Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	bread_n	lord_n	wine_n	3,679	5	7.3104	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90658	A reply to a confutation of some grounds for infants baptisme: as also, concerning the form of a church, put forth against mee by one Thomas Lamb. Hereunto is added, a discourse of the verity and validity of infants baptisme, wherein I endeavour to clear it in it self: as also in the ministery administrating it, and the manner of administration, by sprinkling, and not dipping; with sundry other particulars handled herein. / By George Philips of Watertown in New England.	Phillips, George, 1593-1644.	1645 (1645)	Wing P2026; Thomason E287_4; ESTC R200088	141,673	168

birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for

but when they sinned they were punished Ergo ordinances will not secure you ever Reply The drift of the Apostle is to deterre them from Idolatry and other sins lest they be punished as their fathers were If they object and say though they were punished yet wee may hope for more grace because he hath given us two sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper and thereby hath given us to have the Son on us and in us as pledges of his love and favour the Apostle taketh away this pretence by telling them they can promise to themselves no more security herein then they might promise unto themselves because they had the same signs of Gods favour spiritually the same Sacraments by other signs dispensed but the same Christ and therefore you can be no more secure then they might be and that these miraculous works were set apart by Gods appointment to be sacramentall signes to them of the same thing that water bread and wine are now to us an evident because First the Apostles argument should not be of things equall and so not of force to convince the conscience of the Corinthians Secondly there were other works of God that held proportion with these as their passing through Jordan their eating Quails c. but the like is not said of them by the Apostle nor can be said of any man Thirdly these works of God cannot of themselves signifie Christ but were only as all such works of providence of that nature are demonstrations of Gods power presence and goodnesse to the people but cannot of themselves signifie such a thing but by some cleer appointment no more then bread and wine could signifie now the body and blood of Christ if they were not set apart for that purpose by and according to an institution Fourthly in going through the Sea eating Manna drinking of the rock they could not put on eat or drink Christ as they were naturall things having no such vertue in them either to signifie or convey him unto them of themselves neither was Christ bodily applied unto them as therefore it must be sacramentally as now in these signes we have If any shall object and say first the Israelites understood no such thing secondly they did not all eat drink and put on Christ I answer First that all did not understand it is like nor now do all understand the mysteries of salvation now but they ought to have understood them as we ought now Moses Aaron and all truly regenerate did understand as it is now now do the understanding or not understanding of the things of God then and now alter the nature of them but so they are of themselves as Gods appointment makes them whatsoever mens understandings are Secondly they did not all eat c. I answer they did all eat and put on Christ sacramentally and some of them sacramentally and really and now all do not put on Christ eat and drink him really but only sacramentally yet some did both and the rest then did and now do make themselves guilty of the death of Christ in unworthy receiving and did and shall bear their judgement But to come to the Confuter having shewed what the scope of the Apostle was hee next sheweth what it was not and that saith he is this the Apostle intends not to shew that the Corinthians should administer the Sacraments to themselves and their Infants though they do not believe in Christ because then God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites which did not believe which saith hee is the sequele of my argument Rep. First he maketh of my argument what he pleaseth before he said this was the sequele that we may baptize Infants now without Gods command as God by his providence baptized Infants then Secondly the Apostles purpose is not at all to prove who are to be baptized men or Infants believers or unbelievers nor did I say a word that way and therefore he shewes himself to have but a little understanding in him to say that is the sequele of my argument I brought it not to prove that the Corinthians might baptize themselves and their Infants though they did not believe but that the Corinths and all Gods people may baptize their Infants if they and wee whose Infants they are be Gods people and the Antecedent from whence he would make the sequele is untrue which is thus because God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites who did not believe For First he saith they were miracles which is true considered as bare acts of God but they were not only miracles they were sacramental ordinances also as is evident by the Text and what