Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	ghost_n	holy_a	imposition_n	5,347	5	10.7351	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74998	Some baptismal abuses briefly discovered. Or A cordial endeavour to reduce the administration and use of baptism, to its primitive purity; in two parts. The first part, tending to disprove the lawfulness of infant baptism. The second part, tending to prove it necessary for persons to be baptized after they believe, their infant baptism, or any pre-profession of the Gospel notwithstanding. As also, discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mixt communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized, in church-fellowship. By William Allen.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1075; Thomason E702_12; ESTC R10531	105,249	135

as following thereupon as distinctly described And 3. The laying on of Pauls hands and their receiving of the Holy Ghost thereupon as distinctly and differentially described as either of the former The article AND which stands between the Description of their Baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost upon the imposit on of hands being a Note here not of identity or sameness of things but of transition or passing from one thing to another or else of copulation of things really distinct but yet relative 2. This is further discernable by a collation of this passage of Scripture with others where we have the same actions in the same order described as Acts 8.16 17. where speaking of the Holy Ghost the holy Historian saith That he was fallen upon none of them to wit the believing Samaritans onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost Whence it plainly appears that the Disciples were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus before they received the Holy Ghost and that they did receive the Holy Ghost after their Baptism upon those prayers that were made for them hands laid on them for that end so that these were not one but two distinct actions Just so in the place under discussion though they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus yet we do not find that they received the Holy Ghost till imposition of hands was super-added thereunto 2. Whereas it is further alledged by Calvin that it is no new thing to express the gift of the visible graces of the Spirit by the name of Baptism though this is indeed true in such a sence as the Scriptures to which he refers intend it yet I do believe it is a new thing and not to be found in Scripture to express the effusion of the Spirit as divided from Baptism by water under the description of being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus the form here used in the Text under debate For both those places produced Acts 1.5 and 11.16 speak of the Fathers or Christs own immediate act of conferring the Spirit whereas to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus plainly and directly notes the Agency or Ministry of man managed in the Name of Christ the one is the Baptism of Christ ministred by himself the other is the Baptism of Christ ministred by man in his Name And so Master Calvin himself at another turn will tell you that When John said I indeed baptize with water but Christ when he shall come shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire he meant not to put difference between the one Baptism and the other but he compares his own person with the Person of Christ saying that himself was a Minister of water but that Christ was the Giver of the Holy Ghost Instit Lib. 4. Cap. 15.5.8 And the baptizing in the Name of the Lord Jesus and the pouring out of the Spirit are not the same individual thing but are clearly differenced and distinguished in respect of time order and action as I noted in part before from Acts 8.16 17. a place in this respect parallel with this in hand So that still you will find that to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus signifies such a Baptism as is not without water But some others not liking so well this construction of the words though they be of the same mind as to the impugning of that literall sence of them which I have imbraced have thought of another way to evade this and that is by understanding these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as the words of Paul recited by Luke declaring the Baptism of these Disciples by Iohn to be the consequent of Johns preaching to them and not the words of Luke as recording their Baptism as consequential to Pauls preaching to them and so the sence they make to be this That these Disciples when they heard John in his preaching say to them that they should believe on him that was to come after him to wit Christ Jesus then they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus by Iohn See the late Annotators upon the place for this But that neither this is the true intent and genuine sence of the words I strongly incl ne to believe upon these grounds 1. Because this Interpretation overthrowes the Grammatical sence of the words and renders them void of Common sence For it is evident that what Paul is here brought in speaking he spake it to these Disciples themselves for here is no mention of any other persons but Paul and them Now then what ever words were spoken by Paul to them must run in the second Person if you will suppose Paul to speak common sence whereas these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are spoken in the third Person and therefore cannot be the words of Paul to them but of Luke concerning them For if Paul would have declared such a thing to the Disciples as that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus upon the hearing of Iohn then his words should have run thus When you heard this you were baptized c. and not as now we have them When they heard this they were baptized c. Besides how uncouth and harsh is it to make the people whom Iohn taught and baptized and those twelve Disciples to be the same persons and to conceive that Paul should tell them what Iohn said to the people when all the while he meant themselves both which you must suppose if you take the words in that sence which I oppose because then the people in the fourth verse unto whom Iohn spake and those in the fifth verse which are said to have heard and to have been baptized must be the same persons and consequently both of them these twelve men because as the Pronouns they and they in the fourth and fifth verse upon that supposition that both are Pauls words cannot be understood but of the same persons so also the same Pronouns they and they which relate both to the persons baptized ver 5. and to the twelve that prophesied after Paul had laid his hands on them vers 6. are undoubtedly meant of the same persons likewise And therefore that interpretation now under examination which runs us upon such rocks of absurdity and into such Solecisms of speaking as these must be rejected and consequently these words When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus must be taken as the words of Luke and not of Paul importing the Baptism of these Disciples upon the hearing of Paul and not of Iohn 2. That these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are not a Description of Iohns Baptism administred to these Disciples but of that Baptism which they received upon Pauls Preaching we have this reason further to conceive because it no

