Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	blood_n	people_n	sprinkle_v	2,219	5	12.3819	5	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

inforce my beliefe that a man must dip or else he doth not baptize Secondly they urge consent to dipping from Johns practice baptizing in Aenen because there was many waters that he might dip them from Philips baptizing the Eunuch and others also who they conclude baptized with dipping To these I answer First the word will not necessarily inforce it That they were baptized is our of question but whether by dipping or sprinkling is questionable for the word may signifie either as I have shewed and the Text doth not determine which by any other expression For as for that of many waters being there some say that it is not meant of a great deep River but of many rivers Piscator and the reason of his choosing that place may be because other places might not so well continue and many other reasons there may be and yet this none that hee might dip them for that might as well have been done in other places and it is said that was the reason without proofe which may be as easily denied as it is affirmed nor is there any such necessity in translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it must needs be into Jordan and signifie dipping over head and eares but it may be well enough translated to Jordan I think that if the Eunuch dived over head and eares that Philip did not douze himself so too yet it is said equally of them both they descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Charet to thewater not into it that they both came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the water not out of the water Secondly it is not probable that they dived the parties under water when they baptized them partly because at some times and in some places it was administred in a house and suddenly when there was no thought aforehand to prepare fit instruments as in Cornelius house the Jaylor and his houshold Lydia and her family Acts 10. 16. so that they might have water enough to dive them in partly because it was not easie for a man to take a grown man in his armes and dive him under water Otherwise I see not how the Minister should baptize them but rather they should baptize themselves nor should the administration be ministeriall if the baptized person should not be passive in receiving it Thirdly if they should be wholly dipped into water it will hazard oft some mens lives by being strangled under the water and who can so exactly carry the action as not to doe too much or too little to hold them under too long or not long enough Lastly it is not seemly nor agreeing to common much lesse religious modesty to take them and dip them naked before others nor can I be perswaded that Jesus when he was baptized or any other baptized by John or any body else stripped themselves naked If any shall say they covered their unseemly parts or that it was done in their cloathes I shall say it is as easily denied as affirmed the Scripture gives not the least hint of such a thing which I suppose it would have done if it had been so as in other cases it tells us of Sauls stripping himselfe among the Prophets the executicners of Steven laying their garments at Pauls feet c. Especially it being in so weighty a matter as should concern all ages Again if all their cloathes were on or but some of them then certainly their flesh was not washed as 1 Pet. 3.21 but their cloathes Onely this I shall acknowledge that I see not but dipping consideratis considerandis may be lawfull nor can I say that they that use it doe worse then they that use it not But that it is absolutely necessary or the omission of it maketh baptisme null That sprinkling is unlawfull Antichristian of humane invention c. and that baptisme for administration is invalid evacuateth the death of Christ c. I cannot yeeld I have given some considerations why I think dipping not absolutely necessary I shall adde a few why I think sprinkling with water is unlawfull and that baptisme so administred is true baptisme First because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will yeeld it and may be justly so translated and must be so taken in the places by me quoted before to which I might adde more as Mark 7.4 c. Secondly from the types of our spirituall washing which were done by sprinkling as Exod. 12. the sprinkling of the blood of the Lamb Exod. 23. the sprinkling of the Altar Book people Levit. 16. sprinkling the unclean by the water of the red Heifers ashes Num. 19. All which typified unto them the blood of Christ and the application of it unto themselves for their justification and sanctification If sprinkling were then sufficient to them for the same purpose that dipping is now urged I see nothing to hinder but that sprinkling may doe the same now for though that was commanded yet this is not forbidden Thirdly the Prophets foretelling this grace of God communicated unto us by that ordinance and I think this ordinance it selfe is forespoken of therein they doe set it forth by sprinkling as Esa 52.15 My servant shall sprinkle many Nations Esai 44.3 Exek 36.25 I will powre clean water upon you From these Prophesies I conclude that sprinkling or powring on may be justified Fourthly in the new Testament the grace of God is set forth by the very word sprinkling as Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience and your bodies washed with pure water which notes baptisme and this washing as also 1 Cor. 6.11 may be with powring on as the same word is so to be taken Acts 16.33 The same houre hee took them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 washed their mounds which was not with dipping certainly but with powring on So Heb. 12.21.24 To the bloud of sprinkling 1 Pet. 1.2 Elect c. through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ By these expressions certainly the holy Ghost intends to hold out the administration of the signes of Gods grace So that upon these considerations I am well perswaded that though dipping may be lawfull yet sprinkling is not unlawfull and question not but the ordinance administred by sprinkling is as valid as the administring of it by dipping And if they do not forget themselves that condemn sprinkling as Antichristian humane c. they doe and will grant that in some cases it may be lawfull and then it is lawfull in it selfe morally or certainly no case can make it morally lawfull but it is a sin so to doe in what case soever I argue therefore from thence thus Fifthly if sprinkling in some case be lawful then it is not morally unlawfull in it self at all But in some cases sprinkling may be lawfull as where there is but little water Ergo it is not morally unlawful in it self Sixthly I shall adde here the judgement of Chamier Tom. 4. lib. 5.