Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	blood_n	john_n	spirit_n	3,921	5	5.9402	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87005	Syons redemption, and original sin vindicated: wherein are these particulars largely handled and discovered. I. That sprinkling of water in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost is not baptism, ... II Infants not the subjects appointed by God to be baptized, ... III That the second death was never threatned to be inflicted upon Adam ... IV A clear and large discourse as touching Gods decree, of election and reprobation. V A large exposition upon the ninth chapter to the Romanes, ... VI A brief disproof of the unlawfulness of the paying or receving of tithes, ... VII The ordination of the national ministery examined and disproved. VIII The answer of objections against the Jews return out of their captivity ... IX A clear discovery of the glorious effects (or that which will be effected) under the sound of the seventh trumpet. X A full discovery of Judah and Israels glory to be enjoyed in their own land, ... Published for the instruction and comfort of all that wait for the appearing of the Lord Jesus and Zions redemption. Being an answer to a book of Mr. Hezekiah Holland, sometimes preacher in Sutton-Valence in Kent. By George Hammon pastor to the Church of Christ, meeting in Biddenden in Kent.	Hammon, George.	1658 (1658)	Wing H504; Thomason E958_1; ESTC R207642	184,723	213

without measure and so was his water Baptism To which I answer briefly the strength of your reason lyeth in these words There is a parallel say you between Johns Baptism and Christs and Johns Baptism was that of water and Christs that of the Spirit and say you Christs Baptism was by pouring of a few drops in the time of the Law and hence you conclude that because Christs Baptism with the Spirit was by springling as you say and yet is called Baptism equivolent with that of Johns which was with water therefore water Baptism may be by sprinkling and this is the sum whole strength of reason that you produce Answer And first to the first There might be a true parallel between Johns Baptism and Christs John did dip or thorowly wash the people of the Regons of Judea and Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might prepare a people for the Lord and as John did prepare a people for the Lord by dipping or thorow washing so Christ would not many dayes after prepare a people for God his Father by dipping or thorow washing of them by his Holy Syirit the which I have proved already that the Baptism of the Spirit is not compared to a little water but to rivers of water and as touching that of sprinkling so often mentioned in the Law it may be granted that it might possibly be meant of the pouring forth of the Spirit in the last dayes because not onely Isaiah but Joel also Joel 2.28 with other Prophets speaketh of sprinkling many Nations Esay 52.15 and of pouring out of His Spirit upon all flesh Act. 2.16 but yet this is no whit for your purpose for what if it be so Ezek. 36.25 that God doth pour●forth of his Spirit and that by Rantizing that is to say by sprinkling or scattering here or there or dispersing in divers parts or places yet it doth not follow Spargo to sprinkle or scatter in divers parts although Gods Spirit be scattered or dispersed here and there in many Nations that is to say one of eighty or two of a family or if it be more yet such as do enjoy the Spirit and are cleansed thereby are not sprinkled but the Spirit to them is as a fountain or a river af water whereby they are washed and sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6.11 and moreover I might shew you how sprinkling represents that of Christs blood the which differeth somewhat from other water or Spirit in proper operation of it although it agree in one for there is three beareth witness on earth as well as three in Heaven but I shall be brief And secondly 1 John 5.7 8. whereas you say that Christ was Baptised with the Spirit or plounged receiving it without measure and so was his Baptism with water from whence you conclude that Christ was plounged in Jordan to manifest to the Sons of men that as he was plounged with the Spirit so he was also plounged in water to signifie his being plounged with or in the Spirit To which I answer and say that if it be true what you say that Christ was plounged in water to represent that he was plounged with the Spirit receiving it without measure and if that be the onely reason that Christ was dipped or plounged as you seem to affirm then none must be dipped or plounged but such as have received the Spirit without measure and it also doth imply that the Jews the Eunuch and some of your children the which you have formerly dipped have received the Spirit without measure so that your own words imply a contradiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is mergo or immergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is the word subeo or ingregredios these differs not much in their signification neither of them signify to sprinkle and where as you in your Parragraph say that the word Bapto Dyno much differ yet so far as I am able to understand the word Dyno they differ very little the one signifying to dip or plounge or overwhelm in the water so the other signifieth to enter in or go under it But to pass on to your discourse you ask me what I