Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	believer_n	church_n	visible_a	1,349	5	9.2573	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57682	Infant-Baptism; or, Infant-sprinkling (as the Anabaptists ironically term it,) asserted and maintained by the scriptures, and authorities of the primitive fathers. Together with a reply to a pretended answer. To which has been added, a sermon preached on occasion of the author's baptizing an adult person. With some enlargements. By J. R. rector of Lezant in Cornwal.; Infant-Baptism.	J. R. (James Rossington), b. 1642 or 3.	1700 (1700)	Wing R1993; ESTC R218405	76,431	137

And Christ's coming must have rendred the condition of Children worse than before Whatever then be the Priviledges of being within the Pale and the Promise of the visible Church they must belong to the Children of Believers now as they did to the Seed of Abraham heretofore By being such they have jus ad rem a right thereunto and by being baptized they have jus in re and are as it were put into the possession of the same So that denying them Baptism we do as much as lies in us debar them of the outward means the enjoyment of the Priviledge of being in the Church and the benefits thereunto appertaining Should a like Question be put concerning a baptized Christian a member of Christ's Church with that which the Apostle proposeth Rom. 3.1 touching a circumcised Jew What advantage the Answer may be the same with his v. 2. Much every way And in Rom. 9.4 5. are reckoned up no fewer then eight Priviledges or Prerogatives belonging to a Jew upon the score of that Relation The same advantage that there was then to the Jews as God's visible Church is now common to the Gentiles also and if Children were sharers therein with their Parents during the former Administration how are they excluded now Those Children more particularly whose Parents kept their Station * Rom. 11.5 17. and if some Children continued within because their Parents so continued what hinders but others should be admitted whose Parents are re-instated or have gained a like Priviledge with those that are The Prophet Elisha wept when he looked upon Hazael because he foresaw he would dash the Infants of Israel against the Wall and even Hazael thought himself worthy to be esteemed a Dog if ever he should do such a thing But certainly to dash all the Infant Children of Believers out of the Covenant of Grace as much as in them lies and to deprive them of the Seal of it is in a spiritual Sense far more heavy and I dare appeal to the tender Bowels of any believing Parents whether it were not easier for them to think that their Children should be dashed against the Stones and yet in the mean time to die under Christ's Wing as visible members of his Kingdom rather than to have them live and behold them to have a visible standing only in the Kingdom of the Devil We read of Herod the Tyrant that he destroyed all the Children in Bethlehem and the Coasts thereof from two Years old and under But is it not a far more cruel sentence to set these in no better state than Pagans and Infidels without Christ Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the Covenant of Promise having no hope and without God in the World How far Heaven extends its mercy to those that are without means and cannot use them is a Mystery hid from us and known only unto God 'T is our Happiness that he hath not left us destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation with respect to our Children as well as to our selves and therefore whatsoever means of Grace God has appointed as Instrumental to that end that they are capable of are to be afforded them unless God hath made any particular exception in the Case And Baptism being appointed by God as such a means we cannot well Administer it too early to our Children for tho' it doth not confer Grace ex opere operato yet it always doth so when God is pleased to vouchsafe the concurrence and co-operation of his Holy Spirit with it And we know not how soon the operation may be how soon God may by his Grace pre-dispose their Souls to an aptness for good through the means it may be long before they are in a capacity to Act any and therefore the Ordinance ought by no means to be withheld from them or neglected Pag. 16. He questions what a Disciple is whether he be not a Scholar or one taught and whether Infants can be said to be Disciples till they are taught To this I Answer That a Disciple in the New Testament is the same with Christian * Act. 11.26 any one that hath a Relation unto Christ and so of as large an extent as the word Israel in the Old Testament Infants therefore having a Relation unto Christ are of his Body not Heathens but Christians and so consequently Disciples infieri not for that they are actually taught of God but because they are as I may say retainers to Christ and designed for his School into which when they are admitted or initiated by Baptism they are more compleatly Disciples Disciples in facto esse having then not only a right to but are invested with the Priviledge of those that are properly and actually Scholars or Disciples not as being personally instructed but as consecrated and set apart for the service of Heaven placed so as to be reckoned Scholars of Christ being entered into his School tho' they be no Proficients And thus they are commonly reputed of the number of the Scholars or Disciples who are admitted into a School and only entered there to learn tho' they have not learnt a Lesson or a Letter As John the Baptist baptized to Repentance or in order to it Who should limit God May not he make Disciples several Ways By the Administration of the Ordinance of Baptism and so by putting on them his Livery or by teaching them by his Spirit from the greatest to the least by writing his Laws in their Hearts or by graciously accepting them into his Covenant with their Parents or bringing them under a Religious Government Page 18. He would know whether I can tell Lydia was a Maid Wife or Widow or whether there were any Infants in her House I answer 'T is plain she had a Family and that upon her Faith alone they were brought into God's ordinary way of Salvation and were forthwith baptized * Act. 16.15 unless they 'l understand by her House the Stone-Walls By Salvation coming to Zacheus's House he understands Page 19. the Messiah Answer Christ would have rather said I am the Messiah which had been true whether Zacheus was the Son of Abraham or no and so there had been no occasion of giving that Reason that the Covenant of Abraham reached him But why doth he so perversely understand by Salvation the Person only of the Messiah but purposely to avoid the Argument which yet is no other but what the whole Current of the Scripture holds forth viz. That the blessing of Abraham immediately descends to an House or Family upon the Conversion of the Head or Chief thereof But none are more blind than they that will not see In the forementioned 18 and 19 Pages he endeavours to render it probable there were no Infants in the Housholds I had instanced in but there is enough said in these instances that the blessing of Abraham viz. Salvation came to an House especially to the Children if any such there were upon the Faith

