Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	breast_n	mother_n	suck_v	2,417	5	10.4894	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62864	Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1657 (1657)	Wing T1800; ESTC R28882	1,260,695	1,095

meant of being without the city or heavenly Jerusalem vers 14. and Dogs there are ranked with Sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and such like neither of which needs be said of infants though we say they are not visible members in the Christian Church and that they are not yet believers Christ an infant was head of the Church yet visibly he appeared not the head of the Church till he was manifested to be so Infants may be members of Christ the head invisibly but not visibly till they shew faith SECT X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship entitles them not to Baptism IN the third Argument is not much more than was said before and is answered Jews infants were meet for circumcision because of the command to them ours not meet for Baptism because we have no command or example it is true Matth. 18.22 A little childe is made a Pattern to those that are saved in respect of humility or freedom from ambition but it doth not thence follow that this meer negation of ambition doth qualifie them for Baptism unto which actual Discipleship or Profession is ordinarily necessary Christ admittted to him and blessed little children Mark 10.13 but did not appoint to baptize them which it is likely he would if he had judged them meet for it If Parents may enter into covenant for their children and dedicate them by solemn vow as Hannah did of which there is cause of doubt whether now it is to be done as then yet it follows not they are to be baptized sith Baptism is to be the persons own engagement not anothers for him yea if this reason be good each Parent may baptize its own childe though a woman sith Hannah could dedicate her childe by vow to God If Israel be holiness to the Lord Jer. 2.3 yet it follows not believing Gentiles infants are meet for Baptism Joel 2.16 the children that suck the breast are required to fast if this prove them meet for Baptism by like reason should the Ninivites children and cattle be meet too Jonah 3.5 7 8. The Psalmist was cast on God from his mothers belly Psal. 22.10 not by dedication to God but by special providence as vers 9. shews Infants of Christians it is rightly judged may have in them the principal things signified by Baptism but not that they have them till they shew it If Mr. Church could make it good that God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity he should say somewhat to purpose but I am out of hope to finde any good proofs from him but trifling dictates and impertinent allegations Psalm 119.122 is a Prayer wherein the Psalmist prays God to be surety for him for good that is says the New Annot. to put himself between him and his enemies as if he were his Pledg it is no undertaking he will and if it be it is nothing for his infants surely not to supply what is wanting in them by reason of infancy for Baptism He will circumcise the hearts of his peoples children Deut. 30.6 but this is meant of their elect children onely and not necessarily to be performed in infancy Christs promise Matth. 18.19 is upon condition of agreement by two or three to ask in his Name nor is it said for them and theirs however not without subordination to his secret purpose and other limitations That of Isai 22.24 is rightly expounded in the New Annot. by learned Mr. Gataker All his kindred and allies with their issue as well small as great shall partake of Eliakims honour in one imployment or other so that this with the other Texts might as well prove a man in the Moon as that which Mr. Church infers Therefore such infants are judged meet for Baptism His next that Christians infants have righteousness by imputation Rom. 5.19 as they have guilt by imputation is true onely of the elect but makes them not meet for Baptism till they are called What he says Shews of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for Baptism is said without proof the contrary is proved before All his Reasons he brings to prove it serve as well to prove them not necessary that a person be judged meet for the Lords Supper Infants may be rightly judged to have original sin in them without shews because the Scripture says so but tells us of none meet for Baptism but disciples and believers The Israelites infants did as much eat the Lords Supper as were baptized 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. If the Text proves the one it proves the other Baptism is called Baptism unto repentance Matth. 3.11 as well as Baptism of repentance It is well it is confessed that Johns Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance but it is true also that it is often so called Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 13.24 19.4 and but once unto repentance and it might have been observed which Beza notes on Matth. 3.11 that it might be there read at repentance or when they repent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 12.41 is rendered at the preaching of Jonah however if it be read unto repentance the meaning is to the same effect that when he baptized them they professed repentance for the present and for the future In answer to the Objection infants by like reason should have the Lords Supper he tells us that the ceremonies are different in the one the person is to be active in the other passive but the Scripture says not so but requires Baptism as a duty and thereto profession of faith as a prerequisite He saith Baptism is the Sacrament of entrance into the church the other of progress but this proves the rather that infants should have the Lords Supper sith they are to grow and make progress after their entrance What he saith it cannot be given to infants is false for they can take Bread and Wine and it was given them six hundred years together as many both Protestants and Papists confess What he saith Argument 4. pag. 30. Sealing the covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that church-state is manifestly false for that sealing was no other than circumcision which if it were not proper to the Jewish Church-state nothing was It is frivolous which Mr. Church says The commission to baptize must be expounded by the command to circumcise What is said about the antiquity of infant-baptism is elsewhere answered Exam. part 1. Apol. Sect. 15 16. Praecursor Sect. 3. Dionysius Areopagita is a spurious Authour as whole Juries of Protestants and Papists confess Salmasius saith in his Letter to Colvius pag. 179. that he is no elder than the fith age pag. 441. it is certain that he wrote about the fith age There 's plainer proof for Episcopacy being in use nearer the Apostles days than for Paedobaptism it is no