think of that known place 1 Cor. 10.2 in these words all our fathers were Baptised in the Cloud and Sea and say you that was a water Baptism yet they went on dry ground Answer I know the Text saith that they were all Baptised viz. all the fathers but how you will prove it to be water Baptism I know not for the Apostle calleth it no such thing onely sayeth they were Baptised and we know there is a Baptism of sufferings and of the Spirit and if I should affirm that it was a Baptism of the Spirit and of fiery tryals to try who would murmur or who would stand still and trust in God to see his Salvation I know not how you could deny it upon good grounds but that it was a Baptism of the spirit I think no sober man will deny because both the Text in Exodus and that in the Corinths imply so much for we finde that the Angel of Gods presence or his Spirit was a light to Israel but the camp of the Egyptians he darkned and also it is said they eat of the Spiritual meat and so forth and we may very well see if we are not blinde that Gods Spiritual presence was very great to Israel in the Cloud being a light to lead them in their journey to Canaan and also his Spiritual presence great in the Sea in making it to be a wall to them on the right hand and on the left that they wet not so much as their shoe brims and therein God manifested his Spiritual presence to Israel and if any were Baptised in water it was not Israel but Pharaoh and his Host the which were plounged and overwhelmed in the great depth but the people of Israel were lead and directed and upholden with more than an ordinary work and manifestation of Gods Spirit and because I study brevity and also that you are hasting away for Ireland I shall leave this particular with this Request desiring you to show before you go where ever that Baptism was called water Baptism the which is spoken of in that first of Corinths but if you seriously weigh the occasion of the words they will easily show you that the Baptism there mentioned is a Baptism of the Spirit because the Apostle was there shewing what judgments fell upon Gods people of olds for their sins to afright at I may say the Corinths that were a carnal people as if the Apostle should have said take heed of sin for that will bring Gods wrath on you and to take off that objection that the Corinths might use in saying but surely the Lord will not destroy us for he hath given us

the word Baptizo and Rantizo in their significations neither did I ever heat any sober honest man affirm it but have more handsomly excused there practice of sprinkling by saying that they used it by a rule of charity in cases of necessity in this cold Climate as David did enter into the house of God and eate shew bread and I must speak for M. Rutton in that case which did say That sprinkling might be called Baptism because it was so set down in the book of Common-prayers the which was more honestly spoken than to say that the word Baptizo is taken frequently for sprinkling but to the examination of your cited text Matth. 3.11 He shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire and say you are not sanctified men rather sprinkled than plounged with the spirit Are we not imperfect here below knowing in part and sanctified in part To which I answer Cor. 13.9 I have indeed read that the Apostle wrote to the Corinths saying we know but in part and prophecie but in part but I never yet read that the godly were sanctified but in part neither do I beleeve that God doth his work by halfs as touching mans sanctification but as saith the Author to the Hebrews He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all one and that Christ hath with one offering perfected for ever those that are sanctified by giving himself for the Church Hebr. 2.11 Cap. 10.14 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it a glorious Church God doth not his work by halfs in the work of Sanctification not having spot or wrinkle or any suchthing but that it might be Holy ad without blame And you may also see that Gods washing and cleansing is not in part but throughout from the words of the Prophet Ezek 16 9. Then washed I thee with water yea thorowly washed away thy blood from thee and so saith the Apostle to the Corinthians that some of them were drunkerds and fornicators but they were washed and sanctified and justified from whence we may see that God doth his work perfectly as touching sanctification and cleansing so then he that is born of God sinneth not but keepeth himself that the evil one toucheth him not This is truth whether you and your bene-fellowes or bountiful friends can witness the same in you ye or nay not that I say that the godly are free from temptation for neither was Christ nor do I say that it is impossible that the sanctified ones may be overtaken in fault The godly sin not with the wils consent but their minds and hearts are pure unto the Lord. yet I do say and affirm that the godly or sanctified man sinneth not with the consent of the will although it is possible for him to be overtaken unawares through the slites of Satan but however he keepeth his minde and heart pure to God and so through the spirit mortifieth the deeds of the flesh and brings into subjection such thoughts and imaginations as are offensive unto God and if it otherwise fall out that some that were sanctified washed throughly did turn again to the wallowing in