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	scripture_n	6,970	5	5.7262	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90803	A relation of a dispute of baptisme of infants of Christians at Holgate in the county of Salop, Maii. 30. 1650. betwixt P. Panter, Dr. in Divinitie, rector of the place, and Mr. Brown, preacher to the Anabaptists in that circuit.	Panter, P.; Brown, Mr.	1650 (1650)	Wing P274A; ESTC R43711	11,586	16

5. and our Saviour himselfe saying that a man is borne againe by the Water and Spirit To these words of Scripture he replyed nothing but talkt still of regeneration and making the sonnes of God by Faith which indeed an effect rather of regeneration and holy Spirit then a cause he endeavoured to confirme by these words Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the Law or by the hearing of Faith Ioh. 1. 12. where he speaketh of the first receivers of Christ being in the world as appeareth verse 10. 11. before where as Gal. 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hearing of Faith is the hearing of the Gospel which is the Doctrine of Faith for it is opposed there to the Law of Moses so the Spirit there spoken of is the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit to the doing of Miracles as it is after verse 5. not the ordinary gift of sanctification for then all the Churches of Galatia had been inwardly sanctified beside that receiving of the Spirit by Faith doth not exclude the Sacraments every one working in their owne way and order for particulares affirmantes nec contradicunt nec contrariae sunt ●●fth proofe ●rom exam●●es ●cts 16. 14 15. Here the Answerer did call for an example of Infant-Baptisme in all Scripture and did reade to all the Auditors an example of beleevers baptized Wherefore the Arguer brought first the example of Lydia's household baptized where mention is onely of her hearing and beleeving next an insinuation of Iohns That little Children had their sinnes forgiven in his Joh. 2. 12. Name where there is an expression of the forme of Baptism at least a part of it as 1 Cor. 6. 11. But now ye are washed sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus To the first he begun to cavil that Lydia had not a Husband which was more then he could affirme howsoever she had a Family said the Arguer To the second he said first that these Children were of ripe yeares as having Iohns Epistle directed to them next that In the Name of the Father was in the power of the Father which he said it signified principally and properly apparantly mistaking himselfe for frequently saying properly and principally for he cannot be so ignorant to think either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Synonyma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significare magis robur quam nomen ex vi vocis for that is proper thirdly that the words 1 Cor. 6. 11. were said to them of yeares who sometime were theeves c. fourthly that the distinction there was not of age but of gifts and some were called Little Children for their gifts of mind accordingly Against which the Arguer did insist and first that it did not prove that they were of ripe yeares because S. Iohn wrote to them for Epistles may be designed for them that are not yet able to reade them as whatsoever was written before in former ages was written for our instruction Rom. 15. 4. Next suppose they had been able to reade then when S. Iohn wrote yet he putteth them in mind of forgivenesse of sinnes before obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atticè pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is praeteritum perfectum but the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. being a Diminutive with the opposition not only to Fathers but also to young men the like of which is not when there is a Spirituall Childhood onely insinuated for then the opposition is onely to perfect men doe sufficiently shew their age Neither is the Question to whom the Apostle speaketh in that place to the Corinthians but whether there Baptisme and the form of it be not insinuated So that In the Name of the Father or Sonne as there in the 1 Joh. 2. 12. Name of the Lord Jesus are paralell and like phrases neither doth the use of the word Name of God sometime transferred to signifie his Power whether in Greek or Hebrew make any thing against the forme of Baptisme insinuated in the words of S. Iohn for when we are baptized In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and Holy-Ghost not onely is it in Name and Authoritie from him but also in the Power of him accompanying the calling of his Name upon us Neither if any should object which he did not remarke ● Joh. 2. 14. That they are said to have knowne the Father doth that prove that either they had that knowledge before Baptisme although when he wrote it may be they were beginning to know him or that even then their knowledge was such as the Anabaptist requireth for Children begin betimes to know their Parents according to that of the Poet Incipe parve puer risu cognoscere matrem and to this small measure of knowledge accompanying Infancie it selfe the Apostle seemeth to allude writing to these little ones as he alludeth to that which is incident to youth-head and old-age writing to the other 2 distinctions of age wisdome in old men strength in young men Beside that the receiving of Baptism is a sort of acknowledgment of the Father not mentall but real whence Sacramentum fidei professionis Christianae dicitur although after following Sixth proofe From the types and figures of Baptisme This proofe the Adversarie did shift saying That it was nothing to the purpose what was among the Jewes and that they had no reference to our Sacraments That a type could not be a type of another type where the Disputer askt If Baptisme was to be called a type the other answering That it represented Christs death and buriall The Doctor insisted That albeit in a large extent of the word it might be called a type yet not according to Ecclesiasticall use of the word in which it is joyned to figures shadowes which are abolished for Baptism is not a shadow but a putting off of the body of sin Heb. 10. 1. Col. 2. 11 12. yea S. Peter saith the Ark was a type of baptism 1. Old Circumcision answering to the Circumcision of Christ which is Baptisme Col. 2. 11 12. Alwayes albeit he shifted them here I set them downe and first Gircumcision to which not onely succeeded but answereth our Baptisme Now it was bestowed upon Children as soone as possible for Nature to endure it and God had dealt more hardly with our Children then with the Jewes if he had not provided for us a meane and conveyance of Grace to us as well as to them his Covenant Here they said they recommended their Children by prayer to God but this answereth not to a Sacrament which the Jewes had beside prayer 2. Baptisme in the Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10. The second prefiguration of Christian Baptisme was the baptisme of the Israelites unto Moses in the Cloud and Sea wherein as the Children were as well as their Parents yea pars magna for the Fathers were but a many of them not all

