Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	particular_a	universal_a	3,369	5	9.3348	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B23662	The controversie about infants church-membership and baptism, epitomized in two treatises the first, shewing the certainty of the salvation of all dying infants, against the doctrine of the Pædo-baptists, who deny salvation to all infants that die unbaptized, either directly, or by the natural consequence of their arguments : the second, being a plain confutation of Mr. J.B. his second book of more than 60 queries, about infants church-membership and baptism, by a proportionable number of antiqueries : being an essay towards a more Christian accomodation between the Pædo-baptists, and the baptized believers, published for that happy end / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Querist examined.	1680 (1680)	Wing G1529	50,899	65

And is it not therefore said Gen. 17. 14. That such Men children as were not Circumcised should be cut off from his People because they had broken the Covenant And is it not plain then that these Children were already in Covenant and of the Church else they could not be cut off And yet whether any thing here threatned concern the Eternal State of Infants Shall we think that God would damn them to Hell because their Parents neglected to Circumcise them Or is it like a Covenant of Grace to make such a Ceremony so absolutely necessary to the Salvation of Infants Now seeing Infants were not made Members of the Church much less of Heaven by Circumcision what need we assert the Repeal of their Membership in the Church as it contains the whole People of God but the Repeal of Circumcision is evident and there-withal they are freed from any Obligation to the Duties of Religion unless it can be shewed that God hath appointed the contrary which never yet could be shewed Thus if we give you all the advantage imaginable yet nothing accrues to your Cause from this instance of Circumcision till you can shew Authority from God to Baptize Infants as plain as they had to Circumcise Infants For does not one of your own Way tell us That Circumcision is a fine Historical Argument Mr. Brooks to illustrate a Point well proved before but is not this that wherein you always fail i. e. to prove by plain Scripture what you promised J. B. 11. If the Law of Infant Church-Membership was no part of the Ceremonial or meerly Judicial Law nor yet of the Law of Works how can you say it is Repealed seeing no other Laws are Repealed c. T. G. Whether these words The Law of Infant Church-Membership be a lawful Speech And by what Law will you make it good But not to contend about words if by Law you mean the Covenant of Grace made with lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. Then whether we do not assert it to be in force more fully than you do But if you mean any other Covenant save this for the often repetition of it makes it not another Covenant then we say it is your duty to assign or shew that Law or Covenant and we will consider it mean while take notice That for the Repeal of that temporary Order once used to admit Infants to Ceremonies in Religion is shewed and generally granted to be repealed in the Repeal of Circumcision and no Institution or Ceremony since the Repeal ordained for Infants and this is the Point in question Why then go you about to wheedle us with a noise of words of a Law of Infant Church-Membership unrepealed A Law c. unrepealed And whether you or Mr. Baxter either can in the sight of your own Consciences say that you well understand what you say And here I shall advertise the Reader that as the remainder of the Queries we are to reckon with are less specious than these we have examined so let it be remembred That we have granted and do now once more assert that by virtue of the Covenant of Grace made with fallen Adam and all Mankind in him Infants stand in a state of Grace published by God himself to Man so that they are visibly in a state of Salvation nor will God break this Covenant it is unalterable for he is faithful Infants do not transgress against it therefore they stand in this Covenant This Covenant was and is the Church-Covenant n●w confirmed by Christ the faithful Witness of it And by this Covenant Infants are Members of his Vniversal Church his Body that shall be saved In the time of the Law when this Covenant was much Vailed or hid under Shadows Rom. 16. 25 26. God was pleased to admit Infants to sundry of the Carnal Ordinances of the Law but now the Mystery of the Gospel being displayed to all Nations and the Worship of the Gospel being heightned to a very Spiritual Nature God hath not engaged Infants in these Services as he did in the time of the Law Our Adversary thinks otherwise this is our Difference try seriously and judg righteously DIVISION IV. About Infants visible Church-Membership J. B. 1. Is it not clear that there is an Vniversal visible Church and that every one that is a Member of a particular Church is also a Member of the Vniversal And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Vniversal and that this Vniversal is not dissolved Now must not he that will affirm the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Vniversal visible Church prove it well T. G. Whether this Query be not grounded on meer Fancies for though they that are Members of a particular Church are Members of the Universal Church yet dare you say or think that none are Members of the Universal which are not also Members of a particular Church Is not this the Dream with which you are Infatuated to hold the Damnation of all Infants yea of all Persons who are not Members of some particular Church And where do you find that Infants are cast out of the Universal Church if they are not Baptized is the Universal Church no larger than the Number of the Baptized Can you think that the Uncircumcised Infant was cast out of the Universal Church Suppose they were neglected till the 10th 20th or 40th day c. will you imagine them to be the Subjects of the Devil What strange conceits have you of God It 's true the Uncircumcised were cut off from the particular Society of the Jews but did that Society constitute the Universal Church Were none what not an Infant in all the World in a visible state of Salvation except those in that Society Me-thinks Rom. 2. well considered should teach you to think otherwise And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace if Infants be so liable to be cast out of the Universal Church as you suggest But why do you call the Universal Church Visible Is not this a visible Mistake And whether the latter part of this Query be pertinent unless it be against your self For if the removal of Persons whether Infants or others out of a particular Church be no found Argument that they are removed out of the Universal Church then seeing the visible Professors of the Truth in this World are but a part and perhaps no very great part of the Universal Church may not Infants remain in the Universal Church though not incorporated or imbedied with any particular Church practizing the Ordinances of God J. B. 2. Is not that false Doctrine which makes the Children of the Faithful to be in as bad or a worse condition than the Curse Deut. 28. 32 41. doth make the Children of Covenant-breakers to be in c. T. G. Is not this an injurious surmise As if none were blessed in the Fruit of their Body but you whose Infants are Crossed or Sprinkled But who puts Infants out of the whole

