Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	covenant_n	righteousness_n	seal_n	7,900	5	9.9242	5	false

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

to believe our Infants as happy though not Baptized as any Infant of the Faithful in the Old World And did not Augustine think Infants as miserable if they died without the Lord's Supper as you think them to be if they die without being Crossed or Sprinkled And yet do not you believe he was deceived And are we not as justifiable to believe that you are also deceived Is it not as needful to feed upon Christ in the holy Supper as to put on Christ in holy Baptism Can you have comfort concerning your Infants in the want of the one and must we have none concerning our Infants in the want of the other And what is now become of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. if Infants can have no benefit by it but on the condition of their Parents works of bringing them into the Church by your Tradition as you suggest in the latter part of this Query J. B. 7. If the Church be not in a worse state now will it not follow that our Children ougbt to be admitted Church-Members c. T. G. Whether this be not a false suggestion which keeps company with most of your Queries viz. That all Infants which are not brought to some Rite or Ceremony are put out of the Church Were the Infants of six days old in Israel put out of the Church Did not thousands of Infants die before they were admitted to Circumcision And if they were in the Church before it were lawful to Circumcise them why may not ours be in the Church as well as the Infants of six days old in Israel before and until it be lawful to Baptize them May we not do well to nurture and fit them for Baptism as they nursed and fitted them for Circumcision And what though our Work may require more Years than they theirs did Days yet we making all the speed that God requires are we not as excusable as they And what though some of our Children die before they can be fitted for Baptism Did not some of theirs die before they could be fitted for Circumcision And why may not we have comfort in our disappointments by Death as well as they when so disappointed And suppose our Children refuse to be Baptized when they come to understanding and will not be fitted for it by all that we can do what comfort would it be to have had them Sprinkled in their Infancy when now we find them reject Faith and Repentance the most substantial parts of true Baptism J. B. 9. If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church are they not in a worse condition than the very Children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ T. G. Do you not abuse the World to talk at this rate as if either God or we put Infants out of the Church when the only Question is about their admission to such or such Duties of Religion Wherein yet you do the same in many cases as I have shewed which we do in the case of Baptism And if any have in the heats of Disputation absolutely denied Infants to be of the Church yet you know their sence is only to deny your way of making them Church-Members Not but that they all assert Infants to be of the Body of Christ of the number of the saved and so of the Church And I here assert they are of the Visible Church because by the Word of God declared to be accepted of God to the Grace of Life through Christ But we put no Infants out of the Church For example I have had many Children for which I give thanks to God as soon as he gives them to me I do by Prayer to God devote and heartily commit them to him and by his Grace I do my best to teach them the Knowledg and Fear of God as they grow up and I bless God with this success that all that yet are capable have been Baptized And now wherein am I to be charged for putting my Children out of the Church And if I be Innocent as I know I am in this then I hope the Churches of the same Faith are as excusable And whether if there were faithful Ministers of Christ in every Parish it might not be a more likely way to bring Souls to true Christianity to instruct the Children twice or thrice a Week especially such Children whose Parents cannot instruct them as soon as they could learn and so to fit them for Baptism than to run to the Minister with them to be Baptized in their Infancy when God knows neither the Infants Priests nor their Parents know what they do J. B. 9. Was not the Covenant Deut. 29. 10 11 12. a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which was Repealed How then is it or Infants Church-Membership grounded on it Repealed c. T. G. Seeing this Covenant Deut. 29. obliged the Israelites to the whole Law and left them under the Curse of the Law if they kept it not as appears by reading Deut. 29. and 30th Chapters will it not follow that all the parts of this Covenant was not of the Covenant of Grace Indeed some things repeated or expressed here might pertain to the Covenant of Grace But what then Why Infants Church-Membership say you is grounded upon it And I pray who denies that by the Covenant of Grace Infants are Members of Christ of his Body or the Universal Church But what then must they therefore be brought to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church visibly professing the Worship of God in all Ages as much as in any Age This indeed is your false Inference and with this you delude your self and others And how long will it be ere you make the Covenant Deut. 29. and 30. agree with that which you quote out of Rom. 10. Heb. 10. in all Points And if they differ in any thing why may it not be in this the one admitted Infants to Circumcision and other Rites of the Law the other only brings those that know the Lord by the word of Faith being in their