the mire this was not because they were sanctified but in part but because when they were washed and thorowly washed and made perfect Ezez 16.15 2 Pet. 2.4 Jud. 6. that then they trusted in it and sinned and liked not that good estate and therefore God cast them out of his sight as he did the Angels which sinned which were once perfect and in a good estate But to pass to your second supposition only take notice of this by the way that the spirit is so far from being compared to sprinkling of a little water that it is compared to much water as you may see from Christs own words saying John 7.38 39. He that believeth on me as saith the Scriptures out of his belly shall slow rivers of living water and this he spake of the spirit that afterward he meant to give to them that beleeve And so to your second text which is Matth 20.22 where Christ saith he hath a Baptism to be Baptised withall meaning that of his sufferings the which say you was rather sprinkling than plounging having his head crowned with thorns and his hands and feet nailed and wounded yet he was not wounded in each part of his body To which I answer I hope no sober minded man will say that our blessed Saviour was not plounged or overwhelmed in sorrow when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Whose sorrow like unto his sorrow Math. 26.46 and what meant those great drops like blood that trickled from him Esa 53.1 2 3 4 5 6. and himself falling flat to the ground before he was nailed to the Cross what sober man dareth to say that Christ was not plounged into sorrow and greef and sufferings and the Apostle tells you that if one member suffer all the members suffer with it 1 Cot. 12.26 so then Christs sufferings was no small sufferings nor in part but very great in every part so as to press him flat to the ground so that there never was any mans sufferings to be compared to His and yet there were many before him that were over whelmed in sufferings as you may see Hebrews 11. Chap. And so you may see that neither of your reasons which you cited to prove Baptism to be taken for sprinkling are of any weight as first sanctification is not wrought in part in the Soul but thorowly as I have already proved allthough I could say much more Again The Spirit of God in the Soul is not compared to a little water but to very much waters even rivers of waters Christ was more than sprinkled with sufferings for he was plounged into great sufferings the Burden thereof caused him to fall under it flat to the ground and made him cry My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And secondly that the Baptism of Christ in sufferings was not small or in part but very great in every part that being overwhelmed he fell to the ground and sweat drops like blood before he was nailed on the Cross and when he was nailed on the Cross his heart was overwhelmed with sorrow that he cryed out in the bitterness of his Soul My God my God why hast thou forsaken me He troad the Wine-press of the wrath of God and poured out his Soul to death and groaned under that great oppression the which clearly sheweth to us that Christ was not sprinkled but plounged or overwhelmed in sufferings And again Whereas ye would have me Remember how the parallel lyeth between Johns Baptism and Christs Baptism with the Spirit Act. 1.5 and Christs giving the Spirit compared to pouring in respect of the few drops in the time of the Law by sprinkling for Christ only was plounged with it receiving of it

his Holy Spirit and he that hath done this for us will not now destroy us but the Apostle answering them on this wise as if he should have said it is true he hath Baptised you with his Spirit according to his promise and the visable gifts doth appear yet take heed of sin for otherwise God will destroy you for be not ignorant of this that our fathers were Baptised as well as you and with the same Spirit for the Rock that followed them was Christ yet God was displeased with them and destroyed them and these things was saith the Apostle for your example and admonition but now if this had been but a water baptisme that the Apostle saith our fathers were Baptized withal The Apostle sheweth the Corinths that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit as well as they and yet God destroyed them that so the Corinths might not boast of their gifts and take liberty to sin least they also were destroyed then the Corinths might have made this reply and said it is true all the Baptism or the washing with water in the Law was but appertaining unto the flesh and also we know Symon Magus was Baptized with water and yet cast away but we have been Baptised with the Spirit and therefore a beloved people and God will not cast us of and upon this account the Apostle endeavoureth to inform them that the Fathers were Baptised with the Spirit for Christ was with the Church in the wilderness and also lead them sometimes going before them sometimes followed them between the Egyptian and the Camp of Israel in the red Sea and thus Gods Spiritual presence was manifested unto them both in the Cloud and in the Sea in the Cloud by being a light to lead them and keeping the Egyptians from them and in the Sea by making the waters a wall to them so as that they were not wet thereby But if it should be objected out of the 77. Psal 16 17. The waters saw God and the depts were troubled the Clouds poured out water the skies