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
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

none but those that doe truly beleeve were the direct way to cast out the token of the Covenant altogether because we cannot truly know them then wee ought not to neglect this duty to baptize Infants Sixthly They say if none ought to be baptized but such as make profession of justifying faith then Infants ought not to be baptized but Infants cannot make such profession And saith Master Tombes Neither John the Baptist nor the Apostles would baptize any without some shewes of faith and repentance And although he grants that Infants may have a right to Heaven yet they must not be baptized till that appeare But I say their hearts will never be knowne to us then they had as good say they shall never be baptized as to say they shall not be baptized till they know their hearts Againe would not the Apostles baptize any unlesse they professe a lye that in the presence of Christ who knew their hearts and then might they lawfully be baptized when they had professed a lye in the presence of Christ for they baptized alwaies in his presence before his death John 3.22.26.42 that they might be his Disciples and not theirs And would Christ have all those to professe that they had true justifying faith when as he knew their hearts and would not trust them John 2. v. 23 24. What horrible blasphemy is this No they were required but to beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God and his Religion was the true Religion and then they had right to Baptisme in the approbation of Christ and his Apostles and their parents profession might be imputed to the child because they have power to bring them up in that Religion they professe as well as the Jewes had power to bring up their Infants in their Religion neither had their Infants any other profession but that of their parents then christian Infants may as well be baptized as Jewish Infants were circumcised Seventhly They object against my second ground saying The gift of the Holy Ghost there promised Act. 2.39 is not the sanctifying Gift but the gift of Tongues and miracles to cast out Divels and to cure all manner of diseases Mark 16.17 I answ John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers wombe Luk. 1.15 to shew that as he was fit for Baptisme from the wombe so he should judge of others Neither could that be the gift of tongues nor the gift of miracles as soon as he was born but the gift of sanctification which Jeremiah had before he was borne Jer. 1.5 Then if Infants may be so baptized with the Holy Ghost wee may not deny them the outward forme of Baptisme But saith Master Tombes That promise is to Jewes that were called of the sending of Christ from these Texts Act. 3.25.26.13.32.33 This we grant But then he saith Mention is made of a Promise not as of it selfe yeelding right to Baptisme without repentance but as a motive to those that repent and are baptized But to this we grant that Baptisme without repentance is of no value But when we heare the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost is promised to christian Infants and they have power to bring them up in the christian Religion then I would know why such may not be baptized having no false Religion to repent of and the promise of the inward Baptisme thus sure their parents that have power to bring them up in the true Religion have also power to set the marke of a christian upon them to be knowne from Turks and Infidels But then he saith That Promise was made to Jewish Infants and therefore not to christian Infants but this is a meere cavill against the Text and not worth answering Eighthly They object against my third ground saying That the holynesse which children have from their parents is nothing else but this those parents have a sanctified use of them for unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 I answer If all things be pure unto them then other mens children yea Infidels children are pure unto them yea the stones and Beasts of the Field are at peace with them Job 5.23 yea they have a sanctified use both of the evill of sinne and the evill of punishment for all things shall worke together for their good that love God Rom. 3.28 but this benefit comes not by marrying of beleevers but by our marriage with Christ but this had beene to small purpose for Paul to say That beleevers have a sanctified use of their children when as he had not onely said before they have a sanctified use of them but of all things else then the meaning is this they have such a holinesse as the Jewes had to distinguish them from other Nations to be of the church of God a holy Nation so Infants of christians are distinguished from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible church as well as the Jewish Infants by this marke of distinction now they are holy therefore they ought to be baptized But Master Tombes saith That holinesse spoken by Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 is nothing else but this they are legitimate that is they are not bastards To this I answer That the Corinthians were Gentiles or Heathens before Paul preached amongst them and by his preaching some times he converted a wife to the christian Religion and could not convert the husband and sometimes the husband and not the wife but if either of them was converted from their dumbe Idols wherein they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 