Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	holy_a	6,403	5	6.2103	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50248	A defence of the answer and arguments of the synod met at Boston in the year 1662 concerning the subject of Baptism and consociation of churches against the reply made thereto, by the Reverend Mr. John Davenport, pastor of the church at New-Haven, in his treatise entituled Another essay for investigation of the truth &c. : together with an answer to the apologetical preface set before that essay, by some of the elders who were members of the Synod above-mentioned.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1664 (1664)	Wing M1271; ESTC W19818	155,430	150

Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order For the Synod thinks that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority so they still continue therein and the contrary we have not yet seen proved As for the Shechemites c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them and yet Baptism not so when administred to the children in question For if the former were not in the Church yet these are and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives these other are farre from any such thing and therefore there is no comparison between the former and these spoken of but a vast difference And we may adde further That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest and the persons spoken of both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation so in respect of this latter these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Iacob to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred We may instance in Simeon and Levi who committed that odious Cruelty and Blood-shedding for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death Gen. 49. And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these they abiding in the Family of Jacob how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question or be said to be profaned when administred to them sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God and were never cast out nor deserving any such thing but do still continue therein and for life and conversation are farre from any such Scandal and Crime as was found in the Sons of Iacob aforesaid One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit c. Ans. This is no just ground of denying Baptism to the children in question except it could be proved that neither they nor their Parents are in the Church of God nor of his Family which yet we have not seen proved The regular and lawfull use of Baptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith viz. Faith for Iustification with Abraham who is to use it either upon himself or upon his infant To use it being not so qualified visibly is it not a treacherous usurping of the Great Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth Ans. Neither doth this make against the Baptism of the children in question forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God I will be a God to thee and to thy seed in their generations and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition cannot be denied to have Faith visibly as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition and in this Defence formerly Sure it is these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly as the Sons of Iacob afore-mentioned and as many in the Church at Corinth of whom it is said that they were culpable for carnall Dissentions going to Law Fornication Vncleannesses and not repenting thereof 1 Cor. 1. 3. 6. and 2 Cor. 12. and yet being in the Church and professing Christianity we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized and the children of Iacobs Sons circumcised and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition though the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children For it is evident these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians and in Reuben Simeon and Levi but are much more innocent yea commendable So much for Defence of the second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition against what the Reverend Author in his Answer thereto saith in his Digression and turning back to the Proposition foregoing The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition is Because God accepteth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred as in David to build the Temple 1 Kings 8. in Abraham to sacrifice his Son Heb. 11.17 and in that of Alms 2 Cor. 8.12 As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto and Baptized in voto because there was no want of desire that way though their desire was not actually accomplished To which the Answer of the Reverend Author is That this may hold in private service so that there God accepts the will for the deed when the acting of it is hindred but in publick service he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so farre as to bring them into publick state and order whatever their desires and endeavours have been And he instanceth in one that desireth to be a Minister and yet may not do the acts of that Office afore he be in Office and in such as desire to joyn to the Church but may not be received to the Seals afore they be so joyned Whereto the answer is That what is here said is insufficient as being not suitable to the case in hand which is not concerning such as are out of Church-state and order as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it though their actual entring were hindred For it is evident that the Synod speaks not of such but of such as are Church-members already onely have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another purpose viz. for the more orderly clear and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children themselves though being in the state and order of Church-members having not yet been received to the Lords Supper It is evident that the Synod speaks of such persons and of actings for such an end viz. of persons already in Church-estate and acting for the end aforesaid and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end though their actings as aforesaid have been inevitably hindred Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all though they do desire it and of them he saith that these desires are not sufficient for their admission unto Church-priviledges when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred between which and those spoken of by the Synod there is great difference so that if what he faith were granted yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby but though desire of office or of Church-estate be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one or

