Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	infant_n	kingdom_n	visible_a	3,042	5	9.7675	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62869	A plea for anti-pædobaptists, against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entituled, The anabaptists anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653. Betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism. By John Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1811; ESTC R206989	34,969	48

are propounded to us as our rule His testimony out of Bellarmine intimates that Bellarmine said There is no impediment to infants baptism because the case is clear as if Bellarmine would not have said it had the case not been clear whereas it is more likely to be false than true because Bellarmine a Jesuit saith it yea it is manifestly false for the institution being onely to baptize Disciples prohibits baptizing of infants which are not such but for want of being Disciples uncapable of Baptism But Mr. Cragg in his fourth Argument will prove infant-baptism commanded Matth. 28. 19. because Nations are commanded to be baptized To this I answered before in the Dispute and my answer is and was Nations are not commanded to be baptized without any other circumscription but Disciples of the Nations Mr. Cragg confessed pag. 48. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Ye shall make Disciples and then baptizing is of Disciples His speech Infants are not uncapable of Baptism because they have not faith and repentance because Christ was baptized without repentance is frivolous for there is not the same end of Christs Baptism and ours and therefore though repentance were not required of him yet it is of us and the want of it makes infants uncapable of Baptism It is false that God requires no more of persons in Covenant and born of believing Parents to their Baptism but a meer objective power or receptability as he cals it as was in the world at its creation or in the regeneration which he new makes us And it is meerly false that upon any such account as he speaks of many whole families were baptized or that any infants were included The very Texts which speak of the baptizing of the housholds either there or elsewhere speak of their fearing God Acts 2. 2. that all the houseshould be saved by Peters words Acts 11. 14. had repentance and the like gift with the Apostles v. 17 18. had the word spoken to them Acts 16. 32. believed v. 34 Acts 18. 8. addicted themselves to the Ministery of the Saints 1 Cor. 16 15. Which shew no infants were meant under the houshold for they did none of these things Mr. Cragg goes on Argument 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater are capable of Baptism which is the lesser But infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser To which I answer The major is false if it were true it would follow infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater therefore they are capable of the Lords Supper Ordination to the Ministery Church-discipline which are the less Though into the Kingdom of Heaven infants be admitted by God who knows who are his without any visible expression yet into the visible Church persons are not admitted without visible testimony of their faith of which sort were all added to the Church Acts 2. 47. Not one of those Texts Mark 10. 13. to 17. Mark 9. 14 36 37. Mat. 18. 2 3 4. Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Luke 9. 14 15. Luke 18. 15 16. severall nor all joyntly prove infants visible Church-members The kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. is not the visible Church for into it such as are not humble as little children may enter which our Saviour denies v. 15. but the same with the Kingdom v. 23 24 25. into which it is so hard and impossible for a rich man or one that trusts in riches to enter which is called v. 17 30 eternal life It is false that Christ saith The Angels of little ones in age see the face of his Father which is in Heaven But of little ones in spirit who are converted and believe in Christ Matth 18. 3 6 10. for whose sake they are sent Heb. 1. 14. They are but Paedebaptists dreams that the three Evangelists recorded Christs blessing little ones to check Antipaedobaptists or to declare that which Mr. Cragg cals a precious truth though it be a very ly and may be gathered to be so even from the story For sure if infants had been to be baptized Christ would have then appointed them to be baptized and blamed his Apostles for not doing it And therefore Mr. Craggs questions are answered by questions 1. Doth Christ take children in his arms and would be have all put out of his visible Church Answ. Doth Christ no more but take them up in his arms lay his hands on them and bless them And shall we presume to do more without any warrant of his even to admit them into his visible Church by Baptism 2. Would he have us receive them in his Name and yet not receive them into his visible Church c Answ Where doth Christ ever bid us receive little children in age Where did he ever send them that they might be received in his name must we make Christs words to import that which we would in another censure as a spice of madnesse when he hath told us plainly they are his Apostles and other Preachers he hath sent whom we are to receive in his name Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 48. though they are as mean and contemptible as a little child How should children be received but by providing Nurses would Christ have us provide Nurses for little children our Lord Christ expresseth a cup of cold water to drink as some part of the reception in his name Mark 9. 41. Is this a thing fit to entertain an infant with This is enough to answer Mr. Craggs frivolous questions And in answer to the words of Mr. Baxter who is the godly and reverend Divine he means I say for my part seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by and his word that I must be judged by and he hath given so full a discovery of his will in this point I will boldly adventure to follow his rule to baptize disciples professing faith and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for not admitting by baptism those he never appointed to be baptized than to adventure upon the doing like Uzzah upon mine own head that which doth prophane the ordinance of baptism and corrupt the Church of Christ Mr. Craggs sixt argument is Infants are disciples therefore they may be baptized The antecedent he would prove from Acts 15. 10. in that it was circumcision which was the yoke which he proves from ver. 5. But he confesseth it was not circumcision only but the attendants and that it is no shift but a cleer truth that it is not circumcision as acted on infants but as taught imposed on the consciences of believing Gentiles with the rest of Moses his Law as necessary to salvation by some teachers which cannot be said of infants is so manifest from the text that I dare boldly say they that assert that by disciples Acts 15. 10. are meant do but wrangle against cleer light

