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
A88098	An after-reckoning with Mr Saltmarsh: or, An appeal to the impartiall and consciencious reader, and lover of truth and sincerity, against his last paper, called An end of one controversy, or an answer or letter to M. Leys large last book. Written by L.M. a student in divinity.	Ley, John, 1583-1662.	1646 (1646)	Wing L1870; Thomason E339_20; ESTC R200863	51,392	74

to be observed This opinion a Bell. de Bapt l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 3. p. 272. Bellarmin imputeth to Luther Zuinglius and Brentius as their errour 2. For the formes that are found in Scripture that Baptisme In the Name of Christ or of Christ Iesus was lawfull when John so baptized for it is recorded in the Scripture as before hath been shewed and no where reproved nor those so baptized by him rebaptized as hath been also shewed beofre 3. b Bell l. 1. de Sacr. Bapt. c. 3. p. 276. Francise Longus in Can. Apost 49. p. 136. Some teach that the Apostles baptized lawfully In the name of Christ though without the addition of these words which was to come as well as In the name of the Trinity 4. That it is lawfull for Ministers so to baptize at this day for the reason rendred by c Basil de spirit san●c 1● Basil because in one person all three are vertually included as in the name of Christ signisying anointed the person anointing the father is imploied and the person by whom he is anointed the holy Ghost So as d Fred. Span. hem dab Evang part 3. in Matth. 28. p. 79. Spanhemius saith John Baptized In the Name of the Trinity implicitly though not explicitely 5. For Baptisme In the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost e Apul Suares loco sub citato 〈◊〉 some hold that termes of equivalence or equpollence bearing the same sence will serve for the forme of Baptisme as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Constit l. c. 23. In the name of the sending Father or the Father that sendeth In the name of the Sonne that is come and In the name of the witnessing Comforter or g Suarez in 2. part Tham. Tom 3. qui est primas de sacram disp 2● q 66. sell 4. p. 21● In the name of him that begetteth of him that is begotten and of the spirit proceding from them both But the neerer the words come to those of the 28. of Matth. 19. the more assuredly lawfull as if one should baptize In the name of the Father the word and the holy Ghost 1 Iohn 5.7 Nor is that thought unlawfull to name each person with a word of explication added as h Egote haptizo in no nine atris in geniti filij genht S S. abu troque procedentis Lomb. 4. Sent. dist 3. I baptize thee In the name of the Father that begetteth and of the Sonne that is begotten and of the holy Ghost which proceedeth from them both These propositions may have a speculative truth in them and there may be warrant for them for it seemes reasonable to think that as though our Saviour said After this maner pray ye Matth. 6.9 and when ye pray say c. Luke 11.2 yet when we pray it may be lawfull to use another forme or that forme with some expository variation so it may be lawfull in respect of the thing it selfe to use the same words or others of the like sense and meaning and this the rather because we finde not that any other Sacrament in the old or new Testament had any set forme of words wherewith it was by a prescript order or any peremptory rule to be administred but to be practically lawfull at this time after so ancient and so generall a use and custome of most orthodox Churches is another thing For to depart from those words having so generall warrant not onely from Scripture but from universall observation cannot be done without scandall and so cannot be lawfully done though the thing it selfe in it self and in thesi be lawfull as though it be lawfull for a Preacher to keepe on his hat while he speaketh to the people and in the thing it selfe more congruous to his condition then to the peoples to be covered at Setmon yet since it hath been so long a received custome in our Church for the Preacher not to weare his hat though the people doe he that should preach with his hat on his head would occasion a scandall and give men occasion to conceive That he were either very proud or very vaine and fantasticall The fifth Querie If there be any variation from the forme in Matth. 28.19 what may be admitted without violation of the Sacrament what not In answere wherto we say First That some words in this forme are not so necessary and considerable as others as 1. It is not necessary to say I baptize thee in the first person for the k Non negamus quia per illa verba Baptizetur talis servm Christi in nomine patris filij spir saucti vet baptizetur manib●● meis talis verum perficiatur Baptisma Concil Florent decretum super unione Iacobinorum Armeniorum Franc. Long. Sum. Concil p. 888. col 1. Greeks baptizing in the third person Let this servant of Christ be baptized or baptized by my hands in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Gholst are acknowledged to have a true baptisme Secondly It is not necessary to say Baptize for a man may perform true and sufficient baptisme by the word wash or sprinkle as well as by the word baptize Thirdly It makes no great difference to say in the name or into the name for as in the name may note the authority of Baptisme and the holy influence of the Authour going along with it so to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6.1 or into the name of Christ may note the effect and benefit of Baptisme incorporating the baptized into the mysticall body of Jesus Christ and though we read the words Matth. 28.19 In the name of the Father the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may more exactly in the grammaticall sence of the words be rendred into the name and the like we may resolve of the same phrase 1 Cor. 1.13 but to be Baptized in the name is properly the true English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.38 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 10.48 But l In nomine utique art non in nominibus ut unitas essen tiae ostendatur per tria verò que supposuit tres esse personas declaravit Ambros de si de ad Gratian cap. 1. Ambrose observes in the Name in the singular number as importing the unity of substance in the Trinity of persons of the Godhead Secondly But for the expresse mention of all the persons of the Trinity it is held by many to be m Aquin. in 3. part q. 66. art 5. ad 7. in 4 sent dist 3. art 2. questi uncula 2. ad ● Bonarent art q. 3. Scotus quest 2. art 3 num 16. Paludanus q. 1. art 3. necessary both n Suarez in 3. part Thom. Tom. 3. qui est primus de Sacramentis disp 21. q. 66. Sect. 4 p. 220 col 2. because of the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 the custom of the Church and the scandall which would be occasioned if any of them should

