Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	receive_v	18,187	5	5.7163	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53334	A brief defence of infant-baptism with an appendix, wherein is shewed that it is not necessary that baptism should be administred by dipping / by John Ollyffe ...	Ollyffe, John, 1647-1717.	1694 (1694)	Wing O287; ESTC R32212	67,029	72

in like manner used to express Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with Fire as in that same Text Luke 3.16 Now that cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or dowze Men into the Holy Ghost but the usual way of Expression is that the Holy Ghost with his Gifts and Graces was poured upon them thus Act. 2.17 18. I will pour out in those days of my Spirit upon them And Acts 10.45 On the Gentiles also was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghost And Tit. 3.6 The renewing of the Holy Ghost which is shed or poured on us abundantly And why should we not understand the baptizing with Water in Proportion and Similitude to this So that I can see no reason to conclude that it was our Saviour's Will and Intention that Baptism should always be by Dipping from the Use or Signification of the Word II. It cannot be necessarily inferr'd or concluded from the Examples of Persons being baptized that are mentioned in Scripture For in those Examples that seem to be most express for Dipping the most that can be concluded is only a bare Probability of it And in some it is highly improbable and the Probability is rather on the other side And if it could be demonstratively and satisfactorily made out by Scripture-Examples that the usual way of Administration of Baptism then was by Dipping yet that would lay no necessary Obligation upon us to the like 1. I say that in those Examples which seem to be most express for Dipping and therefore are most commonly urged for the Proof of it there is at most but a bare Probability of it and hardly that in some but there is no demonstrative Proof can be made from any of them either from the express Words or Story of those Examples or by just Consequence from them There are three Texts of Scripture that are usually urged to this purpose I shall consider them severally The first is Mat. 3.13 16. which sets forth the Baptism of our Saviour by John Baptist at Jordan For ver 16. Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the Water But what then Can it be necessarily inferr'd from hence that he was dipp'd in it or under it If he went into it as the manner usually was in that Country to wash their Feet that were dirty or soul with travelling and so there was baptized yet was there no way to have this done but by Dipping But indeed this Text if rightly interpreted doth not so much as prove that our Saviour went into the Water at all For in the Greek it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he came up from the Water not out of it And so he might be very well said to do if he only went to the side or brink There being some little Ascent at least from the Water to the dry Ground But however there is not determinate manner of our Saviour's Baptism in it exprest nor can be necessarily or demonstratively inferr'd And therefore at most that particular Form which the Anabaptists insist upon is but a meer Probability Another Text that is urged is Joh. 3.23 That John was baptizing in Enon near to Salim because there was much Water there And because of the numbers of those that went to John to be baptized it was most convenient that it should be in such Places where there was Plenty of Water But can any one prove hence that they were baptized by dipping into it or under it Is this any thing more than a Conjecture tho he baptized there where there was much Water yet the manner of baptizing there is not stated or determined So that this which is so much insisted upon at most from hence is but a Conjectural Probability and therefore can be no matter of Faith nor can lay any Obligation upon Practice For besides in that place it is not said that there was much Water together but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters that is many Streams or Rivolets which were not very common generally in that Country And thus there might be tho there were not Water of a sufficient Depth to dip a Man in it But let that be how it will there is no determinate Manner exprest or to be certainly and evidently concluded as ought to have been to build a Consequence of such a Nature upon as to infer an Obligation to such a determinate Manner Lastly that of Acts 8.36 useth to be insisted upon concerning the Baptism of the Eunuch by Philip. For ver 38. it is said They went down both into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and when they were come up out of the Water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. Yet neither here is the particular Manner of the Administration exprest nor yet to be certainly collected It is no strange thing that they did go down into the Water in that warm Country that they might do and yet Philip not dip the Eunuch in it but take up Water with his Hand to pour it upon him And yet the words in the Original may be as conveniently interpreted that they both went down to the Water as the Eunuch was journying upon the Road by and came up from it only For so the Particles here rendred into and out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Matth. 15.24 Luk. 1.71 are often expounded And if so then this Text doth not so much as prove that they went into the Water but only to the Bank or Side of it And besides that Water if they did go into it is reported by those that have travelled into and viewed those Parts to have been only a Rise or Fountain so small or shallow as that a Man could not be dipp'd in it St. Jerom saith De Locis Hebraicis tom 3. J. G 's Catabaptism p. 51. it was Fons ad Radicem montis ebulliens a Fountain bubbling out at the bottom of the Hill Et ab eâdem in quâ gignitur sorbetur humo and forthwith drank up by the Earth that produced it as it is expressed by Sandys in his Travels speaking of the same Place and therefore it is not likely to be of any considerable Depth And so the Expression in the Story of the Acts seems to intimate ver 36. they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto a certain Water or somewhat of Water enough to baptize the Eunuch tho not by dipping But from none of these Relations of Baptism can the particular or determinate manner of the Administration certainly he gathered and therefore much less the Necessity of any Form be concluded So that at most all that these Places amount to is a meer Probability of the thing that it was done in that manner and no more And yet these are all the Places from Example that use to be produc'd to prove the Necessity But how short doth all come of a demonstrative Proof 2. In some of the Examples or Instances

