Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	holy_a	person_n	son_n	20,542	5	6.1434	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90658	A reply to a confutation of some grounds for infants baptisme: as also, concerning the form of a church, put forth against mee by one Thomas Lamb. Hereunto is added, a discourse of the verity and validity of infants baptisme, wherein I endeavour to clear it in it self: as also in the ministery administrating it, and the manner of administration, by sprinkling, and not dipping; with sundry other particulars handled herein. / By George Philips of Watertown in New England.	Phillips, George, 1593-1644.	1645 (1645)	Wing P2026; Thomason E287_4; ESTC R200088	141,673	168

birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for

not satisfie conscience in this cause both because he had an immediate calling nor was he under the state of the new Testament his Ministery being opposed to the Ministery of it by our Saviour Lu. 7.28 John was the greatest among the Prophets in the state of the old Testament before Christ yet the least in the kingdom of heaven in the state of the New after Christ is greater then he Nor can it ever be proved that John was unbaptized Last of all this cannot be denied that a just deduct from the Scripture is of equall force with an expresse command But by just deduction from Scripture it may be proved that beleevers infants may be baptized Ergo it is of equall force with a command Now whether the Assumption be not evinced by the scope and issue of my arguments I leave to all impartiall readers to judge And let this be further well considered whether the denying baptisme of infants of beleevers doth not tend to overthrow all Christian religion and throw down all able Ministery of the Word and set up an unlearned Ministery and cast all Evangelical order into desperate confusion Though I will not take upon me to determine yet this is my apprehension I am perswaded that this mistake here hath forced many to fall upon such ungrounded courses as themselves cannot rest in let any man follow this principle close and see where it issueth Some denying this and yet under conviction of the necessity of the ordinance they have sought a new baptisme to be conferred upon them by some formerly baptized when they were men of years Others not able to make that good take another way one baptizing himself after baptizeth others Another sort not content herewith maintain that any one converted and coming to the knowledge of Gods ways may teach others converting them may baptize those whom he so converts though unbaptized himself alledging for this purpose Mat. 28.19 which place will give no ground to such an apprehension because all those were officers chosen to who that was spoken and were all baptized themselves and not unbaptized as they who alledge it must understand it otherwise making no jot to their purpose Some other perceiving all these insufficient to settle conscience waving all do give up all solemn and religious publike worship of God and travell with expectation of some new revelation and wait for some immediate raising up of some extraordinary officer to begin all anew And last of all not to go beyond mine own observation there is a generation who questioning all the former practices as they justly may fall flatly to deny all ministry and the use of it Baptisme the Lords Supper c. as but for a time and not now required speaking contemptibly of the Ministry as Sorcerers and Magitians and of all the ordinances of the Gospel as shadowes I dols and not to be regarded horrescens refero Now deare Christian Reader as you love Gods truth and desire the blessing of it upon your own souls consider if it doth not deeply concern you all to tremble at the calling into question such a precious and comfortable truth as this of baptizing believers Infants is The denying whereof puts men upon such unwarrautable and unsatisfiing practices as these be And let me intreat you in the bowels of Jesus Christ to labor for an humble heart and to walk closely with the Lord praying mightily and earnestly to him for his grace and holy Spirit to keep you in these evill and dangerous dayes For blessed is he that keepeth his garments that men may not see his nakedness Rev. 16. Acquaint your selves with the worth of baptisme study to enjoy the full fruit of it that your hearts being established with the power of Gods grace you may walk worthy the sacred Laver of regeneration wherewith you are washed And bringing up your children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord you may make good this truth that your Infants are the baptized Disciples of the Lord Jesus If my weak endeavours may be blessed of God for any furtherance and help unto you herein I shall expect no other recompence for my pains but your thanks to God and prayers for my self And so commending my labours and you all by my earnest prayers unto Gods gracious blessing in Christ Jesus your Lord and ours I rest A fellow-servant of all Gods Saints GEORGE PHILIPS A REPLY to a CONFUTATION of some Grounds for Infants Baptisme c. HAving met with a Book entituled A Confutation of Infants Baptisme or an Answer to a Treatise written by George Philips of Watertown in New-England in defence of Infants Baptisme c. it put me into a kinde of wonderment to see my name put forth in print and as Author of a Treatise who never writ any such Treatise nor ever desired or intended the publication of any Discourse upon that or any other subject being privie unto my own disability to do any thing in that kind that may be to the glory of God or the edification of all into whose hands such a Treatise must needs come and therefore do really judge that hee hath not only wronged mee but the truth and all Gods people and done contrary to just and Christian dealing in publishing such a thing under my name and making that common which ought first to have been cleered by private dealing the rule being evident that if any offend another privately the offended should first seek to gain the offender in convincing him of his fault betwixt themselves and thereby prevent further scandall This I am confident of that I never writ one word to him being altogether unknown to me nor to any other in England about this matter Yet seeing I cannot deny my name nor wholly disclaime all that he hath put forth under it howsoever hee came by it I hope none will condemn me if I shall endeavour by Gods assistance to justifie the cause in returning an Answer unto his Confutation but rather think that I am necessitated thereto by this his proceeding unlesse I would give my self up to the censure of all as not having a good cause or being not able to give any cleer grounds to maintain it But before I proceed thereto I think it fit to give an account how this businesse hath been carried One Nathaniel Biscoe coming from England and sitting down with us at Watertown upon a time desired some conference with me and especially about these two things The Churches constitution and Infants Baptisme I judging he did intend no more then he pretended a private conference about those particulars for further light being not well resolved on either side yeelded to his request and in my chamber with him alone agitated those two points both hearing what he could say and answering unto every objection he made and also propounded unto him some of those grounds which in that Book are exprest divers hours wee spent in that discourse and how I carried

