Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	believe_v	faith_n	holy_a	10,213	4	5.4982	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75851	A modest reply humbly offer'd, as an answer to, and confutation of seven arguments collected and deliver'd by Mr. Samuel Lawrence, in a sermon preach'd at his meeting-house in Namptwich, Octob. 16th, 1691, whereby he would shew, that the infants of professing Christians ought to be baptized : with a seasonable word to my brethren of the baptized church / presented by the most unworthiest of her servants, S.A.	Acton, Samuel, d. 1740?; Lawrence, Samuel.	1692 (1692)	Wing A452aA; ESTC R203313	36,660	49

Evidence against you which speaks in the Nineteenth Article as follows The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful Men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same which strongly bespeaks the Church of Christ to be exclusive of Infants Further your grant that Children before Baptism belong to the Kingdom of Heaven doth call into question that part of the Church Catechism which teacheth her Catticuminies to say That in their Baptism they were made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors or Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven and if they are Members of the Church as you confess they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven is not your own practice as forreign when as in your baptizing any do tell the People that thereby that Child becomes a Member of the Church of God a goodly favour you do 'em indeed by Baptism you make them what it seems they were before and no more by your own Grant Again That your Conclusion is not true that saith Because little Children are of the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they are of the Church and ought to be admitted by Baptism is further evident in that there are many that shall be saved as have not the least shew of Right to a Place in and to the Priviledges of the Church of Christ of which Infants are some who have not fin'd actually against the Law of Nature and the rest are those Heathens who do live and walk up to that Light and Law of Nature which God hath placed in them who are not blest with the Gospel Light nor any Divine Revelation over and above the Light of Natural Conscience and surely some such there may be of whom the Apostle speaks Rom. 2.14 who do by Nature the things contain'd in the Law and with reference to such in all probability Christ spake saying Many shall come from the East and from the West meaning the most remote parts of the Earth and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven but the Children of the Kingdom shall be cast out Matth. 8.11 12. If it be granted that there may be any such it 's evident the Kingdom of Heaven will be a Receptacle for them but who in the least can imagine that they have any right to Gospel Priviledges so that your Conclusion must needs fall A right to Heaven from this Text is granted them but it yields them not the least Evidence of a Right to a Church Relation and Priviledge So that I conceive all your pains in pleading from this Text vain and in all that you have said to be but like one that beateth the Air. A gallant Vapour brandishing a Sword that hath no Enemy to strike at 1 Cor. 9.26 You say the same Objections lye against their being saved as against their being baptized if they cannot actually believe Mark 16.16 Answer That Faith in Jesus Christ is made the Condition on which all Men must be saved to whom the Gospel either was is or ever shall be preached is certain yet as the Gospel never was appointed to be preached to Infants as such neither is it by you nor any Man in this day so it is not required any where of them to believe in order to their bring saved If it be who required it and where And since their natural Capacities is such as renders the work of Believing impossible to them without a Miracle whose Faith shall save them their immediate Parents nay rather the Faith of our remote Father to wit Adam as his Unbelief at first destroyed them so in likelyhood his Faith should interess them in the Grace of Eternal Life but we say the Faith of neither for the Faith and Righteousness of all believing Parents in the World considered in one will not be of Merit sufficient to save one Victim Ezek. 14.14 No this Benefit flows purely from the Fountain of all Grace and is conveyed to them by another Stream to wit God's free and full imputing the Righteousness of Christ the second Adam by whose Righteousness Life and Meritorious Death they are inverted with a Justification unto Life Eternal Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation even so by the Righteousness of one the free Gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life Were it so that the Faith of Parents did intitle their Children to Salvation how unworthily would it reflect upon our Lord Jesus as if he could not save Innocent Babes without their Parents believing and strongly conclude God to be more prone to Severity then Mercy in saving a very few i. e. the Children of believing Parents and Eternally damns all the rest from their Mothers Womb for what they could not help viz. a remote Fathers sinning and an immediate Fathers not believing but how contrary is this to that God whose Mercies are over all his Works Psalm 145.8 9. So that it 's evident the Salvation of dying Infants is sure though