Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	david_n	great_a	lord_n	2,198	5	3.5931	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47605	The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1692 (1692)	Wing K84; ESTC R27451	144,738	231

Discourse to Mr. Cary is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works pag. 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet must say that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions as had also the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam by which he stood in the time of his Innocency justified and accepted by virtue thereof Could not God give forth a second Ministration or Transcript of his Righteous and Holy Law though not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and so to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3.19 Nay I will affirm always generally when the Scriptures of the New-Testament speak of the Old Covenant or first Covenant or Covenant of Works it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it to the Sinai-Covenant and to the Covenant of Cirrumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galathians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Though we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations or Additions of it yet we say the Promise of the Gospel or Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Acts of Righteousness or any thing to be done by the Creature Rom. 4. 5. The Substance and essential Part of this Covenant is Christ Faith a new Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which signified those things and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise was made under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah c. In other Forms to Abraham under the name of his Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the name of a Successor in his Kingdom In the New-Testament in plain words We all with open Face beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord c. 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions of the Gospel Promise and New-Covenant are there so many New Covenants this being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand as a Rock Take another of them That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Cov●●●n● or a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was Circumcised but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4 9 10. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could not be a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel-Covenant But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed to or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. ● 1● Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circu●●ision was not a Gospel-Covenant And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus By the way saith he let it be observed in reference to the two foregoing Arguments which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works there b●ing no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a 〈◊〉 Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles ●●me nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15.10 Gal. 5.1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption but as I said before Secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Priviledg so we say too but not such a Priviledg as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Priviledg because it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not do so to any other Nation This Rite therefore could not be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concerned And thus the Apostle argues Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath th● Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision ver 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it The chiefest Priviledg which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandements 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Priviledg if they kept the Law 〈◊〉 for Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou break the Law thy Circum●ision is made Vncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5.3 If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision avails thee nothing it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant 〈◊〉 as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Priviledg was because unto them the Law should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation

weak an Allusion or Similitude as ever was brought to illustrate a matter For first it supposes that Christ gave a very obscure dark and doubtful Commission for if all were to be sheared that the Shepherd was to mark the Shepherd could not err in refusing to mark the Lambs because not capable of shearing for so it is here all are by Christ's Commission to be first taught who are to be baptized 2. You suppose in Christ's Fold there are no Lambs if no Infants are admitted to be of his Church or Flock which is absurd Were they Infants that Christ commanded St. Peter to feed when he bad him feed his Lambs Joh. 21.15 Or were they Infants that Christ is said to carry in his Bosom Isa 40.11 The Scripture you cite He shall feed his Flock like a Shepherd he shall gather his Lambs with his Arms and carry them in his Bosom Do not all Expositors tell you by Lambs in these places are meant young Converts who are by St. Peter called new-born Babes 1 Pet. 2.1 2. and who denies but many such are in Christ's Fold and these Lambs we say may and ought to be baptized 3. Who told you Baptism is Christ's Ear-mark by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats I affirm this is no certain and distinguishing Mark to know the Sheep and Lambs of Christ from the Devil's Goats Was not Simon Magus baptized was that a Mark to know he was a Sheep of Christ Thousands may be baptized have that Ear-mark and yet be in the Gall of Bitterness and in the Bond of Iniquity and be the Goats of the Devil Christ himself in John 10. lays down divers distinguishing Marks of his Sheep but makes not the least mention of this True when a Believer is baptized and doth all other things Christ had commanded that is no doubt one mark that he is one of Christ's Sheep but the distinguishing Mark is Regeneration and that of having his Spirit in our Hearts and leading a godly Life Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ the same is none of his Nom. 8.9 As to Infants who die in their Infancy who doubts but they may be happy since Christ says of such are the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. Kingdom of Glory but this is no more ground for you to baptize them than as I have often said to give them the Lord's Supper Does it follow because some Infants may belong to the Kingdom of Glory they are Members therefore of the visible Church and so Lambs of Christ's Fold on Earth And this brings me to your next which is your fourth Argument viz. If Infants be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth and of his Presence in Heaven if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory then they have an undoubted right to the Priviledg of Subjects amongst which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least Answ 1. We answer and argue thus to the first part of your Proposition viz. If many of the Jews and others who were ungodly Persons were capable of Christ's Blessing i. e. of being healed of their bodily Diseases they were Subjects of Baptism Is this sound arguing What further Blessing Christ did vouchsafe to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them we know not for that was the way Christ took oft-times in the healing the Sick and so he blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of 2. We as I just now told you do deny Infants are Subjects of the visible Church therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace you intend not that you beat the Air you beg and prove not besides it doth not follow I say again tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as another and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God as well as Baptism But say you or take the Argument thus viz. Those whom Christ invites to him and are received by him his Ministers may not refuse nor put from them But Infants are by Christ invited to him and were received by him therefore the Ministers of Christ may not ought not durst not refuse them into Communion with them p. 21. Answ Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes and to the Blessing of healing them of their bodily Distempers May his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion 2. In the days of Christ when he was on Earth there were many who are said to come unto him whom he might receive into his Presence and Company yet his Ministers might not baptize them nor receive them into their spiritual Communion nor indeed so you dare not receive Infants I mean into your Communion of the Eucharist c. We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ and he received them into his Company who it appears came to tempt him Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him who said there was no Resurrection may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion Therefore in opposition to what you say in Pag. 21. of your Book I affirm there was then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church Christ invited the worst of Sinners to him who nevertheless did not receive him therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously invited Your Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10.13 Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven doth not your business they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace i. e. the Church for if they did belong to or were of the visible Church as such then you need not by Baptism make them belong unto it If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church you by Baptism have no need I say to add them to it for if as they are the Seed of Believers they are already fidem soederis not only in Covenant with God but also belong to his Kingdom or Church upon Earth All the World may see you go about but to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before and without Baptism Doth Christ say you take Children into his Arms and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces Answ May I not argue thus i. e. Doth Christ receive all sorts of Persons into his Arms of Mercy to heal their bodily Distempers of which some were wicked and ungodly and shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces Besides all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized than for their receiving the Lord's Supper and all other Privileges that belong as well as Baptism to Adult Persons who believe or are

