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
A37484	Truth defended. or, A triple answer to the late triumvirates opposition in their three pamphlets viz. Mr. Baxter's review, Mr. Wills his censure, Mr. Whiston's postscript to his essay, &c. With Mr. Hutchinson's letter to Mr. Baxter a little before his death. And a postscript in answer to Mr. William Walker's modest plea for infants baptism. By Tho. DeLaune.	De Laune, Thomas, d. 1685.	1677 (1677)	Wing D897; ESTC R213236	99,906	139

Doctrine are not of Christs Church or body and therefore he is not their Saviour Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit Hhis talk that they may visibly belong to the Kingdom of God or satan is a meer fancy For Infants are neither in Gods nor the Devils visible Kingdom till they declare by their professions to whom they belong visibly Every Infant is in the invisible Kingdom of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till he make profession doth visibly belong to the one or to the other We have no Warrant to take cognizance of them as in the one or the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either None are visibly Satans subjects but the Children of disobedience in whom he works Eph. 2.2 Such are not Infants visibly And none are Christs Diciples Subjects or Servants but such as obey him Rom. 6.16 His Servants are ye to whom ye obey c. 1 John 3.10 In this the Children of God are manifest and the Children of the Devil whosoever doth not Righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his Brother But I ask Mr. Baxter in whose visible Kingdom are Believers Infants before Baptism If he say in the Devils then he is guilty of the same execrable Doctrine he charges upon us If he say they are in Christs visible Kingdom before Baptism viz. his visible Church as Mr. Baxter himself calls it Review p. 12. Then how can they be said to be admitted by Baptism Is it not non-sense to say it enters them into a state they were in before To let one into a Room when he is already there is impossble Nor will the distinction of compleat and incompleat member serve Mr. Baxters men or members in f●eri and imperfectly as he stiles unbaptized Infants Christian Directory p. 806. since according to his own maximes an incompleat member has only jus adrem non in re ad Ecclesiam non in Ecclesia A title to not a standing in the Church But if they be compleat or perfect members after Baptism why have they not the supper and other Ordinances of the Church administred to them If they be still incompleat as before Baptism What benefit have they by Baptism being as lame Members after as before it Now as Mr. B. was told he must hold two first entrances into the visible Church viz. Natural-birth and Baptism of else he must hold that Baptism is not the first entrance Or else that Believers Infants are not entred and if not so not in the visible Church before Baptism If he says the first he contradicts all he says of entring the visible Church in his Plea against the seekers p. 343. If the second He contradicts all he says of Baptism's being the only entrance If the third then of these two things he must necessarily say one viz Either all the Infants of believers that die before their visible entrance into the visible Church by Baptism are damned without hope which he dares not aver if he be a Protestant or else that they may be in a state of Salvation and yet not be visible Members of the Church let him avoid this if he can And doth not this same Mr. Baxter tell us in his first Book of Baptism p 72. That it is not the denyal of Baptism directly that leaveth Infants in the visible Kingdom of the Devil And if he still holds this for a truth how can he honestly exclaim against us at this rate as if our denyal of Baptism to them had damned them all The text Act. 2.47 That God added to the Church such as should be saved is not as he falsly imagines to be understood of all or only such but only such men and women not such Infants as should be saved The impartial consideration of this makes his loud talk about our placing all Infants Unbaptized in the Kingdom of the Devil an empty jangle And if Mr Baxter thinks indeed that all unbaptized Infants are under that unmercyful and too cruel Character and that the meer act of external Baptism translates them to the Kingdom of Christ in holding the first he dreadfully preaches Millions of poor harmless souls to Hell And in holding the second he ascribes more to Baptism then ever God did viz. that it procures salvation and differs in nothing from the blasphemous feats ascribed by the Pope to his opus oparatum Mr. Baxter gives another argument why upon his Review he sees cause to plead a fresh for his Infant Baptism and that is the Baptizing of housholds Answ This argument is over and over answered And is it not strange that the word houshold in those few places mentioned must include Infants when Baptism is spoken of but when the passover is spoken of then Infants are excluded because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the Supper as they from Circumcision to their Baptism Do not these men force that signification upon words that best serve their turn 2ly There is no probability that Lydia had a husband or Children or she may be an ancient widdow and her children if she had any grown up In Act. 16.40 we read that those in her house were capable of consolation 2. The Jaylors family believed Act. 16.34 3. The houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 4. Crispus believed in God with all his house Therefore there were no Infants Act. 18.8 We read of no more Baptized housholds in Scripture Narcissus and Aristobulus housholds are urged by some but there is no mention of houshold in the Greek but it may be Friends or Kindred Rom. 16.10 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reader I should weary thee and my self if I should run over the long-winded Repetitions of Mr. Baxter in this Review What I said already if well weighed Answers his tedious talk in the succeeding pages And I think my time more worth then to wast it in disproving naked dictates What becomes of Heathens dying Infants is known only to God and it is no better then sinful curiosity to be wrangling and too confidently obtruding our conceptions about such unrevealed matters 'T is certainly the safest way to be sober and advance no further in such quests then the Scripture guides We have enough revealed to employ our studies upon and make us wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 To enervate our Plea for non-Baptising Infants viz. the want of Scripture president or grecept he propound a question to us thus There is no Scripture-president for Baptizing Kings he might add Coblers too must none therefore be Baptized Answ This is a gravelling quere he thinks But we find Scripture president for Baptizing men and women And in my Judgement Kings and Queens and Coblers also are men and women He says p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done but all that must be done VVe grant it And if the Scripture tells us all that must be

