Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	bear_v	enter_v	kingdom_n	5,396	5	6.1932	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47535	Gold refin'd, or, Baptism in its primitive purity proving baptism in water an holy institution of Jesus Christ ... : wherein it is clearly evinced that baptism ... is immersion, or dipping the whole body, &c : also that believers are only the true subjects (and not infants) of that holy sacrament : likewise Mr. Smythies arguments for infant-baptism in his late book entitled, The non-communicant ... fully answered / by Benj. Keach ...	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1689 (1689)	Wing K68; ESTC R17190	114,897	272

Infant-Baptism is taken from Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Object The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants which is the greater therefore say you Baptism belongs to them also which is the lesser Answ 1. That the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children we have no cause to doubt But that they have a right to Baptism therefore is deny'd May not our Brethren infer from the greater to the lesser thus as well viz. Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven which is the greater thererefore to them belongeth the Lord's Supper which is the lesser and sure we are that those who are fit Subjects of Baptism ought not to be deny'd the Sacrament of Bread and Wine How often must we tell you that Baptism wholly depends as to Subject Time End and manner of Administration on the words of Institution 't is a positive Law we must go to the Pleasure and Will and Design of the Law-maker what may not Men infer after this sort 2. Were these little Children be ye sure the Children of Believers If you can't prove this what signifies all you say and how this can be made appear I see not for though Christ was then in the Coast of Judea yet that they were Children of Godly Parents is a great Question 3. If it should be granted they were Believers Children yet it doth not appear how little these Children were we have no account of their Age. And as the Learned observe the Greek work doth not always signify a little Child or Infant as appears by 2 Tim. 3. 15. where the same word is used they might be such who might be capable of teaching as far as we know But since Dr. Jer. Taylor Bishop of Down hath so fully answered this Objection pray take what he saith upon the place From the Action of Christ's blessing Infants saith he to infer that they were baptized proves nothing so much as there is a want of better Arguments for the Conclusion would with more probability be derived thus i. e. Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized But let this be as weak as its Enemy yet that Christ did not baptize them is an Argument sufficient that he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven than by Baptism he passed an Act of Grace upon them by Benediction and Imposition of Hands And therefore although neither Infants nor any Man in p●ris naturalibus can attain to a Supernatural End without the addition of some Instrument or Means of God's appointing ordinarily and regularly yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order as in the case of Infants we contend he hath not the Argument is invalid And as we are sure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized so we are sure God will do them no Injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help viz. if the Parents baptize them not Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable Soul to him but nothing is more unreasonable than because he hath tied all Men of Years and Discretion to this way therefore we of our own Heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his directions the Conceit is poor and low and the Action consequent to it is bold and venturous let him do what he please with Infants we must not Thus far the Doctor A second Scripture brought formerly by Doctor Featly and of late by divers others is that in Joh. 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Object There is no other way to regenerate and save Infants but by this of Baptism and so to add them to the Church therefore they ought to be baptized In some saith Mr. Isaac Ambrose the new Birth is wrought before Baptism as in the Eun●●h c. in others is the new Birth wrought in Baptism 〈◊〉 indeed is the Sacrament of the new Birth and Sea● of Regeneration but howsoever in Pedo-Baptism we see the outward Seal yet we seel not the manner of the inward working for this also is the secret of the Spirit Answ There is no pretended Proof for Infant-Baptism brought by the Asserters of it that I wonder at more than this especially considering how fully and excellently they are detected by several able Men of their own Party yet notwithstanding it seems to abide as a standing Doctrine in the National Church as witness their Catechism Baptism wherein I was made a Member of Christ a Child of God and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Pray see how excellently the late famous Stephen Charnock detects this Error It is not saith he External Baptism speaking of Regeneration