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
A93282	The true church of Christ exposed to the view of all sober Christians, from the Word of God, sound reason, and the ancient fathers / by James Salgado, a Spaniard, a converted priest.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1681 (1681)	Wing S384; ESTC R42935	23,389	69

from a custom frequent among them in the Celecration of this Sacrament The reason why they affirm it is because they hold that Infants departing without Baptism cannot be saved but go into the Limbus Infantum a kind of Hole prepared to put Children into where they suffer paenam damni but not paenam seasus that is they are deprived of the Beatifick Vision of God though they are not under any sensible torment If then their Election which is unchangeable and their being under the Covenant of Grace which belongeth to them as well as to their Parents be not sufficient to save them because they were not baptized surely Baptism which maketh them capable to demand Heaven must by a physical vertue work those Graces whereby they may attain unto Salvation 2. They hold that none can be saved without the Bosom of the Church and that none can be reputed Members of the Church except such as have been baptized Moreover their Custom is to admit of the Baptism of Women providing the Form be observed in case of necessity which shews how absolutely necessary they esteem Baptism unto Salvation Having proved the Charge I shall demonstrate the Errour And first it is as certain That all Infants departing without Baptism are not deprived of the beatifick Vision as that David was saved who after death was to go to his Child that died without Circumcision 1 Sam. 12.18 23. in place whereof Baptism succeeded as appears from Coll. 2.11 12. And as certain as that the promise of Eternal Life doth belong to Infants which Argument is of the same force against the Anabaptists that deny the Seal to Infants to whom the promise belongs for which reason Peter did willingly confer Baptism upon some Converts Act. 2.38 39 as against the Papsts that deny Eternal Life to Children dying without Baptism although they be under the promise and Covenant of Grace for he that is under the Covenant of Grace or the Promises is in Christ and he that is in Christ will certainly be saved Therefore Children being under the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of Life will certainly be saved Acts 2.39 Eph. 2.12 But they object this Scripture Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3. ● whence they conclude that none can be saved without Baptism But I answer that nothing else is meant by this water and spirit but the holy Ghost himself who is compared to water because he washeth away our sins There is another expression like unto this in Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire that is the Holy Ghost shall purge you as fire doth Gold seven times refined So that these Expressions are Metaphorical and Figurative Virgil hath the like expression Pateris libamus auro We drink out of Cups and Gold that is out of Golden Cups so to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire is nothing else but to be baptized with a fiery Spirit and the same way are Christ's words concerning water and spirit to be understood wherefore what he saith here figuratively by way of Hendiadis he expressed in the third Verse in proper words except a man be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God So that it clearly appears from Christs own exposition that here is understood spiritual Regeneration and not the external washing with water in Baptism 2. We utterly deny that Baptism by women is valid and not to be reiterated They can only alledge the example of Zipporah that Circumcised her Son whence they argue that a Woman may as lawfully Baptize as Circumcise I shall not give the answer that is usual amongst some Divines viz. that Zipporah sinned in so doing for God never blesseth men for any sin as such but he did bless Moses for this action of Zipporah But I answer thus that Circumcision in the Old Testament was indifferently administred by any person by reason it was not so strictly joyned with the Ministerial Office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat. 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any to administer Baptism but such as are ordained for the Ministery Now we shall proceed to speak of the other Sacrament without regarding the rest of their five Sacraments that have no ground in the Scriptures nor the Fathers which is the Lords Supper According to sound Doctrine the Lords Supper is nothing else but a visible sign of an invisible Grace wherein by receiving of Bread and Wine is signified our receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ as a Seal of the Covenant of Crace tending to our Salvation We deny not that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in this holy Sacrament but we deny 1. That it is corporally present because it is circumscriptive and in Heaven and therefore cannot be every where 2. We deny that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead which point I shall chiefly insist upon As to the first the Papists do very much urge their Transubstantiation by which they understand nothing else but the Corporal presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine imagining that the substance of the Bread and Wine is turned to the first nothing out of which it was created and the accidents only do remain which affect our senses of sight feeling and taste The falshood and absurdity of this imagination I thus demonstrate 1. Neither the Word nor the thing is to be found in Scripture for after the Consecration it is called the Bread of which we are partakers 1 Cor. 10.17 Now if the Bread were annihilated how could we be partakers of it And moreover no Papist will allow that it be called Bread after Consecration which yet we see the Scripture doth 2. The Word it self is new and was never heard of before the Lateran Council when Berengarius was forced to recant the Truth and fall into a most abominable Errour namely that Christs Body is bruised by the Teeth and let down into the Belly c. 3. The Word is no way adapted to the thing yea Creation may be as well called Annihilation as this may be called Transubstantiation for Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation or turning of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into Water but the Papists say that in this case one substance is not turned into another but that the one namely the Bread and Wine is annihilated and the other namely the Body and Blood of Christ is induced under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine although they have a thousand distinctions here about the introducing of the Body and Blood of Christ under these accidents which I shall pass over so that it ought rather to be called an Annihilation of one substance and Introduction