Mercy to take away a Mercy except it be to give a greater Mercy in stead of it c. T. G. Though we might say much of the Justice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumcision and therewith the Infant Church-Membership once allowed in the Jewish Church yet how dare you say that this was to the hurt of any Person whether Infant or any other But we will abide by this that God made this Repeal in Mercy And how should you not see that to be set at Liberty from the Yoke of the Law and from Circumcision which made them Debtors to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy And was it not needful to abrogate the first or old Covenant that he might establish the new or second Covenant In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant yet we are sufficiently recompensed in the assurance given us by Christ concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven and his blessing them without Baptizing them that so they are as happy whilst Infants as we can desire they should be And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumcision As for the Capacity of those who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant is it not expresly thus That the Law of Christ should be put in their Hearts and written in their Minds Heb. 8. And So God to be their God and they to be his People as knowing him from the least of them to the greatest And whether in these respects any Infant can from Truth or Reason be said to be in the New Covenant And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Visible Company or Church seeing they know not God And yet is it not very evident that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them from our Saviour's Testimony that of such is the Kingdom of God Again Was not Infants partaking of the Passover and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law as great Mercies as their being circumcised And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of these and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy And whilst you deceitfully lay the stress of the word Mercy upon your Sprinkling of Infants do you not invalidate the substance of those Types which being come for the Salvation of Infants as well as others is their sufficient Passover though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine as the Adult ought and do And is not the true Jubilee which came by Christ a sufficient Gain in stead of the Jewish Jubilee both to the Adult and to Infants though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in stead thereof Especially not Infants seeing they know not the sound of the Gospel J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate meaning to be without hope but Church-Members c. T. G. Will Ephes 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were saved Does not that Scripture Rom. 2. 14 15 26 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteousness of the Law shall be as much excused in the Day of Judgment as the Jews who kept the Law And do you not here espouse that Doctrine Out of the Church is no Salvation Not considering that the Vniversal Body of Christ may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Visible Company of such as worship God in the use of Legal or Gospel Institutions And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but those that are Sprinkled or Crossed by the Pedo-baptists And will not the Text Acts 2. 47. alleged by you if compared with Acts 5. 14. make against you Seeing those that were added to the Church were not Infants but Men and Women J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth c. T. G. If I might follow your Fancy I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church to see an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven And why then do not you admit them here on Earth But is it not childish in you to suppose that any shall be Infants when in Heaven Seeing according to Austin they are called Infants A non fando because they cannot speak may we not more rationally believe that what is lost of stature and knowledg by the Sin of Adam shall be restor'd by the Righteousness of Christ And are not Infants as frequently seen in the Assemblies of the Baptists as in yours And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you And what do your Infants partake of except your Tradition of Sprinkling them which ours do not as fully enjoy And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptism of their little ones as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table If your delay make them more fit for the one does not ours make them more fit for the other If ours die without the one do not yours die without the other What cause then of your murmuring For who casts Infants out of the Church Is not this a Barbarism For if they be in we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there by timely Instruction and by imploring God's Blessing for them and you do no more only you Cross or Sprinkle them This is your all on this you build your hope for your dying Infants This your Tradition is therefore your Idol This is that small parcel of bad Wooll about which you make this hideous Cry as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unless this be done Why are you so Imprudent DIVISION III. Concerning Rom. 11. 17. J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore the rest remained in the Gift was not Repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members c. T. G. Here you seem to hold that the Church in her Legal state and in her Evangelical state were both one in such a sense as that he that by Faith was added to the Christian Church was not broken off from the Jewish Church Hence I Query Does not Paul plainly shew Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Christian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband When therefore she ceased to be a Wife upon the account of the Law did she not then cease to be a Church on that account that she might now be married to another even to Christ and so bring forth Fruit unto God Why then should these words some were