they believe not in the sence of that Text Mark 16.16 or with that Faith which alone qualifies a Person for Baptism So I come to your Fifth ARGUMENT The Children of Believers are said to be holy this is plainly set down in the Text which cannot be meant are Legitimate not Bastards for that could not be accounted if both the Parents had been Unbelievers neither was that the Question which the Apostle here handles Neither can it be understood absolutely of real holiness for then Parents could convey Grace to their Children and a gracious Man could not have graceless Children but it must be meant of foederal Holiness as they who were born of the Jews were Jews not common and unclean as Heathen but accounted as in the Church and within the Covenant so that you that are born of Christians are to be accounted Christians therefore have a right to the Priviledges of Christians 2. Scripture doth explain and confirm this Acts 10.15 28. and Rom. 11.16 if the Root be holy so are the Branches And it 's very observable that of the little that 's spoke of the case of Children in the New Testament all is for it and not one word against it Fifth ANSWER That the Children of Believers are holy we believe and that their Holiness is founded upon a better Basis than the Faith of their immediate Parents and also that it is different from that of their Parents and such a Holiness as is so far from inrighting them to Baptism as that till they come to sin it doth much rather exempt them For if Baptism be a Sign that signifies to all that submit to it the Remission of Sins as Scripture sufficiently shews Acts 2.38 and Mark 1.4 c. then I pray of what use can Baptism be to those who are under no actual Commission of Sin and as such

direct us in all things necessary and therefore to the Word they joyn their own Traditions for the rendring it a more compleat and perfect Rule the other accounts it Useless and therefore directs all for Instruction to the Dictates of the Light within Of both these I have only to say Lord deliver my Soul from coming into their Secrets But you and we being agreed in all things touching the Authority and Sufficiency of the Scriptures I presume from thence an equal Freedom in us to refer the Tryal of the things wherein we differ to the Determination of Holy Writ being firmly resolved for myself to abide by its Award sincerely desiring that nothing may pass for Truth but upon their Testimony Now I shall not take notice of any thing you offer in your Sermon preach'd from 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your children unclean but now are they holy before you come to state the Question 1. Because I would not have this Paper to swell into too great a Bulk 2. Because there is not any thing material but what I shall meet with under one or other of your Arguments shall therefore recite your Doctrine which was this Doctrine That the Seed of Professing Christians have a Right to Baptism and ought thereby to be admitted into the Church or Body of Christ Whether your Text doth preach the same Doctrine you do from it I question and conclude that there is no more a-kin between your Question stated and your Words rightly consider'd in their proper place then there would have been had you drawn the same Conclusion from the first words in Genesis which tells us That in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth as I trust hereafter will be made evident to every judicious and unprejudiced Reader You proceed and say Here I shall not undertake to produce all the Proof that is for it nor answer every Quibble that is brought against it but lay that Foundation which if of God standeth sure and if it stands the contrary must needs fall Ans That you have produced more Proof then the Scripture affords you for your Practice is plain and Scripture-Arguments that strongly make head against your Practice be by you accounted Quibbles is not strange but very strange it is that you see cause to query whether your Foundation be of God and yet dare lend a hand to support a sinking and falling Dagon The Idol could not stand before the Art even so Lord in this our day let Errour fall before thy Truth and help you so to discern the Sandiness of that Foundation upon which all Errour with that of Infant-Baptism is built as that you may better improve the Certainty of its Ruine then those biggotted Priests and blind Philistines did the Fall and Ruine of their adored Dagon 1 Sam. 5.3 4. I now come to your seven Arguments you offer as Proof and Evidence though reasonably we might have expected for Proof and Confirmation of a Doctrine of so great moment two or three Witnesses from Holy Scripture but knowing that no such Evidence is to be found there we shall weigh and allow of your Authority provided your Arguments are strongly concluded in and truly deduced from the Scriptures and because I would not in the least be thought to injure you in my Reply I shall at large recite your several Arguments and so well as I can with the help of some Collections endeavour the Confutation of them And you say in your First ARGUMENT 1. I argue from the Command of Christ Matth. 