Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	reason_n	6,112	5	5.0295	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53334	A brief defence of infant-baptism with an appendix, wherein is shewed that it is not necessary that baptism should be administred by dipping / by John Ollyffe ...	Ollyffe, John, 1647-1717.	1694 (1694)	Wing O287; ESTC R32212	67,029	72

in like manner used to express Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with Fire as in that same Text Luke 3.16 Now that cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or dowze Men into the Holy Ghost but the usual way of Expression is that the Holy Ghost with his Gifts and Graces was poured upon them thus Act. 2.17 18. I will pour out in those days of my Spirit upon them And Acts 10.45 On the Gentiles also was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghost And Tit. 3.6 The renewing of the Holy Ghost which is shed or poured on us abundantly And why should we not understand the baptizing with Water in Proportion and Similitude to this So that I can see no reason to conclude that it was our Saviour's Will and Intention that Baptism should always be by Dipping from the Use or Signification of the Word II. It cannot be necessarily inferr'd or concluded from the Examples of Persons being baptized that are mentioned in Scripture For in those Examples that seem to be most express for Dipping the most that can be concluded is only a bare Probability of it And in some it is highly improbable and the Probability is rather on the other side And if it could be demonstratively and satisfactorily made out by Scripture-Examples that the usual way of Administration of Baptism then was by Dipping yet that would lay no necessary Obligation upon us to the like 1. I say that in those Examples which seem to be most express for Dipping and therefore are most commonly urged for the Proof of it there is at most but a bare Probability of it and hardly that in some but there is no demonstrative Proof can be made from any of them either from the express Words or Story of those Examples or by just Consequence from them There are three Texts of Scripture that are usually urged to this purpose I shall consider them severally The first is Mat. 3.13 16. which sets forth the Baptism of our Saviour by John Baptist at Jordan For ver 16. Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the Water But what then Can it be necessarily inferr'd from hence that he was dipp'd in it or under it If he went into it as the manner usually was in that Country to wash their Feet that were dirty or soul with travelling and so there was baptized yet was there no way to have this done but by Dipping But indeed this Text if rightly interpreted doth not so much as prove that our Saviour went into the Water at all For in the Greek it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he came up from the Water not out of it And so he might be very well said to do if he only went to the side or brink There being some little Ascent at least from the Water to the dry Ground But however there is not determinate manner of our Saviour's Baptism in it exprest nor can be necessarily or demonstratively inferr'd And therefore at most that particular Form which the Anabaptists insist upon is but a meer Probability Another Text that is urged is Joh. 3.23 That John was baptizing in Enon near to Salim because there was much Water there And because of the numbers of those that went to John to be baptized it was most convenient that it should be in such Places where there was Plenty of Water But can any one prove hence that they were baptized by dipping into it or under it Is this any thing more than a Conjecture tho he baptized there where there was much Water yet the manner of baptizing there is not stated or determined So that this which is so much insisted upon at most from hence is but a Conjectural Probability and therefore can be no matter of Faith nor can lay any Obligation upon Practice For besides in that place it is not said that there was much Water together but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is many Streams or Rivolets which were not very common generally in that Country And thus there might be tho there were not Water of a sufficient Depth to dip a Man in it But let that be how it will there is no determinate Manner exprest or to be certainly and evidently concluded as ought to have been to build a Consequence of such a Nature upon as to infer an Obligation to such a determinate Manner Lastly that of Acts 8.36 useth to be insisted upon concerning the Baptism of the Eunuch by Philip. For ver 38. it is said They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and when they were come up out of the Water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. Yet neither here is the particular Manner of the Administration exprest nor yet to be certainly collected It is no strange thing that they did go down into the Water in that warm Country that they might do and yet Philip not dip the Eunuch in it but take up Water with his Hand to pour it upon him And yet the words in the Original may be as conveniently interpreted that they both went down to the Water as the Eunuch was journying upon the Road by and came up from it only For so the Particles here rendred into and out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Matth. 15.24 Luk. 1.71 are often expounded And if so then this Text doth not so much as prove that they went into the Water but only to the Bank or Side of it And besides that Water if they did go into it is reported by those that have travelled into and viewed those Parts to have been only a Rise or Fountain so small or shallow as that a Man could not be dipp'd in it St. Jerom saith De Locis Hebraicis tom 3. J. G 's Catabaptism p. 51. it was Fons ad Radicem montis ebulliens a Fountain bubbling out at the bottom of the Hill Et ab eâdem in quâ gignitur sorbetur humo and forthwith drank up by the Earth that produced it as it is expressed by Sandys in his Travels speaking of the same Place and therefore it is not likely to be of any considerable Depth And so the Expression in the Story of the Acts seems to intimate ver 36. they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto a certain Water or somewhat of Water enough to baptize the Eunuch tho not by dipping But from none of these Relations of Baptism can the particular or determinate manner of the Administration certainly he gathered and therefore much less the Necessity of any Form be concluded So that at most all that these Places amount to is a meer Probability of the thing that it was done in that manner and no more And yet these are all the Places from Example that use to be produc'd to prove the Necessity But how short doth all come of a demonstrative Proof 2. In some of the Examples or Instances

of Persons baptized in Scripture it is very improbable that the way of the Administration of Baptism was by Dipping and the Probability is rather on the other side that it was not by Dipping but rather some other way As when we read of such vast Multitudes baptized by John which the Evangelist giveth us an Account of Matth. 3.5 6. Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Region round about Jordan and were baptized of him This great Conflux of People to him seems to be chiefly at the Beginning of his Ministry though that continued but a little time neither at most And we have no Account that John had any Assistance in baptizing any for we do not read that his Disciples baptized though the Disciples of our Lord did So that the whole Work must lie upon him in baptizing so many thousand People as it is likely there were that came to him day by day And what a tedious and dangerous Drudgery must this be for him if he must stand so many Hours or whole Days together in deep Water and must take all this Company one by one to bury them under Water and take them up again after the Mode How unlikely or improbable therefore is this And so when we read of three-thousand Persons that were baptized and added to the Church the same Day Acts 2.41 For it seems that they were baptized the same Day that they heard the Word and were converted to the Faith of Christ And this Work it cannot well be supposed that they could go about before Noon at soonest For St. Peter began his Sermon but about nine of the Clock in the Morning or the third Hour of the Day ver 15. And after that there must needs some time pass in Discourse c. before they could be ready for the Work of Baptism And how unlikely is this that all this could be done and so many Persons dipp'd after the Mode by so few as there were to do it in an Afternoon And that in the City Jerusalem wherein there was no Water of Depth there being only the little Brook Cedron running by And as for Cisterns or other Receptacles of Water where should they find them to dip such a Multitude in and that upon a sudden The most of that Nature we may suppose were about the Temple for the washing and bathing of the Priests but it is not likely there could be so many as to serve for such a Multitude nor that they should have leave to use those that were And the Water-pots that were in private Houses were commonly less as serving chiefly for the washing of their Feet when they came in from Travel And there is not the least Intimation of their going out of the City to perform this Work And if they had that would have taken up more time than what could have been spared in an Afternoon And yet as Geographers report there was not any Water near the City of that Quantity that could be sufficient for this Performance neither And besides was all this done and were they baptized naked or in their Clothes If naked where was the Modesty that became such an Ordinance in the dipping of such a vast mix'd Multitude as it is likely of Men and Women together at Noon-day If in some Clothes must they all go home first and fetch Clothes to change or must they walk to their several Habitations it may be a considerable space in their wet Clothes Which way soever Mens Imaginations may work to form a Supposition how strangely improbable is all So when we read of baptizing a whole Houshold in the deep of the Night in a private House in a City without the least Intimation or Likelihood of their going forth to a River or any Water out of the House for it As we read in the Story of the Jailor Acts 16.33 For he took them the same Hour of the Night and washed their Stripes that is of Paul and Silas and was baptized he and all his straightway viz. in the very Prison and then brought them into his own House which was probably joined to the Prison and set Meat before them This is not very likely in these Circumstances to be done by Dipping neither And what an unlikely thing is it that St. Paul when he was in that weak Condition through Fasting and that great Consternation of Spirit that he was in by reason of his Vision should be baptized by Dipping in cold Water in his private Lodging as the Series of the Story seems to intimate to us that he then was Acts 9.9 He for three Days was without Sight and neither did eat nor drink But ver 18. when Ananias came and spake to him he received Sight forthwith and arose being it is likely before upon the Bed through Weakness and Trouble and was baptized And when he had received Meat which it seems was not till after his Baptism he was strengthned Considering these things therefore if we consider the bare Relations of the Scripture it seems highly improbable that in these Instances Baptism was administred by Dipping but it seems more probable that it was done some other way by Aspersion or Application of Water not by Dipping So that if in the former Instances there was a Probability that Baptism was by Immersion or plunging in the Water though in some of them we have seen it hardly amounts to that neither yet in these now mentioned there is a Probability at least on the other side So that here is Probability against Probability And I will appeal to any Man that is not prejudic'd whether those Accounts of Baptism that we have in the former Relations can ever be rationally supposed to contain a demonstrative Evidence and Proof of the Necessity of Dipping as being essential to Baptism when there are such Probabilities in others of a quite different Administration 3. But I shall add this further that if it could be demonstratively proved by Scripture-Examples that the way of Administration of Baptism in those times was by Immersion or Dipping under Water yet could it lay no necessary Obligation upon us to the like unless it could be proved that this determinate manner was appointed by Christ's Institution which it is impossible to prove by these Examples alone if the thing be capable of being performed otherwise For our Saviour might give out the Command of baptizing with Water in general without determining the manner of Administration but leaving the particular Form or Mode indifferent and to be used ad libitum this way or that way And they might take up this Mode of Immersion if they did do so as most sutable to their Apprehensions or Inclinations or Customs But it doth not follow therefore that we must needs observe the same Manner if the same Thing can be done another Way and to the same Ends and Use Therefore unless they can prove this Particularity by the Institution or such Texts as are clearly