Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	peculiar_a	people_n	priesthood_n	1,265	5	9.7438	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85256	The lawfulnesse of infants baptisme. Or, An answer to Thomas Lamb his eight arguments, entituled, The unlawfulnesse of infants baptisme. And may serve also to the false minors, and old out-worne arguments in the late book of C. Paul Hobson, till a more particuler and compleat answer come forth to anatomise the fallasies of the said book, entituled, The fallasie of infants baptisme. By Robert Fage Junior. Gent.	Fage, Robert.	1645 (1645)	Wing F85A; Thomason E1189_10; ESTC R208286	7,386	16

not confesse their sinnes and professe repentance therefore were not baptised I answer This wil not be granted seeing submission to Baptisme was it selfe a Confession of sin and profession of Repentance as Circumcision made men debters to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 which no Infant could promise by word but his submitting thereto was his bond And as John Baptist so likewise Christ himselfe also by his Disciples Baptised the Children that came or were brought unto him As appeares by that large testimony That he baptized and all men came unto him John 3.26 which compared with John 7.22 23. Yee on the Sabbath day circumcise a man If a man on the Sabbath day receive Circumcision Iohn 16.21 For joy that a man is borne into the world Gen. 4.1 I have gotten a man from the Lord. All which doth shew that children were usually called men and so not excluded from Christs Baptisme T. L. Your second argument is Every affirmative command of Christ hath its negative so that whosoever Christ hath commanded to be baptized ought so to be and all others prohibited But the affirmative command of Christ to his Apostles is Matth. 28.18 That they should teach all nations baptizing them that is those that are taught either by themselves or some other therefore the Aposties were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught Ans The minor of this Argument hath some deceipt in it the commission here being urged in another manner then the word in the originall will be are for it is not to be translated Teach all nations but Mat. 28.19 Make all nations Disciples baptizing them c. ver 20. teaching them And here is indeed a negative command not to baptize any but Disciples And this blames those who baptize the Infants of them who are not visible Disciples but here are two things to be considered ☞ First whether beleevers Infants are not Disciples of Christ as the Jews Infants were Disciples of Moses ☞ the Spirit using the same word which it doth here of Moses Disciples John 9.28 who were sealed with Circumcision as Christs Disciples with baptisme and the beleeving Gentiles also being in the same estate with the beleeving Jew as was proved before Secondly if an unbeleever be baptized with water before he beleeveth and after come to beleeve and to be a Disciple whether he must be baptized again And for this whether there be any word in Scripture to warrant a second baptizing with water into the name of Christ For my part I know none but this I know that wee must practise nothing without warrant So that this argument and your other thereupon which you frame thus If the Apostles were prohibited in the negative of Christs command touching baptisme from baptizing any that were not first taught either by themselves or some other then ought not the Infants no not of beleevers to be baptized because none can know them to be taught seeng they make no profession of faith and repentance but the Apostles were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught in the negative of Christs command touching baptisme Therfore the Infants of beleevers are not to be baptized will hold well against those that are not made Disciples but not against Infants as not taught and the commission being to make Disciples all nations and baptize them must needs lead to baptize Infants as a part of them T. L. 3 Your third argument is That which overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace ought in no wise to be But the baptisme of Infants though of beleevers doth so Therefore c. Answer Here we deny the minor which you seeme to prove thus T. L. That which is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace without faith in the person so interested That overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace be cause persons have interest therein no otherwise then by faith Rom. 4.16 Gal. 3.9.29 any thing else concluded so makes the promise or covenant void Rom. 4.16 Gal. 3.18 But the baptisme of Infants though of beleevers is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace without faith in the person so interested viz. the faith of their parents Therefore the baptisme of Infants though of beleevers overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace and consequently ought in no wise to be I Ans Your minor here is denied as being quite cōtrary to the nature of the covenant of grace for the doctrine of the covenant is that God of his free grace hath made a promise of grace life to all his elect upon whom he will shew mercy Ro. 9.18 And that before they have done good or evill while they are enemies reconciling them to God by the blood of his Son Rom. 5.10 and loving them with an everlasting love not that they beleeved or loved him but that he loved them first 1 Ioh. 4.10.19 And this love he in time manifests taking his Abrahams out of the land of the Caldeans Act. 7.3 his Israel out of Egypt through the red Sea vers 36. and his people from the world Ioh. 9.14 into fellowship and union with the Father and the Son communion of the Spirit vers 21 22.23 And thus God taketh a nation out of a nation Deu. 4.34 to be a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people unto him 1 Pet. 2.9 And the Spirit in this spirituall house he hath promised to be powred out upon all flesh both young and old Act. 2.19 The very children being holy 1 Cor. 7.14 because children of promise Act. 2.39 having their sins forgiven for Christs name sake 1 Iohn 2.12 Therefore are they to be baptized into Christ because they have visibly put on Christ Gal. 3.27 And are distinguished from the world in being the children not of the world but of a beleever when God draws a people from the world into fellow ship with himselfe their little children are distinguished from the world as so many perfecters of the praise of God Matth. 21.16 and are owned freely in his Son Christ before faith or workes manifested actually in their owne persons Those who deny the Infants of beleevers thus to be in Gods visible house must necessarily hold justification not to goe before actuall faith which is Arminius tenet or deny original sin or conclude al infants damned or else that those who are saved are saved some other way then by the Gospel The places you quote meane no other justification by faith then imputation Faith to take hold of free grace was required in the Jewish parents even in Circumcision as appears by Deut. 10.16 30.6 without which the Circumcision outward was nothing and the like for baptizing of beleevers Infants the Jew within Rom. 2. ult T. L. 4 Your fourth argument is That which overthrows the nature of Christs true visible Church ought in no wise to be But the baptisme of beleevers Infants doth So therefore