Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n know_v scripture_n write_v 3,176 5 5.5421 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A67325 A necessary treatise for this age, or, A plain discovery of that great error of denying baptisme with water to the children of believers in justification of the arguments of John Turner, for infants basptisme, against Robert Admond : together with several other useful particulars on this subject, the contents whereof follow in the next page / briefly and plainly handled and discust by Thomas Wall. Wall, Thomas. 1669 (1669) Wing W486; ESTC R38029 30,254 53

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

broken off with them though ignorant of their Fathers Rebellion therefore seeing the condition both of Fathers and children was all one he said unto them Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins for the Promise is to you and your children and now can any one believe but that the children upon the Fathers Repentance are as capable to believe in the belief of their Parents and so grafted in the true Olive Tree Christ with their Parents again as they were of unbelief and rebellion in their Parents unbelief and rebellion So then upon the Parents Repentance who can hinder the children of those Repenting Parents from the Ordinance of Baptism of Water with their Parents seeing they were cut off with them and the Ordinance a sign of the pardon of sins From whence may justly be concluded that if the Infants of Rebellions Jews were cut or broken off in their infancy with their Parents though ignorant of their Parents Rebellion Even so both Jews and Gentiles comming to the obedience of the Faith of Christ though their Children in infancy be ignorant of their Fathers obedience must of necessity be excepted with them And that we may the better understand the scope of the Apostles Doctrine the Doctrine being Repent and be Baptised every one of you for the remission of sins the reason is For the promise is to you and your children Take notice and observe whether the Precept of Scripture is not to reach so far as the Reasons thereunto doth extend as may be seen Deut. 7. 1. 4. Ezra 9. 2 11 12. 2 Chron. 21. 6. Now the Doctrine is Repent and be Baptised and the Reason is For the Promise is to you and your children so that mention being made of children in the Reason therefore the Precept of Baptising here spoken implieth the children also Otherwise how can you prove at the first celebration of the Lords Supper that women should be partakers thereof seeing neither there nor any other where in Christs Testament any mention of any Woman by name were present or partook thereof as concerning children you require us to shew a child by name that was Baptised yet seeing the Reasons that are annexed to the Precept do necessarily imply women as well as men and there is no Prohibition to the contrary and cannot be denyed them without great sin Matth. 26. 20 26 27 28. Luke 22. 14 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. Now then consider how in this Ordinance you will grant that women may partake thereof though no name of any Woman that did is expressed but that children may partake of the Ordinance of Baptism because there is no mention of any child by name that did though there is as good reason and true gathered consequence from the Scripture for the one as the other in this all men may see you are partial and wilfully blind Again the people of your Judgment seem more unreasonable to me in this point of denying Infants of Believers Baptism than the Sadduces which denyed the resurrection of the body whom Christ put to silence by consequence from Scripture without the litteral words of Scripture to say the body shall rise again as may be seen in Exod. 3. 6. compared with Matth. 22. 31 32. and as the Text saith they were put to silence ver 34. and the multitude were astonished at his Doctrine ver 33. Likewise there is the Doctrine of Baptism Heb. 6. 2. and any of understanding in Scripture know that Doctrine is the sense and intendment of Scripture for the natural man reads only the Letter as the Eunuch did when he read in Isa 53. 7. as it is written in Acts 8. 32. the place of Scripture which he read was this He was led as a sheep to the slaughter and like a lamb dumb before his shearers so opened he not his mouth see ver 33. and ver 34. the Eunuch answered Philip and said I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself or some other man ver 35. Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and Preached unto him Jesus but had the Eunuch bin an Anabaptist in Judgment he would not have believed Philip to Preach Jesus from that 53 of Isa when the word Jesus was not expressed by name and though the Apostles did Baptise Believers and their housholds 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. yet you will not believe that he Baptised Children though the word Houshold are the children as shall in this Treatise most plainly appear as in Isa 53. Jesus was intended in the Text by the word Lamb so that I hope not only you unless you shut your eyes but others shall see by the Holy Ghosts own exposition according to his own counsel comparing spiritual things with spiritual 1 Cor. 2. 13. knowing this first that no Prophesy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation 2 Pet. 1. 20. but a publick interpretation is for one Scripture to unfold another as when Ezra and the people returned out of Captivity Neh. 8. 8. he read in the Book of the Law distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading so that I hope that if the Scripture do expound the houshold to be children seeing the Apostle did Baptise housholds you will believe he did Baptise Children and so repent of your error in denying the same and leave off deluding the people through your former ignorance Next then to observe that little children which do partake of Christs spiritual blessing have not only right to Baptism of Water but were also Baptised by the hands of the Apostles Though some will think this Argument cannot be proved because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2. 14. observe the Lords Covenant of old made with the faithful and their seed in infancy and the words of the Covenant was To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee Gen. 17. 7. So that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness and they that are of Faith the same are the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 6 7. and the children of the Promise are counted for the se●d but Isaac was a child of Promise in Infancy Gal. 4. 28. even an heir of life 1 John 2. 25. and had the seal of Faith administred upon him and I hope none will be so bold to say it was a lying sign or seal to seal to him that he had not but of this we shall have occasion to handle anon but now to prove that a mans children are his houshold We read Gen. 45. 11. and 46. 5 6 7 8. that Joseph is said to nourish his Father and his Brethren and all his Fathers houshold according to their Families which is expounded I will nourish you and your little