the steps of Abraham in regard of Gods intention offer and dispensations but with many of them God was not well pleased because they were not spirituall as hee would have had them and now the Churches constitution is of the like spirituall seed though many be carnall the Church then and now consisting of elect and reprobates the elect only obtaining and the rest being hardened and let mee ask him now in his own words as he doth me in his first exception to my third Proposition How can God blame them for refusing his call c. were they not Abrahams seed in the flesh And is not this their true constitution according to his apprehension One thing more hee observeth and that is a contradiction betwixt the fifth and the sixth Proposition which he cannot but take notice of The contradiction is this that in the fift I should say faith and the first grace must be presupposed or else Baptisme not to be administred and in the sixth that in a man of yeeres faith is to be required and must be that he may be baptized but not the same of Infants and framing a solution which hee conceives I might make viz. that grace may be in Infants though not knowne but in men of yeers who are able to manifest what is in them such manifestation is to be required from them without which they are not to be baptized and concludeth this doth not reconcile but an apparent contradiction remaineth To which I adde this short reply First that I said not faith or a first grace but a first grace is to be presupposed nor did I mean it of faith for they are not capable of actuall faith though they may have habituall which cannot be discerned and I conceive that wee must look upon some known grace from which we may judge though not infallibly that baptisme doth belong unto them Secondly therefore as in my reply to his fifth Proposition grace is either foederall or covenanting grace or of the things contained in the covenant foederall grace is that whereby God out of his free love doth take a people and make them his without any deserts of their own that were not his Deu. 4.34.37.7 Ezek. 16.2 c. And Infants were partakers of this grace as well as men of yeers Grace freely given is either generall to all in covenant as the offer of all spirituall good contained in the Covenant which hee is willing to make them partakers of nor doth their refusall derogate from the grace of God on his part offered unto them or proper to some and that either common to many or particular to some namely the elect as all grace accompanying and compleating salvation Heb. 6.4.9 God in all preventing the creature in beginning with them and going before them without which they neither first nor last would seek after or receive any thing in the least of all Now then to apply this by first grace I do and did mean foederall grace and the dispensation of the offer of the benefits in the Covenant and to this grace he sealeth and thereby confirmeth that hee is willing to make all good unto them all on his part and if they be not partakers of it it will prove their own fault and sin and thus the contradiction was but imagined and not really in my expressions And then hee cometh to my arguments whereby I prove that Infants now are to be baptized The first whereof is taken from the onenesse of the covenant from Abraham to this day and lieth thus If the covenant made with Abraham and continued to the Jewes and since to the Christians be one and the same then as Infants were in the covenant then and received the seal of it circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and must receive the seal thereof baptisme but the first is true therefore the second To this he answereth by denying the Antecedent that the covenant is one and the same and to cleer the grounds of his deniall hee undertakes to shew concerning the covenant of Abraham 1. What it was not 2. What it was 3. That we have no such covenant since Christs coming concerning our seed In shewing what it is not hee lieth down three things First that God did never promise to save any of Abrahams seed for Abrahams sake Secondly nor yet for his fathers sake I know none that say so and therefore this might have been spared yet Ishmael was partaker of the same blessing because he was Abrahams seed Gen. 17.20 and 21.13 And many times the Israelites fared the better for their fathers sake nor yet was Abraham or his faith any efficient or meritoriously a cause thereof but Gods free grace alone Thirdly hee saith that God did never promise to give faith to all Abrahams posterity in the flesh and sets down two reasons hereof 1. Because then God should lie because he did not that he promised but it 's impossible for God to lie 2. Because it is a contradiction to say that God had promised to work in them that he required of them and yet blame them for not profiting in respect of the means vouchsafed them To which I reply first what is the meaning of the promise Deut. 30.6 and Ezek. 11.19 and the like doth not God promise here that hee would give them faith and what is the meaning of that threatening Gen. 17.14 where God denounceth cutting off all such as did not circumcise themselves for breaking his covenant doth it not hold out their despising and neglecting the righteousnesse of faith which God thereby sealed his promise of making them partakers thereof And for the first reason that God should then be a lier I see no force in it for did not God promise to bring them into Canaan yet not one of them came in being shut out by unbeliefe Heb. 3.7 Jer. 18.9 At what instant I shall speak to any which is by promises to build and plant and yet to repent of the good wherewith hee had said hee would benefit them I hope no man will say God is a lier nor in threatening Nineveh to destroy it in forty dayes yet spared it was he a deceiver To say no more the Apostle Rom. 3.1 c. and 9.5 cleereth that Gods faithfulnesse in promising them all good was not blemished on his part promising though they came short by unbeliefe nor is there any contradiction in Gods promising to work faith in them and yet blame them for not profiting for he was willing to work it in them but they resisted his holy Spirit in the Ministery Act. 7.5 only this I desire all to consider whether in denying God promised to work faith in them and yet blaming them for not profiting he doth not intend they had power of themselves to do what he commanded without any concourse of his in the work but only perswasion the words seem to conclude of much and others do stiffly maintain the same with whom he consents in denying