I said before Secondly hee saith they did not believe whereas the Scripture saith With many of them God was not well pleased some therefore did believe yea the whole body were Gods people and therefore were not unbelievers in a proper sense though they did not so believe as they ought and Psal 106.12 They believed his Word and sang his praises yea those they presently are said they forgat his works and waited not for his counsell But it seems he little regarded what he said for he said any thing let all now consider that my consequence was this That vifible believers may now baptize their Infants with these signes of spirituall baptisme and following from this Antecedent because believing Israelites Infants were baptized with those signes of the same spirituall baptisme yet he goeth about to prove that that he said was the sequele of my Argument from my proofs added the first whereof is this the other ordinances there mentioned are the same spiritually with ours Ergo this of baptisme was the same spiritually with ours this I said because the Apostle doth not admit spiritually the same with ours as he said of the other my proof is of this that that baptizing and ours is the same spiritually and not of this that the Corinths may baptize themselves and theirs though neither do believe and therefore this was not my sequele that he saith but it may be his answers will make it good And First he saith that by consequence belike the Corinths must baptize themselves and their Infants though neither of them do believe because God did baptize them with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is though they did not believe the which thus laid open he hopes I will not affirm Reply This is the same with the former and therefore is answered fully that the Corinths did believe that the Israelites did believe and doth this sense convince that to be my sequele which he said by my proof I hope all will see that I might justly say the believing Corinths might baptize their Infants because the Israelites baptized theirs with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is and shall hold it still for any thing hee saith to the contrary yet not trusting to this he gives another answer Secondly saith he you erre in calling there the other ordinances whereas they are

the other miracles and concludes that if I had well weighed the Scripture I would not have made it a ground to justifie Infants baptisme Reply And what is this to that he should prove namely my proof evinceth that to be my sequele which hee said was my proof was not who was to be baptized but that all the ordinances there mentioned were the same with our baptisme as well as the rest Again where he saith they were the other miracles and not the other ordinances and that I erre in calling them so I reply it is too much bodlnesse in him to prescribe how others shall speak and hee erres grosly in saying as he doth for if that shewed that these miracles were ordinances also Ergo may be so called for could these miraculous works signifie such things unlesse they had been ordained thereto and whatsoever is ordained is an ordinance In a word I have upon his expression better viewed this place then ever I did and doubt not but every one that shall weigh how ill hee confutes it will see that there is a just ground in it to defend the baptisme of Infants which is the question A fourth answer he gives to my Argument is this If the Israelites were not baptized with these signes nor with any other after they came into the land of Canaan then this was not a perpetuall signe of the practice of baptisme but they were not baptized with these signes nor any other after they came in to the land of Canaan therefore it was not a perpetuall sign of the practice of baptisme Reply First it is the minde of the that they had another baptisme continued unto them And Hebrew Writers affirm that three things concurred to make a Jew or Proselyte male a stated member circumcision baptisme and sacrifice and to females baptisme and sacrifice And some conclude from hence that the Jewes therefore questioned John Baptist calling to baptize but not his baptisme being used to it before but to passe that 2ly What time will he prescribe to make an example sufficient it must have a period and why may not a moneth serve as wel as a longer time and those forty yeers in the wildernes as wel as a thousand 3ly How many things in the Scripture are recorded done in a short time which were examples of things done in a longer time Eze. 4.5 6. the acts of Abrahams justification by faith Gen. 15.6 an example of perpetuall justification Rom. 4.24 Jude 7. the instances in the Scripture 1 Cor. 10. many others so that this answer is of no force The fifth and last answer is this Baptisme of different kindes depend upon different grounds and are to be ministred upon different subjects to different ends but the baptisme of the cloud and Sea are of divers kindes therefore they depend upon different grounds and are to be administred upon different subjects for different ends Reply I shall say no more but this baptismes of the same kinde depend upon the same grounds and are to be administred upon the same subjects to the same ends but baptisme of the Sea and cloud