For we shall find that not the baptizing of men into the expectation of Christ to come had the promise of the Spirit but the baptizing of them into the faith and acknowledgment of Christ come and of Iesus to be that Christ and so consequently that Iohns Baptism had no such promise annext to it as Christ's Baptism had on this behalf 1. That Iohns Baptism had no such promise of the Spirit appears by his own acknowledgment and assertion in which he makes this very difference between his own Baptism and the Baptism of Christ viz. that his was but a Baptism of water unto repentance but that he which should come after him should baptize with the Holy Ghost Matth. 3.11 Nay Mark hath it thus which is somewhat fuller I indeed have baptized you with water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Mark 1.8 His manner of speaking seems to import as if he intended hereby to beat them off from any expectation of the Spirit upon the account of his Baptism now they had received it and to put them upon the expectation thereof from and by the Baptism of Christ when he should come 2. The Apostle Peter accompanied with the rest of the Apostles herein addressing himself to that great multitude that heard him preach at Ierusalem advises them in order to their reception of the Holy Ghost to repent and to be baptized and that every one of them in the Name of the Lord Iesus Acts 2.38 Consider now who these were to whom he gives this advice And we shall find that it was the multitude as they are called ver 6. that came together flocking doubtless from all parts of the City upon occasion of that miraculous wonder of fiery cloven tongues siting upon the Apostles and of their speaking with strange tongues when this was noised abroad as there it is said And can any man imagine that when as but about four years before this the Inhabitants of this City generally went out to be baptized of Iohn and now as generally came together to hear and see this wonder that yet none of them that now came together should be of that number that had been baptized by Iohn Surely such a thing will not be any mans thought or if it shall yet will not be believed amongst considering men And yet even these notwithstanding their having been baptized by John are directed and exhorted now afresh to repent and be baptized and that EVERY ONE of them in the Name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins and are thereupon assured that they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Their being baptized then in the Name of the Lord Jesus was necessary to render them meet to receive the Holy Ghost notwithstanding their former Baptism by Iohn 3. If things be well weighed I conceive it will be found that these twelve Disciples at Ephesus were baptized again though they had been baptized formerly unto Johns Baptism upon this very account especially and in order to this very thing viz. their receiving the Holy Ghost For 1. The manner form and import of Pauls questions or demands to them and their answers to him do imply that as it was common for the Spirit to be given upon the reception of Christs Baptism so also that it was not wont to be given upon the administration of Johns For when Paul queries Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed ver 2. And so when he again demands upon their declaring they had not Vnto what then they had been baptized it plainly implies that Paul did verily expect that they should have received the Holy Ghost upon their being baptized until he was informed that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism And not onely so but that question of his Vnto what then were ye baptized since ye have not received the Holy Ghost does also imply that Paul very well knew that there was a Baptism which was not accompanied with the giving of the Spirit and therefore the end of his question was to know Unto which Baptism they had been baptized and upon their resolution of the Case shewing that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism the true reason was discovered why they had not received the Holy Chost as being that which did not use to follow upon Johns Baptism the which appears hereby in that they knew Johns Baptism and the manner of it they themselves being baptized thereunto and yet they had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost to wit extant in the world upon any such terms as Pauls question unto them did import of which surely they could not have been ignorant if the Holy Ghost had been wont to be vouchsafed unto men without any other Baptism save that of Iohn 2. That their re-baptizing or their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus mentioned in ver 5. of Acts 19 was in direct order to their receiving the Holy Ghost the thing first in question between Paul and them may easily be gathered from the connexion that is b tween the 5. and 6. verses and the matters therein related For that their being baptized as set forth ver 5. and their receiving the Holy Ghost ver 6. were neerly related the later having a dependance on the former the Conjunction copulative AND which knits both matters together shews For so the words run When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus AND when i.e. when this was done AND when Paul had laid his hands on them which imports as much I conceive as if he had said AND when also Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them i.e. then or thereupon the Holy Ghost came on them So that their receiving of the Holy Ghost relates both to their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and to the imposition of Pauls hands both which in their due order did prepare and dispose them for that reception To conclude this therefore if then men were to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus when they came to believe in him in order to their receiving the Spirit of God though they had been before baptized by Iohn then surely have they need to be baptized for the same end who come to the acknowledgment of the truth though they have been baptized as men call baptizing in their infancy because such their Infant-Baptism as hath been formerly evinced doth not operate towards their receiving of the Holy Ghost as true Gospel Baptism will do Come we now more briefly unto a second reason why it is not safe for any to satisfie themselves with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy the irregularity of it supposed and that is because it is none of Gods Baptism i. e. it is none of his ordaining but is the device of mans own heart As it is said of that Feast which Ieroboam ordained though in other

