Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
heaven_n church_n kingdom_n visible_a 4,215 5 9.6422 5 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
A31661 A dialogue between a pædo-baptist and an anti-pædo-baptist containing the strength of arguments offered on both sides at the Portsmouth disputation, with the addition of a few more arguments then ready to be offered in vindication of infant baptism / by Samuel Chandler and William Leigh. Chandler, Samuel.; Leigh, William. 1699 (1699) Wing C1931; ESTC R35977 16,321 29

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Christ himself was born a Jew and we all assert that Jews tho never so Pious ought not to be Baptized till they profess the Christian Faith Christ as to the time of Baptism was not imitable by us If he were then none how Pious soever must be Baptized till about Thirty nor Baptized at all unless Circumcised at Eight days Old Anti-P You demand of us a prohibition of Infant-Baptism I demand of you a Prohibition of Salt Cream Oil and Spittle such as the Papists use P. Bapt. When you can shew that these are as plainly included in the word Baptize as Infants are in the word Nations we shall farther consider what you say Now according to my promise I consider the Doctor 's first Argument which will fairly introduce the Opponency Anti-P Arg. 5. Christ hath no where required any of his Ministers to Baptize Infants therefore the Baptism of Infants is not according to his Commission P. Bapt. I assert Christ hath required his Ministers to Baptize the Infants of professed Christians And now taking the Opponency I Argue from Mat. 28. 19 20. Teach all Nations Baptizing c. Arg. 1. Those of Nations ought to be Baptized that are not expresly or consequentially excluded by the word of God therefore the Infants of Professing Christians ought to be Baptized You have not been able hitherto to prove them Excluded therefore my Argument stands good against you Anti-P What is not expresly commanded in an Institution is consequentially forbidden P. Bapt. 1. Then the Baptism of Adult Persons descending from Christians not being expresly commanded is consequentially forbidden 2. I deny That all things pertaining to an Ordinance must be express'd in the Institution for that Ordinance The Institution for the Passover doth not express the Cup which yet was piously used by Christ himself Luke 22. 17. because good Consequence did warrant it Your selves acknowledge previous Examination and stated Prayer necessary to the right Administration of Baptism and have recourse to good Consequence for your Warrant Nay Consequence it is that doth oblige you to Baptize an Adult Person you do not count these forbidden because not express'd in the Institution why then should you count Infant-Baptism forbidden because not express'd when we offer good Consequence for it P. Bapt. Arg. 2. Some Infants are Members of the Gospel-Church Visible therefore they ought to be Baptized Anti-P All Members of the Gospel-Church Visible are made so by Baptism therefore unless you will admit of Re-baptizing they ought not to be Baptized P. Bapt. Baptism is the solemn investing Sign the Infants of Believers are Church-members before Baptism but by Baptism they are publickly owned as such The Infants of the Iews were Church-members before Circumcision The Israelites while in the Wilderness tho Uncircumcised are called the Church Acts 7. 38. Yet they must be recognized as such by Circumcision A King is King before he is Crowned but at Coronation he is 〈◊〉 as such Anti-P The Pharisees were Church-member● yet 〈◊〉 denies them Baptism therefore Church-membership gives no right to Baptism P. Bapt. These were Members of the Jewish Church such without credible profession of Faith and Repentance were not to be Baptized But we speak of Members of the Christian Church Anti-P Infants are not Christian Church-members P. Bapt. I prove they are from Mat. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of Heaven If by the Kingdom here must be meant the Christian Church Visible then little Children must be part of it Anti-P I deny that the Christian Church Visible is there meant P. Bapt. If the Kingdom of Heaven here signify neither the Laws nor Promises of the Gospel nor the Graces nor Heaven's Glory then it must signify the Christian Church Visible But it cannot signify either of the former therefore the last i. e. The Christian Church Visible Anti-P It signifies the Kingdom of Glory P. Bapt. Then it must either signify the Happiness or Subjects of it If the Happiness then the words must run thus Of such little Children is the happiness of Heaven which is Nonsense If the Subjects then the words must run thus Of such little Children are the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory Which cannot be because every Infant that goes to Heaven immediately upon his Expiration his Infancy is drop'd and he enters perfect into Glory Here the Anti-Pedo-Baptists had not a word to answer for a considerable time tho the whole Company did earnestly wait for it And they were provok'd to give it At last this Reply was given Anti-P This Text hath not a word of Baptism in it P. Bapt. We before proved That Members of the Christian Church have a right to Baptism and now have proved That Believers Infants are such Members The Conclusion is easy therefore such Infants ought to be Baptized Anti-P When were any who were Baptized in Infancy Excommunicated upon their Apostacy tho so many prove Wicked P. Bapt. We are not discoursing how Baptized Persons ought to be Managed but who ought to be Baptized Yet to answer directly As Infants grow up their Infant State ceaseth and so their Infant Church-membership with it And if when they become Adult by vicious Practice they renounce Adult Church-membership they are no more Church-Members than Excommunicated Persons And such need no Excommunication Anti P. If Infants without Understanding may be Disciples by the Ministery of Men the Beasts of the Field may P. Bapt. I have shewn before how Infants may be Disciples and by the Ministery of Men in answering your first Argument Pray shew me how Beasts may Have Beasts the Seeds of Reason Are they capable to be Justified Sanctified Glorified nay to keep the Charge of the Sanctuary Were they fit to be brought to Christ for his Blessing But I proceed further to prove them Disciples Argum. 3. The Infants of Believers are called Disciples Acts 15. 10. Therefore they ought to be Baptized Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples c. The Yoak was Circumcision Upon Infants as well as others according to Moses his Law v. 5. and Custom v. 1. * would they have put this Yoak therefore Infants as well as others are here called Disciples Anti-ped Infants cannot be meant because those that are here called Disciples are called Brethren and such as are Taught P. Bapt. And if Infants are Church-members as I have proved they are Brethren and may be taught in their Parents But 2. I deny that all who are here called Disciples are called Brethren v. 1. or are said to be Taught Those on whom the Yoak was like to be put according to Moses his Law v. 5. and Custom v. 1. are here called Disciples Now you know Moses's Law and Custom did require the Circumcising of Infants Nay this Custom especially of Circumcising Infants is expresly contended for by Judaizing Christians Acts 21. 21. The word for Custom is the same