Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	hour_n	worship_v	5,720	5	9.9299	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74998	Some baptismal abuses briefly discovered. Or A cordial endeavour to reduce the administration and use of baptism, to its primitive purity; in two parts. The first part, tending to disprove the lawfulness of infant baptism. The second part, tending to prove it necessary for persons to be baptized after they believe, their infant baptism, or any pre-profession of the Gospel notwithstanding. As also, discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mixt communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized, in church-fellowship. By William Allen.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1075; Thomason E702_12; ESTC R10531	105,249	135

to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men and writes them in their hearts Heb. 8.10 which implies that he did not do so under the Old Testament or at least but very little comparatively Again Joh. 4.23 But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth implying that thither-unto or until then they had not so worshipped him or at least that there was but little of that found under the Legal Dispensation And according to the nature of this Ministration children voyd of understanding and faith were capable of holy things as Circumcision and Passover and the like and consequently of the ends and benefits of them in part upon a literal administration and reception of them Rom. 3.1 2. Exod. 12.44 48. But the case is far otherwise now under the Gospel which is the Ministration of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 It is not the work done but the manner of doing of it in knowledg faith and fear of the Lord that entitles men unto the benefit and blessing of Gospel-Ordinances for so the Apostle affirms concerning Baptism it self 1 Pet. 3.21 when he says that it saves us now as the Ark did some in the days of Noah not saith he the putting away of the filth of the flesh i. e. not by the external letter of the Ordinance but the answer of a good Conscience towards God i.e. when accompanyed with such a frame of mind and conscience as does answer God in his intendments of Grace in that Ordinance So again Col. 2.12 when the Apostle saith that they were buryed with Christ in Baptism and that they were therein also risen with him yet he says that thus they were by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead meaning such a faith as was produced by the operation of God or else such as had the operation of God in raising up Christ for its object however it was by the interveniency of this Faith that they became both buryed and risen with Christ in Baptism Now Infants as they are not capable of acting this Faith or making this answer of a good Conscience so they are not capable of those blessings and benefits intended by God in Baptism in as much as he hath suspended the donation thereof upon these in conjunction with Baptism And where any effect depends upon the taking place of more causes then one as it does in the case in hand it is not any one of those causes alone that will produce that effect 3. How ever the ends of Circumcision were attainable though administred to Infants in those respects before mentioned with their fellows yet doubtless the Ordinance it self was so much the less spiritual and so much the more weak and savoring of the Legal Ministration and suited to the then childish condition of the Church because administration thereof was made to Infants This I conceive might easily be made out from several of those rational principles consonant to the Scripture upon and from which I have already evinced Baptism to be more spiritual profitable and edifying when administred to men professing the Faith then when applyed to children Therefore doubtless what the Apostle speaketh of the Commandment in general meaning the Law which as he says made nothing perfect how that it is disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it Hebr. 7.18 19. may well be understood to comprehend even this part of the Commandment also which enjoyned an Ordinance one or more to be administred to little children And how ever such a mean low way and method of enjoying Ordinances as was accommodated to the capacity of babes was not uncomely whilest the Church was in the condition of children as the Apostle speaks Gal. 4.3 no more then it is for a child whilest he is a child to speak and act as a child yet to retain this poor and low and barren way of administring a Gospel-Ordinance to Infants now the Church is raised both in capacity and administration to its manly condition is as incongruous and uncomely as it is for one still to speak and act as a child when he is become a man By this time I hope it appears that there is not the same reason why Baptism administred to Infants should reach the ends thereof as there was why Circumcision though applyed to Infants formerly should attain its end For the nature of the two Ordinances differ the terms of their Administration differ and the respective capacities of the Church then and the Church now differ and according to that rule in Logick Where the things themselves differ there the reasons of those things differ also ARGUM. III. 3. MY next Argument shall be taken from the different nature of the two Ministrations of the Old and New Testaments as rendering Infant-Baptism in that precise consideration of it as applyed to Infants disagreeable to the Ministration of the Gospel but withall more correspondent with the Ministration of the Law Therefore I thus further argue If Infant-Baptism be disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament then Infants ought not to be baptized The reason hereof is because so far as either this or any other way or practice does comply with the Legal Ministration and disagree with the Evangelical so far it does cross or oppose the design of God in changing the Ministration of the Law for that of the Gospel and consequently carries in it a spirit of antipathy against the very spirit of the Gospel Ministration This if it were not sufficiently evident of it self might receive abundant confirmation from such Scriptures as these and what might fairly and plainly be deduced from them Joh. 4.23 24. 2 Cor. 3.6 Gal. 4.9 Col. 2.8 17. Heb. 7.18 19. 8.6 7. 9.9 10 11. 10.1 But I presume of every mans plenary satisfaction as to this Therefore I proceed But Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament Assumption 1. The truth hereof in the first place is conspicuous and perceptible by what hath been made good in our former Argument For there we proved Baptism as administred to Infants less edifying as to the several ends of it then when administred unto Believers and if less edifying then the more suitable and conformable to the Ministration of the Law which was a Ministration of less light and edification and to the same proportion disproportionate to the Ministration of the Gospel which is a Ministration of a greater light and a more rich edification 2. I might in the second place well suppose Infant-Baptism to savor strongly of the Legal Ministration because the principal Arguments produced in defence thereof are such as do arise out of and are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision a principal part of the Legal Ministration and from that analogy and proportion that is supposed to be between them and not only so but likewise because such Arguments and Pleas tend to draw down this

