Arguments Pro and Con about the Right of BAPTISING; viz. Whether it ought to be by putting the whole body under water, or only Sprinkling a little water thereon.  
The Baptists or Dippers give the following Arguments.  

I. From the natural signification of the word.  

The Baptists or Dippers say,  
FIrst, That it is to be by Dipping, not by Sprinkling or pouring, is manifest from the nature of the Greek word Baptiso, which all our Lexicons and Learned Critics with one consent do tell us doth signify to Dip; yea, such a Dipping as is used in Bucks where clothes are washed, or as Dyers in their Dying-Vats (Leigh's Crit. Sac.) Therefore Scapula, Stephens, Plantain, Tingo quod fit mergendo, a Dying by plunging; Causabon, Tanquam ad tingendum mergo; Erasmus, Tingendi causa immergere, to die by immerging; and Beza, a tinction by Washing or Dipping; and as Bucan. Bulinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius, to Dip into water, or plung under water; Vossius, to wash the whole body; as Leigh. Crit. p. 50. Grocius, to Dip over head and ears: Therefore the Latins render it sometimes by Tingo, to die; sometimes by Baptismus, to Dip; the English and French for the most part by the Greek word Baptism, or Baptim, to Dive or Duck, not Rantize or Sprinkle; the Saxons call it Gefullad, from fulling of clothes where they are ducked or plunged; the Dutch always Doopselor or Doopen, to Dip, dipping being the only proper sense; and which is also confirmed by 
* Lisput. p. 25.  Vossius 
(a) Pan. Cath. Tit. 4. l. 5. c. 2.  Chamier, 
(b) Diat. on Tit. 3.2.  Mead, 
(c) on Mat. 3.  Causabon, 
(d) de Prim. pap. p. 193.  Salmatius, 
(e) de Jure not. l. 2. c. 2.  Pindorus, 
(f) Ode 2.  Selden, 
(g) Rule Consc. l. 4. c. 4.  Dr. Tailor, 
(h) Annot. New Test. Mat. 3. Mark 7. etc.  Dr. Hamond, 
(i) Tract. Sac. p. c. 8. p. 177.  Mr. Dan. Rogers, 
(k) Dict.  Mincheus, Scotus, Aquinus, etc.   

The Rantists or Sprinklers answer.  
That it may be by sprinkling or pouring, by applying the Element to the person, not the person to the Element, appears by the nature of the word, which signifies to Wash as well as to Dip, as most Critics acknowledge, Item Lavo saith Beudeus, Scapula, Stephens, Scriverius, Pasor, yea, to sprinkle, as Schimdjus, Dr. Featly.   

The Baptistt Reply.  
That a word may have divers Significations, nay sometimes contrary one to the other, is no ways doubtful; for the Hebrew Kodesh, the proper word for Holiness, sometimes may signify Whoredom, or Sodomy, Deut. 23.17. Hosea 4.14. 2 Kings 23.17. And Barack, the word for Blessing, is taken sometimes for Cursing, Job 1.5, 11. & 2.9. Therefore the genuine and proper Signification is mainly to be eyed; and when respecting Divine things, the usuage of Scripture, nature of the thing, and scope of the place, is to rule about it. It is true, the word may sometimes import washing; but as 
(a) Beza on Mark 7.4. which in the Treat. of Bap. is mistakenly said to be Erasmus.  Beza observes, only by consequence, not properly, because you cannot dip a thing, but you must wet or wash it: But never is taken for sprinkling.    