righteousness then was in the multitude that were baptized before him and if not this what else imaginable but this viz. that his * Iesus said unto them My time is not yet come but your time is alway ready Joh. 7.6 appointed time and season of his appearing with the Gospel in the world was not till then and therefore not his time of being baptized in as much as the one was in order to the other and was to take its rise and beginning from the other And this we have further reason the rather to conceive because of that Particle NOW emphatically here used as it relates to the fulfilling of righteousness by that which was to be done Suffer it to be so NOW saith Christ to Joh. touching his being baptized For thus it becometh us to fulfil allrighteousness Mat. 3.15 Not only in being baptized of him but in being baptized of him NOW to wit at that juncture of time in which he was to be manifested to the world to be the Son of God to manifest to the world the Gospel of God NOW to be baptized viz. upon suchterms it was a thing very comely though John seemed to think otherwise in as much as that it was a fulfilling of righteousness i.e. that righteous law or institution of God given in that behalf And thus we see that the example of Christ's Personal Baptism which was intreated to bless the opinion for Infant Baptism hath contradicted it altogether The Second Part SHEWING How necessary it is for persons to be baptized after they believe their Infant-Baptism notwithstanding as also discovering the disorderly and irregular Communion of persons baptized with such as are unbaptized in Church Fellowship HAving in the former part of this Discourse laid down part of those grounds and reasons which have swayed my judgment and satisfied my conscience in the sight of God touching the unlawfulness of Infant Baptism and which I doubt not will have the like influence and operation upon the unbyassed minds of other men It remains now that I come to speak something to these two questions following 1. Whether men may not rest satisfied with that Baptism which was administred to them in their Infancy without any further reception of Baptism afterwards notwithstanding they come to understand the irregularity of their Infant Baptism 2. Whether it be necessary for such persons who have for some considerable space of time made profession of the faith though as yet unbaptized whether it be necessary for them to be baptized since the ends of Baptism seem to be anticipated by such a continued profession As touching the former of these Questions I conceive I may affirm that none may safely and without danger of sin rest satisfied with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy they coming once to understand the irregularity and sinfulness of Infant Baptism and I do assert it upon these grounds 1. Because the Apostle Paul as may reasonably be conceived did not hold it convenient or safe for certain Disciples with whom he met to rest satisfied with such a Baptism as had been formerly either erroneously administred to them or else which was deficient as touching some special ends of that Baptism which was enjoyned the Disciples of Christ but did proceed to baptize them or to cause them to be baptized afresh The Case before us is touching those certain Disciples which Paul found at Ephesus and of whom he demanded Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed Unto whom they replyed That they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost Vnto what then said Paul were ye baptized And they said Vnto Johns Baptism Then said Paul John verily baptized with the Baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him that was to come after him that is on Christ Jesus When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them c. Acts 19.1.2.3.4.5.6 In this passage of Scripture there are three things which I would have observed as to my present purpose The first is touching the Baptism which these Disciples are said formerly to have received The second is touching their later Baptism which they received upon Pauls instructing them And the third is touching the reason why they were now baptized upon Pauls preaching to them notwithstanding they had formerly been baptized unto Johns Baptism 1. That these Disciples had been formerly baptized unto Johns Baptism is that which they themselves affirm verse 3. 2. That the same Disciples were now again baptized upon Pauls preaching Christ to them I conceive fairly appears by those words ver 5. When they heard this viz. that which Paul had declared to them they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus There are indeed two other Interpretations of these words urged by some that do much differ from that sence which I have now given but are both beside the Scope and meaning of the place as I suppose I shall presently make appear 1. Some by their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as here in this place would have us to understand it not of their being baptized with water but of their being baptized with the Spirit which is Master Calvins sence upon the place and so he takes these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and those that follow in the next verse viz. And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied to import one and the same thing and that the later words are only an Explanation of the former shewing after what manner they were baptized and he further saith That for the visible graces of the Spirit which were given by the laying on of hands for this to be expressed by the name of Baptism is no new thing as he does alledg from Acts 1.5 and 11.16 But 1. That their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and their receiving the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands were not the same thing as is alledged may be discerned 1. By a due consideration both of the different nature of the actions themselves and the successive order of those different actions For the doctrine and so the practise of Baptism is one thing and that of laying on of hands is another as is apparent by that of the Apostle Heb. 6.2 where the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands are differenced by the same note of distinction by which the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are differenced from them both And the same thing appears from the order and suecession of these different actions as well as from the different nature of them For we have 1. Pauls teaching of these Disciples distinctly mentioned 2. The baptizing of them in Name of Christ