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
A61588	A rational account of the grounds of Protestant religion being a vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's relation of a conference, &c., from the pretended answer by T.C. : wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared and the false discovered, the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of schism, and the most important particular controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined / by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1665 (1665)	Wing S5624; ESTC R1133	917,562	674

their own Opinions to their posterity but to retain the Tradition of their Fore-fathers As though the other side could not say the same things and with as much confidence as they did but all the Question was What that Tradition was which they were to retain The one said one thing and the other another But as Rigaltius well observes Vincentius speaks very truly and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions And whether this doth not often come to pass let the world judge Now therefore when these persons on both sides had incomparably greater advantages of knowing what the Vniversal Apostolical Practice was than we can have and yet so irreconcilably differ about it what likelihood or probability is there that we may have greater certainty of Apostolical Tradition than of the Writings of the Apostles Especially in such matters as these are in which it is very questionable Whether the Apostles had any occasion ministred to them to determine any thing in them And therefore when Stephen at Rome and those of his party pleaded custom and consequently as they thought Apostolical Tradition it was not irrationally answered on the other side by Cyprian and Firmilian that that might be Because the Apostles had not occasion given them to declare their minds in it because either the Heresies were not of such a nature as those of Marcion and Cerdon or else there might not be such returnings from those Heresies in the Apostolical times to the Church which being of so black a nature as to carry in them such malignity by corrupting the lives of men by vicious practices there was less probability either of the true Christians Apostatizing into them or the recovery of such who were fallen into them To this purpose Firmilian speaks That the Apostles could not be supposed to prohibit the baptizing of such which came from the Hereticks because no man would be so silly as to suppose the Apostles did prohibit that which came not in question till afterwards And therefore S. Augustine who concerned himself the most in this Controversie when he saw such ill use made of it by the Donatists doth ingenuously confess That the Apostles did determine nothing at all in it but however saith he that custom which is opposed to Cyprian is to be believed to have its rise from the Apostles Tradition as there are many other things observed in the Church and on that account are believed to have been commanded by the Apostles although they are no where found written But what cogent argument doth S. Austin use to perswade them this was an Apostolical Tradition He grants they determined nothing in it yet would needs have it believed that an Vniversal Practice of succeeding ages should imply such a determination though unwritten But 1. The Vniversal Practice we have seen already was far from being evident when not only the African but the Eastern Church did practise otherwise and that on the account of an Apostolical Tradition too 2. Supposing such an Vniversal Practice How doth it thence follow that it must be derived from the Apostles unless it be first proved that the Church could never consent in the use of any thing but what the Apostles commanded them Which is a very unreasonable supposition considering the different emergencies which might be in the Churches of Apostolical and succeeding times and the different reasons of practice attending upon them with that great desire which crept into the Church of representing the things conveyed by the Gospel in an external symbolical manner whence in the second Century came the use of many baptismal Ceremonies the praegustatio mellis lactis as Tertullian calls it and several of a like nature which by degrees came into the Church Must we now derive these and many other customs of the Church necessarily from the Apostles when even in S. Austins time several customs were supposed to be grounded on Apostolical Tradition which yet are otherwise believed now As in that known Instance of Infants Participation of the Eucharist which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent and for all that I know the arguments used against this Tradition by some men may as well hold against Infant-Baptism for there is an equal incapacity as to the exercise of all acts of reason and understanding in both and as the Scripture seems to suppose such acts of grace in one as have their foundation in the use of reason it doth likewise in the other and I cannot see sufficient evidence to the contrary but if that place Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven taken in the sense of the Fathers doth imply a necessity of Baptism for all and consequently of Children that other place Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you taken likewise in the sense of the Fathers will import the necessity of a participation of the Eucharist by Infants as well as others I speak not this with an intention to plead either for this or for the rebaptizing Hereticks but to shew the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical Traditions some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so and others which could not be known whether so or no by the ages next succeeding the Apostles And therefore let any reasonable person judge what probability there is in what you drive at that Apostolical Traditions may be more easily known than Apostolical Writings By which it appears 3. How vain and insufficient your reasons are Why Traditions should not be so liable to corruption as the Scriptures 1. You say Vniversal Traditions are recorded in Authours of every succeeding age and it seems more incident to have the Bible corrupted than them because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men whereas universal and immemorial Traditions are openly practised and taken notice of by every one in all ages To which I answer 1. That you give no sufficient reason why the Bible should be corrupted 2. And as little why Traditions should be more preserved than that Two Accounts you give why the Bible might be corrupted by errours because of its bulk and passing through the hands of particular men But Do you think it a thing impossible or at least unreasonable to suppose that a Book of no greater bulk than the Bible should by the care and vigilancy of men through the assistance of Divine Providence be preserved from any material corruptions or alterations Surely if you think so you have mean thoughts of the Christians in all ages and meaner of Divine Providence For you must suppose God to take no care at all for the preservation of

