Archive

Posts Tagged ‘John Spilsbery’

Free Ebook- John Spilsbury

February 26, 2016 Leave a comment

GOD’S ORDINANCE,

THE SAINT’S PRIVILEGE

Discovered and Proved in Two Treatises.

The First,

The Saint’s Interest by Christ in all the Privileges of Grace;

Wherein Their Right to the Use of Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper,
Even Now During the Reign of Antichrist, is Cleared;

and

the Objections of Those that Oppose the Same, Are Answered.

The Second,

The Peculiar Interest of the Elect in Christ, and His Saving Grace:
Wherein it is Proved That Christ Has Not Presented To His Father’s
Justice a Satisfaction for the Sins of all men; but only for the sins of
those that do, or shall believe in Him; Which are His Elect Only:

And

The Objections of Those That Maintain the Contrary, are also Answered.

Both Written by John Spilsbery

And the Last Transcribed, and Somewhat Enlarged, by Benjamin Cox.

 

 

Download the book here. (Pdf)

Free Ebook- John Spilsbury

February 19, 2016 4 comments

A

TREATISE

CONCERNING THE

LAWFUL SUBJECT OF BAPTISM

Wherein are handled these Particulars:

1. The Baptizing of Infants Confuted.
2. The Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed handled.
3. The Baptism administered by an Antichristian power confuted, as No Ordinance of God.
4. If either Church, or Ordinance be wanting, where they are to be found, and how recovered.
5. The Covenant, and not Baptism, forms the Church, and the manner how.
6. There is no Succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by Faith in the Word of God

The Second Edition Corrected and enlarged by the Author

John Spilsbery

 

 
Download the book here. (Pdf)

Those Who Believe the Gospel are in the Covenant

Argument .1.

The Pedobaptists Claim that the Covenant Now is the Same as in the Old Times

The first Arguments lies thus; If the Covenant now under Christ, be the same that was before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh; then as Infants were partakers of the Covenant then, and received the seal there of Circumcision, so are infants now partakers of the Covenant, and ought to receive the seal there of Baptism. But the Covenant now under Christ, is the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh. Therefore, as Infants were then in the Covenant and received the seal thereof; even so are Infants now in the Covenant, and ought to receive the seal thereof. Three things are to be cleared in this Argument.

First, That the Covenant made with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh before Christ, and that now are under Christ, is the same.

Secondly, As Infants were in that Covenant, so are Infants now.

Thirdly, As Infants were sealed then, so they ought to be now. Now for the proving of these aforesaid, there are three other grounds laid down as follow:

First, The Gospel is the doctrine of the Covenant, but this being one, was preached to Abraham, as Gal. 3:8, 17, 18, Rom. 4:11, and so to the end, and to the Jews, in the Wilderness, Hebrews 4:1, 2; and so in David’s time, Hebrews 4:7, &c. Therefore the Covenant is the same.

Secondly, If Abraham be the father of the Jews and Gentiles, and equally as he believed the righteousness of faith, and they his children equally as so believing, and no otherwise, then the Covenant is the same. But Abraham is the father of the Jews and Gentiles, and equally as he believed, Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24. Gal. 3:3, 9, 26, 29. Therefore the Covenant is the same.

Thirdly, The standing of the Jews in the Grace of God was the same with Abraham; as is clear from God’s often expressing of himself to be the God of Abraham and His seed, and praying to God for to remember the Covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and acknowledging the accomplishing of the same to them, as Luke 1:73, 74; Luke 1:54, 55. And ours is the same with the Jews, as is clear from Matt. 21:41, 43, and 22:1.


The Answer

Thus lies the Argument, and the grounds to back it, and all to prove the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed, to be the same now to the believing Gentiles and their seed, and Infants to be in this now, as they were in that then.

It is the effectual believing of the Gospel that proves what persons are in the Covenant.

In answer to which, I shall only touch at the three last grounds, briefly in a word, as I come to the Covenant itself.

