Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptism_n	circumcision_n	infant_n	1,521	5	9.8764	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62871	A publick dispute betwixt John Tombs ... respondent, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan ... opponents, touching infant-baptism, the fifth of September, 1653 ... occasioned by a sermon preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark 16.16 ... : also a sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lords day following, upon the same text, wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant-baptism asserted.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Cragge, John, Gent.; Vaughan, Henry, Sir, 1587?-1659?	1654 (1654)	Wing T1813; ESTC R9749	45,440	168

seed Rom. 4.13 Gen. 17.7 and alike to us believers and to our Children Act. 2. 39. 2. This truth appears yet further from 1. Cor. 7 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents makes the Children holy at least in that degree of holyness which is the meanest imaginable to be in capacitie of being admitted into the same covenant with their parents T. The scope of the Apostle here is to satisfie a scruple of the Corinth viz. whether the believing yoak-fellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yoak-fellow he resolves them in the affirmative saying The unbelieving husband is sanctifyed in as 't is in the Greek or to not for or by the wife c. That is he may lawfully use and enjoy her and she enjoy him and their Children holy that is legitimate V. But here is certainly some speciall privilege set forth to the Children of believers accruing to them from the believing parents Besides it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawfull use of one another and that their Children were legitimate and no bastards For where both husband and wife were unbelievers no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawfull and their issue legitimate T. The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marriage were unbelievers but afterwards one of them happens to be converted whether then they might cohabit and enjoy the use of one another V. Though this were granted which I shall not contend about yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawfull use and enjoyment of each other for the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sanctifyed never denotes to be lawfull Or if ever you shew me that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is render'd holy signifies lawfull I shall urge no further T. Ther 's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4.4 5. Every creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by the word of God and prayer here sanctifyed is for lawfully used as standing in opposition to that which is refused V. The sense is that such use of the creature is pleasing to God as acknowledging him the authour and sender for suppose a sinfull man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing hath he not a lawfull use of the creature T. His next instance was 1. Thes. 4.3 4 7. Where sanctification is used for chastitie and might hear that sense in this place 1 Cor. 7.17 in agitation V. I deny it for sanctification is there used in its full latitude as appears by the context But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence at the beginning which you denied viz. That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible for then women should not be Baptized because they were not Circumcised which is Bellarmines Argument To which I answered that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever the women are but as ignoble creatures and therefore the usuall stile of laws and covenants is Si Quis and Qui in the masculine except such as particularly respect their sex 2. That they are included in the word Seed and because descended from man did partake of the privilege and promise annexed to the covenant I thought also to have told him that I well knew that before Christs time Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the Proselites called Proselitae Justitiae as I could have shewed out of severall authours yet that hinder'd not but that Baptism now under the Gospell should be the sole means to admit us into the same covenant into which the Jews were admitted by Circumcision Even as the bread and wine were taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his passion the true Passeover 1. Cor. 5.7 And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews But the time and his close manner of disputing not permiting this Enlarging by recourse to the originall and institution of Baptism which served more to illustrate than convince I kept to the tedder allowed and came at length to prove that proposition from Col. 2.11.12 Where 1 the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcisition made with hands 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words being buryed with him in Baptism T. Paul here disswades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies which some would have introduced amongst them and particularly of Circumcision because all those were but shadowes but the body and realitie was of Christ V. T' is confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish and also Pythagorean doctrines and practises But see ye not here a double Circumcision and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism The word buried implyeth but the resemblance betwixt Christs death and resurrection with what is done in Baptism where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water to shadow his buriall and Emersion or rising up out of the water to represent his resurrection which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6. T. Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession that Baptism was then practised by plunging He read also a passage out of Casaubons annot. on the New Test. where he saith that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Baptise denoteth a plunging of the whole body c. Had he read out the passage he might have found how that great scholar affirmes this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism for saith he the vertue and efficacie of Baptism consistes not in that meaning the manner of washing V. I shall satisfie the Auditours herein anon in the mean time I desire Answer to my Argument the Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism being so evident in this place But receiving none I addressed my self to the people according to promise saying That indeed it seemed to me that for some Centuries of years that Baptism was practised by plunging For sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the Clinicks as Cyprian Epist a Magnum relates being men which deferred their Baptism till some extremitie of sickness who then in such case were only sprinkled with water lest the plunging of their bodies might over-offend them in that feeble desperate condition T. Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise from a corrupt custome V. Though plunging be confessed the more antient way yet is this no ground for that over-uncharitable speech of yours