Anabaptist's onely reason why they dislike Infant baptism is Because they fancy to themselves that the Church would be more pure if we baptized none but the adult and such as hold forth evidences of the Spirit and so they think but a few would have place in Churches But by this means doubtless it would come to pass that many of Christs Sheep would be neglected as Goats neither would all Parents be so careful as they think in educating their Children unto piety And yet this humane thought which savours of too much esteem of our own works doth so possess them that they bring all to this and turn off all that can be said and hereby they run themselves into very great errours I called it an humane thought for no Scripture doth command such a curious circumspection lest any Goats should be received into the Church The Apostles often baptized persons with whom they had scarce had an hours speech concerning Christ because according to the Parable of the Gospel they would bring in all they met with to the Marriage Mat. 22.10 For by Baptism they only took them into the School of Piety and Trained-hand of Christians and they were wont then to cast them out again when it was evidently enough perceived that to labour in teaching them was in vain Ibid. fol. 53. As for Parker his speaking mainly against the admitting or tolerating of Manifestarii peccatores The notoriously wicked and pleading to have them debarred from the Lords Table or cast out by the use of Discipline His frequent approbation of the Principles of the Reformed Churches And in special his approving of their admitting Members not before of their Body upon such like qualifications as are contained in the Synods fifth Proposition Also his earnest and peremptory rejecting the Opinions and Principles of the Anabaptists and Separatists and declaring himself and the Non-Conformists whose Cause he acted to be farre from them These and such like do clearly shew that Worthy man to be no Opponent of such an extent of Baptism as is contained in the Conclusions of the Synod But here our Brethren will needs take notice that the judgment of that worthy and for ever famous Mr. Cotton was as theirs is because he hath these words in Holiness of Church-members pag. 93 I conceive under favour more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old Ans. The Reader will take notice of what hath been before said and cited to shew Mr. Cottons judgement in the Points controverted between our Brethren and the Synod and will easily thereby judge whether Mr. Cottons judgement was as theirs is but It is strange they should make such a Collection from what is here set down Mr. Cotton might say those words that are here expressed and yet his judgement be farre enough from being as theirs is in any of the Points that are controverted for we shall not gainsay this Conception of Mr. Cottons That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church members of the New Testament then of the Old but concur with it in two respects or for two causes 1. Because the Light now is greater and clearer then it was then and where more is given more is required Luke 12.48 2. Because the Discipline appointed under the Old Testament was mostly Ceremonial Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 38. Thes. 41. And whether Excommunication for Moral evils was then used at least out of the National Church is by some doubted As also whether persons were debarred from the holy things simply for Moral evils if they were ceremonially clean as Mr. Cotton in the place here alledged saith It is true that it is a question whether sins very scandalous did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices But under the New Testament we have a plain and undoubted Rule for the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils persisted in hence persons might haply run further into Moral evils and so further off from the fruits of Regeneration then and yet not be put out of the Church yea haply not be debarred from the holy things then they can do now But what is all this to the matter in hand for still it is not secret irregeneration nor the bare want of such and such positive fruits of Regeneration without positive and palpable ●ruits of Irregeneration that will according to any Rule God hath given us put any man out of the Church when he is once in Nay Mr. Cotton in the very place here cited expresly saith that Irregeneration alone will not keep a man out His words are these Neither amongst us doth Irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us not Irregeneration alone I say unles it be accompanied with such fruits as are openly scandalous and do convincingly manifest Irregeneration Moreover still the parallel between the Church of the Old and of the New Testament stands and holds in this that when a person is once by Gods appointment taken into the visible Church whether in adult age or in infancy it comes all to one for that he continues in it and doth not lose his Membership till by some Rule or Appointment of God in his Word he be cut off or cast out What the particular Rules and wayes of cutting off were in the Old Testament we need not here dispute but to be sure the plain Rule in the New Testament for the cutting off of particular persons is by the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils But while we grant that in some respects more positive fruits in regard of degree might be required in the Old Testament let none so understand it as if Regeneration was not required as all unto the Constitution and Continuation of the visible Church in the Old Testament but that a meer carnal succession was then allowed of without regard to Regeneration For they sto●d by Faith and were br●ken off by Vnbelief as well as we Rom. 11. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righte●usness of faith as well as Baptism Faith and Repentance do not now more constitute the Covenant of God then it did in the time of Abraham who was the Father of the Faithful saith Dr. Ames Yea our brethren do in their Antisynodalia pag. 17. expresly say That the Covenant made with Abraham and the Circumcision of his seed was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was i. e. that he should walk with God by Faith and Obedience And it is observeable that no where is Regeneration and the fruits thereof required of Gods Covenant people in stricter and fuller terms then in the Old Testament Gen. 17.1 Deut. 10.12 26.16 17. 1 Kings 8.23 Psal. 103.17 18. Isa. 56.4 6. And yet the Lord who is the best interpreter of his own Rules continued them in the Church and accounted them among the number of his holy people till palpall● and incorrigible fruits of Irregeneration were found