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
A45681	Infant baptism God's ordinance, or, Clear proof that all the children of believing parents are in the covenant of grace and have as much a right to baptism the now seal of the covenant, as the infant seed of the Jewes had to circumcision, the then seal of the covenant / by Michael Harrison ...	Harrison, Michael, Minister at Potters-Pury.	1694 (1694)	Wing H905; ESTC R9581	26,416	65

It shews that it is the will of God that it should be so because Christ passed through each Age to sanctify it to us Thus Irenaeus who lived about an hundred and fifty years after Christ these are his words Ideo per omnem venit etatem infantibus Infans factus c. Therefore Christ passed through every Age for Infants he was made an Infant sanctifying Infants in little Children being a little Child sanctifying them that have that very Age here 's clear proof from Antiquity of Infant Church-membership Argument 3. If Infants are federally holy then they have a right to visible Church-membership but Infants are federally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 as we have before shewed and all sound Interpreters tell us Argument 4. If Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven then they belong to and are Members of the visible Church but Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they belong to the visible Church Now some Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 19.14 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven By the Kingdom of Heaven here must needs be meant either the Kingdom of Grace that is the gospel-Gospel-Church here and then the meaning is That the Gospel Church which is Christ's Kingdom on Earth is made up of Infants as well as adult persons and this is most likely to be the meaning And so the thing in question is clearly proved Or else by the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Kingdom of Glory That is Children shall go to Heaven as well as grown Persons If so still the consequence is clear if Infants are Members of the invisible Church then have they an undoubted right to be Members of the visible Church I grant a Person may be a Member of the invisible Church and yet no Member of the Visible Yet whoever is a Member of the invisible Church hath a right to visible Church-membership Argument 5. If Infants are to be received in Christ's name then they do undoubtedly belong to Christ's Church But we are commanded to receive Infants in Christ's name Mark 9.36 37. He that receiveth one such child in my name receiveth me c. Doth Christ take them into his Arms and would he have them cast out of his Church Are we to receive them in Christ's name and do they not belong to Christ nor to his Church See Mark 10.13 14 15. Did Christ say all this to deceive us certainly they are visible Members of the visible Church Now if this be so that some Infants were sometimes admitted by God's own appointment and that by vertue of the Covenant of Grace visible Church-members Then undoubtedly they ought to be baptized for Baptism is the only Rite that Jesus Christ who is Head of the Church hath appointed for the admitting Members into his Church Matth. 28.18 19. All that are or will be Christ's Disciples must be baptized in his name if any know any other let them shew it Now these two Arguments are abundantly sufficient to prove the Infants right to Baptism and it is needless to name any other But yet because some think a thing never proved unless much be said and many Arguments be brought I shall therefore add some other Arguments though I shall not dwell nor enlarge on them because the right understanding of these already mentioned will give light to what remains CHAP. IV. Containing the Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth and Ninth Arguments for Infant Baptism ARGUMENT III. IF any Infants are Christ's Disciples then those Infants ought to receive the Badg of a Disciple which is Baptism But some Infants are Disciples Act. 15.10 Why lay you a yoke upon the necks of the disciples Now this Yoke was Circumcision as v. 1. and v. 5. There were some that would impose Circumcision on the Disciples of Christ Now this must needs be understood of Infants as well as others because that Circumcision was most commonly administred to Infants Therefore if Infants are not only meant they are chiefly intended now that all Disciples of Christ ought to be baptized there is a plain command for it and so a command for Infant Baptism Matth. 28.19 Go therefore teach all nations but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go disciple all nations baptizing them Infants are Disciples as before therefore ought to be baptized ARGUMENT IV. If it hath been the constant custom of the Church of Christ all along from the Apostles days to baptize Infants none never denying It till some hundreds of years after Then we may rationally conclude it was the practice of the Apostles to baptize Infants but the former is true therefore the latter Now that Infant Baptism was practised in the Primitive Times by the whole Universal Catholick Church is evident Irenaeus who had seen Policarpus St. John's Disciple and therefore lived very near the Apostles days saith Christ came to save and sanctify all sorts Qui per eum venascuntur in Deum Infantes c. All that are born to God Infants little ones and Children Born to God in the Ecclesiastical Phrase is but the same with Infant Baptism Tertullian who lived about the Year of Redemption 200. moved some Scruples about Baptism yet never denied the lawfulness of it And in case that the Infant was in danger of death did vehemently urge it Origen who lived but little after him speaks again and again of the baptizing little Children and saith They received it by Tradition from the Apostles About 150 years after the death of St. John there was one Fidus who raised a doubt Whether Infants might be baptized before they were eight days old because Circumcision was not to be administred till then Therefore Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and 66 more met to consider this Case and agreed That Infants recens nati new born might be baptized And thus we might cite Testimonies of Athanasius Chrysostom Augustin and many others that it was the constant custom of the Church to baptize Infants Which Custom is still continued in all the Churches of Christ all the world over as appears in all the Confessions of all the Protestant Churches As Helvetia Bohemia Belgia Auspurg Saxony Wittenberg Swedeland France and Peidmont and Histories tell us 't is practised by the Russians Muscovites and all the Christians in India Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Babylon Palastine and in every part of the world where there be any Christian Churches planted ARGUMENT V. The Fifth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If the Infants of believing Parents be in the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of the Covenant do belong to them then they may and ought to be baptized But such Infants are in covenant and the Promise of the Covenant doth belong to them therefore they ought to be baptized That they are in covenant as well as their Parents is undeniably evident from the tenure of that Covenant made with Abraham which was a

