, beyond reason, when what they say comes to be examined by reason. And so this great Man's word here is of no more weight, than a great Man's word can be without its ground, whereof here he gives us none.  
§. 58. And on the contrary to what he faith, I have in Ch. 10. shown fair probabilities even of a sprinkling or Rhantism used in Baptism even in the Apostles days. Unto which I may now here add, that if there be any soundness in their exposition of that difficult Text [1 Cor. 15.29. What shall they do that are baptised for the dead? 
Vnde etiam super Sepulchris baptizabantur in veteri Ecclesia, qui super mortuis baptizari dicuntur. 1 Cor. 15.29. Voss. de Sacrament. efficacià, disp. 1. Thes. 29. p. 302. ] who expound there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for, but over the dead; grounding their exposition on a Custom in the Ancient Church to baptise the living over the Graves of the dead, this gives a further probability unto it; it being nothing so likely that in such places they were dipped (there being neither Rivers nor Fonts there) as that they were sprinkled. And that we find it in most Ages after the Apostles, and can find no Original of it in any Age after theirs, this is probability enough of its being in use even in their Age.  
§. 59 Secondly, whereas Mr. Mede saith, it was not used many Ages after the Apostles days (unless he mean, that it was not used solemnly and in public, but only in private, and upon cases of necessity, in which, if he say it, he doth not contradict us) I am not able to say, it is true, having by sufficient instances already in these Papers demonstrated the contrary. And if what Mr. Danvers saith (p. 204.) be true, that until the Third Century we find not any, that upon any consideration, did admit of sprinkling, yet if any in that Age did admit it, than there was such a thing as Sprinkling or Rhantism used in Baptism (quite contrary to what Mr. Mede saith, and that even by the confession of Mr. D.) not many Ages after the Apostles, Unless any will say, that the Third Century was many Ages after the First, which yet I think none that understands Number and Multitude will say. And that some body in that Age did admit of it Mr. D. is our witness, who quotes Cyprian for it in his Epistle to Magnus, l. 4. ep. 7. Where he pleads for the baptising of the sick by Sprinkling, and not by dipping or pouring, called the Clinical Baptism, Magd. Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 126. As also for the Sprinkling of new converted Prisoners in the Prison house. And which by degrees afterwards they brought in use for sick Children also, and then afterwards all children. So that by this Testimony little is gained to the cause more than what the credit of the bare name of Mr. Mede can give to it. But amicus Socrates, amicus Plato, magis tamen amica veritas.  
§. 60. But what, after all this, if Mr. Mede in saying, no such thing was used, did not mean, that no such thing was done, but that it was not done so oft, as that the doing of it might be called an use; as if he had said, no such thing was come up, or grown into use, or to be an use? Then is his saying clearly reconcileable with what we say. For we contend but for the doing of it on some occasions; not for its being the use so to do. And methinks his saying that no such thing was used many Ages after the Apostles, must needs enforce that to be his meaning. For Mr. Mede was too knowing a Person in Antiquity, to be ignorant of it, that such a thing as Sprinkling or Rhantism was done within few Ages after the Apostles (and particularly St. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus must needs tell him it was done in the Third) though he knew it was not come so soon to be the use. And if that be his meaning, then are his words nothing at all to the purpose of Mr. D. as speaking but the same that we say. If not, I shall add no more, but that Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus, it was a slip of his unwary Pen, whilst his thoughts were more intent upon other matter.  
§. 61. Chamier succeeds Mr. Mede (one great man after another) and from his Pan. Cathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6. Mr. D. quotes this. The ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element, which is the force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: therefore did John Baptise in a River, which is, nevertheless changed into aspersion, though uncertain when, and from whence that Custom was taken.  
§. 62. To this I Answer First, that if Chamier did say, that the Ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole body into the Element, than his meaning only was, that it was anciently the more general or more constant, or public and solemn, but not the only manner, so to baptise. But this hurts not our cause, who do not contend that Sprinkling was the only, or the more general, or the more public, and solemn way of baptising in the ancient Church, but only that it was sometimes, and mostly in private, and in cases of great necessity, charity, or conveniency, made use of in it. And as this hath been, I hope sufficiently, manifested in these Papers, so the words of Chamier, even as Mr. D. reports them, do not contradict it: they only affirming what anciently was in use, but not denying any thing else to have been then done. Suppose it should be said, that the Modern use of Baptism in this Kingdom for this last Century has been to sprinkle water on the face of the baptised. Would this conclude that none in this Kingdom have been otherwise baptised in this last Century than by such Sprinkling? I suppose not. Nor do I believe the thing true, if it should be asserted. No more doth the affirming of the ancient use to have been dipping, conclude that there was none then any other way baptised than by dipping. As some therefore in the late times of the prevalency of Sprinkling have been dipped, so no doubt some in the ancient times of the prevalency of dipping were sprinkled.  
§. 63. But secondly, Chamier doth not say so, 
In usu verò Elementi ab initio immersio totius corporis adhibita fuit. Chamier, Contract. l. 5. c. 1. p. 1404. parag. 4.  if Spanhemius his Contracter report him truly. His words are, That in the use of the Element at the beginning immersion of the whole body was practised. These words do only imply that at the first beginning to baptise, dipping of the whole body was in use, which we grant. But they do not imply that no other way of baptising besides dipping was then also used. Though that then were, yet there might be other ways also besides that, for aught here said by Chamier. And admitting that to have been the only way of baptising at the very beginning of the use of that Sacrament, suppose in our Saviour's life, or just immediately after his death: yet if other ways of baptising came into use presently, or a little after, suppose in the time of the Apostles, then will those ways of baptising be good enough: though dipping have a little the start of them, and be in priority of time somewhat before them. But this Chamier doth not contradict, only telling us what was at the beginning, but not denying what might presently after follow.  
§. 64. As for his saying, that the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip the whole body into the Element: 
Quae vis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chamier. ib.  I answer, if his meaning be, that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath that force, we freely grant it. But that hurts not us. But if his meaning be, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no other force but that, and that it is never used in any either profane or sacred Writer but in this only signification, than we as freely deny it. And I suppose the contrary thereunto hath in these Papers been already made sufficiently manifest.  
§. 65. As for what Mr. D. adds, as said by Chamier, viz. that therefore John did baptise in a River; this, if Chamier did say it, is capable of a double meaning: either that John did baptise in a River, because that was the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or else that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath that force, because John baptised in a River.  
§. 66. If the first be meant, it is said without proof; nor can be credible, unless we could be assured of two things. (1.) That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies always exactly so, and never otherwise. (2.) That the Commission, by virtue of which John did baptise, was given in Greek; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the particular word in that Commission. But these two things will never be attempted to be shown, unless I take my measures much amiss.  
§. 67. If the Second be meant, and the force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be concluded to be, to dip the whole body in the Element, because John did baptise in a River, I answer, first, it is ridiculous to think, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should take its signification from any action of John's, which was a word in possession of its being and signification long before John's either Baptism, or Birth. Secondly, the vanity of concluding, that Baptism ought to be by dipping the whole body, because John baptised in a River, if that be it that is meant, and was designed by the Author, or Reporter (as I am apt to believe it was, and only by the Later) the vanity, I say, and unconcludingness (if I may so speak) of that Argument hath already so oft been detected in these Papers, that I shall not vex the Reader with a tedious repetition thereof. In short therefore it signifies nothing unless it were impossible for a man to go into a River, and be baptised therein, by sprinkling or pouring water on him, or dipping some part of him, as namely his face, or head into it, without his whole body be immersed into it also: which no man of reason, or even of common sense, will adventure to say.  
§. 68 But I am apt to think that Chamier did not say any such thing: partly because it is too inconsequent and ridiculous to be affixed on a man so judicious, and learned; and partly because there is no such word reported from him by his Contracter Spanhemius. And then it must remain that it be an Addition made to Chamier by Mr. Danvers.  
§. 69. As for those words reported by Mr. D. as Chamiers [Which is nevertheless changed into aspersion, though uncertain when, and from whence that custom was taken] they are not exactly the words of Chamier, but these (as his Contracter reports them [postea mutata fuit in aspersionem, incertum quando, aut quo initio] it was afterwards changed into aspersion, though it be uncertain when, or at what beginning. It is and it was, are different words, and speak of differing times; the first, of the Present, the second of the Past: The first makes the alteration seem to be Modern, the second entitles it to Antiquity. And we must not be wrenched from any thing of our right by any mans never so subtle Sophistry. It was changed, says Chamier, and so say we, though neither he nor we know when; nor what it was that gave the occasion to its change. And Mr. D. had done himself and his Cause more right, if he had made a Right report from his Author.  
§. 70. But is this all that Chamier saith? 
— Nisi quod videntur 3000. uno die à paucis Apostolis, non potuisse baptizari si singuli mersi fuissent; nec carcerario intra carcerem fuisse ad manum tantum aquae quantum mergendo opus erat. Cham. ib.  surely no. We find a nisi in the case; and even no less than a double exception to what went before; the first is of the baptising of three thousand in one day, by a few Apostles, which saith he, seems impossible to have been done by the immersion of every single person. The other is of the Gaoler baptised in the prison, who seems not to have had there so much water at hand as was needful for a baptism by dipping. So here, at one of these times, to Chamier it seems aspersion might begin (and if at either, it was early enough begun, and by Authority good enough done, to justify its practice) and but for these instances the beginning of it would be uncertain. But if neither of those was the beginning time of Sprinkling, yet his very confessing the uncertainty of it, when and from whence was taken that custom of Aspersion, into which the way of total immersion was afterwards changed, is a plain confession of the very great Antiquity, and even Primitiveness of that custom: those Ecclesiastical Usages being Rationally to be presumed such, whose practice is derived to us from ancient times by the Catholic Church, but of whose Original in after times, that are short of the Primitive, no account can be given.  
§. 71. Nor yet hath Chamier done, but adds (what Mr. D. could not but be unwilling his people should have reported to them from a Protestant Author so learned and judicious as Chamier) that certainly the use of Sprinkling is the more commodious, 
Certè commodior aspersionis usus, & propter tempestatum incommoda, & propter pudorem, cujus gratiâ adhibitae olim Diaconissae mulicribus nudandis. Vnde Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 28. munus earum dicitur ministrare presbyteris dum baptizantur foeminae propter decorem. Cham. ib.  both in regard of the discommodities of Seasons, and in respect of Modesty, on account whereof Deaconnesses were in time passed made use of for the stripping of women naked. Whence in the Apostolical Constitutions it is said to be their office to wait on the Priests, whilst the Baptism of women was a performing, for decencies sake.  
§. 72. Nor yet (to go on still with Chamiers words in the case) was the nature of the Sacrament altered for that. 
Nec ob id fuit alterata Sacramenti natura. Nam quia tota virtus aquae est in significando per ablutionem, non interest quantum quisque abluatur; ut in Eucharistia non quantum quisque comedat. Est enim unius partis ablutio ejusdem naturae cum totius ablutione. Id. ib.  For because the whole virtue of the water is in signifying by ablution [or washing] it matters not how much every one is washed, as [it matters] not in the Eucharist how much every one eats. For the washing of one part is of the same nature with the washing of the whole.  
§. 73. How ought not Mr. D. here to commune with his own heart about his dealing thus with Authors, so as in the quoting of them, to put in, and leave out, at his pleasure, and as may best serve his interest, without regard to truth or justice; and from henceforth to be still, and deal no more so injuriously with any, as he hath done with Chamier?  
§. 74. The Rear of this Squadron is brought up by Dr. Hammond, a man of that singular goodness as well as Learning, as was able to give credit to any party that he should appear to own, or but countenance. And therefore he, as the best, is reserved for the last. I might, saith Mr. Danvers, add many more, but shall conclude with that observable Remark, that Dr. Hammond gives us hereon, in his Annotations upon John 13.10. Telling us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing of the whole body, which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used for dipping in the Old Testament. And therefore upon Matth. 3.1. tells us, that John baptised in a River, viz. Jordan. Mark 1.5. in a confluence of much water, as Aenon. John 3.22. That as the Greeks called the Lakes, where they used to wash, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so the Ancients called their Baptisterions, or vessels containing their Baptismal water Columbethras, i. e. swimming or diving places, being made very large with Partitions for Men, and Women. And upon Mark 7.4. tells us, that the Washing or Baptising of Cups, Vessels, Beds, etc. was no other than a putting them into the water all over, rinsing them.  
§. 75. I believe he may add many more, and to as little purpose, as any thing that yet hath been produced. But as to his Triumphant Conclusion with that observable Remark from Dr. Hammond, thereto I shall answer by degrees.  
§. 76. And first, that if Dr. Hammond did say, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify an Immersion, or washing of the whole Body, though in the place mentioned, Joh. 3.10. he doth not strictly say those words, no not in his first Edition, but these [The Hebrews had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former, washing of the whole Body, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other of the hands or feet, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctifying:] and those words [and answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used for dipping in the Old Testament] are none of Dr. Hammonds, at least not in that place, yet it doth not follow, even upon supposition of his so saying, that he did think it signified nothing else, nor any otherwise than to immerse: but that as sometimes it might signify immersion, so sometimes it might signify also a perfusion, or an affusion. And the rather, if, as Mr. Danvers tells us, the Dr. said it did answer to that Hebrew word, which I have shown in these Papers, as well to signify in general lotion or washing, as in special immersion or dipping. Nay, to take notice of that, before we pass any further, it is observable, that whereas both to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to the English word Immersion, Dr. Hammond adds other words, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the first, (in Edit. 1.) and washing to the second, those added words are both of a general import, and the addition of them might intimate, that the Doctor thought the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be so confined to that particular way of dipping, as that it might not also signify in a more general way any washing. And if, which is the most that can be said, still that washing, which the Doctor meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was of the whole body; To this any one may easily reply, That there may be a washing of the whole body without an immersion of it. And to go but a while in a Meadow naked in a good shower of Rain, will afford an experiment able to evince the truth hereof even to sense.  
§. 77. And as the Doctor doth to where say (that I find in him) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify nothing else but immersion (how frequently soever he grants it to signify that:) so whereas he had before, in the 1. Edit. of his Annotations on Joh. 13.10. divided the Hebrew washings into two sorts, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former the washing of the whole Body, and the other of the hands or feet, etc. in his Review, and consequently in the following Editions, and particularly in the Third, which I have by me, he doth divide them into their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the former, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of the whole Body, the other two, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the hands or feet, of one part alone, either by immersion, or pouring on of water. And again afterward he saith, All that is needful to him [viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the immersion, or pouring on of water. By which alteration of his words, from making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he makes (amongst the Jews) to signify the washing of the whole body, to the making of it to be synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he makes to signify the washing of the hands or feet, and that either by immersion, or affusion, is clearly showed, that the Doctor in his second thoughts was of opinion, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not so strictly signify immersion, but that it was extendible also to other significations, even so far as to signify a washing in general, however performed, either by immersion or affusion. And according to the later more correct sentiment of the Doctor, in reason and ingenuity should Mr. D. have quoted him, if he knew of it. For so would Mr. Danvers be done unto himself.  
§. 78. And in further confirmation hereof the Doctor tells us (on Mark 7.4.) differently in the later Editions from what he had said in the first, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used, as it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 3. signifies not only the washing of the whole body— but washing any part, as the hands here, by way of immersion in water, as that is opposed to affusion or pouring water on them. And adds from Dr. Pocock, that all the difference observable between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was, that the former noted immersion, the other affusion of water, both indifferently used of any part, both sometimes for any kind of washing that part. So that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Mr. Danvers makes the Doctor to say it doth) than the former, as well as the latter, must signify any kind of washing of that, whereto it is applied, which is the thing we contend for. And though the Doctor say of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it signifies immersion, yet that hinders not but that, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which just so differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is put to signify indifferently any kind of washing, (viz. when it is not set in contradistinction unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though when set in contradistinction unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it signify immersion, yet when it is not so set, it may signify in general any kind of washing: nothing being more ordinary in the use of words, than such kind of Synecdoches as those, whereby both the Genus is put for the Species, and the Species for the Genus, and even sometimes one Species for another; as when Homer, Virgil, or Ovid call that armour brasly, which was made of iron; or that irony, which was made of brass.  
§. 79. As for that which Mr. Danvers saith, the Doctor tells us (upon Matth. 3.1.) of John's baptising in a River viz. Jordan, Mark 1.5. and in a confluence of much water, as Aenon, Joh. 3.23. Because, it is added, there was much water there; and so for that, which he saith upon Mark 7.4. of the washing, or baptising of Cups, Vessels, Beds, etc. I have spoken to it elsewhere, and I hope to the satisfaction of the Reader.  
§. 80. And as to the Ancients calling their Baptisterions, or Vessels containing their Baptismal Water by the same name, whereby the Greeks called their Lakes, where they used to wash, viz, Columbethras, i. e. swimming or diving places; I answer, that the ancient manner of public and solemn baptising being much after the Jewish way of Immersion, it was not only convenient, but necessary, that the Baptisterions or Fonts, should be made of such capacity, as that the baptised might be immersed therein; and this the Doctor declares, and no body denies. But this does not do the Dippers business, nor prove that Dr. Hammond ever denied, or intended by any thing he said to deny, or imply a denial of any's being baptised among the Ancients otherwise than by immersion. The Doctor knew better things than so. For to grant that public Baptism was administered by immersion, doth not affirm that private Baptism was so administered; to grant that Persons in health were dipped, doth not affirm that Persons in sickness were so baptised too. In short, unless these two things can be made good, which yet never can be, first that none were ever baptised amongst the ancients, but in the public Baptisterions (none in private Houses, none in Prisons, none in their Beds;) Secondly, that even in those public Baptisterions none were ever baptised but by a total immersion, and that it did not suffice to some Persons, and in some places, to have their Heads only dipped, all the Doctor's discourse of the largeness of the ancient Columbethras makes nothing to the confirmation of the Dipper's supposition. It is one thing to talk of what is done in ordinary and common cases, and another thing to talk of what is extraordinary, and but done upon special emergency, and the proof of the one is no disproving of the other.  
§ 81. Secondly, I answer, that whatever Dr. Hammond said, either of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or of the ancient manner of baptising, he did not hold all Baptism unlawful, but that which was administered by a Total immersion. And this, if his published Writings did not declare it, I should be able to make good out of his private. For taking notice of what he said of these things, and foreseeing what use would by the Anabaptists be made of what he said, I did by Letter advertise him thereof; and he again by Letter to me did not only clear his own discourses of the strict import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from giving any advantage to the Dippers, but also lay down several grounds, whereon the Church proceeded to use sprinkling instead of dipping. And because the communication of so much of those Letters of his as concerns the present debate, might tend, as I thought, to the satisfaction of the Reader, as well as to the vindication of the Doctor, I once had thought to have made so much of his Letters public. But seeing his public writings do declare it, and particularly his Pract. Catechism, l. 6. S. 2. p. 154. Edit. 1674. where he saith, that by Christ's appointment, whosoever should be thus received into his Family, should be received with this Ceremony of Water, therein to be dipped, (i. e. according to the Primitive ancient custom to be put under water) three times, or instead of that, to be sprinkled with it— Therefore I shall, as thinking it a needless thing, supersede the Reader all further trouble about them.  
§. 82. And thus I have (fairly I think) cleared the Field of this first Squadron. I shall, after a little pause for refreshment of the Reader, attack the Second.   

CHAP. XII. Answers to Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers from Commentators, etc.  
§. 1. THE Second Squadron consists most of Commentators, and marches under the Banner of Holy Scripture: several Texts whereof Mr. Danvers displays before them. To their motions I shall now pay my attendance.  
§. 2. Secondly, (saith Mr. D.) It appears to be so from the practice and usage we find hereof in Scripture, and the Opinion of the Learned upon it.  
§. 3. Whether there be any rational ground from what appears, to conclude what was, or aught to be, will be seen in the Issue. But what it is, let's have it.  
First (saith he) in the Story of Christ's baptism, we read, Matth. 3.5. (it should be v. 13.) That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptised of him. And v. 16. And when he was baptised, he went up straightway out of the water.  
§. 4. The Learned Cajetan upon the place, saith, Christ ascended out of the water; therefore Christ was baptised by John, not by Sprinkling or pouring Water upon him, but by Immersion, that is, by dipping or plunging in the water.  
§ 5. To the Text I have already spoke, in ch. 10. I shall now therefore speak to the Cardinal.  
§. 6. And that Cardinal (who, no doubt, was learned enough to deserve that Emphatical Title of the Learned; and from an Anabaptist, especially when he seems to speak for Dipping in Baptism) doth indeed make such Collection, that because of its being said, that Jesus straightway went up out of the water, therefore he was baptised by John, not by Sprinkling, or pouring water upon him from above, but by dipping in, or bowing down his body. But this Learned man's assertion being founded on a reason, his word can be of no more weight than his reason is. But his reason is none, as I have showed in these Papers, ch. 10. Nor could all the Learning he had ever prove, from Christ's ascending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab aquâ (as Musculus, the next Author that Mr. D. here citys, doth render it) from the water (as that is in the Original; which in his Translation is de aqua, in ours, out of the water) that Christ was baptised by a total immersion. It follows therefore that his word is nothing also. And so with this I might dismiss him.  
§. 7. But further, having consulted that Author himself, and the place here quoted, I find something, not taken notice of by Mr. D. or thought fit by him to be slipped by, that makes the Cardinal seem not altogether so peremptory in his Conclusion, which is, that having said, Jesus was baptised by John, per immersionem, that is, by dipping, he adds, seu submissionem corporis, which Mr. D. Englishes not, 
Baptizatus autem Jesus confestim ascendit de aqua] Non ergo per aspersionem aut desuper effusionem, sed per immersionem seu submissionem corporis baptizatus est Jesus in Jordane. Cajetan, in Matth. 3.16.  unless plunging in the water be the English of it with him: but it signifies only a bowing down of the body. And who knows but that the Cardinal might speak those words by way of Correction of, or explication to what went before, and intent only thereby, that he bowed down his body in order to the having of his head only dipped in water, which hath been since, if it were never before that, a way of baptising. And if this be the meaning of the Phrase, than the Cardinal having proposed two ways, and having determined for neither, cannot be produced as a positive witness for either: unless by him, that will do as Mr. D. hath done, and leave what makes against him, out.  
§. 8. But were it so, as Mr. D. makes the Cardinal say, and that by submissionem he meant nothing more, nor other than what he meant by immersion (though those words are far enough from being Synonymous,) yet it doth not follow, that it must be necessarily so with us too: unless there were a necessity of our conformity with Christ in all his Sacramental Circumstances, which I think our Anabaptists will not say we should, no not in those which concern Baptism. For than we must not be baptised till above thirty years of Age; we must be unmarried when baptised; we must be baptised no where but in a River, and that River must be Jordan: in which circumstances yet some have been more zealous, than judicious imitators of him.  
In the mean time it may be taken notice of, that by Baptism the learned Cardinal understood an Ablution. Therefore in v. 5. of this Chapter, upon the word [Baptizabantur] he saith, the old Greek word remained among the Latins in their Ecclesiastic Mysteries, and that it ought to have been abluebantur, and that John himself did exercise ministerium abluendi, and that the sinners offered themselves, abluendos à Joanne, tanquam exterior ablutio esset quaedam professio poenitentiae, & mundae deinceps vitae ducendae, to be washed by John, as if the external washing were a kind of profession of repentance and a new life thenceforth to be led. So that with him washing seems to have been the most material thing in John's Baptism: and then no question, but that where that is, the Cardinal will allow of a Baptism, though it be not performed by a total immersion.  
§. 9 From Cajetan Mr. D. passeth on to Musculus; and saith he, Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping, and saith, ' the Parties baptised were dipped, not sprinkled.  
§. 10. But he telleth us not on what verse of that Chapter; nor in what Page of that Volume he saith it. The discovery had saved me some time, and labour in searching. And what is the worst of it, after all my pains in reading two and twenty pages in folio, with care to find the place, and all those places where there seemed to be any probability of finding it, twice over, all the Return I can make upon my Inquest is this, Non est inventus, there is no such place or passage in all that Musculus saith on that Chapter, that I could find.  
