Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A69672
|
Baptism and the Lord's Supper substantially asserted being an apology in behalf of the people called Quakers, concerning those two heads / by Robert Barclay.
|
Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.
|
1696
(1696)
|
Wing B742A; ESTC R20190
|
64,146
|
145
|
do make up the One Baptism but plainly that there is One Baptism as there is One Faith and One God Now there goeth not Two Faiths nor Two Gods nor Two Spirits nor Two Bodies whereof the one is Outward and Elementary and the other Spiritual and Pure to the making up of the One Faith the One God the One Body and the One Spirit so neither ought there to go Two Baptisms to make up the One Baptism Obj. 2 But Secondly If it be said The Baptism is but One whereof Water is the one part to wit the Sign and the Spirit the thing signified the other Answ. I Answer This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine For if Water be only the Sign it is not the Matter of the One Baptism as shall further hereafter by its Definition in Scripture appear and we are to take the One Baptism for the Matter of it not for the Sign or Figure and Type that went before Even as where Christ is called the One Offering in Scripture though he was Typified by many Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law we understand only by the One Offering his Offering himself upon the Cross whereof though those many Offerings were Signs and Types yet we say not that they go together with that Offering of Christ to make up the One Offering So neither though Water-Baptism was a Sign of Christ's Baptism will it follow that it goeth now to make up the Baptism of Christ. If any should be so Absurd as to affirm That this One Baptism here were the Baptism of Water and not of the Spirit That were foolishly to contradict the positive Testimony of the Scripture which saith the contrary as by what followeth will more amply appear Prop. II Proof I Secondly That this One Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water appears first from the Testimony of John the proper and peculiar Administrator of Water-Baptism Matt. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shooes I am not worthy to bear he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Here John mentions two manners of Baptisings and two different Baptisms the one with Water and the other with the Spirit the one whereof he was the Minister of the other whereof Christ was the Minister of and such as were baptized with the first were not therefore baptized with the second I indeed baptize you but he shall baptize you Though in the present time they were baptized with the Baptism of Water yet they were not as yet but were to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ. From all which I thus Argue Arg. I If those that were baptized with the Baptism of Water were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of Christ then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore also the last And again Arg. II If he that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water did notwithstanding declare That he neither could nor did baptize with the Baptism of Christ Then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore c. And indeed to understand it otherwise would make John's Words void of good sense For if their Baptisms had been all one why should he have so precisely Contradistinguished them Why should he have said that those whom he had already baptized should yet be baptized by another Baptism Object If it be urged That Baptism with Water was the one part and that with the Spirit the other part or Effect only of the former Answ. I Answer This Exposition contradicts the plain words of the Text. For he saith not I baptize you with Water and he that cometh after shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit c. or he shall accomplish this Baptism in you but he shall Baptize you So then if we understand the Word truly and properly when he saith I Baptize you as consenting that thereby is really signified that he did baptize with the Baptism of Water we must needs unless we offer Violence to the Text understand the other part of the sentence the same way that where he adds presently But he shall baptize you c. that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another Baptism than what he did baptize with Else it had been Non-sense for him thus to have Contradistinguished them Proof II Secondly This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself Acts 1. 4 5. But wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with th Holy Ghost not many days hence There can scarce Two places of Scripture run more parallel than this doth with the former a little before mentioned and therefore concludeth the same way as did the other For Christ there grants fully that John compleated his Baptism as to the matter and substance of it John saith he truly baptized with Water which is as much as if he had said John did truly and fully Administer the Baptism of Water But ye shall be Baptized with c. This sheweth that they were to be Baptized with some other Baptism than the Baptism of Water and that although they were formerly Baptized with the Baptism of Water yet not with that of Christ which they were to be Baptized with Proof III Thirdly Peter observes the same distinction Acts 11. 16. Then remembred I the word of the Lord how that he said John indeed Baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost The Apostle makes this Application upon the Holy Ghost's falling upon them whence he infers that they were then Baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit As to what is urged from his Calling afterwards for Water to it shall be hereafter spoken From all which Three Sentences relative one to another First of John Secondly of Christ and Thirdly of Peter it doth evidently follow that such as were truly and really Baptized with the Baptism of Water were notwithstanding not Baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit which is that of Christ and such as truly and really did administer the Baptism of Water did in so doing not administer the Baptism of Christ. So that if there be now but One Baptism as we have already proved we may safely conclude that it is that of the Spirit and not of Water else it would follow that the One Baptism which now continues were the Baptism of Water i. e. John's Baptism and not the Baptism of the Spirit i. e. Christ's which were most Absurd Object If it be said further That though the Baptism of John before Christ's was administred was different from it as being the Figure only yet now that both it as the Figure and that of the Spirit as the Substance is necessary to
