Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	ghost_n	holy_a	spirit_n	10,746	5	5.4766	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

and Christ saith A man must be borne of water and then of the Spirit Iohn 3.5 and John the Baptist said I baptize you with water but he comes after that baptizeth with the holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 but Master Tombes saith To baptize infants is to baptize those whom the Lord hath not apointed to be baptized and yet he grants that infants may be baptized with the holy Ghost and might be baptized if they were knowne to us from that Text Acts 10.47 But saith he To baptize infants because Christ commands to Baptize all Nations is very faulty First in casting away that restriction which Christ hath put Secondly in determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized and so it is no priviledge to beleevers and their children But as common to Infidels as to their children I answer Here he denies the command of Christ to be a Rule and would make a restriction where Christ makes none and then he makes a false conclusion as if he ever said or did intend to baptize the children of Infidels before their Parents be taught the Covenant and so by baptisme were admitted into the Christian Church but yet in other places he saith himselfe that beleevers children have no priviledge above the children of Infidels but because he slights this generall command to all Nations which includes all sorts of Mankinde because he hath not a speciall command for Infants onely I may say to him as Christ said to the Pharisees when they said to sweare by the Temple was nothing but he that swore by the gold of it was a debtor so the command to Baptize all Nations is nothing unlesse it were for infants onely when as the Temple sanctifies the gold Mat. 23.16.17 and the whole Nation includes infants but he must have them Disciples first because it was reported that Christ made and baptized Disciples John 4.2 when as he grants it to be a false report therefore nothing can safely be drawne from it but I shall give a further answer to this and Captaine Hobsons third agreement together Againe suppose we grant that men of yeares who are converted from false religions to the true Christian Religion that such must be taught the Covenant being capable of Teaching before they have the token of it given to them thus it was with Abraham and with many Heathens when they were converted to the Jewes religion but when they were admitted their infants had a right to it without any teaching going before and when they were capable they taught them the Covenant as they were commanded Deut. 4.10.13 and so they taught them the meaning of the Passeover Exod. 12.26.27 then why may not Christian infants be taught the Covenant after they have received the token of it as well as Jewish infants Againe as they were meere passives when they received the token of the Covenant so are our infants the worke is done upon them therefore they may be baptized Secondly they Object That if they must repent before they be baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Acts 2.38 ergo so is the second I answ It is true in men of yeares that are converted from Heathens to the Christian Religion but it is neither required of Jewish infants before Circumcision nor of Christian infants before Baptisme for as they Circumcised their infants so John baptized them before or unto repentance Mat. 3.11 therefore Christian infanta ought to be baptized but what if the Saduces and Pharisees and the bloody Murtherers of Christ be called upon to repent before either John or Peter will admit them to baptisme will it follow that infants of Christians must doe so actually before they be admitted to Baptisme the one of these was a generation of Vipers having the leaven of false doctrine that must be purged out Mat. 16.13 else like Vipers it would eate out the heart and life of Christian Religion Mat. 3.7 and the other was the leaven of prophannesse which like savage Beasts would trample Religion under their feet then this also must be purged out 1 Cor. 5.7.13 then as both must be purged out so they must be both kept out But will it follow that infants must repent of Murthers and Heresies before they be admitted to Baptisme let them that would have them to repent of those foule sinnes prove them guilty of them or else they are very unjust to debarre them of the Priviledges of the Church and actually Excommunicate them without any tryall or just proofe against them and till then we must hold that they ought to be baptized Thirdly they Object If none must be Baptized but such as are called then Infants of Christians may not be Baptized But the first is true Act 1.39 ergo so is the second I Answ It is true to those afarre off they must be called to the Christian Religion but it is not true to Christians already called nor required of their Infants any more then it was of Jewish Infants for by vertue of their call their Children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and ought to be baptised Fourthly they Object That if none must be baptized but those that confesse their sinnes then Infants must not be baptized But the first is true Mat. 3.6 ergo so is the second I answ This also is true in men of yeares who are converted from Heathenisme to the Christian Religion so it was when any were converted to the Jewish Religion but what is this to Infants either Jewes or Christians Againe when multitudes came to John to be baptized