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	holy_a	water_n	8,407	5	6.8246	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

and Christ saith A man must be borne of water and then of the Spirit Iohn 3.5 and John the Baptist said I baptize you with water but he comes after that baptizeth with the holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 but Master Tombes saith To baptize infants is to baptize those whom the Lord hath not apointed to be baptized and yet he grants that infants may be baptized with the holy Ghost and might be baptized if they were knowne to us from that Text Acts 10.47 But saith he To baptize infants because Christ commands to Baptize all Nations is very faulty First in casting away that restriction which Christ hath put Secondly in determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized and so it is no priviledge to beleevers and their children But as common to Infidels as to their children I answer Here he denies the command of Christ to be a Rule and would make a restriction where Christ makes none and then he makes a false conclusion as if he ever said or did intend to baptize the children of Infidels before their Parents be taught the Covenant and so by baptisme were admitted into the Christian Church but yet in other places he saith himselfe that beleevers children have no priviledge above the children of Infidels but because he slights this generall command to all Nations which includes all sorts of Mankinde because he hath not a speciall command for Infants onely I may say to him as Christ said to the Pharisees when they said to sweare by the Temple was nothing but he that swore by the gold of it was a debtor so the command to Baptize all Nations is nothing unlesse it were for infants onely when as the Temple sanctifies the gold Mat. 23.16.17 and the whole Nation includes infants but he must have them Disciples first because it was reported that Christ made and baptized Disciples John 4.2 when as he grants it to be a false report therefore nothing can safely be drawne from it but I shall give a further answer to this and Captaine Hobsons third agreement together Againe suppose we grant that men of yeares who are converted from false religions to the true Christian Religion that such must be taught the Covenant being capable of Teaching before they have the token of it given to them thus it was with Abraham and with many Heathens when they were converted to the Jewes religion but when they were admitted their infants had a right to it without any teaching going before and when they were capable they taught them the Covenant as they were commanded Deut. 4.10.13 and so they taught them the meaning of the Passeover Exod. 12.26.27 then why may not Christian infants be taught the Covenant after they have received the token of it as well as Jewish infants Againe as they were meere passives when they received the token of the Covenant so are our infants the worke is done upon them therefore they may be baptized Secondly they Object That if they must repent before they be baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Acts 2.38 ergo so is the second I answ It is true in men of yeares that are converted from Heathens to the Christian Religion but it is neither required of Jewish infants before Circumcision nor of Christian infants before Baptisme for as they Circumcised their infants so John baptized them before or unto repentance Mat. 3.11 therefore Christian infanta ought to be baptized but what if the Saduces and Pharisees and the bloody Murtherers of Christ be called upon to repent before either John or Peter will admit them to baptisme will it follow that infants of Christians must doe so actually before they be admitted to Baptisme the one of these was a generation of Vipers having the leaven of false doctrine that must be purged out Mat. 16.13 else like Vipers it would eate out the heart and life of Christian Religion Mat. 3.7 and the other was the leaven of prophannesse which like savage Beasts would trample Religion under their feet then this also must be purged out 1 Cor. 5.7.13 then as both must be purged out so they must be both kept out But will it follow that infants must repent of Murthers and Heresies before they be admitted to Baptisme let them that would have them to repent of those foule sinnes prove them guilty of them or else they are very unjust to debarre them of the Priviledges of the Church and actually Excommunicate them without any tryall or just proofe against them and till then we must hold that they ought to be baptized Thirdly they Object If none must be Baptized but such as are called then Infants of Christians may not be Baptized But the first is true Act 1.39 ergo so is the second I Answ It is true to those afarre off they must be called to the Christian Religion but it is not true to Christians already called nor required of their Infants any more then it was of Jewish Infants for by vertue of their call their Children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and ought to be baptised Fourthly they Object That if none must be baptized but those that confesse their sinnes then Infants must not be baptized But the first is true Mat. 3.6 ergo so is the second I answ This also is true in men of yeares who are converted from Heathenisme to the Christian Religion so it was when any were converted to the Jewish Religion but what is this to Infants either Jewes or Christians Againe when multitudes came to John to be baptized of him some few of them might confesse the sinnes of all as being the mouth of the people to God as any Minister is in his Congregation then this hinders not but theirs and our Infants may be baptized Fifthly they Object if none must be baptized but such as beleeve then Infants may not be baptized But the first is true Mark 16.16 Acts 8.36 37. ergo so is the second I Answ If none but such as we know doe truely beleeve must be baptized then we must baptize none at all because we know no mans heart and Faith is that new name written which none knowes but he that receives it Revel 2.7 Againe if none must be baptised but true beleevers and we cannot know them we may soone mistake and set the token of the Covenant upon Reprobates and refuse to give it to the Elect. Againe Christ said Those little ones that he tooke in his Armes did beleeve in him see Mat. 16.6 compared with Luke 9.26 and their hearts may as well be knowne to us as the hearts of men of yeares for we know the hearts of none Again that faith that was required was but to beleeve that Christ was the Son of God and that the Christian Religion was the true Religion but Infants of Christians have taken up no false Religion then it need not be required that they should beleeve the true being brought up in none other Againe to baptize

