Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A28379
|
An essay tending to issue the controversie about infant baptism from the parity, at least, of Scripture-light concerning infant-baptim [sic] with that of women's being admitted to the Lord's Supper, shewing that there is as good grounds out of Scripture for the one as for the other : occasioned by a tender made by H.D. in his late book against infant-baptism who is willing to put the whole controversie concerning it, upon this issue : together with an answer to the most material things in that book /
|
Eremnalēthēs.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing B3192; ESTC R25634
|
100,950
|
243
|
him Let this be the more carefully marked because Inferences and deductions from Scripture concerning Infants-Baptism are denyed So for Examples some are more expresly and explicitly laid down others more implicitly and covertly You have given instances of the former and I have given instances of the latter Lydia and her House The Houshold of Stephanas Baptized Again Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them Here is an express-command to Baptize such as are Discipled but what this Discipling is and who are these Disciples is not expresly laid down here but we must look what may be gathered from other Scriptures to give us light therein which I have spoken to before This distinction thus cleared I must deny your Assertion and positively affirm the contrary That there is a precept implied in the New-Testament for the Baptizing of Inchurched-Parents-Infants and as clear if not more clear than that you produce for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper You own the one though the Command and Example you produce be very implicite and entangled with many things that occasion doubting and yet you own not the other I suppose you may easily discern that the Testimonies you bring out of Luther Calvin and some others have respect only to an express Command and Example and not to an implicit one And therefore if you had dealt like a candid and punctual Antagonist you would either have owned what they held and thought as they did concerning an Implicit Command or else you would have contravened and opposed that only As for Calvins judgment see his Institutions lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 5 6 7. He gives divers arguments to prove that the Baptism of Infants was instituted by God 1. saith he We have the same Promise that Israel had heretofore in Circumcision for Infants Therefore they are not to be driven away from the sign of Baptism when they are partakers of the thing-signified And then in the Article he tells you the Covenant is the thing-signified to them Diserte namque pronunciat Deus Circumcisionem infantuli loco sigilli futuram ad obsignandain foederis promissionem That is God expresly saith that the Circumcision of a little Infant should be instead of a Seal to confirm the Promise of the Covenant 2. His second Argument to prove it to be instituted of God is taken from the Covenant of Abraham which is common to us Christians 3. His third Argument is taken from the Act of Christ so courteously embracing the Infants that were brought unto him See there more at large By all which it appear's that though Calvin might deny that there was any express Command for Baptizing of Infants yet he held an Implicite Command which is the thing I was to evidence CHAP. II. To your Chapter second of Infants-Baptism disproved AS for your humane Authorities against Infant-Baptism they are of little force to overthrow it when we have so much reason out of the Holy-Scripture as hath been shewn to establish it But whereas you assert that there was no authentick practice of it for 300. years to wit next after Christ and his Apostles I shall in opposition thereunto give you what Mr. Philpot that honoured Martyr of Christ hath left us in the Book of Martyrs vol. 3. pag. 607. 608. in a Letter to a friend of his Prisoner in Newgate at the same time concerning Infant-Baptism who out of divers ancient Authors produceth the contrary to what you affirm The Baptism of Infants saith he was not denyed till above 300 years after Christ And you say that the Baptism of Infants came not into the Church till above 300 or 400 years after Christ His words are these Auxentius one of the Arrian-Sect was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some others there were in St. Bernards time as appear by his writings And in our days saith he the Anabaptists an inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel see pag. 607. They are his words and not mine for I Believe and hope better things of many in our days what-ever they might be then And afterwards pag. 608. finally saith he I can declare out of Ancient-Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles times unto ours Neither that it was instituted by any Councils neither of the Pope nor of other Men but Commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen saith he who lived 200 years after Christ upon the declaration of the Epistle to the Romans expounding the sixth Chapter 8. v. That the Church of Christ received the Baptism of Infants from the very Apostles Hierom about 400 years after Christ maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the third Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta Augustine about 400. years after Christ reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his first Book against Julian Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For this cause we Baptize Children c. And he again to Hierom Epist 28.8 That Cyprian who lived about 250 years after Christ not making any new decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow-fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully-Baptized The place of Cyprian saith he is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Augustine in writing against the Donatists lib. 4. Chap. 23 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the Authority of Man neither of Councils but from the * By Tradition he means not an unwritten Tradition but a Scriptural one such as the Apostle mentions 2 Thes 3.6 2 Thes 2.15 Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril who lived in Julian's time upon Levitic cap. 8. approves the Baptism of Children and condemns the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men saith he I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children to the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Popes Commandment Thus far Mr. Philpot. To which let me add out of Calvin's Institutions Lib. 4. Chap. 16. Art 8. In English thus Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse quibus incognitus erat Paed obaptismus in eo faedissime mentiuntur Siquidem nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat That which they scatter among the simple Common-people saith Calvin that a long tract of years passed after the Resurrection of Christ wherein Paedo-Baptism was unknown in that saith he they most shamefully lye for there is no Writer so Ancient which doth not refer it 's Original to the age