prodeat Teque oratum habeo ut libro tuo quicunque fit quem proxime in lucem emittis praefigere ne graveris Dated April 23. 1646. the margine The fourth particular cavill is made at the signification of M. Leys name in Hebrew the grace of God and in Spanish law which was so pertinently brought in to confute that fond Etymologist that being true it could not with discretion have been omitted The fifth note of vain boasting implicitely imputed by you to M. L. is the recitall of some letters of commendation pag. 19 20 c. where still you conceal the occasion with an unsincere subtlety not becoming a Christian much lesse a Minister of the Gospel least of all one of so refined a Reformation as you pretend unto The occasion you know was this The scurrilous novellist had suggested M. Leys book stuck upon M. Meredith the Stationers hand to his losse and that therefore he was to make him a recompence and this with a sensles absurdity too he wrote for news of the same day when M. Leys book came out which being made known to M. Meredith he wrote a letter of confutation of that folly and falshood and in that said the book sold very well and that he had severall Letters from such as were able to judge in approbation of it as worthy both to be bought and read and he presently sent him that which came next to hand the writer whereof a godly and learned Divine saith thus I pray you present my respects to Reverend M. Ley I blesse Gad for him and for his learned and faithfull labours especially his last in Answer to Saltmarsh his Query and in vindication of the Cities and Ministers Petition And this is all Sir you were pleased to remember of C. D. his Treatise whereas there are many things in it of more weight of which you seem to take no notice Doubtlesse your intent was to cast a dead fly of vain ostentation into the ointment of his good name that a little folly might cause a stinking savour on him who is in reputation for wisdom and honour Eccles 10.1 and your motive to this as it is to be feared was envy at his approbation and praise which made you rather point at the letters then report their contents or the occasion of their writing and Printing J. S. pag. 11. Thus I have gathered up all in your book that concerns you materially and your friend printed on the back side of yours L. M. Thus I have gathered Even so Sir as you gather Churches with so little sincerity that all may gather by your dealing that you make no conscience of scandalous suggestions or of fraudulent reservations But if you dare be so bold with sinne me thinks you should not be so blinde in judgement as to think such grosse miscarriage in the cause in difference can be secured with all the subtilty you have from shamefull infamy And I wish you did but hear what judicious and wise men both Divines and others have said of you since they have read the reciprocall writings betwixt M. Ley and you Truly Sir whatever you think of your self they take you for such gatherings and severings as you make of clear and plain words to be little better then salt that hath lost its savour good for nothing but to be troden under feet Matth. 5.13 and some of them who are men of note for piety and prudence and who are so farre from conceiving you come off with credit in the cause that they think you should not go away without punishment at least that you cannot escape shame for your wilfull falsehood and abuse of your Reader J. S. pag. 11. And for other particulars more substantiall your Bookes and mine are both abread let them speake for themselves L. M. And why may they not speake for themselves in matters of lesse moment as well as more substantiall but whether for either or both M. Ley desires nothing more then that all who read the one would read the other But you cannot without hypocrisy pretend so much syncerity when you doe all you can to delude your Reader by subtile concealments and mis-intimations and make it a fault in M. Ley In the first page of your letter to M. Ley. fairly and freely to informe the Reader of such alternate passages betwixt him you as make for the clearing of the difference betwixt you J. S. pag. 11. The Readers must now judge in the spirit what we both have written in the Letter L. M. What you meane by the spirit I know not I doubt you meane some new giddy wavering fancy such as sets you on scribling you care not what But if they will as they ought judge righteous judgement Iohn 7.24 neither M. Ley nor C. D. will have any cause to be afraid of their definitive sentence in the triall before them J. S. pag. 11. I intend not to puzzle the world with any more of this controversy L. M. This is one of the wisest and honestest passages in your Answere if you be true to what you tell your Reader for it implieth a confession of that which you injuriously object to M. Ley in the beginning of your Letter of puzling the world your Readers your simple Readers you should say for neither the world nor the wise in it will be puzled with such poore trifles as you present and send abroad and a promise that you will offend in that kinde no more wise and good men will be glad to take you at your word but I doubt you will not be so good a man as to make them believe you will take up a controversie unlesse you may have the last word J. S. pag. 11. Some truth may be seene and what is more is but you and I. L. M. More truth might have beene seene if you had used such plaine dealing as your duty required What you meane by What is more is but you and I I doe not clearly understand whether what is more then truth or then that truth which is already seene is but you and I that is our adverse assertions yet there is a truth in them on one side or other but for this Si non vis intelligi debes negligi J. S. pag. 11. Sr I was unwilling to set your failings before you and the world L. M. It seemes so in fact because you have set none but your owne faylings of truth and honesty before the world but sure your affection was to make others believe you have made such discoveries of him as might disgrace him But are you so blinded with selfe-love as to believe that any wise Reader of M. Leys writings and yours will thinke you meant to have any mercy on his reputation if he had justly incurred the reproach of your penne J. S. pag. 11. But since you printed them once over in mistake I thought I might print them over in a clearer letter L. M. Not so cleare Sr but that