Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	apostle_n	holy_a	lord_n	6,631	5	3.5276	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45828	A peaceable enquiry into that novel controversie about reordination With certain close, but candid animadversions upon an ingenious tract for the lawfulness of reordination; written by the learned and Reverend Mr. J. Humphrey. By R.I.	I. R.	1661 (1661)	Wing I10A; ESTC R219975	68,572	176

distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will utterly subvert the other interpretation Yet there are three several answers each of which will take off the pretence of Timothies re-ordination 1. It is well known that several learned Divines do take that act in 1 Tim. 4.14 and that in 2 Tim. 1.6 to be one and the same ordination some say with the laying on the hands of the Presbyterie may be meant Pauls hands so Bishop Bilson Mr. Mason Calvin Gelaspy De gubern Ecc●● 252. and others others think that Pauls hands were not the hands of the Presbyteric yet that both Pauls hands and the Presbyters were laid on together De Min. Ang● p 44 45. in 1 Tim. 4. Misc Qu. p. 101. and so both concur in one ordination so then if either of these were true as I confess I dare make a point of faith of neither then there is no ordination to be found here 2. It s more probable that if these Texts must be understood of two ordinations that they were to two offices the first to an inferiour the second to a superiour office and perchance first to the office of a Presbyter and afterwards to the office of an Evangelist Gelaspy seems to lean this way Misc Qu. p. 90 103. It s observable indeed that in the first Epistle Paul never gives Timothy any higher Title then Bishop or Presbyter which now at last are acknowledged to be used by the Holy Ghost promiscuously but in the second Epistle wherein Paul mentions the laying on of his own hands he stiles him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and either here must be a twofold ordination or else Timothy was ordained per saltum or else his second ordination is not recorded 3. Some think and I think it is most probable that 2 Tim. 2.1.6 is not to be understood of ordination at all but of some special gift conferred by the laying on of Pauls hands 1. As Mr. Baxter saith It may be imposition of hands in confirination or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and the following effects of the spirit of power and love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of confirming grace admonishing him that he be not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of confirmation 2. That very expression stir up the gift doth seem to imply that gift to be gratia gratum faciens for it seems too improper to say stir up thy office 3. The Apostle doth somewhat critically use a divers particle in these two Texts in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Question is why should Paul use different words if these were not different acts I am not ignorant that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to set forth Pauls act in ordination because he was the Ordainer and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth the Presbyters act because they are only assistants in ordination But 1. This crotchet though ingenious yet it seems to be new 2. Altogether without proof 3. And it seems to contradict most of our Protestant Divines even Episcopal as well as others that acknowledge a power of ordination in Presbyters and that their ordination without a Diocesan is valid which they would not do had the Presbyterie no power of ordination at all 4. It supposes ordination in this Text which supposition is contrary to the two first probabilities that this gift was gratia gratum faciens and not gratia gratis data 5. In Acts 13. there is the same word used to signifie the act of the Doctors as was used to signifie the Act of the Prophets 6. This would overthrow their new interpretation of 1 Tim. 4.14 which is to put Presbyterium for the office with a Parenthesis in the Text to help the same and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Pauls act 7. It will overthrow that testimony of the Antients so much magnified for understanding by a Colledge of Presbyters a Colledge of D●ocesans for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie their act 8. If this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the Presbyters consent only then why should the Presbyters lay on hands any more then the people for the people were antiently to consent and to assist by their concurrence in prayer 9. If Presbyters are Ordainers with the Bishops as some confess then is it not against the nature of ordination for have not all ordainers the same causality 10. But further to speak the truth whether it make for me or against me these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often used promiscuously instances are not rare of using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for per and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cum And it is evident that the whole Church till of late for ought I yet see hath so understood the same in these Texts But to leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference any things it be not more probable that they difference the interpretation of the holy Ghost from an ordination then an ordination from an ordination But let it go how it will with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure I am that it is more probable either that Paul ordained ●ot Timothy at all or that he joyned with the Presbyters in their ordination or that the Presbyters ordained Timothy to one office and Paul afterwards to another a higher then that Paul ordained him to the same office to which he was ordained before All that I observe further in Mr. H. tract is the authority of Chemnitius and Baldwin Resol 1. Methinks it is a Question whether reordination be more credited by these two authorities or more discredited in that they are but two and two not of the Antients neither And though it is to be acknowledged that these two were learned and reverend Lutheran Divines yet no doubt there may be two score easily rallied against them and it may be as learned as they I believe no Reordained will ever adventure to pole authorities and if they will not number but weigh they will get but little But if they will needs urge me with their bare authority I must needs return to such an Ipse dixit as we were wont to return to the authority of Arist at Oxford Rationem Arist expecto non authoritatem Or our reverend Brother may be answered in his own words or rather St. Hieromes Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur But more particularly it is certain that Baldwin was against reordination as appears by his seventh Argument produced against it