Junius conceives the word to be there taken with reference only to the Sex not to the Age shall be cut off not in his Infancy but afterwards when he comes to Years of Discretion if then he approves his Fathers or Guardians neglect and neglect Circumcision himself Which Junius makes good by two Arguments First From the Original which may be rendred as well and rather actively than passively according to the different Radix it may be derived from thus who shall not circumcise his fore-skin Secondly From the Reason that God himself there gives for he hath broken my Covenant Which is not incident unto Children and therefore the threaten'd Punishment was very unlikely to be inflicted on them who could not commit the Offence We read that Moses was in danger of being slain by the Angel for neglecting to circumcise his Son † Exod. 4.24 but nothing is said of the excision of his Son but that afterwards he was circumcised though the eighth Day was past I have already observed in the beginning of this Reply how absurdly he has gone about to prove that by Children in Act. 2.39 are not meant Children as they are in a state of Infancy making no difference between the Persons the Apostle spoke to and those he spoke of but implying that all those whom the Apostle asserted to have an interest in the Promise must necessarily be only the very same Persons he was discoursing to and therefore the Children as the Answerer explains himself must be such as should be able to imbrace the precept to repent A Conclusion that can in no wise follow from his premises and 't is impossible it should from any other since it would argue the Apostle himself to be guilty of vain tautology and impertinence if no more were meant of their Children than of all the World Besides there was no occasion for naming Children at all but the sense had been as full without it But this Answerer not contenting himself with such absurd Arguing as I have already noted begets here a superfetation of absurdities and further to shew his excellent faculty of quidlibet ex quolibet closeth as it were every Paragraph of this long Ramble of almost three Pages with this fancy'd Inference So from this Infants ought not to be baptized repeating it no less than six times without hardly varying one Word not weighing how 't is reduced or brought in Head and Shoulders so long as it may serve any way to amuse that poor ignorant misguided Sect. There is a parcel more of the like impertinent Stuff for almost a Page and half immediately following which seeing it don't so nearly touch the main matter in controversie that I may not be too tedious I will pass over in silence though he has deserved other Returns for his groundless Censures and Upbraidings which he is forced to make use of for want of Reason In the next Words Page 14. he brings me in saying so that excluding Children from the Covenant and debarring them of the Sign puts a sacrilegious restraint thereon and excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation Whereto he returns this Answer You put more stress upon it than it will bear but what doth he mean by that Doth he deny the Proposition That it doth not put a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant No such thing Or doth he deny the Consequence that it excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation Not at all What then Doth he instance in any ordinary means whereof they are capable Not so neither He mentions that of Rom. 10.14 15. but himself hath observed Page 11. that that goes beyond their capacity to make use of And 't is yet he says to prove that Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ for Infants What then Why he even makes the matter of no consequence at all whether there be allowed them any ordinary means or no tho' at the same time they allow them to have original Sin There is then according to him no ordinary way left for the Salvation of Children For as he intimates in the beginning of this Page a believers Child hath no Priviledge more then the unbelievers to any Ordinance of Christ But how contrary is this Doctrine to that of our Saviour Mark 10.14 Where he says of such is the Kingdom of God which signifies their having an interest in Heaven hereafter and consequently must imply their capacity of being of the visible Church here And it must be primarily meant of Children and not such only as are humble and innocent like them otherwise the sense cannot be coherent For what is the innocency and humility of such to Children that they should be suffered more than Lambs or the like humble and innocent Creatures to be brought to Christ to be received into his Arms Who might better have been propounded as patterns of more perfect Innocency having no original Guilt unless Christ had meant to be thus understood Bring little Children to me for to them and such as are like them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven * Talium dicit non horum quia comprehendit tam puellos quam eorum similes saith Musculus hac ergo voce Christus parvulos horum similes ad se pertinere testatur So Calvin giving for a Reason which St. Mark and St. Luke add verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child c. insulse enim as Marlor sets down further Anabap. pueros excludunt à quibus initium fieri debebat And elsewhere piorum liberos dicimus Ecclesiae filios nasci ab utero reputari in Christi membris quia hac lege deus nos adoptat ut sit etiam seminis nostri pater Again what ground of comfort can such as he give to their Parents in case of their Death that they sorrow not as Men without hope Seeing they don't appear to such to belong to Christ And if withal they have no means to bring them to Christ they may well be thought to be in a desperate Estate while in their Infancy Certainly it hath been lookt upon as a great advantage to be in God's ordinary way of Salvation In the time of the Jews before and under the Law 't was a great preference to be of the number of God's People members of the visible Church Branches of the Olive-Tree and is it not now as great a Priviledge and Advantage to be in a like Covenant-relation grafted into the same Olive-Tree Or can it be reasonably supposed that God would so often and so emphatically make Promises to the Righteous and their Seed to be a God to them and theirs if there was not somewhat of peculier preference intended them beyond those of the Wicked or those that are out of God's visible Church But if no more be intended but upon condition of Faith and Repentance this is equally true of the Children of the most profligate and of Heathens as of Jews and Christians