by the Learned which will give a great Light to this Matter 1st The first is that which is taken out of the most authentick Records of the Jewish Writings Vid. Dr. Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism ch 30. and those Authors that are of greatest Note among them And it is this that even before our Saviour's time it was the manner among the Jews to admit Proselytes into the Jewish Church by three things Circumcision Dr. Hammond 's Defence Sect. 3. Sacrifice and Baptism whatever were the Ground or Original of this Custom which is differently accounted for by learned Men And Baptism was thought so necessary that though one was circumcised yet if he were not baptized he was not a true Proselyte which is delivered as a known Axiom by the Gemara Babylonica But if it were a Woman she must only be baptized and bring a Sacrifice And there being a Statute among the Jews Numb 15.15 That one Ordinance should be both for themselves and for the Stranger or Proselyte that sojourned among them therefore what they did to their Proselytes they did also to themselves So that as the Jewish Talmud and Gemara say the Israelites themselves do not enter into Covenant but by these three things Circumcision Baptism and Peace-offering And as this was the Manner and Custom of admitting grown Proselytes so also their Infant-Children if they had any were baptized likewise as the Gemara saith And so also Maimonides an Author of great Account among the Jews upon condition that there was Security given for the Education of the Children in the Jewish Religion that when they came to Age they might not renounce it And this their Reception of Proselytes in this way was esteemed among them to be a kind of Regeneration or new Birth they being brought and engaged thereby to a new Religion and a new Life Now if this be true as the Jewish Records do inform us and we have no Reason to doubt of it may seem less strange that the Baptism of John Baptist was so readily complied with and that there was no more Noise and Stir about it it being in it self for the Matter of it no new Institution but what had been usual and customary among them and John's Design in it being only to administer it to a different End than before that is as a Ceremony demonstrative of and engaging to Repentance against the appearance of the Kingdom of Messiah whereas it was before observed only as an initiating Rite into the Jewish Religion and Covenant And when our Saviour came and baptized or ordered his Disciples so to do it was only a Translation of an old Custom to a new End viz. to admit and receive Persons into the Religion of Messiah who was now come And it being no more for the Matter of it than what was done before it seems probable that our Saviour grounded his Reproof of Nicodemus upon his Ignorance of the Custom of his own Nation and the Sense that they put upon it John 3.10 Art thou a Master of Israel and knowest not these things For that might well seem very strange that a Person of his Condition should not understand the Phrase of his own Nation in which our Saviour spake to him though including also more in it when he said Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God But to conclude this it having been as we see the manner before among the Jews to receive the Infants of Proselytes as well as grown Persons into the Jewish Church by this Ceremony of Baptism unless our Saviour had prohibited the same to them how could the Apostles otherwise understand but when our Saviour ordered them by this Ceremony to admit Christian Proselytes they should likewise receive their Infants as the manner had been before in the Reception of Jewish Proselytes among themselves Which makes it therefore highly credible that it was accordingly done For there is no manner of Appearance of any Alteration made by our Saviour as to the Subjects but only as to the End and Intent of this Practice or Custom which only gave it the Form of a new Institution Nor need it seem at all strange that our Saviour should adopt this Custom and Practice into the Christian Religion and Church that was before in use in the Jewish it being not in the least our Saviour's Design to depart as far as he could from the Jewish Church but rather to build as much as might be with their Materials in the Erection of the Christian and to conform it after their old Platform as hath been shewn by learned Men in several Instances and particularly in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper it self Case of Infant-Baptism London 1683. Mede 's 1st Book Disc 51. 2d Book c. 4. And as for those Rites and Customs of the Jews which were abolish'd the Reason thereof was not merely because they were Jewish but either because they were such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity as the Antitype and Substance of them or because they were such as were inconsistent with the Nature of a manly free and universal Church such as Christ intended his should be in opposition to the Legal Pedagogy and servile Nature of the Jewish and for the breaking down the Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile and the abolishing the Enmity of Ordinances that the Religion of Christ might become more passable among the Gentile World to whom if it had been clogged with so many Ordinances as in the Jewish Church it would have become odious and ridiculous Dr. Hammond's Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 25 26. Nor yet can it be said e're the more that the Baptism of John or of our Saviour was of Man and not from Heaven because it was a Jewish Custom forasmuch as the Design of it is now changed and the Form of a new Institution is stamp'd upon the old Matter 2dly Another considerable Point of History relating to this Matter is with respect to the times after our Saviour and the Apostles and that is this It appears by the antient Writings of the Fathers of the Christian Church in the next Ages that Infant-Baptism was then the general Practice of the Christian Church and was so observed as being derived from the Apostles themselves And there is no one Writer in any of the first Ages of the Christian Church that does at all oppose it as unlawful or speak of it as a novel Practice but even those that argue against it as less convenient yet do allow by their Discourse that it was then the general Practice of the Church and do not in the least contradict that or bring any Argument against it as being a new Invention which if it had been had above all other Arguments been most proper for their Purpose Irenaeus Bishop of Lions Adversus Haeres l. 2. c. 39. p. 192. who lived in the next Age after the Apostles saith that