that External-Dispensation did not belong to Ishmael or that he was not in the Covenant in that Ecclesiastical administration of it when he was Circumcised from what was he cast out was it not from the Covenant against which he mocked in Isaac Gen. 21.9 10. and from the Church and the External Priviledges of it in which he was Externally before Here you again miss it because you do not distinguish between the Covenant in its several administrations Some of those you mention that you say were not Sealed with Circumcision were within the Covenant Spiritually and Savingly others that were Sealed were in the Covenant Ecclesiastically and Externally to which latter sort alone Circumcision was annexed Some were only Ecclesiastically in it and some others were both And some only Spiritually and not Externally and Ecclesiastically Your Argument therefore makes not against us at all for you speak not ad idem and so there can be no opposition If you had dealt as an artificial and candid Disputant you would have singled out that wherein the difference lay and have opposed that only and not have fallen into the Paralogism of Ignoratio Elenchi of the mistake of the state of the Question This Answer concerning Ishmael will serve to the rest and I see no cause to doubt whether the New-Covenant-Promises under this Ecclesiastical-Dispensation did belong to all the strangers in Abraham's House that were Circumcised according to God's appointment They were part of Abraham's Church-Seed Quest 2. Whether the New-Covenant and that mentioned in Gen. 17. be the same To which the sum of your Answer is that the Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt-Covenant as the Seed was which you thus explain to wit as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity to wit The Father of a Nation to wit the natural Israelites So to be also a a Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles And so accordingly the Promises say you were of two sorts sometimes respecting his natural Seed whether Domestick or National who were say you Typical of the Spiritual c. and others again respecting in a peculiar-manner the spiritual Seed the Family of the Faithful viz. the Elect of whom through Christ he was Father and which are Evangelical and in special manner belonging to the New-Covenant And hence you infer that much of the mistake and errour lies in this by applying that to the one which belongs to the other for want of distinguishing the promises that are often so mixed that the one may be taken for the other I shall first gather up the sum of this into divers positions and then give in my Answer 1. You say The Covenant in Gen. 17. was a mixt Covenant to wit because the promises of it were partly of Temporal partly of Spiritual things I suppose this to be your meaning 2. As the Seed was and so you make the Covenant to depend upon the Seed which you say were Natural-Israelites or Spiritual Israel the Elect. 3. You say the Natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual 4. That the Temporal Promises respected his natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal ones his Spiritual Seed viz. Elect and true Believers 5. And that these Spiritual and Eternal or Promises of Eternal and Spiritual Blessings do in special manner belong to the New-Covenant now in these Gospel-days I judge this to be the sum of what you assert To which I reply 1. That the Covenant in Gen. 17. was no more a mixt Covenant than the Covenant is now in these Gospel-days The New-Covenant doth not now exclude Temporal Blessings Godliness hath the Promise of this Life and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 The Lord indeed then made them an express Promise of Temporals the Land of Canaan which was also a Type of Heaven and Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more covertly and sparingly And now he makes Promises of Spiritual and Heavenly things more clearly expresly and frequently and of Temporals more implicitely and sparingly May not you as well call this a mixt-Covenant 2. The Covenant doth not depend upon the Seed as you intimate but the Seed upon the Covenant The natural Seed then were the natural Children of Abraham running in the posterity of Isaac through Jacob and his posterity And these Natural-Seed of Abraham were also his Church-Seed and to these the Covenant Externally-belonged as also to the Proselyts and their Children The Spiritual Seed of Abraham that were Elected to Eternal Salvation were also a part of that Natural and Church-Seed God promised to be a God to both in a diverse respect And so he is now in these Gospel-days if rightly-understood Gospel-Churches are the Church-Seed of Abraham and God is their God Externally in Covenant as he was to the Church of old And he is the God of the Spiritual-Seed that are now those that are Elected unto Salvation to both in a diverse respect as before And your not owning of this is the fundamental cause of this Controversie which yet is so plain that I know not how you can deny it For are not Hypocrites in Gospel-Churches the Church-Seed of Abraham who profess such a Faith as Abraham did though they have not the Truth and reality of it Hypocrites they are and yet you look upon them as within the Covenant of Abraham and therefore you Baptize them and yet they prove not to be so at last I have spoken largely to the substance of this before 3. You say The natural Seed was Typical of the Spiritual As the Birth of Isaac to wit not by strength of Nature but by Promise which did prefigure those that are born of the Spirit and that look for Righteousness and Life alone by Faith in Christ I suppose this is your meaning according to Gal. 4.23 24 25 26. To which I Answer That this Spiritual Seed which you say is typified by the natural as it respects Gospel-times is to be considered either as such indeed or as such in shew and appearance only in the judgment of the Church who are to judg after the sight of their eyes and the hearing of their Ears and cannot look directly into the heart and know â priori as Christ doth by the power of his Godhead Isa 11.3 And thus it makes not against us but for us and against you For do not Gospel-Churches consist of the one as well as of the other Nay when Christ the Bridegroom shall come again will not the Kingdom of Heaven to wit some Gospel-Churches consist all of them of foolish Virgins which shall have Oyle in their Lamps to wit a profession and outward appearance of true Faith and Grace but no Oyl in their Vessels none of the Spirit and true Faith and Grace in their Hearts Matth. 25.1 2 3 c. What can be more plain 4. The Temporal Promises say you respected his Natural Seed and the Spiritual and Eternal-ones his Spiritual-Seed viz. the Elect and