§. 11. This indeed there is, that he uses the word tinctio for baptising in several places. 
Adumbrat enim externa illa tinctio, & mystica ablutio quae fit in corpore renovationem mentium & ablutionem sordium, etc. Baptis●a quo tincti sunt & Christus, & Christiani, p 28. Bapti●mus quo non mentes sed corpora tinguntur, p. 36.  But surely tinctio doth not signify precisely dipping, but wetting, or dying, be it what way it will that a thing is wetted or died; whether by dipping into, or pouring on, that which wetteth or dyeth. And I have showed in these Papers, that as tingo is sometimes put to signify baptising in general however performed, viz. when it stands alone: so it is sometimes put to signify baptising by Sprinkling or pouring on water in particular, and in opposition to dipping. His calling baptism then tinction, if that be it which Mr. D. means, no more proves his calling it dipping, than sprinkling.  
§. 12. But as for his saying, that the Parties baptised were dipped not sprinkled, there is no such thing said by him there. And I cannot but wonder with what confidence Mr. D. should say any such thing. Had I said it, a crime would have been charged on me; which out of respect and honour to that Gentleman, because a Gentleman, though unknown to me, I shall forbear so much as to name. All I shall say is, that Truth needs no Untruths to defend it: and that the Champion that goes about by such supports to maintain a cause, rather ruins it, than upholds it. And those of his Party may do well to take heed how they trust his reports from other Authors, who hath so unbecomingly, to say no worse, misreported this. The best excuse that I can make for him is, that it is not impossible, but that either himself, or his Amanuensis, might mistake the place in writing, or that it might be amiss ordered by the Compositor in the Printing (such things very ordinarily happening to be:) and if that will any way salve his reputation, as I wish it may, much good d'it him with it.  
§. 13. But to go on, A Second Scripture considerable is that of John 3.23. And John was baptising in Aenon near Salim (and the reason why he pitched upon this place is given) because there was much water there.  
§. 14. To this Text I have already spoken in ch. 11. and so I think it needless to say any thing farther here. But—  
§. 15. Piscator upon the place (as Mr. D. tells us) says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many Rivers, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular number, signifies the River of Jordan: This saith he, is mentioned to signify the Ceremony of Baptism which John used in dipping or plunging the whole body of man standing in the River; whence he saith, Christ being baptised by John in Jordan, is said to ascend out of the Water.  
§. 16. Not to trouble Mr. D. with ask him, how the body of a man can be plunged (which is Mr. D's word, and none of Piscator's) in the River, whilst he is standing in it, I shall acknowledge Piscator's words to be much to this purpose, only a little more clear. Those to the present purpose are these. Commemoratur autem hoc ad significandum ritum Baptismi, quo Johannes utebatur, immergens scilicet totum corpus hominis in fluvio stantis. Vnde Christus à Johanne in Jordane baptizatus, ex aquâ ascendisse dicitur. Matth. 3. v. 16. It is not material what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, whether many waters, or many rivers, or much water (only by the way, if it signify many waters, and those distinct in place, or many Rivers, it the better confirms the Notion I have of it, where I speak concerning it.) We will suppose the water, or waters deep enough for a man to be dipped in; and that it was John's way to baptise by dipping. But Christ's ascending out of the water proves it not: as I have showed, ch. 10. And though Dipping were John's (as well as other Jews) way of baptising, yet it doth not necessarily follow, that ours must be so too, as I have showed, ch. 8.  
§. 17. Nor did Piscator think so. Else he would never have delivered it for a Theological Aphorism, That whether the Baptised Party were dipped, and that thrice or once, or were only sprinkled or wetted with water poured on, that aught to be at liberty in the Churches, 
Caeterùm mergatúrne totus qui tingitur, idque ter a semel; an infusâ tantum a quâ aspergatur nut perfundatur: id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesiis liberum esse debet. Etsi enim mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesie observatum fuisse constat: tamen verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non solum mergi, sed etiam quâvis aliâ ratione tingi, aut lavari abluive significat. Piscat: Loc. 24. Aphorism. 9  according to diversity of Countries. Adding also as a reason for what he had said, for though it be certain, that the rite of dipping was observed by the ancient Church, yet the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to be dipped, but also to be wetted, washed, or cleansed with washing any other way. So then Piscator is no witness for the Anabaptists: nor his Testimony any thing to the prejudice of baptism by Sprinkling.  
§. 18. Calvin, upon these words, 
Caeterùm ex his verbis colligere licet Baptismum fuisse celebratum à Johanne & Christo totius corporis submersione. Calv. in loc.  saith, That from this place you may gather, that John and Christ administered Baptism by plunging the whole body into water.  
§. 19 I answer, It is probable they did so: and that they so did 'tis probably conjectured from this place. But first probability is no proof of certainty. Secondly, that they did administer Baptism by plunging in this place, doth not prove, that they did not administer it also by sprinkling, neither in this, nor in any other place. And without that all's nothing.  
§. 20. And is this all that Calvin saith of the matter in this place? what then means that which follows, spoken by him as it were on purpose to prevent that ill use, that he foresaw would be made of those his words? Notwithstanding we ought not with so great anxiety to trouble ourselves 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. calvin's 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 baptised 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. Perhaps; 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 alleged 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 do. And now to what is alleged from Mr. Calvin; I answer,  
§. 24. First, That Mr. Calvin doth not say, that we here see, what was the only fashion of baptising the Ancients had: but what rite of baptising 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 baptising, 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 custom, for the Minister to baptise 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 baptising 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, quàm ut eam nobis cripi sinamus. Sed quum in aquae symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostrae, quàm novae vitae: quum in aqua velut in speculo, sanguinem nobis suum Christus repraesentat, ut munditiem inde nostram petamus: quum docet nos spiritu s●●o refingi, ut mortui peccato justitiae vivamus: nihil quod ad Baptismi substantiam faciat d●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 itself, 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 itself, 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 whilst we have not the Ceremony of dipping, we want something that is of the substance of the Sacrament, which is quite contrary to the judgement 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 itself some liberty in the use of several, not greatly differing Rites and Ceremonies.  
§. 29. A fourth Scripture we shall mention, is Rom. 6.4. Buried with him in Baptism: Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptising in our Death and Resurrection with Christ.  
§. 30. Cajetan upon the place, saith, Thus we are buried with him by Baptism into Death: By our burying he declares our death from the Ceremony of Baptism; because he who is baptised, is put under the Water, and by this carries a similitude of him that is buried, who is put under the Earth. Now because none are buried but dead men, from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism, we are assimilated to Christ buried, or when he was buried.  
§. 31. To the Text, I answer, First, That it is plain by it, that there was such a custom in those days, as to baptise by immersion, which carried a very sensible show of a Burial, and a Resurrection. But the Negative cannot be thence concluded, that there was no other way of baptising, but that. Nor is it probable there was no other way: First, because there are other Texts of Scripture, which allude to sprinkling in Baptism, as this cloth to dipping. And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one, that is made from the other. Secondly, because there may be, and is a baptismal representation made of a burial, and of a Resurrection, not only in partial mersation, but in aspersion or affusion of water, as well as in immersion, as we shall more at large show hereafter.  
§. 32. And now to the Cardinal, I answer, that not having the Book by me to examine, I must stand to the Quoter's ingenuity for the Truth of the Quotation; which yet if truly made, is not much to the Quoter's advantage. All that I can find in it to the purpose, is in these words. [He who is baptised, is put under the water, and by this carries a similitude of him that is buried.] But what makes this against sprinkling? or what more for dipping, than for sprinkling? He that is dipped is put under the water. True: And where is he put that is sprinkled? Above it? That were a new fashion of baptising indeed. In short, he that is sprinkled, as well as he that is dipped, is put under the water, and the water's falling upon him that is sprinkled, fairly represents the Earth's falling upon him that is buried; and so in sprinkling, as well as in dipping, there is a similitude of a burial, and by the one as well as by the other, we may be said to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death. And so the Cardinal's testimony might have been spared, unless to fill up room, and make a show, being every whit as much for us, as it is for them that are against us.  
§. 33. If it be replied, that by putting under water the Cardinal meant such a putting under water as is done in a total immersion, and not by affusion or aspersion; I answer; it may be, or may not be so, for aught I know. But however, that affirmative, that he that is put so under the water carries a similitude of a burial, doth not imply a negative of contrary in it, that none carries a similitude of a burial, but he that is so put under the water. That representation is made both ways, though in the one it is more lively than in the other. And so the passage is impertinent, and proves nothing.  
§. 34. Keckerman (as Mr. D. tells us) in his Syst. Theol. l. 3. c. 8. says, That Immersion, not Aspersion, was the first Institution of Baptism, as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6.3.  
§. 35. To that purpose Keckerman doth indeed speak in that place. Yet that he nevertheless did not think Immersion necessary, abundantly appears in the same place: which for the vindication of him, I will set down at large, since Mr. D. thought good only to pick so much out of him as might serve for his turn, and entitle Keckerman to a piece of Patronship to Anabaptism.  
§. 36. Coming to give the Definition of Baptism, 
Baptismus est Sacramentum N.T. quo aequae perfusione in nomine Patris & Filii & S. S. factâ significatur & obsignatur fidelibus beneficium purgationis à peccato per filium Dei, & regenerationis ad vitam aeternam. Keck. Syst. Theol. l. 3. c. 8.  he doth it thus. Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, wherein by a perfusion of Water made in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, there is signified and sealed to the Faithful the benefit of Purgation from sin by the Son of God, and of Regeneration unto Eternal Life.  
§. 37. And going to set down the Canons of Baptism, 
Eisi Baptismus propriè significet immersionem; & in vetere etiam Ecclesia per regiones Orientis non adspersione sed immersione Baptismus celebrabatur, tamen in regionibus Christianismi frigidioribus adspersio loco immersionis recepta est propter infants; quia charitas & necessitas dispensant de Ceremoniis easque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam temperant, quatenus id saluâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri potest. Keckerm. ib.  his second he makes to be this. Though Baptism do properly signify immersion, and in the ancient Church throughout the Eastern Countries, baptism was administered not by aspersion, but by immersion: yet in the colder Countries of Christendom sprinkling is entertained in stead of immersion by reason of Infants: because Charity and Necessity dispense with Ceremonies, and temper them with a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [moderation, clemency, gentleness] as far as it may be done with safety to the Analogy.  
§. 38. Then proceeding to a Note upon this Canon, he sets down that, 
Non possumus diffiteri primam institutionem Baptismi immersione, non verò aspersione constitisse, quod disertè patet ex cap. 6. Rom. versu tertio & quarto. Sed quia primae institutio Baptismi facta est in regione calidiori, & quia tunc temporis potissimùm baptizabantur adulti, ideo de hîc Ceremoniâ in regionibus frigidioribus, & ho● tempore, quo infantes plerumque, rarissimè adulti baptizantur, potuit Ecclesia dispensare: praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat; & adspersione etiam sordes abluantur; cúmque etiam non homo propter Baptismum, sed Baptismus propter hominum factus sit, ut propter necessitatem infantum Charitas aliquid in ritu illo potuerit mutare Praesertim cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit à verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem non tantùm immergo, sed & aspergo significat. Keck. ib.  which Mr. D. quotes from him, which is this, as it stands all together in him. We cannot deny, but that the first institution of Baptism stood in immersion, and not in aspersion, as plainly appears from Rom. 6.3, 4. But because the first institution of Baptism was made in a hotter Country, and because at that time, adult persons were mostly baptised, therefore the Church might dispense with this Ceremony in colder Countries, and at this time when Infants mostly, and seldom any adult are baptised: especially seeing the Analogy of signification remains, and filths are washed away too with that sprinkling: and seeing that man was not made for Baptism, but Baptism for man, so as that by reason of the necessity of Infant's Charity might be able to change something in that Rite, especially since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to dip, but also to sprinkle.  
§. 39 What would we have any man say more for Sprinkling, than is said by this Author produced by Mr. D. as a witness against it, and for dipping? His judgement is so clear and full in the case, that without any remarks made on him I might fairly leave the consideration thereof to the Impartial Reader. And I wonder Mr. Danvers' heart ached not, when he read this, and yet resisted it.  
§. 40. Yet it may not be amiss to note some few things, as First, That admitting Immersion to have been the first institution of Baptism, that hinders not but that Aspersion might come up presently after it, even in the Apostles days; and that there is fair appearance of it, in Heb. 10.22. as is elsewhere showed in these Papers. Secondly, that it doth not appear from Rom. 6.3, 4. that the first institution of Baptism stood in Immersion, and not Aspersion. It appears from thence, that Immersion was a way of baptising then, but it doth not thence appear, that Immersion was the only way, that they did baptise by; nor that Aspersion was not then in use too as well as Immersion; nor yet which of them was first. Thirdly, that the Author doth not say, that anciently through the Universal Church baptism was administered only by Immersion, but only through the Eastern Countries. Fourthly, that the Reasons on which he found'st the change of this Rite in these colder Countries, viz. necessity and charity, are such, as the most positive Laws of God, even those for the Sabbath and Circumcision, have given way unto, as we shall further show afterward. And if a substantial part of Divine Laws have given way to them, then much more may a Circumstantial part of them. Thus much for Keckerman.  
§. 41. The next charge is given by three at once, and those Men of renown, Diodat. Grotius, and Davenant. Diodat. (saith he) Annot. on Rom. 6.4. Grotius on the same, Davenant, Col. 2.12. do own dipping to have been the Rite in Christ's time.  
§. 42. Mr. Danvers had done well to have given us their words, and not only have mustered up their names. For, for my part, I cannot find in them, what he quotes from them.  
§. 43. Mr. Diodati hath these words in the place quoted, viz. Rom. 6.4. In baptism being dipped in water according to the ancient Ceremony, it is sacred figure unto us, that sin ought to be drowned in us by God's Spirit: as that it is a Seal unto us of the washing of our Souls before God. But now in which of these words doth he express, or imply, that dipping was the Rite in Christ's time? Christ's time is not so much as mentioned in the whole passage. So then the words can speak nothing for the time they do not mention.  
§. 44. But it is called the Ancient Ceremony. An ancient Ceremony acknowledgedly it is. And so it might be, yet not so ancient as Christ's time. There have been ancient Rites in the Church, which yet have not reached up so far. And as for the Particle the, if any stress be laid upon that, as if thereby were meant, that it is the only ancient Ceremony, and so must needs reach up to Christ's time; I answer, that not having the Author's writing in its original Language by me. I cannot tell, whether he expressed any thing, that necessarily did import so much; and if it chance so to be that he did not, than his words, as they are translated, are of no force: but if he did, than I cannot but question, whether there be in them any truth: in as much as I have in these Papers made it evident, that there were other Ceremonies anciently in use, as well as dipping; and their first original being not to be found, they are rationally believed to have been from the beginning; and the contrary thereunto cannot be demonstrated. And so this Testimony is either untrue, or impertinent.  
§. 45. In short, this Author doth not here determine Immersion to be the sole Ceremony that indispensably is to be used in Baptism; but he declares what is designed by that Ceremony, where it is used; and in that he hath none to contradict him.  
§. 46. The like I say by Grotius. His words on that place, 
Ostendit non verba tantùm Baptismi, sed & ipsam ejus formam hoc innucre. Nam immersio totius corporis in flumen, ita ut non conspiceretur amplius, imaginem gerebat sepulturae quae datur mortuis. Sic Col. 2.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Grot. in Rom. 6.4.  mention nothing of Christ's time (unless any would think his time to have extended itself as far as to St. Paul's writing his Epistle to the Romans, who was dead and gone many Years before:) and so do not prove, what they are quoted for. He tells us indeed, that not only the words, but form of Baptism do intimate a representation to be made of the Burial of Christ; the total immersing of the Body so far under the water, as to be for a while covered thereby from sight, bearing a certain Image (as he saith) of that Burial, which is given to the Dead: and its rising again from under the water, bearing an Image or show of Christ's rising again. And this we freely grant, where it is so administered. But as he doth not say, so neither do we grant, that it is not signified any other way, yea we show the contrary in these Papers. It is very probable, or rather certain, that such a way of baptising was in use among the Romans, in as much as the Apostle alludes thereto, as a thing known amongst them; and makes Inferences therefrom for the instructing of them. But that is not the question in hand: but whether that was the only way, not there only, but throughout the whole Christian World. If it were not so, then can no Argument thence be drawn to the evacuating of other ways of baptising. And if it were so, yet still, unless the Church had no power to vary at any time from what was before time, in the accidentals and circumstantials of worship, other ways of baptising instituted and approved of by the Church, will be lawful.  
§. 47. And as for Davenant, he saith not a word tending that way, viz. to prove dipping to have been the (i. e. the only) Rite in Christ's time: but rather the quite contrary. For having said, that in Baptism, when the Party baptised is let down into the water, thereby is designed the burial of the Body of sins, or the old Adam; as the Resurrection, when he is brought out; he adds this as a reason: In veteri enim Ecclesia non tingebant solummodo, sed in aquam immergebant eos, quos baptizabant. For in the ancient Church they did not only tinge, but immerse into water, those whom they baptised. I have showed that tingo, though when it is set alone, it is often put to signify baptising in general, whether by dipping or sprinkling, yet when it is set in opposition to dipping, it signifies only sprinkling, or some other way of baptising distinct from dipping. So then, as this Author speaks not at all of Christ's time in particular, but only of the ancient Church in general, so what he speaks of that time, reaches as well to sprinkling, as to dipping, and asserts the antiquity of the one, as well as of the other. Non tingebant solummodo, sed immergebant, signifies plainly, that they did both tingere and immergere. And if both were Rites in that time, then was not only one of them, namely dipping, the, i. e. the only Rite in that time: And so Mr. D. gains nothing to his cause by the Testimony of this no less learned, than honourable Father of our Church.  
§. 48. After this triumvirate of learned Men follows a Man, who alone was a triumvir in Learnirg, Tilenus, (a learned Protestant Writer, as Mr. D. himself styles him) and he in his Disputation, p. 886, 889, 890. gives, as Mr. D. tells us a most remarkable testimony in the case. Baptism, saith he, is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which with a most pat and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signified, those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in Water. The outward Rite in Baptism is threefold; 1. Immersion into the Water. 2. Abiding under the water. 3. Resurrection out of the water. The form of Baptism, viz. Internal and Essential, is no other than the Analogical proportion, which the signs keep with the things signified thereby. For the properties of water in washing away the defilements of the Body, do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christ's blood in blotting out of sin; so dipping into the Water doth in a most lively similitude set forth the mortification of the old man; and rising out of the Water, the vivification of the New. The same plunging into the Water, holds forth to us that horrible gulf of Divine Justice, in which Christ for our sins sake (which he took upon him) was for a while in a manner swallowed up. Abiding under water, how little a while soever, denotes his descent into Hell, even the very deepest of lifelesness, while lying in the sealed and guarded Sepulchre, he was accounted as one dead. Rising out of the Water, holds out to us a lively similitude of that Conquest, which this Dead man got over Death, which he vanquished in his own Den, (as it were) that is the Grave. In like manner therefore (saith he) it is meet that we being baptised into his death, and buried with him, should also rise with him, and so go on in newness of life. Rom. 6.3, 4. Coloss. 2.12.  
§. 49. I close with Mr. D. in his judgement of Tilenus, that he was a learned Protestant Writer, and also that he gives a most remarkable Testimony in the case. But how Mr. D. will clear himself from disingenuity in the case, when he so cries up Tilenus, and his Testimony as being for them, and yet conceals, what he could not but know, that he is one of the most positive and clear witnesses for us that ever writ, I leave it to himself to consider. The words cited by Mr. D. viz. the six first lines, ending with [washed in water] are in his 4th. Thesis: and signify nothing on either side: and therefore might as well have been spared. But how came he to skip over the Second Thesis? where that Learned man plainly saith, Baptism, if you consider the Etymology of the word: signifies dipping, and also sprinkling: 
Baptismus, si Etymon vocis spectemus, immersionem significat atque etiam aspersionem. quo sensu usurpatur Mar 7.4. & à consequenti, ablutionem; cujusmodi non paucas praecipiebat lex vetus, quam deinde etiam hac in parte auctariis suis cumularunt Pharisaei. Ti●en.  in which sense it is used Mark 7.4. and from the consequence a washing, such as the old Law prescribed many of: which also even in this part the Pharisees augmented with their own eekings. It was not for the turn it should be known, so learned a Protestant Writer said thus much for the side, against which his name, authority, and testimony was to be produced: and therefore it was warily passed over.  
§. 50. But to go on with Mr. D. from the Fourth Thesis he skips to the Fifteenth, without ordering his Testimony any otherwise than so, as if the whole of what Tilenus said, had been one continued speech: 
— quò pertinent etiam reliquae actiones & ritus externi, puta immersio, vel aspersio, cum adjectione verborum, & emersio ex aqua. Id. ib. Thes. 15.  and without taking notice of what he might have observed by the way in the Twelfth Thesis, that speaking of the action and external Rites belonging to the external part of Baptism, he names them dipping or sprinkling, with an addition of words, and appearing out of the water. And whit saith Tilenus there? Much-what as Mr. D. reports from him. Ritus in baptismo est triplex: immersio in aquam, mora sub aquà, & emersio ex aquâ. i e. as Mr. D. Englisheth it, the outward Rite in Baptism is Threefold, (1.) Immersion into the Water, (2.) Abiding under the water, (3.) Resurrection out of the water. But is this all that the Learned man there saith? All I suppose, Mr. D. was willing should be known was there. But to do the Author right, and to preserve the Reader from being imposed upon by a lame quotation, I will add the rest of that Thesis: in which the words immediately following to those quoted by Mr. D. are these, 
* Quamvis autem immersio usitatior olim suerit, praesertim in Judaea, & aliis regionibus calidioribus quam aspersio: tamen cum neque ad baptismi substantiam perticat haec circumstantia; nec minus in aspersione quam in immersione Sacramenti anal●gia ●●rvetur: siquinem etiam in legalibus purificationibus sufficiebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum denique immersio, praesertim in tenellis infantibus, quales hodie sunt plenaque qui baptizantur, non carcat valetudinis periculo: nos quemadmodum uterque ritus voce baptismi significatur, Matth. 3.16. Luc. 11.38. Marc. 7.4. sic utriuslibet usum, ex charitatis & necessitatis lege ab Ecclesià retineri posse existimamus. Id. ib.  But though dipping were formerly more 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 baptised, 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 Analogy of the Sacrament is kept no less in sprinkling, than in dipping. (5.) That each Rite is signified by the word, in Mat. 16. etc. (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 controversy 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 kill 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 administered, which was to plunge them in the water; the plunging of them into water, which were baptised, 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 administered, which was to strip them naked whom they baptised, 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 adds in the Margin, the plunging of them into the water which were baptised, 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 baptising 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, whilst 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 baptising by sprinkling, pouring on of water, or partial mersation? We have these other ways of baptising in the Church; and in the Church they have anciently been had; and their original cannot be shown; 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 administered 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 guests, it should be this, that he was loath 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' doth declare: but, as far as I understand, those whom our Dippers now baptise, 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 baptising 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 baptised did put on new Garments after their baptising, 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 baptising, 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 signify 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 signify, 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 signify their being wholly the same that they were before. Those that stand so nicely upon it to be in all punctilios of Rites conform to the Apostolic 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 Rear of this Squadron of Commentators, do (as Mr. D. tells us) in their Annotations upon the place, say, That in this phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptising, which was to dip the Parties unbaptised, and as it were to bury them under water for a while, and then to raise them up again out of it, to represent the burial of the old Man, and our Resurrection to Newness of Life. The like saith Piscator, and Diodate upon the place.  
§. 59 Mr. Danvers here fairly reports them; only in stead of those words [to raise them up again] the Divines have [to draw them out of it, and lift them up,] which change why he made I cannot discern: unless it were this; That he feared those words [to draw out, and lift up] should import, that the Persons then baptised were such as were capable of being so drawn and lifted; and so make the Reader think that Infants, the properest persons for such actions to be done to (it being no easy thing to imagine how they could be performed to persons that were Adult; nor did I ever, to my remembrance, in any ancient Author read of any such action done to them) were then baptised: and then this testimony would do as much hurt to his cause one way, whilst it proved Infant's Baptism as old as the Epistle to the Romans, as it did it good another way, whilst it asserted their Baptism to have been by dipping. And perhaps he feared too, that the lifting up might make some think, that the use of Godfathers (the things so horribly decried by the Men of his way) was Primitive too: that work [levare de fonte] to lift up out of, or from the Font, being so proper to the Godfathers, as that it is made the common Phrase to import one's being a Godfather. Thus much to him.  