many Men take Baptism for Regeneration the Ancients usually give it this term One calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration this confers not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external thing work upon the Soul in a physical manner Neither can it be proved that ever the Spirit of God is ty'd by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applyed to the Body If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground Baptism is a means of conveying this Grace when the Spirit is pleased to operate with it but it doth not work as a physical Cause upon the Soul as a ●rge doth upon the Humours of the Body for 't is the Sacrament of Regeneration as the Lord's-Supper is of Nourishment As a Man cannot be said to be nourished without Faith so he cannot be said to be a new Creature without Faith Put the most delicious Meat into the Mouth of a dead Man you do not nourish him because he wants a Principle of Life to concoct or digest it Faith only is the Principle of spiritual Life and the Principle which draws Nourishment from the Means of God's Appointment Some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion but how so active a Principle as a Spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so long even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable Thus far Mr. Charnock others we find to agree with him herein Amesius saith outward Baptism cannot be a Physical Instrument of infusing Grace because it hath it not in any wise in it self Our late Annotators agree directly with these nay Dr. Owen saith that the Father of Lies himself could not well have invented a more pernicious Opinion or which might pour in a more deadly Poyson into the Minds of Sinners If Baptism were meant here then no Man can be saved without being baptized But

or else think our Priviledges are less than theirs whereas indeed our Priviledges it appears are inlarged and far greater than theirs were and hence they longed many of them to see those things that we see c. Instead of being a fleshly Nation we are a holy 〈◊〉 a holy City a spiritual and holy Temple a Royal Priesthood and holy not carnal Church-Members Church-Members by Regeneration not by Generation not by the first Birth but by the new and second Birth if we and our Children have not the same Priviledges don't let us complain whereas God hath been more rich and bountiful to us we and our Children sit under the clear and glorious Revelation and Ministration of the Gospel can we or ours be losers by this Change Alas as far as Christ excels Moses and Aaron the Gospel the Law the Antitype the Type the spiritual Birth the carnal the extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea so far saith one are we better and not worse and our Priviledges not lesser but far greater our Children have great advantages in having such Parents and Ministers to instruct them to pray for them and to set before them a good Example besides as soon as capable they with others have the Gospel preached clearly to them and Grace offered and tendered universally to all far and near with Ho every one that thirsteth come ye to the Waters c. Isa 55. 1. The Spirit also is in a glorious manner communicated to inable them and others to believe now in the Gospel-days The Law was hard Do this and live and Circumcision laid them under a Bond to do and keep all that God in his Law required yea and under a Curse if they continued not in all things that were there injoyned which brought them into miserable Bondage and Captivity but now 't is but to believe and thou shalt be saved the Spirit saith the Scripture was not yet given to wit in that manner nor measure as afterwards because Christ was not yet glorified So that it is no Absurdity to grant that the Jews might have Priviledges in some things more than we and yet our Case and Condition with our Children to speak simply better than theirs tho the Covenant of Grace is not enlarged nor lessened in respect of the substance of it the Promises of Grace are still belonging to the Elect to those that were given to Christ to Believers and to no other nor never were but the Priviledges we have above them do abundantly recompence the defect of those Priviledges of theirs whether real or supposed And the truth is Priviledges are so arbitrary and various depending so much upon the Soveraignty of God that he gives them as he thinks good and oft-times takes them away without assigning any special Reason of it so that no Arguments can be drawn safely as our Brethren do viz. God gave such a Priviledg to the Jews therefore we must have such a Priviledg too except we can prove it is God's Will it should be so This Argument therefore is of no force without an Institution here we are again and here we will stand Circumcision wholly depended upon a positive Law 't is in vain therefore to attempt to prove that because the Jews had a Priviledg to circumcise their Children therefore we must have a Priviledg to baptize our Infants sith they had a Command to do what they did and we have none besides we have shewed there is no Scripture that proves the Baptism of Infants is a Priviledg