Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	baptize_v	disciple_n	infant_n	2,221	5	10.2983	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47399	[The ax laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism and church-membership containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3, 10].	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1693 (1693)	Wing K48_pt2; ESTC R20690	57,342	56

main Argument pag. 2 3. to prove the Minor thus he argues viz. 2. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of the Christian Religion but the former Principle does so Ergo To prove the Minor of this Argument he adds another viz. That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works but the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Ergo. Answ. 1. This Gentleman calls these Rational Arguments but I have nothing but his own word for it but to proceed he should have shewed what those Immunities and Benefits were in the Covenant o● Works which we by denying Infants Baptism render the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to be less than those were but do you not intimate hereby that Circumcision belonged to the Covenant of Works and if so in vain do you urge Circumcision as a Privilege and also since the Covenant of Works is abrogated what is there in your Arguments for the baptizing of Infants For all Iewish Rites and Privileges may be forced upon the Christian World by this Argument of yours or else we may say the Privileges of the Gospel are less than the Privileges of the Iews under the Covenant of Works which I have already answered 2. His mentioning that Passage of Calvin is remote to his purpose he speaks of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham not of the Covenant of Works which we say is not curtail'd by Christ's coming but is every way as extensive now as it was from the beginning but we have proved that there was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham and that Circumcision did appertain to his Natural Seed as such and so part of the legal Covenant Obj But the Commission Mat. 28.19 you say is as full or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the baptizing of Infants is a Christian Duty for had there been as general a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Iesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations Circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to Circumcise the Iewish Children c. Ans. 1. Is this that the Mountains have brought forth we were big in Expectation by your Title Page wondering what new Notion or Arguments you had found out from the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. or what your different Method should be to prove Infant Baptism But truly Sir the Log is still too heavy you cannot lift it up I see nothing new in your whole Tract nor any thing but what has been answered but this being the main Pin upon which all hangs I shall give a brief Reply to you 1. I thank you for your plain and just Concession I see you conclude and grant Circumcision did belong to the Covenants or Works I doubt not but you are right so far and with that your Cause is gone and Calvin and all that came after him have said nothing in calling Circumcision a Gospel Covenant 2. But Sir suppose the People of Israel had never been commanded by the Lord to Circumcise their Children till Moses came and Moses had given such a Commission that you mention viz. to teach all Nations Circumcising them do you think they would have had ground from thence to have circumcised their Infants whereas his Circumcision required the teaching of all Nations first before they were circumcised of which Infants were not capable 3. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his Great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice Joh. 4.1 he made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any baptized in the New Testament but such who first professed Faith in the Lord Jesus See our Answer to Mr. Burkit which I sent you Also our Answer to the Athenian Society this is there fully spoken unto 4. If the Commission be so extensive as you intimate Why do you not go or stir up some Ministers to go into all Heathen and Pagan Nations and Baptise them and their Children and so that way make them all Christians You may teach them the Christian Doctrine i. e. Faith and Repentance afterwards as you do your Children but the Truth is there is no need to teach them afterwards the way of Faith and Regeneration if your Doctrine be true because the chief Thing they received in Baptism you say is divine Grace viz. Regeneration Adoption and a Title to the Inheritance of eternal Life p. 20. Sure those divine Habits can never be lost Reader take what this Man says farther on this Respect Obj. But you say we neither regard nor consider the chief Thing in Baptism viz. The Testification or Witness of the divine Benevolence taking them into Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them for in Baptism the chief Thing is divine Grace which consists and stands in the remission pardon and forgiveness of Sins in Adoption or Sonship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult c. p. 20. Answ. This is such Doctrine that few Paedo-Baptists besides your self do assert or believe but What Proof do you give us to confirm it from God's Word You say right we do not regard it indeed Doth Baptism do all this 'T is wonderful How conferr Grace and give Pardon and Eternal Life You Ministers of the Church of England if this be so can do as strange things as the Popish Priests in Transubstantiation you can by sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe it appears change the evil and vitious Habits form Christ in the Soul raise the Dead to Life and of a Child of Wrath make a Child of God It grieves me to think a Man called a Minister of the Gospel should teach such corrupt Doctrine and deceive the Ignorant For as it is without Scripture-Evidence nay contrary to it for God's Word that tells us Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh that is the Corruption of depraved Nature so 't is contrary to Reason and without any rational Demonstration as Reverend Stephen Charnock tho' a Paedo-Baptist shews Many Men saith he take Baptism for Regeneration The Ancients usually give it this Term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration This conferrs not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external Thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner neither can it be proved That ever the Spirit of God is tyed by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in gracious Opperations when

have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself