Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	dip_v	sprinkle_v	3,693	5	10.9320	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25573	An Answer to the Athenian Mercury, vol. 4, numb. 14, concerning infant-baptism with an account of divers queries sent by the author (and some others) to the Athenian Society, which they have not yet answered : to which are added, some remarks by way of reply to their Mercury on the same subject, num. 18, published Novemb. 28.		1691 (1691)	Wing A3386; ESTC R15319	31,117	26

have drawn all impartial Men may see prove nothing Moreover what you speak about those great Articles of the Christian Religion as if they could not be proved without Consequences must not by any means be allowed nor can I take it to be true Cannot we find the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scripture and that Christ is God and the second Person and that he was born of the Virgin without Consequences Is it Wisdom in you in such a corrupt Age as this is to lay down such Assertions Were those things the Matter of Controversy between you and me you should hear what positive and plain Scripture Proof might as you know hath often already be brought upon that account but to pass by this I affirm the Baptism of Believers lies plain in God's Word but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Quest 4. Why was not Christ baptized before he was thirty Years old You answer From the same Reason that the Jailor the Eunuch and St. Peter's Converts were not viz. there is no adhering to a Doctrine before it is instituted or preached but say you Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as amongst those of riper Years since and that you say is Proof enough Reply It can't be Proof enough to answer the Question and as to prove Infant-Baptism it utterly fails but if Infant-Baptism was much before our Saviour's time as an Institution of God there was no Want of an Institution when he was a Babe and therefore your Reason why he deferred his Baptism is gone Was it in being long before and yet not instituted or appointed by Jehovah Do you not herein implicitly confess that Custom amongst the Jews was human Nor will it serve your turn to say it was instituted a-new as a Gospel-Ordinance because you affirm Baptism under the Gospel was the Continuation of that old Custom with the Super-addition of the full Force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Do you not intimate it was not instituted a new but rather a Custom continued upon which you with that Addition and some others before you seem to lay the great Stress of your Infants Baptism And if some Additions were made to the old Custom why might there not be some Diminutions also and if it were a-new instituted it is all one as if it had never been in being before for the Right any have to Baptism and manner of Administration and all things appertaining to it must of necessity wholly depend upon the new Institution or Law of Christ If therefore Gospel-Baptism wholly depends on the new Institution then the old Custom is gone for ever had it been a Mosaical Rite like a Legacy bequeathed in a Will made void by the Testator's last Will and Testament though some part of the same thing may be repeated in the last Will that was in the first yet the last must decides the Controversy but in Christ's last Will and Testament Infant-Baptism is not to be found nor was it indeed an Ordinance ordained of God before Christ's time See my Answer about this in Answer to the first Question 2. Certainly had it been the Will of God Children should have been baptized as such Christ had been baptized when in his Infancy no doubt God who is a free Agent could not want an Administrator he could have sent John into the World sooner or have commissionated some other Person to have done it But since the Holy Ghost in the Gospel relates the time of his Baptism and that it was not till he was about thirty Years old it clearly shews us that adult Persons ought to be admitted to that Ordinance only and not Babes By which Example of his he hath strengthned his Commission or at least wise shewed the Congruity or sweet Agreement there is between his Precept and his own Practice Question 5. Why Sprinkling and not Dipping You answer Our Church denies not the latter that is dipping but looks upon it as a clear Representation of our Saviour's descending into the Grave abiding there and rising up again c. But say you the Church has power to dispense with Circumstantials and manner of Acting tho not with the Act it self c. Reply What your Church is I know not the Church of England doth acknowledg I must confess that Baptism is Dipping but I never heard they have of late times so practised But how dare you say the Church hath power to dispense with Dipping and change it into Sprinkling Who gave her such Power Where do you read of it You call it a Circumstantial but I am not of your Mind I must say 't is an Essential nay 't is no Baptism at all if not Dipping for Baptize is to dip which to confirm I could give you a Cloud of Witnesses learned in the Greek Tongue therefore 't is not the manner of the Act but the Act it self to baptize is one Act and to rantize or sprinkle Water is another the manner of the Act of dipping or baptizing is to put the Body into the Water backward or forward or side-ways or with a swift or gentle Motion Dipping is dipping and sprinkling sprinkling which Act will never be baptizing whilst the World stands You say well dipping or burying the Body in the Water is a clear and lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ And hence 't is said that such who are indeed baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism To which you might have added 't is also a Sign of our being dead to Sin and of our being raised up with Christ by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life And hence I infer Infants ought not to be baptized because there doth not cannot appear in them that glorious internal Work of the Spirit which ought to be signified thereby and as they for this reason cannot be the proper Subjects of Baptism So likewise it cannot be done by sprinkling because that Act cannot represent those Signs and Gospel-Mysteries which the Law-giver intended should be held forth in that holy Administration But why do you say this is a circumstantial Thing Was not Nadab and Abihu's Transgression and that of Vzzah's more like Circumstantials than this is and yet their Error cost them their Lives Or hath the Gospel-Church a greater dispensing Power in such Cases than the Church had under the Law Suppose the Jews should have changed Circumcision or cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh to the paring the Nails of their Children or to cut off a little Skin off of the Fingers Ends would that have been Circumcision no doubt a better Circumcision than Sprinkling is Baptism Gentlemen will you call any Part or Branch or Thing that appertains to a positive Precept a Circumstance which the Church has power to dispense with If you should whither would this lead you You may after that Notion strangely curtail Christ's Institutions in other respects Question 6. What think you

