Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	death_n	jesus_n	sin_n	7,149	5	4.5195	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B20526	The font-guard routed, or, A brief answer to a book written by Thomas Hall superscribed with this title, The font guarded with 20 arguments therein endeavouring to prove the lawfulness of infant baptism wherein his arguments are examined and being weighed in the ballance of the sanctuary are found too light : the most considerble of Mr. Baxters arguments for infant-baptism being produced by Tho. Hall are here answered likewise / written by Tho. Collier ; to which is added A word of reply to Tho. Halls word to Collier and another to John Feriby's [ap]pendix called The pulpit-guard relieved ; with An answer to Richard Sanders's pretended Balm to heal religious wounds, in answer to The pulpit-guard routed : with an humble representation of some few proposals to the honorable committee appointed by the Parliament for propagation of the Gospel.	Collier, Thomas, fl. 1691.	1652 (1652)	Wing C5285; ESTC R5188	90,512	112

Joh. 4. 24 God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth and such the Father seeks to worship him Jesus Christ came forth from the Father for that end that he might gain a spiritual people to worship but your great work is to get in a natural people a carnal people the fleshly seed so contradicting the end of God in giving Christ upholding the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I will not say at present for your own ends and interests The force of your first Argument being thus untwisted and its weakness and invalidity laid open I need not trace you in your Parallels what I have already written puts an end to your Parallels as far as you imagine they tend to uphold the strength of your Arguments I shall present another Parallel from what I have declared leaving it to the judgment of the judicious Reader to consider 1. The Covenant made with Abraham was an outward covenant and promise of the Land of Canaan Gen. 17. 10 11 12. 1. Ours is a spiritual Covenant and promise of in Jesus Christ the true spiritual Land of rest Heb. 4. 4. to 8. 2. That was made with Abraham and his natural seed Gen. 17. 7 8. 2. Ours is a Covenant made with Christ and all his spiritual seed Isa 59. 21. Gal. 3 29. 3. Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant Rom. 4. 11. 3. But the Spirit of grace is the seal of our covenant Eph. 1 ●3 4 30. 4. That was a Covenant that many most of those in it missed of eternal life Rom. 2. 27. 4 Ours is a covenant sure stedfast eternal everlasting to those once truly in it Isa 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28 29. 5. That was a Covenant that might be broken and had an end as all types end when the substance comes 5. Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken nor shall ever have an end being the substance it self of the type Now to your second Argument from Circumcision The second Argument p. 13. Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But the Jews with their Infants were circumcised under the Law Ergo Christians and their Infants may be baptized under the Gospel You confess that your Major is questioned as well it may be so I could give you several Arguments which you would not like as well grounded as this of yours but I forbear For proof of your Major 1. You say They are under the same Covenant That is denied and rased in my Answer to your former argument It is neither the same Covenant nor the same seal an outward seal to an outward Covenant an inward seal to an inward Covenant 2. You say There is the same reason for the one as for the other our children are born in original sin as well as theirs have the same need of the seal Oh unimaginable blindness was Circumcision or Baptism either ever given to seal up the pardon of original sin If it was then it must be pardoned or not pardoned if pardoned then sure else it is but the putting a seal to a blank But the truth is they were never given either of them upon that account or for that end to seal up the pardon of original sin And whereas you say there is the same reason for the one as for the other it is denied for the command of God is the reason of the one and of the other God commanded Infants to be circumcised he hath commanded Believers to be baptized and 't is reason that he should be obeyed as in the first so in the second it 's an unreasonable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Christ 3. You say If Baptism succeed in the place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to those to whom Circumcision did belong But Baptism doth succeed in the place of Circumcision Ergo c. I answer your Minor is denied 1. There is no Scripture that saith that Baptism was ordained in the place of Circumcision it 's your own invention never mentioned by the Apostles of Christ The Scriptures you mention Act. 2. 38 39. Col. 2. 11 12. have not the least hint in them to the thing in hand and are abundantly abused and wrested to that for which they were never intended as will appear 2. You confess that Baptism was in force before Circumcision was abolished Circumcision and Baptism stood both in force by a Law for some years at least 3 or 4 years Now if Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision then Circumcision must have ceased when Baptism came But Circumcision did not cease when Baptism came Therefore Baptism came not in the room of it If it be objected that Paul circumcised Timothy after the ascension of Christ I answer that was because of the Jewes for their weakness but it was in being by the Law of God untill the death of Christ So then I reason thus That which put an end to Circumcision came in the room of Circumcision but Christ put an end to Circumcision therefore he is come in the room of Circumcision That it was Christ and not Baptism that put an end to Circumcision is cleer Rom. 10. 4. Gal. 5. 2 3. So that Baptism did not put an end to Circumcision but Christ did therefore Baptism came not in the room of Circumcision 3. It could not come in the room of Circumcision to them that never had Circumcision but women were never circumcised the Gentiles were never circumcised and it could not come in the room of Circumcision to those which never were circumcised But you will say that women were virtually circumcised in the men c. And why are they not baptized virtually in the men too if you will take your rule from Circumcision let them be baptized in the men too 4. There is no parity but a disparity between Baptism and Circumcision as your self in some things have noted 1. In the action 2. in the time 3. in the subject 4. in the end First in the action that was the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh which occasioned blood this of Baptism a dipping into or under water Secondly for the time that was to be done at eight dayes old this of Baptism when the party desireth it professing faith and repentance to the satisfying of the Church be when it will Thirdly for the subject that was the Male only this of Baptism is to be administred on both men and women professing faith in our Lord Jesus and repentance towards God Fourthly for the end that is far wide as will appear in this ensuing Parallel 1. Circumcision set forth Christ to come 1. Baptism declares Christ already come 2. Circumcision represented the circumcision of the heart the cutting off of sin and self c. 2. Baptism declares the washing away of the guilt of sin and death and burial with

