Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	baptism_n	john_n	water_n	8,157	5	7.3530	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30907	William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1672 (1672)	Wing B742; ESTC R37062	60,482	82

our selves to God as in Prayer and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our condition then to pray with them The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts in their Spiritual Songs See Luk. 1. 46. and 2. 29. he shall not find me in the whole Bible where they borrowed or sealed the expressions of others experience which no wayes suted their own condition this is a meer humane invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins and from no other foundation Head 10. Concerning Baptism Page 81. He alledgeth That John distingisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ but only his work but his proof for this overthrowes himself for since as he sayes truly John could onely administer Baptism with water but Christ with the Spirit this sheweth them to have differed in the matter for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism and whereas I told him they differed in the end because the one pointed to the other even as the shadow pointed to the substance in stead of replying to this he tells me That the Scripture speaking of Johns Baptism calls it the Baptism of Repentance intimating its end was to signifie and Seal remission of sins which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism As this no-wayes answers my argument so it makes nothing to the purpose for it is one thing to signifie Repentance and remission of sins and far another to know and possess it which is the end and constant fruit of Christs Baptism Gal. 3. 27. As many of you saith the Apostle as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ And therefore it may be observed that without any proof he concludes that Johns Baptism and Christs agree both in the matter and end Pag. 82. As a reply to Act. 19. 2 cited by me to show that they differed in substance he sayeth The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the holy Ghost contrary to the very express Scripture words We have not so much as heard if there be any holy ghost He saith further That the Apostles did not anew baptize such Persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of John in direct contradiction to the Scripture words ver 5. When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came upon them now vers 3. she weth That they were baptized unto Johns Baptism before so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the lie if he can Section 2. Pag. 83. To prove the perpetuity of water Baptism he begins with that often answered argument of the Apostles practice adding That though Christ Mat. 28. doth not mention Baptism with water so neither with the Spirit alledging That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism which is that of the Spirit He adds That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended it would infer a needless Tautology in the command of Christ as being all one with these words Go Teach Answ. Teaching and making men holy and Righteous are different things for he will grant that he and his Brethren have been teaching People these several years and yet he will have much adoe to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally A little after he insinuates and that most falsly that I deny Peters commanding Cornelius to be baptized concealing my express words Page 50. which are these And though it be said ver 28. that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ yet it holds forth no command from Christ onely the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid do it this he hath left un-answered And whereas he adds That doing things in the name of Christ is as much as his command he bringeth no proof for giving but not granting it did hold so Mat. 18. 20. in the case of meeting that will not prove it is allways so taken To evict my objection against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing with water because Paul said he was not sent to Baptize but to Preach he returns That if he had no Commission he would have Baptized none but he Baptized some which would have been of self-will Answ. He might object the same as to Circumcision that because the Apostle Circumcised Timothy therefore he had a Commission for it he would not have done it of self-will His inference from Hos. 6. 6. For I desire mercy and not sacrifice as if from thence Paul were sent principally to Baptize and not to Preach as God there required onely principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifice is most ridiculous and inconsequential nor is there any reason produced to show the party the Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize as principally as to Preach go Preach and Baptize are knit together but the question is Whether this be a Baptism with water which remains yet unproven And therefore his additions to the Scripture is no wayes Justified as if Paul had been sent to Baptize with water but not principally Pag. 86. He undertaketh to prove that Mat. 28. 19. is meant of water-water-Baptism and not of the spirits-Spirits-Baptism the reason alledged there Because the Baptism there mentioned is the action of the Apostles and that to Baptize with the Spirit is peculiar to Christ adding That it would be a confounding of the Duty commanded with the Promise of the blessing annexed to it from thence he concludes That Baptism with water is to continue to the end of the world Answ. The reasons prove nothing and might militate the same way against Teaching which is also there commanded as the action of the Apostles and though it be pecuilar to Christ to teach by the Spirit that did not hinder them to do it further the very Apostles by laying on of hands did administer the holy Spirit and so Baptize with the Spirit Act. 10. 44. 19. 6. And this is no confounding of the Promise with the duty for therein was the Promise and Blessing fullfiled that they did it efectually and therefore from hence he had no ground to conclude the perpetuity of water-Baptism Moreover whereas he cited in his Dialogue Pag. 39. Act. 2. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 21. Act. 22 16. Eph. 5. 26. Gal. 3. 27. as holding forth the excellent uses of water-water-Baptism though I shew him Pag. 5. of mine that these Scriptures are onely aplicable to Baptism with the Spirit and not to sprinkling with water When Pag. 87. he comes to reply againe he offers not in the least to prove that they are aplicable to Baptism with water which is the thing in Question but tells me That those Scriptures

