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
A47602	Pedo-baptism disproved being an answer to two printed papers (put forth by some gentlemen called the Athenian Society, who pretend to answer all questions sent to them of what nature soever) called the Athenian Mercury, one put forth November 14, the other November 28, 1691 : in which papers they pretend to answer eight queries about the lawfulness of infant-baptism : likewise divers queries sent to them about the true subjects of baptism, &c.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1691 (1691)	Wing K79; ESTC R12897	42,621	35

so dark or obscure that it could not be proved without Consequences Did not Moses make every Law Precept or Command plain that he that runs might read it and yet Christ is said to exceed Moses being faithful as a Son over his own House Heb. 3. Those Consequences you 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 humane 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 anew 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 decide 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 this 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 〈…〉 the Church hath power to dispense 〈…〉 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 ●●sential 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 〈…〉 to put the whole Body into the Water backward or forward 〈…〉 of with a swift or gentle Motion 〈…〉 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 Uzzah'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 th● 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

it is say I from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Saul had also saith he more than a bare Profession before Baptism Acts 9. 5 15 17. p. 28. The Promise it self saith he doth expresly require a Faith of our own of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges therefore there is a Faith of our own that is the Condition of our Title Mark 16. 16. p. 16. He might have added by the Force of his Argument therefore Infants should not have the Priviledges for I argue thus viz. Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptism of Water left by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult then Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ But there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testament and but one Condition and Manner of ●●ght thereto and that one Baptism is that of the Adult Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Baptism of Christ Mr. Baxter saith Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult and as to any other Condition I am sure the Scripture is silent the Way of the Lord is one one Lord one Faith one Baptism Ephes 4. 4. If Profession of Faith were not necessary saith Mr. Baxter coram Ecclesiâ to Church-Membership and Priviledges then Infidels and Heathens would have Right also saith he the Church and the World would be confounded He might have added but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership c. Ergo T is a granted Case among all Christians saith he that Profession is thus necessary the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none without it pag. 21. And if so why dare any now adays admit of Infants who are capable to make no Professior He adds Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apostles to make Disciples and the ●●baptize them promising He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he ●aith If as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his Death and are buried with him by Baptism into Death that like as Christ was raised from the Dead so we also should walk in Newness of Life c. Then no doubt saith he but such as were to be baptized did f●●t profess this Mortification and a Consent to be buried c. In our Baptism we put off the Body of the the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ bring buried with him and raised with him through Faith quickned with him and having all our Trespasses forgive● Col. 2. 〈◊〉 12 ●3 And will any Man says he yea will Paul ascribe all this to 〈◊〉 that did no● so much as profess the thing● 〈◊〉 Will Baptism in the Judgment of a wise Man do all this for an Infidel or say I for an Infant that cannot make a Profession that he is a Christian pag. 31 32. He proceeds Arg. 23. The Baptized are in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified ●●●y are called Saints and Churches of Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Christians are sanctified ones pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men washed sanctified justified they are not called Saints Churches of Saints Christians nor sanctified ones Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized If any should say Why did you not cite these Assertions of Mr. Ba●ter's whilst he was living I answer More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print these Assertions and many other Arguments of his to the same Purpose to which he gave no Answer Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that it is upon the Profession of Faith to be baptized then both Parents and Children must upon the Profession of their Faith be baptized and so admitted c. But there is but one way for all both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Gospel-Church to the End of the World and that is upon the Profession of their Faith to be baptized Ergo. Arg. 25. That cannot be Christ's true Baptism wherein there is not cannot be a lively Representation of the Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ together with our Death un●o Sin and Vi●ification to a new Life But in the R●●●●ing or Sprinkling of an Infant there is not cannot be a lively Representation of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Ergo. Arg. 26. That pretended Baptism that tends to ●ru●trate the glorious ●●d and Design of Christ in his instituting of Gospel-Baptism or cannot answer it i● none of Cl●●st's Baptism But the pretended Baptism of Infants tends to frustrate the glorious end and design of Christ in instituting of Gospel-Baptism Ergo. The Major will not be denied As to the Minor all generally con●●●● the End or Design of Christ in instituting the Ordinance of Baptism was in a lively Figure to represent his Death Burial and Resurrection with the Person 's Death unto Sin and his rising again to walk in newness of ●ife that is baptized as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to represent his Body was broke and his Blood was shed But that a lively Figure of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection appears in sprinkling a little Water on the Face I see not and as done to an Infant there can no Death to Sin and rising again to walk in newness of Life be signified And therefore Christ's Design and End therein is frustrated Arg. 27. If Baptism be Immersion as to the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo as also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms and the spiritual Signification thereof then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism But Immersion is the proper and genuine signification of the word Baptizo and also of those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of and the spiritual Signification thereof Ergo Sprinkling is not Christ's true Baptism 1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immersion or to dip c. we have proved which is also confessed by the Learned in that Language 2. The Figurative Baptism was 1s● That of the Red Sea wherein the Fathers were buried as it were unto Moses in the Sea and under the Cloud Fools Annotations on 1 Cor. 1● 2. Others saith ●e more probably think that the Apostle useth this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters and being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Rec●p●acle of Water though 〈◊〉 Water at that time was gathered on ●●aps on either side of them yet they see●●ed buried in the Water as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized 〈◊〉 The ●d was that of Noah's Ark. S●e 〈…〉 K●a●e●bull The Ark of Noah and Baptism saith he were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection no● the Sign of the washing away of Sin though so taken metonymically but a particular ●●gnal of the Resurrection of Christ of this Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure as also was the Ark of Noah out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre to a new 〈◊〉 3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit but the great Effusion of the Spirit like that at Pentecost Acts 1. 4 5. Shall be baptized c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus See Dr. D●V●il on Acts. 2. The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to dip or plunge as it were to die Colours in which Sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Also Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith A Wind filled the whole House that it seemed like a Fish-Pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions like that of our Saviour's suffering i. e. no part free Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and like that of David who saith God drew him out of great Waters 4. The spiritual Signification thereof is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin and Vivification to a new ●ife This being so it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism it must be Immersion and nothing else And in the last Place Finally To confirm that Baptizo is to dip both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms mentioned in the Scripture I might add further that this evidentl● appears from the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles of Christ who baptized in Rivers and where there was much Water and also because the Baptizer and Baptized are said to go down into the Water not down to the Water and came up out of the Water John Baptist is said to baptize them into Jordan as the Greek Word renders it which shews it dipping and not sprinkling Would it be proper to say He sprinkled them into Jordan The Lord open the Eyes of those who see not to consider these things FINIS

Twelfthly As touching what you say further as to universal Consent of 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 ●●t 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 ●here was not a Congregation called Anabapti●●● ●ill 300 Years a●●● 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 of 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 ignorant 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 ●●● 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 Churche● 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 plunging 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 drown 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 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 Latin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip and always signifies to dip as 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 the 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 Erasmus 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 unknown 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 parallel 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 Tribunal And for all your great Confidence your Practice we do●●t not in the least will be foun● 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 ●●ve 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 ●eny not but 't was practised before Austin's Days See