is the same spiritually with ours therefore they depend upon the same grounds divine institution and to be administred upon the same subjects Gods people men and Infants and to the same ends to put on Christ Jesus Another proof I added to my Argument was this otherwise the Apostle should link things together that are not equall nor would it be of force against the Corinthians if they were not the same Sacraments spiritually now the conclusion is certain that the Corinthians should be punished with like punishment if they committed the like sins His answer hereunto denies the consequence because although the Cloud and Sea Manna and Rock were Sacraments of the same Christ that Baptisme and the Lords Supper is yet they were not the same Sacraments and it sufficeth the Apostles purpose that the cloud c. were as effectuall tokens of Christ as they were in the nature of them as Baptisme and the Lords Supper is though they were different Sacraments of the same Christ and not the same Sacrament And except they were dipped in water did eat and drink bread and wine as we do I cannot say they were the same Sacraments w th ours Reply First hee should say sacramentall signes and not Sacraments for neither the seal nor bread and wine are the Sacraments but sacramentall sigues the things signified concurring to make them sacraments nor can any be guilty of the body of the Lord in eating the bread if that alone were the Sacrament Secondly it is true that the sacramentall signes then and now were not the same and in that regard the Sacraments are not the same but to say absolutely they are not the same therefore is not right For a man though dressed in never so many fashions differing one from another yet he is the same man still although his fashions differ and in that respect he is not the same yet the man is the same in all So Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for ever though set forth by divers signes then and now 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passeover is offered for us he is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world their Lamb and ours their Passeover and ours theirs and ours dispensed the same but not by the same signs and therefore to what subjects the same Christ was applied then by those signes to such subjects may the same Christ be applied now by these signes but I have spoken to these things before now is my Argument refuted by any thing he hath said My third Argument follows which is this there is one and the same consideration of the root and branches of the first fruits and lump but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy and must be baptized therefore Infants the lump and branches are holy and must be baptized To this he answereth denying the Assumption viz. believing Parents are the roots and first fruits and the Scriptures that I bring will not prove it Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee considering apart and First Rom. 11.16 concludeth that parents are not the root because they are branches of the root they bear not the root but the them therefore they cannot be this root nor their children naturally descending from them branches and concludeth this first place to be abused in so applying it Reply Grant that believing parents are branches and not the root yet Infants as well as men of yeers are branches and Abraham and the Fathers are the root and that of the Gentiles as well as the Jews 1 Cor. 10.1 Now the Argument holdeth as well here in this respect as in the other For if Abraham the root be holy so are the branches as is the state of the one so is the state of the other and this the Apostle concludes of all the body of Jewes yea counting them are cut off naturall branches still

Last of all there is no more necessity of being baptized with water then of eating the bread and drinking the wine yet it is not allowed to be common but appropriated to Ministers and yet the reason will as well prove commonnesse of this as the other To the fifth humane authority without Scripture is of no force to argue points of Christianity That of Athanasius done in sport is absurd and sheweth the boldnesse of superstition Concerning heretickes baptisme they had Ministeriall calling and therefore it is beside the state of the question Secondly some again stating the question after Antichrists exaltation propound three wayes as professed in the world The first by such as hold a succession of Ministers from Rome or lesse and so of Baptisme A second of Familists and the scattered flock that none may meddle therewith lawfully till there come some extraordinary men and condemning both these A third is holding forth and affirming that any Disciple of Christ in what part of the world soever coming to the Lords way by the Word and Spirit of God preaching that Word of God unto others and converting them he may and ought also to baptize them To prove this they bring three Arguments The first is taken from the re-building of the Temple after the captivity in Babylon by proportion thus As every Israelite then with whom the Lord was and whose spirit the Lord stirred up was commanded to go to build Ezr. 1.3 5. though some were more excellent in the bufinesse then the other so now every spirituall