Doctor Neverthelesse it will follow that as to the Jewes albeit as yet the Parents were onely called the Promises were made both to them and to their Children so to the Gentiles of whom we are albeit the Parents be first called yet the Promise is made to their Children also if they be baptized for onely upon the receiving of Baptisme the Promise was to be effectuall Hence he fell a questioning Whether Children were capable of remission of sinnes and of the gift of the Holy-Ghost who is called the Promise of the Father Acts 1. 4. especially by Baptisme At which he and his company mocked saying Naamanlike Can a little sprinkling of water doe it Albeit it be the expression of the Holy-Ghost himselfe by S. Paul Tit. 3. 5. calling Baptisme the washing of new birth and renewing of the Holy-Ghost Which gave occasion to the third proofe following to wit ●●ird proofe ●●… 5. 26. That Infants of beleevers being a part of the Church Christs Spouse are sanctified by the washing of water in the Word the Argument was thus The Church is sanctified by the washing of water in the Word But Infants are a part of the Church Therefore must be sanctified by the washing of water in the Word Mr. Browne answered first to the Conclusion ●●ainst the ●●● of Lo●●● denying their sanctifying to be by Baptisme but by the bloud of Christ To which the Dr. replyed That prima causa non tollit secundam nor the principall tooke away the effect of the instrument Christs death though it have vertue enough yet it must be applyed by some meane and Baptisme to be one of these meanes appeareth not onely by this place but also by Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 3. 12. Whosoever are baptized unto Christ are baptized into his death we are buried with him by Baptisme into his death After he begun to cavill about the Proposition called major That the sanctifying of the Church here is expressed not onely by Washing but by the Word To which the Argumentator did grant That to the Church in adultis it was but the Question was of that part of the Church which as yet were not capable of the Word wherewith else then with Baptisme are they sanctisied either so or not at all to speake in the way of Gods ordinarie dealing not of his absolute power Beside that the Word there may be understood of the Sacramentall Word which comming to the element of Water maketh it a Sacrament and giveth the vertue and blessing For unde est saith Austin that aqua corpus tangens animam abluat est a verbo Hence he fell to the denying of the minor That Infants were not a part of the Church using the distinction of visible and invisible that they were not of the visible Church which is as much as not to be of the Church Militant at all for beside that the Church and the Profession and Sacraments thereof are visible and so compared to a Citie on a Mountaine none are of the invisible ●●tth 5. 14. Church but such as are of the visible it being but a part of the whole qualified in certain respects so as she is not discernable to man but to God who alone knoweth the hearts of the children of men neither can there be any Church but that which is called either by Word or Sacraments as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Companie of the Called doth prove beside the children of the Israelites were of the visible Church Fourth pro●●●… 1. Pet. 3. 21 Hence the Dr. argumented from the similitude of Baptisme and the Arke of Noah which for the exactnesse of it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beza rendreth it correspondens exemplar others expressa forma such as in Wax or Coyne whence he argued thus by a double Argument first The Arke of Noah is like Baptisme caetera But without the Arke by Gods appointment none were saved Therefore without Baptisme none saved ordinarily and so the Infants salvation by you hazarded secondly Baptisme saveth as the Arke But the Arke saved Noah and his household Heb. 11. 7. Therefore Baptisme by Gen. 7. 1. the Law of example saveth us and our house-hold To the first he answered with an upbraiding of Poperie which the Argumenter said he had no reason to challenge who complyed so much with them in other things but the Question was not What the Papists but what the Scriptures said whom he made his Judge To the second he answered That no young ones were in the household of Noah against which it was insisted by the Disputer That if they had been they had not been excluded the reason for their safetie in the Arke being the same in young ones and elder Children because they did belong to Noah who had found favour with God Neither was Gen. 6. 8. it the personall Faith of Cham that made him be received into the Arke last of all he fell to crosse the first words of S. Peter by his following words Not the laying away of the filthenesse of the flesh but the asking of a good Conscience towards God through the resurrection of Iesus Christ. Whereupon the Dr. began to cleare these words shewing that nothing was intended in them derogatorie to Christian Baptism for then he should give with the one hand and take from it with the other which if it were why did he mention Baptisme and not a good Conscience alone But what he speaketh against the putting away of the filth of the body is against their washings and purification for to the Jewes dispersed he writeth which also the Apostle to the Hebrewes almost in the Heb. 9. 10 13. same expressions doth calling them Ordinances or justifications of the flesh and purifyings as touching the cleannesse of The words of S. Peter containe non oppositionem to Baptisme but Appositionem the flesh like to which Baptisme doth not save us as not being a putting off the silth of the flesh but the asking of the Conscience or that which maketh the Conscience ask God and cry Abba Father for it is a Metonymie effectus pro causa it s the asking of the Conscience towards God that is the meane or cause instrumentall of our approach to God it being the Laver or washing of new birth and so making us the Children of God Here the Answerer startled What saith he Are we made Gods Children by Baptisme Whereupon some present not evill affected would have mitigated or denyed the assertion but the Arguer not moved askt Mr. Browne Whether that were so strange an expression to him who had so often uttered it both Child and Minister Had he forgotten the words of the English Catechisme Answer to the very second Question To which he replyed That he had indeed sometime taught so but he was otherwayes illightned now so that he accounted it Blasphemie Then said the Arguer the Apostle blasphemeth calling it the washing of new birth Tit. 3.