strike against the Popish opus operatum quid inde what then doth it therefore follow that they are aplicable to sprinkling with water who is so blind as not to see through such silly subterfugies He addeth That I proceed upon a wrong supposition as if they thought Baptism with water were of it self effectual to cleanse the Soul Answ. I never proceeded upon such a supposition that which I proceed upon is this That they should call or account sprinkling with water the Baptism of Christ whereas the Scripture declares it not to be so 2 Pet. 3. 21. Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh c. And also ascribe such Scriptures to sprinkling with water as are onely applicable to the Baptism of the Spirit now this as is said above he hath left unanswered Pag. 88. He saith That the one Baptism spoken of Eph. 4. 5. cannot be called the substance and Baptism with water the shadow because they are the same thing but this is pittifully to beg the thing in question And thus W. Ms. Arguments about Baptism runs round Baptism with water is the one Baptism because the one Baptism is commanded by Christ and the one Baptism is Baptism with water because Baptism with water is commanded by Christ he wholly passes by that part of Page 52. of mine where I shew how absurd and antescriptural their manner of baptizing is and thereby he comes the more easily to his conclusion in this matter Head 11. Concerning the Supper Pag. 88. 89. He begin confessing That Christs instituting of the Supper doth not prove its continuance and here he carps at my speaking of it with this addition The Lords Supper so called asking Why I give it not that name the Scripture gives it Answ. It is to be observed that where I speak of it thus Page 52. of my last that it is in my entry upon this matter addressing my self to him my words are Thou comest to prove that the Lords Supper so called c. where I intended not that which was Instituted by Christ and had its season in the Church but that which they call so but really is not so though they seek from this to draw a warrant for it and whereas I shew him that by breaking of bread Act. 2. 42. is meant their ordinary eating His Answer is That their eating is not ordinary but Scramental and the Text speaketh not of daily eating but a continuing daily in the Temple and that the Syriack exposition expounds it of the Eucharist but it is in vain he thinks by his Imaginations to overturn the plain words of Scripture Act. 2. 46. And they continuing daily in the Temple with one accord and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart can there be any thing more plain then that their breaking of bread here was their ordinary eating and as for his talk of Sacramental eating where doth he read of such a phrase in all the Bible It is ill argued to say I am ignorant of the way of some Protestant Churches who uses breaking of bread once a fortnight or once a month because I say their doing of it once or twice a year is not according to the example of such as of old used it Pag. 90. He adds That though this eating Act. 2. 46. be conjoyned with this that they sould their possessions c. yet we are to follow them in the one and not in the other because the one was to continue and not the other but for this he bringeth no proof save his own bare assertion After the like manner Pag. 91. He sayeth That though abstaining from blood and things strangled be commanded yet the Apostle Paul repeats it extending Christian Liberty to whatsoever is sould in the shambles but according to this he might argue That though abstaining from Circumcission be there commanded yet Pauls Circumcising of Timothy might now warrant it And whereas he asketh If Paul Circumcised any other what if he had not Church history tells us that many yeares after several Bishops of Jerusalem were Circumcised it will not therefore follow that was a repealing of the Apostles determination by the holy Ghost or that we should continue in the use of Circumcission He addeth That Washing of one anothers feet which was expresly commanded was not that we might practice it but only to teach us humillity for this he adds no proof it is onely his own conjecture upon all which I desire the Reader to observe how W. M. can find shifts to evict those above-said which are expresly commanded by Christ and his Apostles and yet make such a great noise of our forbearing water-Baptism and the external Supper which are not more particularly pressed as also how we can say far more against the perpetuity of these last then they against the former and yet they clamor against us as if so much as to call the constant use of them in question were to despise the Ordinances of Christ c. He asketh What clearer command there can be then these words let a man examin himself and so let him eat But this question does not at all prove these words to imply a command His folly is observeable Pag. 92. Where he desires It may be observed That the Corinthians were to be often in the use of it because it is said As often as ye eat c. a rare argument indeed by which he might conclude that to say as often as a man sins he offends God did import we should sin often It is badly inferred That this thing ought to continue by Divine Authority because the Apostle sayes 1 Cor. 11. 23. That which I received of the Lord have I delivered unto you seeing the very following words declare it to have been the account of the matter of fact which he so received Sect. 1. Pag. 93. He slimly passes what is contained Pag. 54. of mine alledging I let off my great Guns but make a noise without any spoyl The Reader by comparing these Pages together will easily observe his lurking in this particular To my Question What the one bread is spoken of 1 Cor. 10. 15 16. If it be the outward or the inward He Answers It is both the inward and the outward and yet but one in respect of the Sacramental Union which is between the sign and the thing signified Now to this I answered in the end of Pag. 54. of my last that it cannot be called one because of the agreement betwixt the signe and the thing signified else by the same Inference one might plead for the continuance of all the Sacrifices and Offerings and say they are all one with the one Offering mentioned Heb. 10. 14. because they signified that one Offering And whereas W. M. reckons this a pittiful evasion saying Any one may see a Non sequitur in it it would have become him better to have proved this by reason then by his

