Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...

Baptist.

Can you be baptized in a better manner think you then that wherein Iohn bap∣tized Christ, and Philip the Eunuch? me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdome of those Primitive Administrators, as to imagine such a thing, and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse?

Or Secondly would you be baptized in, not so low, base, contemptible, ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they, but in a more honourable, more moderate, more easie, more tollerable, more world winning, more self pleasing, more flesh favo∣ring a manner? or what is it you would have? me thinks either that soure service

of going down into a River, or pond, and being dipt, or overwhelmed in water there, which served our Lord Iesus Christ, and that honourable Eunuch, might serve you, or else that easie sweet service of sprinkling which you content your selves with, might have served them, one of the two: for as they were required to be baptized no more then you, so surely in no more unwelcome a way of bap∣tism then your selves; and they would not have so farre supererrogated as to have been baptized at all, if it would have fulfilled righteousnesse in that point to have been sprinkled onely on the forehead.

Nay that would not, for saies Christ when he came to Iohn, and Iohn at first refused to baptize him, Thus it becometh us to fulfill righteous∣nesse:

Thus i. e. not onely in this matter, but in this manner, but if you will needs per∣form this service more easily then Christ and the Eunuch did, perform it onely (as in sprinkling you do not) and let be done in what manner, or accidental form you please, and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places, we stand not on those nicities (though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as mo∣dern were, and are so baptized) let it be done in a Cistern, so it be totally and truly done, yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together, so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in wa∣ter by the other, and then let it be done in a bason, if you please.

As for the other thing the Dr. saies viz. that there is no proof at all of the dip∣ping, or plunging Christ and the Eunuch, but onely of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon, before he asserted such an absur∣dity as this, if he had, he might have found cujus contrarium, that there is proof enough that they were dipped, or plunged in the alledged texts, but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way: for the very thing that is related of them both, is that they were dipt, plunged, or washed by dipping; tis said of Christ plainly Mat. 3.15. c 1.1 that he came to Iohn to this very end that he might be baptized by him, and verse 16. * 1.2 being baptized he ascended presently from the water, and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8.38, they descended down both in∣to the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him, and ver. 39. when they were come up or ascended out of ••he water:

Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world, that are skil∣led so farre in the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense, and signification of it in any Lexicon,e 1.3 which is to dip, plunge, put under water, o∣verwhelm with water primarily, and secondarily to wash or clense by dipping, or dousing,f 1.4 whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping and plunging, or washing by dipping, and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all.

The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River, I marvel to what pur∣pose if not to be dipt there, he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were bap∣tized, which in plain English is dipt, or overwhelmed in the River, mark his words [in the river] also that such baptism of men, especially in the hotter cl••∣mates, both hath been, is and may be lawfully used, and yet for all that, de∣nies either of them to have been dipt, or plunged in the River, or that any one may now lawfully be served so: I marvell much what they did in the river, be∣fore they came out of it, o (quoth he) they were washt in the river, and yet not so as by dipping neither, good Sirs let us examine this a little, for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means, besides this of dipping, or how any other washing was performed.

First to be sure it was not by sprinkling, which yet is all in all among you, and that for these reasons.

First, because its most certain that the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath no such signifi∣cation as to sprinkle, neither is it rendred any where Aspergo, in any Lexicon

or any translator of the testament whatsoever.

Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all, neither is there any thing in the world (save as I said before by sluts and slovens) so much as under∣taken to be washt onely by that act of sprinkling, much lesse by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is, who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto: indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling, as it may be put ther∣by into some kind of capacity to be clensed by rubbing it while the water is on it, and that is farre from your practise too, but not half so well as when it is swil∣led in water; and in a long while a garment may be all covered colored, and as it were died by sprinkling, as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last, partly by the sprinkling of peoples blood upon him, and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press, where there are, as there are usually in wars, gar∣ments rould in blood, and blood up to the horse bridles, to have his raiment all stain∣ed and his vesture as it were died and dipt in blood, but all this is hyperbolicall locution, and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do, who because there is not enough neer hand, fetch a proof for sprinkling fourty miles off, which yet proves nothing when it comes, for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince, but this is not such a deep dying as is by dip∣ping.

