Selected quad for the lemma: child_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A37200
|
Another essay for investigation of the truth in answer to two questions concerning I. the subject of Baptism, II. the consociation of churches / by John Davenport ...
|
Davenport, John, 1597-1670.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing D356; ESTC W35681
|
67,423
|
96
|
let into tâ—e Soul As Reverend Mr. Hooker was wont to say Such 〈◊〉 profess d Assent as hath a prâ—fessed Consent joyned with it Isa 1.10 Such a manner of knowing and consenting as produceth Obedience flowing from Faith which is the next end of the Ministery of the Gâ—spel Rom. 1.5 16.26 Else they are defiâ—â—â— and unbelieving to whom nothiâ—g is puâ—â— but even their minde and conscience is defiled who profess that they know Goâ— bu in their works they deny hiâ— T it 1.15 16. 3 And though t ey are not scandalous in l fe but solemnâ—y own the Câ—venant bâ—fore tâ—â— Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Governâ—ent of Christ in he Churcâ— yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a so of godlâ—nesâ— bâ—â— deâ—y tâ—e power thereof From such Paâ— who tauâ—ht him how he ought to behave himself in the House of 〈◊〉 which is the Church â—f the living God the pillar and gâ— oâ—nd of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 warned Tâ—mothy to turn away 2 Tim. 3.5 4. But are all the adult persons whom they admit into Membership such as the Proposition describes Do they take a right course to know they are such 1. That they are noâ— scandalous in life What testimony or certain knowledge have they that the Church may confide in that they f equent not loose and vain Company in dâ—sorderly Nâ—ght-meetingâ— at unseasonable hours and in suspected places in unwarrantable Gaming 's and Drinkings c not to speak of other evils 2 Hâ—w do they S lemnly own the Covenanâ— before the Church when some of them having publickly said They do own it being afterward asked â—n private What is the Covenant which you owned answered I do not know 3. As for their Subjecting themselves to the Governme t f Christ in the Church Do they orderly submit to the Government of their Family-Governours Parents and Masters c If the Church know not that How can they expect that they wilâ— really subject themselves to Christ's Government in the Church Yea if they have not been weary and heavy loaden and then came unto Christ they are not fit to take his yoke and burthen upon them Matth. 11.28 29. I proceed to their second Argument Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either children of the Covenant or strangers from the Covenant either holy or unclean either within the Church or withouâ— either such as have God for their God or without God in the world But he that considereth the Proposition will not affirm the latter concerning these children and the former being granted infers their right to Baptism Râ—ply The more seriously I consider their Proposition the less I finde in it to evince the former and the more to conclude the latter viz. That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth he may be a stranger from the Covenant unclean and without the Church in Scripture account Râ—m 9 6 7 8. and without God in the world through want of faith in Christ whereby the heart is purified and men have an interest in Christ and in God through Christ Arg. 3. To deny the Proposition would be 1. To straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation c. 2. To render the children of the Iews when they shall be called in a worse condition then under legal Administrations contrary to Jer. 30 10 Ezek. 37.25 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant c. 4. To break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenanâ— Gen. 17.9 10 14. Reply The contrary to all and every one of these is true For 1. It enlargeth the Grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame and staâ—e then the Jews of old were under Legal Dispensations which therefore are not continued and propagated by a natural succession as that National Church was but by Gods â—illing them with an holy calling according to his purpose and gracâ— 2 Tim 1.9 and adding thereby to the Christian Church such as in their charitable judgement shall be saved Acts 2.43 2. It declareth that the state of the Jews when they shall be called will be far better then it was under Legal Dâ—spensations yea then the condition of the Gentiles is now For under the Law their light and holiness was defective and Christian Churches now how careful soever they be in point of admittance cannot avoid the creeping in of Hypocrites but the Jews when they shall be called shall have a far greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages of the Churches and all the Members of the New â—erusalem shall be Elect they and their children successively and no Hypocrite shall be mingled with them Rev. 21. 22. 3. Nor doth the denial of the Proposition infer a denial of the application of the initiatory Seal to such as stand regularly in the Church and Covenant but the contrary 4. Nor doth it break Gods Covenant by denying Baptism to such as are regularly in Covenant These are Accusations without Proof Arg. 4. Confederate visible Believers though but in the lowest degree such are to have their children baptized But the Parents in question are confede ate visible Believers â—t least in some degree Reply The major being granted the minor is denied For 1. All that is said in the Proposition may be affirmed of sundry that have not visible saving Faith in Christ in the lowest degree Therefore these are no sufficient grounds for charity to account them Believers in Christ in the least degree Let them that are to be admitted into Membershâ—p by theâ—r personal right shew how Faith was wrought and how it works in them in the lowest degree then the Church will have some ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness for regular Church-membership and communion 2. Nor are the châ—ldren of the godly qualified but as the persons in the Proposi ions said to be fait ful in â—â—t 1.6 whether we understand that Text in a Moral or Spiritual sense The first is a fâ—uit of Moral Principles and Education these are short of the qualifications in the Proposition The second is a fruit of the Spirit G â— 5.22 These are Believeâ—s in Christ Acts 16.15 3 Epist Ioh. ver 5. and are qualified above what the Proposition requâ—reth 3. They say Chi dren of the Covenant as the Paâ—ents in questionare have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary â—re in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers R pl. 1 It remains to be proved that the Parents in question are children of the Covenant They were children of the Covenant in their infancy and minority and bound thereby when they became adult
