Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	admit_v	baptism_n	child_n	2,681	5	5.7534	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41787	A religious contest, or A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the county of Lincoln between Mr. William Fort minister of the perochial congregation at Blyton on the one part, and Thomas Grantham, servant to the baptised churches on the other part : whereunto is added Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his digressions about infant baptism in his book intituled, A rational account of the Protestant religion, &c., in both which are shewed that the generality of the nations now professing Christianity are as yet unbaptised into Christ : 1. Because their sprinkling and crossing the fore-head is not the right way of baptising, 2. Because infants ought not to be baptised.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1674 (1674)	Wing G1544; ESTC R39430	28,329	42

but upon the pre-supposition that the person so doing to have seen or known them that gives him his authority to Baptise infants and then indeed it 's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words Disciple the Indians Baptising them would exclude infants But yet I must also say that his ground to believe so could not arise from the words themselves but from the practice presupposed Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations Baptising them without the least knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptists which were before them or from whom they received their authority here is no place for the Drs. suppositions at all As little cause hath he to think that had any one said to Abraham he that believeth and is circumcised shall be saved it ought so to have been interpreted as that infants ought to be circumcized For if this had been all the rule given for circumcision it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only and unless the Dr. know how from good ground to satisfie his conscience that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. which place he aludes unto he must so limit the diversion for baptising But if indeed he take Infants to be such believers then he is answered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Resol p. 297. who saith as for the Question whether Infants have faith I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it I freely confess to believe Faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding that they that have not understandisg cannot have faith whethe actual or habitual The conclusion therefore is sith in the case you put the word believe cannot concern infants and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation though they believe not it is every way safe to think them unconcern●d in the other duty that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding Finally the Dr. proposes five considerations about the suitableness of In●ant baptism to the administration of things under the Gospel and first he saith 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants there had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then for an express command if his intention were to admit them because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before Answer Here is little said but what hath been answered before and may be answered by saying had it been Christs intention that infants should not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an express prohibition c. then of an express command c. because suitable to Gods dispensations among them before Thus Argumentum ad hominem But I answer further it is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments from Gods dispensations among the Jews seeing the state of the Church and the di●pensation is so much altered as that the former was but carnal in respect of the Spirituality of the other 2. The Dr. saith it is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ when after Christs ascention they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customes even when they had baptized many thousands Answer It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customes because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel which is the mark you ought to hit or you say nothing but the reason why they did observe such Customes for a time was the weakness of the Jews and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly shews Jewish Customes was not suitable to things under the Gospel and here circumcision one of the chief of Jewish rites is clearly abolished among the rest so that a man would think infant baptism should never have been built upon it 3. The Dr saith If admission of infants to Baptism were a meer relique of judaism it seems strange that none of the judaizing Christians should be charged with it who yet are charged with the observation of other judaical r●tes Answer I find no man saying that Infant baptism was a relique of judaism save Dr. Hammond and some from him and he indeed would make believers baptism also a jewish relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptising Proselites and their Children was the Original and the baptism ●f the Christian Church but the Coppy by which device he hath opened a gap to our late N●tionists to deprive the Church of sacred baptism altogether and hath done more to weaken the cause of infant baptism then any other of its favourites in laying its foundation in jewish ceremonies for which they had no clear command from God But great is this truth of believers baptism and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond for it was no jewish rite the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was from Heaven Mat. 21. 25. and the Pharisees who ●ere ●ealous enough for jewish rites rejcted holy baptism which Christ asfi●ms to be the counsel of God Lu. 7. 30. and testifies out of the consciences of his enemies that he that t●aches otherwise denyes John to be a Prophet This then is the thing that truly seems strange that no mention is made of infant baptism if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwise but not str●●●e at all that none is charged with it seeing none can be named that held it 4. Since theie wish Christians were so much offended saith the Dr. at the neglect of circumcision Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church as they would have been if neither admitted by circumcision nor baptism Answer Since the false Apostles was so earnest to have the christians circumcise their children it 's strange that none of the true Apostles could or would quiet them by saying instead of infant circumcision you have infant baptism if indeed there had been any such thing practiced For this way went the Apostle Paul to still them vvhen they would have brought the believers themselves under circumsion Col. two Telling the chriffians they vvere circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried vvith him in baptism vvherein ye also are ●isen with him through the Faith c. And why might not the jews as qui●tly take the non-admission of infants to baptism as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lords Supper seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover nor i● it necessary to say that though they were not admitted to either of these that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church For If by church be meant the whole number of the saved then are infants of the churchs for Christ hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants and thus were infants of the church before circumcision was for some thousands of years But if by church be meant those only vvho are concerned in the actual profession of the gospel in this respect I grant infants are not of the church God having no vvhere required this of infants in his gospel Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood