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
A54591	Infant-baptism vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Thomas Grantham by Sam. Petto ...	Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1691 (1691)	Wing P1899; ESTC R35388	11,225	26

Infant-Baptism VINDICATED FROM THE EXCEPTIONS OF Mr. Thomas Grantham By SAM PETTO Minister of the Gospel in SUDBURY Acts 2. 39. For the Promise is unto you and to your Children LONDON Printed by T. S. for Ed. Giles Bookseller in Norwich and T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1691. TO THE Christian Reader THere is such Scripture-Evidence for Infant-Baptism that intelligent unprejudiced Men may find what Mr. Grantham saith against my Defence of it a Reply and no Answer Presumption and no Proof The Practice of that Person which withdrew from our Communion was such as if admitted is destructive to all Gospel of Church-Order and so is no slight Occasion to write upon But I had other weighty Matters ensuing which necessitated my Writing and Mr. Grantham not being medled with can shew none such for his Replying As to what he saith to me I shall very briefly answer being still of the same Mind that I was of Let all be measured by the Rule of the Word And that thou mayest have Vnderstanding therein shall be the Prayer of him who is Thine to serve thee In the Gospel Sam. Petto Octob. 12. 1687. Infant-Baptism VINDICATED INfants were diversified by the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. and so still may be by the Will of Christ all not being the Seed of Abraham My Argument pag. 3. was Ad Hominem as appears there and by my Postscript and saith only That Infant-Baptism is not expresly forbidden therefore either it is lawful or else Scripture-Consequences must be admitted which is undeniable It was occasioned by my being told in a Conference that there should be express Scripture in such a Case therefore it was not my Mistake Neither is my Argument answered by saying as he doth p. 2. There is no express Scripture for Infant-Baptism therefore Infant-Baptism may be omitted This is false for there is no express Scripture for Women's Receiving the Lord's Supper and divers other things yet they may not be omitted because by Scripture-Consequences rightly deduced they are required And hence I can subscribe to every Word which he mentions of that Author of our own p. 2. and to Tertullian's Rule I am of the same Mind there is nothing therein against my Argument and I can easily withstand any Innovation which is not expresly forbidden in Scripture for I think things may be commanded or forbidden by good Scripture-Consequence And it was and is my Judgment that all in the Worship of God must be commanded there either expresly or by necessary Consequence Thus Mr. Grantham at his first beginning with me and frequently after by a multitude of impertinent Words would make his incautelous Reader believe that I bring Scriptures for one purpose which are brought for another As p. 4. I bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. to prove that to be a Church-Member is in Scripture to be a Disciple whereas he would have it believed that I thereby would immediately prove Infants Disciples p. 4. So the Scriptures by which I prove p. 5. that the Name Holy is given to Father Son and Spirit as 1 Pet. 1. 15. Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Heb. 7. 26 c. he p. 5 6 7. would make the Reader believe that I bring them immediately to prove Infants discipled And the like use he maketh p. 6 7. of the Scriptures whereby I prove p. 5. that the Name Holy is given to the Church and its Members So that either from great Ignorance or Inadvertency he may blush that he beats the Air and abuseth me As to my first Argument That some Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Trinity upon them At last he denieth my Antecedent saying That no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them In Answer I evidenced it various ways They are said to be holy and so are discipled God hath put his Name upon them before their Baptism though it is solemnly signalized and declared after when they are baptized His first Reason p. 3. from Act. 10. 28. is answered in my Book p. 49 50 51. I grant there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile but those of both who are visibly in Covenant whether Adult or Infants are more clean than others who are out of Covenant and are a holy People differenced from others if not by Qualitative yet by Relative Holiness in Church-state Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. as of old and nothing here against it As to his second Reason I say Men by the Word of God are to be instrumental to bring Men within the Covenant which extendeth to their Seed therefore also to make Infants Disciples Some may be made Disciples without actual teaching or learning as we put Children to School who at first learn nothing Learned Spanhemius well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non significat solum docere sed Discipulos facere aequipollet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 4. 2. Dub. Evang. Par. 3. p. 93. giving Reasons for it I do not say that all who are under Means for Instruction though Persecutors are Disciples but all who are in the School of Christ's Church of which some are Infants The Infant-Seed of Believing Jews were in it by Covenant Gen. 17. and so when that was spoken Matth. 28. 19. not being broken off till afterward and so also the Seed of Believing Gentiles I proved some Infants to be Disciples from Act. 15. 10. He denies that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised yet proves it not But all which the Apostle blameth them for imposing Circumcision practically upon are called by him Disciples and these were principally Infants Gen. 17. 10 11 12. Will he say they were not blamed for laying Circumcision upon Infants His Instance of Infant-Sprinkling is not parallel because Infant is not a Genus for all that we would have baptized I proved some Infants had the Name of the Trinity upon them 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are holy This Holiness he takes for being Legitimate but answers not what I said against it nor doth he prove all to be holy that are legitimate Else i. e. Say some If one be not a Believer or else if the Unbeliever were not sanctified to or by the Believer then the Children were unclean not illegitimate For where there is no Sanctification of one to or by the other but both are Infidels or Unbelievers yet the Children are legitimate Heb. 13. 4. are no Bastards The being holy then must be by a Separation unto God There is no Good in Sin but it becometh of humbling and abasing use to the Soul and so accidentally is turned by God to Good to it which I suppose Mr. C. intendeth by its being sanctified to And this is no new Doctrine but as old as the Days of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 32. 25 26. and Paul 1 Tim. 1. 13. And if all Infants be in a visible State of Salvation by the