granted by the Lord in lieu of Circumcision it being indeed no Duty or Priviledg at all Lastly before I close with this take what Mr. Danvers says If it should be taken saith he for granted that Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant belonging to all the Children of Israel then would not the baptizing of the Children of Believers answer it neither amount to so great a Priviledg nor be equivalent to it for these Reasons 1st There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel and all proselyted Strangers with their Children without distinction of good or bad to be circumcisied But here only one of a City and two of a Tribe for Believers are but thin sown and the Children of Unbelievers and wicked Men are to receive no such benefit in the Judgment of many And 2dly You would be very short in another respect as being at an utter uncertainty when you have a right Subject for if the Parent is an Hypocrite or no elect Person which is out of your reach to understand you cannot know whether the Child be fit for Baptism for the Seed of a wicked Man you must not meddle with by any means whereas there was not the least doubt or scruple in Israel as to the Subject for the Father being one of Abraham's Seed and circumcised it was an infallible mark they were right And 3dly neither can the Child when he is grown up have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony had past upon him in Infancy he having no infallible mark thereof whereas the circumcised Infant had an infallible Character and Mark in his Flesh to assure him that he had received that Rite Object But what hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted unto Christian Baptism nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the Faithful Answ We answer First if the hope of the Parent for the Child's Salvation be grounded upon the Administration of an external Rite or Ordinance in Infancy then neither had the Patriarchs for above two thousand Years any hope of their Children sith they had neither Circumcision Baptism nor any other External Rite which we find otherwise by Noah's Prophecy Gen. 9. 26 27. Secondly We ask whether God hath left it in the Power of the Parent to save or destroy the Soul of his Child which your Doctrine doth import Thirdly We demand what hopes are intended and by what Scriptures the same are annexed to the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy Fourthly We do say there is a ground of hope in Believers in behalf of their Children which is grounded upon plain Scripture without baptizing them Fifthly Doth Baptism confer Grace or regenerate the Child Though some have ignorantly asserted that yet we find many of you of another mind Sixthly This Argument seems to carry in it this Conclusion i. e. That Christian People by Infants Baptism are assured according to Gospel-grounds of the Salvation of their Children But there is no Proof for it it is but a Fancy and we suppose 't is not received as a Truth by many that oppose us in this Point CHAP. XI Wherein many other pretended Scripture-Poofs and Arguments for the baptizing of Infants are answered as that Suffer little Children to come unto me c. and Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God c. THE next main Proof that is brought for

c. l. 2. c. 2. Treatise of Sacr. par 1. c. 8. p. 177. Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. An. D. 816. Conc. Flor. §. 9. c. 9. lib. of Infant Baptism p 693. Ductor Dubit l. 3. c. 4. Reg. 15. Num. 9. St. Martins Life N. 16. Diatribe on Titus 3. 2. Pan. Cathol Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Annotat. on John 13. Mat. 3. Pool ' s Annotat. Ball. Book 1. Cap. 40. Wilson Diodate Annotat. Pool's Annotat. Joh. 3. 23. See Mr. Gosnold's Doctrine of Baptism pag. 20. * Pool ' s Annot. on Joh. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 16. Acts 8. 38 39. Rogers in his Treatise of the two Sacraments part 1. chap. 5. Casaubon on Mat. 3. 11. Calvin on Act. 8. 38. Cajetan on Mat. 3. 5. Muscul on Mat. 3. Pool's Annotat Cajetan Assemblies Annotat. Tilenus in his Disput p. 886 889 890. on Rom. 3. 4● * Or Grave Ambrose See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 29. * Ignat. Epist ad Tral id Epist ad Philadelp Justin Martyr Basil the Great † Basil of Seleucia Chrysostom Ambros ‖ Lactant. Bernard See Continuat of Pool's Annotat on Mat. 3. 6. St. Bernard Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 2. 38. p. 78. Aquinas Calvin l. 4. c. 16. Zanchy Chrysostom Prim. Christianity p. 320. Paraeus upon Ursi● p. 375. Austin Annotat. on Rom. 6. 4. Dr. Taylor in his Book of Proph. p. 242. Woy great Afflictions are called Baptism See Continuation of Mr. Pool's Annotat. on Mat. 20. 22 Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. Luk. 3. 16. What it is to be baptized with the Spirit Mat. 28. 20 Act. 10. 46. Dr. Du Veil on Act. 1. 4 5. Oecumenius on Acts 2. 2. See Key to open Script Metaphors lib. 4. p. 36. Philologia Sacra p. 190. Treat of Bapt. p. 62. See Continuation of M r. Pool's Annotat. on 1 Cor. 10. 1 2. Mark 16. 15. Object Answ Pool ' s Annotat on Mat. 28. 20. Pool ' s Annotat on Acts 11. 