II. From the Scripture-Acceptation of the word.  

The Baptists say,  
Secondly, That it is by Dipping, may yet further be confirmed from the Scripture-Acceptation of the word, both in the Old and New-Testament: First, in the 
(a) Exod. 12.22. Leu. 4.6, 17. & 9.9. & 〈…〉 16.52. Numb. 10.18. Josh. 3.15. Ruth. 2.14. 1 Kings 〈…〉 4.6, 〈…〉 Ezek. 23.15. 〈…〉 24.27. 2 Kings 8.15. Job 9.31. 2 Kings Mark 4. ●●. Deut. 33.29.  Old-Testament the word Tabal one and the same with Baptism, as the Septuagint renders it (and as Beza, Hamond, Minchius, Kircherus, etc. and others do assert) is always & in every place, by all our English Translators, rendered to Dip. And in the 
(b) Luke 16.24. John 13.26. Mat. 5.14. & 26.23. 〈…〉 10. Rev. 19.13.  New-Testament, several times also to Dip, but most frequently by the Greek word itself Baptism or Dip, not Rantise, or Sprinkle; Loise, or wash; Keiose, or pour: And therefore saith 
(c) Treat. of Sacraments, part 1. ch. 8. p. 177.  Mr. Rogers, The word imports nothing else but to Dip, for the Greek wanted not other words to express any other act besides Dipping, if the Institution could bear it, (as he saith) is exceeding material to the Ordinance, as Scripture and Antiquity informeth, and without exception to countries' hot or cold.   

The Rantists answer,  
That it may be by pouring or sprinkling, we have Confirmation from the Scripture. Acceptation of the word. 1. Because the word Tabal is by Gen. 30.37, 38. rendered by Moluno poluo, which by the circumstances must be sprinkling. And the Chald. Jitztabah, Dan. 4.20. which by the LXX. is rendered Ebephe, is translated wet, which must be by aspersion. And Rev. 19.13. the word Bapto, compared Isa. 63.3. must be sprinkled; and Mark 7.48. to wash, not dip.   

The Baptists Reply  
That if it should be taken for granted, that the word in these four places may be taken otherwise than in all other places, will it be judged reasonable, that those four should out- balance and overrule all the rest, which are above a hundred times rendered to dip. But in the next place, if the particulars be considered, you will not find them make good the thing pretended: For 1. As to Joseph's Coat, Gen. 37.31. if dipped in blood, as we render it, it may well be said to be polluted, died, or smeared therewith. And as to Dan. 4.20. the word Jitztabah is by Montanus rendered intingatur vel aspergetur: And if the Scripture do render it Ebaphe, which we translate wet, yet it must be granted to be such a witting as is by by dipping; viz. A through witting, a witting all over: A wetting by the dew of Heaven from above by aspersion, and a wetting by the dew of Heaven resting upon the long grass, by applying the body thereto, and so a dipping also; yea every part of the body. And as for Rev. 19.13. it is parallel with Isa. 63.12. as saith our English great Annotations, died, red Garments, and garments dipped in blood; being one and the same, though as in Vers. 3. Blood may be sprinkled upon Red Garments also. As for Mark 7.3. the word rendered wash is Nipto, not Bapto, which signifies when respecting washing of hands, a dipping up to the Elbows, as Dr. Hamond (and Theophilact, as in the margin) upon the place observe: And to which purpose, they had Water-pots containing two or three Firkins apiece always ready in their houses, as John 2.6. so that we should always (as the Dutch do) read it dip; and therefore in Vers. 8. it is explained to be such a washing, by the word dip or baptise.    

III. From the Scripture-Metaphors explaining it.  

The Baptists say,  
Thirdly, That it is by Dipping, and wherein much water is required, and not by Sprinkling, wherein a small quantity of water sufficeth, appears from the Scripture-Metaphors alluding to this Rite; viz. When persons are said to be overwhelmed in great sufferings, they are said to be baptised therein, Matth. 20.22, 23. Luke 12.5. When said to have greet measures of the Spirit, it is to be Baptised with the Spirit, Acts 5.11, 16. When the children of Isral were covered with a Cloud behind them, and over their heads, and the Sea on both sides, were then said to be Baptised in the Sea and Cloud, 1 Cor. 10.2. with Exod. 14.22. When Asher had the promised Blessing of great plenty, he is said to have his feet dipped in oil. And when great victory over enemies, 'tis said, that feet are dipped in their Blood, Psal. 68.23.    

iv From the nature and ends of the Ordinance.  

