Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	answer_n	answer_v	page_n	1,145	5	10.6855	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57682	Infant-Baptism; or, Infant-sprinkling (as the Anabaptists ironically term it,) asserted and maintained by the scriptures, and authorities of the primitive fathers. Together with a reply to a pretended answer. To which has been added, a sermon preached on occasion of the author's baptizing an adult person. With some enlargements. By J. R. rector of Lezant in Cornwal.; Infant-Baptism.	J. R. (James Rossington), b. 1642 or 3.	1700 (1700)	Wing R1993; ESTC R218405	76,431	137

Salim because there was much Water a Reason given by the Holy Ghost himself why he chose that Place for the Country to come in and be baptized because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries and not meet with a drop of Water and it was a great Priviledge to those Places that banked on Jordan that they had much Water but 't is no Argument to prove that John plunged all that he baptized or dipt them over Head and Ears Beside the Original is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters viz. Streams or Rivulets and History informs us that they were so shallow as not to reach above the Ankles and so unapt for dipping as their way is † Non interest quanto quisque abluatur quomodo in Eucharistiâ non quantum quisque comedat Chamier l. 5. de bapt c. 1. p. 1404. The Eunuch as has it hath been well observed doth not say here is a River here is a Pool here is Water enough for me to be dipt into the quantity of the Water is not insisted on which fairly intimates to us that where there is Water be it much or little nothing hinders but one may be baptized therewith I had need now to crave Pardon for being so very Prolix on this Head but I hope St. Austin's * Ad Hilar Epist 89. Apology in the like Case may pass for mine Tanto magis pro Infantibus loqui debemus quanto minus pro se loqui possunt THE REPLY To a pretended ANSWER To the foregoing Discourse IT will not be unnecessary to premise that this foregoing Discourse in opposition to the Anabaptists contained at first only eleven Pages in close writing a Copy of which was transcribed and communicated to a particular Friend who shortly after upon their confident Boasting that they would get it answered did by my Permission deliver it into their Hands from whom after almost a Years time and through frequent importunities I received an Answer in Manuscript such as it is consisting of 27 Pages I think it needful also to premise that I have somewhat inlarged my Discourse but not so as to cause the least difference in my ensuing Reply nor shall I make the least advantage upon any Improvement or Addition I have made nor is there in truth any occasion for it For I do solemnly and with all sincerity protest that I don't find I had need to have had any word Syllable or Letter added left out or altered in my Papers by reason of any thing in the pretended Answer My Argument in short is this That as Circumcision was the initiating Sign and Token of the Covenant to the Jews So is Baptism to the Christians and that the Command to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it whatever the Sign be was and is always Obligatory and that the practice from Age to Age answers it In the Prosecution whereof I obviated many Objections now made use of by the Answerer which takes up above half of the aforesaid 11 Pages whereto there is no manner of Reply save only somewhat about the Sabbath or Lord's Day but not to the purpose as will afterwards appear and at that rate too that he dares not condemn the Sabbatarians This with the Preface takes up 3 Pages of the Answer Nevertheless that he may seem to say somewhat he turns Opponent First He endeavours to prove that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the sign was not the Covenant of Grace as having relation only to temporal Promises taking a Branch for the whole and reckoning that God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham And this takes up 2 Pages more Secondly He labours to prove that Circumcision can give no ground for Infant Baptism nor bear a suitable Parallel with it using Arguments which have been answered over and over and in a great Part obviated by me tho' he takes no notice of it This reacheth to his 10th Page Then he takes notice of my citing Act. 2.39 running out into a large Ramble which will not bear any Test and as introductory thereto he begins thus You say the Promise in the 39. v. is spoken to those in the 36. v. even the House of Israel who had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ and their Children of which I had not said a word And adds that by Children he doth not understand them as they are in a state of Infancy But how doth he illustrate it Why very profoundly and unanswearably with five or six Arguments which to give them their full force amounts to this That there were none such then present as he takes for granted neither could any of them be Children to whom St. Peter Preached and said Repent and be baptized every one of you For were this true would it follow as he would sillily infer that St. Peter neither did nor could speak of or concerning Children to them May it not then be as well argued that the Promise did not belong to those afar off that should hereafter be called Unless we understand thereby such of them as were then present and had been St. Peter's Auditors Which would be a contradiction in terminis Now this with some gross impertinence and senseless Stuff which immediately follows comes home to the 14th Page of the Reply So that there is above half of mine and within a few Lines half of his past over and hitherto it cannot be pretented there is any kind of Answer As to what follows he says himself Pag. 15. that what is written in my 8 9 10 11 Pages and I don't remember there were any more in the Transcript-Copy they had concerning the Covenant and Infants right to Baptism he supposeth to be answered in what he had written aforegoing He means he had framed Arguments which was not his Province Moreover in these Pages he omits several Things which must needs be reckoned very material whereto he answers nothing I 'll instance in some particulars First That in Christ's Dialect to belong to him and to be his Disciple Is all one Secondly That Infants are called Disciples by the Holy Ghost Thirdly That they are made so by God himself vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant and so into the state of Disciples Fourthly That the Apostle shews that interest in the Promise is alone of it self a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism Fifthly That the Suffrages and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers are on our side which he overlooks as insignificant tho' they are only produced to shew what was their judgment in the Case and the practice in their time Sixthly That sprinkling or pouring on of Water doth as well express the Mystery as dipping and better alludes to the inward Baptism of the Spirit And that 't is very improbable that the 3000 baptized in one Day and in all likelihood where they heard St. Peter's Sermon were dipped Again he neither denies nor vindicates their concurrence