Law they are in Covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons for then it should be extended to more sorts than the Covenant of the Law was but to the meliority of the promises which were of better things or better terms then the promises of the Law but not to any other than elect and true believers and so not to infants as the natural seed of believers And for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity nor do know what ordinary means of salvation he conceives they are left without except baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the word c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his Spirit What I said that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham was right and determined so Rom. 4. 11 12 16. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 29. John 8. 39. c. Nor is it true because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same Covenant national to the natural seed of believers as was to Abraham but that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. should be fellowheirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Nor is it ture That the Gospel Covenant is made with the whole visible Church as the Gospel Covenant is expressed Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. And if I denied the Major pag. 29. in the first argument I confess I was mistaken through inadvertency whether by reason of Mr. Craggs fast speaking or some humane infirmity or some other occuirence now not remembred I cannot tell But I deny the Minor understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb. 8. 10. and the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Churchmember But I perceive by Mr. Craggs words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the question were only the elect c. that the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvel I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. Craggs meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. Cragg saith That it was the question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them only yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. Cragg by confounding these terms to be in Covenant to be subjects of baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers The next text Mr. Cragg brought was Isaiah 49. 22. whence he would prove that Infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel To which my answer was at first though it was otherwise taken that it is a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring back the Jewes not only infants but others from captivity which the words before verse 19 20 21. and after verse 24 25. do plainly evince and this is given as the meaning by the New Annotations made by Mr. Gataker who doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus Nor is there in the Contents of the Chapter which Mr. Cragg without ground makes the judgement of the Church of England any thing to the contrary but the words which are 18. The ample restauration of the Church 24. The powerfull deliverance out of the Captivity do rather confirm this If any people laughed at this they shewed their ignorance and Mr. Cragg shewed his heedlessness when he said That it was an addition to the text that the Gentiles should bring the lewes when the very distinction of thy children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jewes otherwise it should have been their children in the third person not thine in the second nor can it be meant of Gods children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Though I deny not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel but not to Mr. Craggs purpose of bringing infants to baptism which hath no colour from the text Which appears by considering Mr. Craggs answer to my questions put forth needfully to cleer the text For 1. if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to baptism then the sense should be that Supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bringinfants in their arms and carrythem on shoulders to baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too srivolous to be made the matter of that prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor wch Mr. Cragg granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. Craggs application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those Annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hester as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing mother to the Jewes I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. Craggs dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Mr. Gataker As for what I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor prove they were infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches And so there 's no interfering in my words The next text was Isaiah 65. 20. in reading which Mr. Cragg left out those words nor an old man that hath not filled his daies nor would read them nor the words

of the Anabaptists and their children yet would he be ashamed to say as he doth here of them That they are as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals But that which he closeth with sheweth he was minded to affright the poor ignorant people as the Popish Priests did of old Fourthly saith he They would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the children of God but would all be damned for out of covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation Answ. By Covenant he means doubtless no other than the outward covenant which is not shewed to be any other than baptism and indeed we do no otherwise put them out of the Covenant than by denying them baptism which being presupposed Mr. Craggs speech must needs imply that denying baptism inferrs all this Which cannot be true without conceiving That all that are unbaptized are without God without Christ without hope in the world not the children of God but of the Devil will be all damned have no salvation Which is not only more than what the Epistler makes hainous in me all that would be saved must be baptized after profession though it were understood by me onely of necessity of precept which Mr. Cragg himself asserts to be imported Mark 16. 