vvithin the covenant of the gospel in respect of the grace of eternal Life but are not under the duties of the Covenant to vvit Repentance Faith baptism perseverance c. Nor can my calling the whole number of the saved the church and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant doctrines seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art 19. of the Church of England do●h affirm there is an invisible Church and takes all within the compass of ●his Church who are elect tryumphing or that shall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect of Men or Angels caled or not yet called l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these defi●itions of the churc● infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called and consequently not that cause for the jews to complain nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Christ Iesus our Lord. Five The doctor lastly tells us That had it been contrary to Christs institution to baptise infants we should not have had such evidence of it's early Practice in t●e Church and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us Answer This is altogether unlike a Protestant What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition but vvhen shall vve see this Tradition Apostolical I think doctor Ta●lor expresly denies there is any Tradit apostolical lib. proph●si p. 117. 120. But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errou●s ●vhich crept into the Church even in the apostles days vvhich also continued in some of them notvvithstanding all endeavours to purge them such vvere circumcision and keeping the Lavv. Or if we list to reckon vvith records of antiquity 't is easi● o show some things held by Papists and opposed by the doctor are better proved by tradi●ion then infant baptism for example the Lent Fast ond prayer for the dead this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonst prob What then shall be gained to the protestant Religion by such Traditional arguments It is a notable saying of Irenae●s according to Dr. Fulk Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they ●all to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition And saith Tertul according to Dr. Fulk Take away those things from the Hereticks which they hold with Ethnicks that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only FINIS ERRATA P. 3. l. 5. r. is right p. 4. l. 25. r. of a Midwife p. 5. l. 34. for these r. those p. 7. l. 27. for others r. overs

verse 49 One Law shall be to him that is home born and unto the strager that sojourneth among you Thus we see the Law is as express for the circumcising Proselites and their males as for Israel themselves Diodate also expounds the first place by the second The servant that is born meaning saith he the Proselite who of his own free will shall add himself to the Church by the profession of Gods true worship But now if we admit Dr. S. his rule that the measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions must be fetched from the ends thereof yet will he be so farr from gaining that he will quite lose his cause For if by the ends of Baptism he means the things signified in Baptism as that he does for he said they who are capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the sign then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two and either of them will serve our turn to shew his mistake viz. either Infants are not capable of Baptism becau●e not capable of all things signified thereby or else that the Protestants do violate their own rule in denying Infants some other holy signs as general as Baptism when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby and this shall evidently appear ●y running the parralell between us as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledge of the Lords Table and we deny them Baptism And first 1 The things signified by the Lords Table as the ends of that Institution is Christ Crucified for us and to c●me again to receive us to him●elf of these mercies Infants are capable because they shall be saved by the death and comming of the Lord Jesus thus they have the thing signified yet you deny them the sign because they understand not the thing represented by the sign Answerable to this we say by Baptism is signified the death and resurection of Christ and our salvation thereby of this mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable but yet the sign is not given to them because they understand not the thing signified thereby 2. The ends or things signified by the Lords Table on our part are the profession of our fa●th the manifestation of our union with the Church c. of these ends Infants are not capable therefore then do not admit them to the Lords Ta●le Answerable to this we say the things signified in baptism on our ●●rt are the profession of o●r faith and manifestation of our union 〈◊〉 the Saints c. of these ends ●nfants are not capable therefore 〈…〉 them not to baptism 3. Our coming to the Lords Table holds forth abstainence f●om the Levened bread of malice and wickedness and our feeding upon the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth of these ends as they are duties Infants are not capable therefore you admit them not to the Lords Table Answerable to this we say baptism holds forth our death to sin and the newness of life from our baptism to the end of these ends of baptism Infants are not capable and therefore we admit them not to baptism for the rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions is to be fetched from the ends of them The same might be said concerning the imposition of hands with prayer for the Spirit of Promise seeing it was practised by the Apostles upon the newly baptised indifferently yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution though you suppose them to be baptised although according to Protestant Doctrine they are capable of the promise Act. 2. 38 39. And the benediction signified and obtained thereby by which your inconsistancy with your own rule is further manifested and hence I infer according to your own words by a parity of reason built on equal grounds you ought not to baptise Infants because the rule and measure as to Divine Institutions or the capacity of the subjects ther●of are to be fetched from the ends thereof Not from some ends only and those too only which we please as Dr. S doth unadvisedly teach for so there would be no Man or but very few but might be brought to Baptism or other ordinances seeing they are capable of several things signified therein as the death of Christ for the sins of the world and his Resurection by which all shall rise again and whether they believe it or no yet he is the Lord that bought them and a mediator between God and them that his long-suffering might lead them to repentance Wherefore your instance of our Saviours being baptised without repentance avails you nothing unless you were a le to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practise of ordinances which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no sinner was baptized without repentance that therefore you must baptise sinners without repentance also if otherwise then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lords Table without self examination seeing Christ did partake of it without self examination having no need to do so certainly though Christ did this it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of his Church may do it without self examination and yet thus went the matter in old time for hundreds of years together so true is the maxim admit one absurdity and more will follow But to make an end of this its evident Christ in being baptised did his duty to God and had he not been baptised he had not fulfilled all righteousness Let it now be shewed that it●s the duty of infants to be baptised or that they or any body