Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	dip_v	4,728	5	11.0980	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27216	The coppie of a letter sent to a gentlevvoman one of the separation in Holland in answer to a letter of hers, written to her sister, being a member of one of those societies, commonly (though falsely) called the new Anabaptists in London, wherein are briefly set down their reasons against the baptizing of infants : together with the grounds of their denyall, of sprinkling water upon the face in any name whatsoever, to be baptisme : and them of the separation justly charged for not walking answerable to their owne principles / by R.B.	R. B.	1642 (1642)	Wing B163; ESTC R38562	7,300	12

take away sinne Heb. 8.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 11.27 28. Thirdly the faith of the persons that ever have any baptised in their Infancie in the use of their baptisme when they come to yeares can be built but upon humane Testimonie commonly that of a Parish Clarke and to have our faith stand in the truth of men is to have a foundation for it like that of the wisedom of men which is opposed to the demonstration of the spirit and power of God 1 Cor. 2.3 4 5. If you object their being circumcised in their Infancie Wee answer that it viz. Circumcision left a marke in their flesh which they could not but take notice of and therefore their knowledge of their being circumcised depended not upon the testimonie of others Fourthly they cannot rise with Christ in Baptisme for they being Insants are only passive and rising with Christ in Baptisme being a part of Baptisme or being by Baptized persons done in Baptisme they cannot be baptized the one halfe of Baptisme being the act of the baptized seeing they cannot act Col. 2.12 Like as they cannot partake of the Lords Supper that cannot eate let the administrator do unto them what he can And thus we come to the second head viz. That sprinkling of water upon the face of any person young or old is not Baptisme let it be done in what Name or with what Ceremonies it will which is proved to us by these reasons First because that the word which is translated into English Baptize signifieth to dipp into water and as sprinkling water upon a thing is not dipping the thing into water but the contrary so is sprinkling water upon a thing not Baptisme but contrary to it Thatthe Greek word which is translated baptize so signifieth viz. to dip into water we have the Testimonies both of the Translators of the Scriptures of Paraphrases Expositors and others wee will not heere trouble you with many Isaack Causaben in his notes upon Math. 3.6 they were baptized in Iordan saith thus the manner of Baptisme was to plunge the person Baptized over head in water and is that which the word Baptising fully declareth and by and by it was not for nothing that some have disputed for the plunging of the whole body into water in Baptisme for they urged the very word Doctor Downame in his Book of Divinitie hath the same words in effect V●sinus in his Catechisme in the title of baptisme ingenuously confesseth that the East Churches did Baptize by dipping the whole body into water in the 409. Page of his Book and this signification Ainsworth in his Annotations 〈◊〉 Numb ●●lvin● In●ons Chap. 〈◊〉 441. 11. Levit. 15. confesseth that word to have but had we not these and a multitude of other Testimonies the Scriptures in declaring the practises of Gods servants give us light enough Iohn 3.23 Iohn baptised in Aenon because there was much water there which argueth a use of much water in baptisme else that which is there rendered as a reason of his Baptizing in denon cannot be reasonably expounded Math. 3.4 5 6 7. Iesus came unto Iohn to Iordain to be baptized and is said to come up out of the waters when he was Baptized which intimateth that he went into the water to be baptized as the Eunuch and Philip are both said to doe Acts 8.36 37 38. Besides these Testimonies and practices the correspondencie which the Apostle makes Baptisme to hold with buriall in 1 Cor. 15. and Rom. 6. Col. 2. holds out the same thing And lastly the commission given to the Apostles and Disciples of Christ is to make Disciples and to baptize them Math. 28.19.20 Now no rationall person will say there that the face is the Disciple no more then they will allow us to say the nose is the face yet if the face was the Disciple that is not so much as Baptized how much lesse the Disciple And wee should aske these part baptizers but that wee cannot truly call it baptizing how they know the face should have that besprinkleing which they use If they say the face is the most honourable part We answer that it is not our honour but our cleansing from our filthinesse which is by Baptisme set forth and no person indued with reason to set out the clensing nature of water would take that to wash which is free from filth and how know they that honour should sway us in this case and whereas they say that Baptisme comes in the roome of Circumcision they will make it out by their practices for Circumcisions roome was the privie parts if we mistake not which they in their sprinckling used insteed of Baptisme doe decline But to summe up all this if Baptisme be a dipping of the whole body into water as is proved by Testimonies both divine and humane then where no part of the body is dipped into water there can be no part of Baptisme as there is not in that besprinkling which now adayes is falsely called Baptisme Come we now to the grounds upon which they of the Separation doe proceed they affirme that the Covenant of which they hold baptisme to be a seale is made but with beleevers and their seed and that the seale is no seale where no precedent Covenant hath beene now the Parents of the most of them by their owne confession were ungodly and unbeleevers as the children of the Separation notwithstanding their pretended Covenant commonly prove and so had no covenant made with them nor with their seed nor as they affirme had their seed any Covenant made with them till they became beleevers From which consideration we may frame this argument If where no Covenant hath gone before the Seale of the Covenant be set to it becomes no Seale then where no Covenant hath gone before Baptisme being the Seale of the Covenant if it be set to becomes no Baptisme But where no Covenant hath gone before the Seale of it be set to becomes no Seale Ergo where no Covenant hath gone before Baptisme being the Seale of the Covenant if it be set to becomes no Baptisme And thus are they quit of their Baptisme by their owne grant for they which have no Baptisme but that which they had when they were without the Covenant have no Baptisme at all Againe they commonly affirme that Baptisme upon the Baptizer is essentially requisit that the baptisme administred by him may be in force for say they baptisme acted by one unbaptized unlesse hee had a call like Iohn the Baptist is a nullity and thus if it bee possible their baptisme is Worse then naught they themselves being out of Covenant when they had it and having it for the most part by persons out of covenant and by unpaptized ones or at the best by persons that successively have re●●●ved their Baptisme from Rome where they say all administrations are Antichristian and voide for Baptisme in Rome by the most eminent of them even by learned Ainsworth is called an