Some of them as the Sorbonists do place it in the Council others as the Jesuits in the Pope alone and finally others in them both both joyntly Now chuse which of those you please you 'l find your self involv'd into inextricable difficulties and as I said before under a necessity to sacrifice to an unknown God which I shall shortly evince Let us suppose that the Church and her Infallibility consists in the Council alone you shall presently be contradicted by some men of that same Church But to pass this Whence pray doth it appear that this Council is infallible For first it is impossible that of things of one and the same nature there can be made up another thing of a quite contrary nature Therefore all the Members of which this Council consists being fallible how comes the Council it self to be infallible for if this Infallibility came but then to the Council when they met together to constitute one Synodical Body where pray' was it before in what corner of the World did it lurk from whence and in what manner did this good Infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council or what shall become of it after the Council is dissolved Where shall it compose its Head to rest that hath been tossed and wearied by so many janglings and Gramatications Moreover how shall you know that all the Members of the Council have been lawfully or at all baptized seeing you cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest or Old Woman that baptized them upon which the Efficacy of the Sacrament depends that they were Canonically ordained and not per saltum that they were not intruded by force or Simony All which are required to the constitution of a Bishop in suo formali And unless you can perswade your self that you believe all these with a Divine and Infallible Faith you cannot imbrace their Decrees for infallible Again if this Infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council there should be always extant such a Council to which disagreeing Parties might have recourse and receive a final determination of their Controversies that so all scruples being removed out of their minds they might live in peace and concord among themselves But where is all this to be found And if there were such a Council always in being which yet is impossible how should you know that this Council is not misguided by partiality that it is not as bad as that of Ariminum and needs not to be corrected by a subsequent Council as many Councils have been if we believe Augustine You 'l say perhaps that Christ promised unto his Disciples and consequently to the Church that the Spirit of truth shall come and guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16.18 For answer I deny not that Christ promised his Discipies the Holy Ghost but extraordinary things are not to be confounded with ordinary for they received both the matter and words of what they wrote from the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost but in after-Ages the Church was tyed to the Scriptures as sufficient for all manner of holy instruction Cal. 1.2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. which if the Fathers of the council do follow it is not to be doubted but God will afford them the assistance of his Spirit But it cannot be said that the Council doth hereby become infallible 2. When Christ saith that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church he doth not understand any particular Churches of their Bishops but the Universal Church which that it cannot erre in Fundamentals we believe and assert 3. How do you know that the Holy Spirit presides in this or that Council seeing the Council of Ariminum may be called a Council as well as the Nicene 4. How can you be sure of any Council that the Members thereof speak from a love to truth and desire of peace or from the Dictates of the Holy Ghost and not rather from partiality that their Decrees are framed more by the weight of Reason and Scriptures than by the multitude of Votes that it is not such as the Council of Trent to which as a Member of that Synod said the Holy Ghost was brought from Rome in the Bags of the Roman Pacquet and stayed longer away when the waters did rise but came quickly thither when they were sallen as being afraid to be wet or drowned 5. It 's ridiculous for a Papist to go about to prove the Infallibility of Councils from Scripture for I ask him this question Whence doth it appear that that Church is Infallible whose office it is both to make a Rule or Canon and to give Authority to the Scriptures for they hold that the Authority of the Scriptures as to us left depends upon the Church Now if the Church give the Scriptures their Authority as to us how can they convince us of the Authority of the Church Thus you see into what difficulties they involve themselves who place the Church with its Infallibility in the Council Nor is it less but rather more absurd to settle it in the Pope alone an Assertion so foolish and ridiculous that the very reciting of it might be a sufficient confutation namely to place the Church in one Man the Church I say which even though representative is formally a Congregation of many Nevertheless we shall proceed in the Method we have begun The Jesuits do generally hold this Opinion and affirm that the Pope alone like the Pythia of Delphos may frame Decrees and impose them upon the people But the forementioned difficulties return For how can you perswade your self that the Pope was Popable that he was rightly if at all baptized that he obtained not the Popedom by force by fraud or by Simony that he was a Man and not a Woman for we have an instance of a Woman Pope namely Pope Jone any of which being supposed renders the Pope no more a Pope Moreover How shall you know that the Pope when he went about the framing of his Decrees neglected not the usual preparations namely Fasting and Prayer for seven days c. that he acts by the advice of his Conclave and not rather from the dictates of his own private judgment or humor Now if these Conditions be wanting the Decrees are not pronounced from the Chair and therefore not infallible nor obligatory to the Conscience Further By what Argument can you be convinced that this Infallibility doth not belong to the Bishop of Paris for example as much as to the Bishop of Rome and that it cannot be removed from the Roman Chair for Gerson hath written a Treatise concerning the possibility of removing it Finally It cannot be conceived that one single man is Infallible in matters of Faith seeing he hath no promise of an Infallible Spirit and there are manifest examples of his having been actually deceived But perhaps you will sly to that Vulgar distinction of the