A Peaceable Enquiry INTO THAT Novel Controversie ABOUT Reordination WITH Certain close but candid Animadversions upon an ingenious Tract for the lawfulness of Reordination Written by the Learned and Reverend Mr. J. HUMFREY By R. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 4 15. London Printed 1661. The Prefatory Epistle to the Reader Candid Reader SO I call you because I would have you for so I need you knowing much that I know but little even so much that consciousness of imbecillity had almost stupified conscience of duty and had those more antient more literate more judicious Classical Divines been but half so forward to vindicate their ordinations as they were to engage young Scholars to accept them I should have been a Reader ●wt●h you whilst such had been our Writers Though in other points they have done worthily yet shall I praise them in this I praise them not they have been almost wholly silent and therefore least the truth should suffer I have exposed these rude lines unto publick censure yet not Dictator-like dogmatically determining but Learner-like humbly yet closely enquiring and hence it is that you may observe so many Interrogations and other expressions which you may understand interrogatively yet this proceeds not from the clearness of my knowledge of unanswerable doubts but from unanswerable doubts of the clearness of my knowledge and where you find the most determinative expressions they are sometimes to be understood de posse non de esse and where they are to be understood de esse either in general commendations discommendations or otherwise you may do me right to distinguish both persons times and places more especially let not any construction be be put upon any expression contrary to the Authors intention that may produce the least disloyal reflexion upon the Kings most excellent Majesties Person or Authority whom I love and honour fear and obey pray and praise the Almighty for Neither let there be thought that here is the least unworthy aspersion cast upon the right reverend Bishops for so I dare stile them whom I honour for their Learning and Gravity Loyalty and Authority Nor any Citations Interrogations or Animadversions from or upon any book whatsoever be pressed with such an unnecessary construction as is unwarrantable or unworthy a Christian man And though Mr. John Humfrey be the very first in the Christian Church that ever I heard or read of that wrote a whole Tract for Re●●ination yet the reverend Author being learned and moderate the Tract ingenious and peaceable I should account it disingenuity to be abhorred to deal disingeniously in the least with such a person and though we are so unhappy as to differ not only about this point of Reordination but also about that other of general Admission yet these making no breach in the foundations of Christianity shall make no breach on my part in the bonds of fraternal charity Nay this I hope that peaceable humble spirits will promote charity by the candid management of their differences whilst proud and peevish spirits waste theirs about the very punctilio's of their unities A judicious pious person without passion or faction a Christian Catholick without a party is a Phenix no lesse excellent then rare Many have taught this way but few have trod it and fewer will there be when the necessary Evangelical terms of peace shall be slighted and new unnecessary additionals shall be advanced But yet if any shall break peace with me as an impossibility or illegality on their false terms yet I will keep peace with them if possible on better terms And verily what I have here written was not to kindle contentions but to allay them and he that will not believe me let him for his satisfaction but read Ecclesiastical History where to his grief he may observe what dividing scandalizing contentions have risen about Ordinations for the preventing whereof in the Church of England I have here produced an expedient in order to accommodation heartily imploring the Throne of Grace that our Protestant Bishops may never joyn with the Popish Idolatrous Prelates in decrying the Reformers and Reformation the reformed Churches Ministry and Administrations 1 King 22.24 Nor like Zedechias quarrel with Micha thus By what way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee Mat. 13.55 56. Nor like the Pharisees who said of Christ Is not this the Carpenters Son Whence then hath this man all these things Nor as the high Priest to the Apostles By what authority do ye these things I find a notable Instance in Petilian Acts 4 7. who pleaded the cause of the Donatists in the Council at Carthage against Saint Augustine who pleaded the cause of the Catholicks and having nothing as it were to say against Saint Augustine he fals a quarrelling about his ordination Tu quis es Filius Ceciliani an non Collat. Carth. tert art 227 c. Unde coepisti quem habes patrem Unde tua progenies ubi tuum caput Si non habes ergo haereticus c. Even so our reverend Prelatists have nothing against me and such as I who were neither fighters nor fomenters in the late unhappy wars neither perjured nor apostatical by breaking either Oath of Supremacy Allegiance or Canonical obedience or contradicting our subscription having never been exercised with them by reason of our minority We are no Covenanters no Engagers no Abjurers of the Royall Family and if others were engaged in rebellion in schism or the like we will not own them nor justifie them therein if we know it We abhor the murder of the late King the violations of the late Parliament the late Vsurpations the uncharitable oppression of several learned and pious Prelatists and those rebellious risings and mutinies since his Majesties return We now make it our business to preach up peace and purity truth and loyalty and waving contentions we labour for moderation and condoling the suppression of an honest party we would gladly rejoyce in an accommodation fearing not only the entangling impositions but also the dividing separation Oh I wish again and again that they had never questioned our ordination for sure I am it hath exceedingly hindred an accommodation of the old differences and promoted also new dissentions But for the removing this mountain out of our way to the Land of Peace I shall out of my penury offer this Manual of instruments prepared first for my private use wherein you have after the Question propounded 1. Certain distinctions in order to explication 2. Certain propositions for the stating of the Question 3. Certain argumentative Interrogations for further deliberation 4. Certain Solutions of Mr. J. Humfreys Arguments for better satisfaction 5. Certain concessions in order to an accommodation 6. Certain Considerations humbly offered to the Imposers of Reordination to perswade to moderation By which I hope to manifest to the world that we are not averse to peace but passionately