16. but worse than Austin sayes whom Mr. Cragg himself called the hard Father of infants and saies went too far worse than the Papists themselves speak of the dying unbaptized Which shews that he preached this Sermon with a bitter and furious spirit His closing speech out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation if understood of the Covenant of saving according to election I grant that neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily is there salvation if of the outward Covenant as they call it that is the outward administration of Seals it is certain there may be salvation unless profane contempt or willfull neglect against conscience do hinder salvation The speech out of the Church is no salvation hath been interpreted by Protestants of the invisible Church A person of years that believes though he be joined to no particular visible Church if there be not prophane contempt or wilful neglect against conscience may be saved But they that are only negatively or privatively out of the Church visible meerly for want of age to understand the faith and ability to make profession may ordinarily if by it be meant frequently constantly be saved though they be not ordinarily saved as ordinarily notes ordinary means preaching the word and profession of faith His last argument is 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 Ergo The minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my Exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that imbraced it only but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may ruly say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a root of corrupting the Churches and losing the gifts of the Spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. Cragg thinks to draw it down from the Apostles daies He begins with words of Dionysius Areopagita holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. Cragg vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meer counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmasius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fifth age The Apostolical constitutions appear by many observations of Scultetus and others not to have been written by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. Cragg as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Origens speeches are in the Latin books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foisted by him and these its probable were so as being so expresse against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most Ancient testimonies he could for Original sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vossius in his Theses of infant-baptism We less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprians testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and innumerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the Ancients did not baptize infants and in that case the communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing parents till they came to years and then they were first catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before baptism It is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant-baptism Some Churches never had it some Churches five hundred years ago of the most godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers only If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists hereticks it was for other tenents than this Mr. Baxter himself saith no sober Divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. Yet Mr. Cragg bespatters Anti-paedobaptism thus it robs 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 Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining somewhat will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venome behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians Will any believe that from the tenet which doth so stifly maintain an Ordinance should spring the errour of being above Ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that tenet which doth so strictly insist on the Scripture Let Mr. Cragg shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if only the persons and not the tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian religion is the mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Cerinthians Nicolaitans Gnosticks c. Such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in a pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence The like may I say of the judgements of God Those in Germany were by war the events that have happened in our daies should teach us to be sparing in our judging Mr. Cottons speech was according to his prejudice Solomon Eccles. 9. 1 2. Christ Luke 13. 1 2 3 4 5. teach us more sobriety than so easily to pronounce of Gods judgements If we should judge of men and tenents by outward judgements Job had been condemned justly One man had his house burned that did not sprinkle his child thousands have had their houses burned who did and perhaps upon occasion of that abuse by means of provision for the feast May not we as well say God thereby judged against infant-sprinkling Thousands have prospered after their refusing to baptize infants thousands have fain into calamities after they have baptized them May not we this way as well decide for Antipaedobaptists as against them Divines that maintain the Scriptures to be their rule should not thus judge of what is true or false by Gods dealing with mens persons which is often upon secret reason not discemable by us but by his word which is our rule and wherein he hath revealed his mind The rest of Mr. Craggs speech is as vain Doth this benefit come to parents and children by infant baptism that God is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Heb. 11. 16. what a ridiculous conceit is this The text saith that through the faith of the persons it is that God is not ashamed to be called their God not their God and the God of their seed much less a word of infant-baptism as if such a benefit came by it All the benefit he talks of that comes to infants is either a meer empty title or else it comes to infants as well without baptism as with it The Devils dealing if it be as Mr. Cragg saith makes it appear the faith is good into which the pretended baptism is but not that the Baptism is right Enough of this frothy unconcocted Sermon calculated for the ignorant and superstitious common people and the profane loose Gentry who mind not godliness in earnest and for the blind Teachers of those parts who know not the Gospel but mind their own profits more than the understanding of the truth From whom the Lord deliver the dark parts of this Land and provide teachers for the people after his own heart that it be not as now it is in too many parts The blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch FINIS