The Baptists say,  
Fourthly, It is to be by Dipping, not Sprinkling, from the nature and ends of the Ordinance; viz. To a figure or sign in the outward Visible act of spiritual things held forth thereby, that by the sign, the thing signified might be exemplified; viz.  
1. To figure out the Covenant on man's part that he visibly declares to enter into thereby; viz. To die to sin, and to live to Christ in newness of life: By that figurative Death, Burial and Resurrection, being put under the the water, and taken out thereof, and therefore said to be buried with Christ in Baptism, as Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.11, 12, 13. as so fully owned by Piscator, Tilenus, Diodat, Assemblies and Leigh's Annotations, Dr. Cave, Tillotson, Goodwin, Kekerman, Baxter, Magdiburg, as Treat. Bapt. B. 2. chap. 4. doth particularise.  
2. To be a sign of the Covenant on God's part; viz. of washing away of sins, cleansing the whole man, and every part, and to give spiritual Life and Salvation, Acts 2.32. & 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.21. And to the end that whole and every part is be to washed, that as every part is defiled, and needs cleansing and purifying, so must not one part be left unbaptised: Therefore Ainsworth treating upon Baptising the Lepers under the Law (the Type hereof) saith, Leu. 15.5. That every part must be baptised, and if so much as the tip of the finger was left unbaptised, it was esteemed no Baptism: And therefore saith the Learned 
(a) de Jure Nat. l. 2. c. 2.  Selden, That the Jews (from whom this Rite is conceived to come) took that Baptism, wherein the whole body was not baptised, to be void. And to this end, 
(b) Upon John 13.10.  saith Dr. Hamond, they had large Diving-places, or Baptisterions, containing divers Baths of water, which they called Columbethroes, or Diving-places.  
3. To figure out Regeneration, being as so generally owned a Symbol of Regeneration wrought; therefore being born of spiritual water by Regeneration, John 3.5. We are in the figure taken out of literal water, or born out of the Bowels of it, as we are really taken out of the Womb in the first birth.  
4. To figure out our Sanctification, or newness of life; for as in Baptism we are all covered over, as with a garment, so we are said thereby to put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. viz. his white Garment of Righteousness and Holiness, and therefore to expect from him to that end, according to promise, the being dipped or baptised into or with the Spirit, Acts 11.16. & 2.38.   

The Rantists answer,  
It is to be by Sprinkling, not Dipping:  

1. From the Analogy it hath with sprinkling Christ's blood upon the Conscience, Heb. 12.24.  
2. Effusion of the Spirit, Acts 2.17.  
3. Washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3.5.  
4. Pouring water upon the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.23. the figure of Baptism.    

The Baptists Reply.  
It is true, 1. Christ's blood is said to be sprinkled, but that is in allusion to the sprinkling of the blood under the Law, Heb. 9.12, 13. & 19.21. with Leu. 14.6, 7, 8. Numb. 19.17, 18, 19 but not to express and point out to us the external Rite of Baptism, to which it bears no proportion either in name or nature. 2. That the Spirit is said to be poured out is very true, which respects that great measure and quantity of the Spirit, not the outward mode and Rite of Baptism; though that pouring out of the Spirit, as before is Metaphorically called the Baptism of the Spirit, in allusion to that of water, wherein was quantities of water, and whereof every member of the baptised person did partake: But similes do not run of all four. 3. As to the pouring water upon the Ark, no question when the windows of Heaven were opened in that Deluge, great measures were poured down upon it; but that is not the Figure of Baptism: The figure wherein the Ark and Baptism are said in that place to hold Analogy, is in this, that as those persons that entered into the Ark in Noah's time, were saved in that Deluge, so they that enter into Christ the spitual Ark by Faith; and the Visible Ark, the Church, by Baptism, the visible door thereof do enter into the promised savation: Therefore for any to use Srpinkling instead of Dipping, saith Dr. Taylor in his Rul. Con. c. 4. p. 644. is not only against Ecclesiastical Law, but against the Analogy and mystical signification of the Sacrament; and therefore he saith, is not to be complied with. As to that of the washing of Regeneration, I refer to that which is said in the Treatise of Baptism, part 2. chap. 4.    