§. 60. Now to his Authors, I say the same that I said to Mr. Leigh, that if by those words [the ancient manner] they meant only, that it was, a way, or one manner, and that the most general way and manner so to baptise, I shall grant it. But if they mean, that it was the only way, and manner, than their word signifies no more with me, than the ground, which they give for it, amounts unto, which is none at all. Now that being none, their word is nothing.  
§. 61. And the same I say to Piscator and Diodate, if they so say, as the Assembly Divines have said. Though I rather think it was the Assembly Divines, that said the like to them, than they to the Assembly Divines, as being and writing before them. But however it were, to the same, or the like Argument, the same, or the like Answer is to be returned.  
§. 62. And thus I have also cleared the Field of this Squadron of Commentators. The third and last, which consists of a mixed multitude of Writers, Historical, Didactical, Polemical, Scholastical, and Casuistical, comes up so close to and near with this, that I cannot defer the encounter, but must instantly cope with them.   

CHAP. XIII. Answers to more Authorities produced by Mr. Danvers, from Historians, Casuists, and other Polemical, as well as Didactical Writers.  
§. 1. DOctor Cave (whom Mr. D. truly calls a great Searcher into Antiquity; and who, I truly believe, has digested more of that, than many others have read) leads up the last Squadron. And he (as Mr. D. tells us) in his late Book called Primitive Christianity, saith, p. 320. That the Party baptised was wholly immerged, or put under water; which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great End and Effects of Baptism; for, as in immerging, there are in a manner, three several acts, the putting the Person into water, his abiding there for some time, and his rising up again; thereby representing Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection; and in conformity thereto, our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our Resurrection to a new course of life. By the Persons being put into water, was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh, and being washed from the filth and pollution of them. By his being under it, which is a kind of Burial into water, his entering into a state of Death or Mortification; like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of Death; therefore it is said, As many as are baptised into Christ, are baptised into his Death, etc. And then by his emersion or rising up out of the water, is signified his entering upon the new course of life, that like as Christ was raised from the Dead by the Glory of the Father, so we should walk in newness of life. Thus Mr. D. reports him.  
§. 2. But for all this, (1.) that Doctor is no Anabaptist; nor against sprinkling in Baptism. For he doth not say that immerging was absolutely the constant, and universal custom of those times, but, with a restriction, almost the constant, and universal custom: that is, it was not the constant, nor the universal custom, but yet very much in use, the common practice of those times, as he after explains himself, p. 321. Which is a clear confession of some other way of baptising then in use, besides immerging, though not so much in use as that.  
§. 3. Secondly, after the Doctor's discourse of the signification of the Persons being put under, and being under the water, and rising up out of it, (which is all that Mr. D. takes notice of, and stops, when he comes at the end of it) the Doctor goes on to speak of Sprinkling: and saith,— But though by reason of the more eminent signification of these things, immersion was the common practice in those days, and therefore they earnestly urged it, and pleaded for it, yet did they not hold sprinkling to be unlawful; especially in cases of necessity, of weakness, danger of death, or where conveniency of immerging could not be had; in these and such like cases Cyprian does not only allow, 
Ep. 76. ad Magn. p. 153.  but plead for it, and that in a discourse on purpose, when the question concerning it was put to him. Upon this account it is, that immersion is generally disused in these parts of the World, and sprinkling succeeded in its room, because the tender bodies of most Infants (the only Persons now baptised) could not be put under water in the cold Northern Climates, without apparent prejudice to their health, if not their lives: and therefore in this, as in other cases, God requires mercy rather than Sacrifice, especially considering, that the main ends of Baptism are attained this way, and the Mystical effects of it as truly, though not so plainly and significantly represented by Sprinkling, as by putting the body under water.  
§. 4. In which discourse of his these remarks are so obvious, that 'tis loss, I fear, of time, to take notice of them to the Reader. (1.) That the practice of dipping, was but almost, and was not absolutely universal in the Primitive times. (2.) That sprinkling was not then held unlawful. (3.) That Sprinkling was especially allowed in cases of necessity, weakness, danger of death, or want of conveniency for immerging. (4.) That in this case God requires mercy, rather than Sacrifice. (5) That the main ends of baptism are this way obtained. (6.) That the Mystical effects of it are as truly represented this way, as by dipping, though not so plainly. So grave a witness was Dr. Cave against Sprinkling in Baptism.  
§. 5. Bishop Jewel is the next that Mr. Danvers makes to appear in this cause. And he (as Mr. D. tells us) in his Apology, p. 308. brings the Council of Worms determining the manner of Baptism thus, viz. That the dipping into the water is the going down into Hell (or the Grave) and that the coming out of the water is the Resurrection.  
§. 6. But B. Jewel hath nothing of this in his Apology, which I read all over, to find it. Missing it there, I sought for it in Caranzas Epitome of the Councils: but that hath nothing of it neither. Then I searched the Councils at large in Surius, and there I found what that Council said in reference to this matter; as also at last in B. Jewels Defense of his Apology, part. 2. pag. not 308, but yet 309 And it is plain to every man, that has but a drachm of brains in his Skull, that the Council there doth not determine the manner of Baptism, as Mr. D. would make the B. say it doth, but only declareth the meaning of that way of Baptising, when persons are dipped, namely that going into the water represents going down into a grave, or a burial, and that coming out of the water represents a coming out of the grave, or a resurrection. The words of the Council as they are in Surius, are these, Et nè fortè cuiquam sit dubium hujus simplex mysterium Sacramenti, 
Vormatiense Concil. Can. 5. de Baptismi Sacramento, ap. Surium, Tom. 3. p. 522.  videat in eo mortem & resurrectionem Christi significari. Name in aquis mersio, quasi in infernum descensio est; & rursum ab aquis emersio, resurrectio est. Therefore (so B. Jewel reports part of them) in the Council of Worms it is written thus, In aquas demersio, in Infernum descensio est; & rursus ab aquis emersio, resurrectio est: The dipping into the water is the going into hell; and the coming out from the water is the Resurrection. So no determination here of the manner of Baptism to be by dipping, but only a declaration of the meaning of that Ceremony, when the person baptised is dipped.  
§. 7. Now to requite Mr. D. for his Quotation out of B. Jewel, 
Et [credimus] baptismum quidem Sacramentum esse remissionis peccatorum, & ejus ablutionis, quam habemus in Christi sanguine: & ab eo neminem qui velit profiteri nomen Christi, ne infantes quidem Christianorum hominum, quoniam nascuntur in peccato, & pertinent ad populum dei, arcendos esse. Juelli Apol. p. 38. edit. Londin. 1581.  I will, before I part, give him one out of that his Author also, telling him, that Bishop declares the Church of England's belief of Baptism to be a Sacrament, not of immersion, or dipping, which is but the Secondary consideration in that Sacrament, but of that, which is primary and principal in it, namely, that ablution or washing which we have in, [or by] the blood of Christ: and also that she believeth, not only that none who are willing to profess the name of Christ, but no Infants of Christian Parents, in regard they are born in sin, and belong to the people of God, are to be kept from it.  
§. 8. Next to B. Jewel succeeds Mr. Baxter, And (saith Mr. D.) most remarkable is the Testimony Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth, wherein he also owns the changing of the Ceremony in his third Argument against Mr. Blake in these words, viz.  
§. 9 Quoad modum, To the manner, saith he, it is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists (as our Commentators declare) that in the Apostles time the Baptised were dipped over head in water; and that this signifieth their profession both of believing the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, and of their own present renouncing the world, and flesh, or dying to sin, and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the Apostle expoundeth in the forecited Texts of Coloss. 2. and Rom. 6. And though (saith he) we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water; yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it. So then he that signally professeth to die, and rise again in Baptism with Christ, doth signally profess saving Faith, and Repentance; but this do all they that are baptised according to the Apostles practice.  
§. 10. I answer, that I see nothing in this Testimony that merits so triumphant a Remark to be set upon it, for any advantage that is given to Mr. Danvers Cause by it. Mr. Baxter confesseth that in the Apostles time the baptised were dipped over head in water, But he doth not confess that they were dipped over Body too. Plainly, that which Mr. Baxter confesseth amounts but to a partial mersation of the head, and doth not necessarily imply a total immersion of the Body; unless it were impossible for a man to have his head dipped in water, except his whole body were dipped into it also. And if that will do Mr. D. any service, much good d'it him with his Testimony. The like we have shown in these Papers from St. Augustin, and St. Hierom, etc. But that will not do the Dippers business; whom nothing will serve, but a total Judaical immersion of the whole Body. And the change Mr. Baxter speaks of I suppose to be from this partial dipping, into sprinkling, which granted signifies nothing.  
§. 11. But suppose he meant, what he said, of a total immersion, than I judge his sense was, that generally the baptised were in the Apostles time dipped over head in water, not universally; that most were so baptised, not that none were baptised otherwise. And then his Confession will neither hurt himself nor us.  
§. 12. But if he meant more than so, then since he hath at the same time declared himself to have thought it lawful to disuse the, i. e. that manner of Dipping, and to use less water, it is plain he thought the Church not to be obliged by that Apostolical practice to an universal observance thereof through all successions of Ages, but to have power to make alteration even in Sacramentals, so they were but Circumstantial, and not Essential parts of Worship. And so the producing of his Testimony seems to be but a wresting of his words to signify what was not in his mind: which whether it be fair or no, I leave to Mr. D. himself to consider.  
§. 13. If I have not spoken Mr. Baxter's mind, or have not spoken it unto his mind, he is alive, of age, and ability to answer for himself. And I rather wish he would be pleased to do it himself, who can do it infinitely better, than I dare presume myself able to do.  
§. 14. The next that we are to encounter, is Daillé, on the Fathers, who (as Mr. D. tells us) l. 2. p. 148. saith, That it was a Custom heretofore in the Ancient Church, to plunge those they baptised, over Head and Ears in the Water; 

There is some little mistake in these quotations, which may be rectified by Mr. Daille's Margin thus.  
Tertul. l. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. Cyprian. Ep. 76. p. 211. Edit. Pamel. Epiphan. Pan. Haer. 30. p. 128. Cassand. l. de Bapt. Ins. p. 693.   as, saith he, Tertullian (in his Third Book, De Cor. Mil.) Cyprian, (in his seventh Ep. p. 211.) Epiphanius, Pan. (30. p. 128.) and others testify. And this, saith he, is still the practice both of the Greek and Russian Church at this day; as Cassander De Bapt. (p. 193.) And yet, saith he, notwithstanding, this Custom, which is both so ancient, and so universal, is now abolished by the Church of Reme; and this is the reason (saith he) that the Muscovites say, that the Latins are not rightly and duly baptised, because they are not wont to use this Ancient Ceremony in their Baptism.  
§. 15. Either Mr. D. misunderstands Mr. Daille: or Mr. Daille mistook the matter: Possibly both may be true. First, Mr. D. might misunderstand Daille. For he might think Daille meant, that Dipping was the only custom in the Ancient Church. But Daille doth not say so. He only saith it was a custom, but he doth not say it was the only custom. And 'tis true: a custom it was so to baptise healthy Persons; but it was not the custom so to baptise all Persons, for Clinics were baptised in their Beds. Now for Mr. D. from an expression of a custom, that is, one custom, to conclude for the custom, that is, the only custom, is, as I humbly conceive, a misunderstanding.  
§. 16. But secondly, if that were Mr. Daille's meaning, as it may seem probable by his after words, when he saith,— this custom which is both so ancient, and so universal, is now abolished— then, yet under correction, I say, that great Man herein showed himself to be but Man, and liable, like other inferior mortals, to mistake. For though the custom was so ancient as to reach up to the Primitive times, yet it was not so universal as to extend to all Persons in all, either of the ancient, or later times, as, I think, I have invincibly demonstrated in these Papers. And perhaps the consideration hereof was the reason why that great Man did not speak positively in the case, and say absolutely, that it was the Universal custom of the Ancient Church, but in a modified strain, so ancient, and so universal, i. e. so ancient as to have been in the Primitive, and so universal as still to be in the Greek and Russian Church. A great piece of matter.  
§. 17. But after all this, it may not be amiss to make some few further Remarks on this Quotation. As First, that Mr. Danvers leaves our after these words [and others testify] these which follow, [And indeed they plunged them thus three times: as the same Tertullian and St. Hierom both inform us] But why left he out this passage? Let the Reader judge. He espied in Mr. Daille's Margin, where St. Hierom's testimony was referred to, these words at length, and not in figures, [In lavacro ter caput mergitare] by which it is plain, that this plunging over head and ears, at least as far as St. Hierom gives testimony to it, was but of the whole Head, and not of the whole Body. Now that, had it been put in, would have spoiled all. For that would have proved but a partial mersation: and then it would have been no proof of a total immersion; and so have signified nothing to the purpose, that by Mr. Danvers it was quoted for.  
§. 18. Secondly, whereas Mr. Daille saith, that this is still the practice both of the Greek, and of the Russian Church, even at this very day, I am not so well skilled in the present Rites of those Churches, as peremptorily to contradict him. Yet that it hath been universally the practice of both those Churches from the first to this day to baptise at all times by a total immersion, I cannot consent unto it. And that the Russian Church at least hath formerly, if it do not at this day baptise by pouring of water on the baptised, I have showed in these Papers. Ch. 10.  
§. 19 Thirdly, after those words, wherewith Mr. Danvers concludes, [in their baptism] Mr. Daille adds [which, they say, is expressly enjoined them in the Canons of Joannes Metropolitanus, whom they hold to have been a Prophet.] But why did not Mr. Danvers add this? The Reader may easily conjecture the reason of it: even because the Muscovites did ground their custom, for nonobservance whereof they say that the Latins are not rightly and duly baptised, not on the Word of God, but on the Canons of a Man, one Joannes Metropolitanus. Now to make it a Humane Institution, or the Institution of a Man, of whose Divine Inspiration, and to such purpose too as to give Laws to the Church in the name of God, we have no infallible assurance, would not do the Total Dippers business, who urge the universal observation of their Baptismal Rite, on no less an Authority, than that of a Divine command: and so Mr. D. wisely let it alone. But others may observe it, and make of it what use they can.  
§. 20. Fourthly, whereas Mr. Daille, and from him Mr. Danvers saith, this is the reason that the Muscovites say, that the Latins are not rightly and duly baptised, because they are not wont to use this ancient Ceremony; it may be noted, that the Muscovites (even taken according to what is here said of them) do not charge the Latins with not being baptised at all, but with not being rightly, and duly baptised. This then is as clear an intimation of their allowing of the Baptism of the Latins, for substance, and granting that it is a Baptism, as it is of their disallowing of it for circumstance, and denying it to be rightly and duly performed. For he that says a Man is not rightly baptised, grants him baptised, whilst he denies his baptism to have been rightly administered. For there can be no right or wrong, no due or undue baptism, where there is no baptising at all. Sublato subjecto tollitur proprietas. And so this part of the Testimony clearly destroys that which it was produced to prove: and makes the Muscovites witness to the truth of a Baptism amongst the Latins: whereas the contrary was designed by their Testimony, which I wonder Mr. Danvers did not see, and consider, and for the sake thereof pass that by.  
§. 21. Lastly, whereas Mr. Daille saith, this custom is now abolished by the Church of Rome; I ask what he means by Abolishing. If he say, the cessation of it by virtue of any Canonical Decree of that Church, than I shall require the Council, and Canon, by which its abolition was decreed; and be of opinion, till I see the contrary, that none such will be produced. If by Abolishing he mean Disusing, than I grant, that in that sense this custom was indeed that abolished, when that Author writ. But I must say withal that it was not then first abolished, but long before: and that the beginning of such its abolition is like the head of Nilus, undiscoverable: the custom growing by insensible degrees from being at first almost universal, to become at last almost quite out of use, if yet at all it be used in that Church. So little grist is by this Testimony brought to the Anabaptists mill.  
§. 22. From him Mr. D. proceeds to Walafridus Strabo, who De Reb. Eccles. tells us, That we must know, that the first Believers were baptised simply in Floods and Fountains.  
§. 23. Well, admit this: it follows not, First, that all that were baptised in floods and fountains, were totally immersed into them: they might be but sprinkled, or but partially dipped in flood or fountain.  
§. 24. Secondly, it follows not hence, that if any Believers were totally immersed, all were so. The expression is but Indefinite, and not Universal: and it is true, if but some Believers were so baptised. But that all Believers were so baptised, as he doth not say, so it is, if he had said it, without convincing evidence to prove its truth.  
§. 25. Nay Thirdly, that he did mean his words but Indefinitely and not universally, is plain by his own words that follow (which Mr. D. thought it not for his interest to discover) It is (saith he) to be noted, that many have been baptised not only by dipping, but also by pouring water from above upon them (and he had given before an instance in Lucillus baptised by St. Laurence that way) and that they may still be so baptised; 
Notandum, non solùm mergendo, sed etiam desuper fundendo multos baptizatos fuisse, & adhuc posse baptizari, etc. Hoc autem solet evenire cùm provectiorum granditas corporum in minoribus vasibus hominem tingi non patitur. Walafrib. Strabo de Reb. Eccles. c. 26.  adding also an account on which it was usual to baptise otherwise than by dipping; even when the Fonts were too little to contain the greater bodies.  
§. 26. His next Author is Mr. Fox; and he (as Mr. D. saith) tells us in his Acts and Monuments, part. 1. pag. 138. out of Fabian, c. 119, 120. That Austin and Paulinus did in the Seventh Century, baptise here in England great multitudes in the River Trent, and the River Swol: where note by the way, saith Mr. Fox, it followed, there was no use of Fonts. The like also, as you'll hereafter find, Germanus and Lupus, the two French Evangelists, did in the Fifth Century, baptise multitudes in the River Allin near Chester.  
§. 27. Grant all this, and what then? Then it follows, that 'tis probable that some were baptised in England in two several Centuries, by immersion: because many were baptised in Rivers. Yet I say 'tis but probable, not certain; unless appearing from other evidence: because a man may be baptised in a River, without being totally immersed into it. And in that multitudes are said to have been baptised in those Rivers, it makes it the more probable, that the baptism was not by a total immersion; because the labour and time was more in baptising so, than otherwise; and when the Baptizer was but one, or but a few; and the Persons to be baptised many, reason would prompt, that the more compendious and less troublesome way should be taken; and that was sprinkling, pouring on of water, or partial mersation into it.  
§. 28. And if there were no Fonts, as Mr. Fox notes, than there was the more reason they should go to Rivers. Though their going to Rivers does not prove there were no Fonts. For where many were to be baptised, Fonts, unless of large capacity, were not so convenient as Rivers, where many Ministers at once might be doing the work, whereas at a Font hardly any more baptised than one at once. But, be that as it will, doth this prove, that none either in England, or in any other country, either in those, or any other Ages, were baptised by sprinkling, or any other way than by a total dipping? It is impossible it should, especially when the contrary to it is evidenced by Fact, as I have made appear in these Papers, ch. 10. This then only follows hence, that this whole passage is a grand impertinence, and proves nothing of what is disputed of in this question: which is not, whether any, or what number, were baptised by dipping; but whether never any in the Church were baptised by Sprinkling, or other way than by a total immersion.  
§. 29. Having written thus much on supposition of integrity in the quotation, I resolved to consult the Author himself. And though not according to the quotation made by Mr. D. of Part 1. p. 138, etc. yet in pag. 107. col. 2. l. 70, etc. I found this which follows. But to return to Austin again, who by report of Authors was departed before this cruelty was done, after he had baptised and Christened ten thousand Saxons or Angles in the West river, that is called Small, beside York, on Christmass-day, perceiving his end to draw near, he ordained a Successor named Laurentius, to rule after him the Archbishops See of Dorobernia. Where note by the way (Christian Reader) that whereas Austin baptised then in Rivers; it followeth there was then no use of Fonts. Again if it be true that Fabian saith, he baptised Ten thousand in one day: the rite then of baptising at Rome was not so Ceremonial, neither had so many Trinkets at that time, as it hath since: or else it could not be that he could baptise so many on one day.  
Upon this Relation I shall crave the Readers leave to make some remarks.  
§. 30. And first, supposing Augustine to have been a man of great strength, and then at the fullness of it, yet the number of the Persons said to be baptised by him, and all in one day, (viz. 10000) is so great, as that it exceeds all measures of credibility, that so many could be baptised of him by a total dipping of them. When we read of but Three thousand baptised in one day by twelve persons, wise and learned men think it reasonable, from the difficulty, if not impossibility of it, that so many should by a total immersion be baptised by so few in so short a time, to conclude, that there baptising was performed, not by dipping, but by sprinkling. Now much more strongly is the same to be argued, when against three thousand to twelve, is set Ten thousand to one.  
§. 31. But than Secondly, if we consider the time of his Life, when this was done, the improbability, or rather impossibility of it will still the more appear. It was when his strength was gone, when he was an old man, and near his death. For the very next thing, that our Author mentions of him, after his performance of this great baptism, is his perceiving his end to draw near. Had he had the strength of Samson, such a days work as the total dipping of Ten thousand men had been enough to have tired him to the death. How much more unable was an old man with one foot in his grave to go through such a service! And if it be argued from the inability of all the Ministers of a whole City to baptise by dipping, but so many as came to be baptised at the mother Church, only on one of the three solemn times of the year, that (because the greatness of the work of lifting of so many into and out of the Fonts exceeded the strength of the Baptizers) therefore they baptised by Sprinkling: how much more may it be argued from the insufficiency of one old, and consequently a weak man, for the total immersion of so many as Ten thousand at once, that he did it not by dipping, but by sprinkling?  
§. 32. And yet Thirdly, if we consider the time of the year, when this is said to be done, it will still render it more improbable, or rather impossible. It was on no other than Christmass-day, anciently called Midwinter-day. It cannot, I think, be well imagined how one man should totally dip another in a River, who is not himself in the same River with him. Nor is any thing suggested to the contrary in all the Antiquities I have conversed with, so far as I can call to remembrance. So then Augustin must be supposed in that starving Season to stand in the same River all the while that he was baptising them. Now that an Old man should be able to stand either naked, or clothed in a River, and on a Christmas-day, and till he had totally dipped Ten thousand men, is so far beyond all degrees of probability, that it can be concluded nothing less than impossible.  
§ 33. Either then there was no such baptising of such a multitude in a River (at that time especially) and then, why did Mr. D. urge that practice of Augustine's upon us? or else it was done in a way that was more practicable: and then nothing can put in so fair a plea for it as sprinkling. Nay, Mr. Fox himself argues, that either there was less to do about Baptism in Augustine's time, than in his own (his words are, that the Rite of it was not so Ceremonial, neither had so many Trinkets at that time, as it hath since,) or else it could not be, that he could baptise so many in one day.  
§. 34. Now why Mr. D. would only tell us in general of Augustine's baptising great multitudes in Rivers, and not tell us of these particularities of his baptising them, it is easy to conjecture; even because he saw he could not relate them, but that presently these, or some such like remarks would be made upon them, and so his quotation would either prove to be to no purpose, or else to be against his own purpose.  
§. 35. And as for the story of Paulinus, which is a different thing from that of Augustine's, however jumbled together into one by Mr. D. it is plainly this, as it is related by Mr. Fox, pag. 109. col. 2. lin. 3. etc. that having first baptised King Edwine with many other of his subjects with him at York, he did from that time forth, during the life of Edwine, which was the term of six years more, continually christian in the Rivers of Gwenie, and Swala, in both Provinces of Deira, and in Berenicia, using the said Rivers for Fonts.  
