Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	jesus_n	john_n	3,386	5	6.8394	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30904	Truth cleared of calumnies wherein a book intituled, A dialogue betwixt a Quaker and a stable Christian (printed at Aberdeen, and upon good ground judged to be writ by William Mitchell ...) is examined, and the disingenuity of the author, in his representing the Quakers is discovered : here is also their case truly stated, cleared, demonstrated, and the objections of their opposers answered according to truth, Scripture, and right reason / by Robert Barclay.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1670 (1670)	Wing B738; ESTC R22049	63,242	72

doe so are wee disingenuous and deceitful becaus wee deny them in your acceptation vvhich only comprehends the shadow that passeth away If Baptisme which is really and truly the Baptisme of Christ wee owne and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ which is really so I say if these things be really owned by us as they are indeed can wee be said to deny them becaus wee use not the shadow as yee doe while yee are ignorant of and strangers to the substance Nay it may be retorted much more properly and without deceipt upon your selves that yee do but pretendedly in VVords owne these things while indeed yee deny them so that herein yee are found to be the Equivocators who are contending for the husk and will needs have it accounted the kernell and there can be no errour more dangerous then to place the shadow for the substance for suchas so doe are those that trample upon the precious ordinances of Iesus Christ in which the work of grace is begun and increased Pag. 32. To prove thy assertions particularly thou beginnest saying that singing of Psalms is an ordinance of Iesus Christ vvhereby if thou understandest that singing of Psalmes was used by the Saints that it is a part of Gods VVorship vvhen performed in his will and by his Spirit and that yet it may be and is vvarrantably performed among the Saints it is a thing denied by no Quaker so called and it is not unusuall among them wherof I have my selfe beene a witnesse and have felt of the sweetnes and quickning vertue of the Spirit therein and at such occasions ministred And that at times Davids VVords may also be used as the Spirit leads thereunto and as they sute the condition of the party is acknowledged without dispute but that without the Spirit in selfe-will not regarding how the thing sutes their condition for a mixt multitude to use and sing the expressions of blessed David wee deny For that was not the method the Apostle spoke of 1. Cor. 14. 15. when hee said I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding also therfore though singing of Psalms in the true use of them be allowable yet as used by you it is abominable and is a mock worship becaus yee cannot deny but that the persons using it are a mixed multitude knowne to be Drunkards Swearers VVhoremongers c. Now such cannot praise God for they are dead in their sins and it is the living that praise him and not the dead Next all lying is abomination but many times it falls out that by singing of Psalmes the people come to lye in the presence of God in stead of worshiping him by saying I am not pu●t up in mind I have no deceitfull heart I water my couch with teares and much more of this nature which were the particular experiences of David and may be safely said by those that vvitnesse the same thing but as to you that use them are false untrue I say as thou doest that though every Psalme does not sute our condition yet in every Psalm there may be meditaion for edification but this no wayes meets the case for there is a great difference betwixt meditating upon a Psalme singing one vvhereby vvee apply ourselves to the Lord in the vvords of David vvhich unless they sute our condition cannot be done without a lye Pag. 33 and 34. Thou comest to prove that Baptisme with water is an ordinance of Iesus Christ for which thou givest as a reason First because John baptised with water and was really sent of God Which thing is not denyed because Iohns baptisme vvas a Baptisme vvith VVater But that that vvas the Baptisme vvhich vvas to continue is the matter in question to prove vvhich thou bringest in thy Second reason that the baptisme of Christ and the baptisme of Iohn differed only in circumstance and not in substance because they agree in the Author in the Matter and in the End To which I answer that though they agreed in the Author that will not conclude them to be one because by the same reason it might be said that the Old Testament and the New are one or that Circumcision Baptism are one for that God was the Author of both As to the matter they are not one neither for the one was a Baptisme with VVater and the other a Baptisme with the Spirit and with fire as Iohn himselfe distinguisheth them Mark 1. 8. Now in respect baptisme with water can be administred where the other to wit with the Spirit is not therefore they are not one in Substance They also agree not in the end for the end of the one to wit Baptisme with VVater is but to point or shew forth the other So that as the shadow and the Substance differ in their ends in like manner doe these two for the end of the shadow is but to point to the substance the end of the Substance in this thing being to cleansc and purifie the heart produceing that effect to such as it is truly administred unto but the shadow is frequently administred and the heart not cleansed therfor they differ in their ends Now to shew that they differ in substance it is written Acts. 19. Vers. 2. 3. 4. 5. that there were of the baptisme of Iohn who had not so much as heard of the holy Ghost far lesse received it Now had the Baptisme of Iohn and the Baptisme of Christ beene one they could not have had the one and beene altogether ignorant of the other For a Third Reason thou sayest that Iesus Christ commanded and enjoined the Disciples to baptise and that baptising they used water But wher hee commands them to Baptise Math. 28. there is no command to baptise them with VVater or into vvater but into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit So here is the baptisme into the Spirit but not into outward water and the Apostles vvere Ministers of the Spirit and ministred the Spirit unto those vvho beleived And though they used the water baptisme at tymes yet it rests to be proved that they did it in obedience to that generall command Math. 28. and not in condescendence to the people vvho had received a great esteeme of Iohn and vvere so nursed up vvith outward Ceremonyes that it vvas hard suddenly to vveane them from such as they did the like in other cases vvhich also servs for ansvver to thy Fourth Reason vvher thou instancest Peter his baptising Cornelius after he received the Spirit for Peters vvords imply no command but only that at that occasion the thing might be done Can any man said he forbid water that they may not be baptised Acts. 10. 47. And though it be said Vers. 48. that hee commanded them to be baptised in the name of Christ yet it holds forth no command from Christ only the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid doe it but that the Apostles received