Heart and Mouth to partake of Institutions of the Gospel J. B. 10. If Infants then were entered Members by that Circumcision which was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith How comes that Church-Membership to be Repealed T. G. Not to contend with you whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any that had not the Faith of Abraham though plain Truth and all good Reason seems to be full against you yet to concess a little to see the most you can say how do you prove that none were Church-Members before they were Circumcised And how was Abraham admitted a Member of the Church by Circumcision Was he not a Member of the Church before he was Circumcised Was not Isaac a Member of the Church before he was eight Days old Were they not Circumcised because God had taken them into a Church-Covenant rather than to enter them into a Church-Covenant

Church-Membership And yet I do not at all doubt that Infant-Baptism will remain without any ground at all SECT II. And this I shall demonstrate by shewing That all Infants are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed state till by their voluntary departure from God by choosing sinful ways they destroy themselves And here we will make our entrance by a passage out of Mr. Baxter himself who saith All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain nor repealed by God But as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam Mr. Baxter's more Reasons pag. 8. 6. so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah Now this Doctrine being no more than plain truth we shall apply it to the case in hand by shewing First That this Covenant of Grace was a visible Church-Covenant 2. That it was made with all Mankind and takes place in their Infancy 3. That it was never repealed by God 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant And therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly They all stand visible Members of the Catholick Church by virtue of this Covenant however their Parents do abuse or neglect it and hence it will follow no dying Infant is Damned but are all in a visible state of Salvation 1. That this Covenant of Grace first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World that we read of from Adam to Noah this being indeed all the Covenant that is named during these Times besides that Covenant of Intire Nature made before the Fall And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam and in him by all his Posterity it being not a Covenant of Grace could not justifie the Offenders in the ●ight of God There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace or Mercy from God else Adam even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins must have stood under Condemnation for ever seeing no Man could by any means redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the Visible Church began in Adam and that his Family was the Church wherefore the whole World being then the Church and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World that was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they come into the World in all the several Ages of it are in a visible state of Salvation and so of the Catholick Church of God But whereas many did Apostatize from the Grace of God's Covenant by corrupting his way Gen. 6. 12. It was necessary that they should be ejected and therefore was the Covenant accommodated and appropriated to those who had not sinned themselves out of it but still the Innocent must not be ejected with the Nocent for it is he only that sinneth whose Name shall be blotted out of the Book which God hath written Gen. 32. 32 33. And therefore neither the Method which God took with Noah in settling the Covenant of his Grace nor yet that Order which he observed with Abraham was exclusive of any Infant in the World as to the Grace of God in order to Eternal Life no more than the establishment of it by Christ in the Gospel in a far more excellent order for distinguishing the Precious from the Vile is in any wise exclusive of any dying Infant for of such is the Kingdom of God Nor can any Man shew either by Scripture or Reason that God will shut out all the dying Infants of wicked Men from Life and Salvation by Christ no nor so much as any one of them for we are sure that the Judgment of God is according to truth that the Judge of all the Earth will do right That the Condemned shall be judged according to the deeds done in the Body but alas as for poor Infants what have they done 2. That this Covenant was made with all Mankind is thus cleared because it was made with Adam without the least intimation of the exclusion of any part of his Posterity as they proceed from him to the end of the World neither hath God himself explained the Covenant of Grace to be Exclusive of any but for the cause of their own iniquity and this was evident first in the case of Cain who not being faithful in his offering was not accepted Yet God was pleased to shew him the cause Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted It should seem God never rejected him till this time neither did he now delight to reject him but graciously expostulates with Cain to convince him of his evil and assures him of acceptation if he did well If then Cain had an interest in the Grace of God who can we suppose to be shut out till they with Cain shut themselves out of it Evident it is that the Covenant of Grace extended to those Rebels in the Old World because we read the long suffering of God waited on them and he gave them time of Repentance and sent a Preacher of Righteousness even the Righteousness of Faith among them Heb. 11. 7. 2 Pet. 2. 