us who are no better then Vipers both to Church and State but when any was admitted to Baptisme if they did but beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God and his was the true Religion I say although they should become Papists or prophane drunkards or swearers or adulterers and should be excommunicated for such wickednesse yet still they having a right to the Ordinances as a Free-man hath of a Corporation although for the present he be in prison and cannot make use of it till he hath compounded with his adversarice and this man given satisfaction to the Church therefore his children ought to be baptized unlesse the Parents turn Turks and so renounce Christ and christian Religion yet if but one of them should doe this their children are holy and ought to be baptized notwithstanding all other failings whatsoever Twelfthly thee object if none must be baptized and so receive the token of the Covenant but such as have the Covenant then Infants 〈◊〉 not be baptized but they say the first is true because they are uncapable to receive the covenant therefore they ought not to be baptized which is the token of the covenant Here I might answer that christian Infants are as capable both to receive the covenant and the token of it as the Jewish Infants were but it is not true to say they onely that have the covenant must have the signes and tokens of it for the male children of the Jewes all had the token of the covenant both the elect and reprobates without any difference and women which were in the covenant of grace as well as men yet the signe and token of it was set onely on men though reprobates rather then on women though never so faithfull for the token of the covenant is not given as a personall benefit to all that have it but it is given for the good of Gods people who ought to rejoyce and be thankfull for it where-ever they see it God made a covenant with Adam but the token of it was set on trees and God made a covenant with Noah but the token of it was set in the clouds so God might have set the token of the covenant of grace in the clouds or on trees or onely on wicked men if he had so pleased then shall we quarrell with God and say we will have the token of the covenant set onely on such as have the covenant as if the rain-bow should be set on all men since Noahs flood no let us do as faithfull women did in the Church of the Jewes who could rejoyce and be thankfull for the token of the covenant of grace although it was not set on them but on men onely and many of them reprobates you we doe not find that ever they murmured against God because they had not the token of the covenant upon them as well as men then I conclude notwithstanding these objections that christian Infants ought to be baptized But Master Tombes hath some more places of Scripture to examine the first is Gen. 17.7 from which we prove that God did establish his everlasting Covenant to Abraham and verse 21. he established that everlasting covenant also with Isaac and being established thus to Abraham and Isaac then it was also confirmed unto Jacob for an everlasting covenant Psal 105 10. But this covenant was made with Christ from all eternity so Prov. 8.23 1 Pet. 1.20 Titus 1.2 now circumcision was a token of that everlasting covenant Gen. 17.10 11. and not a token that they should enjoy the land of Canaan and so it sutes with baptisme which is also a token of that everlasting covenant which God the Father made with God the Son from all eternity but Master Tombes saith that Covenant to which circumcision had relation being established to Abraham that he saith was a mixed covenant and therfore not the same with ours I answ All temporall promises both to Abrahams posterity and also to us are but the over-flowing of those promises contained in that eversting covenant for godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 seek the righteousnesse of Christ and all these things shall be added unto you Matth. 6.33 so then we have as many promises of outward things as the Jewes had but then to encrease his doubting he saith Abraham's seed is many wayes to be taken I answ The seed to whom the covenant was made was but one and that was Christ Gal. 3.16 and to all the elect when they are grafted into Christ by faith as we enter into the first Adams covenant when we come to have his image of nature so we come into the second Adams covenant when we come to have his image of grace now circumcision was the token of this covenant to the Jewes as baptisme is to Christians but I shall speak more fully of this in answer to Captaine Hobsons first argument Secondly Master Tombes saith to encrease his doubtings that if baptism succeed circumcision then none but males ought to be baptized because none but males were circumcised and John Baptist did baptize before circumcision of right ceased therefore it doth not succeed circumcision although they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11.6.3 1 Pet. 3.21 and the same sanctification of the heart Col. 2.11 12. But saith he they differ in some things first circumcision did signifie that Christ should come of Isaac Gen. 17.21 but baptisme doth signifie his death and resurrection I answ although they are both tokens of the same covenant yet they may in some things differ in their signification and yet agree well together thus circumcision more lively signified mortification and the death of sinne in the crucifying and death of Christ and of justifying the sinner by the blood of Christ and baptisme more cleerly signifies the buriall of sinne in the buriall of Christ and rising from the death of sinne to the life of grace by the resurrection of Christ and washing away our sinnes by the spirit of Christ he being under water and arose out of the water and as water washeth away the filth of our bodies so the blood of Christ washeth away our sinnes but to say circumcision was a token that Christ should come of Isaac Master Tombes contradicts it himselfe saying John baptized before circumcision should of right cease and yet Christ was borne thirty yeeres before which hangs together like harpe and harrow and Paul circumcised Timothy after Christs assention see Acts 16.3 and after he had preached of his resurrection many times but this had been notoriously wicked if circumcision had signified that Christ was yet for to come of Isaac secondly he saith circumcision signified that the Israelites were seperated from all Nations but I say no for if any would turne to the Jewes Religion they should be circumcized let them be of what Nation they would so then it was onely a note of distinction of their Religion from all