of him some few of them might confesse the sinnes of all as being the mouth of the people to God as any Minister is in his Congregation then this hinders not but theirs and our Infants may be baptized Fifthly they Object if none must be baptized but such as beleeve then Infants may not be baptized But the first is true Mark 16.16 Acts 8.36 37. ergo so is the second I Answ If none but such as we know doe truely beleeve must be baptized then we must baptize none at all because we know no mans heart and Faith is that new name written which none knowes but he that receives it Revel 2.7 Againe if none must be baptised but true beleevers and we cannot know them we may soone mistake and set the token of the Covenant upon Reprobates and refuse to give it to the Elect. Againe Christ said Those little ones that he tooke in his Armes did beleeve in him see Mat. 16.6 compared with Luke 9.26 and their hearts may as well be knowne to us as the hearts of men of yeares for we know the hearts of none Again that faith that was required was but to beleeve that Christ was the Son of God and that the Christian Religion was the true Religion but Infants of Christians have taken up no false Religion then it need not be required that they should beleeve the true being brought up in none other Againe to baptize

baptize half their body without their help and without any word of Institution from them and then they come afterwards and baptize the other half in the name of the Trinity But if this be their manner they contradict their own Tenet and condemn themselves in so doing And what shameful thing it is for them to report that they plunge the baptized into the Water when as they wade in themselves And so while they judge us for baptizing one part for all they condemn themselves for doing the same thing Rom. 2.1 From these grounds we may safely conclude That sprinkling the baptized is more agreeing to the minde of Christ then to plunge the baptized into the water But to these Arguments Master Patience said some thing although to small purpose First saith he I take dipping to be the command of Christ because Master Daniel Rogers doth say That the Greek word doth signifie washing by plunging and he saith Sprinkling is rinsing and not to baptize as Master Blackwood doth prove from Greek Authors but I then replyed saying Are you a Teacher in Israel and know not these things John 3.10 Have you the care of souls committed unto you and do you feel them by hearsay because you are not able to interpret the Word your self What is this But the blinde leads the blinds till both fall into the ditch And what comfort will it be to you at the day of Judgement having seduced many souls in giving them poyson instead of wholesome food for you to say then that men told you it was good for them when as Christ never told you so And if we should go by hearsay we might bring multitudes of Orthodox Divines and Churches that well understand the Language in which Christ spake unto his Church to witnesse That the word Baptize signifies as well Sprinkling as Plunging Secondly But then he said Baptism signified Burial and putting on whole Christ on whole man But this I grant For in sprinkling the baptized are under water as well as in plunging for the Minister holds the water over the baptized and so the baptized is wholly under it when as in plunging them into the water it may be some part of them was not wholly under it And besides when the Minister holds the water over them it is all one as to put them under it when as it may be the Anabaptists wade in and put themselves half under flat against their own Tenet And then they grant that the putting the other half into the water is a putting on whole Christ Then by the same Argument by sprinkling one part Christ may be wholly put on as well as by their practise and the Jews by circumcising one part they were circumcised all over and so put on whole Christ Again although it be said Baptism saves it is not by the outward washing because every part of the body was washed but rather by the answer of a good conscience But this is not done by Burial but rather by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Peter 3.21 Thirdly Then he said that John Dipped in Jordan but I may as well say he Sprinkled in Jordan for he saith I indeed baptize with water Matth. 3.11 But the word with is not always in there there was with the Angel a multitude Luke 1.13 I hope you will not say they were in the Angel and if I were with you I hope you would not say that I were in you So then to baptize with water may be by sprinkling the baptized and not by plunging them into the water and to put in for with is as bad a mistake as that of the Prelates who would bow at the Name of Jesus instead of In the Name of Jesus from that place Phil. 2.10 So you will baptize with the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost instead of in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Because to baptize with water you will have it all one as to be baptized in the water by plunging the baptized under or into the water Fourthly Then he said If Christ command to dip then sprinkling is but a gresse invention of man but then he did not prove that Christ did onely command to dip and not to sprinkle but to baptize which signifies both Then we may sprinkle the baptized with as good if not better warrant then they may plunge them into the water Fifthly Suppose they say Christ came out of the water Matth. 