§. 36. But first, it is not here said, that he dipped them in those Rivers. And if it had been so said, it had only proved positively that dipping was thenin use, not negatively, that sprinkling was not. Secondly that Note, which Mr. Fox makes concerning Augustine's baptising in Rivers, viz. that it was because there was then no use of Fonts, is not added also upon Paulinus' baptising in Rivers, though Mr. Danvers sets it after both, as belonging to both. Thirdly, River-dipping was not the only way of baptising used by Paulinus. For neither King Edwine himself, nor those many subjects of his, that were baptised with him, were, by the Confession of Mr. Fox, baptised in any River. For he tells us in his Margin to that place, where he relates the story, that King Edwine was baptised in St. Peterschurch at York, which he caused first to be made of Wood (and that in order to his being baptised therein, as Bede informs us) which was after by St. Oswald builded of Stone. 
Bed. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 14.  And if that baptising was in the Church, than it could not be in the River, especially as the Church now stands, unless afterward weary of standing so low it took its progress and walked up the hill. And if it were in a Church, that the baptism was, then whether it were not in a Font; and whether not by sprinkling, or at most a partial mersation, since we have no remains, that I know, of any Fonts of capacity for a total immersion unless of Infants, it is free for the Reader to make his conjecture. And he that five hundred years hence should read the story of the baptism of the Turk converted by Dr. Gunning, and should see in the Churches then, no other Fonts, but such as we have in our Churches now, would never imagine that Baptism to have been by dipping, but would conclude, that it was by aspersion, or affusion, or at most by a partial mersation.  
§. 37. As to what he saith concerning Germanus and Lupus, the two French Evangelists, viz. that they did in the Fifth Century baptise multitudes in the River Allin near Chester, which we shall find hereafter, I answer, first, that having neither told us where, nor when we should find it, we might well pass it over without further notice, till we should meet with it. But secondly, having a desire to know further, what might be discovered of them, that concerned our present purpose, and not having time to read over all that remained behind in his book for it, I consulted his Index: but it should seem, what was said of them, was not worthy so great a remark as to be put in there. Notwithstanding, out of a desire to be satisfied, turning over the leaves of his book, I found in pag. 228. that those two famous French men being sent over into Britain, to help against the Pelagian heresy, were instrumental to convert many, and did baptise great multitudes upon confession of Faith in the River Allin near Chester. But still we are but where we were before. For 'tis only said here, that those two Evangelists did baptise many in the River Allin: and 'tis but the same man, viz. Mr. D. that saith it. But how they baptised there, whether by aspersion, affusion, partial mersation, or total immersion, is not said, no not by Mr. D. himself. Yet thirdly, I examined several Chronicles, and Historians about it, viz. Fox, and Holinshead, Marian. Scotus; Sigebert Gemblac. Fascic. Temp. Magdeburg. Cent. Vincent. Belluacens. Spondan. Baronius, and Bedes History: but not a word in them all appears, by which their total dipping in that River is necessarily concluded. Fourthly, than it must be concluded, that because it was in a River, that they were baptised, therefore at their baptism they were dipped. But that, as we have already showed, is a weak inference; and grounded on no certain bottom. And if River-baptizing infer total immersing, then by the same consequence, or as good, Baptism out of a River infers Sprinkling, or some other way distinct from total dipping. And if that be good, then from Bede's relation of the baptising of a great multitude in a Church erected for that purpose, so far as I can gather from the circumstances of that History, 

Bed. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 20. fol. 23. a.  
Holinsh. Hist. of Eng. l. 5. c. 6. p. 8. a l. 10. etc.   against the day of our Lord's resurrection, as Bede words it, or Easter day, as (Holinshead interprets it) by the same Germanus, it may be concluded, that the said Germanus did baptise a great multitude otherwise, than by dipping. And so his baptising in Allin, though we suppose it to have been done there by dipping, is no prejudice to our cause. Let Mr. D. give us the one, or not ask of us the other. Though in truth neither way of arguing is demonstrative, what probability soever may be supposed to be in either. But—  
§. 38. Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople (his next Author) ad Theol. Witebergenses, Resp. 11. c. 4. saith, The Ancients baptised not by sprinkling the baptised with water with their hands, but by immersion, following the Evangelists who came up out of the water; therefore did he descend, which must needs be Immersion, and not Aspersion.  
§. 39 The words, as thus translated, are not in my apprehension reconcilable with good sense. Therefore I will set down the original, as I find them in B. Taylor. 
Cas. Consc. p. 644.  Baptizabant enim veteres, non manibus suis aquam baptizando aspergentes, sed trinâ immersione, hoc Evangelii sequentes, Ascendit ex aquâ, ergo descenderat. Ecce immersio, non aspersio.  
§. 40. Whom does he mean by the Veteres, the Ancients here? The Predecessors of Christianity in any one Age, or more? And does he speak of them universally, so as to mean, that in any one, or more of the first Ages, no one was baptised by sprinkling, but all, without exception, by dipping, and that thrice? It will be long before his Patriarchship will be able to prove either the Affirmative or Negative part of his Proposition.  
§. 41. First, to prove an Immersion (meaning a total one) in the first Age is not very easy, much less a threefold one, by any witness that lived in that Age. By the Scripture I am sure he cannot. For that speaks indeed of baptising into the name of three persons, but not of three dippings at the three naming of those Persons: though I rationally believe it to have been so in the first Age, because I find it to have been so in the second, and yet find no original of it there.  
§. 42. And secondly, to prove, that none were baptised by sprinkling, is more hard. For finding sprinkling in the after Ages, and finding no rise of it, when first it began, in any one of them, it is as supposable, that it also came from the first, as that the trine Immersion did. Which, as I noted, none of the first Age more speak to, than they do of sprinkling.  
§. 43. But the Patriarch gives us their ground of that practice, the words of the Gospel, Ascendit ex aquâ, and thence he supposed, that they gathered, ergo descenderat, therefore he went down into it. And thereupon infers his Conclusion with an Ecce of Triumph, Ecce immersio, non aspersio, Behold an immersion, not an aspersion.  
§. 44. But I think those Ancients lived nearer Aristotle's time than he, and were better Logicians than to infer such a conclusion from such premises. For first, the word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he ascended, not out of, but from the water; now that he might do, that was not at all in it, but only by it, at the brink, or bank of it. A going down to the water they might gather, but not a going down into the water. And secondly, unless it had been impossible for any man to go into the water, without going so into it, as to be covered all over with it, neither his going into it, nor his coming out of it, can ever prove his total immersion in it. If from any Topic else it may be inferred, well, and good: but from this it can never be: as I have shown in these Papers, ch. 10. where this matter is particularly, and at large debated on. So that there is no need to seek for shelter in the Patriarches only gathering from hence an Immersion, and not expressing that Immersion to be a total one: less than which nothing will serve our Total Dippers: and therefore I shall pass on, and receive the charge of his next Author.  
§. 45. And as he tells us, Zepperus 
* Si vocis notationem attendere velimus, vocabulum baptismi mersionem significat in aquam, vel ipsum mergendi & abluendi actum, ex ipsâ erga vocis notatione & Etymologiâ apparet quae baptismi administrandi consuetudo fuerit initio: cùm nos pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potius, hoc est aspersionem nunc habeamus. Zepper. de Sacram. ap. Leigh. Crit. Sacra.  De Sacramentis, from the Annotation and Etymology of the word (saith) it doth appear, what was of old the Custom of administering Baptism, which though we have changed into Rhantizing or Sprinkling.  
§. 46. I suppose Mr. D. had this quotation from Mr. Leigh, in whom it is, but was loath any body should look for it there, for fear of what follows from Danaeus, by whom we are told that (and told the reason too why) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly in Scripture taken pro lotione & mundatione, for washing and cleansing.  
§. 47. But be that as it will, the Testimony will not trouble us much to answer it. For if the Author meant, that of old it was a custom to administer Baptism by dipping, or the more usual, or more general custom so to administer it, we shall easily grant it. But if he meant, that it was the only custom of old so to administer it, I have given so sufficient evidence of other customs besides that, even of old, that we must, and with good reason enter our dissent from him.  
§. 48. And whereas the Quoter saith, it was of old the Custom, the Author's word is initio, at first or in the beginning. Now it is to be suspected by his rendering that word of old, that he designed to put a slur upon us, as if that Author had intended to declare or intimate, that sprinkling was not custom of old, but a new practice come up but of late into the Church: whereas it pleads Antiquity for itself, and that so high, that none can find any original of it lower than the Primitive times. And so, though it might not have been a custom initio, at the very first, to baptise that way, but dipping may claim the priority of it for that, yet it might very soon after the first beginning upon reasons thought well of by the Apostles, or Apostolical persons, come into practice, and so become a custom of old, though it were not a custom initio, in, or at the first beginning. Deacons, as distinct Officers from Apostles, were of old, in the Primitive times, even in the Apostles days: and yet they were not initio, at the first beginning of Christianity, or constitution of the Christian Church, but ordained some time after its beginning, and by the Apostles themselves, Acts 6.5, 6.  
§. 49. And whereas that Author saith, that we now rather have pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Rhantism instead of Baptism; I answer, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken two ways: first, more strictly, for the act of immersion or dipping, or more largely, for the Sacrament of Baptism however administered. And so, though instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipping, we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinkling; yet we have not that sprinkling instead of baptism, as if our sprinkling were not baptising, but somewhat else instead of it: but we have it for what it really is, a true baptism in the larger sense, though it be not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strict sense of that word as it signifies dipping; though sprinkling be not strictly dipping, yet it is truly baptising.  
§. 50. From Zepperus he is in haste to go to Dr. Taylor, (a Champion he often glories in,) and saith he, Dr. Taylor, in his Rule of Conscience, l. 3. c. 4. p. 644, 645. The Ancient Church did not in their Baptism sprinkle Water with their hands, but did immerge; and therefore we find in the Records of the Church, that the Persons to be baptised were quite naked, as it is to be seen in many places, particularly in the Mystagogy Chat. (as he writes it) of St. Cyril, and many others (as you have before in the second Chapter of this Part, from Vossius, p. 133.) And I shall follow him as fast to attend the motions of that Doctor. And I answer.  
§. 51. Bishop Taylor did, as I, and all good men, I believe, would do, i. e. wished as near a conformity in the present Church to the Primitive, as the Circumstances of both may well permit: and therefore represents things tending that way as favourable as he could: but his words must not be tenter-hooked, and stretched to a meaning beyond his mind. And whether they be not so here, will be left to the Readers judgement. In this very Section and Paragraph he tells you, that of this Sprinkling, besides what is employed in the former Testimonies, there was some little use in the Primitive Church. And he backs this saying of his with proofs from Tertullian, Surius, and Walafrid Strabo. When therefore he saith, that the Ancient Churches did not in their Baptisms sprinkle water with their hands, but immerged the Catechumen, or the Infant (for those are his words, which Mr. D. disguises, and curtails, and shrinks up into a barely, but did immerge, for ends best known to himself, but easily guessable at by any man, though of no greater abilities than I am) I say, in so saying, his words cannot in reason be taken, as if he meant, that absolutely and universally all without exception were then immerged, and none were sprinkled: for that is contradictory to what himself afterward in the same Paragraph saith and proveth, as I have already noted: but that mostly and generally it was so: the contrary practice being so infrequent (as not used in ordinary cases, but only such as were of high charity and great necessity) that it was little taken notice of in public. So that speaking according to what was generally done, and publicly observed, he might infer from the Authorities by him insisted on, that the custom of the Ancient Churches was not sprinkling, but immersion. But though it may be granted, that the custom was not sprinkling, but dipping, yet it will not follow thence, that there was never any thing of that nature done in those times contrary to the custom: for the contrary is apparent. And therefore D. Cave in his Testimony cited by Mr. D. p. 200. speaks warily and safely in the case, saying, not absolutely, that it was the constant and universal custom of those times, but the almost constant and universal custom. And so B. Taylor is to be understood, if we will make him consistent with himself: as we must do, or else his Testimony will be nothing worth on either side, and he will be no more against us, than for us: and his quoting will signify nothing more, but that the Quoter had a mind to make a noise with his Name, and object him to us, as being an eminent, not only member of, but Minister in our Church, and a Bishop in that Church wherein he lived, when he published that Writing, at least the second time. I wonder the Quoter did not take notice of this conclusive passage of his, and especially of what follows immediately added to the words recited by me, viz. That that custom of the Ancient Churches was in pursuance of the sense of the word in the Commandment, and the example of our Blessed Saviour. Which if he had, I have given answer thereto in these Papers, ch. 10. and 16. I shall only make this remark upon it in favour of Mr. D. That he is the more pardonable, if he sometimes takes no notice of what is against him, when he can pass by some, and such notices, that seem to be for him. But if there be wilfulness on the one side, and but inadvertency on the other side, I shall then plead nothing for him, but leave him there to plead for himself.  
§. 52. But Mr. D. goes on (and I shall follow him) And this Immersion (saith he from Dr. Taylor) was of so Sacred an account in their esteem, that they did not account it lawful to receive him into the Clergy, who had been only Sprinkled in his Baptism, as we learn from the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabianus of Antioch, Euseb. l. 9 c. 43. It is not lawful that he who is sprinkled in his Bed by reason of sickness should be admitted into Holy Orders, doubting whether such a Sprinkling should be called Baptism.  
§. 53. I wonder Mr. D. should produce this instance: because it is an unanswerable proof of a baptising by way of Sprinkling so early in the Church as the time of Novatus, of whom the story is: and who no doubt, was not the first man, that was so baptised: because his being baptised so was pleaded in Bar against his admission into Orders, as being against Law: and so this instance is a clear evidence of such a practice even before his time, which falling to be about anno 250. it may well be presumed, that such baptising was at least in the Century before, that is the second, if it were not also in the first (as who can say it was not?) Laws not being in that persecutious time of the Church so easy, and suddenly made for the Catholic Church: especially if it were unlawful by any Canon; (as I see none made for it before that time, though it came afterward into the Codex of Canons, being so established after in the Council of Neocaesarea) and much less if by custom: for that requires long time, and many instances, and much observation to be brought up by. And as to the Baptism itself, I apprehend it was not the unsufficiency of that, which made it unlawful for the so baptised to be admitted into Holy Orders, but other Reason, which I have given in these Papers, ch. 10. And as for Novatus' Baptism, it is by Cornelius sufficiently owned to be a Baptism, whilst he accuses him for his forsaking of the Church of God, wherein he was baptised, as I have showed there also. Which could not have been said with sense, if he had not at all been baptised; or if the baptism, which he had received, had been a nullity.  
§. 54. As for those words added to what went before, as if they had been Dr. Tailor's words [doubting whether such a sprinkling should be called a baptism] I cannot be just to the truth, unless I say, they are not Dr. Tailors words, but an Addition of Mr. D's. as any that will consult the place may see. Yet something there is, that is near to, not altogether the same with, this passage: for it follows in the Doctor, Nay it went further than this, they were not sure, that they were rightly Christened, yea or no, who were only sprinkled; as appears in the same Epistle of Cornelius in Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Nicephorus thus renders [if at least such a sprinkling may be called a Baptism.] Yet this is but near to, not the same. For it is one thing, not to be done at all; and another thing not to be done rightly: and many things are not done rightly, which yet when done, are held valid and good: according to the Vulgar saying in this case, Fieri non debuit, factum valuit. That which they were not sure of was, not whether such a Sprinkling should be called a Baptism; but whether those that were only sprinkled, were rightly baptised: I say, not whether they were baptised at all, but whether they were baptised rightly, which is clear another thing from what Mr. D. would infer. And as for the Reason of Cornelius his words of doubt, I have spoken to that in ch. 10. and shown it to be another thing. And if Nicephorus misunderstood him, who is to blame for that? There is a great deal of difference between those words [if one ought to say, that such a man did receive baptism] and these [if at least such a sprinkling may be called baptism.] For a total dipping into water by a due Minister, with a right form of words, is even in the Anabaptists Dictionary a baptism: and it cannot be said, but that such an immersion is a baptism. And yet of an Infant so baptised, an Anabaptist would say, [if one ought to say, that such a one did receive baptism] or rather he would deny that he did receive it. But I will suppose Nicephorus understood well enough what he said, and that his Translators did not understand him (I would be loath to say were willing to mistake him.) For what saith he? If at least such a sprinkling may be called a Baptism. He doth not say absolutely, if a Sprinkling, or any sprinkling, may be called a baptism: no, that was not the doubt with him: but if such a sprinkling, [that is, a sprinkling given to such a person, and in such a condition, at such a time, and not consummated by that, which was by the then Canon, or custom to have followed, as I have showed ch. 10] may be called a baptism, which is no more than to say, if such a baptism, [be the manner of it, what it will] may be called a baptism. Which makes nothing to the purpose.  
§. 55. But to go on with Mr. D. And therefore (saith he as from Dr. Taylor) Magnus in his Epistle, questions whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, who are only sprinkled, and not dipped in water.  
§. 56. Dr. Tailor's words (which it had been more ingenuous, as I conceive, in producing his Testimony, to set down, as he spoke them) are these. And this was not only spoken in diminution of Novatus, and indignation against his person: for it was a formal question made by Magnus to St. Cyprian, an habendi sint Christiani legitimi, cò quòd aquâ salutari non loti sunt, sed perfusi. Whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, who were only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped.  
§. 57 Mr. D. sure was loath to hear baptism called by any other name, but what necessarily implies dipping; and therefore he left washed out: and yet washed, not dipped is St. Cyprians word: and perhaps his meaning too. For within a few lines he saith, The breast of the Believer is washed one way, 
Neque enim sic in Sacramento salutari delictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali & seculari sordes cutis & corporis abluuntur, ut & sapone & nitris & caeteris quoque adjumentis, & dolio, & piscinâ opus sit, quibus ablul & mundari corpusculum possit. Aliter pectus credentis abluitur, aliter mens hominis per fidei merita mundatur, Cypr. l. 4. ep. 7.  the mind of man through the merits of Faith is cleansed another way. So that he seems not at all to speak of dipping, but of washing, and that of the breast only. And what if one Magnus (more scrupulous it seems than others) did make such a formal and solemn question? It follows not that all else, or any other besides him were unsatisfied about it. And it is apparent that St. Cyprian himself was well satisfied in the case. For he answers (as Dr. Taylor tells us, though Mr. D. does not, 
In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente & deo indulgentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conferunt divina compendia. Id ib.  it being not for his interest so to do) that the baptism was good, when it is done necessitate cogente, & Deo indulgentiam suam largiente, in the case of necessity, God pardoning, and necessity compelling, or rather, as I think it ought to be rendered, necessity compelling, and God permitting.  
§. 58. And this (he goes on) is the sense and Law of the Church of England; not that it be indifferent, but that all Infants be dipped, except in the case of sickness, and then sprinkling is permitted. And so it was in those times when the Doctor first wrote this. But the sense and Law of the Church of England is since that grown still a little more favourable. For in the Office of Public Baptism of Infants the dipping of the Infant is appointed with an If [if they shall certify that the Child may well endure it.] So then no such certification being made, the Minister is not appointed to dip it; nor is he required to ask, whether the Child may well endure it or no: and seeing them offer the Child to Baptism in such a condition as it is unfit to dip it in, he may in reason presume, without their certifying either way, that it may not endure it. Their very offering it in that condition is an Interpretative Certification of its inability to suffer baptization by a total immersion. And being that in the Office of Baptism of persons of riper years, dipping in the water, or pouring water on, is indifferently prescribed, and clearly left to the Minister's liberty, without ifs or and's, where yet the Person is of age and strength enough to endure it: he may rationally presume he is at the same liberty with Infants, of whose strength, in regard of their age, there is no ground for such presumption.  
§. 59 After this the Doctor goes on to confirm the use of sprinkling from instance of some, though little use of it in the Primitive Church, which he shows from Tertullian, the Acts of St. Laurence in Surius; and Walafrid Strabo: and for further confirmation adds the Opinion of Aquinas, that the Three Thousand, and Five Thousand Converts in the Acts, were so baptised. All which Mr. Danvers is pleased to over-pass.  
§. 60. But then having weakened this last proof from Aquinas, by calling it but a conjecture, and saying it hath no tradition, nor record to warrant it, he draws towards the conclusion of that, which all this discourse about dipping and sprinkling is brought to prove, viz. that a custom in the administration of a Sacrament introduced against the Analogy and mystery, the purpose and signification of it, is not to be complied with, saying, And therefore although in cases of need and charity the Church of England does not want some good Examples in the best times to countenance that permission, yet we are to follow her command, because that command is not only according to the meaning and intent of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the commandment, but agrees with the mystery of the Sacrament itself; For we are buried with him in baptism, saith the Apostle; adding thereto this testimony from St. Chrysostom, which Mr. D. transcribes from him, In aquâ tanquam in sepulchro caput immergentibus vetus homo sepelitur, & immergitur, deinde nobis emergentibus novus resurgit inde. The old Man is buried and drowned in the immersion under water, and when the baptised Person is lifted up from the water, it represents the Resurrection of the new Man to newness of life.  
§. 61. In which part of the discourse I cannot but note three things, which Mr. D. was not pleased to advert unto. First, an acknowledgement, that the Church of England does not want some good examples in the best times to countenance her permission of sprinkling. Good Examples, and in the Best Times, are very material words for us, and give us an Antiquity as old, and as good, as we can desire, and utterly overthrow all that ever can be said against us, especially on the account of Antiquity. Secondly, that the Analogy betwixt Immersion and Emersion, and the Death or Burial of the old Man, and Resurrection of the new Man, is made the mystery of the Sacrament, and by the manner of speech so made the mystery, as if it were the only mystery of it: our washing from sin by the blood of Christ, which is the prime signification and mystery of the Sacrament, being passed by, on no account, that I know of, unless, because if that were either the whole, or any part of the mystery of the Sacrament, that would hold analogy with sprinkling, and so weaken the Inference for Dipping. Thirdly, that whereas the Immersion St. Chrysostom speaks of, is, as far as his words will bear, but an immersion or dipping of the head [caput immergentibus, is his word] both the Doctor and Mr. D. slip that by, without the least notice of it, and hid it under a general ambiguous term of immersion under the water, which is apt to carry away the mind to think of a total immersion of the whole man, whilst it is but the head, whose immerging the Father speaks of. At this rate who may not be made to say even what one wills?  
§. 62. At length both the Doctor and Mr. Danvers come to a Conclusion. And therefore (saith Mr. D.) he concludes, That the contrary custom being not only against Ecclesiastical Law, but against the Analogy, and mystical signification of the Sacrament, is not to be complied with.  
§. 63. But why did Mr. D. stop there? and not do the Doctor and the truth right, in adding the Exception following? Unless in such cases that be of themselves sufficient to justify a liberty in a Ritual and Ceremony; that is, a case of necessity.  
§. 64. To Mr. D. I shall answer first, That, as I conceive, the allowance of any such case or cases, were not consistent with his Hypothesis; and that the adding of those words would have made the Doctor's testimony unserviceable to his turn, and therefore he thought fit to leave them out. With how great ingenuity I leave to his own judgement.  
§. 65. Then to the Doctor I say first, that the Custom of sprinkling is not now against our Ecclesiastical Law, which hath prescribed dipping, or pouring on of water indifferently in the case of the public baptism of persons of riper age; and hath appointed pouring on of water in the case of the sick Infant baptised privately; and hath neither appointed dipping, nor sprinkling in the case of Infants brought to Public Baptism, but accordingly as certification of their ability, or inability to endure dipping, shall be made. And then as to the Analogy and mysterious signification of the Sacrament, that sprinkling or pouring on of water is not against that, but very agreeable with it, I have shown at large in the Ninth Chapter of this Book, and shall further show in the Sixteenth; whither I refer the Reader for his satisfaction. And in the mean time I think I may conclude that the advantage which Mr. D. hath gained to his cause by this great Man's testimony signifies as much as comes to nothing.  
