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	name_n	son_n	14,571	5	5.9519	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31663	An impartial account of the Portsmouth disputation with some just reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended narrative : with an abrigdment of those discourses that were the innocent occasion of that disputation / by Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinson.	Chandler, Samuel.; Leigh, William.; Robinson, Benjamin, 1666-1724.	1699 (1699)	Wing C1933; ESTC R24745	96,620	125

under Water Or must it be by pouring Water on them c. Upon the whole the Application of a little Water in Baptism especially in these Cold Climates is grounded upon what Christ quotes I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now it being not Necessarily implyed in Scripture that Dipping was the ancient Practice we say that having a fair and probable way deducible from Scripture we must rest therein having recourse to that general rule Davids hunger was a fair excuse for eating the shew-bread which is call'd Most Holy and Lawful only for the Priests to Eat Therefore if Dipping in Cold Weather and Cold Climates do tend to the Prejudice of a Person 's Health yea to Endanger Life and it be not certainly fixt in Scripture as the only way of Administring the Ordinance we may use our own may as in General most agreeable to the word of God Rus. They think tho' they Transgress a Rule God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice L. No. This is not so We observe the rule a Moral Precept which take's place of a Ritual when opposite Much more is it Obligatory when it 's not evident that any Ritual one doth oppose it Chand If in those hot Countrys they had dip't or been obliged to dip this would not hold in such Climates and at such Seasons of the Year wherein the Life of a Person would this way be Manifestly exposed to Danger Mr. Russel here attempted to read several Quotations that he had Collected out of the Assemblies Annot. Pool Dr. Ham. c which had been before disowned And therefore the People refused to hear him as being nothing to the purpose however he spake to this effect Rus. I hope the People will observe that you are forc'd to differ from the Revd. Assembly of Divines c. Chand The Bible the Bible is our Religion Rob. Mr. Russel we are not ashamed to own our selves Protestants with whom it is a Fundamental Principle that the greatest and best of Men are fallible And therefore our Assent is not concluded by the meer words of one or other name how great soever We pay a just deference to the very worthy names you mention'd but we cannot think our selves obliged to believe every thing they say If you have any Solid Reasons to offer or the clear evidence of any Text of Scripture to determine this point pray let us hear it before we close up the day Nothing being said he applying himself to the People added Rob. A great deal of loose discourse you have heard upon this last Question Mr. Russel was obliged by all the Laws of Disputation to prove that according to the Commission of our Lord Baptism was to be administred by Dipping Plunging Overwhelming and no otherwise Some attempts he made towards it of the weakness of which I doubt not but you are all sensible And therefore which yet they were not obliged to Mr. Chandler and Mr. Leigh undertook to prove that it was not Necessarily to be so Administred For the clearing of which they have manifested that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew doth not necessarily signify any thing more than only to Wash or to apply water to a Person without determining whether it shall be by dipping a Person into water or pouring water upon him or any other way so that water be applyed it is all that can necessarily be concluded from the words Of this they have given clear evidence both from the Old Testament and the New And now upon the whole we are willing to refer it to your own Judgments whether you will be perswaded to account your own Baptism a Nullity because it hath not been administred in the way of these Persons If you can without any Solid Reason or without so much as the evidence of one single Text of Scripture be Satisfyed you may then take what our adversaries have said for Satisfaction But since it hath been fully proved that Christ hath only required that Persons be Solemnly entred into his Church by Baptizing or Washing them in the Name of Father Son and Spirit and hath not determined so far as doth appear whether this washing shall be performed this way or that we are willing I say to refer it to the Judgment of you all whether our way of Admistration be not the most commodious FINIS I have compar'd this Copy with the Original viz. Mr. Maltby's and my own and find it exactly agreeable thereto Witness my Hand this 10th day of Iuly 1699. W. SMITH Some Iust Reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended Narrative 'T IS with great Regret that we are again diverted from more p●easing and useful Studies to dip our Pens in this Watry Controversy and undertake this Invidious Service As we were Necessitated by the Anabaptists Challenge to the Disputation it self so had they not by Publishing a false account laid us under a like Necessity to Vindicate the Truth and our selves the World had never more heard of this matter In these our Reflections we shall Manifest the Author's Egregious Falshood in some parts of his Narrative his Trisling Impertinencys in others and the Uncharitable Principles that have drop'd from him The Narrative is pretended to be Transcrib'd from Mr. Bissel's and Mr. Ring 's Copy's Now we can assure the World that Mr. Bissel's Copy was like a Lawyer 's Breviate containing only hints for Memory and may be all contain'd in 3 or 4 pages and hardly one word of it in this Narrative As to Mr. Ring 's we have taken the pains to compare it with this account and find several hundred Falshoods Additions Alterations and Omissions It is an ill omen thus to stumble at the Threshold and what begins with a Falshood we have Reason enough to Mistrust But to the Narrative it self we shall as to some parts shew it's Egregious Falshood as to matters of fact and that by its Omissions of some and misciting other particulars as well as positive false assertions 1. It is Egregiously false by Reason of its Omissions Not that every Omission of a word or Sentence perhaps would have render'd it so but such Omissions as alter the very State of the Disputation and make it look like an●ther thing than it truly was are undoubtedly to be call'd Falshoods Should any one pretending to report the Psalmists Sense Ps. 14.1 leave out the first words and assure the world he said there is no God would not this be call'd a Notorious Falshood tho the Falseness of it lies in not relating the whole Sentence From whence it may be collected That it is not only asserting what was never said but also the Omission of something that was said may bring an Historian under the Guilt of Falsifying And whether it be not so in the present case we shall leave the World to judge in these few Instances Mr. Leigh upon their frequent pressing for an Instance from Scripture of our