Thirdly, it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River meerly to be sprinkled, if that were the onely businesse they might well have been dispenst with from descending into the water, but sith they were not, it shews that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them, and if not them, I know not why it should excuse the best of us; though men do much in the service of God in vain, when they do things that man doth, but God never did require at their hands, yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain, yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more then sprinkling: and so we must think of the Eunuch also, of whom we have little reason so to think, for great folks and nobles, such as he was, love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh, and no more then needs must be in this point of baptism, if at all they stoop to it: for he need not have hindred himself so long in his journey, nor diseased himself so much in his body, as to have descended out of his chariot, and after into the water, but might much rather have sent Philip, or his servant to have fetcht so much water in the hollow of his hand, as would have served very well to have sprinkled him, if no more then so had been required.

Fourthly it had been stark non-sense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1.9. he was baptized of Iohn in * 1.5 Iordan, if he were not dipt, or if by baptized we must understand sprinkled, for he was sprinkled into the River is as absurd and unelegant English, as to say he was dipt into the rain.

Secondly it was not by powring water upon them, that Christ and the Eunuch were washed: this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to, as that, and that on∣ly which ever he saw dispensed in all his life, as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling, which yet is your onely wonted way: I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism▪ as many a one besides him is, who with him puts it off thus, that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling, but powring of water upon the infans, for my part (saith he p. 134.) I may say as Mr. Blake, that I never saw a child sprinkled, but all that I have seen bap∣tized, had water powred on them and so were washed.

And Mr. Blake saies p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood, that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled.

O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men, who perceiving the perverse practise of sprinkling infants summoned, and sub paena'd, to come to a trial by the word of God, do disguise it out of its old name, that it hath born with content, and without controul for ages and generations, and doth still among

many of their own party, till now they begin to see it more strictly then ever en∣quired after, and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christs command) and shroud it under another name, whereby to secure it, so that now they know not, nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world.

No Sirs? what never? that is strange: what parts of Christendome have you lived, or do you live in? I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants my self about some seven or eight years, not only in several parishes, but in seve∣ral parts of our English Christendome, far distant, yet so far as I remember, I did never see till I came acquainted with the people, whom you nick name Anabap∣tists, any thing done by any in that particular, that might well bear any other name then that of sprinkling, yea I know where a dispensation of baptism (as twas called) was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man, that the father himself was so far in doubt, whether there was so much as sprinkling, or any water at all dropt from the fingers of the Dispenser, that he doubted a while after (whether he do still or no I know not) whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better; the Gentleman I speak of, if ever he read this, will surely remember both what, and what Child of his I mean.

Mean while what more then sprinkling was ever done by my self, or any other in that place, or any other wherever I have been, I cannot call to mind, neither do I know that ever (till of late, that men see advantage lost by it in this con∣troversy) the name of sprinkling was denyed to what was done in all places of England, save such where the manner was, and very newly is upon sight of the falsenesse of the way of sprinkling, to dippe a little more then the tippe of their Noses.

Besides though the Rubrick did prescribe dipping as the onely right form, wher∣in baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child, yet what kind of powring was universally used by them who never used dipping, is evident by the Rubrick, if we will give it leave to expound it self, for in the Catechism thereof, which is not unknown to Mr Blake, and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England, this question, viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism? is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptized is dipped or SPRINKLED with it, in the name &c.

So that howbeit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water (as you do) yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants (and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration, which I suppose was in the bishops reign, done the like, though now happily they make a little better measure, or at least seen the like at some time or other, but me thinks they cannot chuse but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other) a poor piece of pouring, I say when their hands onely being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infants face, that it might be wetted a little with what fell guitatim from their fingers ends.

And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen, in respect of which I may say the Priest that administred all commonly by book, and wi••hin book, did act beside book, and without book in that service, for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water, as the most expedient way at least, and not so much as to dispence by powring water, unlesse in case of weaknesse onely, yet he made bold, having an inch given him to take an ell, i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weaknesse only, to forbear dipping altogether, and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make powring suffice instead of dipping at such time onely, wherein dipping might not be safely used, to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also: and in this manner I am perswa∣ded

the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians daies, and after, who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was, that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sicknesse, in case the sicknesse proved un∣to death (for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipt) for ease sake to the flesh, and such like self ends, made some slen∣der slabber to stand for baptism altogether.