3 16. And it is said Philip and the Eunuch went both into the water Acts 8 3● Hence they conclude That the Baptized ought to be plunged into the water I answer If they waded into the water then they were not plunged into it Neither is it said that either Christ or the Eunuch were plunged into the water neither doth their going into the water hinder but they may be sprinkled for in those hot Countreys they went bare-foot and it is likely they went in some distance from the side that they might come at clear water and then both John and Philip might sprinkle them In the Name of the Trinity And I think the Anabaptists have nothing to say from Scripture or Reason against it I shall here conclude with one Quere which is this If our Ministers be lawfully sent and authorized from Christ and the Presbytery to Preach and Baptize and they do administer this Ordinance of Baptism in the right Form In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and with the right Matter being Water and on the right Parties being either men of yeers when they are converted to the Christian Religion or to Infants born of Christians and to the right end which is to distinguish them from Turks and Infidels and as an engagement to us all to go on in obedience of the true Christian Religion And lastly That Christ should ratifie that outward Form of Baptism according as John the Baptist foretold and baptized them with the Holy Ghost I would know this of the Anabaptists how they dare to renounce this outward Form of Baptism thus rightly administred in our Church and ratified by the Holy Ghost and all because it was done upon them when they were Infants therefore the very Baptism of the Holy Ghost despised or it may be because they were not plunged into the water Therefore the outward Form and the inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost is despised of them when as they may see the vanity of plunging by 〈◊〉 forementioned Arguments against it But will they cast away 〈◊〉 outward and inward Seal and Token of the Covenant when 〈◊〉 by persons lawfully called to do it who do it in the right Form on the right Parties with the right Matter and to the right end and all 〈◊〉 confirmed by the Holy Ghost as by a faithful witnesse that cannot ●e But will they dispise the Baptism of the Holy Ghost because it was do●● upon Infants or because they were sprinkled and not plunged into the water And so like Witches renounce the Covenant of Grace and 〈◊〉 away both the outward and inward Seals of it when they enter into Covenant with the Divel so these people it is to be feared many of them do commit that unpardonable sin when they turn Anabaptists despising and trampling under feet the Spirit of God whereby they should be S●●led to the day of Redemption For commonly they go on in a final 〈◊〉 and not one of Ten thousand ever returns yea many of them in these days are ran so far from God that they do not beleeve that there is either God or Devil Heaven or Hell Church of Grace or Glory Thus they are now faln to notorious Atheism calling themselves Seckers of the forementioned things which for the present they have lost FINIS

done his wrath ceased although it was done by his wife a woman and an outlandish woman and in her rage against God for commanding such a service and against Moses for being willing to yeeld unto such a service see Exud 4.24 25 26. Then may not our Ministers baptize as lawfully and acceptably as this woman might circumcise Now I grant if our Ministers should baptize in their own name then their Baptisme would be void 1 Cor. 13.15 but they use the right forme which Christ gave the Apostles in the name of the Trinity Matth. 28.19 and they use the right matter which is water Mat. 3.22 and on the right Subject Christians Infants as hath been proved and to the right end which is no distinguish them from Heathens and Infidels and to engage them to obey the Covenant of which Baptisme is a figne or token and all this is done by Ministers lawfully called therefore they ought not to be re-baptized Againe Baptisme is a Sacrament of the new birth and although we may come often to the other Sacrament 1 Cor. ●1 25 yet we can be borne but once therefore we must take this Sacrament but once which is the signe of it Againe there is but one Lord one Faith and one Baptisme Ephes 4. therefore the Sacrament of Baptisme is to be administred but once Their Objections are now to be answered First they object That if Christ said he had another Baptisme beside that he had of John Matth. 3.17 Then we may be againe baptized but he saith I have a Baprisme to be baptized with and how am I straightned till it be accomplished Luke 12.50 then they may be againe baptized I answer That Baptisme of Christ was his sufferings for saith he to the Sonnes of Zebedy can yee drinke of the Cup that I drinke of and be baptized with the Baptisme that I am baptized with and they said we are able Then he said you shall indeed drinke of the Cup that I drinke of and be baptized with the Baptisme that I am baprized with Mark 10.38 39. Therefore saith Paul We are baptized into his death and buryed with him by Baptisme Rom. 6.3 4. So then Christ was but once baptized with water no more must we but then as Christ was killed and crucified afterwards so must we kill and crucifie our finnes daily afterwards Then here is no warrant to be rebaptized Secondly They object That if those that looke for a resurrection must be baptized at their death then there is more Baptismes then one but Paul saith if the dead rise not why are they baptized for the