§. 66. I wonder Mr. D. slipped what the Doctor saith in the close of his 15th. Paragr. p. 646. viz. that because it is better to use dipping, and it is more agreeable to the mystery to use it three times, and that so the Ancient Church understood it, therefore these things are a sufficient warrant to acquit us from the obligation of the contrary custom; because a custom against which there is so much probability, and in which there is no necessity and no advantage, is to be presumed unreasonable. The reason, if I may presume to guests, was partly because he saw the Doctor's dispute lay not against the unlawfulness, but obligatoriness of the contrary custom. And he might see, that as the probability against it was not so great, as the Doctor fancied, so the necessity of it was sometimes so much, and the advantages in cases of necessity and charity so considerable, as that it could not be presumed unreasonable, but on the contrary aught to be judged very rational. Partly it was because the Doctor doth in the very next words in the former clause of the same period assert, that because there is even in sprinkling something of the analogy of the mystery, as is rightly observed by Aquinas, and Dominicus à Soto; and because it is not certain, that the best representation, and the most expressive ceremony, is required; therefore the Church, upon great cause, may lawfully do either. Which he was unwilling any of his Party should know. And thus much for Dr. Taylor.  
§. 67. From this Champion of our own Church, we are next called to receive a charge from a brisk Champion of the Church of Rome; nay from the Church of Rome itself, as Mr. D. words it. The Church of Rome (saith he) confesseth by a Learned Pen, the Marquis of Worcester in his Certam. Relig. That she changed dipping the Party baptised over Head and Ears, into sprinkling upon the Face.  
§. 68 Mr. D. should rather have said, as I think, a Learned Pen of the Church of Rome confesseth. For not the writing of every Learned Man is presently the Confession of the Church he is of: for when so Learned Men of the same Church are of contrary judgements, and write contrary things, than the Church they are of must be judged to be so too: and that is to speak her a Church of no judgement. And the Church of Rome will not endure that. Nor would Mr. Danvers' Church (I believe) be willing to espouse all his assertions as her Confessions. But that is to be taken for the Confession of a Church, which is professed by her in her public Writings, compiled by Persons authorized thereunto, confirmed by the Subscription of her Ministers, and made authentic by the attestation of her Supreme Magistrates.  
§. 69. But what is it that the Marquis saith she did? That she changed dipping into sprinkling. This cannot signify that before that change there was no sprinkling at all in that Church: but that it wholly left off to dip, which had been the public and solemn way of baptising in that, as well as in other Churches; and in stead thereof, even in the public and solemn baptizings, as well as in the private baptisms, upon cases of necessity, she baptised by way of sprinkling.  
§. 70. And what was the change in this respect made? Dipping all the whole Body under the water into sprinkling upon the Face? The Marquis, even as Mr. Danvers quotes him, saith not so: but dipping the Party baptised over Head and Ears. That may mean no more, but dipping his Head only all over (and by a Pleonasm of speech, his Ears too) under water, and not his whole Body. And that such a way of baptising has been in use in the Western Church, I have showed before, Ch. 10. And if that were the Church of Rome's meaning in what she confesseth here by her Learned Pen, than Mr. D. gets nothing to his Cause by her Confession.  
But if not, yet still what change soever she made therein, she did no more than she lawfully might, being invested with the same power in such cases, as other Churches have; and the thing itself being no substantial part, but only an accidental circumstance of that Sacrament: wherein Churches have power to continue, or alter as they shall see best conducing to order, decency, and edification: and proceed upon grounds of necessity, charity, or great conveniency.  
§. 71. But I am of opinion, it was not the Church of Rome, that made this Change: but a Church that had more power than that Church ever had, even the Catholic Church: which Rome is not any more, than any other particular National Church is; even so far as she holds union, and fellowship with the Church Catholic in truth of Doctrine, Essentials of Worship, and Substantials of Discipline. And this appears, because the Church the Marquis there speaks of, is that Church, that could deposit the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, and introduce the observation of the Christian Lord's Day; which sure was not done by that particular Church, but by the whole Catholic Church throughout the World. And that Church indeed that could do that, could without doubt change the dipping over Head and Ears in Water, into a little sprinkling upon the Face, by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies, occasioned by the differences of Seasons and Countries, (as the Marquis there adds) and may upon the like occasion, accordingly dispose of the manner of her administration of her Sacraments. For sure to deposit the observation of a day expressly commanded to be kept holy, and to introduce the like observation of another day, touching the keeping of which holy never any Command was given, (as none that we know of, was ever given for its sanctification, though in all probability it was founded in Apostolical Practice partly intimated in the Scriptures, and further notified by Tradition) implies a power as great as, if not greater than, to change a Rite in a Sacrament, not more commanded than the Sanctification of the Sabbath day, nor so much as that, if it were ever at all under any command, which is denied by Learned men, as in those Papers is shown.  
§. 72. So then, if there were no change made, than we are as we were at first. And if there were a change made, it was made by a Church, whether the Catholic or Roman, that had power to make it. Either way will serve our turn. For which way soever it be, our practice will be free from guilt: either as being itself Primitive and Apostolic: or as being taken up into use instead of somewhat that then was used, by a Church that had power to make that change.  
§. 73. Though after all, I shall not grant any change made herein, other than what I have already said, from a practice but privately used in case of necessity, to become the general practice, even where Baptism is administered with greatest solemnity.  
§. 74. Having done with the Marquis, he goes on to tell us, that, until the Third Century we find not any, that upon any consideration, did admit of Sprinkling: and that the first we meet with is Cyprian. To which having spoken before, I shall say nothing, but that, if in that Century it was admitted, it hath a fair antiquity to plead for itself. But what probabilities there are of its having been practised before, I have already showed, and therefore will not here repeat, but pass on to his next Authors.  
§. 75. Aquinas, Scotus, and others of the Schoolmen conclude (as he tells us) that Dipping is most agreeable to the Institution, but admit, that in case of necessity, viz. when either many are to be baptised, scarcity of water, or sickness, or weakness, they may Sprinkle. Voss. p. 38.  
§. 76. Suppose they do conclude Dipping to be most agreeable to the Institution, yet things are well enough With us, since they do not conclude it only to be agreeable to it. And if they admit it in case of necessity, then in that case they hold it lawful. For in no case would they admit of that, which they judged unlawful. Because evil is not to be done, that good may come thereof. But to come closer to him.  
§. 77. In what part of Vossius this is set down Mr. D. names not. But I guess it is in his first Disput. de Baptismo, Thess. 9 and pag. 358. for which the Printer by mistake put 38. Touching which, if that be the place, I observe first, that it is not Scotus, that is named there, but Sotus; not Jo. Scotus that was an opposer, but Dominicus Sotus, that was a follower of Aquinas. But this might be a mistake of the Printers.  
§. 78. Secondly, that no others of the Schoolmen are there named, but those two, Aquinas and Sotus. But it may be he put that in of his own head, besides what he had in his Author. And yet if so, he should not have vouched his Author for more than he named.  
§. 79. Thirdly, that neither any Schoolmen there named, nor Vossius from them saith, That Dipping is most agreeable to the Institution. Indeed Vossius saith of Aquinas, that he saith, mersionem quidem magis congruam esse, that dipping is indeed more congruous; but he saith not to what. Mr. D. supplies it to the Institution. I blame him not: it would make well for his cause, if it were so. But if we consult Aquinas (in the place referred to, as I suppose, 
Cùm in baptismo assumatur aqua ad corporis ablutionem, non modò per immersionem, verùm etiam per aspersionem, vel effusionem aquae baptismus dari potest: tutius tamen est (quia hoc habet communior usus) per modum immersionis baptizare. Aquin. 3. q. 66. art. 7. Conclus.  by Vossius) 3. q. 66. art. 7. conc. there is no mention of the Institution of Baptism, to which Dipping is either most agreeable (as Mr. D. saith) or more agreeable than sprinkling, but of the Common use of the Church: in respect of which he saith it is the safer to baptise by way of immersion. A great deal of difference betwixt more safe in respect of common use, and most agreeable to the Institution. So that neither these Schoolmen, nor the Quoter of them, afford Mr. D. any the least patronage to his cause; which may justly be suspected so much the worse, in regard such shifts are used for the maintaining of it.  
§. 80. Fourthly, I will fairly relate, what these Schoolmen say, and then leave the Reader to make his judgement on the case. The words of Dominicus Sotus, as Vossius quotes them from dist. 3. qu. un. art. 7. are these, In baptismo aliquid est de essentiâ, ut ablutio, juxta illud ad Eph. 5. ubi Apostolus baptismum appellat lavacrum aquae; aliud verò accidentarium: nempe ut ablutio hoc vel illo modo fiat. In baptism something is essential, as washing, according to that Eph. 5. where the Apostle calls baptism the washing of water: and something is accidental, as that the washing be made this or that way. Now if so, then dipping is not of the Essence of Baptism, and so not necessarily to be always used in baptising. But herein (saith Vossius) he followed Thomas Aquinas, who also himself saith, that dipping is truly the more congruous (viz. to the common use, as I said before:) and therefore thinks it ought not to be done otherwise unless for a reason that is either necessary, or honest, or at least agreeable unto reason. Yet notwithstanding inasmuch as water is taken in the Sacrament to signify the washing of the Soul by the washing of the body, and that washing may be made not only by immersion, but also by effusion, and aspersion, he thinks truly that baptism may be administered after every one of these ways. And he adds four Causes for which it may be otherwise done than by dipping, which are (1.) great multitudes of persons to be baptised, (2.) Scarcity of water, as when there is not enough for dipping, (3.) Weakness of the Baptizer, unable to bear the person to be baptised, (4.) Sickness of the person to whom the baptism is to be administered, by reason of which he would be endangered if dipped. And now, Reader, I leave you to make what estimate you please of these Authors, Aquinas, Sotus, and Vossius, and of their Quoter, Mr. Danvers. And I leave him to triumph, as much as he pleaseth, in the advantage he hath gotten by this, or any other the like Quotations.  
§. 81. After the Schoolmen he proceeds to draw to a conclusion by way of Recapitulation of Arguments from the Genuine sense of the word, Nature of the Ordinance, and Usuage of the Ancients, which he saith were excellently inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson in a Sermon preached at his Lecture in Michael's Cornhill London, April 15. 1673. from Rom. 6.4. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death; proving from thence, that dipping or plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in that Ordinance; and how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism to enforce Holiness and Mortification the thing signified thereby.  
§. 82. That that Reverend Divine did preach a Sermon in that place, and at that time, and on that Text, I am apt to believe. But what he said in it is not so easy to know. For not Mr. D. gives us his words. And after many inquiries in the Country, and at last sending for it to London, I understand that Sermon was never yet Printed. And therefore Mr. D. whom we have not found over candid in things that have been Printed, must excuse us, if we be not over hasty to take his word in things that never yet came at the Press. As to the matter I easily believe that from the Rite of Dipping in Baptism there alluded unto by the Apostle, the Doctor did rationally deduce and powerfully inculcate Arguments to enforce to Holiness and Mortification. But that the Doctor did prove, or had any such design in that Sermon as to prove from that Text, that dipping or plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in that Ordinance, meaning by the proper, the only lawful Rite, whence must follow, that there was therefore a necessity of Dipping in Baptism, I am not satisfied, nor shall be, till he tell us so himself. A proper Ceremony and Rite I shall easily grant he might affirm it to be: because no body denies it. But that it was the proper Rite and Ceremony in the sense newly expressed and explained, I am very confident he never said, he never thought. Partly because the Doctor is too learned not to know better things than so, Partly because I suppose his own practice, as well as other men's, hath been to baptise after another manner. And partly because I am assured from himself, that what he said of the Apostles alluding in those words [being buried with him in Baptism] to the ancient Rite or Manner of Baptising, 
Letter dated Jan. 31. 1677.  which was immersion, was without any mention, or so much as thought of any necessity thereby laid upon Christians of observing punctually all the Circumstances, used in the Institution of this Sacrament, any more than of the other. Which not the Anabaptists themselves will say there is. And therefore the Reader may be satisfied, that, whatever Mr. D. suggest to the contrary, that Reverend Person is no more conformable in judgement than in practice to the Anabaptists; nor is by any thing that he hath writ, or said, a witness for them, and against the Practice of the Church of England, when by the allowance of the Church of England they baptise otherwise than by a total dipping, as in several cases they do and may do it, by her allowance.  
§. 83. And now, the field being thus far cleared, I might fairly retreat. But because I discern two stragglers behind and coming up at a distance, I will stand a while and receive their charge.  
§. 84. The first is Ainsworth (who as we are told by Mr. D. saith) upon Leu. 15.5. To baptise or wash his flesh, as is expressed, v. 13.16. meaning his whole body, and so the Greek Translateth, shall wash his body. The Hebrews say, every place where aught is said in the Law of Bathing the flesh, and washing the  of the unclean, it is not meant, but of baptising the whole body in water, Maim. in Makraoth, c. 1. s. 2. Figuring out our Sanctification by Christ, and his Spirit, by whom we draw near to God, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and bodies washed with pure water, Heb. 10.22. v. 11. If a man be baptised all over, saving the tip of his little finger, he is yet in his uncleanness. And if clay or any such thing cleave to the flesh of a man, it is unclean still as it was, and the baptising profiteth them nothing, c. 1. sc. 2, 7, 12, etc.  
§. 85. The Greek Translateth indeed v. 13. shall wash his body, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and v. 16. shall wash all his body. But they do not Translate it shall dip his body. I hope a thing may be washed, and washed all over, and yet not dipped. So their Translation helpeth the cause nothing at all. And suppose the Hebrews say true, as I am not so much a Rabbi as to manage dispute on this head of discourse: yet than this only follows, that baptising the whole body is meant, wherever bathing of the flesh is mentioned, but not that it is meant other where. And there is mention often enough of cleansing with washing, where yet bathing is not mentioned. Though I am not satisfied that bathing doth in the notion of it necessarily imply dipping. Again there can be no Arguing from this sort of washing, but to washings of the same sort. But washing of Proselytes for admission into the Covenant is another thing from washing of Persons from pollutions by Issues. And this washing is of divine Institution: but whether the other were so is uncertain. Of this the Institution clearly appears in the Word; and so it may be better judged of: but of the other there is not the like, if any appearance; and so of that we cannot be so certain in our judgement. Further, though it were never so much as they say, yet still is that no obligation unto us, who are under another Dispensation, and have Liberties conferred on us by Christ, from that yoke of bondage, which was imposed on them by Moses, until the times of Reformation. See Ch. 8. of this Treatise. Lastly, I argue thus, If there is to be so much scrupulosity in the baptising of Christians, as the Rabbis say there was in the baptising of Jews, and the same things rendered the baptism of the one of no effect, which rendered the baptism of the other ineffectual; than it would follow, that though the whole body of a Man were put under water, as the Dippers would have it, yet through the adherency of clay, or some other adventitious, perhaps excrementitious, matter to his body, he might still be unbaptised: and we should be as uncertain on that account, when any Person were truly baptised, as they are in the Church of Rome, on account of the Priest's Intention to baptise. If there is not to be that scrupulosity among us, as was amongst them, then why are their customs in that kind so scrupulously urged upon us? This for Ainsworth.  
§. 86. Then for Dr. Goodwin. To this purpose we have Dr. Goodwin, in his support of faith, p. 54. very excellently, viz. That the eminent thing signified and represented in Baptism, is not simply the blood of Christ, as it washeth us from our sins; but there is a further representation therein of Christ's Death, Burial and Resurrection in the Baptised, being first buried under Water, and then rising out of it; and this is not in a bare conformity to Christ, but in a representation of communion with Christ in that his Death and Resurrection: Therefore it is said (we are buried with him in baptism) and wherein we are risen with him, etc.  
§. 87. That the blood of Christ, as it washeth us from sin, is represented in Baptism, is tacitly consented to by that Doctor in this place: and that it is the eminent thing signified, and represented in it. But that it is not simply so, (I suppose he means, that it is not only so, or that that is not all the thing which is signified, and represented in it) but there is a further representation therein, etc. is the thing, if I understand the Doctor, asserted by him. Wherein I know none will contradict him; provided he make not that, which was the primary design of baptism, to truckle to other secondary designations by it.  
§. 88 But here I observe the Doctor is not writing about Dipping, or Sprinkling, in a way of Dispute for the one, and against the other, nor meddles in the least in those Points, in a way of controversy: only shows how that by the baptized's being first buried under Water, and then rising out of it, (which is a way of speaking familiar to Divines, even those that own and avow the lawfulness of sprinkling) a representation is made of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And no doubt it is so, and very eminently, where the Baptism is that way administered. But there is a representation also made of these things by aspersion and perfusion. (as will be further showed in Ch. 16.) And therefore there being no opposition between what that Doctor asserts, and I affirm, I dismiss his Testimony, as a thing alleged impertinently by Mr. D. as to the purpose in hand, if it were, as doubtless it was, by him designed to be exclusive of other ways of baptising, besides Dipping. And I conclude, that by the alteration of this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling, the Symbol is not (as Mr. D. saith it is) quite spoiled, nor made any other thing, than the Institutor of it did design it; viz. a Sacrament whereby his washing us from our sins with his blood is represented, as the primary design of it; and his Death, Burial, and Resurrection, as the secondary.  
And now after this Interruption to my Discourse in Answer to Authorities alleged by Mr. D. against my Hypothesis, I shall proceed in what I intended.   

CHAP. XIV. The Church's Grounds for admitting of Sprinkling, in general.  
§. 1. THat Baptism by other ways than that of a total immersion, and particularly by pouring, or sprinkling of water on the baptised, hath been practised in the Church, of ancient as well as later times, hath sufficiently (I hope) been made to appear, by what hath on that Subject already been delivered in these Papers.  
Perhaps it may not be unprofitable to make Inquiry into the Reasons, or Occasions, of the Churches gradual declining, from the first more general way of dipping, to that less usual way of sprinkling, which yet is now grown to be the more general way.  
§. 2. And truly I cannot think it proceeded from any wanton humour in the Church, causelessly to throw off any Precept of Christ's, or Practice of the Apostles. Far be that from being thought of that Company of Men, who are called to be Saints, and who know themselves to be no further such, than they keep both to his Precepts, and to their Practice, in things wherein their conformity thereunto is indispensably required. What shall we think then in the case? This, as I humbly conceive; and no more but this: That when the Church saw, that there was nothing in the Precept of Christ, nothing in the Practice of the Apostles, whereby it was bound up into so straight a room, as to be confined in all, even the greatest cases of necessity to one way of baptising, and particularly to that of a total immersion, it made use of that power about the Rituals of Religion, and Circumstantials of Worship, wherewith Christ, as his Trustee on Earth, after his departure to Heaven, for the managing of the affairs of his Kingdom here, till his coming again, had endued it; 
*  instituendi alicujus ritûs si usus exigat, ita ejus abrogandi, si abusus requirat, Ecclesia habet potestatem. Voss. de Bapt. disp. 1. Thes. 8. pag. 347.  and in order both to the fulfilling of that, which being the declared will of his Father must needs be interpreted to be his will too, even that of having mercy, and not (i. e. rather than) sacrifice: and to the performing of that Precept of his Apostle, whereby he commanded that all things in the Church should be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with an honest decency, on just occasions waved that severer way of baptising by a total immersion, and admitted the other more benign ways of affusion and conspersion.  
§ 3. How far the Church was from being enforced by any indispensable Precept of Christ's, to keep solely to the way of a total immersion, has been shown (and, I would fain hope, sufficiently) in the foregoing Papers. And, if nothing else had been said, to any modest Inquirer this, methinks, might be sufficient to persuade, that our Saviour intended only a prescription of the substance of the Ceremony, that Men should be baptised, and not a description of the Circumstance of it, or manner how they should be baptised, in that, whereas he knew there were in use among the Jews, divers washings called baptisms, some total of all the Body; some partial, only of the hands, etc. having in a general term prescribed the matter, he adds not one syllable to determine the manner; neither saying, baptising their Heads; nor baptising their Hands, nor baptising their whole Bodies; neither sprinkling them with water; nor dipping them into water; nor pouring water upon them, nor particularising any manner of way how he would have the application of water made to them: and consequently that the Church keeping to the substance, was by him left at liberty to determine herself as to the circumstance, baptising this, that, or the other way, as reason, from conveniency, expedience, or necessity should persuade.  
§. 4. And that she was not bound up to a total immersion by the Practice of the Apostles, it sufficiently appears from this, that whereas there are several Instances of baptisms by the Apostles, which with great probability may be presumed to have been performed by sprinkling, or pouring of water on the baptised, no one example can be produced of any one Apostles baptising any, which carries with it any more than a probability of its being performed by dipping; of no one of them, by what is expressed in the Text, can it certainly be said, that it was a total immersion. So then there being but probability against probability, and no infallible certainty on either side, what could the Church think other, or what other can any Man imagine the Church should think, but that in such case she had power to determine herself to one way, or to be at liberty, to use both, or neither, according to her discretion.  
§. 5. But methinks I hear such a Thunder in mine Ears about Philip's baptising the Eunuch, (Act. 8.38.) that I am not able to get any further, before I say something to it. Well then, let us calmly consider the Case. Philip having converted the Eunuch by preaching unto him Jesus, as they went on their way, (v. 36.) they came unto a certain water, and the Eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? Philip hereupon consenting to it, upon his further profession of faith in Jesus Christ, (v. 37.) He commanded the Chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him. This is the case. Now what is here, that necessarily infers a total immersion? The Eunuch said, Here is water. True: but he doth not say, how much of the water there was. Here is water, he saith; that's true indeed; but he doth not say, here is a River, here is a Pool, here's water enough for me to be dipped into. It is said, John was baptising in Aenon, because there was much water there. But here the muchness, (if I may so speak) or quantity of the water is not by the Eunuch insisted on, as any reason why he should here be baptised. He doth not say, here is much water, but only here is water (without much:) what doth hinder me to be baptised? which fairly intimates unto us, that where there is water, be it much or little, there a baptism may be.  
§. 6. But it is said, that both Philip and the Eunuch went into the water. Now sure that they might do, though the water were far from being so much, as to be capable of receiving a man's whole body into it, so to be baptised in it, as the manner of the Jews was, sitting, or rather standing up to the neck in it. He that goes into the water but up to the knees, as truly goes into it, as he that goes up to the breasts. Their going into it then enforces not the Eunuches being wholly dipped in it.  
§. 7. And then no more does their coming out of it. For cannot a man be said to come out of the water, unless he have been first all, over head and ears, in it? He that is in the water but up to the ankles, as truly, when he leaves it, comes out of it, as he that goes into it up to the neck.  
§. 8. Yea, but it is not barely said, they came out of it, but they came up out of it. Well then: if coming up out of the water signifies a having first been all in it, than it seems Philip was dipped too, as well as the Eunuch: for it is not said of the Eunuch singly, that he came up out of the water, but of him and Philip jointly, that they (that is they both) came up out of the water. If then no total dipping of Philip follows upon his coming up out of the water (a thing never pretended by any, and unimaginable in itself) there follows none from the numerically same expression of the Eunuches coming up out of it. No more being said of him than of Philip, but the self and same of both.  
§. 9 Yea, but it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. they ascended out of the water. Yes, just as it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they descended into the water. The Objection is too trifling to deserve a serious answer. How can there be a going into the water, especially such a one as this is supposed to be, a water in, or by the high way, without going down into it? where lie confluences of waters, but in low places, which must be gone down to by those that will go into them? where is there such a water, though on the top of the hill, that is not lower at the bottom of it, than the earth that bounds it, so that there can be no going into it, but there must be a going down to it? Descending then, or going down unto it, or even into it, does not necessarily suppose a going so far into it, as till one be over head and ears in it. No more than doth ascending, or coming up out of it. One may well enough ascend, or come up out of the water, who has been no further than knee deep in the water.  
§. 10. But still it is said of the Eunuch, that being in the water Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptised him. Yes, and that he might well enough do without a total dipping of him. He might sprinkle water in his face, pour water upon his head, wash him with taking water by handfuls and casting it upon his body, or rubbing him therewith, or might dip his head, and no more of him, into it; and yet still here was a baptising, though no total immersion of him. Here's nothing then but the mere force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to persuade to it. And then any other Text of the New Testament, where St. Peter or St. Paul, or any other Apostle is said to have baptised any, might to as much purpose be alleged as this Text, that there is such a stir about. Now to go about to go to confute the Inference drawn from the signification of the word is needless here: for that were but to say over again all that hath already been said on that subject, which I hope the Reader bears in mind: and therefore I shall neither trouble myself nor him with it: but leave it to him to judge of it.  