to believe and repent may and should be baptized and that none of yeers are to be baptized till they be converted and believe and repent nor doth the baptizing of Infants prevent the baptizing of men of yeers where any such are converted from Paganisme to Christianity no more then circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of yeers which were converted from Gentilisme to Judaisme though it prevents the baptizing of believers children when they come to yeers because they are baptized Infants As the Jewish Infants circumcised when they were Infants could not be circumcised when they came to yeers It is a weak and feeble consequence to say where wee maintain baptizing Infants who do not actually believe that wee can never baptize any that do actually believe being only true of them that are baptized Infants and Infants of believers So wee come to the other sort of persons to be baptized viz. Infants where I shall indeavour two things 1. What Infants are to be baptized 2. That infants are to be baptized First Infants briefly are either of Infidels or believing parents The Infants of Infidels under which term I comprehend Jewes Turks Pagans and all but those that are true visible Christians are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ and so can have no right at all to this ordinance yea though the parents consent much lesse against their consent Notwithstanding others undertaking for them I except only two cases 1. Slaves and servants bought with money these being Infants may be baptized for ought I know 2. When Infidell parents are converted and desire church-fellowship and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptized I conclude in these two cases that Infants born of Infidell parents may be baptized and therefore I judge that Infidell Infants are in no wise to be baptized because they are unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore such are to be deferred till they be converted and give testimony of their own faith and repentance Two Questions may be here resolved 1. In case of excommunicate persons Whether an Infant born of parents both under the censure of the church and the state of excommunication may be baptized if any will undertake for them I answer No. First because they are in that estate as Heathens and neither of them in visible covenant Secondly if by others undertaking why not Infants of Indians also Thirdly if by faith of fore-fathers as I see no Scriptures for it so where will you limit it Suppose a converted childe of Esau in Davids time could prove successively and to all evidently that hee came of Esau the son of Isaac whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte or as Isaac's seed A second Question is concerning Infants baptized of Heretikes whether lawfull I answer If the person baptizing had a true calling though stained with some corruption in the person or calling and in the administration of baptisme nothing essentiall omitted in matter or form those persons are not to be baptized again because baptisme is not to be administred twice to any But if any of the essentials were omitted such persons are to be baptized as not baptized before And now I come to the other particular that Infants of Believers and visible professors are to be baptized yea though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship which I shall prove after I have premised a few things 1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament are full of perfection containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and order So that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary nor allowed as lawfull but what is justly comprehended in them 2. There are two wayes whereby we may finde what Gods will is in all cases concerning the premises either in expresse terms or by just consequence drawn from thence So that whatsoever is not literally expressed or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence is to be rejected as not the Lords minde 3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense is as truly contained in them as that which is set down in expresse terms and so is of the same force with that which is expressed So our Saviour urgeth the Devill Matth. 4. with that word only from Deut. which yet is not in the Text but truly drawn from thence So the Protestant urging justification by faith only oppose the Papists yet only is not expressed but necessarily drawn from thence For if there be but two wayes of justification as there is not and we be not justified by works as the Text saith then by faith only And Exod. 21.28 c. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars cleerly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt in the like case is intended as Cowe Dog Goat c. 4. The tender of immortality and happinesse of God to mankind hath been two wayes dispensed First to Adam and all mankind in his loynes by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personall righteousnesse Secondly Adam transgressing lost immortality and happinesse in himself and all man-kind and involved them and himself in sin and eternall wrath thereby God the Father for the praise of his grace having predestinated some to that adoption of son-ship in his Son and given them to his Son to be saved by him that hee might be glorified with the Father and hee receiving them at his Fathers hands because they were partakers of flesh and blood hee himself also took flesh and blood upon him and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself that so God might be just and the justifier of the ungodly that should believe in Jesus From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood offering him and his righteousnesse in his humane nature and performed by it in obedience active passive to his holy will to all which shall believe and by that faith be found in him having his righeousnesse upon them accounting them thereby righteous and no sinners and making them from thence through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again This tender being one and the same in substance for ever from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise till this day and to the end yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof as is cleere from four severall and remarkable periods 1. From Adam fallen to Abraham under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 2. The second from Abraham to Moses time in the wildernesse in substance the same with the former yet differing from it First in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abrahams loynes according to the