Gospel-covenant Gen. 17.7 as we have abundantly proved and that the Promise of the Covenant is to them is as evident Act. 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children he means the Promise of God to Abraham the Promise of Salvation by Christ which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles but to the Jews in the first place Or suppose the Apostle hath respect unto Jer. 31.33 34. or to Joel 2.28 it alters not the case for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace and Explications of what was virtually contained in that first Promise to Abraham Gen. 17.7 ARGUMENT VI. The Sixth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If the Infants of one or both of the believing Parents be federally holy then they ought to be baptized but the former is true therefore the latter 1 Cor. 7.14 By the holiness of Children there is not meant Legitimacy i.e. not Bastards so they would have been if both the Parents had been Pagans Nor is it meant that they are savingly sanctified but federally holy that is in the Covenant of Grace and so had an undeniable right to the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism ARGUMENT VII The Seventh Argument for Infant-Baptism is this If the Kingdom of Heaven belong to Infants then they ought to be baptized but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to some Infants Matth. 19.14 Suffer little children to come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven 1. Suppose by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Kingdom of Glory little Children when they die shall go to Heaven this sense the Anabaptists cannot disallow for they say all Children dying in infancy are saved the Infants of Turks Pagans Infidels Papists all sorts Then if they are Heirs of Glory this must be by vertue of their interest in and union with Christ for there 's no other way to Heaven but by Jesus Christ John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life no coming unto the father but by me There 's no Name under Heaven whereby we can be saved but only Jesus Christ Now if Infants have a right to Glory by vertue of their union with and interest in Christ then have they a right to be baptized if they have a right to Heaven by Christ then to receive the Badge of a Disciple of Christ which is Baptism no person can have any plea for Heaven that had not a right to be baptized Acts 2.47 The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved This adding to the Church was by Baptism v. 41. And let them shew that can what right those have to Heaven that are not or at least have not a right to be so added to the visible Church 2. But by the Kingdom of Heaven is oft understood the gospel-Gospel-Church So Mat. 22.1.13.47.8.20 21.11.12 and in most of our Saviour's Parables And this is most likely to be the meaning of this Text of such is the kingdom of heaven that is the gospel-Gospel-Church takes Infants as well as adult persons to be visible Members in it And then the consequence is unavoidable The visible Church and Kingdom of Christ is made up of Infants as well as adult persons Baptism is the Door into the visible Church therefore they must needs be baptized ARGUMENT VIII The Eighth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If Infants are to be received in the name of Christ they are to be baptized in the name of Christ but Infants are to be received in the name of Christ Mark 9.36 Whoso receiveth one such child in my name receiveth me to receive them in the name of Christ is to receive them as the Disciples of Christ or because they belong to Christ And if they ought to be thus received in Christ's Name as the Friends and Disciples of Christ then they ought to receive the Badge of a Disciple to have the name of Christ named over them in Baptism ARGUMENT IX If in our Saviour's time the Head and Master of a Family was never baptized but his whole Family was baptized with him then Children and Infants ought to be baptized for they are a considerable part of Families But we never read of any Head or Master of a Family baptized but his or their whole Houshold were baptized with them as is evident in Cornelius Acts 10. and Lydia and the Jailer Acts 16. So 1 Cor. 1.14 c. Object But there 's no mention of any Infants in any of these Families Answ No more is there of any of riper years And it 's much more likely that there was Infants in those Families than otherwise there is no mention in Scripture of Children of believing Parents baptized at adult age I shall multiply no more Arguments by these the unprejudiced Reader will be abundantly satisfied that Infant-Baptism is God's Ordinance CHAP. V. Shewing that the Doctrine of the Anabaptists in excluding Infants from Baptism and shutting them out of the visible Church makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan and so leaves us no well-grounded hope of the salvation of any dying in infancy and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine Argum. 1. THat Doctrine that makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of the Devil is false Doctrine But to deny Infants Baptism is to deny them to be of the visible Church of Christ and if they are not visibly in the Church of Christ they are visibly out of it and of the Kingdom of the Devil there is no third or middle state on Earth between the visible Kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the Kingdom of the Devil and all men and women and Infants too are visible Members of the one or the other If any know of any middle state let them show it Christ and Satan share the whole world between them and if Infants are not visibly in the Kingdom of Christ they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil the consequence is unavoidable what barbarous usage is this to our poor Infants Christ commands us to bring them to him and tells us of such is the kingdom of God and the Anabaptists perversely thrust them away from Christ and from the Church of Christ set them among Pagans and Infidels who are of the Visible Kingdom of the Devil Argument 2. That Doctrine that leaves us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy is certainly false Doctrine But the Anabaptists in denying Infant Baptism to the Seed of Believers leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such dying in Infancy I do not say That the Anabaptists do positively assert the Damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy for they do the direct contrary assert the certain Salvation of all Infants even Turks Pagans and Jews But I say they leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such for if Infants ought not to be Baptized then are they out of the Visible Church all who belong