And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident e∣nough to any, save such, as seeing see not, and have ears and hear not: yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling, as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case, as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, yet there are Divines famous in their account, who own it, some of which seem to speak, as if they never heard of such a thing as powring of water in the dispensation of baptism, but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of: witnesse (besides several other Ca∣tachistical composures, that I have seen) that specialy of Mr. Ball a man not on∣ly vindicated by Mr. Marshall, but much magnified by Mr. Baxter by the titles of Rutherfords second, excellent Mr. Ball, judicious Mr. Ball, no Dull Divine to be easily misled p. 131.132. which Mr. Ball in his Catachise p. 24. speaking of the outward sign, element, action, speaks much what as it is in the Rubrick, viz. water, wherewith the person baptized is washed by dipping or sprinkling in the name &c. as if he had never seen water poured on a child, but all that ever he saw had been either dipped or sprinkled.

Nay more then all this, witnesse also the very man that manages this very cause together with them, viz. Mr. Cook, whom I dare say Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have read, and made no little use of, for he hath furnished them both with sundry of their Arguments against dipping, this man in opposition to A. R. which A. R. speaking of sprinkling, excludes it by this disjunction, viz. that the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping answers thus, not only to the clean contradicting of Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter and to the proving of them but so so in their denyals, that ever they saw, or heard of any sprinkled, but also to the excluding of infusion or pouring, which yet in other places he pleads for, which Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter say is the only way, yea all the way that they have seen save dipping, which yet one of them never saw at all, and to the e∣vincing of sprinkling to be one of the ordinary waies of baptizing: for page. 11. whereas A. R. saies the use of water must be either by infusing or dipping, but not by infusing nor sprinkling, for he counts them much what one, therefore by dipping, Mr. Cook tells him, as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing as pouring, which is all that Mr. Baxter saies he saw in his daies, that the ordina∣ry use of the water is one of these two waies, viz. either by dipping or sprinkling yet Mr. Blake that hath read Mr. Cook, never heard of any sprinkled: So Calvin, Tylenus, Buchan, and all call it either Aspersim, or Immersion: yet again some Divines seem to speak, as if they never saw nor heard of such a thing as dip∣ping, unlesse among the Heretical Anabaptists, which yet is the onely true and primitive form of Baptism, but onely of pouring on of water or sprinkling, wit∣nesse the whole Synod of Divines, who in their directory direct the world further out of the way of the word in point of baptism, then the Bishops in their Rubrick did, for they in their Liturgy appointed dipping to be done, as the most expedi∣ent form, and powring on water onely in case of necessity, but the other in theirs directly exclude dipping, as a thing no where appearing to be needful, and order that either of the other shall serve without it: for these are their words p. 45. of the Directory, viz. He is to baptize the child with water, which for the man∣ner of doing it, is not only lawful but sufficient, and most expedient to be by powring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child: whether any thing that ever hath been done by any in obedience to this directory in that second way

of sprinkling, which Mr. Baxter denies that he ever saw done, and Mr. Blake that he ever heard of as done to any, did ever reach Mr. Baxters eye, or Mr. Blakes eare, I leave them seriously to examine; but this I am sure of that the bap∣tism of Christ and the Eunuch was dispensed neither by sprinkling as I have shew∣ed above, nor yet by bare pouring on of water which they so plead for: and this I shall now make appear as plainly as the other. For

First in vain did they descend into the River to have nothing but water poured on them with no greater spout or stream then what runs down contiguously from the hallow of ones hand; but Christ did nothing surely in vain, and Philip and the Eunuch might well have spared their paines in wetting themselves so much, as they must needs do by going down both into the water, and as sufficiently dischar∣ged such a service by standing only on the shore.

Secondly, if by powring you mean the powring of a farre greater quantity of water then what can he held in the hand, as namely out of some scoop, or vessel used to such a purpose upon the face or head, as that might have been done full as well by the water side, if they had not gon down into the water, so it must have been as tedious by running down into their necks and bosomes, and so necessari∣ly have occasioned the trouble of the shifting of themselves, as very dipping it self can be, or do.