dead what shall they doe that are baptized for the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 therefore they may be againe baptized I answer Baptizing signifies washing and it was the custome to wash the dead Corps for when Doreas was dead they washed her body Act. 9.37 but they that will be so baptized must tarry till they be dead neither shall it be done by the Minister but by them that shall winde them up and put them into the Coffin to be butied but here is no Warrant to be re-baptized from this Text till after they be dead Thirdly they object That if some were twice baptized then so may we but some were first baptized by John and afterwards by Paul Act. 19. v. 3 5. then we may be againe baptized I answer some doe expound those words to be thus understood saying They were first baptized by some false Disciples of John into his name and so it was void and therefore they-were baptized againe in the name of Christ but this cannot be the meaning for then Paul would have inquired after those Hereticks for Paul was newly come from Corinth v. 1. where he had cleared himselfe from the same thing 1 Corinth 1.13 15. then sure he would not so put it up at Ephesus 2. Some expound those words thus saying They were when Paul came to Ephesus onely taught the Doctrine of John but not baptized of him and so were baptized by Paul but this is not the meaning neither for they were believers and they were Disciples v. 1 2. therefore they were baptized of John and yet they had not learned his Doctrine for they neither knew Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost till Paul had told them v. 3.4 Thirdly The Anabaptists expound it thus saying They were baptized with water first by John and then againe with water by Paul but this is not the meaning neither for their second Baptisme is not done with water but while Paul was expounding to them who it was that John said should come after him and baptize them with the Holy Ghost that is saith Paul Jesus Christ v. 4. Now when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus v. 5. that is while Paul was expounding their souls was converted and baptized with the Holy Ghost neither is here any word that Paul baptized them onely he made knowne Christ to them and when the worke was done they were baptized as it was while Peter spake the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the Word Act. 10.44 So then here is the full meaning of these words they were baptized with water by Iohn for they were Disciples and believers that is they believed that the Christian Religion was the true Religion so that they were converted from heathenisme to christianity but they were not converted from the state of corruption to the state of grace though Iohn had said He that comes after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost but him they knew not till Paul said that is Jesus Christ by that word when they heard that they were converted and their souls washed or baptized with the Holy Ohost But it may be they will object saying The Holy Ghost was given to them afterwards v. 6. I answer That was the gift of miracles to cure all diseases to cast out Divels and to speake with divers Tongues yet this also is called Baptisme for saith Christ You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many daies hence Act. 1.5 that is the gift of miracles but they had the sanctifying gift before for it was the sanctifying gift that Iohn had from the wombe Luk. 1.15 this is that promise made to us and our children Act. 2.38 so then some times the outward forme is called Baptisme and sometimes sanctification is called Baptisme and some times the gift of miracles is called Baptisme as Act. 1.5 and all these three are together in that 19. of the Act for first they were baptized by water of Iohn and then baptized by the Holy Ghost by Pauls teaching and then they received the gift of miracles by Pauls laying on of his hands and all this is but one Baptisme onely the outward forme is distinguished from the inward and reall worke of the Holy Ghost Then this Text will not warrant their re-baptizing the second time with water Fourthly they object That if Paul spake of Baptismes in the

A IUSTIFICATION Of two Points now in Controversie with the ANABAPTISTS Concerning Baptisme The first is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized with grounds to prove it and their Objections answered With a briefe Answer to Master TOMBES twelve doubtfull Arguments against it in his Exercitation about Infants Baptisme Also a briefe Answer to Captaine HOBSONS five Arguments in his falacy of Infants Baptisme being as he saith that which should have beene disputed by him and Mr. Knowles and some others against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford The second Point is That the Sprinckling the Baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then Dipping or Plunging in or under the Water With grounds to prove it and a briefe Answer to what they have to say against it By T. B. Joh. 3.1 Beloved beleeve not every spirit but try the spirits whither they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world Imprimatur John Downham London printed for Henry Sheperd at the Bible in Tower-street and for William Ley at his shop in Pauls Church-yard neere Doctors Commons 1646. To the Reader CHristian Reader considering it ever was and still is the custome of all Christian Churches in the world to baptize their Infants and to sprinkle the Baptized although it hath been long opposed by