THE COPPIE OF A LETTER SENT TO A GENTLEVVOMAN ONE OF THE SEPARATION IN HOLLAND In Answer to a Letter of Hers written to her Sister being a member of one of those Societies commonly though falsely called the new Anabaptists in London Wherein are briefly set downe their reasons against the baptizing of Infants together with the grounds of their denyall of sprinkling water upon the face in any name whatsoever to be Baptisme And them of the Separation justly charged for not walking answerable to their owne Principles By R. B. LONDON Printed in the yeare of liberty 1642. THE COPPIE OF A LETTER Sent to a Gentlewoman one of the Separation in Holland Mistresse M. B. AND our friend in the common Faith we wish grace and peace through the knowledge of our Lord Iesus Christ to be multiplyed unto you unto all that love our Lord Iesus Christ in sincerity Amen Wee have understood deare friend from your Sister and ours that you desire to have communicated unto you the grounds of our now practise which your request we thinke reasonable and our selves bound to satisfie you in Our houlding and practising of a communion of Saints in Church fellowship separated from such as with whom the believer hath no part 2. Cor 6.15 wee thinke you seeke not a reason of it being that which you are convinced of as well as wee nor do we thinke that you seeke to be informed that there is an ordinance of God to be submitted unto by believers called Baptisme but your inquiry is as wee conceive wherefore we who have as we have beene told had that done unto us in our Infancie which is commonly called Baptisme should notwithstanding repute our selves as unbaptized persons and should become baptized as if we had 〈◊〉 Baptisme before for which our practise we present you with these ground●● onely premising that to be baptized is one of the counsells of God which may not be rejected Luke 7.30 First infants are not the subjects of Baptisme or are not the persons whom God hath appointed to be baptized Secondly the sprinkling water upon the face which is all that wee ever heard of that we had is not Baptisme Thirdly that which we in our Infancy had if sprinkling was Baptisme and Infants the subjects yet by the Separations owne grounds was not Gods Ordinance seeing the Church was false where and the ministry by whom we had it and where there is neither true Church nor true Ministerie there can be no true religious administration and as well as Mr. Can may mannage separation from the Nonconformists principles may we mannage our practise from the Principles of yours and Master Can wee thinke therein doth well it being the course which the Lord takes with the Jewes and Paul with them of Corinth 1 Cor. 7. and Luke 13.15 But to the first of these three Infants are not the subjects of Baptisme as appeareth to us by these reasons First there is in all the word of God no command given to any person or persons officers or persons out of office to baptize them Now if the word of God be true where it saith all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine reproofe correction instruction in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto every good worke 2 Tim. 3.16 17. the Scriptures giving no direction in the doing of nor unto any to do that worke it can be no good worke and there are of works but good and bad and our being so often called to the Law and to the Testimonies and our being bid to give heed unto that sure word of prophesie that shineth as a light in a darke place with an affirmation that if wee give heed thereunto wee shall do well cannot but imply at the least that we shall omit no duty while wee do but what is written and the Baptizing of Infants not being by God injoyned unto or upon any nor by his word recorded to have beene done by any it can be as no good worke so no worke of light and the Servants of God may not walke in darknesse Hence do we in one respect decline that practise as an unwritten unverity Secondly Infants have not in them those requisites that are necessary in that service which are R●●●●tance from dead works and faith towards God Heb. 6.1 Act. 8.36 37. 〈◊〉 2.38 and wee thinke that of the English common Service Book will be no objection of yours saying yes they do performe them by their sureties If you object that though repentance and faith were requisites in persons of yeares yet it followeth not that those or either of them are required of Infants who by reason of their tender yeares cannot performe them Wee give thereunto three Answers First as little as we find in the Scriptures of the requiring of faith and repentance at the hands of Infants do we find of the Baptizing of Infants wherefore if the not requiring of Faith and repentance from Infants be a sufficient exemption to them from demonstrating either then in like manner by the same proportion will the not requiring of Infants to be Baptized and the not requiring of any to baptize them be a sufficient exemption both to the one and to the other That is our first answer Secondly Wee finde that in all Ordinances whereunto both old and young indefinitely had accesse that which was a requisite in one person was a requisite in every person and was found indefinitely both in old and young To eate the Passeover Circumcision was required to precede and that was all that was required Exod. 12.47 48 49 50. To Circumcision was required that the persons were Males borne in Abrahams house of his Children or strangers or bought with his money of all the Heathen that were round about Gen. 17.12.23.27 Exod. 12.44 these requisites wee say being all that were minded suited with the condition of every one and for us to hould out accesse to Christ in his Ordinances to one by this way and to another by that what is it but to make the Scriptures to be of private interpretation and to make Christ who is one and his way one to become divided this is to us likewise considerable Lastly that which will give admittance to one Ordinance will give admittance unto another of like nature now if the Sacraments as they are called or the new Covenant be like the new Covenant viz. spirituall which who dares deny Then that which will give admittance unto Baptisme will give admittance to the Lords Supper and thus have we such as neither have faith nor ever professed to have any admitted to the Church and to all the Ordinances thereof and what is this but to make the new Covenant as carnall as the old and the subjects of the one as carnall as the subjects of the other and the blood of Christ to be of no more valew then the blood of Fulls and Goates that could not