Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	great_a	lord_n	time_n	5,703	5	3.3083	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93044	Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition being a vindication of Dr. Russel's True narrative of the Portsmouth disputation ... Also, a sermon upon Mat. 28. 19. by Mr. John Williams ... As also An answer to the Presbyterian dialogue, by another hand / published by Mr. John Sharp ... who was moderator at the disputation in Portsmouth.	Sharp, John, of Froome, Somersetshire.; Williams, John, minister.	1700 (1700)	Wing S3005; ESTC R217599	120,924	184

discipled to Christ and baptized and the next day made Father of a Son of eight days old that Son must have been circumcised or he had broken the Covenant but God sent John to baptize and Christ himself did baptize by his Disciples long before he was offered up 2. Circumcision belonged only to the Male not to the Female but Baptism belongs to the Female as well as the Male. Did the Baptism of the Female come in the room of Circumcision when Circumcision had never any place with the Female or can the Baptism of the Female be argued from the Circumcision of the Male Is there any room to form an Argument here if it were granted that they came one in the room of another 3. Circumcision was to be administred the eighth day not sooner nor later how comes it about that there is now no precise time for a Child to be baptized in if Baptism came in the room of Circumcision Where did God ever declare that Baptism should be administred in the room of Circumcision But he would no longer tie you to an exact day or time as for that you should take your own time 4. The Subjects treated of Col. 2. were Believers every one of them they had received Christ Jesus ver 6. they were compleat in Christ ver 10. 5. It 's spiritual Circumcision that is there mentioned ver 11. that which is made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ 6. It is not spiritual but outward Baptism that is intended in the 12th vers Buried with him in Baptism that is Water-Baptism Now how inconsiderately do Men argue when they say that Baptism and Circumcision are put one for the other when the one is spiritual and the other outward If you say that Baptism is here to be taken of spiritual Baptism and so they are put one for another I answer if this be granted this is foren from the Case in hand the Question is Whether Circumcision and Baptism as they are considered the Ordinances of God and outwardly to be administred are here put one for the other and that they are not is so plain and clear that he that runs may read there is then no ground from this Text to say that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision nor is there another Text to be found from whence such a Conclusion may be drawn Object 7. If Children be capable of the Kingdom of God and the Blessing of Christ which are the greater then they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser But Children are capable of the Kingdom of God and of the Blessing of Christ that is the greater therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser That they are capable of the greater appears in that Christ saith Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God and he took them in his Arms and blessed them To this I answer It does not follow that they are capable of the lesser tho it be granted that they are capable of the greater The Supper of the Lord may be called the lesser as well as Baptism but Children that are capable of the Kingdom of God and the Blessing of Christ which is the greater are not capable of the Supper of the Lord which is the lesser and yet there is no more required as a Prequalification to the Supper of the Lord than there is to Baptism Object 8. Children are as capable now of Baptism as they were formerly of Circumcision and why then should they be denied To this I answer I do not dispute their Capacity but the Authority thereof there was a Command for that Gen. 17. 10 11. shew me the like Command for this and I will yield the point Abraham did not circumcise his Ishmael at eight days old because there was no Command for it nor would he have circumcised his Isaac at eight days old if he had not had a Command so to do Either Believers are commanded to baptize their Children or they are not if they are produce it if they are not then there is no such thing as Infant-Baptism of Divine Institution If the Duty of baptizing Children in an Infant-state do not lie on the believing Parent then I would fain know on whom it doth lie I can't think that it lies on the Child while in an Infant-state the Child in an Infant-state is neither capable of knowing what is matter of Duty nor yet of doing Nor doth it lie on the Minister for first the Minister hath no Power to baptize the Child if the Parent refuse to have it done Secondly He hath no Commission so to do in case the Parent do consent to it They are Disciples only that are put into his Commission but the Children of Believers are not discipled in an Infant-state therefore they are not put into his Commission Where shall we find on whom the Duty of Infant-Baptism is incumbent if there be any such thing Precepts do not leave us at a loss who it is they bind to that Duty Object 9. We read of whole Houses that were baptized and it 's probable that there were Children in some or all of them To this I answer 1. If it be probable yet it is not certain and therefore no Argument can be drawn from it could it be proved that there had been Children there then there would have been some room for an Argument but that can't be done 2. It 's more probable that there were no Children there in that there are but four Housholds mentioned among so many thousands that were baptized and were all known to be Believers This affords a strong Presumption that the Apostle did not baptize the Houshold upon the Faith of th● Parent if he had there would have been multitudes of Housholds that would have been baptized if it had been common to baptize whole Housholds I see no reason why these four should be mentioned more than others 3. The Jailor believ'd in God with all his House Acts 16. 34. and Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believ'd in God with all his House Acts 18. 8. Here are two of the four Houses that were all Believers here are no Children in these for Children are not capable of Faith Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God but Children in an Infant-state are not capable of hearing so as to understand and to believe Stephanus and his House are said to be the first Fruits of Acaia and that they had addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints which is tantamount to believing Here are three of the four Housholds that had no Children and as for Lydia no body knows whether she was a Maid Wife or Widow We read of the Brethren that were in her House but we read nothing of Children there Acts 16. ult Object 10. But if Children be denied Church-membership and Baptism under the Gospel

