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 scripture_n 19,615 5 6.1818 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A12552 The character of the beast, or, The false constitution of the church discovered in certayne passages betwixt Mr. R. Clifton & Iohn Smyth, concerning true Christian baptisme of new creatures, or new borne babes in Christ, &nd false baptisme of infants borne after the flesh : referred to two propositions, 1. That infants are not to bee baptized, 2. That antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true church by baptisme. Smyth, John, d. 1612. 1609 (1609) STC 22875; ESTC S991 85,221 80

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

2.11.12 that in as large ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelits for of them only were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrayned ●hen it was vnder the law who came to ratify confirme that wholly as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham his infants if Christ should give it vnto vs onely not to our infants this were to lessen infringe the covenant not to con●●●● all but to take away part of that which God before had given Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth from Coll. 2.11.12 which is framed thus If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also aperteyne to all beleevers to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The reason of the consequent is double 1. for that baptisme cometh in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed Col. 2.11.12 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed vp to vs as to thē therfor to our females as wel as males infants as wel as persons of yeeres For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as larg extent now as then 2. Cor. 1.20 Seing in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen I answer that this argument is built vppon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant seale seed their is manifest violence committed vppon the Scripture by perverting wresting it to false consequents first therfor I deny the consequence I give reasons of my deniall 1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant of life Salvation but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan of obedience to the Law of Moses therfor though circumcision aperteyned to Abraham his carnal infants as a seale of the external covenant yet it doth not follow that baptisme belongs to the Faythful their carnal infants as a seale of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ 2. Secondly bicause the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the New Testament bicause Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to bee the Father of the Faythfull Therefore Abraham receaveth the Faythfull into his bosome Luk. ●6 23 3. Thirdly bicause the infants of the faithful do not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the Fleshe therfor the disproportion being in al these particulars the consequence of the argument is weake insufficient But if you wil make true consequents you must reason frō the type to the truth proportionably not from the type to the type as this argument importeth neyther must you confound the covenants seales as you do but must make al things distinct proportionable the one to the other as thus Abraham the Father of the carnal infants Abraham the Father of the Faithful Carnal Abraham his carnal seed carnally circumcised So Faithful Abraham his Faithful Children Spiritually circumcised The carnal infants of the old Testament carnally circumcised The Spiritual infāts of the new Testament that is men regenerate baptized Thus you se the disproportion of your argument the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good But let vs see the reasons of your consequence the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them you say that baptisme cometh in the ●ome of circūcision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed I vtterly deny it I prove the contrary vnto you Seing that the circumcisiō of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rō 2.29 circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands Col. 2.11 compared with Eph. 2.11 circumcision the seale of the flesh hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Eph. 1.13.14 which seale of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance as circūcision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites I desire to be enformed in al the Scriptures where baptisme is called a seale for I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new Testament though I cannot deny that the baptisme of the holy ghost is the seale I say therfor that the seale of the Spirit must go befor the baptisme of water as al the ordinances of the new Testament are Spiritual yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament Spiritual yet visible thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10.47 may challendg the baptisme with water as Peter there teacheth this visible seale of the new Testament is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confessiō baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale You see therfor that baptisme is not the seale of the new Testament that circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnal seed now the place of Col. 2.11.12 which you produce to prove that baptisme cometh in the rome of circumcision is not so to be construed but the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chr. circumcisiō baptisme which is mortifying burying of sinne resurection from sinne the Apost doth not intend to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth for circumcision but hee teacheth the vertue of Ch. circumcision baptisme in the Faithful so that seing circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of Abrahā therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of viz of the Spirit of promise Againe in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the new Testament 1. baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament I answer many wayes 1. Seing that baptisme doth not succeede circumcision this alegation is nothing to the purpose 2. Seing baptisme is both to male female it is larger then circumcision which was only vppon the male 3. seing that baptisme is both to Iew Gentil therfor
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also f●rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17.10.11.12 The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2.39 sayth the promise is made to you to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account thē all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea evē to our infāts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with Abrahā his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let thē bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with Abrahā his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.