Thirdly, twas not by washing them in any other way, excepting still that of dip∣ping, suppose by applying water to them with their hands or otherwise, and then rubbing it on their bodies, for if so, then this washing must be of their whole bo∣dies, or of some part or parts of them onely, if some part or parts onely, then of those parts which we commonly keep uncovered as the face and hands, or else let it be assigned what other parts, but it was not the face or hands onely that were thus washt, for this again were a very vain thing to go down into the water for, as its said of Philip and the Eunuch that they both did: frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora: tis meer foolishnesse to fetch a beetle and wedges to cleave a stick no bigger then ones finger, & little wisdome to run so much as ore shoes meer∣ly to wash ones face or hands, which may be done as well at the waters side, as in it: if their whole bodies were thus washt, then it must be done either with their clothes on, and that is impossible, for though the whole body may be baptized i. e. washt by dipping or swilling it under the water as conveniently, and more comely with clothes on then otherwise, yet they surely have little else to do, and find themselves more work then becomes wise men, that go about to wash persons by rubbing water upon them through their garments, besides while you can totally wash one in that form of washing, Ile wash by dipping at least no less then a score: or else ex∣utis vestimentis i. e. stark naked, & that were more immodest then naked dipping.

Fourthly, nor was it done by dipping some part of their bodies onely into wa∣ter, but the whole, for to dip a person but in part, besides that it is not properly to dipp that person, but onely to dip some part of him, is to the dispenser, and the disciple too, tanta mount in difficulty if not surmounting a total dipping, yea to dip the whole body of a man at years (for we speak not now of infants, that may at ease be dandled any way in ones armes) is easie enough to the dispenser, when the disciple is once gon down with him into the water, and yields himself to be laid along in it by his hands, but conceive what part of a man you will, except the hands which you will not for shame say is the onely member to be baptized, and Ile say hic labor, hoc opus est, tis a matter of no smal difficulty to dip meerly that: for if you will dip a mans head and shoulders onely in the River, you must poise and posture him Archipodialiter with his heeles upwards, if his feet and legs onely, you must first at least lift him up wholly, and carry him in clearly from the ground, which kind of dipping men in Rivers, as tis more toilsome surely then that totall dipping, which Iohn and Philip used, so let him take it, who is minded to make himself more moil then needs, for our parts we have a way

wherein to do it with more ease, and to do it more sufficiently too, then by the halves.

As for the other of the Dr. quibbles viz.

First (for the rest of them are elsewhere removed) That the Israelites were bap∣tized in a cloud, not dipt into it.

Resp. nor sprinkled neither, but onely metaphorically baptized.

Secondly, that Zebedees children were baptized with blood, the baptism wher∣with Christ was baptized, and yet neither he nor they dipt into blood.

Resp. Both he and they were baptized with sufferings, shame and contempt, and affliction, and all misery in the world for truths sake i. e. penè, yea penitus submersi, sunk ore head and ears in deep waters of the proud, going over their souls, and overwhelmed with the waves of the wickeds wrath, prevailing against them for a time, and thats the bloody baptism he speaks of, not litteral∣ly the sprinkling of their own blood upon them, when they were slain, for Iohn suffered otherwise, but his blood was not shed at all.

Thirdly, that the fathers speak of the baptism of tears but no dipping in that baptism.

Resp. we mind not what your fathers spake hyperbolically, but what our fa∣thers spake in truth, and plain sobernesse in this case.

It was therefore a totall dipping certainly, which was then used, and by which Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the water, and not any other kind of washing there, as the Dr. dreames, which is also evinced yet a little further by this, forasmuch as though the Eunuch was gone down with Philip into the wa∣ter, yet he was not said to be baptized till Philip had dipt him therein: for if the wetting or washing, or dipping of some parts of the body onely might passe for sufficient baptism, then as soon as Philip had conducted the Eunuch into the River, he might have led him out again as a person sufficiently baptized, for he was washt already and dipt so far as to the Ancles, but the businesse was not done though the Eunuch was in the River, till he had baptized him there∣into.

Notes

• c 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.