bring to that purpose 7. Saith Mr. B. And why should children be joyned in standing Church ordinances as prayer fasting c. if there were not strong hope of the blessing of these ordinances to them 2 Chron. 20.13 The children that suck the breast were to bee gathered to the solemn fast Joel 2 16. this will prove them also standing Churchmembers seeing they must joyn in standing ordinances so why received they circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith if there were not strong probability that they had the thing sealed and signified God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not Answ. There 's nothing here endeavoured to bee proved but what I have also granted that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it For though the little ones and sucking children were to bee present to shew an universal humiliation as did the beasts also Jonah 3.8 yet the infants did not joyn in prayer nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them but the moving GOD to spare the whole people invaded or in danger of perishing by fami●e nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances any more then the Covenanting Deut. ●9 Nehem. 9. but occasional nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church-members any more then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants or the Ninivites beasts standing Churchmembers As for Cir●umcision that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith is no where in Scripture affirmed and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general or Circumc●si●n in special from Rom 4.11 hath beene often shewed before Sect. 31 c. The ends of Circumcising of infants was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people and to fore-signifie from what people CHRIST was to come and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of Gods command whether they hoped for their childrens salvation or not Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael though hee knew hee was not a childe of the promise and Isaac Esau though hee were rejected by God The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put and intimates that Circumcision was Gods o●dinance to assure at least rigteousness of faith to each infant circumcised which is a false conceit 8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe 1 Thes. 2.7 Num. 11 12. Isa. 49.15 Ps●l 103.13 Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings as if hee brought more for it then I do I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point For first whereas hee alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe in the first Paul not God compares himself to a nurse in the second Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burthen on him as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking childe carry all that people to the promised land In the third God saith he would not forget Sion who had said hee had forgotten them though a mother should forget her sucking childe and Psal. 103.13 the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him So that the two first texts were through heedlesness mis-alledged grosly by him the other two express Gods love onely to his obedient and seeking people mention nothing of his love to their infants 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them nor because he hath natural affection as they have but to shew his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children 3. Gods love is no more comp●red to a believing parents love then to an unbelievers and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as prob●ble 4. Gods love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones Deut. 32.11 12. Christs to an He● Matth. 23.37 According to Mr. Bs. reasoning thi● should prove then the strong probability of t●e salvation of Chickens But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings though I be necessitated to uncover it The 9th from Matth. 19.14 is no more then I have alledged often for those infants and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants is answered at large in the second part of this Review sect 17. 10. Saith he We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb and therefore were in a state of salvation and Jacob was loved before he was born and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation Answ. Have not I also granted this thing and that upon the same reasons Why then doth Mr. B. suggest to draw par● is hearts from me to him as if he said more in this then my self Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15 to which Gal. 1. ●5 is parallel sith the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet which is appliable to infants so dying 11. We find promises of salvation to whole housholds where it is probable there were infants Act. 16.34 Answ. 1. Acts 16.31 is no probability that infants should bee meant sith in the next v. it is said he spake the word to all that were in his house which is not to be said of infants and v. 34. he rejoyced with all his house believing God 2. If they should yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him unless this were true that God will save every believer and his house And Mr. B. over l●sheth in saying we find promises of salvation made to whole housholds when there is no more but this one The 12th is from 1 Cor. 7.14 and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of holy as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people But I have fully answered Mr Bs. 29th ch and have shewed his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. and need to answer no more in this place Mr. B. goes on thus It cannot be said that these promises are verified according to their sense if any mercy be given to any infant Here the persons are determined that is all the seed of the faithfull and we have large ground given probably to conclude that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it but that either at