28.19.20 For 1. the Command is so general as to include not exclude Infants surely they will be allowed to be a considerable Part of the Nations 2. Christ doth here prescribe the way of gathering his Church and preserving it to the end of the World now his Church consists of Infants as well as grown Persons and both are to be dealt with according to that State As to grown Persons First teach them and baptize them as to Infants finding them Disciples baptize them in order to their being taught when capable of it 3. All Nations is set in Opposition to the Jewish Nation therefore as the Disciples would have understood what and whom Christ meant if he had said Go circumcise all Nations c. So and its observable that Baptism was of use amongst them though not a Sacrament before as Maimonides speaks That they baptized the Infant or little Stranger upon the knowledge of the House of Judgment i. e. on their desire in behalf of their Children 4. The Practice of the Apostles in Baptising whole Houshoulds is a plain Comment on the Text and shews how they understood it Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 5. Infants are Disciples Acts 15.10 together with their Parents therefore may be baptized if not Disciples of Man's making so neither was Paul yet of God's making who graciously accepts them and takes them into his Covenant If any object That such Disciples are meant as are capable of observing Christ's Command Ans It 's true as to grown Persons with whom the Apostles had most to do in gathering a Church out of the World to Christ but as the Proselites were first taught and then circumcised but there Children were first circumcised before they were taught so it may and ought to be here nothing in Christ's Commission gainsaying it First ANSWER Whether all that you have said here doth not directly tend to darken Knowledge I refer to your own Conscience and shall leave all wise men to judge when the Text is read and the order of it laid down Our Lord Jesus Christ after he had declared himself invested with absolute Power given him of the Father to be Soveraign Lord and supream Law-giver to the whole World through all Ge-Generations He saith as Mat. 28.19 20. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you And lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World This Command is so extensive as authorizes the Apostles of our Lord to take in by Baptism all Nations Discipled or so many of all Nations as should be made Disciples but how it includes one Infant that neither is made nor is capable as such of being made a Disciple I see not otherways than as Infants are a considerable part of all Nations and if therefore to be baptized then are all Nations to be baptized by the lump even Infidels Idolaters prophane and abominable persons as they are a part yea the greatest part of all Nations And this will as truly follow as the other if this Command may be understood without restriction but if not then the limitation must needs lye in the Word which says Teach or Disciple then neither the Infant nor prophane person can be admitted by this Text if the Order in which it is laid down be duly considered which

needs no sign of Remission of them But if with Austin you say they have Original Sin that must be washt away by Baptism why then their Holiness before Baptism is nothing but Uncleanness agreeable with some of your own Coments upon Psalm 51.5 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my Mother conceive me So that it 's plain they have no Holiness to inright them to Baptism but rather need Baptism to make them holy Further Consider how manifest a Contradiction the Patrons and Defendors of Pedo-baptism meet with from each other not knowing where to find a stay for it's Support How doth Austin thwart you you say they that are born of Christians are to be accounted Christians that is they are Christians or ought not to be so accompted And he tells us as my Author quotes him in his Book De Verb. Apost c. 24. the Question being Whether the Infants of baptized Christians were holy he saith Not because as the Circumcised begot only the Uncircumcised so neither did the baptized beget baptized or holy ones the terms are equivolent the Reason he gives None is new born before he is born And further proves it by these two Illustrations 1. That the purest Wheat that is most purged from Chaff or Husk yet being sown brings forth Grain that has Chaff and Husk 2. That the best Grapes that are sown brings forth wild Grapes And there is reason to believe that most of the Fathers in this particular was of Austin's mind as might be gathered from the consent of whole Councels take one for all that is the Affrican Councel where Austin was both Present and President they thus Decree All that affirm young Children receive Eternal Life albeit they be not renewed by Baptism they are accursed c. And notwithstanding the shew of kindness you extend to Infants in your Coment upon the Text I am perswaded you are also of Austin's mind for if I mistake not in your second Argument you talk as if they must be washed by Baptism but I tro for what if they be not unclean but holy Further Every Holiness gives not a right to Baptism You confess the Holiness in the Text is not a Moral or Real Holiness which only opposes Sin Pollution and Uncleanness of Heart and Life so Holiness is proper only to the Adult The Vessels of the Sanctuary are as expresly said to be holy as the Children in the Text see 1 Chron. 