enough for his purpose to prove it by such sufficient evidence as may convince any reasonable man And this was all his Lordship meant when he said That our Negative Articles do refute where the thing is not affirmed in Scripture or not directly concluded out of it And if you will stand to the strict sense of these words you will be forced to prove all those Doctrines of your Church which ours denies to be true so evidently and demonstratively i. e. undeniably as you would put him upon for the proof of Infant-Baptism To leave therefore this verbal dispute and come to the thing His Lordship saith That it may be concluded directly out of Scripture That Infants ought to be baptized c. For which he insists on two places of Scriture Joh. 3.8 Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. which being interpreted according to the sense of the Fathers and the Ancient Church and as your own party acknowledge it ought to be interpreted do evidently assert Infant-Baptism By which your exception of a Pelagian Anabaptist who denies Original sin and from thence saith That Infants cannot be born again is taken away for the same Tradition of the Ancient Church which from hence inferrs the Baptism of Infants doth it upon that ground because they are guilty of Original sin as you might have seen by his Lordship's Citations to that purpose The other place he insists on is Act. 2.38 39. which by the acknowledgement of Ferus and Salmeron holds for Infant-Baptism But when you say That you would not weaken the Argument from Joh. 3. for Infant-Baptism because you only would shew that it cannot be proved demonstratively from Scripture alone against a perverse Heretick You seem not much to consider what those perverse Hereticks as you call them hold as to Infant-Baptism which is not meerly that Infant-Baptism is not commanded in Scripture but that it is a thing unlawful as being a perverting of the Institution of Christ as to the subject of Baptism For the main Question between us and the Antipaedobaptists is not concerning an absolute and express command for Baptizing Infants but whether our Blessed Saviour hath not by a positive Precept so determined the subject of Baptism viz. adult persons professing the Faith that the alteration of the subject viz. in Baptizing Infants be not a deviation from and perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it or in short thus whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism as to exclude Infants And although the question being thus stated the proof ought to lye on those who affirm it yet taking in only the help of Scripture and reason it were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently that Infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel For if there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and Institution of our Saviour But neither of these can be supposed to do it 1. Not incapacity as to the ends of Baptism for clearing which these two things must be premised 1. That the rule and measure as to the use and capacity of Divine Institutions is to be fetched from the end of them For this was the ground of the Circumcision of the Proselytes under the Law and this was the way the Apostles did interpret Christs Commission for Baptizing all Nations as to the capacity of the subjects of it Acts 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we where the question was concerning the subject of Baptism For it might be made evident that the Apostles at first did interpret their Commission of Baptizing all Nations only of the Jews of all Nations for after that St. Peter looked on the Gentiles as unclean and the Disciples at Jerusalem charged St. Peter with it as a great fault for going in to men uncircumcised Acts 11.3 Therefore we see when the question was concerning the subject of Baptism the only Argument is drawn from the design and ends of it that they who were capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the use of the sign And thus by a parity of reason built on equal grounds those who are capable of the great things represented in Baptism and confirmed by it viz. Gods pardoning grace and acceptation to eternal life ought not to be denyed the external sign which is Baptism it self And therefore 2. Where there is a capacity as to the main ends of an Institution an incapacity as to some ends doth not exclude from it As is most evident in the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour in whom was a greater incapacity as to the main ends of Baptism then possibly can be in Infants for his Baptism could not at all be for the remission of sins Now we see although there were but one end and that a very general one mentioned That he might fulfill all righteousness Matth. 3.15 yet we see that was sufficient to perswade John to Baptize him Whereby we see evidently in this practise of our Saviour built on a general and common ground that a capacity as to one end of a positive Institution is sufficient to make such a practice lawful and in some cases a duty These two general Principles being laid down it were easie to shew 1. That what incapacity there is in Infants is not destructive of the main ends of Baptism which is chiefly thought to be the incapacity of understanding the nature or ends of the Institution and if that exclude it must either be that it is a thing repugnant to reason that any Divine Institution should be applyed to persons uncapable of understanding the nature and ends of it which would highly reflect on the wisdome of God in appointing Circumcision for Children eight dayes old who were certainly as uncapable of understanding the ends of that as our Children are of Baptism or else that there is some peculiarity in the Institution of Baptism which must exclude them from it under the Gospel which that there is not will appear presently 2. That there is a capacity in Infants as to the main ends of Baptism which have either an aspect from God to us in regard of its Institution or from us to God in regard of our undertaking it Now the chief ends of a Divine Institution as such are such as respect Gods Intention in it towards us in which respect it is properly a sign but as it respects God from us it is properly a Ceremony betokening our profession and restipulation towards God Now the ends of it as a sign are to represent