Israelite with whom the Lord is and whose spirit the Lord stirreth up is commanded to go and build the spirituall Temple which they do by begetting men anew by the immortall seed of the Word so making them living stones and then couple them together a spirituall house upon confession of their fins by baptisme In brief an Israelite circumcised in flesh God stirring up his heart was commanded to build the Temple made with hands from the first stone to the last Therefore an Israelite circumcised in heart not baptized in the flesh God stirring him up is to build the Temple made without hands from the first stone to the last Go preach and baptize teaching his Disciples to the end of the world The second Argument If John Baptist being unbaptized himself preached converted and baptized then may any man else do so too but John Baptist unbaptized preached converted and baptized Ergo any man unbaptized may preach convert and baptize The consequence they prove thus All things written afore time were written for our instruction Rom. 15.4 The same God that spake with John in the Wildernesse speaketh now to us in the Scriptures the same word hee spake to John and therefore seeing the Lord hath spoken who shall not preach and practise according to his Word seeing God now speaketh to no particular person one more then another The third is from humane authority Mr. Perkins and others confesse that if a Turk should come to the knowledge of the truth in Turkie he might preach the Word to others and converting them might baptize them though unbaptized himself Now these are their Arguments to which I answer First in generall the apprehension falls in with the Papists determination in the point and herein differ that they hold it may be lawfull for any yea unbaptized in case of necessity and extraordinarily to baptize when no other can be gotten but these hold that any unbaptized may do it in any case at all times and ordinarily nor do their Arguments exclude women whose spirits the Lord may stirup and the instance that the captives returning include them fully for of that sex there were some forward in the work Neh. 3.12 as of old in building the Tabernacle Exod. 35.22 In particular I answer to the first Argument First the consequence is false for the comparison is not of things alike The Temple signified Christs humane nature and Heaven and sometimes it signifies a Believer and not a church-estate as is cleer Joh. 2. calling his body the Temple Heb. 8.2 Chap. 9.1 Chap. 11.24 A Tabernacle more excellent not made with hands nor of this building which were figures of the other and true Tabernacle and Temple which God had builded and not man to argue from the Temple to the Church whereas it was a figure of Christ cannot be allowed Secondly the builders were all Gods visible people in covenant with him and circumcised but the argument speaks of them that are not Gods visible people nor baptized c. therefore not to be admitted to build as Neh. 2.20 Ezr. 4. Thirdly they went up the whole body together to build but they did not all actually build but some workmen only whom God had made able and skilfull the rest of the people incouraged contributed and oversaw the rest Ezr. 3.7 to the 10. So by proportion every one may not every one cannot actually perform this thing only the Carpenters and workmen whom God hath gifted and justly officiated to that purpose the rest must incourage contribute and forward the work according to their place Fourthly they had Gods Word by Cyrus to set them on and being hindred had Haggai and Zachary to presse them to it but these look for no such allowance Besides it is incongrnous to oppose the Temple made with hands to the Church as made without hands and also that the church is wholly made without hands being made by mens endevours yea effecting sometimes no true infallible spirituall stones Last of all it dissolveth and overturneth that institution of Christ Ephes 4.11 Who gave some to be Apostles c. for the gathering and perfecting of the Saints whereas they say every man may doe it and apply at randome that to every man no officer nor baptized person That of Mat. 28. was spoken but to the eleven who were baptized and especiall officers already chosen and set up officers in the church To the second from John Baptist c. the Antecedent affirms John unbaptized but no word of proof given nor one syllable of reason For though it bee not expressed of whom when and where he was baptized nor is there mention of Christs Apostles baptisme yet it follows not that John was not baptized If I shall affirme the contrary viz. that John was baptized and inferre from hence no person unbaptized may baptize for John was baptized and say it is written for our instruction this will not be granted And why might not John baptize himselfe being the beginner of the new Testament as Abraham circumcised himselfe though after some body circumcised did it And if John Hel. or Smith baptized himself first and then baptized others John Baptist might doe it as well as he Or what if God baptized him as he buried Moses Or what if he were baptized in the Jewish church they practising a baptisme to every proselyte to make them members incorporate into the common-wealth of Israel But secondly I deny