Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	holy_a	6,403	5	6.2103	4	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

birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for

graffe them in nor can any man render a reasonable cause why hee should deny it It is therefore too peremptory to say it is an absolute error and his bare saying will never prove it to be so but himselfe to be too rash and unadvised My fourth Reason to prove Infants are now in the covenant as they were then is thus If the Jewes and Gentiles be incorporate into one body in Christ and the Jewish Infants were in the body then so may and must Infants of believing Gentiles now be verum prius To this hee answereth two things First the Jews had means before and some of them faith by those means and so true members of Christ hee the head and they the body there being no other members known but the Jewes The Gentiles by Christ coming had this speciall benefit to have the means and faith by the means and thereby united to Christ the head and so to Jews the body and the Jewes had no other relation to Christ the head but by faith and the Gentiles to Christ nor them but by faith Reply First where hee saith some of the Jews had faith and were true members if hee means saving faith and savingly his argument runs not because the faith of the Gentiles and their union with Christ was not saving and savingly in all as Simon Magus Judas c. If he means it generally according to charity then more Jews had faith then some that had true faith and were true members even all foederally in regard of profession nor is it true that there were no members known and of that body then but Jewes for the many hundreds in Abrahams family and very many proselytes were known members of that body and yet were not Jewes Secondly there is two wayes of being united to Christ the head and to the body Jewish then and of the Jews and Gentiles now the first is foederally sacramentally outwardly and visibly so all the Jewes were then the body and all of it as is cleer 1 Cor. 10.1 c. all baptized all eating and drinking one and the same Baptisme Manna Rock as the Apostle saith we are one body by being baptized into one Christ and by eating and drinking one bread cup by one Spirit a body mysticall 1 Cor. 12 13. Acts 7.38 The second is really spiritually and effectually inwardly and invisibly In the first sense the elect and reprobate are both considered so many as the Lord calls by means In the second sense the elect only are to be considered whether of Jews or Gentiles that there are these two sorts of being in Christ is evident from many Scriptures Joh. 15.1 two sorts of branches one fruitfull and shall be saved the other unfruitfull and shall be damned Mat. 22.14 Many are called but few are chosen Many are called and not chosen many are called and chosen and all this is true of the Jewish state before Christ as is cleer in the seven first verses and all is true likewise of the state after Christ as is plain in the rest and of both 14. All the Jewes therefore though not savingly from Abraham to Christ were that body successively and the Gentiles since Christs time added to that body by being made neer no alteration of the Jewes as the body in the reall and essentiall consideration of it but an accesse of the Gentiles to them which our Saviour also in another place expresseth John 10.16 Other sheep I have which are not of this fold and I must bring them into it that there may be but one fold and one Shepherd For Rom. 11.17 some of the branches were broken off not all and thou wert graffed in amongst them therefore as Jewish Infants were then in the fold and members of the body all along so it must be granted that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now added to the body and fold are in it His second answer is this First that the Gentiles by conversion did not enter into the Jewish nationall Church Secondly if neither Jews nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but only by consersion then were not the Jews as Jews of the body and consequently not their Infants But neither Jewes nor Gentiles were the body of Christ considerably as a nation but by conversion therefore neither Jewes as Jewes were of the body nor their Infants and consequently not the Infants of the Gentiles Reply First he seemeth to restrain the being of the body to the present Jewes in Christs time which is erroneous and denies it of the former Secondly the proselytes of the Gentiles before Christ did by conversion enter into fellowship with the Jewish nationall Church and their Infants with them Thirdly the Jewes were not the body as a nation yet the nation was the body and that foederally God taking hold of them by his covenant and making them unto himself an holy nation as well Infants as others Exod. 19.6 Deut. 29.11.14.15 at the first constitution they were the body by conversion at least appearingly But ever after all succeeding were the body for to be truly converted on Gods part promised though on their part not alwayes injoyed through their own default Next he comes to my other consequence which is this seeing Infants are now in the covenant as these were then in the covenant therefore Infants ought now to be baptized as then they were circumcised sealed with the sign of the covenant now as they were sealed with the sign of the covenant then To cleer this my first Reason was thus else the covenant were not the same and Infants in it Hee answers that it is not the same in respect of naturall relation to Abraham as hee had shewed and therefore Infants not in it Reply First he here holdeth the Jewes to have fellowship in the covenant before Christ by vertue of naturall relation and yet he said before that they were not the body which they were by covenant as Jewes that is by naturall relation Secondly I have shewed before that the Jewes were not in that covenant by naturall relation but by faith which is the only condition of the covenant Thirdly it no way followeth it is not the same in respect of naturall relation therefore it is not the same at all nor doth it hinder Infants being in it because they now have no naturall relation to Abraham for the proselyte Infants were taken in of old into fellowship with the Jewes in that covenant but not in respect of naturall relation which they have not the reason there remains firm and unanswered My second was this if they had the thing and substance they cannot be denied the seal and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming Hee answereth it is true when they or any other for them can manifest that they have the thing and substance then let them have the seal and circumstance Reply First he denies not that they have the thing though they cannot manifest it