I have oft shewed in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl. to let fall such passages especially in opening the institution Matth. 28.19 in opposing Papists Prelatists Antibaptists as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism and therefore they will not stand to them when they are urged against them but by some shift elude them It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith that this proposition Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong these should be baptized if universally understood is Peters Acts 2.38 39. or that this assumption The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children is the express words of Peter The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel is not the call meant Acts 2 3● nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exter●ally in covenant and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized though I grant if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel they are bap●izable Calvins words are no proof against those who yeild not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name which say that believing children are not children but men of age My exposition of Acts 2.39 neither excludes sucking children nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2. ●8 1 Cor. 7.14 the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the onely sense of Acts 2.39 the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you is false for then it had been true that it was preached then to all afar off which is manifestly false and vain for it had been no comfort to them sith it might bee preached without their benefit nor is this to be externally in covenant except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish both under the Old and New Testament In the O●d persons were so by birth without preaching in the New they onely who profess faith The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms the Lord hath internally covenanted with you I take to be non-sense no covenanting with us being an immanent but a transeunt act My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13 c. and proved I grant no more Covenant favour holden forth to their children Acts 2.39 then to the Pagans children except in priority of tender I make not external covenant holiness ceremonial holiness out of da●e nor can he cleer it or that by any thing I say the words Acts 2.39 must be in a contradictory way expounded to wit the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants then to Devils which seeing hee mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before I have reason to conceive reflect on my self and if so they have too great a shew of Diabolism Right to hear the preached Gospel and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children is such talk as I understand not I think hearing is a Duty obliging all Pagans have not onely warrant but also command to hear it it is not onely lawfull but necessary The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers are not Christians till they believe and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens the term Heathens being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a h●inous thing to term them Heathens when they must be so if they be not Jews though most holy Christians The term Pagans if it bee all one with professed infidels positively I grant it belongs not to our children yet they are infidels negatively till they believe and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lords Supper as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lords Supper To neither hath a man any right by Covenant although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel Baptism and the Lords Supper are neither of them formally benefi●s or seals of the Covenant of grace though by con●equent in the right use of them such benefit● accrue to men by them They are hoth rites appointed by Christ the one to be the baptized his signe whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple the other whereby he● signifies his remembrance of Christs death both our duties and a right to duty sounds to mee like non-sense I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and benefits covenanted But this I aver that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8 who makes onely the chosen sons of promise as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him and that is as Gal. 3.16 he expresseth himself to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said that is Christ personal or mystical or both and to no other And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6 did think it blasphemy to say that God had promised and those he promised to should not have the thing promised for then Gods word should fall and he be a liar If Gods conditional promise be a Covenant yet it is made onely to them that perform the condition He that believeth and is baptized shall bee saved is not an universal promise to all men whether believers or not but onely to so many as shall believe 'T is true we can exclude none because we cannot exempt any from believing and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any but God in his intention excludes many and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes nor are they under his Covenant or in covenant with him in respect of his act of promising though they may be said to bee in Covenant or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not obey or not for that is not an enunciative speech that signifies any thing true or false but is in the imperative mood and extendeth to all men whatsoever so as whosoever doth not as the command bids sins But when Mr. Rutherford saith the promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not whether ye transgress or transgress not if an Anabaptist falsly so called may have the boldness to tell a Professour in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance I should tell him he is mistaken in saying the promise is to you whether you believe or no the threatning is to you whether you transgress or no. For