Jesus Christ 3. That was a seal of Abrahams faith 3. Baptism is no seal but the Spirit of Christ These things considered there is neither probability reason or Scripture for the coming of Baptism in the room of Circumcision First there is no Scripture for it when false Apostles went about to bring in Circumcision Act. 15. 10. Gal. 1. the Apostle never mentions Baptism at all if it had come in the room of Circumcision they might easily have stopped their mouths with this You have Baptism in the room of it what need you trouble your selves so much But they never made use of this as an answer therefore it s evident that it came not in the room of it 2. It was in being together 3. It could not be so to them that were never circumcised And 4. there being no parity between them I adde 5. If you will have it in the room of something why might it not come in the room of those Legal washings that were amongst the Jews as well as in the room of Circumcision there is a parity in the one and likelier in the end too but none in the other their Religion viz. the Jews consisted in divers washings Heb. 9. 10. so that if you must of necessity have it to come in the room of any thing why not in the room of those washings Yet I do not believe that it came in the room of this or any other legal Ordinance but that God gave what Ordinances he pleased to that ministration and Jesus Christ gave what Ordinances he pleased to this ministration not one Ordinance putting out the other but Christ being the end of all gives out new upon his own account But secondly put case what you say were truth that it were come in the room of Circumcision which can never be proved either from Scripture or reason yet what will this help you We are or profess our selves to be Christs servants then hearken to him and obey his voice receive the Law from his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Let Christ be King give but so much honour to him as to inform you who is to be baptized and the time when it is to be done the manner how and the controversie will be soon ended The truth of the business being thus considered your Assertion and yout Parallels I leave to the consideration of the understanding Reader and so pursue you to your third Argument The third Argument Where there is a command for a thing never yet countermanded or forbidden there that thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the Infants of believers never yet countermanded or forbidden Ergo It is still in force This Argument is easily answered only it 's stated confusedly if you intend by the command for signing Believers children that of Circumcision as I suppose you do then I think that is repealed and forbidden for the Apostle saith to the Galatians that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing at all And if you deny this truth we may well take the Apostles advice Phil. 3. Beware of the concision for we are the Circumcision who worship God in the Spirit c. If you by the sign intend Baptism you had done well to shew where it was commanded to Infants and if nowhere commanded then no need of repealing or forbidding If you intend that Baptism was commanded in Circumcision that hath been answered already and it is but a whimsie of your own head there hath not been any Scripture yet produced for the confirmation of it nor ever is like to be all you say in this is but the substance of what you have said already you dance about in a line and are gotten no further yet then in your former Arguments it 's just the old Proverb A great cry and a little wooll Truly if you did know and love the Lord Jesus you could not you would not dare to go back to lay the foundation of Gospel ordinances in Legal institutions but you would look to Christ and hearken what he hath said and believe it every one that refuseth to look to him shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3. 22 23. You say Let any man shew if he can when where and how this priviledge was abrogated I answer it was abrogated and repealed in Christ that as all the Services Ceremonies Covenants Canaan Natural seed and all was typical so Christ is the body and substance of all these services ceremonies c. and the spiritual people believers are the substance typed out in the natural seed So that as the natural seed were accounted for the seed that is repealed Joh. 8. 39 44. with Rom. 2. 28 29. and only the spiritual are accounted for the seed You talk much of priviledge as if baptizing of Infants were such a priviledge to them I answer 1. Our priviledges do not consist in externals but as the Covenant was made with the spiritual seed so the priviledges of the Covenant are suitable to it see Heb. 8. from the 6. verse to the end And truly it bewrayes abundance of ignorance in those that cry out so much about priviledge as if the priviledge of the Covenant of grace consisted so much in outside things What priviledge it was to the Jews to be circumcised I know not I mean to those who were never circumcised in their hearts or what priviledge it is to Infants to be baptized I wonder unless you will make it a priviledge to be in the form without the power and so to make souls think themselves Christians when they are none so deceiving and deluding them Certainly this will be but a sad priviledge one day when both teachers and taught must give an account together I could sometimes be freely willing to part even with tears of blood in sight and sense of those many thousands yea millions of souls deeply deluded with pretended priviledges who think themselves in a good condition and in a moment go down to hell For the wicked must be turned into hell and all those who forget God And the Leaders of the people cause them to erre and they that are led of them are destroyed Isa 9. 16. Is it not much better more safe and an act of faithfulness for parents to deal faithfully with their children and let them know that they are not in the Covenant of grace but that by nature they are children of wrath as well as others that so they may through mercy come to the sight of their natural condition and their need of Christ rather then to delude them with toyes and fancies meer imaginations of the fleshly mind vainly puffed up Oh the Lord will make you know one day what it is thus to lift up your selves in fleshly boasting and to make a nose of wax of the Covenant of grace turn it which way you please in one day and out another 1. Believers children in 2. All professing