Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	john_n	17,081	5	6.2026	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45828	A peaceable enquiry into that novel controversie about reordination With certain close, but candid animadversions upon an ingenious tract for the lawfulness of reordination; written by the learned and Reverend Mr. J. Humphrey. By R.I.	I. R.	1661 (1661)	Wing I10A; ESTC R219975	68,572	176

have commanded him so to have done But alass this is far from our state for if we come for reordination we must use such forms as are altogether accommodated to an end which by us must not at all be intended and altogether unaccommodated to the end chiefly yea only by u●prosecuted Object 8. Drawn from a supposed rebaptization P. 85 86 87 88. Mr. H. Let us turn then to Acts 19. and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus who were baptized into Johns baptisme It is like that Apo●los living there a diligent Teacher and knowing only the baptisme of John Acts 18.24.25 had baptized them Now we are to know that this baptisme having the same Author Mat. 2.25 Matter John 1.26 Form John 1.32 33 34. Ends Luke 3 3. and consigning the same Gospel Mark 1.3 4. was but one with Christs baptisme Ephes 4.5 Paul therefore catechizing them therein thus instructs them John verily baptized with the baptisme of repentance laying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is sayes he on Christ Jesus It follows When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Now the Question arises here Who are meant by they in the Text the people unto whom John spake or the persons the twelve men to whom Paul speaks Not the first certainly then must these words that is on Christ Jesus be Johns interpretation when it is plain he did not know Christ by his name when he baptized untill Christ came to him John 1.30 31. Who are they then Why the last no doubt for John and his Disciples did baptize into one which should come as it is said here but it was the Apostles and Christs Disciples that baptized expresly in the name of Christ Jesus c. Resol Though I observe a greater variety of opinions about the interpretation of this Text then almost of any other through the whole Bible yet this I observe also that they all agree in this whatever else they differ in to explode a repetition of the same valid baptisme which is the only pillar of our reverend Brothers Argument Yea moreover it is very observable that the very reason of this so great diversity was their detestation of rebaptization I find these ten several interpretations none of which allow a repetition of every way the same baptisme which therefore cannot support the repetition of the same ordination 1. Some think in that Text baptisme is alwayes to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine of baptisme that the sence may run thus those twelve Disciples which were only instructed in the doctrine of John were afterwards instructed in the Doctrine of Christ 2. Others say that baptisme may be taken alwayes Metaphorically in that Tex● but in the first place for the Doctrine in the second for the gifts of the Spirit bestowed by imposition of hands 3. Others suppose that the baptisme of John is to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine and the baptisme of Christ properly and so that these twelve were but once baptized and that not by John but Paul 4. O hers take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul Metaphorically for the Doctrine and so make but one baptisme and that by John not by Paul 5. Some take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul improperly for the gifts of the holy Ghost 6. Others take baptisme properly in both but yet observe that both these expressions relate to Johns baptisme and of this opinion are many of our Moderns 7. Others take baptisme properly in both and acknowledge a rebaptization but it was because those Disciples wanted the true baptisme of John and had only a corrupt administration from some of Johns Disciples wanting the true form being not in the name of the Holy Ghost 8. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but it was through this accidental corruption in the administration of Johns baptism the baptized being not instructed in the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs baptism with the Spirit 9. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but erroneously administred by some of Pauls Disciples before Paul came to them 10. That Paul did indeed rebaptize whom John had baptized but it was because Christs baptism and Johns were not the same And this way goes the Council at Trent Bellarmine Estius à Lap. and I think I may safely say the Romanists generally and if I should add the Ancients also I should not be much overtasked to prove it and this way Diodat himself seems to go And now I infer If any of these interpretations may be allowed or if the uniform consent and practice of the Catholick Church may be admitted then is our reverend Brother mistaken in his interpretation And oh how strong and subtile was that temptation that trapan'd so learned a person into the justification of one novelty by another reordination by rebaptization And what cause have I and such as I to pour out our souls in that petition Lead us not into temptation But hold I must not sit down as yet there is another job of work behind and that is to saw asunder the Argument for this singular opinion and which is more difficult to resolve amongst all these Divines whose hand-saw to use to use them all at once is needless if not impossible to reject any out of our shop is prodigal if not scandalous and therefore I will only make use of one and let the rest lye by until I have more need of them I shall not now deny Christs baptism and Johns to be the same but shall rather conject ure that Johns baptism was never iterated and therefore I must proceed to answer the Argument for the contrary 1. It is certain that the whole history Acts 19. was written by Luke as the Historian 2. It is certain that the Question ver 2. Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye believed which probably is to be understood of the extraordinary gifts as Calvin Beza Annot. c. because it was to be received since they believed and the ordinary gift before or in believing was from Paul 3. It is certain also that that Answer We have not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost which is probably to be understood sutably to the Question of the extraordinary gifts for John did tell his Disciples of the person of the holy Ghost was the answer of Johns Disciples 4. It is certain also that that Question was Pauls Vnto what then were ye baptized 5. And the Answer following was the Disciples Vnto Johns baptisme 6. It is certain also that the explanatory reply ver 4. was from Paul 7. Neither do I see any evidence necessitating a denyal of the next words When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to be attributed to the people that heard John saying that he baptized with the baptism of repentance and that they should believe in him that should

distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will utterly subvert the other interpretation Yet there are three several answers each of which will take off the pretence of Timothies re-ordination 1. It is well known that several learned Divines do take that act in 1 Tim. 4.14 and that in 2 Tim. 1.6 to be one and the same ordination some say with the laying on the hands of the Presbyterie may be meant Pauls hands so Bishop Bilson Mr. Mason Calvin Gelaspy De gubern Ecc●● 252. and others others think that Pauls hands were not the hands of the Presbyteric yet that both Pauls hands and the Presbyters were laid on together De Min. Ang● p 44 45. in 1 Tim. 4. Misc Qu. p. 101. and so both concur in one ordination so then if either of these were true as I confess I dare make a point of faith of neither then there is no ordination to be found here 2. It s more probable that if these Texts must be understood of two ordinations that they were to two offices the first to an inferiour the second to a superiour office and perchance first to the office of a Presbyter and afterwards to the office of an Evangelist Gelaspy seems to lean this way Misc Qu. p. 90 103. It s observable indeed that in the first Epistle Paul never gives Timothy any higher Title then Bishop or Presbyter which now at last are acknowledged to be used by the Holy Ghost promiscuously but in the second Epistle wherein Paul mentions the laying on of his own hands he stiles him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and either here must be a twofold ordination or else Timothy was ordained per saltum or else his second ordination is not recorded 3. Some think and I think it is most probable that 2 Tim. 2.1.6 is not to be understood of ordination at all but of some special gift conferred by the laying on of Pauls hands 1. As Mr. Baxter saith It may be imposition of hands in confirination or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and the following effects of the spirit of power and love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of confirming grace admonishing him that he be not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of confirmation 2. That very expression stir up the gift doth seem to imply that gift to be gratia gratum faciens for it seems too improper to say stir up thy office 3. The Apostle doth somewhat critically use a divers particle in these two Texts in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Question is why should Paul use different words if these were not different acts I am not ignorant that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to set forth Pauls act in ordination because he was the Ordainer and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth the Presbyters act because they are only assistants in ordination But 1. This crotchet though ingenious yet it seems to be new 2. Altogether without proof 3. And it seems to contradict most of our Protestant Divines even Episcopal as well as others that acknowledge a power of ordination in Presbyters and that their ordination without a Diocesan is valid which they would not do had the Presbyterie no power of ordination at all 4. It supposes ordination in this Text which supposition is contrary to the two first probabilities that this gift was gratia gratum faciens and not gratia gratis data 5. In Acts 13. there is the same word used to signifie the act of the Doctors as was used to signifie the Act of the Prophets 6. This would overthrow their new interpretation of 1 Tim. 4.14 which is to put Presbyterium for the office with a Parenthesis in the Text to help the same and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Pauls act 7. It will overthrow that testimony of the Antients so much magnified for understanding by a Colledge of Presbyters a Colledge of D●ocesans for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie their act 8. If this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the Presbyters consent only then why should the Presbyters lay on hands any more then the people for the people were antiently to consent and to assist by their concurrence in prayer 9. If Presbyters are Ordainers with the Bishops as some confess then is it not against the nature of ordination for have not all ordainers the same causality 10. But further to speak the truth whether it make for me or against me these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often used promiscuously instances are not rare of using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for per and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cum And it is evident that the whole Church till of late for ought I yet see hath so understood the same in these Texts But to leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference any things it be not more probable that they difference the interpretation of the holy Ghost from an ordination then an ordination from an ordination But let it go how it will with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure I am that it is more probable either that Paul ordained ●ot Timothy at all or that he joyned with the Presbyters in their ordination or that the Presbyters ordained Timothy to one office and Paul afterwards to another a higher then that Paul ordained him to the same office to which he was ordained before All that I observe further in Mr. H. tract is the authority of Chemnitius and Baldwin Resol 1. Methinks it is a Question whether reordination be more credited by these two authorities or more discredited in that they are but two and two not of the Antients neither And though it is to be acknowledged that these two were learned and reverend Lutheran Divines yet no doubt there may be two score easily rallied against them and it may be as learned as they I believe no Reordained will ever adventure to pole authorities and if they will not number but weigh they will get but little But if they will needs urge me with their bare authority I must needs return to such an Ipse dixit as we were wont to return to the authority of Arist at Oxford Rationem Arist expecto non authoritatem Or our reverend Brother may be answered in his own words or rather St. Hieromes Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur But more particularly it is certain that Baldwin was against reordination as appears by his seventh Argument produced against it