22.19 and Ezra 8.28 then see how unsound you argue saying The Children of Believers are holy Ergo They ought to be baptized The Cups and Vessels of the Sanctuary are holy therefore they ought to be baptized Now to every considerate Man is not the one Conclusion as truly deducible from the quality as the other Who but Men willing to be deceived will conclude any more for the one then for the other Austin telling you whatsoever this Holiness is 1 Cor. 7.14 it is not of power to make Christians or remit Sins But you proceed and say It is not Legitimate Holiness neither is that the Question that the Apostle here handles Answer Surely Sir you shoot at Rovers and in this have spoken foolishly with your Tongue Is not Marriage and Matters relating thereto the Subject of this whole Chapter and does the scope and design of it bespeak the Apostle labouring the removal of some Doubts and Difficulties that many were under at Corinth that were turned from Idols to God though but young and weak in the Faith therefore they write to the Apostle for satisfaction in Matters and Things they were doubtful of And what more plain from the manner of the Apostle's addressing himself to them in the first Verse Now concerning the things whereof ye write c. One amongst others of these things we may rationally conclude was Whether a Husband or a Wife closing with Christ by Faith and leaving their Yoke-fellow in Unbelief and Idolatry might lawfully cleave to them and cohabit with them as their true and lawful Yoke-fellows and as before they did being both in Unbelief or whether they must not rather leave or disown them as to that Relation because of the spiritual difference that is now betwixt them Now whether this Doubt amongst them at Corinth might arise upon their accidental hearing of what God made the Duty of Israel in the Reformation in Ezra's and Nehemiah's times that they should put away their idolatrous Wives as Ezra 10.3 I leave And to the matter proposed by the Corinths the Apostle advises That the Believer by no means shall depart if in case the Unbelieving Party still please to abide and cohabit with them as vers 10 11 12 13. And further to resolve them in this matter he renders them a twofold Reason in the fourteenth Verse 1. The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife and the Vnbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband Which is as if he had said You are as truly Man and Wife in God's account now as you were before your Marriage as honourable your Bed as undefiled your living and lying together as unblameable in the sight of God as ever the Husband and Wife as truly sanctified a Companion for each other notwithstanding the difference between them in Matters of Religion which the Annotator on this Text in the Second Volume of Mr. Pool's Work saith The Believer without Offence to the Law of God may continue in a married state with such a Yoke-fellow notwithstanding their disposition in Matters of Faith And Erasmus with others tell us expresly That Children are legitimately holy agreeable with that in Malachy 2.15 where the Lord himself calls the Children born in lawful Marriage a godly Seed Therefore as a 2. Reason the Apostle removes the Absurdity that the scrupulous Converts at Corinth feared saying Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy i. e. Were it so as you fear that desparity in Matters of Religion dissolved the Marriage Bond why then your Issue would be born in Uncleanness and bear the Blot of Bastardy upon them But to remove this Scruple and satisfie that there abode is as warrantable as ever saith elsewhere Your Children were unclean but now are they holy Now as the Husband and Wife are sanctified to each other abiding in that honourable or holy state of Matrimony the Children born unto them are holy which needs no longer to be feared by you as Holiness and Sanctification opposeth the Uncleanness of Fornication 1 Thess 4.3 5. Now I pray Sir if this be not the Question that the Apostle here handles will you shew us what it is or cease to darken Counsel by words without knowledge You proceed and must needs have this to be Foederal Holiness explaining it thus As they that were born of the Jews were Jews not common and unclean as Heathen but accounted as in the Church so that you that are born of Christians are to be accounted Christians Answer The Heathen were bad

could quote you Justin Martyr Origen Jerom Cyprian and S. Augustine the great Lights of the Church all for it Seventh ANSWER You are pleased I perceive to restrain the Churches of Christ to the conventions of your own practice and to exclude all differing with you in the point of Baptism so that many Churches as perspicuous as your selves especially in a trying season have little thanks to give you for your Charity towards them however since you make not the practice of preceding Churches the Basis on which you build only call them in for Light and Evidence to help you in Cases dark and difficult as by your own Grant as well as Mr. Baxter's That the Baptizing of Infants is if it be an Ordinance at all it is next to a Miracle that all the famous Lights shining in the Churches have not given so much light and clearness in this thing of so much weight and moment but that it should still be found so dark and difficult as it appears to this day and when a Star will arise to make it more clear then it is I know not But in fine to perswade your Brethren into a good and firm opinion of it you tell them that you could quote Justin Martyr Origin Cyprian Jerom and S. Augustin all for it to tell them you can do it is much easier than to