to the christian faith now saith Paul your children are holy It seemes when either of them was converted the great question to the Apostle was this Whether their children had a right to the Ordinance of Baptisme and so to all other priviledges of the christian church To this a secret answer is implyed That they had a right to all the Ordinances and priviledges of the christian church for now saith Paul your children are holy that is they are distinguished now from Heathens and Infidels children so that now one of the parents is become a christian it cannot be said now that they are Infidels children but when both the parents were converted to the christian Religion then the matter was out of question so that then they need not aske whether their children should enjoy the priviledges of the christian church this being the true genuine meaning of the Text Now let us see what truth is in Master Tombes interpretation of it saying Now they are legittimate now they are not bastards but can any rationall man think this that if a mans wife was converted to the christian Religion that then shee would come to the Apostles to aske them whether or not their children were bastards could any man living tell that better then shee her selfe if shee were a whore then they were bastards but not else Againe them that were lawfully married before Paul came amongst them and had children they were not bastards by Master Tombes owne

A IUSTIFICATION Of two Points now in Controversie with the ANABAPTISTS Concerning Baptisme The first is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized with grounds to prove it and their Objections answered With a briefe Answer to Master TOMBES twelve doubtfull Arguments against it in his Exercitation about Infants Baptisme Also a briefe Answer to Captaine HOBSONS five Arguments in his falacy of Infants Baptisme being as he saith that which should have beene disputed by him and Mr. Knowles and some others against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford The second Point is That the Sprinckling the Baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then Dipping or Plunging in or under the Water With grounds to prove it and a briefe Answer to what they have to say against it By T. B. Joh. 3.1 Beloved beleeve not every spirit but try the spirits whither they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world Imprimatur John Downham London printed for Henry Sheperd at the Bible in Tower-street and for William Ley at his shop in Pauls Church-yard neere Doctors Commons 1646. To the Reader CHristian Reader considering it ever was and still is the custome of all Christian Churches in the world to baptize their Infants and to sprinkle the Baptized although it hath been long opposed by the Anabaptists yet they never left it in any age then although those men have published many Books of late against it and no Answer to them is yet come forth which makes them ready to say with the King of Assyria I have gathered all the earth and there was none that moved the wing or opened the mouth or peeped forth against it Isaiah 10.14 Yet let not this little book be despised for the unworthinesse of the Author but read it till some more able hand shall move for thy better satisfaction thou knowest not but God may somtimes hide things from the wise prudent and reveale them to babes because it so pleaseth him Luke 10.21 Aquilla and his Wife tooke Apollo that was mighty in Scriptures and shewed him the way of God more perfectly Acts 18. Naaman hearkned to his Maid-servant when she told him of a Propher in Israel that would cure him of his Leprosie and to the advice of another servant to observe the Prophets directions 2 King 5. Then look not on the Author but weigh the matter and arguments in the balance of the Sanctuary and if they hold weight give God the praise and me thy prayers and I shall remaine thine in all Christian duties to be commanded Thomas Bakewell The first Point in Controversie with the Anabaptists is That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized the grounds to prove it are these following FIrst if Christ commanded and his Apostles practised the Baptisme of Infants then it ought to be done but Christ commanded to Baptize all Nations whereof Infants are a part Mat. 28.19 and the Apostles Baptized whole Housholds whereof Infants are a part Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be baptized Secondly if Christian Infants have the promise to be baptized with the Holy Ghost then they ought to have the outward forme of Baptisme but the Holy Ghost is promised to Christians and their children Acts 2.38 39. therefore their children ought to be baptized Thirdly If Infants of Christians be separated from Turkes and Infidels by vertue of their Parents Baptisme then they ought to be Baptized but Infants of Christians have this marke of distinction For now saith Paul Your children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is they have an outward sanctification being distinguished from Infidels for the visible Church therefore they ought to be Baptized Fourthly If Christ did admit Infants to come unto him and blamed them that would keepe them backe and giving this testimony of them that those little children which he had in his Armes did beleeve on him and that they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven then they ought to be Baptized But the first is true Mat. 18.3.6.19.13.14 Mark 9.36.10.14.10 