then he saith That they are a special Ornament to the Soul making it in Beauty to resemble God And again to get ground he sayth That as so Imperfection cleaveth to the very Grace of God here absolute blasphemy Can there be any thing more confused and contradictory then to say That which is defiled as filthy rags is a special Ornament to the Soul or makes it in Beauty to resemble God In Answer to Pag. 40. 41. He replies nothing only grants That the Saints in heaven are cleansed but not on earth which instead of reply is a meer begging the thing in question He closeth up this Section to prove The Righteousness of the Saints is defiled with his old instance of clean water passing thorow an unclean pipe alledging it By me not to be weakned though I do no wayes answer what I said against it Page 41. to wit That Spiritual Water is not like outward Water which an unclean pipe can defile but is like the Fire and Light which though it touch unclean things cannot be defiled because every thing of the Spirit is undefilable as is the Spirit And whereas he desires me To instruct him of an outward Water which is not capable of defilement I refer him to a more diligent study in his Physicks of which it seemes he is very ignorant and that he may not have reason to think this a shift let him read the Essayes of the Virtuosi in France And those termed the Royal Society at London and he will find such a thing both practicable and practiced He begins his fourth Section Pag. 70. with a gross piece of dis-ingenuity in mentioning a part of my words where I say Justification is taken for making a man righteous and then it is all one with Sanctification thereupon alledging I confound Justification and Sanctification whereas he omits the very former sentence wherein I say Justification is also taken as Gods Judging men unto Eternal Life but this deceit the Reader may at more length observe by looking to Page 41. of my last And in that he adds Men are not made Righteous by an inward Righteousness he doth greatly declare his ignorance for if men can really be made Righteous without Righteousness be really in them by that which is wholly in another then they might as well be really made holy without any inward holyness and this were rather to confound that which God distingisheth and to alter the Scripture sence of the word Justifie He alledgeth That Phil. 3. 8. disclaimes the Righteousness of Christ but brings no proof for it and as to his Comentaries he must advert he is not in the Pulpit and must bring nothing here without probation And whereas I shew That this argument from the 2 Cor. 5. 12. is most absurd and impious because accordingly it would follow that as Christ was made sin for us who of himself knew no sin no not in the least so we may be made righteous before God though we have no Holiness no Faith no good thing wrought in us he terms this an impudent wresting of his words alledging That the strength of of his argument lieth in that As our sins are inherent in us and imputed to Christ so his Righteousness is inherent in him and imputed to us but he doth not show me how this in the least solves the consequence above deduced which followeth as before And as for that excellent gloss which he sayes A certaine one put on these words it would appear the more such that it had some shadow of proof for it it is with a fools consequence that he calleth This which I shew was deduceable from his words my Inference charging me with it as if I were Impious and absurd to imagin that God should except one as Righteous in his sight and yet his Person remain abhored as an unholy sinner did I ever assert any such thing or can there be any thing more ridiculous then for him to dream I imagine that to be true which I reprove in him as false absurd and impious in the like manner he condemns me as impious for insinuateing that they are against inward holiness seeing as he sayes They profess that without holiness none can see God it is true they say so sometimes and therein often contradict themselves as is above remarked yet seeing they look not upon it as any wayes necessary to Justification and terms the best of it but as filthy rags their seeming to plead for it doth but bewray their ignorance and confusion Now whereas to prove that works of the pure Spirit of God are not all as filthy rags I did inquire of him if the Apostles did sin in writing the Scriptures He Answers First That it was a singular extraordinary thing and so supposeth they might have been preserved Secondly He demands What were the hazard to aver that they were wanting in that which they ought to have had As to the First it is but an evasion without proof what singular and extraordinary thing is in some of Pauls Epistles which are concerning his outward occasions and if the last be admitted as I find he fears I find he will be forced to do it overturns his example of clean water passing through an unclean pipe or else he must acknowledg the Scriptures are defiled because they come through the Apostles whom his Principles obliges him to believe not to have been perfect In his Seventh Head Pag. 74. He summarily passes over and that by large omissions what is contained in the 44 45 46 and 47 Pages of my last which if the Reader do but review he may easily discover that silly shift which he useth To wit that he means to be thrifty of his Paper in answering the Quakers self-advancing words seeing he is such a good manager of his Paper he might have bestowed some of that he has lavished in the large Capital Titles of his many Heads and Sections to show the Impertinency or vanity of my words and then he might have been the better credited after he has omited my answer wherein I clear the Quakers from that calumny of exalting themselves showing they do therein no more then all other professions have done and do do He adds with a great exclamation Oh it is intollerable Pride to villifie all the Saints and Servants of God in the World and to shut them out from being of Christs stock a strange inference according to which we must conclude that because Luke called Theopilus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most good that therefore there was none good but he W. M. will do well to go back to the Grammer Schoole and there learn the natures of degrees of Comparison and when he has instructed himself there he may next look over his Logicks and there he will find that Majus minus non variat speciem i. e. less or more of a thing changeth not its nature or kind I suppose he will not deny but there are several sorts