Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	lay_v	lord_n	see_v	4,431	5	3.2997	3	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

owne bare assertion though any may observe this to be his constant course when other Arguments fail him As he proceeds to prove the continuance of this practice he sayes It cannot be denied there was once a command for it and there is no repeal of it but the same recurs in washing one-anothers feet and anointing the sick with Oyl Jam. 5. 14. which were as expressly commanded and never repealed and yet W. M. can easily find a gloss to evict these rechoning it a small matter to forbear them he addeth That coming of Christ till which the Apostles were injoyned to be in the use of the outward Supper must be meant of his outward comming so many years after because such to whom Christ was come in the Spirit were found in the practice of it but this proves no more its continuance necessitate Precepti as he wordeth it then the Circumcising and being Circumcised under the Gospel will prove Circumcission to be binding upon us He concludes saying That surely we are great enemies to our Souls that oppose this Ordinance But answereth not one word of Page 56. where I shew how great reason we have to forsake it as also the many abuses where with they have corrupted it it suffiseth him to say That it is meeter to pass it by then to reply unto it for part of it being about the quallifications of Persons W. M. is loth to tell his Judgment least he should harp upon the old Independant controversy it is dangerous to touch this string especially while he injoyes his hire under the shadow of Episcopacy Head 12. Concerning the Ministry Pag. 96. He hath nothing to say against my affirming that the Quakers own the Ministry of the Word Pag. 97. speaking of Eph. 4. 11. where Paul saith Christ gave some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers He saith The first three are Extraordinary and Tempory the last two Ordinary and Perpetual for this he brings no Proof at all but that frequent Argument his own bare Assertion And whereas I tould him Pag. 58. of mine That the former three were not ceased citing for Proof Calvin who Inst. lib. 4. cap 3. avers That in his day God raised up Apostles and Evangelists to this he answers not one word As he goes on he repeats my words where I say That though we own the Ministry not to be common yet that doth not hinder but that any may speak as the Saints are met together according to 1 Cor. 14. 31. asking How I can make out that In that place is meant an ordinary Office though it might suffice for answer to ask what reason W. M. hath to frame here his distinction of Ordinary and Extraordinary yet it is obvious that the Apostle is here presenting the ordinary order of the Church he needed not present an order to extraordinary Offices for such as are extraordinarily sent are also instructed how to go about their Office and not limited to set Rules else it were not extraordinary Pag. 98. He goeth about to prove this distinction of Mediate and Immediate asking If the Prophets and Apostles were not called imediatly And if Timothie was not set apart to the work imediatly by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery What then as the Apostles being called by the Lord did not hinder them from receiving the approbation and Testimony of the Brethren yea laying on of hands as did Paul who without doubt was as imediatly sent as any of the rest Act. 9. 17. So Timothes having the hands of the Presbytery laid on him doth not prove he wanted an inward imediate call in himself it is without any proof at all what he subjoynes That Paul saying he was an Apostle not by man doth oppose himself to Ordinary Ministers He adds That seeing I say That those who come Preaching the Gospel not in speach onely but also in Power and in the holy Ghost and in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit give sufficient proof that they are called of God he thinks I should have favorable thoughts of Protestant Ministers who have given such proofs of their Call Answ. He should have tould me what these Protestant Ministers are whom he sayes we impiously censure or by what Rule he or his Brethren would be laying such claim to be Protestant Ministers so as to exclude the Quakers from being such Pag. 99. Though he quarrel me for saying that with Papists he pleads for Miracles he is so far from vindicating himself from this charge that he giveth again new ground for it saying That such as assert an imediate call ought to give tokens of it by Miracles c. adding That though John did no Miracles yet his call was attended with extraordinary things at his Conception and Birth Now this was the very objection which the Papists made against the first Reformers to whom Luther and Calvin replyed That though they had an imediate call yet there was no need of Miracles and this objection of W. M. is no other then that which almost in totidem verbis in as many words was objected to Beza at the conference of Poizy in France by Claudius Dispensus Doctor of the Sarbone who urged this very argument of John the Baptist confirming his call by the Testimony of Maláchy c. Alledging That they ought to confirm there call by Miracles to whom these are Beza his express words Hist. Eccles. of France Pag. 581. And as to what dispence thou Alledge that extraordinary Vocation is allways aproved by Miracles or by the Testimony of the Prophets I deny that it is allwayes so verified but if we must come to Miracles do you not think that the changing of the Life the fruit which is seen to proceed from this Doctrine in our time by Persons so contemptable and so much persecuted by the greatnest of the world are not sufficient Miracles as said the Apostle to the Corinthians that they were the Seals of his Apostleship So the rational Reader may observe that notwithstanding of W. Ms. so often laying claim to the Protestant Churches and Protestant Ministry and crying out against us as opposers of them he so directly makes use of Popish arguments against us and how we defend our selves by no other but the very same answers the Protestants gave unto the Papists yea of late W. Rett present Preacher of Dandy in his Book against Papists printed but the last year at Aberdeen doth plead That Miracles are not needful instancing that John the Baptist did none And so W. M. though he compare us to the Jesuites in his Epistle is so far one with them himself that if his evasion may be esteemed of worth whereby he seeks to overturn this example of John when brought by us he will rather furnish the Jesuites with it to fight against his Brother W. Rett or rather borrow it out of their atillery whereby they fight against Protestants then miss to have a hit at the Quakers may we not

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-Baptism and not of the 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-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