Luke 18.15.16 therefore Infants of Christians ought to be Baptized Fifthly If infants of Jewes were circumcised and Christ came not to take away that benefit from them but to change it to a better and larger benefit from Males alone to Males and Females and from one Nation to all Nations and from a painefull duty to an easie duty then I say that Christian infants ought to be Baptized as well as the Jewish infants were circumcised but Christ never repealed that Command but did enlarge it to all Nations Mat. 28.19 and to both men and women Acts 8.12.16.15 therefore Christian infants ought to be baptized Sixthly if the Apostles businesse was onely to convert men of yeares from false religion to the Christian Religion before they did admit them to Baptisme and did not wait till they were converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of Grace because they knew no mans heart having the first conversion they baptized many without the second then Christian infants who have no fals religion to be converted from ought to be baptized although they be not converted from the state of corruption to the state of Grace but the Apostles onely required men to beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God the Eunuch beleeved this and was baptized and Simon Magus beleeved this and was baptized although still in the gall of bitternesse and in the bonds of iniquity Acts 8.12.23.37 and many beleeved the Scripture and the words of Jesus many beleeved in his name yet Christ would not trust them although they were his Disciples for he knew their hearts and needed not that any should testifie of them yet those went away from Christ and never returned to him Joh. 2.23 24.6.66 this shewes they had onely the first conversion and not the second and Jewish infants were circumcised if the Parents was but of their Religion never waiting for the childes conversion from corrupted nature to the state of Grace and Christians have as much power to bring up their children in the Christian Religion as they had to bring them up in the Jewish Religion then it is a cleare truth that Christian infants ought to be baptized Their Objections are next to be answered FIrst they Object If they must first be taught before they be Baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Mat. 28.19 ergo so is the second I ans The teaching them to observe and to doe all that is commanded in that place followes both Preaching and Baptisme that both may be observed else it were to affirme that Christ would have one Ordinance to be observed and not the other when as he saith Observe and doe whatsoever I have commanded you ver 19.20 And to say Teaching is first set downe is not much to the purpose if it be then John did Baptize in the Wildernesse and then it is said he Preached the Baptisme of Repentance Mark 1.4

confession but saith Paul of those children that they were uncleane then but now saith he they are holy because one of the Parents is become a christian now those children are not heathens but christians so then if the same children which before were uncleane and now are holy by the conversion of one of the Parents it must needs be such a holinesse to distinguish them from Infidels to be of the true christian Church then he that denies this truth must needes draw this conclusion that the same children which before Paul came there were bastards but now one of the Parents is converted to the christian Religion those children that were bastards and uncleane are now holy and no bastards Againe shall we be such fools as to think because the husband is a Christian that his christianity will so sanctifie his wife that shee cannot have a bastard or will her being a christian so sanctifie her husband that he cannot have a bastard if this were true then how comes it to passe that we have so many bastards in Engl. when both the husband the wife professe themselves to be christians and yet sometimes both of them are so prophane as to have bastards then I say that holinesse spoken of by Paul is that mark of distinction to be knowne from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible Church of Christ and therefore have a true right to baptisme and so to all other Ordinances and priviledges of the christian Church although infancy or sicknesse may hinder them from some of them yet it cannot from baptisme being onely passive the work is done upon them and no action required of them therefore they may and ought to be baptized Ninthly they object against my fifth ground saying that command of God ceased which did command to set the token of the Covenant upon Jewish Infants when Christ came and changed that token of circumcision into baptisme But I say the command remaines although the token be changed as for instance God commanded the children of Israel to keepe holy the seventh day for it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God but this command remaines although by Christ the day was changed and so for other commands to Israel thou shalt have no other gods but me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image nor bow downe unto it nor take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine but although the Church of the Jewes be cut off and the christian Church grafted in we may not say these commands were repeald when the Church was changed and so conclude that Christians may have other gods and bow downe to them and worship them and take the name of Israels