The first is, because the Gospel is the doctrine of the Covenant, and was preached to Abraham, and to the Jews, &c. therefore the Covenant is the same. For the first, if the preaching of the Gospel, being the doctrine of the Covenant, can prove the Covenant to be the same to them as to us, then all to whom the Gospel was and is preached, are in the same Covenant. But I think it is the effectual believing of that which the Gospel holds forth in the doctrine of it, because many have the Gospel preached among them, and yet not be in the Covenant. And for the second, that Abraham is the equal father both of the Jews and Gentiles, only as he did believe, and they his children only so believing as their father Abraham did, and not else.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)

Baptism is to Be Administered to those who have Faith and Repentance

Objection: That as of old, more was required of Abraham and men of years when they were circumcised, then of Ishmael and Isaac, or of other infants, continually circumcised afterwards; so now in the administering of Baptism, more is required of men of years, than is of infants: of Abraham God required faith in the blessed seed; but not the same of Isaac, of men of years faith is to be required, and must be, that a man may be baptized, but not the same of Infants,


The Answer

The substance of this particular lies thus; That more is required of men of years, for their receiving of Baptism, than is of infants; and all the proof is from the example of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, and others in like manner after them in the order of Circumcision. I shall give a brief answer to this by an argument drawn from the same, thus; upon the same ground that Abraham, Ishmael, and all the rest of his household had right to circumcision, all have now right to baptism. But only God’s command gave Abraham, Ishmael, and all the rest of his household right to circumcision, not requiring any thing more of one than of another, as Gen. 17:10; 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26, 27. Therefore the command of God only gives persons (now under the Gospel) right to baptism, which requires not more of one person than of another, but faith and repentance in all alike, Mat. 28:19; Mark16:15, 16; Acts16:31, 32, 33, 34; Acts2:38; Acts8:12, 13, 37; Acts10:47.

And where as it is said, that faith in the blessed seed was required in Abraham, but not in Isaac, who was to be circumcised at eight days old, it is more than I find the Scriptures reveal, that such a faith was required of Abraham at the time of his circumcision, or else he must not have been circumcised; or that the same faith in the blessed seed Jesus Christ, was so required of all his household at the time of their circumcision, Gen. 17:25, nor of the Shechenites being men of years Gen. 34. So that this Proposition falls in itself.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)

Baptism is said to Confirm Faith and to Seal

Objection. That Baptism is not the first grace, but the second, neither does it confer grace, but is given to confirm the former; which therefore must be presupposed, or else not to be administered. And it is the seal of the New Testament, or of the Righteousness of faith, now to all that are partakers thereof; as of old Circumcision was unto them, Rom. 4:11. Only understand by baptism, the outward part administered by a lawful Minister of the Church, which may, and too often is, separated from the inward, though it ought not to be so, and yet remains true Baptism so administered; or else Simon Magus, and those false brethren, Gal. 2, being not baptized, and if they had repented, must have been baptized anew.

The Answer

I shall not say much to this particular, because our chiefest work lies yet behind, only this much let the Reader observe, that here Baptism is said to be given of God, as an Ordinance, to confirm faith in the subject baptized, and so to be presupposed, or else not to be administered. Now, if God have it to that end for to confirm faith, then He never intended the same to be administered upon any, but only such as have faith. And so much the next words affirm, which say, That it must be presupposed, or else not administered. Now I suppose it is meant, that faith in such is to be presupposed from some ground or visible effect of faith in appearance at the least. For no man can properly presuppose a thing, without some appearing ground from whence his supposition must arise, and specially in weighty matters. But what ground any man has to presuppose a child in the womb, or one that is newly born, to have faith, and so capable of a seal, as to be confirmed by baptism, I cannot conceive, but rather think it to be great weakness in such that shall so presuppose or affirm. For it is a doctrine that confirms the opinion of such as hold faith to be natural, and in a man from the womb, and as some say, they have been believers ever since they were born. And so it is here, for when an Infant is once baptized, it goes ever afterwards for a believer, as well as any that are never so clear in the faith unless he comes to commit such sin as to be excommunicated, until which time he was ever a believer before.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)

No Example for Infant’s Baptism, It is Will Worship

For sure I am, there is neither command, or example in all the New Testament for any such practice, as I know, (infant baptism) and whatsoever is done in the worship of God, in obedience to Christ, without His command, or apparent example approved of by Christ, is of man, as a voluntary will-worship, after the commandments and doctrines of man; the which Christ testifies against as a vain thing. This way the Gentiles are more forward in, than ever the Jews were, and more bitter against such that do oppose their traditions, than ever they were. Col. 2:20, 21, 22; Mark 7:7, 8.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)

The Definition of Baptizo

As it is recorded by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures of God, even so it is the judgment of the most and best learned in the land, so far as I have seen, or can come by any of their writings, and in all the Common Dictionaries, with one joint consent affirm, that the word Baptism or Baptizo, being the original word, signifies to dip, wash, or to plunge one into the water, though some please to mock and deride, by calling it a new found way, or what ever they please.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)