§. 11. And yet again, that this Baptism was by Conspersion, or affusion, rather than immersion (unless of the head, or face only) may seem probable. Because, First, there is no mention of their putting off their clothes, when they went into the water; which indeed it was but necessary, as the case stood with them, that they should keep on, unless they meant to catch their deaths, the season being supposed to be in Winter, not long after the stoning of St. Stephen, and they in a journey upon the highway, where they could have no fire to warm them, after their coming up almost starved with going naked into the cold water; and unnecessary they should put off, being the business might be done without it, by going but only with their legs bare into the Water. Secondly the Eunuch, being (as I suppose) a Black Moor, may be well thought to be unwilling to be wholly stripped naked before St. Philip, who was a White. Thirdly, there is no mention of the manner of Philip's baptising him expressed, that enforces to think it otherwise, it being not said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he dipped him into the water, but only that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he baptised him, which might be as well, (nay more conveniently, as circumstances might be) by conspersion, as by immersion. And fourthly, I can find no water in the way, that the Eunuch traveled in, fit for the purpose of a Jewish total immersion, but a Brook in a Valley, or a Spring bubbling up at the foot of a hill to do it in: 
See Dr. Caves' Life of St. Philip the Evangelist, Sect. 11. pag. 30.  neither of which probably were deep enough for it; and the rather because it is not said, that he dipped him into it.  
§. 12. But suppose it probable, notwithstanding all that I have said, that his Baptism was by dipping: yet probability is no certainty, and so can afford no demonstration. And if it be but probable that it was so, than it may be probable (nay I have shown something of a probability) that it was not so. And then what's all the noise of Philip's dipping the Eunuch come to? To nothing else but mere noise. And I wish that they who use that Argument, would weigh it better before they use it again, to confront therewith the Authority and Practice of the Church, when she makes use of that Liberty and Power, wherewith Christ, the Head of his Church, hath invested her; and ordereth, or practiseth baptism any other way, than by a total immersion.  
§. 13. I might add after all this, that had all things been here as their hearts could wish, yet still this had been no example of any Apostle. For it was but Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle, that baptised the Eunuch. An Apostolical person, or, if ye will, an Apostle, in the larger sense (as Clemens, Ignatius, or any other of the Primitive Fathers are called Apostles) he was: but no Apostle in the strict sense we now speak of, as designing by that Appellation only those Eleven Persons, who were by our Saviour, just at his Ascension, sent by him (and from his sending them called Apostles) into all Nations, to make Disciples all the world over, by teaching and baptising them, with Mathias, after, by divine appointment, elected to take part of that Ministry and Apostleship.  
§. 14. And had he been never so much an Apostle, yet still that could only have warranted the lawfulness of dipping, not enforced a necessity of it. Unless one could have been sure, both that no Apostle baptised any other way, and that they all decreed, that their example should in that particular, be binding to all posterity; or that all, or any one of them, had by a peremptory irreversible determination from heaven declared, that none ever should be baptised any other way. But who can be assured of the first, that has not been made privy to all the actings of all the Apostles in that kind, in all places wherever they went and planted Churches? And who can be assured of the second, who has not heard or read all, that they all ever decreed, preached or writ? or has not an infallible assurance (which no mortal man can have,) that neither all of them, nor any one of them, ever decreed, writ, or preached, any thing, to the contrary?  
§. 15. And so now, upon serious consideration, I refer it to the most prejudicated Reader to say, what enforcement can lie upon the Church from Philip's baptising the Eunuch, to necessitate her to the dipping of all she baptises.  
§. 16. And now the Church being supposed at liberty, for any thing either in the Precept of Christ, or Practice of his Apostles, to use what way she pleased in baptising, I will pursue my intended course of showing, on what accounts she first more sparingly permitted, and after more freely admitted, baptising by way of Sprinkling.   

CHAP. XV. The Churches particular Inducements to admit of Sprinkling.  
§. 1. BAptism in the foremost Ages of the Church, 

For excepting the case of Martyrs (whom they thought sufficiently qualified for heaven by being baptised in their own blood) they reckoned no man could be saved without being baptised. Dr. Cave, Prim. Christian. part. 1. ch. 10. pag. 300.  
We hold the same Necessity of Baptism, that the Fathers did hold, which is viâ ordinariâ: yet non alligando gratiam dei ad media, no more than the Schoolmen do. B. Andrews Answ. to Peron. p. 12.  
Nisi enim renatus fuerit ex aquá & spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Vtique nullum excipit, non infantem, non aliquá praeventum necessitate. D. Ambros. de Abraha●o Patriarcha, l. 2. c 11. Sine baptismo mortuos periisse non dubium est. Id. de Voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. Sed antequam per aetatem possit homo vivere secundùm spiritum, necessarium habet Mediatoris Sacramentum— D. Aug. l. 10. de Genes. ad literam, c. 14. Parvulis non sufficit fides ecclesiae sine Sacramento: qui si absque baptismo fuerint defuncti, etiam cùm deferuntur ad baptismum, damnabuntur— P. Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4. c. 5. p. 387.   how little account soever any may make of it in this, was held necessary in order to salvation. No coming for any into the Kingdom of heaven, that might have baptism, and despised it, or neglected it, was believed then. Yea some in process of time went so far (perhaps too far) as to hold, not as the Church now holds, a necessity in the ordinary way, without tying God to the means, but an absolute necessity of it (so as that the salvation even of Infants, who could neither seek it, nor desire it, nor despise it, nor neglect it, if they died unbaptised, was by some doubted, disputed, denied) unless that defect were supplied baptismo sanguinis, with the bloody Baptism of Martyrdom. How rightly this was believed and held, is not my present concern to inquire, much less to determine. Sufficient it is to my present purpose, that it was (as I think none, that has had any insight into Antiquity, but will say that it was) so believed and held.  
§. 2. Yet this notwithstanding, it is evident, beyond all possibility of dispute, or doubt, that many in the Primitive times who did believe this, did, for all that belief, defer their baptism, not only till their old age, but to their deathbeds, or what they thought might be so. Their reasons why they did so are not one, but many, 
Preface to Mod. Plea for Inf. Bapt.  as I have abundantly elsewhere declared. It may be sufficient to note here three or four of them. Some did it out of lothness to part with the world, and their sins, and their pleasures, as thinking that, if once they took the Yoke of Christ upon them, they must thenceforth renounce, not the devil only, and all his works, but also the Pomp's and Vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh; assuring themselves, that, though they enjoyed the pleasures of sin for never so long a season, yet if they could but get to be baptised at last, though it were never so late first, (not till they were upon their deathbed, and at the last gasp) all their sins passed should be forgiven them.  
§. 3. Some did it out of an apprehension, that though they did by baptism obtain remission of all forepast sins, though never so many and great, yet if they sinned after Baptism, for such sins there was no pardon: and therefore as knowing the multitude of temptations they must daily be exposed to in the world, and their own weakness to resist them, to prevent endangering the forfeiture of their pardon for what was past, and secure their present peace, and future salvation, they would not be baptised, till they thought themselves to have out-sailed all rocks and shelves, to be past all storms and dangers, to have arrived in the port of happiness, and to have nothing more to do, but through the gate of death to enter into eternal life.  
§. 4. Some did it to avoid the danger of Persecution for religion; since, till they were baptised, they could neither by the cunning of the persecuting Heathens be discovered, nor by the cowardice of any persecuted Christians be betrayed, 
See Dr. Cave Prim. Christ. part. 1. c. 10. pag. 308.  to be of the Christian Faith: and so would not embody themselves with the Church all their life, though they meant to expire in her bosom at their death; as knowing by her principles and practices, that She did sympathise with him that was her Head, and would not be willing that any should perish, but be ready to save all those that would not destroy themselves, and open her Arms to relieve their Souls at the last gasp of their bodies.  
§. 5. Whether upon these or any other Reasons, as there were many, I say not; but so it was, that the baptism of very many was deferred to the utmost extremity; and there was a necessity, either of baptising them then, in that condition, or of letting them departed out of this world unbaptised, or venturing it at least.  
§. 6. What should the Church do in this condition? should she stop her ears against their cries? shut her eyes against their tears? harden her heart against their prayers, and deny them baptism? Where were then her compassion to Souls? How should she show herself merciful as her heavenly Father is merciful? with what heart could she shut any out of God's Kingdom, that sought with prayers and tears to be let into it? Why should she let any be damned, or but die in danger of damnation, that by her means might be delivered and saved? Yea, why should she let any die in despair or disconsolate, when she was able to open to them a door of hope, and draw out for them a breast of consolation?  
§. 7. Should she grant them baptism, but on condition they would be totally dipped? Alas! that were either as ill as a denial, because it would propound a condition they were incapable of performing; or else, whilst the exercised mercy towards their Souls, to be acting cruelty to their bodies; to make sure of sending some out of this World, who else might have lived longer in it: an act so like murder, and so near killing, that it would be hard, amongst any that were Christians, to find either a hand or a heart, that could do it; much more, amongst Ministers, who would never be persuaded it were either any part of their office, to kill Men for their salvation; or any of God's methods, to destroy men's lives, for the preserving of their Souls.  
§. 8. What then should she do? What? but take the middle way: neither deny them, nor dip them: but (what would neither endanger Body, nor Soul, neither destroy Life, nor endamage Health) baptise them by a gentle application of water to them in the way of Sprinkling. And this is the way which the Church in the Primitive times did take, and hath persevered in, on such like occasions; as hath, I hope, been competently evidenced in these Papers.  
§. 9 And what Necessity (real, or but supposed, 

Et servari debet cùm necessitas imminet— propter infirmitatem vel impotentiam baptizati. Bonavent. l. 4. dist. 3. a. 2. qu. 2.  
Potest etiam fieri per modum effusionis vel aspersionis— propter periculum pueri de cujus morte timetur. Lynwood. Constitut. l. 3. c. de Baptismo.— Velure propter debilitatem baptizandi cui potest imminere periculum mortis ex immersione. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. a. 7. c.  
Praeterea cur Aspersionem quae jam obtinet in Ecclesiis nostris retineri posse credamus, charitatis & necessitatis Lege compellimur. Siquidem ut Nuda Corpora, praesertim Infantûm (quaeles ferè sunt qui nunc Baptizantur) aeri frigido exponantur, & Aquis Tota immergantur, in hisce ad septentrionem sitis regionibus, prasertim hyberno tempore, sine valetudinis periculo fieri non potest. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1. Thes. 9 356, 357.   for that's all one) could persuade to in one case, was the easilier yielded to in other the like cases. Such as is that of new born Infants, of whom many are really sick when born; so sick, that, as if they came into the World only to cry for a Tomb to be buried in it, they depart almost as soon as born, scarce, nay sometimes not at all living till they can, though with the expedition of the most compendious method, be got baptised. And of those whose condition appears more sound and healthful, many suddenly have alterations, and are gone in a moment, when any such thing was least expected. And therefore the condition of the whole sort of them hath been held but the same with, or near a kin to that of elder persons in sickness, and so they thereupon, to prevent the worst which they might feel, or others fear, have been thought proper Subjects of baptism, and admitted in all Ages thereunto, if offered to it. And truly, of the two, favour would cast the scale on their side, in regard that, as they need it, as well as the others, so, though they do not desire it, as others do; yet they have neither refused it, nor neglected it, when they might have had it, as others have done.  
§. 10. 

Et hoc maximè est verum quando necessitas incumbit etiam propter imbecillitatem sacerdotis non potentis sustentare infantem. Lynwood. Constitut. l. 3. c. de Baptis.  
Quandoque autem potest imminere necessitas— propter debilitatem Ministri, quia non potest sustentare baptizandum. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. a. 7. c. Et servari debet cùm necessit● imminet, aut propter infirmitatem baptizantis, quia manus sunt debiles, etc. Bonaventur. l. 4. dist. 3. a. 2. q. 2.   And if weakness in the baptised might excuse them from being dipped, then might Infirmity in the Baptizer excuse him also from dipping. This may be a very real case, for aught I know, unless the Ministry were by some special privilege exempted from weakness by Age or sickness. And if it were not supposable, such learned, and judicious Persons as, not Lynwood only, but Aquinas, and Bonaventure, would never have pleaded for sprinkling upon the account of it. For this they make one piece of that necessity, upon account whereof a total immersion is abatable, and conspersion admittable.  
§. 11. And what Necessity there is to allow of baptising by way of sprinkling, in case the Minister, by reason of natural or adventitious weakness, be unable to lift into, and out of the Font, any heavy Child, the same will be pleadable for its allowance in case the Number of Persons to be baptised be such, as exceeds the strength of him, that otherwise is not weak, to dispatch their baptism by dipping. For weariness reduces him that is strong, for the present, into the condition of weakness. And he that has lost his strength with labour, is so far equal with him that had it not to labour with.  
§. 12. Now this case hath no doubt already many a time happened, not only when multitudes of Heathen Nations turning Christians have come flocking, Men and Women, 
Pontifex, nocte sanctâ Pentecostes, vigiliis celebratis, ad baptisterium foras muraneum egressus est, ibique omnis multitudo coram to prostrata baptismum flagitavit. At ille prae gaudio lacrymen, cunctos aquâ abluens & Chrismate liniens in sinu matris Ecclesiae congregavit. Fuerunt autem qui baptizati sunt amplius quingenti. Baron. Ann. Chr. 579. N. xxvi. The time when Baptism was wont to be administered: at first all times were alike, and persons were baptised as opportunity and occasion served; but the discipline of the Church being a little settled, it began to be restrained to two solemn and stated times of the Year, viz. Easter and Whitsuntide, Dr. Cave Prim. Christianity, part 1. ch. 10. p. 306. Vid. Novarin. Schediasm. Sacroprophan. l. 3. c. 9 Num. 47. Lambert. Danaei Ethic. Christian. l. 2. c. 10. pag. 121. col. 1. B. Baron. Ann. Chr. 723. Num. 9 Zuingeri Theatrum, Vol. 27. l. 3. pag. 4171, 4172. Et verisimile est quòd non per modum immersionis sed aspersionis baptizaverit Apostolus Petrus, ad cujus praedicationem legitur uná die quinque millia, & aliâ die tria millia conversos ad fidem baptizasse. Lynwood Constit. l: 3. de Baptismo. Et hoc propter necessitatem; vel quia est magna multitudo baptizandorunt, ut patet Act. 2. & 4. Aquin. Sum. 3. q 66. a. 7. c  and Children, to Baptism; as the Saxons in England and Germany, and Pomerania; as also the Lithuanians and Polonians; but also when the times of public baptising, especially for Catechumen, were but only two in the Year, Easter, and Whitsuntide, and at the Mother Church. Which in populous Cities, and in the times of growing Christianity, must needs occasion the Numbers of the baptised to be, as they sometimes were, very great, enough to tyre the most brawny arms of all the Ministers of any one City wholly to immerse them: and especially when Infants, not just new born only, but those also of some Months, it may be Years old, were brought to be baptised. And upon this account those that look upon St. Peter, as the alone Baptizer of the Converts in Act. 2. & 3. argue to his baptising by way of sprinkling, because of his insufficiency to baptise so many by way of dipping. And it may very rationally be supposed of any other, when the like or any near case hath happened. And it is most rational to allow the same liberty, that he is supposed to have taken, unto any other, if the like case shall again happen, as it may, though it be unlikely, in the general conversion of the Jews, Turks, or Heathens to the Christian Faith.  
§. 13. And because an immersion cannot be, 
Quandoque autem potest imminer● necessitas propter parcitatem aquae. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. a. 7. c. Et hoc maximè verum est, quando necessitas incumbit propter defectumi aquae. Lynwood Constit. l. 3. c. de Baptismo. Et servari debet cum necessitas imminet— propter penuriam elementi, ut si sit modicum de aqua. Bonavent. l. 4. dist. 3. a. 2. q. 2. Item esto quòd sit ita parum de aquâ, quòd non posset mergi una pars, quaeritur utrum possit baptizari, & videtur quòd sic, quia est ibi verbum & elementum, etc. Id. ib.  without a sufficient quantity of water to receive wholly into it the person to be immersed, therefore the defect of that hath been looked upon as a case rendering baptism by sprinkling, not only lawful, but necessary. And this is a case that is rationally supposable in hot Countries, and droughty seasons, and night times, upon sudden emergencies. Water being not at all times, and in all places to be had, when there may be a necessity for baptism, in sufficient quantity for the immersion either of a man, or of a child. And this defect Aquinas, Lynwood, and Bonaventure instance in as a case of necessity for a baptism by sprinkling.  
§. 14. And what influence the consideration of Necessity had upon the Church, to incline it to admit of Rhantization instead of Immersion, no doubt the consideration of 
* Praeter verò qua●uor istas quas Thomas attulit causas; etiam quintam aliqui addunt, honestatem; propter quam decentius est hodie adultos ipsos adspergere vel perfundere, quàm nudatos toto corpore immergere. Nempe antiquis temporibus, quando candida simplicitas magis vigebat, honestè denudabantur toti: sed postquam, ut aliorum, ita Sacerdotum accrevit nequitia, experientiâ id toti Orbi testante; honestè ampliùs id fieri non potuit: & haec propter, jam à quinque retrò saeculis paulatim per universum fere occidentem consuctudo illa exolevit, Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1. Thes. 9 p. 360.  Decency had the same, it being necessary even by order Apostolical, that in the Church all things should be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a becoming decency: that no offence might be given either to the Jews, or to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God; that all occasions of lascivious thoughts might be cut off from those within the Church, and of derision and scoffing from those without it; and a sufficient provision made for the modesty of chaste persons, that were by baptism to be brought into it.  
§. 15. It is too notorious to need proof, that in the Primitive times, those that were baptised by dipping, were stark naked, when baptised. But if any question were of it, that of S. Chrysostom would put it out of doubt, when, in his Epistle to Pope Innocent, speaking of the insolences and outrages committed by Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, and party in Constantinople, he remonstrates how a party of Soldiers went on the Sabbath day into the Churches, 

Mulieres quoque, quae per illud tempus se exuerant ut baptizarentur, metu graviorum insidiarum nudae aufugerunt. Neque enim concedebatur ut se velarent, sicut honestas decet. Multae etiam acceptis vulneribus ejiciebantur, & sanguine implebantur natatoria, & sancto cruore rubescebant fluenta. D. Chrysost. Ep. Innocentio.  
Nam ideo nudi nascimur in hoc seculo, nudi etiam accedimus ad baptismum, ut nudi & sine impedimento perveniamus ad coelum. D. Bernard. de Mod. ben. vivendi Serm. 46.  
Eundem morem in Latina obtinuisse Ecclesia etiam usque ad Bernardi Tempora, (post quae succrescente tam Sacerdotum, quàm aliorum nequitiâ, scandali & flagitii causa sublatus fuit,) illustria haec Testimonia ostendant, Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1. Thes. 6. pag. 350.  
Et sanè quia toti immergebantur: baptismus autem sive immersio non vestium est, sed humani corporis: ergo etiam posito pudore, toto penitus corpore nudabantur, adeò ut ne fasciam quidem obduxisse videantur partibus pudendis: saltem earum apud veteres non est mentio; sed ita loquuntur universi, quasi non minùs nudi baptizarentur, quàm Adam fuerit in Paradiso, vel quàm de Matre omnes nascimur; vel quàm petemus coelos, vel quàm Christus crucifixus fuit. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1 Thes. 6. p. 350.  
In divino nostro ortu ad Sacerdotem quidem is adducitur qui spirituali regeneratione donandus est. Ipse autem, & pedes ejus, adhibitâ ministrorum eorum, qui ad hoc constituti sunt, operâ, calc is nudat, & corpus universum detegit.— Per id quòd ille excalceatur & denudatur, prioris vitae vitiosis affectionibus addictae denudatio atque ad extremos etiam usque ipsius habitus abjectio significatur. Elias Cretensis Com. in Greg. Naz. Orat. 4. Not. 24. p. 448. Immersio olim fiebat. Ergo totus homo nudus aquam, quae erat in baptisterio, ingrediebatur, & in ea mergebatur ter, vel semel tantùm, pro diversâ Ecclesiarum consuetudine.— Sed postquam Copronymus imperator infans & nudus alimoniae excremento baptisterium infecit, desierunt homines nudè baptizari. Lamb. Danaeus Isagog. Christ. l. 5. de Sacram. c. 29. part. 4. pag. 522. Mos fuit apud veteres, ut qui baptizabantur, nudi baptizarentur, etc. Musc. in Psalm. 22. pag. 259.   and with great violence drove out all thence, insomuch that even the women, who at that time had stripped themselves to be baptised, for fear of worse mischief, fled away naked, being not suffered to cover themselves. And as it was then, so it seems it continued still in the Church for many Ages, even down to S. Bernard's time. Whence saith he, we are born naked into this world, naked also we come to baptism, that naked and without impediment we may arrive at heaven.  
§. 16. This being the manner of baptising, the greatest care imaginable to prevent indecencies was no more but necessary. It being scarce possible that all, who were either Spectators, or even Actors, in that concern, should so far have mortified their fleshly appetites, but that on occasion or such objects unbefitting thoughts would, 

Idem constat ex iis quae Jo. Moscus Pratispiritualis cap. 1. narrat de Conone Presbytero, qui ob Tentationem quam patiebatur, non poterat puellam nudam sancto oleo inungere: nam si inungebantur nudae, etiam baptizabantur nudae, quia inunctio baptismum consequebatur. Voss. de Bapt. Dis. 1. pag. 353.  
Diaconissas in baptismo sive ministerio verbi mulieribus ministrare. vid. Magdeb. cent. 5. c. 7. col. 736 l. 29. etc.  
Interea Foeminarum pudori plerisque in locis consulebatur mulierum ministerio, quae eas ad Baptismum venicut ●s honestè nudabant & exuebant, nè quid Baptizantis oculis inverecundè ingereretur; ut S. Cypr. Haeres. 89. Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 1 Thes. 8. p. 354.  
Eadem etiam consuctudo in mulierum baptismo obtinebat, ita tamen ut earum pudori non unâ ratione consuli serè solcat. Voss. de Baptismo Disp. 1. Thes. 8. p. 353. See Dr. Ca●e Prim. Christian. part. 1. c. 10. pag. 312. & 317. Deinde Presbyteri ingrediuntur in fontem intro in aquam, & baptizantur primò masculi, deinde foeminae. Novarin. ex Authore Ordinis Romani. lib. 3. Schediasm. Sacroprophan. c. 9 p. 81. Aliâ etiam ratione consulebatur muliebri verecundiae; nam viri separatim à foeminis Baptizabantur. Id. ibid. p. 355. Interim tribus extructis Baptisteriis ita ordinavit, ut ipse solos mares pueros in uno baptizaret: alii autem Sacerdotes foeminas seorsim, & viros seorsim, Act. Othonis, l. 2. c. 15. ap. Novarin. ib. Cortinas circa dolia fixis columellis funilúsque inductis oppandi f●cit;— ante Sacerdotem verò & comministros linteum fune trajecto pependit; quatenus ver●cundiae undique provisum foret, nè quid ineptiae aut turpitudinis notaretur in sacramento, etc. Novarin. ib.   with the violence of an irresistible surprise, intrude themselves into their minds, and sally out too, in unbecoming looks, if not motions and gestures also of their bodies. And indeed indecencies, and inconveniencies, arising from that custom, and requiring the guardance of the strictest care, were observed, and taken notice of. And what care could be taken, was used on such occasions. Hence the Institution of Deaconesses to attend and assist at the baptising of women, to stand about and overshadow them, that nothing of indecency might appear. Hence the baptising of Men by themselves, Women by themselves, and the Youths by themselves; and that not only in distinct companies, but sometimes in distinct baptisteries, or distinct apartments in the same baptistery. Hence curtains drawn about the Fonts, and even between the Baptizer, and the Baptised. And hence the Godfathers holding the Garment of the Baptised before their faces, till he returned to them out of the water.  
§. 17. But all care that could be taken, all courses that could be devised, (even though it were the baptising in garments provided for the purpose) proving insufficient to preserve this Sacred performance from the profanations of wantonness, the Church at last on this reason, besides what inducement she had, from what had befallen at the baptising of Copronymus, thought good by degrees to deposit this way of baptising by Immersion, and even to baptise the healthy also, as well as the sickly, in a way, better secured from lascivious indecencies, less exposed to scoffing railleries, and more agreeable with the humour of female modesties, even the way of Sprinkling.  