do it And to tell you by the way if you have read the Fathers you know in your Conscience that though some baptized Infants in the Third and Fourth Centuries for particular ends yet none in those Ages practised Infant Baptism as a Gospel Ordinance if any before Austin as may be shewed from Dr. Taylor 's Testimony with others Therefore to come to a Conclusion though I might give Instances at large from Tertullian with all or most of those you name together with Nazianzene Ambrose Athanasius and many more as they are handed to me all bearing head strongly against your practice yet take one for all which sways much with me as I find it quoted by Mr. Baxter and you may read it in this order of words in his Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 143. viz. In the primitive times none were baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the World the Flesh and the Devil and ingage themselves to Christ as you may see saith he in Tertullian Origen and Cyprian and others at large Now Sir I would ask you whether Mr. Baxter never read of any that opposed Infant Baptism whereas he tells you That none of old were baptized without an express Covenanting Certainly you have either mis-quoted Mr. Baxter or else he greatly forgot himself when he said as you speak of him yea he proceeds and names Justin Martyr in particular in the same Book and Page speaking of the order and manner of baptizing the Aged and how we are dedicated to God being renewed by Christ saith he we will now open unto you As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach and do promise to live according to them they first learn by Prayer and Fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins our selves joyning also our Prayer and Fasting then they are brought to the Water and born again or baptized in the same way as our selves were born again for they are washed in water in the Name of the Father the Lord and God of all and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost Then we bring the Person thus washed and instructed to the Brethren as they are called where the Assemblies are that we may pray both for our selves and the illuminated Person that we may be found by true Doctrine and by good Works worthy observers and keepers of the Commandments and that we may obtain Eternal Salvation Then there is brought to the chief Brother so they called the chief Minister Bread and a Cup of Wine washed which taking he offereth Praise and Thanksgiving to the Father by the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost and so a while he celebrateth Thanksgiving and after Prayer the whole Assembly saith Amen Thanksgiving being ended by the President or chief Guide and the consent of the whole People the Deacons as we call them do give to every one present part of the Bread and Wine over which Thanks was given and they also suffer them to bring it to the absent this Food we also call the Eucharist to which no Man is admitted but only he which believeth the truth of our Doctrine being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for remission of sins and that so liveth as Christ hath taught This then saith Mr. Baxter is no new and over strict way you see Thus I have done with your seven Arguments believing through the Mercy of God might what is said be impartially considered be sufficient to bring us to that Unity of Judgment in all the Truths of Jesus Christ and Conformity in Practice that might render us more serviceable in carrying on that Interest in the World for our One and Only Lord which would be mighty conduceable to his Glory and a full Evidence through Grace of our own Title to that Glory which shortly will be revealed in him unto whom be given all Glory in the Church throughout all Ages Even so Amen An APPENDIX Seven Arguments shewing that Infants ought not to be Baptized First Argument IF Christ in the Commission Matth 28.19 commands his Disciples to baptize none but the very fame persons he commanded them also first to teach and make Disciples by teaching then that place is a plain prohibition and not a precept to baptize Infants for Men cannot teach or disciple Infants But Christ there commands his Disciples to baptize none but such as he commands them also first to teach and make Disciples by teaching therefore that place is a plain prohibition and not at all a precept to baptize Infants If it be required we shall give you proof enough hereof out of your own Authors as well as others Second Argument If Infants ought to be baptized then Infant Baptism is of Divine Institution but Infant Baptism is not of Divine Institution therefore they ought not to be baptized The Major is true if as you say there is but one Command for Baptism viz Matth. 28.19 which appears by the fore-going Argument to be a plain prohibition of Infant Baptism The Minor is true because no Man can shew any Institution of Infant Baptism Third Argument If Infants ought to be baptized as agreeable with the Command of Christ then it is agreeable to the practice of the Apostolical Churches but Infant Baptism is not agreeable to the practice of the Apostolical Churches therefore Infants ought not to be bapized as agreeable to the Command of Christ The Major is true because the Apostolical Church did observe T.G. all that Christ commanded in the Case of Baptism The Minor is true because no Man can shew that the Apostolical Churches did Baptize so