V From Scripture-Practice, and Command.  

The Baptists say,  
Fifthly, Dipping, not Sprinkling, is the Rite of this great Ordinance, if we respect the Scripture- Practice or Command confirming the same: 1. The Practice, Mat. 3.15. When Jesus was baptised, or dipped, he came straightway out of the water: Therefore Cajetan upon the place saith, that Christ's ascending out of the water, proves that he was baptised by John, not by sprinkling, but by Immersion, or dipping. And Musculus saith upon it, that the baptised parties were dipped, not sprinkled: And John 3.13. John baptised at Enon, because there was much water. Upon which place saith Calvin, you may gather, that John and Christ administered Baptism, by plunging the whole body into the water. And Acts 8.38. Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water: And therefore saith Calvin upon it, We see what fashion the Ancients had to administer Baptism, for they plunged the whole body into water, etc. And the command to this was express, Mat. 28.19. Go teach all Nations, dipping, (not sprinkling) them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And Acts 10.48. 'tis said, Peter commanded them to be dipped, (not sprinkled) in the name of the Lord, etc. And therefore whether this is not as plain a Conmand for a Believer to be dipped, and which he should no more shift or alter, than when we are commanded, Fagate, to eat of the Bread, etc. that we are literally and plainly to do so, without any changing or altering the same, as soon have done in that and the like case also.   

The Rantists answer,  
That Sprinkling, not Dipping, was the usage in the Scripture; because how could they baptise by dipping three thousand in one day, Acts 2. And how could the Jailor be so baptised in his own house, Acts 16.   

The Baptistr Roly.  
That the three thousand mentioned in Act 2. were dipped, not sprinkled, is clear, not only from the words, because 'tis said in plain terms they were dipped, Acts 2.41. And they wanted not help in that great Administration, the Twelve and Seventy were witnesses, besides others of the 120 Disciples, that if need required, were capable to be helpful in the work. And as to the Jailor's being baptised in his own house (as suggested) 'tis a mistake; for after he was baptised, 'tis said, Vers. 34. he brought them into his house.    

VI From the practice of the Ancients, and confessed change from Dipping to Sprinkling.  