not deny the Antecedent how then could you deny the Consequent My second Argument was this That if Infants are incapable of believing then they are not the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission but they are so Here you denied the minor which I wonder at that you should be of the Judgment that Infants are capable of believing yea your denying the minor speaks as much My third Argument was If the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Understanding and of the Will then Infants are incapable of believing Here you denied the Sequel you did not deny but that the Essence of Faith consists in the Act of the Understanding and of the Will and if you had it would have been proved but how could you deny the Sequel Are Infants capable of apprehending Christ in his Natures and in his Offices for so he must be apprehended as the Object of Faith Are Infants capable of consenting Christ to be theirs and they Christ's in all his Offices which is the Act of the Will that follows the Act of the Understanding Can Infants make a Resignation of themselves to Christ to be taught by him and saved by him and ruled and governed by him Can you prove by the Word that there is such a Capacity in Infants or that there is such a Capacity in the Children of Believers considered as such and not in the Children of Unbelievers My fourth Argument was That if none could believe on Jesus Christ that never heard of Jesus Christ then Infants are incapable of believing Here again you denied the Sequel You know there are Scriptures enough to prove the Antecedent in every Proposition and the Consequent was rightly drawn 〈◊〉 so that you had no more ground to deny the Consequent than you had to deny the Antecedent yet you denied them all and thus you might have run me up ad infinitum by a continual denying without rendring any reason for what you did or discovering any Fallacy in any one of my Arguments The Arguments you offered your self are judged by some to have little weight in them and that by Pedo-baptists as well as others Your first was That if Children are Church-Members then they have a right to Baptism the initiating Ordinance but they are so c. The minor being denied you brought Mat. 19. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven You indeavour'd to prove that by the Kingdom of Heaven was meant the Visible Church I denied it and offered an Argument to the contrary That if Infants were not Members of a particular instituted Church nor of the universal visible Church out of which a particular instituted Church was gathered then they were not visible Church-Members but they are not c. You told me it did not belong to the Respondent to form an Argument that was all you replied to it then I denied your major that Church-Membership was the ground of Baptism I brought Mat. 3. and Luke 3. and show'd you that those that came to John to be baptized and were denied were Church-Members you replied that they were Church-Members de facto but not de jure I ask'd you whether you did own them Church-Members de facto you said you did Then said I Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism you said again they were not Church-Members de jure for by the Law they ought to have been cast out I desired you to produce that Law but you could not do it And now Sir I would offer you two things which were not then mentioned First Suppose a Grant that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Church of the Jews that was then a National Church yet your Argument is impertinent This was before the Commission was given out at which time it is granted that Children were Church-Members but if you would argue from Church-Membership to a right to Baptism you must prove that they are now Church-Members under the new Dispensation The Constitution of the Church being changed from National to Congregational the Matter of which is visible Saints and that is such as in the judgment of Charity are inherently holy and the Form mutual Consent and Agreement and that Church-Membership is put into the Commission to be the ground of Baptism for if you prove not their right to Baptism by the Commission you do nothing and this I think will be too hard a Task Secondly When Children were Church-Members Church Membership was not the ground of Baptism Christ and John never baptized Church-Members considered as such but first made them Disciples and then baptized them Joh. 4. 1. they were Church-Members before they were Disciples of Christ and they were made Disciples before they were baptized Your second Argument was That if Infants are Disciples then they are the Subjects of Baptism according to the Commission but they are so c. The minor was denied Now pray consider what weak Props they were you fortified your minor with at first you said a Child was a Disciple as soon as his Parents had dedicated him to be taught But do you think he is a Disciple by Instructions according to the Commission and so a fit Subject to be baptized not having learn'd Jesus Christ Secondly Do the Parents dedicate their Children to be taught while Infants when they desire you to baptize them or do you undertake to teach them while Infants or do you ever look after them indeavouring to teach them You say a Child is a Scholar the first day he goes to School tho he hath learnt nothing but is he a Scholar before he goes to School or a Scholar by Instruction when he hath learn'd nothing You baptize them before they go to School before you go about to teach them will Christ look on these as Disciples to him by the Ministry of the Word or on you Ministers as keeping close to the Commission These things will not hold at the great Day when the Commission shall be laid open again Bear with me that I speak so plain for it is the Cause of Christ that I am now pleading his great Commission wherein his Kingly Authority is so highly concerned may be duly observed and the Ordinance duly administred However Children may be accounted Scholars by us in an improper sense the first day they go to School tho they have learned nothing yet I shewed you that Philip did not account the Eunuch a Scholar tho he had actually submitted himself to be taught by him and he had taught him till he understood by his verbal Profession that he had learned Jesus Christ that is indeed a Disciple of Christ that hath learned Jesus Christ and so learned him as to deny himself for Jesus Christ Luke 14. 27 28. Nor do I believe that you do look upon all that you have preached the Gospel unto to be discipled unto Christ and so fit Subjects for Baptism according to the Commission What you offered from Acts 15. has no foundation in the Chapter the