God in vaine because the command was not made to us but to them nor keep no Sabbath because the command was made to them and not to us nor set the token of the Covenant on our children because it was to them and not to us because our Church and Sabbath and token of the Covenant was all changed then unlesse you be minded to cast off God the Sabbath the Sacraments the true Religion let your children be baptized Tenthly they object saying those that have a right to one of the Sacraments have a right to both but Infants have no right to the Lords Supper because they cannot examine themselves nor remember the death of Christ nor discerne his body in the Sacrament then Infants may not be baptized I answ Those impediments that hinder them from receiving the Lords Supper are no impediments to hinder them from Baptisme because nothing is required in the baptized Infants they are meerly passive the work is done upon them when as the Lords supper requires many actions as to take eat doe this in men of age and understanding Againe I doubt not but Infants have a right to both Sacraments and all other Ordinances although by naturall infirmities they are for the present disabled from some of them as by sicknesse or infancy yet this hinders not nor disables any from Baptisme therefore Infants ought to be baptized although baptisme is not of absolute necessity where it cannot be had yet this contempt of it is damnable but in times of persecution or in a journey it may be deferred as Israel did in the Wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5.5 but they might not doe so in Canaan for if they doe it may be their children when they come to age would despise that Ordinance and then they are to be cut off from Israel because they have broken the Covenant Gen. 17.14 and how doe these men know but their children will despise the covenant when they come to age Nay I dare say it is the onely way to make them despise it when they come to age for it is said all the people that heard Christ and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John that is with water Mat. 3.11 but the Pharises and Lawyers rejected the Councell of God being not baptized of John Luke 7.29.30 And it were a just judgement of God upon such Parents that will not set that marke of distinction to sever their children from Turks by baptisme that they should never be severed from corrupted nature to the state of grace then to avoid this let them be baptized Eleventhly they object that if Christ who saith learne of me was not baptized till he was 30 yeers old then Infants must not be baptized Luke 3.23 But the first is true ergo so is the second I answ It is true that Christ bad us learne of him to be humble and meek Mat. 11.28 but he did not bid us learne of him to be 30 yeers old before that we be baptized and if we learne that we must neither be more nor lesse but just of his age Againe he was both circumcized and baptized but he did not bid us learne both Againe at thirty yeeres old he put an end to the Jewish Religion and could not be baptized before neither could he set up Christian Religion till he had put downe the Jewish Religion But I would not have the Anabaptists to tarry till they be thirty yeers old before they become Christians and say they learned to doe so of Christ Againe at the same time others were baptized at severall ages some more some lesse then the age of Christ then the matter lay in this whether they were converted from false Religions to the true Religion although they were not converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of grace they baptized them we read of none that ever were denied to be baptized but the Pharises and Sadduces who came to John to be baptized but he refused to baptize them because they would not leave their sects and scismes they would be Pharises and Sadduces still therefore he cals them A generation of Vipers Mat. 3.7 because such would eat out the bowels of the christian Church this might be an item to all the sects and scismes amongst

baptisme of reprobates may benefit the godly although it doth not benefit themselves that have it Eightly Master Tombes saith baptisme of Infants causeth many faults in discipline and in divine worship and in conversation such as these first private baptisme secondly baptisme of Infants thirdly baptisme by women fourthly baptisme of uncertaine Progeny fifthly baptisme in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor have ever consented and perhaps will never consent to the confession of the name of the Lord sixthly it hath brought in the admission of ignorant and prophane to the communion of the Lords supper seventhly it perverts the order of discipline to to baptize and then to catechize eighthly it turnes the Sacrament into a ceremony or prophane feasting ninthly it makes men forget that ever they were baptized tenthly it takes away or diminisheth zeale and industry to know the Gospell I answ Most of these are scandals without any proofe as the five last and there is but one of the other five altogether unlawfull and that is baptisme by women and yet this is held by some Anabaptists to be lawfull which is not lawfull but abominable and he makes a perhaps to the fifth where there is no cause for the Parents have power to bring them up to professe the christian Religion which is as much as the Apostles required before they did admit them to baptisme then these ten faults are not sufficient to hinder