else commits sin in refusing infant baptism and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part nor oppose this instance as to the end for which it is brought but till this be done we justly reject such Argumentation Neither is it true that what we say of the incapacity of infants c. reflects upon the wisdom of God in appointing circumcision for infants for Gods command made them fit subjects for it together with the nature of the covenant which he made with Abraham and his according to the flesh which covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by circumcision Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore when it shall appear that the covenant of the Gospel I mean it as established by Christ in his Church is made with any Man and his seed according to the Flesh and that God hath required the Gospel covenant should be in their Flesh by baptism and so every infant born of them or servant bought with Money to be baptised we shall then grant that to insist on the incapacity of infants would reflect upon the wisdom of God but sith this neither is nor can be done all these pretended reflections falls really upon Dr. S. for denying infants the Lords Supper because of their incapacity who yet were admitted to the Passeover of which they were as

uncapable as of the Lords Table What the Dr. says further of the ends of baptism to represent and exhibit the nature of the grace of the Gospel and to confirm the truth of the covenant on Gods part We have considered before and to what you here add saying It instates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God I answer That though the Dr. speaks right according to the right administration of baptism yet according to his way of infant baptism it is not so seeing we all know infants while such though sprinkled have no more priviledge in your Church then those who are not sprinkled for the priviledges next following baptism is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded and to continue in fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and prayer Acts 2 42. Ma. 28. 20. Now to tell us that infants are instated in these things and yet whilst infants have nothing at all to do with them is too gross a vanity For If you say they are instated in these priviledges upon future contingences viz. Repentance Faith and newness of Life according to the Gospel I answer when this comes to pass they are no infants nor as infants partake of these priviledges but as those that are now the Sons of God by faith and thus truly all infants are instated in Church priviledges as soon as born seeing by the death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel when capable to perform them thus you mislead the world with a specious pretence of instating their infants in Church priviledges when 't is only an empty sound of words But the Jews Infants as they were instated in the priviledges of their Church by circumision so they entred upon the enjoyment of their priviledges in infancy appearing by Gods commandment three times a year in the Temple with the offerings accustomed and to partake of the Passeover with the congregation or family where it was eaten The Dr. saith nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism in respect of Infants but that which seems most cerimonial which is the personal restipulation which yet may reasonably be supplyed by Sponsors c. That there is much wanting beside this restipulation in your infant baptism is shewed before and it is unadvisedly said that the restipulation of the person baptised is the most ceremonial thing in baptism seeing it is the moral and substantial part being indeed our covenanting with God and in truth the external washing is far more ceremonial as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying that the personal restipulation in baptism may be reasonably supplyed by Godf●thers is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm But is it so that Sponsors may supply the personal restipulation which is the greater then let them also supply the lesser to wit sprinkling with water which they can better perform then the covenant they make for the infant and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part viz wholly unreasonable Thus much touching the capacity of infants c. Next the Dr tells us That in the Institution of Baptism there is neither direct nor consequential prohibition of Infants to be baptized and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the 〈◊〉 comission Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake and its strange he never observed that it hath often been demonstrated that as when Circumcision first appeared in the world it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given so accordingly it was propagated But when Baptism first appeared in the world it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first ministred and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles insomuch that of the many thousands and famous Churches that were baptised all the world is not able to shew so much as one Infant to have been baptised in any one of them nor one word of precept for so doing and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant baptism I shall never believe that the Dr. or any else can shew me so much as a consequential prohibition of Infants receiving the Lords Supper the imposition of hands c. And though the Dr. consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had concerning the Church state of such as were in external Covenant with God yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed according to the flesh Seeing it is expresly said from henceforth to wit from the vanishing of the old Covenant know we no Man after the flesh But now if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church because they are Abraham s Seed but they are accounted Abraham s Seed by being in the Church of Christ Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are you Abraham 's Seed and Heirs according to promise Neither is it true that Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churbes as the Dr. affirms neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation or City into a Church S●ate that we read of therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations Men Women and Infants are not Apostollical But this the Apostles did they taught many Nations 1. v. their sound went through many Nations not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations for they taught no Infants and the persons by them gathered into the Church were only such as received their Doctrine as appears by those Families where their Gospel was received the Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband Servants and Masters likewise differing in the same Family about christianity 1. Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a church state unless they did wholly believe Act. 16. how-should any Man imagine they gathered whole Nations the greatest part whereof by all experience are wicked persons yea in those very Nations which Men pretend to have made into churches of Christ of which would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this day The Dr. grants that the order of words Mat. 28 19. Teach all Nations baptising them was necessary for those who were then to be proselited to Christianity And we say they are as necessary for the generations following who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance or the first principles of Christianity in order to their being Christians as them that went before and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Christs commission to out-run it●s direction so as to make persons to be Christians before they do or can know the least title of Christianity The case which the Dr. puts about going to Disciple the Indians Baptising them is not at all rational