Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	4,197	5	9.3868	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12552	The character of the beast, or, The false constitution of the church discovered in certayne passages betwixt Mr. R. Clifton & Iohn Smyth, concerning true Christian baptisme of new creatures, or new borne babes in Christ, &nd false baptisme of infants borne after the flesh : referred to two propositions, 1. That infants are not to bee baptized, 2. That antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true church by baptisme.	Smyth, John, d. 1612.	1609 (1609)	STC 22875; ESTC S991	85,221	80

proved Mat. 19.13.14 To this argument of yours I make answer diversly first you have not proved that the visible Chur. al the ordinances therof perteyne to infants of the faithful For the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Chr. were not infants of belevers for ought that I see neither can it be proved that they were infants of the Iewes but their is some likelyhood to the cōtrary seing the disciples repelled thē that brought thē it may be they were the children of some of the Romane soldiers or some Cananitish persons but suppose they were children of the Iewes how is it proved that their parēts were belevers seing that the people of the Iewes were for the most part stifnecked vncircumcised in hart if they had beē the childrē of beleving Iewes that were baptized by Ioh. or Chr. disciples by your doctryne the infants were already baptized what need was ther to bring thē to Chr. except it were for popish confirmation so hence you cannot conclude baptisme I avouch constātly against you that either they were not the children of Iewes or that they were not the infants of beleving Iewes or if their pare●ts beleved yet it followeth not that therfor these infants were of the Kingdom of God or to be baptized for Chr● doth not say of these but of such is the Kingdom of God so he doth expound himself Mat. 18 3-6 besides how can you prove that by the Kingdome of God Chr. vnderstandeth the visible church of the new Test or how can you prove that Chr. blesseth none but members of the visible Chur or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham aperteyneth only to the members of the visible church or that from this particular of Chr. praying for infants Mat. 18.13 baptising of infants followeth or how cā you prove that Christ obteyned for them prayed for remission of sinnes the H ghost faith everlasting life for many were brought to Chr. for releef of bodily infirmityes Secondly I deny that bicause Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentils vppon special intreaty therefore it may hence be concluded that generaly the covenant seales of the covenant as you cal baptisme doth aperteyne to them for ther is not the same reason of al infants as of some specialy blessed as of Iohn Baptist Ieremy Sampson Thirdly if baptisme doth aperteyne to infants bicause Chr. blesseth some particular infants bicause Chr. saith the Kingdom of God doth aperteyne to such then the L. supper also for if you say they are not capable of the L. supper in two respects 1. for that they cannot eate it 2. for that they cannot examine themselves I answer they must have it assoone as they can eate it they cannot confesse their sinnes faith so cannot be baptized Fourthly I would know why the Apo. put infants back why Chr. did not commaund them to be baptized Surely if they had been the infants of belevers or if the Apo. had known Chr. mynd for baptisme of infants he having so fit an opportunity would have put it in practise but the deep silence of baptisme in this place where ther is so just an occasion doth instruct vs evidently that Chr. either did not deale faithfully which to say were blasphemy or th●● he never purposed the baptisme of infants You see therfor by that which hath beē answered that both your major minor are weak the Scriptutes alledged by you do not confirme them for the place 1. Cor. 3.21.22 declareth that al things are yours that is theirs that actually beleeve are baptized al the ordinances of the visible church are theirs both in title vse possession So that hence you must nedes prove if your arg be good that infants must have the vse of al only your caution helpeth you viz that they may pertake so many meanes as they are capable of but wher is this caution expressed in al the scriptures do you think that the members of the Church are not capable of al the meanes of salvation but I avouch vnto you that this place perteyneth only to baptised persons not to persons vnbaptized therfor it fitteth not your purpose Rom. 9.4 The covenants promises perteyne to the Israelites I deny the word aperteyneth it is put into the Text perverteth the meaning of the Apo. For Paull intendeth not to prove that the carnal Israelites were al actually within the covenāt of grace salvation by Chr. being really possessed of it but that vnder the outward covenant promise wherof they were really seased the Spiritual covenant promise was offered presented vnto them the one preaching the other the law being a scholemr to Christ Lastly wheras in the answer of an objection you intimate that infants now are as capable of baptisme as infants were of circumcision being both equaly capable of the covenant seales I answer that baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Test as circumcision was the seale of the old Test that infants of the old Testa were capable of circumcision absolutely seing that to be circumcised ther was nothing required but a foreskinne apt to be cut of but to baptisme in the new Test ther is required actual saith repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 3.6 Act. 4.37 10.47 From this answer I collect arguments against pedobaptistry thus 1. They that are not members of the visible Church have no title to the holy things of God therfor are vncapable of them so of baptisme Infants of the Faythful are not actually members of the visible Church For these places Marc. 10.13.14 Mat. 19.13.14 do not prove that the parents of these infants were beleeving Iewes or if they were beleevers their infants were already baptized with their parents according to your doctryne so Christ cannot intend baptisme to aperteyne to them but the rest of the ordinances Ergo Infants of the Faythfull have no title to the Holy things of God so are vncapable of them and by consequent vncapable off Baptisme 2. If the Apostles by putting back infants presented to Christ declare plainly that infants were not to bee brought to bee baptized of Christ then infants were not baptized by Christ nor commaunded to bee baptized by him But the first is true that the Disciples put back infants presented to Chr. c. Ergo The latter is true that infants were not baptized or commaunded to be baptized by Christ 3. If the persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed prayed for do not desire baptisme for them then they knew no such custome vsed by Christ to baptize them But the first is true that persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed prayed for do not desire baptisme for them Ergo they knew no such custome vsed by Chr. of baptising infants 4. If Christ receaving infants praying for them blessing them doth neither baptize them