no commission to baptise vvith water is clear from that of Paul vvhere he sayeth I thank God I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gajus and the houshold of Stephanus c for said he I was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospell 1. Cor. 1. 16. 17. Novv it is not questioned but his Commission vvas as large as any of the rest for he himselfe said that hee vvas not inferiour to the cheifest of the Apostles but that hee thereby denied hee vvas sent to administer the holy Spirit vvhich is the baptisme of Christ is absurd to think for a Fifth Reason thou sayest it is the will of Christ that this ordinance should continue and abide in the Church because hee promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the VVorld To which I answer that this promise related to the Baptisme of the Spirit which is Christs Baptisme is granted but that it related to the Baptisme of water is denied for hee was with Paul who yet professed hee was not sent to baptise with water And whereas some give their meaning to Paul his words that hee was not sent only or principally to baptise with water this is an addition to the Scripture Words for which they can shew no sufficient ground And if men will take a liberty to adde to Scripture Words from their owne Spirit they may wrest the Scriptures to defend the worst of opinions as when it is said Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor VVorship them one should put this meaning upon it thou shall not bow downe to them not Worship them principally and therefore would averre that graven Images may be worshiped this were a most perverse abusing of Scripture Sixthly Thou sayest Tho●e who cast off this ordinance doe what in them lyeth to rob themselves of all the excellent ends and uses of it which are held forth in these Scripture expressions Ans. I hat such who cast off the Baptisme of Christ by the Spirit may incurre that hazard it is granted but that any such thing will follow from the not useing of water is denyed as shall appear by examining the Scripturs cited The first is Act. 2. 28. Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of your sins Ans. Here is no mention made of outward VVater and Repentance and Remission of sins may be and are found without it and where it is both these are frequently wanting But though it should be understood of outward water it is spoke but to particulars and is no universal command The Second is 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like figure whereunto even baptisme doth also save us But the very follovving vvords doe give an ansvver to that and clear the meaning not to be of Water baptisme saying Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Iesus Christ. The Third is Act. 22. 16. Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins But that a being baptised vvith vvater is a vvashing avvay of sin thou canst not from hence prove seeing the contrary is abundantly vvitnessed and suppose Water-baptisme vvere here to be understood it being but spoke to one infers no universal command The Fourth is Ephes. 5. ver 26. That hee might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water But by vvater cannot here be understood outvvard VVater but that of the VVord and Spirit for the next Verse speaks of presenting it vvithout spot or vvrinkle Which the outvvard VVater cannot doe see the like place Iohn 3. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne of the vvater and of the Spirit hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Novv if by Water here vvere to be understood outvvard VVater it vvould inferre that VVater baptisme is absolutely necessary to Salvation vvhich thou sayest thou canst not affirme vvith Papists Lastly thou citest Gal. 3. 7. For as many as have beene baptized into Christ have put on Christ But VVater Baptisme cannot be here understood because many vvho are baptised vvith VVater never put on Christ nor bear his Image but the Divells and are found doing the Divels vvorks So that none of these Scriptures prove the VVater Baptisme to be of continual necessity in the Church for it being but a figure it vvas to give place to that one Baptisme Eph. 4. 5. And vvhereas it is said by some that the Water Baptisme and the Baptisme by the Spirit is but one because of that agreement betvvixt the signification of the Water and the Spirit thereby signified this is a vvresting of this Scripture as much as if one should say rhat all the tipes figures and shadowes of the old Testament were one with the substance signified by them and consequently that these Tipes are all now to be upheld and used whereas indeed the coming of the Substance ends the figures among which are the divers Baptisms for so should the place be translated Heb. 9. 10. which were imposed untill the time of Reformation but are no longer binding since the Reformation is come Thou endest this matter vvith asserting That thou canst safely say that the Spirit of God concurring with and blessing this ordinance It is a profitable meane to further our Salvation but if so be it be no ordinance of Christ as heretofore is proved then wee cannot expect that the Spirit will concurre with it but indeed that hee is provoked by it considering the abuses in your administration of it as First in administring it to Infants for which yee have no command nor example in Scripture Next in causing ignorant people to promise and engage before God that the Children shall forsake the Divel the VVorld and the Flesh while they themselves be slaves to all the three and many more abuses as that vvhereby yee pretend to inroule Children as Members of the Church of God which is pure and holy it being oftentimes an occasion of excesse and drunkennesse and is indeed rather like an inrolling under the Divels banner seeing it is for most part accompanied with doing his work therefore it is so farre from being hazardous to contemne such an ordinance of man that it cannot be but hurtfull to continue in it In the Third place Pag. 39. thou comest to prove that the Lords Supper so called is an Ordinance of Iesus Christ For which thou bringst as a First Reason that Jesus Christ was the Author and Ordainer of it but that proves not That it was to be of perpetual continuance Nor thy Second Reason for though the Disciples were bid doe it in remembrance of him they were not bid doe it alwayes Neither will Act. 2. ver 42. which thou bringest as a Third Proofe serve thy turn for by comparing it vvith Verse 46. it is evident that their breaking of bread was their ordinary eating for it is said they continued daily with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread fro● house to house did eat their meat with gladness and