the Antient Churches it proves nothing Should we believe your Histories as firmly as we do believe there was an Alexander the Great or a Cato c. if there is no Infant-Baptism in the Scripture 't is utterly gone yet we challenge you to shew from Authentick History that one Infant was baptized in the first or second Centuries which we are not able to disprove by as good Authority Thirteen If there was not a Congregation called Anabaptists till 300 Years after Christ it signifies nothing as we have shewed Moreover we affirm that all the Apostolical Primitive Churches were Baptists i. e. such who only baptized Believers and so continued till the Apostacy See our further Answer to this to your first Mercury We can prove there was a Testimony born against Infant-Baptism before 380 Years after Christ nay before the end of the third Century See Tertul. in his Book de Baptismo c. 18. who opposed Infant-Baptism 1. From the mistake of that Text Mat. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me the Lord saith says he do not forbid them to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come let them be made Christians when they can know Christ He adds six Arguments more and to confirm this Testimony of Tertullian see Dr. Barlow saith he Tertullian dislikes and condemns Infant-Baptism as unwarrantable and irrational Daillé also saith that Tertullian was of an Opinion that Infants were not to be baptized the like say divers others as Mr. Danvers shews which his Opposers could not refute So that it appears you are ignrant both of Scripture and History too and do but abuse your selves and the World also in this matter Gentlemen you were better give over than a-fresh to blow up the Fire and Coal of Contention You mistake in your third Column we are not to prove a Negative i. e. That no Infant was baptized in those Churches you must prove they were Fourteen Your Reply about our Saviour's not being baptized till thirty Years old it was because he was a Jew and proselyted Heathens were only baptized when young is a Fig-leaf still insisting upon the old Jewish Custom to which we have given you a full Answer Fifteen What you say about dipping and mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Authors shew that it signifies only a bare and slight washing and that paunging and washing are very distinct This word comes from the same Verb you say signifies to dip or plunge And whereas you hint that Beza would have us baptize them but not 〈◊〉 them you are resolved to prevent that danger who only Sprinkle or Rantize them I affirm Dipping or plunging all learned in the Greek Tongue and Criticks do generally assert is the literal proper and genuine Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if it any where refers to washing 't is to such a washing as is done by dipping or swilling in the Water all sorts of washing are not distinct from dipping and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize is to wash unless it it be such a washing as is by dipping we deny is it not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the Septuagint do render the word Tabal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which all Translators saith a good Author both I atin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip and always signifies to dip as Gen. 37.31 Lev. 4.6 Numb 16.18 2 Kings 5.14 c. Grotius saith it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor an Immersion Dipping or Submersion Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith its native and proper Signification is to dip into th e Water or to plunge under the Water and that it is taken from a Diers Fat and not a bare Washing only See Casaubon Bucan Bullinger Zanchy Beza c. To close have we not cause to affirm you reproach us to say our Ring Leaders come to ill Deaths What signifies your Story of John Bocold of Leyden and as if Erasmas c. had an ill Opinion of the Anabaptists of his time does it follow you may vilify the Baptists of these times from thence they might hold some Errors and so may some so called now adays as well as some Pedo-Baptists who are Papists Arians Antitrinitarians Socinians and what not and some of them debauched Livers and made as shameful Ends these things cannot be undknown to you but how base it is in you thus to write let all sober Men judg Your pretended Zeal will not acquit you from a slanderous Tongue and speaking Evil of them you know not Are not the Papists Pedobaptists and some of the first and chief Assertors of it and what an erronious Crew are they do you think we cannot paralled John of Leyden amongst some of the Pedobaptists Were those Stories true of him and others are there not some bad Men of every Perswasion as well as good I exhort you to consider what account you will be able to give for asserting Babies Rantism or Infants Sprinkling since 't is not commanded of God c. in the dreadful Day of Judgment or how dare you affirm we disturb the Church of Christ with false Doctrine who assert Believers only are the Subjects of Christ's true Baptism and that Baptism is Immersion i.e. Dipping since both lies so plain in the Word of God We fear not our appearing upon this account at Christ's Triounal And for all your great Confidence your Practice we doubt not in the least will be found to be no Truth of the Gospel but an unwarrantable Tradition What tho Sir Tho. More a Papist was glad he had not proselyted Persons to his youthful Errors must we therefore be afraid to promulgate a positive Truth of Christ Is it not said This Sect is every-where spoken against If you had called for Syllogistical Arguments you might have had them but you ask for Queries you may have Logical Arguments enow if you please but you had better desist To conclude with your Postscript I Can't see Mr. Eliot has done the Pedo-Baptists any Service or that any Honour redounds to him for that Work of his How in the Gospel-Church-State the Promise runs to Believers and their Children or Off-spring we have shewed And that Babes of two or ten Days old are or can be said to be Disciples is without proof and irrational What though they may belong to the Kingdom of Heaven or be saved Baptism is of a meer positive Right that Argument I tell you again will admit them to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as well as to Baptism And as for Antiquity we deny not but that it was received by divers as an Apostolical Tradition a little time before Nazianzen or Austin yet that it was preached as necessary to Salvation before Austin did it you can't prove though we deny not but 't was practised before Austin's Days See Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 237. And