Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	baptise_v	baptize_v	infant_n	1,224	5	9.3240	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61127	A treatise concerning the lawfull subject of baptisme wherein are handled these particulars : the baptizing of infants confuted, ... the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed handled & how the same agrees with the Gentiles and their seed, the baptism administered by an Antichristian power confuted ... / by me, J.S.	J. S. (John Spilsbery)	1643 (1643)	Wing S4976; ESTC R23657	75,483	50

offers himself freely to save you notwithstanding your crucifying of him yet now repent and beleeve for his promise is upon the same freely to forgive and to save you from all your sins Thus the promise is applied to saith which is the way of preaching the Gospel and not an absolute conclusion of persons to be in the covenant of grace and life whether they have faith or not What is this but to keep the wicked from leaving of his way by promising him life This God did not in making of his Covenant at the first nor the Apostle by his applying of the same at the last Otherwise to bring the personall or naturall seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and so of all beleevers into the Covenant of grace and that by Gods appointment whose word i● like himself both true and stable as a word of faith purely tried as gold seven times in the fire Hence observe the evils that attend this doctrine unavoidably First it makes void the stability of Gods Covenant of grace it self thus If the Covenant of grace be absolute and stable then all within the same must be saved But all within the said Covenant were not saved ergo the Covenant of grace is not absolute and stable The major is confessed that a beleevers seed is in the Covenant of grace without exception The minor is proved from Ishmael Esau and the rejected Jews all which were the seed of beleevers and yet not all saved 2. It s a ground of falling from grace thus All that God took into his Covenant of grace were in an estate of grace But all that God took into his Covenant of grace did not there continue Ergo such fell from an estate of grace I prove this the same way with the former 3. It s a ground of universall redemption for it makes the death of Christ equall as well to such as perish as to such as are saved thus All that are in the Covenant of grace Christ died for But all that were in the Covenant of grace were not saved Ergo Christ died for such as are not saved The proof of this is the same with the former if God took Abraham and his seed into his Covenant of grace without exception 4. It makes God the author of mans beleeving untruth by injoyning him to beleeve the salvation of such as he himself knows and reveals the contrary as Ishmael Esau and but a remnant among the Jews nay none at all but such as beleeve Gen 17. Gen. 25. Gen. 48. Rom. 9.27 Against which opinion and evils aforesaid I argue thus The Covenant of grace is absolute and saving unto all once with in the same But all the personall seed of beleevers are not saved therefore all beleevers seed are not in the Covenant of grace The Proposition is clear from these Scriptures Jer. 32.40 Isa 49.21 Jer. 31.3 Joh. 13.1 Mal. 3.6 Joh. 10.28.29 The Assumption from these Gen. 21.10 with Gal. 4 29.30 Gen. 25.23 with Rom. 9.11 12 13.27 God requires no man to beleeve untruth But for a beleever to beleeve that all his seed is in the Covenant of grace is to beleeve untruth Therefore God requires no such thing This Argument is sully proved in the former And so much for the promise Act. 2.39 which being well understood men would never go about to build the baptising of the Gentiles infants upon that Scripture But it is said that Christ admits of little children to come unto him blessing them and acknowledging their right unto the kingdom of God Mark 10.14 therefore such may be baptised To which I answer briefly thus That the blessing of Christ upon these children was for bodily cures as is manifest by the desires of those that brought them to Christ which was not that he should baptise them but that he would touch them and lay his hands upon them and pray as Mark 5.23 Matth. 19.13.15 This was the ordinary way of healing in the time of the Law by such as were inabled by God thereunto as is clear by these Scriptures compared together 2. King 5.11 with Matth. 19.13 Matth. 8.3 Matth. 9 18. Luk. 4.38.40 Never were any so brought to Christ but for some cure and for his blessing of them that was in respect of that temporall mercie he bestowed upon them according to that they came to him for and to shew his bountie and humilitie that he was no respecter of persons as such might seem to be that suffered others to come and would have kept back children And for such to belong unto the kingdom so those children did and therefore they ought to come as well as any other For they were children of the Jews and at that time members of that Church and so of that kingdome and had as much interest in Christ for outward blessings as any else And further Christ is pleased to make use of childrens humilitie and innocencie to reprove the high mindednesse of his disciples and to draw them forth a pattern from the same As Mat. 18.1 2 3 4. with Mark 10.5 〈…〉 So that all this makes nothing for the baptizing of Infants they being not brought to Christ for baptisme But it s further objected that the Apostles baptized whole housholds as the houshold of Stephanas Lydia and the Jayler 1 Cor. 1.16 Act. 16.15 33. and infants being a part of the houshold therefore infants were baptized Answer Though that Infants are a part of the family when there be infants in the same yet this makes nothing for the baptizing of Infants except it be first proved that infants were there in those housholds And also upon the same ground we may prove that the Jayler had a wife and Lydia an husband because that husbands and wives are commonly in a houshold or family and being there they are a part of the same and that the Jaylers wife and Lydias husband and servants though never so wicked were all baptised But if it be said that faith was to be required of them being of yeers Hence it will follow that no infants were then baptised because that one and the same condition is required of all that are baptised and so it is said of the Jayler that the Word was preached to him and to all that were in his house and that he beleeved and all his house and these are said to be baptised Act. 16.32.34 and thus the Apostle preached and they beleeved and such onely were baptised and none else And what the Apostles order and practise was in this family it was the same in all other housholds and families for they walked alwayes by one rule and therefore their order was not to baptise infants It is said that Christ sent out his Apostles to teach and to baptize all Nations Matth. 28.19 in which Nations there were infants as well as men of yeers and so commanded to be baptized Ans In a word briefly to this for this Scripture being well considered and rightly understood