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 endevour to clear it in it self As also in the Ministery administring 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 MATTH 7.15 Beware of false Prophets which come unto you in Sheeps-cloathing A parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem nullus prohibendus est a Baptismo August Enchirid. cap. 42. Dic quaeso omni me libera quaestione quare infantuli baptizentur Orthodox ut iis peccata in baptismate dimittantur Hieron advers Pelagian Dialog ter LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons for Henry Overton and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley 1645. To the Reader WHO is so ignorant but seeth what Satans Master-peece and greatest work in the kingdome of Christ is at this day viz. to divide and sow Tares of discord between man and man And truly whose heart bleeds not to behold the present divisions by sword by pen in affection in opinion under which the land of peace lies now a bleeding Among which divisions none more lamentable nor grievous to a tender spirit then those that are between persons professing the feare of God especially in those times when all their strength and spirits should be wholly taken up against the common Adversary watching their destruction at their very doores yet such is the malice of Satan to set them especially at a distance and at variance whom the pretious blood of Christ hath been shed to reconcile And this hee doth especially when he hath started a controversie according to the old observation In re Sacramentaria in matters of the Sacraments and therefore it is no wonder if hee troubles the world and divides the mindes of some piously affected about the baptisme of Infants although withall one would wonder in other respects how any godly men who have better things to minde should hold up the Buckler in defence of such a stigmatized doctrine by the pens of so many of Gods Worthies from the Scriptures If indeed there were any new light concerning it that was never yet discovered to the world this present age might have second thoughts and learn the more by others errours but when in this controversie men dig up onely the old Sepulchers and heap up little more then the dried bones and sculls of other mens examined condemned and corrupted devices this is very uncomfortable and very unbeseeming the spirit of a prudent and humble Christian who will never suffer himselfe to be removed much lesse attempt the moving of others from the ancient received opinion and practice of the most sincerely godly in all ages without mountains of arguments and light as cleare as the Sunne from the holy Scriptures to alter his mind or make him to remove the ancient Land-markes and therefore he that writ the life of Doctor Whitaker prudently observes of him that he was Academiae oraculum the Oracle of that University and Mundi miraculum the miracle of the world in his time because though hee was a man of such eminent parts yet he ever kept the ancient received Doctrine had nothing proper nor did he in veteri via novam semitam quaerere he did not seek a new path in the old way as almost all Divines of great parts doe use to doe as from Hierom he observes The Authour therefore of this Reply in which wee wish he had a stronger Adversary to honour well knowne in the gates of his people and among the Churches of Christ in this Westerne world for his learning godlinesse and peaceablenesse of disposition cannot bee justly blamed as any Fire-brand of contention in returning this Answer it doth but defend the Walls and Trenches of the ancient received Truth nor would he have made any resistance had he not been assaulted on that ground where himself with Gods truth have had just and quiet possession so long Nor hath he published it to increase disunion but for satisfaction of his conscience Firstly who hath given him this occasion to reply or if not of his yet of some others godly and tender who in simplicity have been or may be suddenly taken in the snares of the Fowlers of these evill times I remember it was Luthers prayer seconded often by learned holy and aged Paraeus A Doctore glorioso Pastore contentioso inutilibus quaestionibus liberet Ecclesiam suam Dominus To start this controversie about Infants baptisme I feare upon sad examination will fall under the head of those inutiles quaestiones especially in these unsetled and troublesome times and though pretended to be a work of Reformation yet will give as sad a blow to that which is firstly and principally to bee attended in it as almost any opinion I know and the end will speak as much And therefore a sober strong defence of the baptism of Infants may be very profitable useful against an unprofitable questioning of it now and the more because it is much to be feared that the doctrine of Anabaptisme especially in this controversie concerning Infants will gangrene farre and leaven much and that for these Reasons First because there is not that expresse word nor such manifest cleernesse in such full and expresse sentences of the Scripture as in many other practicall points For the practice of this there is sufficient Scripture to satisfy a sober humble mind that loves the truth in sincerity in this point yet they that are contentious and love scruples and questions a disease Paul would have cured 1 Tim. 1.5 6. will be alway touching upon that string viz. Where is your commandement I see not any expresse Scripture Yes that you may by just and ful deduction from the Scripture and that is a good proof from Scripture or else our Saviours proof of the resurrection was bad from I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob which is not expresly contained in these words but deducted from them Secondly if conscience and experience may speak there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweet and comfort of their baptisme and therefore are very apt to question this ordinance if they meet with a fit tempter to deceive them For this is a certain and everlasting truth viz. that that truth which a man hath received without love to it by some sense of the sweetnesse of it in times of temptation he will quickly cast off A man will not care for that bread that doth not feed him nor will keep on those clothes in Winter time that do not warm him nor love that truth which doth not refresh him and consequently will be ready to cut down that barren baptisme under whose covert he hath so long lived but never tasted of the fruit

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.