Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
blood_n body_n bread_n break_v 17,454 5 7.4495 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A75550 Arguments Pro and Con about the Right of baptizing; viz. Whether it ought to be by putting the whole body under water, or only Sprinkling a little water thereon. 1675 (1675) Wing A3647; ESTC R225438 8,839 6

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Children in this Country and which hath been the practice in some places formerly but especially the known constant practice of the Baptists in Holland Germany and England both Winter and Summer without the least detriment or inconveniency A brief Corrollary containing some necessary Quaeries upon the whole Quaer 1. WHether is it not demonstrably evident by this Six-fold Argument confirmed by so great Testimony both Divine and Humane that Dipping not Sprinkling was the instituted Rite of this great Ordinance of Baptism Quaer 2. Whether this of Dipping having been Christs positive Appointment from all those holy ends and spiritual Reasons inforcing it as well as his own and all the primitive Saints express practise it will not appear to be very dangerous and savour of too much Presumption and Arrogancy upon such gross mistakes and upon nothing but Human Institution to alter and change the same to a clear other Rite inverting thereby so solemn a piece of Gods holy Worship and introducing instead thereof so groundless a Tradition and Invention of man and doth not justly fall under the Reproofs and Threatnings of the following Scriptures Matth. 15.9 In vain they do worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men Mark 7.7 For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Traditions of men rejecting and frustrating the Commandments of God to keep your own Traditions Isa 24.5 They have transgressed the Law changed the Ordinances therefore c. And no less then a Violation of the First and Second Commandment intrenching upon God's Prerogative-Royal wherein he is so jealous the Presumption whereof cost Israel so dear Quaer 3. Whether sprinkling only a few drops of water upon the face instead of dipping the whole person doth not as much spoil the Symbol and vacate the instituted significant ends of the Ordinance as to eat only the Wafer and reject the Cup spoils the Ordinance of breaking of Bread and drinking of Wine in remembrance of the broken Body and Blood of our Lord Or as some of old when God commanded the foreskin to be circumcised should have satisfied themselves to circumcise their nails if they did but keep the name and ends of the Ordinance And whether one is not as provoking to the Lord as the other Quaer 4. Whether to conform hereto is not to yield obedience to the Institution and Injunction of Antichrist for though 't is granted it was in use before it was imposed by the Popes as Infant-Baptism was yet was it by them especially enjoyned as the other was as confest by so many of their own And whether in so doing there is not as great indignity offered to the Authority of Christ and contempt to his Wisdom as there is a declared subjection to and owning and honouring such a gross Usurpation Quaer 5. Whether it may not rationally be supposed that one great end of the Popes enjoyning theeeof was not with more Pomp and Solemnity to establish and confirm Infant-Baptism so much the Pillar and Foundation of his Church And whether it doth not appear he did upon as good ground change the Rite as so alter the subject And that he doth as warrantably and by as good Scripture-Authority sprinkle Bells and Church Walls and Standards and call it Baptism as the other Quaer 6. Whether for any to sprinkle an Infant and to say they Baptize it in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit is not as much to tell a lye in the Name of the Lord and to prophane a holy Ordinance of his as they do who use the same Form in Baptizing of Bells c. Quaer Whether Learned and good men may not from the consideration of their mistake in the Rite have cause to conclude they have mistaken the subject also And that being neither right in the matter or manner of the Ordinance it is a mear nullity and therefore should engage them to the right performance in both as they would approve themselves Christ's Disciples and Followers and not err in so great a foundation of the Christian Religion LONDON Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange 1675.