§. 18. And now let these things, 
Quare nè ritus alius ad sanos, alius ad infirmos, alius ad pueros, alius ad adultos varietur, sed unus permaneat modus: expedit ut Sacramenti hujus ministri tutiorem amplexantes modum, superinfundendo ter baptizent, nisi consuetudo contrarium habeat. Agend. Eccles. Mogunt. fol. 23.  to name no more, be dispassionately, and unprejudicately considered, and then say, whether the Church hath not, upon grounds of highest prudence as well as of of justest necessity, laid aside the troublesome, more dangerous, and less becoming way of Immersion, and assumed the easier, the securer, and more decent way of Rhantization.   

CHAP. XVI. The Institution of Christ not violated by Sprinkling; and the agreeableness of That, with the primary design of Baptism further manifested.  
§. 1. BUT perhaps it will be said, that for no necessity, much less conveniency of man, ought there to be any alteration of any Institution of Christ's, much less such a one as is discordant with the design for which it was instituted. And therefore Immersion being that way of baptising which Christ did institute, that way must stand, and Rhantization must fall.  
§. 2. To this I shall answer by degrees. And first by way of Concession, I say, that supposing Immersion to be a way of baptising of Christ's institution, yet is it but a way: it is not the way; it is one way, not the only way, that he did institute. For indeed to speak properly, he did institute baptization, the thing itself: but neither immersion, nor aspersion, nor affusion, nor any particular mode, or way of baptising, exclusive as to all others. When he tied us to the thing, he left us at liberty as to the manner, as Dr. Whitaker, a man favourable enough to the way of the Anabaptists, doth declare. And what he asserts, I hope, hath been competently vindicated in the foregoing Papers. So that by aspersion or sprinkling there is no violation made of, no alteration made in, Christ's supposed Institution: unless Immersion were the one particular way instituted by him, and exclusively to all others, which I think, I have disproved.  
§. 3. But Secondly supposing, yet not granting, the highest that can be demanded, or desired, that Christ did institute dipping to be the particular way of baptising; yet is that Institution but a Ritual one, of a Ceremonial Action, not of a Moral Duty. And sure no man will say, but that Rites instituted by God have given (and then why may they not again give) place to the necessities of man, without his offence; who, so the Substance of his Institutions be observed, is not rigorously exacting in the Circumstantials thereof, (especially now in the time of the Gospel) provided there be no disdainful contempt, nor wilful neglect observable in the case.  
§. 4. In Gen. 17. we find Circumcision instituted, and as a Covenant, and that an everlasting one, betwixt God and Abraham, and his Seed after him, and that under the severe penalty of excision of the Party, in whom the Covenant was not observed, from off his People. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy Seed after thee; every manchild among you shall be circumcised, v. 9, 10. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your Generations— v. 12. And the uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that Soul shall be cut off from his People: he hath broken my Covenant, v. 14. Here is a Rite strictly instituted, as any can be imagined. And yet this Rite instituted with so much strictness by God, gave way to the necessity, if not conveniency, of Man. For it was not observed for forty years together, all the while that the Israelites were in the Wilderness, till they were passed over Jordan, and come into Canaan: and that without any signification of God's pleasure, that they should omit it, or of his displeasure for the omission of it. They were in travel, and surrounded with enemies; they were uncertain in their motions; and continually exposed unto on-sets: and in such case the observation of that Rite could not but be highly inconvenient for them, and thereupon it was for the present laid aside, and not resumed till they had set foot upon, and taken possession of, the promised Land. Josuah 5.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  
§. 5. In Levit. 24.5. order is given for making of twelve Cakes, which were to stand before the Lord from Sabbath to Sabbath, and then to be Aaron's and his Sons, and to be eaten by them in the most holy place, and as a thing most holy unto the Lord, and to be observed by a perpetual Statute. So, here is a positive Rite instituted, by which the Shewbread was to be the Priests for ever, and to be eaten by none else. Well, David in his flight from Saul comes hungry with his Men to Nob, 
1 Sam. 21.3, 4, 5, 6.  desires some Bread of Abimelech the Priest. He tells him he had none under his hand but hallowed Bread. David then desires, and takes, and eats of that Bread, which it was neither lawful for him, nor his to eat, but only for the Priests, as our Saviour saith, Matth. 12.3, 4. And yet neither then, nor after, is any thing charged upon David for this; no guilt is laid at his door for such a violation of God's institution. Nay our Saviour alleges this very example of David's, to justify his own Disciples against a charge brought against them by the Pharisees. Which he had not done, had David been criminous in the case; and they would not have failed to have replied upon him for it. A plain case that that Ritual Institution of God's, did give place to the Necessity of David and his Men; and that God would rather that such a Ritual Institution, though his own, should be unobserved, than that his Creatures in their necessities should be unprovided.  
§. 6. The observation of the Sabbath was most strictly enjoined, as most holy to the Lord; and whosoever did any work thereon was surely to be put to death: and this observation was to be successive throughout their Generations for a perpetual Covenant, Exod. 21.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. And yet this so severe an Institution of God's gave place to the necessities of Man. The work of the Sanctuary (which was laborious enough) not excepted in the Institution, which forbids all manner of work without exception, was to be done on the Sabbath days. The Priests therefore satisfied in conscience touching the lawfulness of doing their Office, though consisting in never so laborious an employment, on that day, by the necessity there was for it, notwithstanding that strictness of the Divine Institution to the contrary, go about their business, and are neither blamed by GOD, nor Man. Have ye not read in the Law (saith our Saviour) to the Pharisees; 
Matth. 12 5.  how that on the Sabbath days the Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? What they did, as being contrary to the Divine Institution, was a profanation; but as being done upon necessity, (because otherwise the service of God requisite on the day could not have been performed) so it was free from blame. And this our Saviour urged in justification of his Disciples, accused by the Pharisees for doing that which was not lawful on the Sabbath day, namely plucking ears of corn, and eating of them: in which action, though in itself repugnant to the Divine Institution, yet because done for a supply of their present necessity, he pronounces them guiltless, v. 7. Yea how often doth he convince them, even by their own practice, of this truth of the Sabbaths giving way to the necessity, 
Matth. 12.10. Luke 14.5.  not only of Man, but even of Beasts, Sheep, Oxen, Asses, of which, if any fell in a Ditch on the Sabbath day, they would, for all the divineness of the Sabbath's Institution, not fail to pluck it out, and were not blamed therein. Nor indeed could they, as acting therein but according to the will of God, and that plainly declared by his Prophet, (Hosea 6.7.) though they understood not that passage in him, and are therefore bidden to go and learn what it meant, (Matth. 9.13.) namely that saying of God, I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice. Wherein God declares his preferring acts of Mercy, and Charity, before the Ceremonies even of his own Ritual Laws, and likes the exhibiting of mercy towards them that stand in need of it, better than the offering of the richest Sacrifices to himself. Which if they had understood, our Saviour argues thence in the behalf of his Disciples, they would rather have made a fair construction of that action of theirs, in plucking the ears of corn to eat for the satisfaction of their present hunger, which their necessity rendered justifiable, than under pretence of zeal to the Sabbath, have so falsely charged the Innocent. And as a determination of the question for the future in all such cases of mercy or necessity, he tells them (Mark 2.27.) that the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath: intimating thereby, that the Ritual observation of that Day was to give place, when the real necessity of Man stood in competition with it.  
§. 7. And now the case having been thus under the Laws of God before Christ's coming, and the deviation from those Laws on grounds of mercy and necessity justified by our Saviour when he was come; Can it be thought it is otherwise now, under the Evangelical Oeconomy? or that he more severely stands upon the rigid observation of his own Ritual Institutions, than he did of his Father's Ceremonial Laws? Did he become a curse for us, to redeem us from the curse of the Law, even for nonobservance of such things, to bring us under a curse of the Gospel, for nonobservance of the like things? The Gospel has no such curse in it. And who can think that he, that would have his Sabbath broke, rather than a Beast should perish in a Ditch, would rather have a Soul perish for want of Baptism, than not have it dipped, when baptised? As therefore the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath: 
— Cúmque etiam non bomo propter Baptismum, sed Baptismus propter bominem factus sit— Keckerman. System. Theolog. pag. 452.  so may we conclude, that Baptism was made for Man, and not Man for Baptism: and that therefore the observation of a Rite in the one, aught to give place to the necessity of the other: and that Christ never intended the destruction of the Body, by that which he instituted for the Salvation of the Soul.  
§. 8. And what may be said in justification of an omission of a ritual Institution, may be said, and more strongly, in justification of an alteration in one: provided the grounds be equally fair and just; and that there be no contempt, nor contumacy in the case, but the equitable plea of a just necessity: and provided also that there be no alteration in the substance of the Institution, but only in some circumstance of it: an omission of the whole substance being a further remove from its observation, than a change of it in but some Circumstantial part.  
§. 9 And that such changes have been, and been without blame, will appear by instances. In Deut. 5. express order is given to keep the Passeover strictly on the fourteenth day of the first month: and that Institution established by a severe menace of excision to him that did not exactly observe it according to that circumstance of time prescribed, because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season. v. 13. And yet notwithstanding, this so strict Institution gave way to necessity, and even by the Lords own approbation when consulted in the case, though he had made no provision for it before he was consulted, as supposing that even the reason of man, without consulting him, was sufficient to direct and determine itself, as to what was to be done in a case of necessity. For the man that was unclean by reason of a dead body, or was in a journey, and so could not keep exact touch with the Ordinance, was excused from the exact observance of it: yet not so as to vary from it in substance, but only in circumstance. The thing they must do; no liberty from that: but they might alter the time, and do on the Fourteenth day of the Second month, what was to have been done on the Fourteenth day of the First, v. 11. By which instance 'tis fairly declared, as if writ with a beam of the Sun, that on just necessity the most strictly commanded Ritual Institution is alterable in circumstance, so there be no alteration of it in substance.  
§. 10. Touching this Institution the excellent Author of the Compassionate Enquiry hath made an Observation, 
Compass. Enquiry, part. 2. c. 5. pag. 156.  which I shall beg the favour to borrow from him; namely that the definition of the most minute circumstances of this great Sacrament, and amongst other, that they should eat the Passeover with staves in their hands, shoes on their feet, and their loins girt, is a plain intimation (and accordingly by them understood and practised) that they should eat it in the posture of standing, and though it be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressed in the Law, that they should so eat it, or in the History that they did so eat it, yet (as Mr. Pool in his Synopsis on the place from Bochartus tells us) there are several things that persuade to think they did so eat it (and if so they did, then to be sure they did so, either by a positive order, or such bright signification of the divine pleasure in the case as was Tantamount to a Precept.) As first that they were ordered to eat it in all the circumstances of Travellers in haste upon a journey, with their loins girded, shoes on their feet, staves in their hands, and expressly to eat it in haste. Now men in that condition do not use to sit, but stand, at their victuals, and have a kind of Proverb, which they use in the case, viz. Whilst we stand we stay not. Secondly, Philo affirms them to have eaten standing. Nevertheless (saith that forenamed Author) it is well known, that when they were come into the Land of Canaan to settled habitations, they are it sitting, or lying, according to the usual custom of feasting in those Countries. And this change continued all along till the times of our Saviour, without any reproof from God; and our Saviour himself conforms to them herein, 
Christus enim & Apostoli non stantes. sed discumbentes, in signum quietis quam habebant, comederunt. Jun. & Pisc. ap. Poli Synopsin in loc.  and in the same posture eats the Passeover with his Disciples. Now this (saith he further) is the rather observable, because whenas the posture enjoined by God was symbolical of the haste in which they went out of Egypt, they in the change aforesaid instituted a Ceremony, which was symbolical too, but quite of another matter, namely of the rest and peace God had now given them in the good Land of Canaan. And all this alteration made upon prudential considerations, and the reason of the thing, without any warrant from God for their direction, or check for the change.  
§. 11. Now things being so in the Church before our Saviour's time, and in his time, what wonder if the Church after his time, upon prudential grounds of necessity, decency, expediency, or charity, have followed the former Church's example, and either wholly left off, or in some circumstances varied from, institutions of the ordering of Christ himself, or his Apostles? For where grounds and reasons of things are the same or equal, it cannot be a wonder if actings be the same or suitable. And thence proceeded the laying down of the Feasts of Love; 
Eucharistiae Sacramentum, & in tempore victûs, & omnibus mandatum à Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus. Tertul. de Corona. c. 3.  the Orders of Widows and of Deaconesses; thence also proceeded the change of the Time and Manner of celebrating the Eucharist, from Evening and after Supper, unto Morning and Fasting; and from lying along on beds, to sitting, standing or kneeling at the receiving of it; and all this notwithstanding our Saviour's having said at the Institution of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this do, 

— Quum Christus tum Verbi, tum Sacramentorum Author his verbis, Hoc facite, certam veris Pastoribus regulam sacrarum istarum actienum praescripscrit— Theod. Beza. Tract. Theolog. Vol. 3. ep. 8. p. 211.  
Nam quis prudens simul ac Ecclesiasticae memoriae peritus dubitet perfundendi ac mergendi corporis morem praecepto significari? Atqui introducto parvulorum baptizandorum more; quin nè introducto quidem more, sed, quod semper factum constat, cùm mortis necessitate parvuli baptizarentur; quis sanus dubitet ita baptizatos, ut sanitatis eorum ratio constaret? Name & cùm primùm in Ecclesiis baptizatum est, necesse fuit ab immersionis ritu, qui in aquâ profluente, vel stante usurpari poterat, discedi. Idque ratione idoneâ, si verè S. Petrus, salutis rationem per Baptismum, non in sordium carnis lavacro, sed in sincerâ Christianismi professione positam ostendit. Neque enim ad salutem interest, vel decori in Ecclesiâ, vel sanitatis ac vitae rationem in administrando Baptismo, nullam haberi. Herb. Thorndike, de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesiae, p. 260. Deinde, cui dubium est Apostolos sacram temporum itemque locorum & personarum rationem in externis ritibus summam habuisse? adeò quidem ut cosdem ritus per omnia ubique custoditos fuisse non sit probabile, sicut ex illâ Irenaei ad Victorem insigni Epistola satis liquet. Quid quod quaedam etiam illorum instituta veluti communes illas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsa necessitas abolevit? Itaque quicquid ab Apostolis factitatum est, quod ad ritus attinet, nec statim sine aliqua exceptione, pro regula sequendum existimo. Nec sanè miror veteres illos habitâ suorum temporum ratione, quaedam illis primis detraxisse, quaedam adjecisse, quaedam denique immutâsse. Theod. Beza. Tract. Theolog. Vol. 3. ep. 8. ad Edmund Grindal. Ep. Lond. p. 210. Etsi Baptismus propriè significet immersionem, & in veteri Ecclesia per regiones Orientis non adspersione, sed immersione Baptismus celebrabatur; tamen in regionibus Christianismi frigidioribus adspersio loco immersionis recepta est, propter infants; quia charitas & necessitas dispensant de Ceremoniis, easque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam temperant, quaetenus id saluâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri potest. Keckerman. System. Theolog. l. 3. c. 8. p. 451. Non possumus diffiteri primam institutionem Baptismi immersione, non verò adspersione constitisse, quod disertè patet ex cap. 6. Rom. ver. 3, 4. Sed quia institutio Baptismi facta est in regione calidiori, & quia tunc temporis potissimùm baptizabantur adulti, ideò de hac Ceremonia in regionibus frigidioribus, & hoc tempore, quo infantes plerunque, rarissimè adulti baptizantur, potuit Ecclesia dispensare: praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat, & adspersione illá etiam sordes abluantur; cúmque etiam non homo propter Baptismum, sed Baptismus propter hominem factus sit, ut propter necessitatem infantum charitas aliquid in ritu illo poterit mutare. Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit à verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem non tantùm immergo, sed & aspergo significat. Id. ib. p. 452. In baptismo aliud est de Essentia, ut ablutio, juxta illud ad Ephes. 5. ubi Apostolus baptismum appellat Lavacrum Aquae: aliud verò accidentarium; nempè ut Ablutio hoc vel illo modo fiat; Dominic. Sot. Distinct. 3. qu. un. Art. 7.   which can refer to nothing less than the whole performance, substance, and circumstances and all. And thence, to be short, proceeded this change of dipping in Baptism into Sprinkling; as also that of baptising naked into baptising clothed, which was necessary to be, if the Church would have any regard either to decency in the Baptism, or to Charity towards the Baptised; and that notwithstanding the word in our Saviour's precept for baptising dig signify to dip, and the way of the Jews baptising in our Saviour's time was by dipping.  
§. 12. I answer Thirdly, that this supposed alteration in the Institution of Baptism from Immersion to Aspersion, Affusion, or Pouring on of water (if we grant it an alteration) is not repugnant to, but well enough comporting with, the proper end, and primary design of baptism, as a Sacrament.  
§. 13. If there be any repugnancy in aspersion or affusion of water to the Institution of Baptism, it is because it represents not the burial and resurrection of Christ, and that conformity to him in both, which we undertake and vow in baptism: a lively representation whereof is made by a total immersion of the baptised into the water, and his emersion, after some short stay in it, from under it: without which the Symbol is said to be spoiled, and quite made another thing. But if that be all, things will do well enough, there will be no cause of quarrel against the Church's way of baptising. For the Burial and Resurrection of Christ, and consequently our conformity to him in both, 
See sydenham's Christian Exercitation, chap. 15. p. 139. etc.  is as well represented by pouring of water on the baptised party, as by putting him into it. For whilst water is poured upon the body, especially as it lies along, it represents a burial, especially still as the manner of burying is with us. For we do not dip the body into the earth, when we bury it, but pour earth upon the body; neither was the body of Christ, when buried, immersed into lose earth, but laid in a Sepulchre of stone hewn out of a Rock. And if the pouring on of water represent a burial; then the appearing again after, and from under that affusion, especially if of a larger quantity of water, (as in some places of Christendom,) represents also a Resurrection, and still the better, by how much the affusion is made of the larger quantity of water. And the Symbol is not spoiled here, nor made any other thing than what it should be. It was to represent our conformity with Christ in his burial and resurrection, and that it doth. 
Tertiò quoque repetita immersio vel tinctio typum triduana: domini sepulturae exprimit— per quam Christo consepulti sumus in baptismo & cum Christo resurreximus in fide, ut à peccatis abluti, in sanctitate virtutum vivamus, imitando Christum. Can. Concil. Provincial. Colon. sub Hermanno celebrati anno 1536.  And accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen, Tinction as well as Immersion (i. e. Sprinkling as well as dipping) is indifferently spoken of as expressive of a Type of Christ's three days burial, and our conformity to him in that, and his resurrection.  
§. 14. And if the Representation be not altogether so effigiative, 
In immersione expressiùs repraesentatur figura sepulturae Christi, sed in aliis modis baptizandi repraesentatur aliquo modo, licèt non ita expressé. Nam quocunque modo fiat ablutio, corpus hominis vel aliqua pars ejus aquae supponitur, sic ut corpus Christi sub terra fuit positum. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. ad 2. art. 7. Res ipsa baptismi est aspersio sanguinis Jesus Christi in remissionem omnium peccatorum, & imputationem justitiae ipsius, quae velut oculis nostris subjiciuntur adbibito externae aspersionis signo. Theod. Bez. Tract. Theolog. vol. 1. de S. Sp. c. 4. p. 28. Haec de signo baptismi— Res ejus in genere est ipse Christus cum omnibus meritis ac beneficiis suis, speciatim verò hîc proponitur nobis remissio peccatorum in ipsius sanguine, sanctificatio in ipsius spiritu. etc. Tilen. Syntag. De Baptismo, Disp. 1. Thes. 10. p. 887.  lively and full, as it is in immersion; yet so it be done in any reasonable measure, so as that by a person duly instructed in the nature of that Sacrament it may competently be discerned and apprehended, it is sufficient, (and the design of no Sacramental action we have, that I can think of, is self-evident without instruction) that representation being not the primary design and principal end of Baptism as a Sacrament, but quite another thing. What may that be? Even our washing and cleansing from the guilt of sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ upon us: which Beza faith is Res ipsa Baptismi, the main or only thing of Baptism, or the substantial part of it. And Mr. Attersol defining this Sacrament, saith, Baptism is the first Sacrament, wherein, by the outward washing of the Body with water— the inward cleansing of the Soul by the blood of Christ is represented. Treat. of Sacr. l. 2. c. 1. p. 108.  
§. 15. Now this may as well be represented by any other way of ablution, 
Verùm quod naturam & germanam Baptismi proprietatem attingit, est emundatio à peccatis. Vnde in Epistola ad Ephesios Christus dicitur Ecclesiam emundàsse lavacro aquae in verbo, & praedicamur in remissionem peccatorum baptizari. Haec autem repurgation, sive mergamur, sive perfundamur, sive aspergamur, aut quocunque modo aquis abluamur, in Baptism appositissimè demonstratur. Pet. Martyr in 1 Cor. 10. fol. 141. a He had said newly before, and in opposition to which this is added: Scio veteres, quando per atatem & valetudinem licuit, usos fuisse mersione, quae in veteri Testamento adumbrata fuit, cùm Israelitae mare transmitterent: non tamen est necessaria, neque (and mark it) de illâ praeceptum extat. Cùm adhibetur, praeclaram habet significationem: quia cùm mergimur, cum Christo denotamur mori: quando emergimus, demonstramur cum illo resurrexisse ad vitam aeternam. Caterùm significatio istae non est, quemadmodum diximus, necessaria. Id. ib. Ad hanc ablutionem Sacramentali signo denotandam satis est aspersio aquae, aeque ac in aquam immersion, cum revera ablutionem ac purificationem haec arguat aeque ac ista. Dr. Lightfoot. Horae Hebraic. in Matth. 3.6. pag. 49— Cùm nec minus in aspersione, quàm in immersione, Sacramenti analogia serv●tur. Tilen. Disp. 1. de Baptismo. Thes. 15.— Praesertim cùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significationis maneat, & adspersione illâ sordes abluantur— Keckerman. System. Theol. l. 3. c. 8. p. 452.  though it be but that of Aspersion, as by Immersion. Whence pertinently saith Peter Martyr to the purpose. As to what concerns the nature and genuine property of Baptism, that is the cleansing from sins. Whence in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Christ is said to have cleansed the Church by the washing of water with the word: and we are preached to be baptised into the remission of sins. But this cleansing, whether we be dipped, or have water poured, or sprinkled on us, or whatever way we are washed with water, is most appositely shown in Baptism. So he: and to the same purpose speaks our Learned Doctor Lightfoot, and Tilenus also.  
§. 16. Nay perhaps somewhat better may it be represented by some other way of baptising than by Immersion. For as the Apostle saith, (Heb. 9.22.) almost all things are by the Law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission. And indeed in the 19th. Verse before, he had said, that when Moses had spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all, or the whole Commandment, every Precept, as we read it, to all the People according to the Law, he took the blood of Calves, and of Goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the People—. Moreover (v. 21.) he sprinkled with the blood both the Tabernacle, and all the Vessels of Ministry. (which I humbly conceive was done in order to the purifying them from all legal pollution, that might be adherent to them, or attracted by them; and consecrating them to that purity which becomes the service of God.) And as alluding to this sprinkling of that blood, the blood of Jesus Christ (which is by Jesus Christ himself called the blood of the New Testament, because by this blood the New Testament was dedicated, as the old one was by the blood of Calves and Goats) is by the Apostle called (Heb. 12.24.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the blood of sprinkling. And as having respect to our purgation, and sanctification by that blood, St. Peter (1 Pet. 1.2.) writes to Believers in Christ, under the title of Persons Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ: which, as that beloved bosom Disciple of Christ, St. John, tells us, cleanseth us from all sin, (1 Joh. 1.7.) Whence again he tells us (Rev. 1.5.) of Christ's having loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own Blood. But now never is the blood of Christ, which is several times called the blood of sprinkling (to which expression a fair allusion is made by baptismal sprinkling, 
Cui ritui (sc. adspersioni) favet & vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, adspersionis, quae de Sanguine Christi ad peccatorum nostrorum abolitionem usurpatur, Heb. 9.14. Walaeus, Synops. pur. Theolog. Disp. 44. Thes. 19 p. 606.  and especially being that by that sprinkling of water on our Bodies is peculiarly designed a representation of that which is done by the blood of Christ to both our Bodies and Souls, even the cleansing them from all sin) I say, never is the blood of Christ called the blood of dipping; nor are we ever said to be dipped into Christ's blood, only to be washed and cleansed with it.  