christian Infants from baptisme Ninthly Master Tombes saith that Infants baptisme is an occasion of many unnecessary disputes fostering contention which can never be determined by any certaine rule such as these first baptizing Infants of excommunicated persons secondly baptizing Infants of apostates thirdly baptizing Infants of Parents that are not members of a gathered Church fourthly baptizing Infants of those whose Ancestors were beleevers and the next Parents remaining still in unbeliefe I answ the first and last of these the Church of England makes no doubt of nor of the second unlesse they turne Turks and so renounce the christian Religion and the third is a meer cavill of Independents for he that is baptized into the christian faith and Religion is a member of the christian Church where-ever he is then notwithstanding this argument christian Infants ought to be baptized Tenthly Master Tombes saith That Baptisme of Infants was opposed in the midst of the darknesse of Popery by the same men that opposed invocation of Saints and prayer for the dead and adoration of the Crosse I answer In the midst of that darknesse some light might be hid from those that sought to bring in the light of the Gospell but we need not to fetch proofe from those darke times for Luther denyed some part of Scripture to be the Word of God and he held consubstantiation ubiquity of Christs body and yet he withstood Popery more powerfully then any of those before him Then this cannot hinder Infants Baptisme Eleventhly Master Tombes saith the assertors of Infants Baptisme do not agree amongst themselves upon what foundation they may build it I answer Though severall men bring severall arguments for it this cannot 〈◊〉 it Againe they all agree in the command of Christ and the promise of sanctifying grace and the blessing and testimony of Christ on them and of that holinesse of distinction from Turks and Infidels and if some bring more arguments to confirme it shall this make it void and what truth is that which was never opposed by some then this cannot hinder Infants Baptisme Lastly Master Tombes saith Infants Baptisme seemes to take away one of the prime ends of Baptisme which was to shew and confesse himselfe to be a Disciple but this I have already answered severall times so then notwithstanding all these doubtfull arguments here is nothing that may justly hinder Christian Infants from Baptisme All these doubts are briefly mentioned by Master Tombes in the beginning of his Booke Intituled An exercitation of Infants Baptisme before his Answer to Master Marshall therefore I forbeare to set downe the severall pages to finde them Here I shall speake something touching re-baptizing or often baptizing because Master Tombes in his great Booke seemes to favour it saying If we had as cleare Scripture for Infants Baptisme as we have for re-baptizing our controversie would soone be ended and by other such like passages in his Booke It appeares that he favours re-baptizing or often Baptisme then suppose any that is baptized in the Church of England should question the lawfulnesse of their Baptisme saying I was not rightly baptized because I was an Infant and knew not what was done but this I have already answered then suppose another say I was sprinkled which is to rinse and not to baptize therefore I was not rightly baptized this I shall answer in the second point Then suppose another say I was baptized either by a drunken Priest that cannot preach and baptize as he ought Mat. 28.19 or else by a Popish Priest who had his Ordination from Popish Bishops therefore I was not rightly baptized and may be re-baptized But here I would know how our Anabaptists Preachers can prove their owne calling lawfull If they say that they are teaching Disciples then where is their Ordination it was either from men of other callings who have nothing to do in it or else they have none at all and how was their first teacher made it was sure the Divell that first moved him from his place and calling to become their Teacher And if they say his Calling was extraordinary like that of the Apostles then we would see their extraordinary Gifts and till then we cannot believe their Calling to be lawfull and so themselves ought not to preach nor baptize thus while they judge our Ministers they condemne themselves And for our Bishops and Ministers I answer and say That they were ordained by men of their owne calling to preach and to administer the Sacraments and thus it hath beene successively from the Apostles and although the Bishops had power and authority given them by men to rule over their Brethren which they ought not yet that did not make void that which they had from God for then that or any other sinne would make that or any other calling void so that a man must either live without sinne or be cas●●red of his calling so then our Ministers standing is lawfull and their Baptisme warrantable I need not speake of the Service Booke the Crosse and Sucplesse which were the onely things that troubled them but they are removed and yet they stand out as much as ever which shewes they have proud and froward hearts rather then any just cause given to them why they should forsake our Churches But suppose there were some exception against our Ministers entrance or execution of their office yet that will not make their Baptisme void the Lord was wrath with Moses and would have killed him because his child was not circumcised but when that was