Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	believe_v	eternal_a	ordain_v	6,204	5	8.9282	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47744	Five discourses by the author of The snake in the grass viz. On water baptism, episcopacy, primitive heresie of the Quakers, reflections on the Quakers, a brief account of the Socinian trinity ; to which is added a preface to the whole.; Selections. 1700	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1700 (1700)	Wing L1133; ESTC R1214	55,897	120

the World against which no Objection can be rais'd Even the Being of a God has been disputed against by these sort of Arguments that is by raising Objections and starting Difficulties which may not easily be Answer'd But while those Demonstrative Arguments which Prove a God remain unshaken a thousand Difficulties are no Disproof And so while the Command of Christ and the Practise of his Apostles and of all the Christian World in pursuance of that Command are clearly Prov'd no Difficulty from an obscure Text can shake such a Foundation But I lay down this only as a general Rule because this Method is so much made use of by the Quakers and others who never think of Answering plain Proofs but by raising a great Dust of Objections wou'd bury and hide what they cannot Disprove I say that I only mind them at present of this fallacious Artifice for I have no use for it as to these Texts objected to which a very plain and easie Answer can be given And First I would observe how the Quakers can understand the Word Baptize to mean Water-baptism or no Water-baptism just as the Texts seem to favour their cause or otherwise For there is no mention of Water in either of the Texts objected only the single word Baptize And why then must they construe these two Texts only of all the rest in the New Testament to mean Water-baptism Why but only to strain an Objection out of them against Water-baptism But will they let the Word Baptize signifie Water-baptism in other places as well as in these They cannot refuse it with any shew or colour of Reason They must not refuse it in Acts xviii 8. where the Baptizing of Crispus mention'd in the first of the Texts objected is recorded And there it is not only said of Crispus that he was baptized but that many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized By which the Quakers cannot deny Water-baptism to be meant since they construe it so 1 Cor. i. 14. Secondly We may further observe that in the Text Acts xviii 8. Crispus is only said to have believed which was thought sufficient to infer that he was baptized which cou'd not be unless all that believed were baptized Which no doubt was the Case as it is written Acts xiii 48. As many as were ordained to Eternal Life believed And Ch. ii 41. They that received the Word were baptized And V. 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved So that this is the Climax or Scale of Religion As many as are ordained to Eternal Life do believe And they that believe are baptized And they that are baptized are added to the Church And to shew this receiv'd Notion That whoever did believe was baptized when Paul met some Disciples who had not heard of the Holy Ghost Acts xix 3. he did not ask them whether they had been baptized or not He took that for granted since they believed But he asks Vnto what were ye baptized Supposing that they had been baptized Thirdly Here then this Objection of the Quakers has turn'd into an invincible Argument against them They have by this yielded the whole Cause For if the Baptism 1 Cor. i. 14. be Water-baptism then that Baptism Acts xviii 8. must be the same And consequently all the other Baptisms mention'd in the Acts are as these Water-baptisms also But besides the Quakers Confession for they are unconstant and may change their Minds the thing shews it self that the Baptism mention'd 1 Cor. i. 14. was Water-baptism because Paul there thanks God that he baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius Wou'd the Apostle thank God that he had baptized so few with the Holy Ghost Or wou'd he repent of baptizing with the Holy Ghost Therefore it must be the Water-baptism which was here spoke of Fourthly But now what is the Reason that he was glad he had baptized so few with Water-baptism And he gives the Reason in the very next words V. 15. Lest any shou'd say that I had baptized in mine own Name What was the occasion of this Fear It is told from V. 10. That there were great Divisions and Contentions among these Corinthians and that these were grounded upon the AEmulations that arose among them in behalf of their several Teachers One was for Paul another for Apollos others for Cephas and others for Christ This wou'd seem as if the Christian Religion had been contradictory to it self As if Christ and Cephas and Paul and Apollos had set up against one another As if they had not all taught the same Doctrine As if each had preach'd up himself and not Christ And had baptized Disciples each in his own Name and not in Christ's and had begot Followers to himself and not to Christ To remove this so horrible a Scandal St. Paul argues with great zeal V. 13. Is Christ divided says he Was Paul Crucified for you Or were ye baptized in the Name of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius lest any should say That I had baptiz'd in mine own Name There needs no Application of this the Words of the Apostle are themselves so plain He did not thank God that they had not been baptized but that He had not done it And this not for any slight to Water-baptism but to obviate the Objection of his baptizing in his own Name Fifthly By the way this is a strong Argument for Water-baptism Because the Inward Baptism of the Spirit cometh not with Observation and Shew but is within us Luke xvii 20 21. Nor is it done in any Body's Name it is an inward Operation upon the Heart But the outward Baptism is always done in some Name or other in his Name whose Disciple you are thereby made and Admitted Therefore it must of necessity be the outward Baptism of which St. Paul here speaks because it was outwardly Administred in such an outward Name And he makes this an Argument that he had not made Disciples to himself but to Christ because he did not baptize them in his own Name but in Christ's Now this had been no Argument but perfect Banter if there had been no outward Baptism that the People cou'd have both seen and heard How otherwise cou'd they tell in what Name or no Name they were baptized if all was Inward and Invisible But I need not prove what the Quakers grant and contend for that all this was meant of Water-baptism because otherwise their whole Objection from this place does fall VI. But they wou'd infer as if no great stress were laid upon it because that few were so baptized I Answer That there is nothing in the Text which does infer that few of these Corinthians were baptized St. Paul only thanks God that he himself had not done it except to a few for the Reasons before given But Acts xviii 8. it is said That besides Chrispus whom Paul himself baptized MANY of the Corinthians