Signification thereof we should have read it they were dipped both Men and Women Acts 8.12 and so the Dutch have translated it in their Language Maer do sy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende van don name Jesus Christi verkondigh de wier den sy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen In English thus When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were dipped both Men and Women But you say that which may be lawful and modest in one Country may be sinful and immodest in another c. Answ Did not our Lord Jesus Christ send his Disciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot And dare you without blushing say or intimate 't is immodest and a sinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World because it may be possibly censured condemned or accounted so by the Sons of Belial wicked and ungodly Men and Women Besides have you not granted the Case so far that in hot Countries they did dip pray was not that a hot Country was it not in Judea the same Country our Saviour lived when on Earth By what you say here it may appear that you say and unsay the same thing and seem to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping or any where else tho you contradict all the Learned both the Greek and Latin Fathers and all th● eminent Divines Bishops and Doctors I have quoted out of their Writings I even am sick of such an impertinent Antagonist As to your sixth and last Argument That God hath blessed and highly honoured the Administration of your way of Babes Rantism to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes Answ 'T is wholly without Proof or Demonstration and nothing but a bold presumptive and rash Assertion of your own God has suffered it long 't is true as he hath some other human Rites and Traditions but you cannot prove he has blessed either it or them to any one Soul's profit And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptism for formerly they were baptized i. e. dipped God did honour the Baptism of the Adult highly when our Saviour being ' about thirty Years old was baptized by John for the Heavens were opened and a Voice heard This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Holy Ghost came down upon him And so in Acts 8.12 14. those Men and Women who believed and were baptized the holy Spirit was given unto nay and so highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers that there is a Promise of Forgiveness of S●● and of the receiving the holy Spirit nay of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized Acts 2.37 38. Mark 16.16 But there is no Promise made to Infants that are Baptized much less to such who are but only Rantized 1. As to your Objection in Pag. 57. about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping 't is not their Annotators but 't is their Translators and that too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word therefore you say nothing to weaken what we have said upon that account 2. And as touching what you speak i. e. that in Pag. 57. viz. That Baptism signifies the Death and Burial of Christ we and a Cloud of Witnesses therefore say that 't is Dipping because that is a most lively Representation of his Death Burial and Resurrection But you say Baptism may signify the Death of Christ and be so administred as lively to represent the Death of our Saviour without the exposing those who are baptized to the danger of Death and may signify Christ's Burial too without sending the Person baptized to his Grave even in Sprinkling there is a plain Representation of Christ's Death for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly represents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body Answ If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried or covered all over in Water you had said something tho that is not the way of baptizing neither but dipping or plunging yet that would I must confess represent a Burial But is the dead Body buried so soon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him if you should say it no body would believe you the Body must be covered under the Earth before it can be said to be buried and so must the Person baptized be covered under the Water or 't is not baptized for as otherwise there is no actual Burial in the first so there is no Representation of a Burial in the second But say you if you will closely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars then as the Person buried is altogether passive and laid in the Grave only by others in like manner the Party baptized say you ought to put neither Foot nor Leg nor Thigh into the Water but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms and lay his entire Body into the Water c. Answ Are you not blame-worthy to write after this sort O that you were more wise and dreaded the holy Majesty of God! Is it not said They went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he that is Philip baptized or dipped him this is the Rule not to take the Person up into our Arms yet 't is the Administrator notwithstanding that buries the Person in the VVater his going into it himself doth not baptize him tho he should go in as high as his VVaste but the Administrator does it You know Metaphors do not go as we use to say on all four nor must they be strained further than the design and purport of the holy Spirit but you by sprinkling destroy and utterly make void that sacred Allusion of the Holy Ghost which is not to be born with Baptism is no Representation of a Burial at all if Sprinkling be it And if you have heard that some have been kept so long under the VVater till as you say almost choaked or buried alive I suppose 't is not the first Untruth you have heard In Pag. 58 and 59. about Christ's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age you say Christ was circumcised at eight days old and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptism also you intimate that some expound the words for his coming up out of the Water that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching Answ Circumcision was then in force now 't is gone therefore in that Christ could not be an Example for us but in Baptism which is an Ordinance of the New Testament he is our Example and Pattern as his Precept is our Rule in that we should follow his Steps 2. And let me tell you if it was in the Infancy of Baptism you mean the