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	heaven_n	peter_n	4,199	5	7.9041	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45397	The baptizing of infants revievved and defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes in his three last chapters of his book intituled Antipedobaptisme / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1655 (1655)	Wing H515A; ESTC R875	90,962	116

saith he notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policie and not to be taught but enjoy priviledges with other Jewes whether Civil or Ecclesiastical But certainly this is no reason of difference for besides that I in that § 27. acknowledged this accidental difference that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation as a disciple doth not adding that this difference had no place in this matter where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations besides this I say it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are that enter into Covenant with God Thus do we find a proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that cometh to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant and a proselyte of their righteousnesse and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that cometh to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the antient people of God i. e. by baptisme should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ though they neither come from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirme it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one speciall priviledge the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these lawes the immediate end of his proselytisme yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby And when he addes but a disciple of Christ is one that ownes Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might well acknowledge it and aske why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits assoon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as disciples or proselytes to Christ Two sage observations he here addeth 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can very well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of disciples but either of God among the Jews or of Christ among us Christians those being the only discipleships to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptisme the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision and notification of several sects among Jews as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new baptismes to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they doe His 2d observation is that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs proselytes but his disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these terms But I answer 1. that those texts that expresse the Christians entring into discipleship by coming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them proselytes for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediatly from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto And 2dly that if this word whether in it self or in the verb from whence it comes had never been used in the New Testament yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament yet may we not thence conclude that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the known style of the Nicene Fathers is never found used by the writers of the Bible yet sure it no way follows thence that the notion of that word and of this phrase I and my Father are one are different and may not be confounded T is pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple and difficulty as these What now is further said by him in this chapter both concerning little ones coming unto Christ and of their entring into covenant Deut. 29.10 is on both sides but a bare denyal of that which is competently proved in that 28 § For t is there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entred disciples and particularly of being entred into covenant with God and so of being baptized and there is no reason imaginable why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdome of heaven should be denyed water to be baptized The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius Peter durst not deny them baptisme And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin for being blest by Christ for being received into Covenant with him and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learnt For that still they are unqualified till by hearing they own Christ as their Master this is a begging of the question without any the least tender of proof As for entring into covenant when by the force of Deut. 29.10 he is forced to yield it competible to infants yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him 1. by modifying the sense then by invalidating my inference from it First though he yield that they may enter into Covenant yet this saith he but in some sense by their fathers act ingaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant Deut. 29.15 But if we examine the place it will be most clear 1. that the Covenant is entred into by the infants just as by the rest of them the wives and the strangers or proselytes On their part Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the

of the antient Christian writers no nor any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practice But certainly this is of no force for 1. So long as none of all these deny it to be so derived and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes and that their custome being to baptize infant children Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian What he addes from several antient testimonies shortly pointed at that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate give grace and save and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome hath nothing of weight in it For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice T is as if he should thus argue the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands The foundation of the institution is one thing and the benefits of it being instituted is another and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing 2dly Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate and was necessary to enter into the kingdome as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again v. 3. and that of water v. 5. by baptisme he cannot enter into the kingdome of God so was that speech of Christ taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes among whom baptisme was said to regenerate and to enter into the Church as that was the portal to the kingdome of God and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition Art thou a Ruler a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there the Jewes baptisme as hath appeared belonging to such hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so from others also What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us of private baptisme of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous of the sureties answering in the childs behalf and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide of sprinkling or powring water on the face of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized is all amast together if it might be to make up one accumulative argument but is utterly insufficient to do so All that he concludes from the mention of all these is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition His words are these upon the mentioning of those particulars And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor because having said so much Here indeed by his therefore I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably viz. by way of diversion as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age 1600 years after those times to discern Christs institution in this matter but by the words or actions of or some kind of intimation from the Apostles how they understood Christs institution Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally speaking to another matter and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words how fair and easy soever there is but one possible method remaining in this as in all other questions of fact as evidently this is whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter who by succession and tradition the one from the other had the Apostles practice the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution conveyed and handed down unto them and are to us their late posterity the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact and so are in all reason to decide the controversie and give a final conclusion to the debate between us This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere I professe to have laid the most weight upon it according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies and consequently must still insist upon it and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence I shall again resume it and give him a competent series of testimonies some formerly mentioned and now put more into forme of evidence and others added to them so