sent forth a sound the voice of the thunders were in the Heavens I say This is nothing to that which is mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinths neither was that Cloud there spoken of the Clouds mentioned in the seventy seven Psalm And again whereas you ask me what I think of sprinkling of Bloud in the time of the Law so often mentioned was it not a type say you of the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 To which I answer It may borrow that terme the blood of sprinkling from that of springling in the Law or it may be called the blood of sprinkling because the efficacy of it was to be dispersed abroad to many by speaking better things for them than the blood of Abel but this maketh nothing for your purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aspersionis viz. sprinkling that Baptizo is to sprinkle as well as to dip for that word in the twelfth of Hebrews will not help you either in the word itself or the consequence of it And whereas you ask me why sprinkling on Infants may not signify Christs blood shed for them Answer because in the first place God never did appoint Infants to be sprinkled in the time of the Gospel or elsewhere to signify Christs blood shed for them Secondly Because Baptism is not barely a signification of Christs blood shed but also of his burial and Resurrection the which cannot be signified by sprinkling in sprinkling in the time of the Law there was a cleansing but in part viz. the flesh and but for a time namely one year for there was a remembrance of sin every year but now out cleansing is of another nature not in part but by one offering perfected for ever such as are sanctified and therefore that which signifieth that great work is not a little water but much water whereby persons must be thorowly washed and therefore the water in Baptism is compared to the waters of Noah 1 Pet. 3 20 21. the which I think no wise man will think was very little but that Baptism doth signifie burial as well as Christs death see the words of the Apostle Rom. 6.4 in these words Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into his death That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in nenness of life and as saith the Apostle to the Corinths If the dead rise not Why are we Baptised for dead that is as if he should say why are we then Baptized to signifie a Resurrection from the dead And again Whereas you say Peter was for a kinde of plounging John 13. till better Catichised by our Saviour To which I answer and say from thence it is evident that it was the onely practice in Baptism to wash or plounge the whole man in water Peters words spoken in John 13 maketh much for total washing in Baptism and no whit against it because Peter was ignorant of washing in part and cryeth out not onely my feet but my hands and my head but however that was not an ordinance of Baptism as aforesaid that Christ taught his disciples but it was an ordinanee which Christ instituted to wash the feet of those that were Baptised as aforesaid and therefore this maketh much against you and will plainlr teach you that it was a total washing or plounging that was Christs and his disciples practice in Baptism but Peter wanted instruction about that Ordinance of washing the Disciples feet and because I am occasioned to speak as to that Ordinance from the precedent discourse But the common scandal the which some wicked men lay upon us in that ordinance we call God to witness we abhor I shall briefly say I would advise every man as they would give an account with joy and not with grief in the dreadful day of judgement to take heed how they speak reproachfully or sl●tely of any Ordinance that Christ hath instituted as some have done although it may seem strange to them because Christ will look upon them as his enemies and if so his fury will burn out against them like a devouring fire And that the washing of Disciples feet is an Ordinance of Christ read John 13 14 in the room of much more that might be said the Text readeth it thus If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye ought also to wash one anothers feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you From whence we may see this is an Ordinance of Christ and therefore I shall not deny it before men for I am not ashamed of the meanest of the waies or Ordinances of the Gospel because I know it is the power and wisdom of God God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the weak things and the base and despised things hath

knew that they were not flinchers to run away for then they might have run away before for the Prison doors were set wide open to them yet it is granted that the Jaylor was in a fear and did tremble but it was because he feared his Salvation and upon that account he came and fell down before Paul and Sylus saying Sirs what shall I do to be saved Love casteth out fear the Iaylor was not afraid to go to any water that was convenient to be Baptised and therefore doubtless if Paul had said that they must have gone many a mile to have been Baptized he would not have questioned the business for Conversion is of this nature whether you can witness it yea or nay that it is willing to do any thing in Gods service that God or his people doth teach without fear of ill conveniences and indeed love casteth out all such slaveth fear have you read in any place of Scripture that the Iaylor