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
A80339	Confidence corrected, error detected, and truth defended; or Some farther reflections upon the two Athenian Mercuries lately publish'd about infant-baptism. By Philalethes Pasiphilus.	Pasiphilus, Philalethes.	1692 (1692)	Wing C5803A; ESTC R223470	47,010	51

as to conceit that you may by virtue of your dispensing Power do just what you list And if he don't think good to accept of what you please to give him as the result of your Power tho 't is but Sprinkling for Baptizing or Dipping he 's like to get nothing else from you Yet in your Plea for this Power you do as good as dwindle it into nothing too for you endeavour to make us believe that it only relates to Circumstantials and the manner of Acting but not to the Act it self Really Sirs if this be true you had better have kept where you were without the least pretence to this dispensing Power for it can do you no Kindness at all For if Dipping or Burying in Water be the thing that God requires then according to your own grant your Church has not Power to dispense with this Act and turn it into another which cannot by any means be the same Act which is certainly the Case of Dipping and Sprinkling For Sprinkling and Baptizing are certainly two different Things two different Actions having two different Forms and cannot by any means properly be called the same All that you can fairly pretend to if you be true to your Plea is That the Administrator is at liberty to dip or put the Person under Water divers manner of Ways as forward backward sideway toward the Right-Hand or toward the Left quickly or slowly all these Things being meerly Circumstantial yet all this while Dipping or putting under Water is the Act or Thing to be done Which if it be done the Person may truly be said to be baptized notwithstanding these different Circumstances because the Essential Form of Baptism viz. Dipping in Water is to be found in all these ways But if you only sprinkle a little Water on his Face that is quite another Thing not another Circumstance in which the same Thing is yet done but clearly another Act in which not the same but another Thing is done and the Person thereby is no more truly baptized than as if you had given him a Flip or two with a wet Finger For here is differentia essentialis the very Formality of Baptism is absent So that you had better continue your first Compliance with us than strive as you do in your Second to run away from us for 't is certainly true that if our Practice be Right as you know it is yours must of necessity be Wrong And all your idle Greek Struggles will never be able to make it otherwise I must before I conclude take a little notice of your great Argument so formally laid down in your Second Paper which I had like to have over-look'd and forgot I confess it is here a little out of due place but it 's no great matter better here than no where lest you should think a meer Sense of its Strength frighted me from it The Argument in form appears thus An Ordinance once enjoyn'd and never repeal'd is always in force But the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoyn'd and was never repeal'd Ergo 'T is yet in Force Good now Sirs do so much as tell us what is the Question this Argument relates to or what is it brought to prove Sirs Do you urge this Argument to prove Infant-Baptism or do you not If not what Business has it here If you do certainly such an Argument was hardly ever laid down for such a purpose by any that pretended the least Skill in Logick For there is not the least mention of Infant-Baptism in any part of the Argument If you had intended the Proof of Infant-Baptism by it it ought to have run thus An Ordinance once enjoyn'd and never repeal'd is still in force But the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism was once enjoyn'd and was never repeal'd Ergo Infant-Baptism is still in force Now if you had argued thus and prov'd your Minor you had then done your Business But now Sirs what is it you have done by this Argument What Ordinance is this that was once enjoyn'd and never repeal'd One would think you must of necessity mean either Circumcision or Baptism If Circumcision then that 's in force still and 't is Circumcision you plead for If you mean Baptism then I deny your Minor and put you to prove that Baptism was ever enjoyn'd as an Ordinance upon Infants But if you mean neither but only a meer Incovenanting as you call it altho I do not well know what you mean by it neither do I understand any thing of such an Injunction separate from Circumcision yet for Discourse-sake I give it you pray take it and make your best of it Incovenant your Children as much as you will or can who shall hinder you But then you must not speak a Word of their Baptism by virtue of this Argument for it 's now suppos'd that this Argument neither mentions or means Baptism much less does it prove their Baptism So that you are as far to seek for Infant-Baptism as ever you were unless you had produc'd a Precept or an Appointment of God for that purpose otherwise all the Inconvenanting you talk of will do you no good For if God had never commanded Infants to have been Circumcised who durst have done it notwithstanding this Plea So if he had no where commanded Infants to be baptized who shall dare to do it notwithstanding the same Plea Altho you were sure you had it which I do not in the least believe tho I will not at this time dispute it Besides what need you care whether you have it or no for you that dare baptize your Infants without being enjoyn'd what need you care whether the other be enjoyn'd or no what need you trouble your selves whether Childrens incovenanting were once enjoyn'd or no or if it was what matter is it if it should be repeal'd You may as well baptize them of your own pleasure without this Plea as with it For if God never appointed it there 's no Plea for it but if he has appointed it there 's none against it So that if it be your pleasure that Infants shall be baptized you had as good insist upon your Churches Power and never trouble the World with an Argument about it And that will be the easiest way for you to answer the three Sheets and a half already publish'd as you it seems are inform'd by the joint Consent of the principal Anabaptist Preachers in London or any other of their Papers Because you know you have publickly oblig'd your selves to give a full answer to all the Questions in them or to any other Questions or Objections that can be sent to you in the mean time And the Remark that you make at the same time is so Remarkable that I shall make a Remark upon it Your Remark is this That surely had not the Anabaptists thought you had advanc'd something of moment in your two Mercuries about Infant-Baptism they would never have call'd in