Commandment being love out of a pure heart and of a good conscience and of faith unfained 1 Tim. 5. so ought the outward baptism of water to be administred on that place even the forehead where Christs name or covenant is recorded Rev. 22. 4. Moreover when the Lord sent the Messenger to destroy the wicked in Jerusalem those that were to be preserved or saved were marked on the forehead Ezek. 9. So likewise in Rev. 7. 3. and as Baptism is a figure of our safety 1 Pet. 3. 21. and the forehead or face representeth the whole man why not a part taken for the whole in this Ordinance as well as in the Spiritual Baptism and the mark of old and now of the people of God Ezek. 9. Rev. 7. in the forehead a part was taken for the whole as may be seen in the use of water where Christ washed the Disciples feet as if the whole body had been washed John 13. signifying a cleansing of the whole so Baptism on the face or forehead signifyeth the whole body washed in the Blood of Christ as a cleansing from all sins for of old in the figures of cleansing or sanctifying it was chiefly by sprinkling a part taken for the whole Again If you will not grant a part to be taken for the whole we cannot justify the Scriptures of truth for it was said as Jonas was three dayes and three nights in the Whales belly Ion. 1. 17. So shall the Son of Man be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth Matth. 13. 40. But we know he lay but a part for the whole therefore beware of following your own spirit and have seen nothing as the foolish Prophets did in Israel Prophecying out of their own hearts Ezek. 13. and your having neither the warrant of the Learned to limit the word to one sense of Dipping neither the Scripture for your opinion but take warning by the Counsel of the Holy Ghost Cursed is he that addeth or diminisheth which must needs be in denying the sense and meaning of the Word And next I shall by the help of God shew you that you are not faithful to practise what you seem to contend for in the administration of the Baptism of water and that in your own Judgment are not yet Baptised unless you grant a part to serve for the whole When Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water I suppose you will not deny but so far as they both went into the water was no part of Baptism and when they were both gone so far into the water as was convenient to make use of the water then Philip Baptised the Eunuch Now whether Philip and the Eunuch went but to the ankles or midleg or knees or wast before he Baptised the Eunuch is not mentioned in the Text the Scripture is silent but according to your Judgment that the whole body must be dipt or else none are Baptised then sure you must prove that the Eunuch was born up in the arms of Philip quite out of the water and so dipt all the body under water or else so far as the Eunuch went he Baptised himself or else Philip put the rest of the body of the Eunuch that was out of the water in the water and so Philip Baptised but a part for the whole and as I am informed by some that have seen the manner of your Administration o● Baptism that the party that is to be Baptised goeth into he water with the Administrator to the Loyns and the Administrator putteth the other part of his body which is out of the water into the water and so you Baptise but a part for the whole yet you plead for dipping the whole body and yet practice the contrary supposing there is a m●●h in anothers eye and the beam is in your own and keep ado with that Scripture Rom. 6. Buried with Christ in Baptism and that of 1 Cor. 15. 29. Baptised for dead or for the dead answerable to a mans burial that is dead and put in the ground But if you will practise what you contend for as I said before the Administrator must bear up the man that is to be Baptised quite out of the water and so put him into the water as a dead man into the Grave but did you ever know a man that was dead bury himself to the knees or waste and some other bury the rest of the mans body to see this would be a Miracle But a man cannot by any Rule from Gods word Baptise himself neither a part nor whole but so far as you go into the water you do Baptise your selves and another Baptiseth the rest thus you must acknowledg a part is by you practised for the whole or else in your own Judgment you are yet unbaptised and yet condemn others that believe and practise a part for the whole on that part of the body that representeth a part for the whole even the Forehead or Face And now I will shew you by the testimony of four several writers who was the beginner of your manner of Baptism by Dipping of himself though before this time there might be some that held your Judgment but knew not of any true administrator by succession but one being more desperately wicked than others would begin to Baptise himself and others being deceived by him follow after but beware and follow not a multitude to do evil Exod. 23. 2. In the dayes of King James or thereabouts one Mr. Smith who was of the Church of England after disliking thereof and leaving England in process of time was admitted a Member of a people of our Judgment then living in Amsterdam commonly but falsly called Brownists and in process of time was cast out of that Church for Errors he held and not long after he fell to deny his Baptism in infancy and knew not how to have a better nor a truer Administrator successively after your way of Dipping at length he Baptised himself and then he Baptised one Helvish by name this you may see in a Book written by one Mr. Jessop presented to King James more to ●his purpose I have seen in a book written by Mr. ●obinson living then at Leyden in Holland also in another Book written by one Mr. Clifton who wrote an answer to one of Mr. Smiths Books and in another Book written by Mr. Henry Ainsworth Teacher at that time in the Church where Mr. Smith was cast out from and as I have heard when I lived in London that one * This of Mr. Spilsbury I speak as I was told the others testimony is publick in Print and such men as were worthy to be believed Mr. Spilsbury should go to Holland to be Baptised of this Smith so he brought it into England And if you can prove no better an Administrator your Ministry will be found to come out of the bottomless pit as Romes Ministry did And that you may know how near kin your Baptism is