A IUSTIFICATION Of two Points now in Controversie with the ANABAPTISTS Concerning Baptisme The first is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized with grounds to prove it and their Objections answered With a briefe Answer to Master TOMBES twelve doubtfull Arguments against it in his Exercitation about Infants Baptisme Also a briefe Answer to Captaine HOBSONS five Arguments in his falacy of Infants Baptisme being as he saith that which should have beene disputed by him and Mr. Knowles and some others against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford The second Point is That the Sprinckling the Baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then Dipping or Plunging in or under the Water With grounds to prove it and a briefe Answer to what they have to say against it By T. B. Joh. 3.1 Beloved beleeve not every spirit but try the spirits whither they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world Imprimatur John Downham London printed for Henry Sheperd at the Bible in Tower-street and for William Ley at his shop in Pauls Church-yard neere Doctors Commons 1646. To the Reader CHristian Reader considering it ever was and still is the custome of all Christian Churches in the world to baptize their Infants and to sprinkle the Baptized although it hath been long opposed by the Anabaptists yet they never left it in any age then although those men have published many Books of late against it and no Answer to them is yet come forth which makes them ready to say with the King of Assyria I have gathered all the earth and there was none that moved the wing or opened the mouth or peeped forth against it Isaiah 10.14 Yet let not this little book be despised for the unworthinesse of the Author but read it till some more able hand shall move for thy better satisfaction thou knowest not but God may somtimes hide things from the wise prudent and reveale them to babes because it so pleaseth him Luke 10.21 Aquilla and his Wife tooke Apollo that was mighty in Scriptures and shewed him the way of God more perfectly Acts 18. Naaman hearkned to his Maid-servant when she told him of a Propher in Israel that would cure him of his Leprosie and to the advice of another servant to observe the Prophets directions 2 King 5. Then look not on the Author but weigh the matter and arguments in the balance of the Sanctuary and if they hold weight give God the praise and me thy prayers and I shall remaine thine in all Christian duties to be commanded Thomas Bakewell The first Point in Controversie with the Anabaptists is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized the grounds to prove it are these following FIrst if Christ commanded and his Apostles practised the Baptisme of Infants then it ought to be done but Christ commanded to Baptize all Nations whereof Infants are a part Mat. 28.19 and the Apostles Baptized whole Housholds whereof Infants are a part Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be baptized Secondly if Christian Infants have the promise to be baptized with the Holy Ghost then they ought to have the outward forme of Baptisme but the Holy Ghost is promised to Christians and their children Acts 2.38 39. therefore their children ought to be baptized Thirdly If Infants of Christians be separated from Turkes and Infidels by vertue of their Parents Baptisme then they ought to be Baptized but Infants of Christians have this marke of distinction For now saith Paul Your children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is they have an outward sanctification being distinguished from Infidels for the visible Church therefore they ought to be Baptized Fourthly If Christ did admit Infants to come unto him and blamed them that would keepe them backe and giving this testimony of them that those little children which he had in his Armes did beleeve on him and that they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven then they ought to be Baptized But the first is true Mat. 18.3.6.19.13.14 Mark 9.36.10.14.10 Luke 18.15.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized Fifthly If infants of Jewes were circumcised and Christ came not to take away that benefit from them but to change it to a better and larger benefit from Males alone to Males and Females and from one Nation to all Nations and from a painefull duty to an easie duty then I say that Christian infants ought to be Baptized as well as the Jewish infants were circumcised but Christ never repealed that Command but did enlarge it to all Nations Mat. 28.19 and to both men and women Acts 8.12.16.15 therefore Christian infants ought to be baptized Sixthly if the Apostles businesse was onely to convert men of yeares from false religion to the Christian Religion before they did admit them to Baptisme and did not wait till they were converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of Grace because they knew no mans heart having the first conversion they baptized many without the second then Christian infants who have no fals religion to be converted from ought to be baptized although they be not converted from the state of corruption to the state of Grace but the Apostles onely required men to beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God the Eunuch beleeved this and was baptized and Simon Magus beleeved this and was baptized although still in the gall of bitternesse and in the bonds of iniquity Acts 8.12.23.37 and many beleeved the Scripture and the words of Jesus many beleeved in his name yet Christ would not trust them although they were his Disciples for he knew their hearts and needed not that any should testifie of them yet those went away from Christ and never returned to him Joh. 2.23 24.6.66 this shewes they had onely the first conversion and not the second and Jewish infants were circumcised if the Parents was but of their Religion never waiting for the childes conversion from corrupted nature to the state of Grace and Christians have as much power to bring up their children in the Christian Religion as they had to bring them up in the Jewish Religion then it is a cleare truth that Christian infants ought to be baptized Their Objections are next to be answered FIrst they Object If they must first be taught before they be Baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Mat. 28.19 ergo so is the second I ans The teaching them to observe and to doe all that is commanded in that place followes both Preaching and Baptisme that both may be observed else it were to affirme that Christ would have one Ordinance to be observed and not the other when as he saith Observe and doe whatsoever I have commanded you ver 19.20 And to say Teaching is first set downe is not much to the purpose if it be then John did Baptize in the Wildernesse and then it is said he Preached the Baptisme of Repentance Mark 1.4