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	son_n	trinity_n	8,730	5	10.2166	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70792	Infant baptism of Christ's appointment, or A discovery of infants interest in the covenant with Abraham shewing who are the spiritual seed and who the fleshly seed. Together, with the improvement of covenant interest by parents and children. By S.P. minister of the Gospel.; Infant baptism of Christ's appointment.	Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1687 (1687)	Wing P1898; ESTC R218919	34,665	113

Baptism IT is a matter of great Importance rightly to determin who are the Subjects and what is the form of Gospel Baptism to prevent error in that administration and the lamentable Church-dividing Consequences thereof It is the Covenant Interest and Baptism of the Infant Seed only of Visible Believers that I plead for and there are such vast numbers even Millions of these that if Men unduly exclude and rase out the names of so many out of that great Charter of Heaven they will have a dreadful account to give thereof to God. Those who deny Infant Baptism often call upon us to give express Scripture for it and speak slightly of Consequences But let them know that Scripture Consequences i. e. naturally deduced are valid arguments for Jesus Christ proveth an Article of Faith viz. the resurrection Mat. 22. v. 31. 32. from Ex. 3. v. 6. where is no express word of it and so the proof is only by consequence See others Joh. 7. 38. Joh. 5. 46. 47. Luk. 24. 44 45 46. Act. 10. 43. and 28. v. 23. it would destroy almost all preaching to deny Consequences Besides what express Scripture have they for admitting Women to the Lords Supper as to 1 Cor. 11. 28. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may rarely be extended to the female yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself limits it to the male So what express Scripture have they for Baptizing again those who were Baptized as with us in Infancy I conclude things may be forbidden by good consequence but to those who are otherwise minded for ever to silence this weak Objection I add That there is nothing against Infant Baptism but by consequence and that not good If the Command to Baptize Professed Believers did forbid to the Baptizing of Infants as it doth not yet it were only by consequence I argue thus There is no express Sctipture against Infant Baptism if there were the Controversy were presently at an end Therefore Infants may be Baptized for where there is no Law there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. Undeniably then either Scripture Consequences must be owned or else Infants may lawfully be Baptized for there is no express Scripture or Law against it § 1. The Proof of Infant Baptism Position That Infant Baptism is an Appointment of Christ Or That it is the will of Christ that some Infants should be Baptized Argument 1. Some Infants are Discipled so as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Therefore by the will of Christ they are to be Baptized For that is the Commission Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations Baptizing them All then who are discipled by the Will of Christ are to be Baptized and they are Disciples not only who actually learn but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning Saul made havock of the Church Act. 8. 3. Which is expressed Act. 9. 1. by the Disciples of the Lord. So then to be a Church-member is to be a Disciple Thus Act. 15. 10. The Yoke of Circumcision was laid upon the Disciples Doctrinely imposed upon the Parents but Practically upon the Infant Seed at eight days old for so was the Institution Gen. 17. v. 10 12 13. And so they are Disciples See also Act. 21. 4 5. where Children seem to be numbred among Disciples And as to the Name of the Trinity that of being Holy is attributed often to Father Son and Spirit Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 15. Heb. 7. 26. Eph. 1. v. 13. and 4. 30. 1 Thess 4. 8. And it is given also to the Church and its Members Exod. 19. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. v. 2. 21. and 26. 19. and 28. v. 9. Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. And this very Name of the Lord Holy he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children Unclean but now are they Holy i. e. Holy by a Separation unto God and his Service which often in Scripture denominateth Persons or Things Holy as the Church and it cannot be meant of Legitimation for if both the Parents were Unbelievers yet the Children might not be Illegitimate For Marriage is honourable in all Heb. 13. 4. Nor is it meant of being only Sanctified to use for there is a vast difference between being Sanctified to and being Holy as Mr. Cotton saith Afflictions Temptations yea Sin it self is Sanctified to Believers And yet none will say that Sin is Holy. Therefore it must be meant of Relative Faederal Holiness and so that Name of God is upon the Children of Believers and consequently they are to be Baptized Arg. 2. If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Govenant which God made with Abraham then by the will of Christ they are to be Baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be Baptized The Consequence that those who are so in Abraham's Covenant are to be Baptized I prove For 1. All the Seed of Abraham in their Generations are expressly Commanded to keep the Covenant by applying the Token of it which is Baptism Gen. 17. 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations So long then as Abraham hath a Seed which undeniably he hath in Gospel Times even in all their Generations here is a standing Command to keep the Covenant And how keep it v. 10. 11. This is my Covenant And mentioning Circumcision he saith It shall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you So then the keeping it is by applying the Token of it But he varieth the Phrase as Mr. Whiston excellently observeth an Intimation that he purposed a change in the Token of the Covenant It is not said That the keeping of it in all their Generations should be by Circumcision as the Token of it The Covenant in Gospel Times cannot be kept by Circumcision for that is abrogated and ceaseth to be a Token of it and therefore it must be kept by Baptism which now is the Sign or Token of it that being for the Remission of Sins Act. 2. 38 39. which is a great Blessing of the Covenant Heb. 10. v. 16 17. This then is a full Command to Baptize all in Covenant now for the keeping it as it did command of old to Circumcise them when that was the Token of the Covenant The alteration of the Sign is no hindrance at all as the Second Commandment of Old did require Circumcision Sacrifices and Passover and now these are abrogated it doth equally require the observing Gospel Institutions as Baptism and the Lord's Supper and is kept thereby And the Fourth Commandment required the Observation of the Seventh Day as a Sabbath yet now is kept by observing the First Day of the Week as a Sabbath So the Command of keeping the Covenant was observed of old by