§. 17. Now the primary design of this Sacrament being to signify our washing from sin by virtue of the shedding of Christ's blood; and our conformity with Christ in his Burial and Resurrection being but the secondary; who sees not how unfitting it is for the primary to give way to the secondary; and that what more directly signifies the primary, should be omitted, that what signifies the secondary, may be performed: especially when that which signifies the primary signifies the secondary also; sufficiently, if not altogether so fully. And not that only, but something more too. For the pouring out and sprinkling of the baptismal water upon us, represents not only God's applying of Christ's blood shed to us, for our justification, but also Christ's shedding of his own blood for us, that thereby we might be justified; 
Ac simul ut ex ei●quae consummabantur in Christo, cognosceremus, post aquae lavacrum, de coelestibus portis sanctum in nos Spiritum involare, & coelestis nos gratiae unctione perfundi. D. Hilar. in Matth. can. 2. p. 253.  and besides that the effusion of the spirit of grace, and infusion of the grace of the spirit on us, and into us, for our sanctification here, in order to our glorification hereafter: which effusions I cannot see how they are any way representable by an immersion into water.  
§. 18. Well then, not only our washing from sin by the blood of Christ, the signification of which is the primary design of Baptism as a Sacrament, being represented by affusion, or conspersion of water, but also the burial and resurrection of Christ, and our conformity to him in both, which is a secondary design of it, it follows that no violation is in this respect done to the Institution of Christ by this alteration of no more but an accidental or circumstantial Rite in it, 
Applicatio aquae necessario fuit de essentia Baptismi: hast applicatio hoc vel illo modo circumstantiam sonat. Dr. Lightfoot. Hor. Hebra. in Matth. 3.6. p. 50.  whereby conspersion, affusion, or a partial mersation is put for a total immersion: the substance of the Sacrament not being varied by a variation of what is but accidental in it. 
Ea quae sunt per accidens, non variant substantiam rei. Per se autem requiritur corporalis ablutio per aquam: unde & Baptismus lavacrum nominatur secundum illud Eph. 5. Mundans cam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Sed quòd ablutio fiat hoc vel illo modo, accidit Baptismo. Et ideo talis diversitas non tollit unitatem Baptismi. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 66. art. 7. ad 1. Nec ad lavacrum necessariò requiritur immersio sub aquam.— Christi igitur mandatum est, ut in baptismo fiat purificatio seu ablutio per lavacrum aquae. Quo verò modo ablutio illa fieri debeat, sive mergendo, tingendo, perfundendo, sive aspergendo, Christus non praescripsit. Nulla igitur in hac re mutatio fit in Substantialibus Baptismi. Chemnitii Exam. Concil. Trid. part. 2. pag. 122. Pro ipsa quidem Baptismi Ceremonia quatenus nobis à Christo tradi●a est, centies potius ad mortem digladiandum, quàm ut eam nobis eripi sinamus. Sed quum in aquae symbolo testimonium habemus tam ablutionis nostrae, quàm novae vitae: quum in aquâ velut in speculo sanguinem nobis suum Christus repraesentat ut munditiem inde nostram petamus; quum docet nos spiritu suo refingi, ut mortui peccato justitiae vivamus, nihil qued ad Baptismi Substantiam faciat, deesse nobis certum est. Quare ab initio liberè sibi permisit Ecclesia, extra hanc substantiam, ritus habere paulum dissimiles. Nam alii ter, alii autem ●emel tantùm mergebant.— Calvin. in Act. Apost. 8.38. p. 244. At enim, inquiunt, jubemur facere quod fecit Dominus; concedo, sed ita ut in illis quae facienda praecepit, primariam consilii ipsius intentionem, ut loquuntur, ob oculos semper habeamus, formam autem non temere mutemus, (imo ne mutemus quidem ullo modo, si praecisè mandata sit) nec tamen quod per se non est necessarium amplius quàm par sit, urgeamus. Jussit nos Christus baptizari, quo verbo certum est significari immersionem. Num igitur malè baptizantur, qui aquá tantùm injectá asperguntur? Imo quod est in illa actione merè substantiale (nempe aquae abiutio) rectè observatum est ab Ecclesiâ. Immersio verò pro aetatis & regionum conditione vel retenta est, vel in simplicem aspersionem nullâ cum baptismi imminutione quodammado commutata. Theod. Beza, Tractat. Theolog. Vol. 3. Ep. 2. pag. 195, Praeterea non est par ratio, abluendi rationem mutare, ac totum simul auferre. Quia in iis qui asperguntur, vel persunduntur, elementum Baptismi, nimirum aqua, conservatur, & suam habet significationem. P. Martyr, Com. in Rom. 10. fol. 141. a— In Baptismi administratione alia sunt aut Substantialia, aut Ceremonialia, aut Accidentalia. Substantialia sunt. Aqua, & illius applicatio, etc. Ceremonialia sunt reliqua. Ac Substantialia quidem neque possunt, neque debent praetermitti, vel immutari. At Ceremonialia possunt immutari, etc. Lamb. Danaeus Isagog. Christ. pars 4. de Sacramentis, c. 29. p. 521. Quamvis autem immersio usitatior olim fuerit, praesertim in Judaea & aliis regionibus calidioribus, quàm aspersio; tamen cùm neque ad baptismi substantiam pertineat haec circumstantia; nec minùs in aspersione, quàm in immersiono sacramenti analogia servetur, etc. Tilen. Disp. 1. de Baptismo Thes. 15. pag. 886. Vtrum autem semel aut ter immergatur, aut si aqua superinfundatur tertiò, non variat Baptismi Essentiam. Agend. Eccles. Moguntinens. fol. 23.   
§. 19 And if the Institution of Christ do signify a putting of the whole Party to be baptised under the Water by the Baptizer, (which I apprehend to be the Anabaptists notion of the word:) and that Institution be violated unless that order be exactly observed, (and if not, why do they quarrel us?) then the Anabaptists are guilty of the same thing that they charge us withal. For they (in strictness of speaking according to this notion of baptising) never baptise any at all agreeably to the Institution of Christ. For as they baptise no Infants at all, which are the most capable subjects of such baptization: so they baptise no Men, no not even the most adult, so. They do not take Men and Women that are all out of the Water, and so immerse them wholly into it: but of Persons that are already in part in the Water, (it may be up to the middle) they immerse the rest which as yet is not in it. And so the work is divided betwixt the Baptizer and the Baptised: the Baptised first dipping one half of himself, by going so deep into the water, and then the Baptizer dipping the other half possibly might be consistent with Decency of baptising, 
utroque modo baptizari, tamen convenientius, & aptius, & securius est baptizare immergendo: & si satis est de aqua, totum corpus debet demergi: si parum, sufficit si sit tantum de aqua, quòd immergi possit pars principalis, etc. Bonavent. lib. 4. dist. 3. Art. 2. q. 2. Scias tamen quòd licèt per aspersionem vel effusionem aquae possit fieri baptismus, ubi esset talis consuerudo; laudabilior tamen est consuerudo, ut fiat per immersionem. Lynwood. Constit. l. 3. c. de Baptismo & ejus effectu. Vas. illud. in Constit. Edmundi.  and safety to the Baptised.  
§. 3. But I must also be so just as to say, (and I hope too, that I have made it to appear) that there is much to be said for the way that ye oppose. Ye see it to be repugnant neither to the Word of Institution, but lying within the circle of its comprehension; nor yet to the Nature of that Sacrament, but eminently expressing the Primary Design of it, and competently the Secondary. Ye see it now practised in most Churches of the world, and may trace its practice through all former Ages of the Church. Ye neither find it contradicted by any Scripture, but countenanced by many; nor condemned by any Council, but left uncensured by all. Among all the ancient Catalogues of Heresies, ye find not the Rhantists (as you are pleased to name us) reckoned for any; nor any Separation made from any Community on account of their being such. Ye find none of the ancient Fathers disputing against it for its unlawfulness, nor dissuading from it upon account of its insufficiency. Nor of the many baptised by Sprinkling in their Sickness, do ye find any, on either of those accounts, baptised by Dipping after their recovery. Ye find those learned and judicious Reformers, who threw erroneous Doctrines and Superstitious Practices out of the Church, continuing this Doctrine, and confirming this Practice in it. And ye see it still maintained and defended by Persons of greatest eminency both for Learning and for Judgement in the Reformed Churches. In the Primitive Times the same effects were observed to be wrought on Persons baptised in Sickness and in health: 
Non sicut scorpii & serpents, etc. D. Cyprian. l. 4. ep. 7.  so at this day may ye observe Persons baptised by Sprinkling, as richly furnished with all spiritual graces as any now, you can tell us of, baptised by Dipping: 
In Sacramentis salutaribus, necessitate cogente & deo indulgentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conserunt divina compendia. Id. ib.  the great God, that is above means, and is not tied to means, working the like effect by little as by great means; and as fully and effectually communicating the graces of baptism by a few drops, as by a whole ocean. It is a way of kindness to the weak, of mercy to the sick, and of safety to all. It is a way agreeing with the conditions of all Times, and with the tempers of all seasons. It suits with the Conveniencies of all countries, and with the Necessities of all places. It complies with the State of all Persons, and with the Constitution of all Ages. It provides for the Modesty's of the bashful, and prevents unchastities in the Lustful. In a word 'tis the way which most Churches in the world, after many hundred years' trial of dipping, have at length in their practice and consequently in their judgements, preferred before it, having generally laid that down, and as generally taken this up.  
§. 4. O why then should you persist in a contrariety to that, which is not contrariant to the word of Institution? Why should you impugn that, which is not repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament? Why should you quarrel that, which agrees with the practice of the Catholic Church? Why should you contradict that, which is not contradicted by any Text of the Sacred Scriptures? Why should you condemn that, which never yet fell under the Censure of any Orthodox Council? Why should that be unlawful with you, whose lawfulness was never questioned by the ancient Fathers? Why should that be a Nullity with you, which was ever a Reality amongst the Primitive Believers? Why should any on that account be rebaptised by you, on which never any was rebaptised in any Community of Catholic Professors? Why should that be turned out of the Church by you, which was deliberately continued in it by our pious, learned and judicious Reformers? Why should that be made a Mockery of by you, which hath been sealed by the communication of the graces of God's Spirit? Why should the Sentiment of your handful of illegal Conventicles, that can no more pretend to extraordinary Inspiration than any other Community of Christians, be preferred before the judgement of so many legally constituted national Churches? Why should you retrench that liberty which hath been estated on the Church of Christ, by him that was the Lawgiver to it? Why should you deprive weak, sickly, dying creatures of the benefit of that Mercy, which hath been indulged to them by God the Creator of them? Must no consideration be had of Countries and Places? no respect to Times and Seasons? no regard to Persons and Conditions? but your Opinion and Practice be made a Rule and a Measure universally to all, and in spite of all, not only inconveniencies, but even incapacities, and necessities too? And must all the Churches in the world, and all the Christians in the world, that consent not to, and concur not with you therein, be unchurched and unchristned too for this? Is this cause enough for you to separate yourselves from the acknowledgedly best reform Church upon earth? Consider, I beseech you, your ways, with the sad consequents of them.  
§. 5. O how great is the Gild you contract upon yourselves by your running into, and continuing in a Schism, upon this account: even the guilt of being carnal and sensual, according to 
(a) 1 Cor. 3.4. Judas v. 19  St. Paul, and St. Judas; the guilt of walking contrary both to 
(b) Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? D. Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccles.  Faith and 
(c) Quam verò dilectionem custodit & cogitat, qui discordiae furore vesanus Ecclesiam scindit, pacem turbat, charitatem dissipat? D. Cypr. de Vnit. Eccles.  charity according to St. Cyprian; the guilt of a crime as bad as 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Chrys. in ep. ad Eph. Ed. Savil. p. 823.  heresy, according to St. Chrysostom; as ill as 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. ap. Euseb. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pejus hoc crimen est quàm quod admisisset lapsi videntur. D. Cypr. de Vnit. Eccles.  Idolatry and 
(f) Quod in Sacrilegos & parricidam non fecerat, in Schismaticis fecit. Optat. l. 1. p. 25.  Sacrilege, according to Dionysius, Cyprian, and Optatus; which is 
(g) Apparet Antichristos omnes esse quos constet à charitate atque ab unitate Ecclesiae recessisse. Optat. l. 1. p. 25. Ab Ecclesia separatus, haereticus est, & Antichristus. Prosper. de Prom. & Praed. implend. c. 5.  Antichristianism, and 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Ignat. ep. ad Smyrn.  Devil-worshipping, according to Optatus, Prosper, and St. Ignatius; a crime so great 
(i) Non esse quicquam gravius Sacril gio Schismatis. S. Aug. contr. Parmen. l. 2. 2.  as scarce hath any greater than itself, according to St. Aug. not expiable even by 
(k) Tales etsi occisi in confession nominis fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine abluitur, inexpiabilis & gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur. D. Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccles. See Dr. Ham. of Schism. c. 1. s. 6. where these, and several more Sentences out of the Fathers to the same purpose, are collected.  Martyrdom to him that continues in, and hath not repent of, and returned from it, according to St. Cyprian.  
§. 6. Again, how great is the Mischief that your Schism either hath actually attending on it, or hath a natural tendency unto, and which, without the intervention of a divine providence, is likely to be consequent unto it. You cut yourselves off from Union with the Church, and from those blessed advantages of its prayers and Sacraments; and from all those salvific influences, which from the Head are by orderly communication derived to all Members in union with it. You out yourselves of its protection; and all assistances, that as Members of the same Body with it, you might not only in charity expect, but in justice claim from it. And you expose yourselves to infinite Temptations to forsake the Truth, and to embrace Error. 'Tis seldom known but that those that begin in Schism, do end in Heresy. And your Socinian Brethren might give you a sad document hereof, if no other did.  
§. 7. And 'twere well for the Church that the Mischief went no further than so. But, Gangrene like, the Sore spreads. You are impatient of being what you are only amongst yourselves: but are restless to bring in others to your party; and have your Emissaries abroad whom you send out, by preaching and disputing to bring in proselytes; and so involve them in the same guilts, deprive them of the same advantages, and expose them to the same Temptations with yourselves.  
§. 8. And yet the Mischief stays not here, but extends itself to a greater latitude. Your Schism, like other Divisions in Christianity, disparages the Christian Religion, as a way unable to give any solid bottom whereon to fix: since the Professors of it are not at unity amongst themselves, but slit into infinite Divisions and Parties, so that Turks, Jews, and Pagans are scandalised at it, and on that account refuse to embrace it. It discredits particularly the English Churches Reformation as insufficient, and needing to be new reform: so that all turn from Popery are to no purpose, without still more turning, even till they come at Anabaptistry: where yet we see there is no stay; but a further turning still, even from thence to Quakery, and thence round to Popery again. It weakens the Reformed Interest, and exposes it to be made a Prey to the Popish Faction, opening another Gap for that Potent and Politic Enemy to break in at: who when he comes, as he will be so strong, as to bear down all before him, so he will be so wise, as to leave none to stand besides him. And as ye will not stand, if we fall; so will ye not escape, if we be destroyed, but blaze in the same fires, that burn us. To insist no further on this Head of Discourse, it tends to the ruin of the Kingdom. For Schisms in the Church are naturally productive of Factions in the State; (as we have, God knows, sufficiently learned by our too late, and too sad experience hereof!) and Divisions at home are invitations to an Invasion from abroad; and even court its coming. And God grant that neither we, nor you, may ever live to find this verified in the effect of it. If ever it should, the conquering Sword will know no difference betwixt Guelph and Gibeline, but harass, ravage, and ruin all.  
§. 9 And lastly, O how little, or rather no cause at all have you, by your Schism to draw, either on yourselves that Gild, or on yourselves and others this Mischief?  
§. 10. If it were demonstrable that in this Point we were in an Error; yet sure an Error in a Church so nobly reform as ours is, in so little a matter, as a small variation in the circumstance of an Institution, and upon Reasons of great prudence, high charity, and urgent necessity, should not be a sufficient ground for you to make a Separation from its Society and Communion, and turn Schismatics. Would ye consult Mr. Hildersham, 
Lect. 35. on Joh. 4.  a Man sometime the darling of Dissenters from the Church of England, he would teach you, that those Assemblies, that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation, though they have many corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged the true Churches of God, and such as none of the Faithful may make Separation from. And he would prove what he taught by the Example of our Saviour himself communicating with the Jews in the then service of God, notwithstanding all the corruptions that then were both in the Priests, and People, and Worship.  
§. 11. But much less is it so, when it is so far from being demonstrable that we are in an Error, that it is rather demonstrable that we are in the Truth. Poor I, not worthy to be a hewer of Wood, or a drawer of Water for the Sanctuary of my God, with my weak Reason and scanty Reading, short Memory and few Books, little Health and less leisure, have in these Papers made it disputable at least, whether we be in any Error, or no: if I have not solidly proved it, that we are in none. Another, probably, that were furnished in better measure with those things that I want, might put it beyond dispute. And who now, that were wise, would run themselves upon such a dangerous Rock as Schism is, in a Point of so nice and thin a speculation as this? (but the mode of applying the Baptismal water) and when so much may be said on the adverse side, as may on this.  
§. 12. But least of all is it so, when, be we never so much in an Error, you are not obliged to communicate with us in our Error. For however erroneously we baptise our own People, you are not tied up by us to that way of baptising. whoever of you wants baptism for himself, or for any of his, may have it performed among us by Dipping. And I do believe, that never any, who desired, was denied to be so baptised, by any Minister of the Church of England.  
§. 13. Wherefore, since ye were initiated into Christianity among us, and were of us, before ye went out from us, I will say to you, as Mr. Brightman, 
Rev. 3.20.  a Man sometime of great esteem among the Men of your way, said to some that forsook the Communion of this Church in his time, Redite ad Ecclesiam, qua vos genuit & aluit, Return to the Church that bred and brought you up: and do not obstinately continue in that pernicious way of Separation from it. If ye must be separating, let it be from the company of Schismatical Congregations: and join yourselves to the Society of Catholic Christians. Help to heal the breach you have made in the Church, by returning to Unity with that Society from whose community ye broke off; and strengthen those Hands by your Conjunction, which ye have weakened by your Separation.  
§. 14. I shall conclude with a good wish, to, and for you. God grant you a right understanding in this, and all other concerns of Christianity; and especially in those wherein you descent from the Church of England: that so you may, with full Conviction of Judgement, and a clear Satisfaction of Conscience, Reunite with it again. To this, I think, all Lovers of Truth, and Peace, will say, Amen: and Lord Jesus, say thou Amen to it also. Amen, and Amen.   
FINIS.   

A CATALOGUE of BOOKS printed for, and sold by Robert Pawlet at the Sign of the Bible in Chancery-Lane near Fleetstreet.  
PRactical Christianity, or an Account of the Holiness which the Gospel enjoins; with the Motives to it, and the Remedies it proposes against Temptations, with a Prayer concluding each distinct Head.  
Sermons preached by that eminent Divine Henry Hammond, Dr. in Divinity, in large Folio, to bind with his other Works.  
The Golden Remains of that ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton College, etc. The second Impression with many Additions not before published.  
Episcopacy as established by Law in England, not prejudicial to Regal Power, written by the command of the late King Charles, by Robert Sanderson, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln.  
A Collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Ordinances and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, and other public Records of the Church of England, with a learned Preface: by Anthony Sparrow Lord Bishop of Norwich.  
A Rationale on the Book of Common-Prayer of the Church of England, with his Caution to his Diocese against false Doctrines, by Anthony Sparrow, Lord Bishop of Norwich.  
Whole Duty of Man laid down in a plain familiar way for the use of all, but especially the meanest Reader: Necessary for all Families. With private Devotions on several Occasions.  
Gentleman's Calling, written by the Author of the Whole Duty of Man.  
The Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety; or an impartial Survey of the Ruins of Christian Religion, undermined by unchristian Practice, by the Author of the whole Duty of Man.  
A Scholastical History of the Canon of Holy Scripture, or the certain and indubitable Books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England, by Dr. Cousin Lord Bishop of Durham.  
An Historical Vindication of the Church of England, as it stands separated from the Roman, etc. by Sir Roger Twisden Baronet.  
Mr. Chillingsworth's Reasons against Popery, persuading his Friend to turn to his Mother the Church of England, from the Church of Rome.  
The Book of Homilies appointed to be read in Churches.  
Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical.  
Divine Breathe, or, a Pious Soul thirsting after Christ in an Hundred excellent Meditations.  
Hugo Grotius de Rebus Belgicis, or, the Annals and History of the Low Country Wars, in English.  
A Treatise of English Particles: showing much of the variety of their significations and uses in English, and how to render them into Latin, according to the propriety and elegancy of that Language, with a Praxis upon the same; by William Walker, B. D. School master of Grantham.  
The Royal Grammar, commonly called Lilies Grammar explained, opening the meaning of the Rules, with great plainness to the understanding of Children of the meanest capacity; with choice observations on the same, from the best Authors by William Walker, B. D. Author of the Treatise of English Particles.  
A Catalogue of all the Parliaments or reputed Parliaments from the Year 1640.  
A Narrative of some passages, in, or relating to the long Parliament, by a Person of Honour.  
Nemesius, Nature of Man in English, by George Withers, Gent.  
Inconveniencies of Toleration.  
Toleration intolerable.  
A Letter about Comprehension.  
A Thanksgiving Sermon, preached before the King by J. Dolbin, D. D. Dean of Westminster.  
Bishop Brownrigs Sermons on Gunpowder Treason.  
A Narrative of the burning of London, 1666. with an Account of the Losses, and a most remarkable parallel betwixt it and MOSCOW both as to the Plague and Fire.  
The Nun's Complaints against the Friars, being the Charge given in the Court of France by the Nuns of St. Katherine's near Provence, against the Father Friars, their Confessors; showing their abuses in their allowance of undecent Books, the Love Letters, and Marriages of the Friars and Nuns. Their Frolicks and Entertainments, etc. several times printed in French, and now faithfully done into English.  
Iter Lusitanicum, or, The Portugal Voyage, with what memorable passages intervened at the Shipping and Transportation of her Sacred Majesty, Katherine, Queen of Great Britain from Lisbon to England, by Dr. Samuel Hind.  
A Charge given by the most eminent and learned Sir Francis Bacon, at a Sessions for the Verge, declaring the Jurisdiction thereof, and the Offences herein inquirable, as well by the Common-Law, as by several Statutes.  
Mr. Whites learned Tractates of the Laws of England.  
Graphice, or, the Use of Pen and Pencil in Designing, Drawing and Painting, by Sir William Sanderson Knight.  
Pia Desideria, viz. Gemitus Animae Poenitentis, Vota Animae Sanctae, suspira Animae Amantis. Hermanno Hugo Author.  
Collection of Rules and Orders now used in Chancery, etc.  
Petavius' History of the World.  
Military and Marine Discipline, viz. The exercise of Horse and Foot, with Sir Francis Veers directions; and a Treatise of Invasion, by Capt. Tho. Venn; the fortifying Towns with the ways of defending, and offending the same, by the learned Mathematician Andr. Tacquet; also Sir Samuel Morelands' Method of delineating all manner of Fortifications; together with the Art of Founding great Ordnance, the making Gunpowder, taking Heights and Distances, with the manner of Fire works.  
Thalia Bediviva: The Pass-Times and Diversions of a Country-Muse, in Choice Poems on several Occasions, by Henry Vaughan, Silurist: With some learned Remains of the Eminent Eugenius Philalethes: Never made Public till now.  
All sorts of Law-Books.