would stop mens mouthes for ever having a word to say for the baptizing of infants This blessed commission of Christ to his Apost●es was chiefly for us Gentiles saying All power is given me in heaven and in earth Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost c. As if Christ had said Go now into all Nations and preach the Gospel freely 〈…〉 6. as well to one nation as to another for the Gospel shall not now be confined any more to one place or people then to another God is now a God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews go therefore as well to the Gentiles as to the Jews even unto all Nations and there preach the Gospel 〈…〉 29 and so make Disciples by teaching them and such so taught them baptize in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost that is into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and beleeved So that here teaching goes before baptizing and presupposeth understanding and faith in that which is taught this being the onely place of Christs instituting the ordinance of baptisme And further explained Mark 16.15.16 Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved So that from these Scriptures brought to prove the baptizing of infants it is clearly manifest that infants are not the subjects of baptisme appointed by Christ for all the externall benefits and priviledges of the Gospel are given onely to externall and visible faith And so the sealing and confirming ordinances of Christ ever presuppose faith in the subject to seale unto and to be confirmed So that here is no ground for the baptizing of Infants but the contrary But it is affirmed by some that as God commanded Infants to be circumcised and the same command remaining still unrepealed stands in force for Infants to be baptized To which I answer and say if that commandement must serve now without alteration then we must circumcise and not baptize and that males onely and not females but if it be altered then it hath not the same way to hold Infants forth in Baptisme as it had in Circumcision but that command which injoyned circumcision is repealed by a direct command to the contrary as Gal. 5.2 1 Cor. 7.18 Rom. 2.28 29. If any object from the second Commandement injoyning the worship of God though the said worship of God be changed in respect of the manner and outward forme yet the same commandement continues still in force for the worship of God now as it did then The answer is These two commandements will no way agree so be compared the second commandement directly injoyned Gods worship as the substance thereof and so still remaines and also retaines the same thing it first commanded being the worship of God But now for the command that injoyned circumcision which was the substance of that command is now cleane made voyde for circumcision in the flesh is now abolished that in the heart come in the place as Rom. 2.28 29. Col. 2. Againe as the old outward forme of Gods holy worship under the old Testament was abolished and done away so likewise the new order and forme of Gods worship was erected and set up againe by speciall command and when the manner of it is once set downe ●hen the commandement comes on againe and not before and binds onely to that order and manner so erected and set up and to none else so that now the new state of the Church and worship of God being established and the subject of Baptisme in the same expressed to be a beleever Now if that commandement comes on upon this state then it binds to this subject onely and to none other And to hold the subject of Baptisme by the same command that injoyned circumcision without the said subject being expressely set downe and so confirmed and established by the New Testament this is more then will be granted in any other part of Gods worship injoyned or comprehended in the second commandement All which say we is so farre approved of by God as is expressely set downe in the New Testament or everlasting Gospel of Christ But let us examine a little wherein the authoritie of that commandement of circumcision may be that is brought to beare out the baptizing of Infants Circumcision it doth not for all agres that we are now to baptize and not to circumcise the parties circumcising it doth not then the Master of the family to circumcise but now one authorized by Christ in his body the Church to baptize the same part of the body it doth not that the foreskin Baptisme the whole man the age it doth not that the eight day and this any day the subject it doth not that a male onely this both male and female Now in that it doth not injoyne none of all these wherein then can the authoritie of that command consist now in Baptisme so as to injoyne Infants to be baptized for either it must be a thing indifferent or else it must injoyne something And whereas men cry out from that command Infants Infants Infants must be baptized as they were commanded to be circumcised why this command if it should be so serves for none but onely males so that if they will have the female to be baptized they must look out for another cōmandement for them and so there must be two commandements meet in one ordinance But I would demand of such as hold the baptizing of Infants from the command that injoyned circumcision that if in case there had been no word or command given for baptizing of any whether that they or any other might have baptized either Infants or any others from that commandement but I suppose they will not so affirme and if not what doe man wander under the clouds of their own ignorance when as the light shines so clearely for what is more cleare then this that the New Testament hath sufficient expresse commands and rules for the administration of Baptisme both for matter and manner with out any reference much lesse dependency upon the law of Circumcision they being two distinct institutions At two severall times there is given command for Baptisme the first was John the Baptist who received his authoritie not from the command of Circumcision but had his Commission expressely from God who sent him to baptize as Joh. 1.32 33. And those that he baptized are said by the holy Ghost to be such as manifested their faith and repentance as Mat. 3.6 The second Commission which serves for us Gentiles is that which Christ gave to his Apostles Mat. 28.18 19. Which hath no reference to the command of circumcision but by vertue of that power and authoritie given him of the Father for the ordering and disposing of all things in heaven earth for his own glory and his peoples good In which