The Baptists say,  
Sixthly, As a further Confirmation by way of Illustration, that dipping was the Rite of this Ordinance, not sprinkling, may further appear from the Confessed practice of the Ancients for the first Ages, and the acknowledged change and alteration of it afterwards; In testimony whereof, Daille on the Fathers, lib. 2. p. 148. saith, That it was the custom heretofore in the Ancient Church to plunge, those they baptised, over head and ears into the water; as (saith he) Tertullian in Book 3 Cor. Mil. Cyp. in Ep. 7. p. 211. Epipha. Pa. 30. p. 128. and others testify. 
(a) De Reb. Eccles.  Walafrid Strabo saith, That at first Believers were baptised simply in Floods and Rivers. 
(b) Ad Theol. wit. Resp. 11. c. 8.  Jeremias Pat. of Constant. saith, That the Ancients baptised not by sprinkling, but immerging, following the example of the Evangelist, who came up out of the water, therefore did he descend. Zopperus de Sacram. saith, from the Etymology of the word it doth appear, what was the custom of old of administering Baptism, which is since changed into Rantizing. chrysostom, as Dr. Taylor in his Rule of Conscience, Book 4. c. 4. tells us, That the old man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under water 〈◊〉 and when the baptised person is afterwards raised up from the water, it represents the Resurrection of the newman to newness of life. Mr. Jos. Mead upon Tit. 3. tells us, there was no such thing as Rantism or sprinkling in the Apostles time, nor many Ages after. And Dr. Tailor as above, saith, That the ancient Church did not in their Baptism sprinkle water with their hands, but did immerge; and therefore saith, we find in the Records of the Church, that the persons baptised were to be quite naked, for which he gives divers instances and Authorities for divers Ages. Dr. Cave in his Prim. Christ. saith, That of old the baptised party was immerged, or wholly put under water, which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times. 
(c) Vossius de Bap. 14, to 64.  Vossius in p. 40. gives not only the nature of the word, from the old Glossers, and the Septuagint, and the best Critics, to be dipping; but from the say and usage of the Ancients from the trine Immersion, till Gregory, and then the single Immersion by the Council of Tolitan; and how in these cold Climates it came to be altered. 
(d) Annimad. p. 297, to 319.  Sir Norton Knatch in p. 40. gives the usuage of it from the Scripture and Antiquity to be dipping, and that it so continues in the Greek Churches to this day. 
(e) Ut sup.  And as Daille tells us, is still the practice of the Grecian and Russian, Churches at this day, Cassander de Bap. p. 193. and that it was the confessed custom of the Church of England, their English Liturgy will determine, which required the party to be baptised, to be dipped in water, except in great extremity and weakness.  
Secondly, As to the change and alteration of this Rite, we have the following Confessions; viz. 
(a) a Disput. of the Rise to Sacraments.  Mr. Baxter in his third Augument to Mr. Blake saith, as to the manner of it, it is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists (as our Commentators declare) that in the Apostles time, the baptised were dipped over head in water; and though since it hath been thought meet to disuse the manner of dipping; and to use less water. 
(b) Pau. Cathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Ser. 6.  Chamier confesseth, That the ancient use of Baptism was to dip the whole body into the Element, which is the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore did John baptise in a River, which is nevertheless changed into Aspersion, though uncertain when and whence that custom was taken. The Marquis of Worcester in his Certam. Relig. confesseth, that the Church of Rome hath changed dipping the party over head and ears, into sprinkling upon the face. Calvin upon Acts 8.38. confesseth, they have varied from the Apostolical practice, which was by plunging the body into the water. Beza upon Gal. 3. acknowledgeth, that it was the custom of old to baptise the Adult by immerging. 
(c) Ut supra.  Daille further saith, as before, Though this custom of dipping be ancient and universal, yet it is now abolished by the Church of Rome; and this is the reason, saith he, that the Muscovites say, that the Latins are not rightly and duly baptised, because they despised this ancient Ceremony of Dipping.   

The Rantists answer,  
That sprinkling was very ancient in the Church, as well as dipping, appears out of Eusebius, witnessing, that Novatus was baptised by pouring water upon him. Walafrid Strabo is peremptory, that it was done both ways: And Cyp. Ep. to Mag. evidenceth it to have been of very ancient practice. Clem. Alex. p. 387. testifieth the same; and though 'tis confessed, they did in some places of old dip the baptised, yet it was in hot— Countries.   

The Baptists Reply.  
That sprinkling of the sick, or Clinical Baptism, did early creep in is confessed: But 
(a) Rule Cons. ut supra.  Dr. Tayler tells us from Cornelius Ep. to Fabianus, Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. and out of Magnus Ep. That they scrupled to receive into holy Orders, any that had only received the Clinical Baptism; yea, so much as to esteem them Christians, that had only been sprinkled. And as Voss us in his Book of Baptism tells us, is was questioned, whether they did not lie when they said, they baptised a person, when they only sprinkled him. And as to baptising in cold Countries by dipping, as well as hot, we have Authentic proof; there being, as Dan. Rogers saith, no distinction of hot or cold. Russia, as is well known, an extraordinary cold Country, whereas you have heard they have, and do still use the Rite of dipping to this day. And in England of old, how frequent was it to baptise in Rivers, witness Germanus and Lupus, baptising multitudes in the River Allin in Cheshire, Treat. of Bapt. p. 228. Paulinus great numbers in the River Swol in York shire, and Trent in Notinghamshire, Bed. Book 2. ch 16. besides the appointment in the English Liturgy to dip little Children in this Country, and which hath been the practice in some places formerly, but especially the known, constant practice of the Baptists in Holland, Germany, and England, both Winter and Summer, without the least detriment or inconveniency.    