Gentiles shall be graffed in Parent with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful Wee l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptise Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Baptise your Infants Ireneus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the begining of the third Century says The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not then to leave them unsealed Austen is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that dyed un-baptized pressing that place John 3.5 Except a Man be Born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches all ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism The twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta●ed flock that had his house burned and his children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to parents and children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11.16 Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} FINIS And that by washing as the Proselytes and Jews Children were initiated Mr. Cradock and Mr. Walter Monmothshire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or to the water

blessing as well as liable to the curse C. Which distinction was took away thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward and visible part But Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part T. Mr. T. denied the Minor and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberidge which they that spoke did not understand themselves C. Mr. C. replyed it was the language of learned men of all ages amongst whom were Vossius Bullinger and Hugo Grotius and that Children of Believing Parents were holy before Baptism and that Baptism did not make but declare them to be Christians Then cryed out a Cobler I. E. that hath been dipped this is Blasphemy C. Well you discover of what spirit you are and your ignorance Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament That Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized Pag 12. And that Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy with a federall or Covenant-holiness I thus prove from 1 Cor. 7.14 Els were your Children unclean but now they are holy T. That sayes Mr. T. Is meant of Matrimoniall holynes or a lawfull use of the Marriage-bed that they are no Bastards C. That Answer I thus infringe That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not so much as once for Matrimoniall holiness cannot be so meant here But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Matrimoniall holyness Therefore it cannot be so meant here T. That Argument sayes Mr T. I will retort upon you That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never Once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant holiness Therfore it cannot be meant here C. To which was replyed this is to invert the order of the dispute you are to answer and not to oppose T. I may oppose by retorting of an Argument and I will answer anon C. Well to satisfie you I deny your Minor for it s taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness T. Where C. The proof lyes upon you that it is not yet I le give give you one instance or two Rom. 11.16 if the first fruits be holy the Lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches T. That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness C. Yes it s as cleer as the light and so you your self interpreted it at Ross as there are hundreds that will witness which was upon this occasion I pressed that if the immediat parents were holy the children were holy with a Covenant-holiness you denyed the inference and said the meaning of it was that Abraham the father of the faithfull was the first fruits and root that was holy and therefore his posterity was holy and in covenant And in this exposition as he agreed with truth so with Beza who sayes that children are holy that is comprehended in covenant from the wombe and with Bowles who saith that they are holy with outward holiness by which they are judged to be in covenant But to return from whence by your retortion we have digressed I am to prove that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimoniall cleanness in opposition to Illegitimation Not in that place Ezra 9.2 the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands which is either your only or principall hold as far as I can gather out of your books therefore in no place T. He denyed the Antecedent C. Which was proved thus If it be meant of Matrimoniall cleanness then this must be the meaning of the words The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jews have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands that is the bastards of those lands But that cannot be the meaning for happily there were some Bastards among the Jewes and in that sense not holy and no Bastards among the Nations but all or the most Legitimate and therefore in that sense not unholy Therefore it is not meant of Matrimoniall holiness T. He denyed the Major affirming that both Jews and Nations were holy before their mixture but then both they and their Children became unclean because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations C. To which was answered they that are Saints are not unholy But some Saints have been begot by this mixture or unlawfull bed as Jepthah who Hebr. 11. Is said to be justified by faith Therefore they are not unholy T. He denyed the Major saying they may be unholy by their Naturall Generation and first birth and yet holy by Regeneration and new birth C. This strikes not home Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegitimate T. Mr. T. Said that was before the Law was given C. Well that Answer will do you little service after the Law was given Salomon had children by Rahab who was a Cananitish and Boaz by Ruth who was a Moabitish woman and yet they were not Illegitimate or unholy as you would have it T. They became Proselites and received the Religion of the Jews C. Well then while they were not of the Jews Religion tho no Bastards they were unholy when they embraced the Jews Religion by your own confession they became holy what is this but a Covenant-holyness which you have opposed all this while and now grant it T. Mr. T. Used many words to clear himself but with little satisfaction to the greatest part of the hearers and still denied that children were holy and in covenant C. Which was further proved thus They that Christ took up in his arms blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive are holy with a Covenant-holyness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them sayd the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness T. Mr. Tombes began to be netled as if something in this Argument galled him saying it was a fallacie and that he went about to entrap him by sophistrie C. What fallacie T. A heaping of many things together that belong to severall matters C. I confess they were spoken upon severall occasions but they all concenter in my Conclusion that children are holy and in covenant I am in hast and named them all together but if you will have patience I le prosecute them severally T. I am willing to continue till midnight but I like not this kind of arguing C. You like it not because it does jugulum petere cut the throat of your tenet T. No not so much as touch