Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	faith_n	grace_n	work_v	7,291	5	7.3947	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

confess their sins before they were baptised And who knoweth not that the Spirit doth sometime prevent the Water of Baptism 3. Nor yet Act. 8.36 This indeed proveth the affirmative viz. That He who beleeveth may be b●ptised But from thence to conclude the Negative That He who beleeveth not may not be baptised is against all Rules of reasoning which will yet more plainly appear by this Philip saith If thou believe with thy whole heart thou maist Will any man thence conclude That whoso beleeveth not with his whole heart may not be baptised And so take liberty to barre all such as presenting themselves and professing their faith may yet perhaps justly be suspected of Fiction and Dissimulation You see then the texts do not prove the Proposition Nay suppose that not by inference but in direct terms some of these texts should say He that beleeveth not shall not be baptised ought we not to understand it as true only in those persons of whom the text speaketh viz. Of them that have been taught and yet do frowardly refuse and profess a dislike and misbeleef of what hath been taught them And so it will be too weak an Argument to prove that universall Proposition and much less to draw on the desired conclusion Without faith none may be baptised None Ergo Not Infants ex gr That text of Mark saith He that beleeveth not shall be damned q. d. Without Faith none shall be saved Will any man understand this in that Universality as to include Infants Will he assume Infants beleeve not have no faith therfore They shall not be saved God forbid The Proposition hath it's latitude of Truth beyond which it may not be extended So then these texts do shew what is required of the Apostles and their successors What of the Nations and Heads of the Families in the Nations persons that are Sui juris not under the command of another But determineth nothing of inferiours and much less concludeth against Infants Baptism 2. Good reason against it For why First a profession of Faith is enough to entitle men to Baptism Tho there be no soundness and sincerity in the heart at all Witness the admission of Simon Magus True indeed except there be soundnes in the heart God may justly deny man the Benefit which otherwise he might expect But if he make profession to b●leeve in Christ who shall dare to d●ny him the Sacrament 2. That which is presupposed to assert the necessitie of Fait● understanding it of the grace it self is doubtful viz. That without Faith no man hath wher●with-all to r●ceiv the Benefit of Baptism This I say may well be doubted if not denyed especially if we intend to comprehend Infants and little child●en They have a passive capacity which is enough to receive that Gr●ce and Benefit which we conceiv is reached forth to them in that Sacrament And what is that Not s ch a fulness of Grace or the Habits ther-of as may be expected by them who have formerly been prepared by the Discipline and information of the Word But rather initiall and seminall Grace that seed of God wher-of the Scripture speaketh Pet. 1.23 1 Joh. 3.9 The which doth not presuppose Grace in the Heart but is it self the seed and root of Faith and all other actuall Graces whatsoever To men and women converted by the Word and then coming to Baptism viz. To Crispus Cornelius Lydia c. we beleev that Baptism doth as to Abraham Circumcision did convey a super-addition of further Grace to what they had formerly received in and by the Word But to their children Baptism conveyeth as did Circumcision to Jsaac the beginning and first seeds of Grace And consequently calleth for no previous dispositions and preparations in the Recipient only a passive capacity not cross-barred with obstinacy and infidelity It is the property of preventing Grace to be the first mover in the Heart and to make way for it's own Reception Is this acknowledged to be done in the ministry of the Word upon the Parents as it is said of Cornelius and Lydia and shall it seem unreasonable to grant it to be done by this first Sacrament in their children For why Did we conceiv the Spirit who is the chief Agent and efficient working in and by the ministry of the Word and Sacraments and with-out whose operation and assistance they are but as empty vess●ls and edgless tools the Spirit I say did we conceiv him working only as a morall Agent to stand at the door and knock as only ready and willing to enter if the door be opened to proffer Grace if man will receiv it Then were it reason indeed to require Faith in Children no less than in their Parents But it is not so We conceiv him in the Baptising of Infants working as a Naturall or rather as a super-naturall Agent viz. opening the door and entring putting Grace in the Heart and working it in the Will conferring upon them such a Grace as for the present they are capable of viz. initiall and seminall as before was said Add this also That in the Baptising of Infants ther is not Baptism altogether without Faith Ther is presupposed the Faith of the Parent And this sufficeth to qualify the Infant for Baptism yea for the Grace and Benefit of that Sacrament What is the Benefit of Baptism Is it not Remission of sin and spirituall Regeneration To the obtaining of which why may not the Faith of the Parent suffice In the child as yet corruption of Nature which he brought into the world is not active it hath produced neither thoughts words nor deeds against the law and therfore calleth for no personall Act of Grace to remove the Guilt ther-of Guilty he is and polluted but guilty only by i●putation and polluted not by any consent of his own but by the act of another viz. of his Parents * Quantò magis prohiberi non d●het infàns qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd s●cundum Adam carnaliter natus qui adr●m●ssam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso saciliis acced t quòd illi remittuntur non propria sid aliena peccata Cyprian Epla 59. Is it any wonder that the imputation of anothers faith should procure for him Remission and removall of that which cometh by the imputation of anothers act That as he sinned in another so he may be said to beleev in another Here is then the equity of Gods proceedings that what Malady and mischief was contracted without his will shall be cured and remedyed without him and any act of his It is by the ordinance and institution of God that the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed to the Infant and the Corruption of Nature propagated And it is by the Ordinance of God that the Guilt of that sin is remitted and a Remedy against that Native disease provided and both these are done in and upon the Infant without any concurrence of his own will And as by the