to covenant for themselves and their seed in their own persons being fitly qualified as their godly Parents did before them If they being grown up to be men perform not this Covenant they cannot fitly be called Children of the Câ—venanâ— but Transgressours of the Covenanâ— and Breakers of it 2. The Argument is fallacious Some children of the Covenant have had the beg nnings of grace manif stly wrought in them in younger years Therefore all persons of this sort shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers This Aâ—gument is to be denied both because it argues from some Particulars to infer a General affirmatively and from that which is positively manifest in some to pâ—ove the same to be in others in whom it is not positively manifest but onely they shew nothing to the contrary which makes them at best but Negative Christians which is not to be Christian indeed 4. They say They that are regularly in the Church as the Parents in question are are visible Saints for the Church is in Scripture account a company of Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 1.2 Re l Both their Assertion and their Proof of it are to be denied 1 The â—ssâ—rtion is not true that the Parents in quest on are regula ly in the Church Infants and children in minority of coâ—f dâ—rate Believers are in the â—hu ch by their Pare t s covenant ng fâ—rtâ—eâ—â— 1 Câ— 7.4 But Parents are not reg lâ—â—ly iâ— the Church t ll being fitly qualified they confedeâ—ate for th mselves and their children und r age Acts 2.30 bâ—ing qâ—alâ—fied according to that Prophesie concern ng these time of the Gospel in 〈◊〉 56.6 7. 2. The Proof is not apposi e fâ—â— Pâ—â—â— wroâ—e that Ep stle to the adult Members regularly admitted unâ—o full communion with the Church at Ch iâ—â— whom he styleth Sanct fi d in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.2 and such were they of whom he spâ—â—ks in all the Churcheâ— of the Saiâ—â— 1 Cor. 14.33 But the Parents in question being â—â—cer Members not in fuâ—l communion are not regularly approved of the Church to be such Therefore this coâ—cerns not them 5. They say Beâ—ng in Covenant and baptized they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise and sealed in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continues valid and so a valid testimony for them wh le â—hey do not reject iâ— R ply Reverend Mr. Câ—tton was wont to say Elect children have the grace of the Covenant viz. Fai h and Repentance c. given to them in and by the Covenanâ— and sealed by Baptism Deut. 30.6 but the rest have only the Covenant of Grace for eternal means â—f grace given in the Promise and sealed by Baptism till they reject them This testimony is true and this distinction is grounded upon Scripture Râ—m 11 7. and it is necessary to prevent that Opinion of Vniversal Baptism-Grace which the Arminians improve to establish their dangerous Errour of the final and total Apostâ—cy of the Saints from Grace But God who hath promised is faithful and will do according to his Promise working effectually in the Elect in his appointed time the grace promised in the Covenant so powerfully that they shall not reject it the rest shall have the outward means of Grace according to his Promise till they reject them as Esâ—u did To these Faith and Repentance are not indefinitely given in the Promise and sealed by outward Baptism as neither was it given in the Promise and sealed by outward Circumcision indefinitely to those who when they became adult brake the Covenant Whereupon Paul distinguish d the jews and Circumc siâ—n Rom. 2.28 29. and answerable thereunto is Peterâ— distinction of Bâ—ptism 1 Pet. 3.24 Therefore such as reject the offers of G ace as all that living under the mâ—aâ—s of Grace remain unb lievers do Mat. â—3 37. cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise in that sense wherein that phrase is used in 2 Pet. 1.4 They adde Yet iâ— doth not necessarily â—oâ—â— that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper c. Reply If they have Faith and Repentance given them under Gods Hand in the Covenant and sealed by Baptism and if they do so receive them that it continues valid and so a valid testimony for them What can hinder regularly such Church-members from partaking of the Lords Supper â—c They say Because though they are in alatâ—â— de of exp ession to be accounted visible Believers or in numero fidelium as even infants in covenant are yet they want that ab lity of examining themselves and that special exercise of Faith which is requisite to that Ordinance as was said upon the fourth Proposition Reply 1. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 The New Testament no where alloweth that latitude of speech to call men visible B lievers who never were regularly joyned to that number nor fitly qualified to take hold of the Covenant personally for themselves and their children 2. Nor can they be accounted Believers or in the number of Believers as infants are who are loâ—ked at onely as in their Parents Covenant being not capable of covenanting for themselves as men are So that there is not par ratio between them 3. Visible want of ability to examine themselves and of that special exercise of Fâ—ith which is requisite to that Ordinance argues a visible want of that Faith wh ch is to be examined and exercised and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership as well as to the Lords Supper c. Arg. 5 The denial of Baptism to the children in question haâ—h a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy because it denies them and so the children of the Church successively to have any part in the Lorâ— which is the way to make them cause from fearing the Lord Josh 22 2â— 25. Reply The children in quâ—stion are children of Parents who are not members in full communion with the hurch and so not regularly personal Members If such their children be denied to have any part in the Lord it is the degenerate Parents not the Churches fault They who a e not in Chuâ—ch-communion cannot regularly communicate unto their infant-seed a right and title to Baptism which is the first visible Seal of Church-commuâ—ion 1 â—or 12.13 2. It is not true that the Churches denying Baptism to the children in question is a denial of the children of the Church to have any paâ—t in the Lorâ— f r such are not according to Scripture Rules child en of the Church succâ—ssively for the Parents have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their seed by their not confederat ng for themselves and theirs regularly 3. That this denial â—a â— a dangerous teâ—dency to Irreligion and Apostacy is not proved by them nor can be That Text