26. Baxter on Confirmation and Restauration pag. 27. See Mr. Tomes's Book call'd Felo de se Baxter's Dispute of Right to Sacraments p. 149. See Danvers on Baptism p. 2 3. Danvers Book of Baptism p. 3 4. Perkins Paraeus * Gal. 4. 26. Act. 8. 12. Act. 8. 36 37. Pools Annotat on Act. 8. 37. Baxter on Confirmat p. 27. Act. 10. 45 47 48. Acts 16. 31 32 33. Acts 18. 8. Luther Tom. 3. fol. 168. cited by Mr. Danvers p. 8. on Baptism Baxter's 2d Disputation p. 149. Acts 20. 2 Thess 2. 7. 1 John 2. 18. Acts 1. 3. Act. 10. 41. 〈…〉 Rom. 6. 3 4 5 6. Pareus Perkins Case of Consc p. 177. Baxter on Confirm p. 32. Bullinger upon Acts 2. 38. Baxter on Confirm p. 30 31. Bullinger on Act. 2. 38. Tit. 3. 5. Baxter in his Disput with Mr. Blake p. 117. as quoted by Mr. Danvers 1 Pet. 3. 21. Pool ' s Annotat on Tit. 3. 5. 1. Argument Arg. II. Acts 8. Arg. III. Vnion of the Church 4th Book of Instit c. 16. De Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 27. Magdeb. in Cent. 1. l. 2. p. 496. Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. IV. Pool's Annotat on Act. 20. 27. Arg. V. Athanasius against the Gentiles Isychius lib. 5. 6. 16. on Levit. Chrys on 2 Thes. 2 Tim. 3. Aug. to the Brethren in the Wildern Lib. 2. of Christian Doctrine c. 3. In his 198 Epistle to Fortunat. Luther upon Gal. 1. 9. Basil in his Sermon de side Calvin l. 4. Instit c. 8. Sermon 8. Theoph. lib. 2. Paschal Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. l. 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. Arg. VI. Arg. VII Arg. VIII I. Argument from the Covenant made with Abraham Mat. 3. 7 8 9. Chrysost Theophilact Pag. 117. Calvin on Gen. 17. 7. Estius Anno Gen. 17. 7. Agr. Blake p. 6. * If he had said Those who are born of the Spirit are spiritual he had spoke Truth Jer. 31. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down p. 228. Levit 10 1 2. Gen. 17. 10 12 14. Mr. Smythies Vnworthy Communicant p. 88. 1 Pet. 2. 5 * For tho a time for the Worship of God is moral yet the seventh day of the Week was a meer positive Law given only to the People of Israel Baxter on Confirmation Rom. 8. Act. 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. Joh. 7. 39. Danvers on Bapt. p. 180. Besides they are at a loss to know what to do if the Father only or the Mother only is a Believer Christ blessed little Children 't is not said he baptized them Nay 't is said he baptized not any with his own hands Joh. 4. 1 2. therefore no Infants Dr. Taylor p. 230. Ambros. New Birth in p. 13. Charnock on Regener last sol p. 75. Amesius in Bell. Enervat Tom. 3. l. 2. c. 3. Pool's Annotat. on Joh. 3. 5. Dr. Owen in his Theol. l. 6. c. 5. p. 477. Dr. Taylor 's Liber of Proph. p. 231. The Proof from whole Housholds examined The Second whole Houshold The third whole Houshold The fourth Houshold The Promise is to 〈◊〉 and to 〈…〉 Act. 2. 3● 〈◊〉 Act. 2. 37. Eph. 2. 13. Pools Annot on Act. 2. 39. The Proof for Infant-Baptism Else were your Children unclean c. answered Pool's Annotat. on 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2 Pet. 1. 20. Smythies Non-communicant p. 88. Mr. Danvers Treat of Bapt. p. 165 166. Ambrose Melanct. Camerar Erasmus Baptism only a positive Law who the Subjects of it are depends wholly upon the Will of God c. Mr. Smythies Argument that Infants are Believers Faith nor Baptism is not required of Infants yet they may be saved Dr. Taylor p. 230. * See Joh. 2. 23 cap. 8. 30 31 44. * I am forc'd to repeat this often because there is the like occasion given and it is a full Answer to all such Inferencse What Confusion is here among the Pedo-Baptists Dr. Taylor Dr. Taylor p. 242. Mr. Sidenham's Treatise Jer. 7. 31. Ezek. 43. 8. ●uther in Post●l Tertullian in his Book of Bapt. ●ap 18. Heb. 9. 10. John 12. Heb. 6. 1 2 3. Curcellaeus ●nstitut Relig. Christian l. 1. c. 12. For the Doctrine of Free-will Falling away totally from a state of true Grace c. are not look'd upon as capital Errors viz. such as will exclude Men out of the Kingdom of Heaven 1 Cor. 9. 7 8 9 10 11 12. Matth. 10. 10. Luk. 9. 3. * Eph. 5. 18 19. Col. 3. 16. † Some good Christians are not willing to take up one Ordinance and so joyn in with the Baptists and thereby lose another which they believe is as great and a most sweet and Soul-consolating one Prov. 4. 18. Cant. Dr. Featly and Mr. Baxter formerly contracted no small Guilt and Shame to themselves upon this respect see Dipper dipped writ by Featly * 1 Cor. 5. 1 2. Baxter in his Book Principle of Love p. 7. 2 Cor. 1. 12. Act. 8. 12. Mat. 28. 19 20. Acts 8. 12. Acts 16. 23. Mr. Danver's Book of Baptism p. 212 213 214. Heb. 9. 12 13. 1 Joh. 1. 7. Joh. 3. 3. Charn on Regenerat p. 75. Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 244. Mat. 3. 16. Act. 10. 47. Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 1 Thess 2. 14. Gal. 3. 27. Pool's Annotat on Rom. 6. 3. Eph. 4. 5. Pool's Annotat on Heb. 6. 1 2. Second Apology to Ant. Pius the Roman Emperor c. 8. §. 5. August Ursin in his Catechism Antiq Christianae p. 374. Marrow of Div. p. 181 Elton on Col. 2. 11. p. 291. Discourse of the Covenant p. 226 Assemb Catechism Plain Scripture Proof p. 24. 2 Sam. 6. 6 7. Rom. 14. 1.