none of these texts are so easie to be understood Consequently it is more than probable that even this Custome of Baptising Infants was instituted and ordained in the Churches by th'Apostles and that according to the commandement of Christ Add unto all that hath been sayd that of St. Ambrose Sicut nunc in ecclesià manet Constitutio salvatoris dicentis Nisi quis renatus sucrit Ita sacratissimè in lege suerat praecautum ut natus puer nisi die circumcideretur octavo exterminaretur anima ejas de populo suo Ambros Epist 33. Ad Demetriadem p. 132. who setts these two as paralell the law of God touching Circumcision The soul who is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people and the Sanction of our Saviour Except a man bee born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That this text is to be understood of Baptism as a mean and cause of Regeneration Not so principall as the Spirit yet so instrumentall to the Spirit that wher it may be had wee have no ground of Faith to beleev that the Spirit will work without it This is I say the constant and consentient judgement of all the Ancients and most of our modern Divines Some few only excepted who to avoid the Popish Tenet touching the absolute necessity of B●ptism did fly to a Metaphor And it may be confirmed for Truth out of the Text it self if we note well To whom and upon what occasion the words were spoken viz. To Nicodemus upon occasion of his timerousnes A Disciple of Christ he was willing to be but loth to prosess it openly by being baptised To him is the commination directed and therfore the words must be understood of Baptism Now then consider well whether ther be any ground sufficient to keep of Infants from this Ordinance Any ground I say which may secure the conscience of not having sinned against the souls of our Infants if by our default they dy without this seal of the Covenant and so loos the Benefit ther-of Have not Infants need of Christ and the Application of his Blood for the washing their souls from sinn Is ther any Hope of Salvation without Christ Is ther any other way revealed by which any may have part in Christ but by his Ordinances Is ther any other Ordinance by which Infants may be made partakers of Christ and the Covenant of Grace except Baptism Is ther any text of Scripture that hath peremptorily barred their Admittance Or is ther any thing required of them that must be baptised the want wher-of may be a barr to Infants Thou doubtest because ther is no text that mentioneth either Precept or Pattern and with-out a text thou darest not venture 'T is well But when ther is such a fearfull sentence that runns in such generall terms as doth comprehend Infants also and the Danger of Omission is so great Why art thou not more cautelous on the safer side Why dost thou not as well call for a direct text to barr them or a direct Reason from Scripture which may be equivalent Is ther any text that saith None may be baptised that do not Beleev or that saith Infants for want of Actuall faith may not be baptised Doest thou not see Infants Circumcised yea by commandment Doest thou not hear the text that saith Children are Holy And are ther so many Probabilities that by th'Apostles themselves Infants were baptised And wilt thou rather hazard the soul of thy child than lay hold upon the Covenant for thy seed nay for thy self and that only upon a fear and a doubt of unlawfulnes yea such a doubt that hath no surer ground either in Scripture or Reason to countenance it than the contrary resolution Here is then the Case if these Grounds formerly mentioned prove good as ther is great probability Then thou presenting thine Infant to Baptism building upon these grounds thou hast saved thy self and thine Infant but forbearing and keeping him of thou sinnest against thine own soul and his also Again if those grounds should not prove good yet hast thou not wronged thine Infant nor thine own self Because upon such probabilities as are next door to an Evident Demonstration thou hast done that which is intended for the Glory of God and the Good of the Infant Thou hast not transgressed against any Precept no nor any light of Reason which might justly with-hold thee from seeking the Good of thine Infant at the Hands of Christ in this Ordinance I conclude therfore That ther is sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to bring his Infants to this Sacrament of Baptism with a confident expectation to receiv Benefit by the same Nay more Ther is Ground enough to warrant the Accusation of Him that upon such uncertain Reasons shall forbear to present his Infant to this Sacrament of Initiation the Accusation I say of Him as one that sinneth against the Ordinance of God and trespasseth against the Soul of his Infant yea of Himself So much for the first Question THE SECOND QVESTION Quest Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly A Mixt Assembly is that wherein good and badd are mingled together and make up one Congregation when the precious are not severed from the vile nor any difference put between the Holy and Prophane Now these good and badd these precious and vile are not to be reckoned in respect of their spirituall estate toward God i. e. as they are Elect or Reprobate Sincere or Hypocriticall but in respect of their Ecclesiasticall state in the ey and judgement of Men as they are in their courses and conversations in their Calling and Profession holy or profane These bad and vile are again to be considered A parte ante or A parte post viz. Either such as yet profess not themselves in Covenant with God by joining themselves to the Assembly of his servants Or such who having formerly had a standing in the Church do afterward run out into exorbitant courses to the scandall of Religion and so deserv to be separated from the Society of the Saints and by the Sentence of Excommunication cut of from the Assembly So that the Question is Whether if either of these be found in the Congregation and company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord to partake of those holy Mysteries either those who as yet have not been admitted or those that by the laws of Christ ought to be shutt out and sequestred whether their presence do make it unlawfull in point of conscience for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament among them so that if he do he is eo nomine therby desiled and become partaker of their sinn Where also for the better understanding of the Answer to this Question we are to note what is granted and what is questioned and demanded Things granted are these 1. Some are not to

Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pam●lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augusti● lib. 4. De Baptismo c●ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod dec●etum condens novum ●ed Ecclesi●e fidem firmissimam se●●ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum d●●m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them