then Incourages them to hope they should again be receiv'd into Favour with God And says he the promise will be made good not only to you but to your Children too And to the Gentile World also Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Thence I argue 1. This promise was the great promise to Abraham Some pretend it is only that promise in Ioel 2.8 Gods giving extraordinary gifts of the Spirit That their Sons and Daughters should Prophecy But this cannot be because that promise was not fullfill'd to all afar off Have all the Gifts of Tongues Do all Prophecy The promise signifys the great promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy seed Gen. 17.17 Therefore this is call'd the promise Gal. 3.14 That the blessing ' of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles thro' Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit thro' Faith The Blessing of Abraham That great Blessing that God would be a God to him and his seed Now if this great Blessing come to the Gentiles Then they and their seed ought to receive the token of the Covenant the Children of the promise ought to have the Seal affixed to it 2. The Apostle useth these words to comfort the Iews that had Imprecated Divine Vengeance on themselves and their Children Infants as well as others a curse that lies on the unbelieving Iews to this day His blood be upon us and our Children no doubt but many of those that were prick'd at the heart at Peters Sermon joyn'd with the rabble in that Loud cry Crucifie him Crucifie him and were concern'd not only for themselves but their Children too therefore the Apostle uses this Argument if you penitently return to God by faith in Christ the curse shall be taken off from you and your Children you and yours shall be admitted again and not only so but those that are afar off the Gentile World when call'd 3. If the words were to be restrain'd only to those that believe and repent themselves and concern not their Infants this would be an Argument to perswade the Iews to continue in the Synagogue still rather than to come into the Christian Church While Synagogue worship stood before Christs coming God had promis'd happy Priviledges to themselves and Children but now if afterwards their Children must be cast off and look'd on as no other than Heathens and strangers to the Covenants of promise this would incline them rather to continue in the Synagogue than enter into the Christian Church A Third Scripture is in Rom. 11.15 25. In those verses these following things are containd 1. The Apostle speaks of breaking off from and grasfing into the Visible Church that the Unbelieving Iews were broken off from that Visible Church to which they were related before by their positive unbelief and rejecting Christ and that the Gentile Believers were graff'd in and so partook of those Priviledges from which the Gentiles were broken off 2. Some only were broken off the rest that Believ'd injoy'd the same Priviledges they did before v. 17 th Now this was a great Priviledg that God would be a God to them and to their seed Therefore they still injoy'd the same 3. What Priviledges the Iews left the whole body shall be restor'd to when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in v. 25. therefore their Infants shall be restor'd to the same Priviledges th● injoy'd before 4. The Believing Gentiles are admitted to the Priviledges the Iews injoy'd before gra●fed into the same Olive-Tree v. 24. S●eing Iewish infants w●re interested in the Church and Covenant of God the Inf●●ts of Believing Gentiles are also in Covenant and consequently ought to have Baptism the Seal applyed to them 4. A Fourth Scripture is in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Hence I argue If the Children of Believers are holy then this ordinance ought to be Administer'd to them The only difficulty here is to understand what is meant by holiness in this place 1. Internal Holiness cannot be ascrib'd to all the Infants of believers Because we find by sad experience that many of them shamefully Apostatize from God and thereby plainly shew the Seed of Grace was never in them 1 Iohn 3.9 2. Neither can it be understood of bare Legitimacy as our mistaken brethren pretend For 1. The Word is never us'd in this sense in all the Scripture 2. The Children of Heathens if begotten in Lawful Wedlock are Legitimate as well as of Believers therefore this can be no distinguishing mark as in this place 3. The Apostle's Argument would be weak and unconcluding if he should only prove that they were Lawful Man and Wife because their Children were Lawfully begotten The Question propos'd to the Apostle was this Supposing a believing Wife Marry'd to an unbeliever or e contra whether the believer should dwell with the unbeliever or part one from another The Apostle Answers If the unbeliever be willing to abide let them do so For the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband and else were ●our Children unclean but now are they Holy Because one Parent is a believer therefore their Children are peculiarly related to God and in Covenant with him Now if bare Legitimacy were intended then the Argument would run thus You have no Reason to question whether you are Man and Wife because your Children are Lawfully begotten Can any believe any could question the one and yet grant the other 4. This would not answer the Corinthians Scruple They did not question whether co-habiting with Unbelievers expos'd them to Fornication but whether it would expose them to Irreligion or at least great Temptations Now says the Apostle How Knowest thou O Man but thou may'st save thy Wife However your Children are holy because one is a believer 3. By holiness is meant Relative or Federal Holiness That the Children of Believers are Separated to God enter'd into a new Relation to him by vertue of his Covenant Thus the Israelites are said to be a holy People because Separated to God as his peculiar Treasure Deut. 14.2.26.19 the Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy as related to God and enjoying distinguishing marks of Favour therefore ought to have this distinguishing ordinance apply'd to them 2. What Priviledges are the Infants of Believers Invested in by Baptism 1. They are solemnly admitted into the Visible Church no longer strangers to the Covenants of Promise but more nearly related to God than the Infants of Heathens 2. Peculiarly interested in the Churches Prayers we are bound indeed to pray for all Men but more peculiarly for the Church of God Gal 6.16 3. Have a Title to Gods peculiar care God gives his Angels a charge over them Mat. 18.10 4. They stand nearer to and are the more especial Objects of the promises of Grace Is. 44.3.59 Infants are call'd by Gods Name therefore tho' Gods Grace is free yet we