as following thereupon as distinctly described And 3. The laying on of Pauls hands and their receiving of the Holy Ghost thereupon as distinctly and differentially described as either of the former The article AND which stands between the Description of their Baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost upon the imposit on of hands being a Note here not of identity or sameness of things but of transition or passing from one thing to another or else of copulation of things really distinct but yet relative 2. This is further discernable by a collation of this passage of Scripture with others where we have the same actions in the same order described as Acts 8.16 17. where speaking of the Holy Ghost the holy Historian saith That he was fallen upon none of them to wit the believing Samaritans onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost Whence it plainly appears that the Disciples were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus before they received the Holy Ghost and that they did receive the Holy Ghost after their Baptism upon those prayers that were made for them hands laid on them for that end so that these were not one but two distinct actions Just so in the place under discussion though they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus yet we do not find that they received the Holy Ghost till imposition of hands was super-added thereunto 2. Whereas it is further alledged by Calvin that it is no new thing to express the gift of the visible graces of the Spirit by the name of Baptism though this is indeed true in such a sence as the Scriptures to which he refers intend it yet I do believe it is a new thing and not to be found in Scripture to express the effusion of the Spirit as divided from Baptism by water under the description of being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus the form here used in the Text under debate For both those places produced Acts 1.5 and 11.16 speak of the Fathers or Christs own immediate act of conferring the Spirit whereas to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus plainly and directly notes the Agency or Ministry of man managed in the Name of Christ the one is the Baptism of Christ ministred by himself the other is the Baptism of Christ ministred by man in his Name And so Master Calvin himself at another turn will tell you that When John said I indeed baptize with water but Christ when he shall come shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire he meant not to put difference between the one Baptism and the other but he compares his own person with the Person of Christ saying that himself was a Minister of water but that Christ was the Giver of the Holy Ghost Instit Lib. 4. Cap. 15.5.8 And the baptizing in the Name of the Lord Jesus and the pouring out of the Spirit are not the same individual thing but are clearly differenced and distinguished in respect of time order and action as I noted in part before from Acts 8.16 17. a place in this respect parallel with this in hand So that still you will find that to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus signifies such a Baptism as is not without water But some others not liking so well this construction of the words though they be of the same mind as to the impugning of that literall sence of them which I have imbraced have thought of another way to evade this and that is by understanding these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as the words of Paul recited by Luke declaring the Baptism of these Disciples by Iohn to be the consequent of Johns preaching to them and not the words of Luke as recording their Baptism as consequential to Pauls preaching to them and so the sence they make to be this That these Disciples when they heard John in his preaching say to them that they should believe on him that was to come after him to wit Christ Jesus then they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus by Iohn See the late Annotators upon the place for this But that neither this is the true intent and genuine sence of the words I strongly incl ne to believe upon these grounds 1. Because this Interpretation overthrowes the Grammatical sence of the words and renders them void of Common sence For it is evident that what Paul is here brought in speaking he spake it to these Disciples themselves for here is no mention of any other persons but Paul and them Now then what ever words were spoken by Paul to them must run in the second Person if you will suppose Paul to speak common sence whereas these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are spoken in the third Person and therefore cannot be the words of Paul to them but of Luke concerning them For if Paul would have declared such a thing to the Disciples as that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus upon the hearing of Iohn then his words should have run thus When you heard this you were baptized c. and not as now we have them When they heard this they were baptized c. Besides how uncouth and harsh is it to make the people whom Iohn taught and baptized and those twelve Disciples to be the same persons and to conceive that Paul should tell them what Iohn said to the people when all the while he meant themselves both which you must suppose if you take the words in that sence which I oppose because then the people in the fourth verse unto whom Iohn spake and those in the fifth verse which are said to have heard and to have been baptized must be the same persons and consequently both of them these twelve men because as the Pronouns they and they in the fourth and fifth verse upon that supposition that both are Pauls words cannot be understood but of the same persons so also the same Pronouns they and they which relate both to the persons baptized ver 5. and to the twelve that prophesied after Paul had laid his hands on them vers 6. are undoubtedly meant of the same persons likewise And therefore that interpretation now under examination which runs us upon such rocks of absurdity and into such Solecisms of speaking as these must be rejected and consequently these words When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus must be taken as the words of Luke and not of Paul importing the Baptism of these Disciples upon the hearing of Paul and not of Iohn 2. That these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are not a Description of Iohns Baptism administred to these Disciples but of that Baptism which they received upon Pauls Preaching we have this reason further to conceive because it no