was afraid to go to a River with the Apostles if you have I pray shew it in your next writing if you can And whereas you say if they were plounged how came they to sit at meat presently with the Apostles Answer Doth the Text say that they sate presently at meat with the Apostles read the Text Act. 16.33 34 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was Baptised he and all his straight way and when he had brought them into his house he fel meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Here is no such thing said as you say that he sat presently at meat with the Apostles but admit it were so that he did sit presently at meat yet it was not so presently but they first made themselves ready I might ask you how the Eunuch did to sit wet in his Chariot Act. 8 38 39. after Philip had Baptised him for it is evident that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water and the Text faith That when they were come up out of the water mark that the Spirit caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing But your discourse argueth that you are much besotted in your understanding and so I pass Again you say Circumclsion no tipe of Baptism neither cometh in the room and place of it Doctor Feath faith that Circumcision to Israel was as Baptism to us Answer you would have done well if you had shewed how he or you could prove it the which you have not in the least done and let me tell you that I do not beleeve that either D. Feath or you be infallable men but have your faillings in doctrine as well as in life and want not errours but that Circumcision to Israel is not as Baptism to us is evident First Circumcision was not so much as the least type of Baptism but rather is a type of Faith the which giveth right to Baptism that as the fore-skin of the flesh was to be taken of in order to the giving the subject right to Canaan a sleshly blessing so now the cutting off the fore skin of ignorance and unbelief from the heart giveth right to the Heavenly land of Canaan so that the Circumcision of the flesh was not as Baptism or a type of it but it was a type of the Circumcision of the heart according to the words of the Apostle Paul Rom 2.28 He is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh for that was then taken away and the other come in the room thereof but he is a law which is one outwardly and Circumcision that which is of the heart in the Spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God Secondly Circumcision never required Faith in the dispensation of it the which Baptism doth see Act. 8.37 and that Faith is not required in Circumcision read my Dagons Down-fall Faith is required in Baptism or in the subject to be Baptised but not in the subject Circumcised which sheweth it and peradvanture more of it anon if it lay in my way and that Baptism did not come in the room and place of Circumcision is evident because that Circumcision was practised since Baptism for Baptism began in Iohns time and Christ was Baptised with several others and yet Circumcision was not taken away till Christs death by nailing it to his Cross and therefore they being both practised together one could not come in the room and place of the other For illustration take this comparison a Parsenage Barne cannot be built in the room or place of Sutten Church unless that first be pulled down and taken out of the way neither can Baptisme come in the room of Circumcision unless Circumcision be taken out of the way the which was not as I have already shewed And whereas you say That Circumcision was but in one part and so Baptism may be but in one part to which you cite the Hebrew word Tabhal from Iosh 3.15 in these words And the feet of the Priests that bare the Ark was dipped in the brim of the water To which I answer and say this maketh nothing for you for I do affirm that if a man put his finger into the brim of the water or his little toe they are dipped although it cannot be said the whole man is dipped but in Baptism I have proved that the whole man must be dipped which is the proper signification of the word Baptizo and also of the word Tabhal as you have cited it because it doth signifie not onely a death but a burial and Resurrection and therefore according to what you say both from the Hebrew and the Greek the true signification of the word is to dip onely here lyeth the question whether every part must be dipped or whether some one part will not serve now that which I say is that the whole man must be dipped or buried to sign fie Christs burial and Resurrection as aforesaid and if you can prove it may be done in part I pray shew it and also what part it is that ought to be Baptised that we may not be deceived because you have been a speaking of dipping and washing of feet but not of dipping or washing of the face Washing and sprinkling were distinct Ordinances in the time of the Law or more properly sprinkling which is your practice And whereas you would prove if ye could that the washing spoken of Hebrews 9 10 13 is the same that is called sprinkling in the 19. 21. To the which I say you are much mistaken for there was both washing and sprinkling in the time of the Law so that washing was an Ordinance distinct from sprinkling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither was sprinkling called washing therefore the sprinkling in the 19 and 22 verses is not the washing in the 10 and 13