Arguments Pro and Con about the Right of BAPTIZING viz. Whether it ought to be by putting the whole body under water or only Sprinkling a little water thereon The Baptists or Dippers give the following Arguments I. From the natural signification of the word The Baptists or Dippers say FIrst That it is to be by Dipping not by Sprinkling or pouring is manifest from the nature of the Greek word Baptiso which all our Lexicons and Learned Criticks with one consent do tell us doth signifie to Dip yea such a Dipping as is used in Bucks where clothes are washed or as Dyers in their Dying-Vats Leigh's Crit. Sac. Therefore Scapula Stephens Plantan Tingo quod fit mergendo a Dying by plunging Causabon Tanquam ad tingendum mergo Erasmus Tingendi causa immergere to dye by immerging and Beza a tinction by Washing or Dipping and as Bucan Bulinger Zanchy Spanhemius to Dip into water or plung under water Vossius to wash the whole body as Leigh Crit. p. 50. Grocius to Dip over head and ears Therefore the Latins render it sometimes by Tingo to dye sometimes by Baptismus to Dip the English and French for the most part by the Greek word Baptism or Baptim to Dive or Duck not Rantize or Sprinkle the Saxons call it Gefullad from fulling of clothes where they are duck'd or plunged the Dutch always Doopselor or Doopen to Dip dipping being the only proper sense and which is also confirmed by * Lisput p. 25. Vossius (a) Pan. Cath. Tit. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Chamier (b) Diat on Tit. 3.2 Mead (c) on Mat. 3. Causabon (d) de Prim. pap p. 193. Salmatius (e) de Jure nat l. 2. c. 2. Pindorus (f) Ode 2. Selden (g) Rule Consc l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Tayler (h) Annot. New Test Mat. 3. Mark 7. c. Dr. Hamond (i) Tract Sac. p. c. 8. p. 177. Mr. Dan. Rogers (k) Dict. Mincheus Scotus Aquinus c. The Rantists or Sprinklers answer That it may be by sprinkling or pouring by applying the Element to the person not the person to the Element appears by the nature of the word which signifies to Wash as well as to Dip as most Criticks acknowledge Item Lavo saith Beudeus Scapula Stephens Scriverius Pasor yea to sprinkle as Schimdjus Dr. Featly The Baptistt Reply That a word may have divers Significations nay sometimes contrary one to the other is no ways doubtful for the Hebrew Kodesh the proper word for Holiness sometimes may signifie Whoredom or Sodomy Deut. 23.17 Hosea 4.14 2 Kings 23.17 And Barack the word for Blessing is taken sometimes for Cursing Job 1.5 11. 2.9 Therefore the genuine and proper Signification is mainly to be eyed and when respecting Divine things the usuage of Scripture nature of the thing and scope of the place is to rule about it It is true the word may sometimes import washing but as (a) Beza on Mark 7.4 which in the Treat of Bap. is mistakenly said to be Erasmus Beza observes only by consequence not properly because you cannot dip a thing but you must wet or wash it But never is taken for sprinkling II. From the Scripture-Acceptation of the word The Baptists say Secondly That it is by Dipping may yet further be confirmed from the Scripture-Acceptation of the word both in the Old and New-Testament First in the (a) Exod. 12.22 Lev. 4.6 17. 9.9 〈…〉 16.52 Numb 10.18 Josh 3.15 Ruth 2.14 1 Kings 〈…〉 4.6 〈…〉 Ezek. 23.15 〈…〉 24.27 2 Kings 8.15 Job 9.31 2 Kings Mark 4. ●● Deut. 33.29 Old-Testament the word Tabal one and the same with Baptise as the Septuagint renders it and as Beza Hamond Minchius Kircherus c. and others do assert is always in every place by all our English Translators rendred to Dip. And in the (b) Luke 16.24 John 13.26 Mat. 5.14 26.23 〈…〉 10. Rev. 19.13 New-Testament several times also to Dip but most frequently by the Greek word it self Baptise or Dip not Rantise or Sprinkle Loise or wash Keiose or pour And therefore saith (c) Treat of Sacraments part 1. ch 8. p. 177. Mr. Rogers The word imports nothing else but to Dip for the Greek wanted not other words to express any other act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it as he saith is exceeding material to the Ordinance as Scripture and Antiquity informeth and without exception to Countreys hot or cold The Rantists answer That it may be by pouring or sprinkling we have Confirmation from the Scripture Acceptation of the word 1. Because the word Tabal is by Gen. 30.37 38. rendred by Moluno poluo which by the circumstances must be sprinkling And the Chald. Jitztabah Dan. 4.20 which by the LXX is rendred Ebephe is translated wet which must be by aspersion And Rev. 19.13 the word Bapto compared Isa 63.3 must be sprinkled and Mark 7.48 to wash not dip The Baptists Reply That if it should be taken for granted that the word in these four places may be taken otherwise than in all other places will it be judged reasonable that those four should out ballance and over-rule all the rest which are above a hundred times rendred to dip But in the next place if the particulars be considered you will not find them make good the thing pretended For 1. As to Joseph's Coat Gen. 37.31 if dipt in blood as we render it it may well be said to be polluted dyed or smeared therewith And as to Dan. 4.20 the word Jitztabah is by Montanus rendred intingatur vel aspergetur And if the Scripture do render it Ebaphe which we translate wet yet it must be granted to be such a weting as is by by dipping viz. A thorough weting a weting all over A wetting by the dew of Heaven from above by aspersion and a wetting by the dew of Heaven resting upon the long grass by applying the body thereto and so a dipping also yea every part of the body And as for Rev. 19.13 it is parallel with Isa 63.12 as saith our English great Annotations dyed red Garments and garments dipt in blood being one and the same though as in Vers 3. Blood may be sprinkled upon Red Garments also As for Mark 7.3 the word rendred wash is Nipto not Bapto which fignifies when respecting washing of hands a dipping up to the Elbows as Dr. Hamond and Theophilact as in the margent upon the place observe And to which purpose they had Water-pots containing two or three Firkins apiece always ready in their houses as John 2.6 so that we should always as the Dutch do read it dip and therefore in Vers 8. it is explained to be such a washing by the word dip or baptize III. From the Scripture-Metaphors explaining it The Baptists say Thirdly That it is by Dipping and wherein much water is required and not by Sprinkling wherein a small quantity of water sufficeth appears from the Scripture-Metaphors alluding