A brief Corrollary, containing some necessary Queries upon the whole.  
Quaer. 1. WHether is it not demonstrably evident by this Six-fold Argument (confirmed by so great Testimony both Divine and Humane) that Dipping, not Sprinkling, was the instituted Rite of this great Ordinance of Baptism?  
Quaer. 2. Whether this of Dipping, having been Christ's positive Appointment, from all those holy ends, and spiritual Reasons enforcing it as well as his own and all the primitive Saints express practise, it will not appear to be very dangerous, and savour of too much Presumption and Arrogancy, upon such gross mistakes, and upon nothing but Human Institution, to alter and change the same to a clear other Rite, inverting thereby so solemn a piece of God's holy Worship, and introducing instead thereof, so groundless a Tradition and Invention of man; and doth not justly fall under the Reproofs and Threaten of the following Scriptures, Matth. 15.9. In vain they do worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men: Mark 7.7. For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the Traditions of men, rejecting and frustrating the Commandments of God, to keep your own Traditions: Isa. 24.5. They have transgressed the Law, changed the Ordinances therefore, etc. And no less than a Violation of the First and Second Commandment, entrenching upon God's Prerogative-Royal, wherein he is so jealous, the Presumption whereof cost Israel so dear?  
Quaer. 3. Whether sprinkling only a few drops of water upon the face, instead of dipping the whole person, doth not as much spoil the Symbol, and vacate the instituted significant ends of the Ordinance, as to eat only the Wafer, and reject the Cup, spoils the Ordinance of breaking of Bread, and drinking of Wine, in remembrance of the broken Body and Blood of our Lord: Or as some of old, when God commanded the foreskin to be circumcised, should have satisfied themselves to circumcise their nails, if they did but keep the name and ends of the Ordinance? And whether one is not as provoking to the Lord as the other?  
Quaer. 4. Whether to conform hereto, is not to yield obedience to the Institution and Injunction of Antichrist (for though 'tis granted it was in use before it was imposed by the Popes) as Infant-Baptism was, yet was it by them especially enjoined, as the other was, as confessed by so many of their own? And whether in so doing, there is not as great indignity offered to the Authority of Christ, and contempt to his Wisdom, as there is a declared subjection to, and owning and honouring such a gross Usurpation?  
Quaer. 5. Whether it may not rationally be supposed, that one great end of the Pope's enjoining theeeof, was not with more Pomp and Solemnity to establish and confirm Infant-Baptism, so much the Pillar and Foundation of his Church? And whether it doth not appear, he did upon as good ground change the Rite, as so alter the subject? And that he doth as warrantably, and by as good Scripture-Authority, sprinkle Bells, and Church- Walls and Standards, and call it Baptism, as the other?  
Quaer. 6. Whether for any to sprinkle an Infant, and to say they Baptise it in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is not as much to tell a lie in the Name of the Lord, and to profane a holy Ordinance of his, as they do who use the same Form in Baptising of Bells? etc.  
Quaer. Whether Learned and good men may not, from the consideration of their mistake in the Rite, have cause to conclude they have mistaken the subject also? And that being neither right in the matter or manner of the Ordinance, it is a mear nullity, and therefore should engage them to the right performance in both, as they would approve themselves Christ's Disciples and Followers, and not err in so great a foundation of the Christian Religion?    

LONDON, Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange. 1675.