more punctually and particularly than the former It is said only As he was Eating he took Bread so that this would seem to be but an Occasional business But here he rose up he laid by his Garments he girded himself he poured out the Water he Washed their Feet he wiped them with the Towel He did this to all of them Which are Circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other The former was a Practice common among the Jews used by all Masters of Families upon that occasion but this as to the Manner and Person acting it to wit for the Master to rise up and Wash the Feet of his Servants and Disciples was more singular and observable In the breaking of Bread and giving of Wine it is not pleaded by our Adversaries nor yet mentioned in the Text that he particularly put them into the hands of all but breaking it and blessing it gave it the nearest and so they from hand to hand But here it is mentioned that he Washed not the Feet of one or two but of many He saith not in the former that if they do not eat of that Bread and drink of that Wine they shall be prejudiced by it but here he saith expresly to Peter that if he Wash not him he hath no part with him Which being spoken upon Peter's Refusing to let him Wash his Feet would seem to Import no less than not the Continuance only but even the Necessity of this Ceremony In the former he saith as it were passingly Do this in Remembrance of me but here he sitteth down Again he desires them to consider what he hath done tells them positively that as he hath done to them so ought they to do to one another And yet again he redoubles that Precept by telling them he has given them an Example that they should do so likewise If we respect the Nature of the thing it hath as much in it as either Baptism or the breaking of Bread seeing it is an outward Element of a cleansing Nature applied to the outward Man by the Command and the Example of Christ to signifie an inward purifying I would willingly propose this seriously to Men that will be pleased to make use of that Reason and Understanding that God hath given them and not be imposed upon nor abused by the Custom or Tradition of others Whether this Ceremony if we respect either the Time that it was Appointed in or the Circumstances wherewith it was performed or the Command enjoining the use of it hath not as much to recommend it for a standing Ordinance of the Gospel as either Water-Baptism or Bread and Wine or any other of that kind I wonder then what Reason the Papists can give why they have not numbred it among their Sacraments except meerly Voluntas Ecclesiae Traditio Patrum Object But if they say That it is used among them in that the Pope and some other Persons among them use to do it Once a year to some poor People Answ. I would willingly know what Reason they have why This should not be extended to All as well as that of the Eucharist as they term it or whence it appears from the Text that Do this in remembrance of me should be interpreted that the Bread and Wine were every day to be taken by all Priests or the Bread every day or every week by the People and that that other Command of Christ Ye ought to do as I have done to you c. is only to be understood of the Pope or some other Persons to be done only to a few and that once a year Surely there can be no other Reason for this difference assigned from the Text. And as to Protestants who use not this Ceremony at all if they will but open their eyes they may see how that by Custom and Tradition they are abused in this matter as were their Fathers in divers Popish Traditions For if we look into the plain Scripture what can be thence inferred to urge the One which may not be likewise pleaded for the Other Or for laying aside the One which may not be likewise said against the Continuance of the Other If they say That the former of Washing the Feet was only a Ceremony What have they whence they can shew that this breaking of bread is more If they say That the former was only a Sign of Humility and Purifying What have they to prove that this was more If they say The one was only for a Time and was no Evangelical Ordinance What hath this to make it such that the other wanted Surely there is no way of Reason to evite this neither can any thing be alledged that the one should Cease and not the other or the one Continue and not the other but the meer Opinion of the Affirmers which by Custom Education and Tradition hath begotten in the hearts of People a greater Reverence for and Esteem of the one than the other Which if it had fall'n out to be as much recommended to us by Tradition would no doubt have been as tenaciously pleaded for as having no less Foundation in the Scripture But since the former to wit the Washing of one anothers Feet is justly laid aside as not binding upon Christians so ought also the other for the same Reason § VII But I strange that those that are so Clamorous for this Ceremony and stick so much to it take liberty to dispense with the Manner or Method that Christ did it in since none that ever I could hear of who now do it use it in the same way that he did it Christ did it at Supper while they were eating but they do it in the Morning only by it self What Rule walk they by in this Change Object If it be said These are but Circumstances and not the Matter and if the Matter be kept to the alteration of Circumstances is but of small moment Answ. What if it should be said the Whole is but a Circumstance which fell out at that time when Christ did Eat the Passover For if we have regard to that which alone can be pleaded for an Institution viz. these Words Do this in remembrance of me it doth as properly relate to the Manner as Matter For how may or can they evince in Reason that these Words Do this only signifie Eat Bread and drink Wine but it is no matter when ye eat nor how ye eat it and not as ye have seen me eat at Supper with you who take Bread and break it and give it you and take the Cup and bless it and give it you so do ye likewise And seeing Christ makes no distinction in those Words Do this it cannot be judged in Reason but to relate to the whole Which if it do all those that at present use this Ceremony among Christians have not yet obeyed this Precept nor fulfilled this Institution notwithstanding all their Clamours concerning it Object If