goes on p. 9. and tells us that being called to a Review he remembers our Saviour himself was a Church-member in his Infancy even the head though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 't is disputable whether ever Christ was a Church-member properly or no And if an Infant was capable of being the head King Priest and Prophet relatively though yet he had never ruled sacrificed or taught then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable of being members subjects and Disciples of Christ Answ 1. This vain plea is already sufficiently answered by Mr. Tombs And to me what Mr. Baxter urges seems to make more against then for his Paedo baptism For if Christ whose title to the headship of Churchmembers in his Insancy was undoubted was not for all that baptized till at age to set a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance then certainly it is an audacious practise to baptize Infants whose title to Churchmembership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness and that too in exprest dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism 2ly To argue from Christs headship that Children should be baptized is a meer non-sequiter Christ in his Infaney was head of the Church but not in acts exercito so for ought we know Infants may be members of his Mystical hody yet are no actual Disciples till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith And invisible Membership being uncertain to us can be no ground for Baptism Besides as Mr. Tombs says by this Reasoning an Infant in the womb may be a visible member because then Christ was head of the Church and an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man And I may add that Infants by this argument should be Prophets Priests and Kings in their Infancy as well as Church-members because Christ was so But Mr. Baxter will not be hasty to make this Conclusion Mr. Baxter queries are not Infants members of other societies families the Kings subjects And why not Christs as well as the Kings Answ So are Pagans Children unbelievers Children c. members of Families Kingdoms c. therefore they also by this Medium should be Baptized 2ly There is a Characteristical mark that distinguishes the Church of Christ from all other societies It must consist of visible Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 Act. 2.41.47 There must be a right dispensation of the word and Sacraments Act. 2.41 Math. 28.19 From every member of this society there is required a profession of his faith and a holy conversation Act. 8.37 1 Pet. 3 16 17 Rom. 10.10 Math. 3.36 Act. 19.18 Now no Parity of Reason drawn from the Constitutions or practise of other societies or corporations is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this society so distinct from all others It must be governed by its own sanctions which are no where to be had but in the word of G●d From a close conformity to which no parallels framed by our carnall Reasoning must sednce us In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him self in his Book of Bpatism p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world to God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world c. And Dr. Featly p. 4. A particular company of men professing the Christian saith known by two marks the sincere preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments And how this Definition can agree to a society of which the Major part are ignorant Babes let them judge Wollebius in his Compend Theol. Edit Cantabr 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a visible Church Caetus hominum verbo sacramentis ad gratiae statum vocatorum a company of men and women called by the word and sacraments to a state of grace This book is in great repute in the Univerfities and commonly first read by young students in Divinity and if we adhere to this definition Infants are excluded because they are not called by the word to a state of grace And though the term Sacraments be redundant in the Definition yet 't is certain Wollebius held that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a state of grace but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word And all Divines agree that Ecclesia a Church coming of a Greek verb that signifies evocare to call from is Caetus hominum ex universo genere humano collectus seu evocatus per Evangelium a company of people gathered or called from the universal race of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel And the greek is derived of the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a congregation He says p. 11. he could theeasilier bear with our delay of external Baptism if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life Answ That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a false suggestion we charitably hope and our hope is built upon the free grace of God that though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their salvation or Damnation forasmuch as none can be saved but by Christ Act. 4.12 And that all are guilty of sin Rom. 5.14 Infants by the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ are saved the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5.18 Of this satisfaction there is a two-fold application 1. by Faith in the Adult 2. without Faith to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God Rom. 11.7 5.18 And if we question how Infants dying after Baptism are saved we must have recourse to this way it being owned by Protestants that Baptism doth not conser grace nor wash away Original sin And if we determine nothing positively in this matter Mr. Baxter should not find fault with us he telling us in his Christian Directory p 821. That almost all Infants cases are to us obscure He says p. 12. That we lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation because if we add them not to the Church we exclude them from salvation Answ This language is spoke without book We limit not salvation to the pale of the Church as this Dictator doth We have no rule to add any to our Churches but such whose professions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord being Converted We pass no such damnable sentence upon any that are not joyned to us we hope the best and our judgement we pass when called to it according to appearance de non apparentibus de non exiftentibus tadem est ratio Is the language of the Schools 2ly This is Mr. Baxters own harsh Divinity to destroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a sentence of Damnation when he holds that the vast progeny of such as are in his conceit unbelievers have no right to the Baptismal Covenant and Church membership and consequently according to his