Repentance were then necessary even for the Jews the natural seed of Abraham that they who were Parents may have right themselves unto Bapism and other Gospel Priviledges and so their Infant seed may have right also For as in other ages of the Church when the Lord gave forth new Revelations and Ordinances for the Tabernacle and Temple he required the receiving of them by Faith and Obedience else they were to be cut off Lev. 7 v. 20 21 25 27. and 17. 4 9. and 19. 8 and 23. v. 27 29. And after great Apostacies and Backslidings they were severely threatned if they repented not So at the dawning of the Gospel day Jesus Christ the promised Seed being actually come this made a great addition to that important Article of Faith now all were obliged under the highest penalty to the Faith of this that the Messiah was come that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Joh. 8. 24. If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins This was the Test in those times and for Unbelief the Jews the natural seed of Abraham were broken off Rom. 11. 20. On this account was the command in that day to them Believe and be baptized for by persisting in positive obstinate unbelief as to his being come there was a rejection of the Covenant and losing their own right and so their Childrens right which resulted from theirs must needs be lost also If Parents be cast out of Covenant then I plead not for their or their Infants Baptism That faith then was indispensibly necessary to the continuing their Covenant Interest as well as to their Baptism yea if circumcision on the 8th day had continued to this day yet this faith of his being come would have been necessary thenceforth in the Parents in order to their Childrens sharing in it But where the natural seed of Abraham by such faith laid hold on the Covenant and continued their Interest in it here is nothing to prove any alteration or curtailing of the Covenant so as to cut off their Infant seed from it or to exclude them from Baptism Also the natural seed of Abraham had then exceedingly corrupted themselves and hainously sinned even so as to Crucifie Christ the Prince of Life on which account he commandeth to Repent and be Baptized Act. 2. v. 36. 38. When they were under such transgressions well might they be exhorted to repentance in order to Baptism and to prevent their forfeiting all and utter rejection and the Lords saying to them Loami ye are none of my People Certainly a Church which owneth Infant Baptism having members under such a horrid offence may require a manifestation of repentance from the Parents before they do Baptize their Infants In short I have discovered that Infant Baptism followeth Parents Faith and Repentance is pre-required to Baptism of a degenerate adult seed but this is nothing against Baptizing Infants of a spiritual seed by faith § 3. Of the validity of Baptism in Infancy Some speak contemptuously of the Baptizing of Infants and undertake to Rebaptize but Pos Baptism administred in Infancy is valid is no nullity I have proved there is Scripture warrant for Infant Baptism some Infants are the proper Subjects of it and so it s no nullity Arg. 1. Our Baptism in Infancy hath all the Essentials of Gospel water Baptism therefore it is valid is no nullity For if a sin in Circumstantials and accidentals of an ordinance did null it then none were valid no person is so Baptized but some sin in it would render it a nullity seeing there is not a just man upon Earth that doth good and sinneth not Eccles 7. 20. 1 Joh. 1. 8. and the contrary is clear Zippora circumcised when Moses should have done it Ex. 4. 25. and yet it was valid for the Angel of the Lord was pacified v. 26. So the high priests were not of the right line but yearly yet Christ owneth them Joh. 11. 51. and 18 13. and I ask if a person erreth in his profession of faith and yet they Baptize him if he after be profane will they say it is a nullity will they if he repent Baptize him again Now our Baptism in Infancy hath all Essentials of water Baptism for it hath right matter and form here is right matter ex qua constat viz. Water without undue mixture here is the sign and the thing signified by it is evangelical also the right matter circaquam capable Subjects rational creatures none else can be in Covenant nor in a capacity to have the things signified the graces and benefits of the Covenant That Infants have right to it I have evidenced that they are capable is undeniable as they were of circumcision which had a spiritual signification as well as Baptism what hinders their receptivity Infants are capable of a principle of faith and repentance antecedently and of actual believing and repenting consequently and one end which Baptism obligeth to is after repentance Mat. 3. 11. Act. 19. 34. Also it hath the right form an application of water in a solemn significative way in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Mat. 28. 19. we use washing tho not submersion it is such an applying of water that is the substance of the external form of Baptism and if there were a sinful defect which I think there is not in the want of sub mersion yet it can be but an accidental one and so it can never be proved that it renders it a nullity In Infant Baptism there is the Internal form consisting in the relation of the sign and thing signified and the External form the applying water in a solemn way with the words of Institution in the name of the Father which must needs be more of the substance of the ordinance then submersion can be and it is a principal part the face which is is applyed to for the noting profession as the fathers n●me in the forehead Rev. 14. v. 1 and so it is valid Arg. 2. Our Baptism in Infancy answereth to the Scripture signification of the word and to what is signified by that Ordinance therefore it is valid and is no nullity The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred mergo lavo it noteth a small use of water as Luk. 16. 24. that he may dip it is not the whole finger but only the tip of it Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mergo lavo it signifieth not necessarily to dip or plunge but as well to wash and this both in common and in sacred use it cannot be confined to submersion or overwhelming in the water and so such dipping cannot be essential to Baptism so as the not using it should render it a nullity see Mar. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they wash they eat not Will any say except they plunged their whole bodies under water they eat not surely no but only washed their hands as v. 3. yet they the persons by that small application