the Anabaptists yet they never left it in any age then although those men have published many Books of late against it and no Answer to them is yet come forth which makes them ready to say with the King of Assyria I have gathered all the earth and there was none that moved the wing or opened the mouth or peeped forth against it Isaiah 10.14 Yet let not this little book be despised for the unworthinesse of the Author but read it till some more able hand shall move for thy better satisfaction thou knowest not but God may somtimes hide things from the wise prudent and reveale them to babes because it so pleaseth him Luke 10.21 Aquilla and his Wife tooke Apollo that was mighty in Scriptures and shewed him the way of God more perfectly Acts 18. Naaman hearkned to his Maid-servant when she told him of a Propher in Israel that would cure him of his Leprosie and to the advice of another servant to observe the Prophets directions 2 King 5. Then look not on the Author but weigh the matter and arguments in the balance of the Sanctuary and if they hold weight give God the praise and me thy prayers and I shall remaine thine in all Christian duties to be commanded Thomas Bakewell The first Point in Controversie with the Anabaptists is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized the grounds to prove it are these following FIrst if Christ commanded and his Apostles practised the Baptisme of Infants then it ought to be done but Christ commanded to Baptize all Nations whereof Infants are a part Mat. 28.19 and the Apostles Baptized whole Housholds whereof Infants are a part Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be baptized Secondly if Christian Infants have the promise to be baptized with the Holy Ghost then they ought to have the outward forme of Baptisme but the Holy Ghost is promised to Christians and their children Acts 2.38 39. therefore their children ought to be baptized Thirdly If Infants of Christians be separated from Turkes and Infidels by vertue of their Parents Baptisme then they ought to be Baptized but Infants of Christians have this marke of distinction For now saith Paul Your children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is they have an outward sanctification being distinguished from Infidels for the visible Church therefore they ought to be Baptized Fourthly If Christ did admit Infants to come unto him and blamed them that would keepe them backe and giving this testimony of them that those little children which he had in his Armes did beleeve on him and that they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven then they ought to be Baptized But the first is true Mat. 18.3.6.19.13.14 Mark 9.36.10.14.10 Luke 18.15.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized Fifthly If infants of Jewes were circumcised and Christ came not to take away that benefit from them but to change it to a better and larger benefit from Males alone to Males and Females and from one Nation to all Nations and from a painefull duty to an easie duty then I say that Christian infants ought to be Baptized as well as the Jewish infants were circumcised but Christ never repealed that Command but did enlarge it to all Nations Mat. 28.19 and to both men and women Acts 8.12.16.15 therefore Christian infants ought to be baptized Sixthly if the Apostles businesse was onely to convert men of yeares from false religion to the Christian Religion before they did admit them to Baptisme and did not wait till they were converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of Grace because they knew no mans heart having the first conversion they baptized many without the second then Christian infants who have no fals religion to be converted from ought to be baptized although they be not converted from the state of corruption to the state of Grace but the Apostles onely required men to beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God the Eunuch beleeved this and was baptized and Simon Magus beleeved this and was baptized although still in the gall of bitternesse and in the bonds of iniquity Acts 8.12.23.37 and many beleeved the Scripture and the words of Jesus many beleeved in his name yet Christ would not trust them although they were his Disciples for he knew their hearts and needed not that any should testifie of them yet those went away from Christ and never returned to him Joh. 2.23 24.6.66 this shewes they had onely the first conversion and not the second and Jewish infants were circumcised if the Parents was but of their Religion never waiting for the childes conversion from corrupted nature to the state of Grace and Christians have as much power to bring up their children in the Christian Religion as they had to bring them up in the Jewish Religion then it is a cleare truth that Christian infants ought to be baptized Their Objections are next to be answered FIrst they Object If they must first be taught before they be Baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Mat. 28.19 ergo so is the second I ans The teaching them to observe and to doe all that is commanded in that place followes both Preaching and Baptisme that both may be observed else it were to affirme that Christ would have one Ordinance to be observed and not the other when as he saith Observe and doe whatsoever I have commanded you ver 19.20 And to say Teaching is first set downe is not much to the purpose if it be then John did Baptize in the Wildernesse and then it is said he Preached the Baptisme of Repentance Mark 1.4