Baptism operates not by its signification till the Child comes to Reason and you will not say it operates by the Work wrought Why then cannot you let the Child stay till he have the use of Reason And is it not absurd in you to say that your Sprinkling assures the Parent of Heaven for his Infant as a Lease assures him of an Estate And why then did you tell us it was not the certainty of Salvation which you disputed for What strange comfort do you give Parents concerning their Infants Would any Parent value such a Lease as only names his Child but gives no certain right to the Inheritance Nay for ought he knows the Estate is more certain to one that is not named in the Lease for that 's the true Import of your holding some dying Infants are damned but what a wretched Interest do you give the Child whilst it rests upon the condition of the Father's Faith Poor Child if thy Father's Faith be false as many are corrupt in that case or if he fall from the Faith as many do what is then become of thy Interest May not you as Augustine before you be truly called Durus Pater Infantium You suggest as if the Child's Baptism will operate as soon as it comes to the use of Reason but that is false by all Experience he must have better means than your Sprinkling or he shall never be a Christian You urge the Sinlessness of Christ But suppose your Infants were as Sinless as he would that intitle them to Baptism I dare say you would hold it an Argument to the contrary And what though Christ was not buried with Christ in Baptism Yet is that a Warrant for you to Baptize those that cannot be buried with Christ in Baptism And whether would your Fancies lead us at last should we admit your Argumentation in other Cases J. B. 4. If you object How can an Infant covenant with God or be engaged by this Sign To this if only the Aged are capable of Engagement may you not thence conclude that no Infant was ever circumcised But may not that be the Childs action Morally or in a Law-sence which is only the Fathers action Physically As when a Man puts his Childs name into a Lease c. T. G. Whether you do not here grant the circumcised Child did not covenant with God properly but in a Law-sence And do we not grant this because there was a Law for it There was also once a Law for the Circumcision of Trees Lev. 19. 23. Take away his foreskin which is his Fruit. Ital. Transl Now shew us your Law for your Mode of admitting Members viz. Sprinkling of Infants and we will dispute no farther And would you not count us very unwise if we should Baptize our Trees because the Jews did Circumcise theirs And then why may not we count you as unwise to Baptize Infants because the Jews did Circumcise Infants But what Book of God taught you this fine distinction viz. That my Baptism must be anothers act Physically and mine Morally And let this Fancy run and what Ordinance can you deny an Infant which his Father may perform Physically i. e. As he may put his Childs name into a Lease which is the thing you refer us to to understand your distinction by J. B. 5. Another common Objection is If Infants must be Baptized why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper To which may not the very external nature of the Sacraments satisfie you c. T. G. Why do you not see your Error Does not Dr. Taylor tell you The Wit of Man is not able to shew in this case a difference in these Ordinances And are not little Children as capable to receive a small quantity of Bread and Wine as to be Baptized And did not Men admit them to both for five or six hundred Years together Does not the Apostle say of the whole Church who were engaged in the Christian Worship We are one Body and one Bread even as we all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. And might not any Man argue as strongly from hence for Infant Communion as you from any other Text for Infant Baptism And does not God's requiring Repentance of every one that is to be Baptized Acts 2. 37 38. restrain Baptism to such as 1 Cor. 11. restrains the Supper to such as examine themselves And does not your Instance of a Burgess-Infant make against you whilst you confess he is not born to Trade on his Infancy Why then should Infants Trade in the Mysteries of the Gospel though born to the Grace of Life held forth to Mankind in the Gospel J. B. 6. It bath been objected That if it be the will of God that Infants should be Baptized it is strange that he hath left it so dark To which will you not grant that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism c. T. G. Dare you say that all that are under the benefit of the Covenant of Grace must be Baptized And yet are not all such of the Universal Church Are none of the Infants of the Jews of the Kingdom of God and yet you will say they must be Baptized Is it not as plain that all Church-Members must eat and drink at the Lord's Table as that they are all to be Baptized Does not Christ say Drink ye all this Does not Paul say We being many are one Body for we are all partakers of that Bread Let Infants then be never so truly of the Church as she contains the whole Body of Christ yet are they not of that Body which are bound to put on Christ in Baptism and to continue stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine in breaking of Bread and Prayers And whether the remainder of this Query hath not been considered before J. B. 7. Another Objection is The evil consequences of Infant-Baptism as gross Ignorance much occasioned by it To which 1. Is not the Lord Jesus himself the occasion of the ruine and damnation of Multitudes Luke 2. 34. 2. Can you shew what there is in the nature of the thing that should be hurtful to any c. T. G. Is not that of very evil Consequence that naturally tends to deprive all Men of the sacerd Ordinance of God the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sin Can you devise any way so natural to fill the Church with Unregenerated Persons And is not this a great evil when God hath ordained the New Birth as necessary to Membership in his Gospel-Church Do you not evidently turn things upside down And contradict our Saviour John 3. 3 5. and his Apostle Gal. 3. 26. And is not this evil Is it not evil to speak a word in the Name of the Lord which he never commanded How dare you then say you Baptize an Infant in the Name of the Lord when you cannot but know you speak falsly in his Name and can shew no Authority from Heaven for Baptizing Infants if you