5. therefore it is said Christ went by his Spirit and preached to them 1 Pet. 3. though none of them believed his Word Now such Acts on God's part are great Evidences of his Graciousness towards Men and shews that he remembers his Covenant made in Christ with them even for them that rebel against him and so perish And then how shall we think that he should not be gracious to poor Infants who never rebelled against him 3. The Covenant of Grace was never repealed by God for if it be there is now no Covenant at all nor can it be repealed to one Man but it must be repealed to all Men. 'T is true Men may forfeit the Mercy held forth in that Covenant but the Covenant cannot be repealed for then there can be no certainty of any Mercy for Sinners Christ himself may as soon be made Null as this Covenant For what if some Apostatize or do not believe shall this make the Grace of God without effect God forbid When we continually see that Covenant of God's Grace displayed making overtures of kindness to Sinners even to the chief of Sinners what shall we say if any Infant be without a part in that Covenant Is he not then the chief of Sinners It is not then the Sin of Parents that can repeal the Covenant of Grace with respect to Infants 4. No Infants did ever abuse the Grace of the Covenant made with them in Adam

Justification of Life might abound towards them by the Obedience of Christ Now either Infants are thus in Covenant with God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all For the Covenant of pure Nature as Mr. Baxter terms it made with Adam concerns not Infants but as the breach of it is imputed to the Lump of Mankind And the Law of Works concerns not Infants For to them it cannot be said The Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say Infants are in no Covenant with God is to rank them with Devils and the vilest of Men. But seeing Mr. Baxter grants the Covenant made with Noah Gen. 9. to be the Covenant of Grace and the Scripture tells us That it is an everlasting Covenant and made with Noah and his Sons and with their Seed after them and consequently with all Infants for it is not Vain or Repealed till Men abuse the Mercy of it to this Mr. Baxter consents And indeed should it be otherwise God should deal worse with poor Infants than with the Beasts of the Field for he was pleased to make a Covenant with them even every living Creature of them which also was very gracious according to their state and condition and shall we think that he whose tender Mercies are over all his Works will exclude the Infants of the greatest part of Mankind from his Gracious Covenant No He hath said He will remember his Covenant which he hath made with all Flesh Gen. 9. 9. No Man can prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned in Hell Torments therefore no dying Infant shall be damned There is nothing to be held as an Opinion or Point of Faith but upon clear Proof or Rational Demonstration Now though it has been often delivered from the Pulpits that many Infants are yelling in Hell yea Infants of a Span long for such and such offences of their Parents yet this is only said but no proof to make it good I find Dr. Fulk saying That Calvin holdeth Dr. Fulk all Infants under the sentence of eternal Damnation only he admits that such Infants as are Elect and Born again by the Spirit of God may be saved But I find no proof that any Infants are Reprobated to eternal Damnation neither does the holy Scripture say any such thing And whilst Diodate expounds Rom. 9. 12. modestly and soundly he goes back to his harsh opinion of God's casting Esau when or before he was born out of his Love as a Father in what he says upon the 13th ver as if God's Love were taken away from poor Infants But this is no proof that God hath Reprobated any dying Infant for if we admit their Gloss yet God that knew what Esau would be in time did here foreshew what in time should be effected Esau lived to be a Man and a very 〈…〉 l Man God knew all this before Esau is not to be ranked wit 〈…〉 ying Infants therefore the Instance of Esau is nothing to the pu●●ose and this Instance failing as it evidently doth I am sure ●here is not the least shew of proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of dying Infants and therefore no Man ought to believe such a strange and windy Doctrine nor trouble the World nor the Church about it 10. To hold Infants to be Damned is contrary to all good Reason When Paul prayed To be delivered from unreasonable Men for that all Men had not Faith He seems to make Reason a Friend and no Enemy to Faith Now when we hear that wicked Men shall be damned because they received not the Love of the Truth that they might be saved here Reason presently consents to the Judgment of God And when we hear that Men will not be persuaded by Moses the Prophets or one that should rise from the Dead how justly are they punished by that God whose Grace they have so grossly contemned Yea these and many like Instances are according to the common Rules of Justice But now to place poor innocent Babes among these damned ones that they should be tormented with the Devil and his Angels who only was born to cry and die and sometimes to die before they should cry is so cruel a Conceit so inconsistent with Justice as far as the Reason of Man can conceive what is equal that nothing can be more Cruel It looks as if God took pleasure to send poor Creatures to Hell For these poor Infants many of them according to this Scriptureless Doctrine were but created on purpose to be Damned and nothing else some never seeing so much as the Light of this World and yet must be punished with the Devil to Eternity O shameful Doctrine unfit for the Tongue of a Christian to tell the World Infants yea of a Span long are yelling in Hell Will you charge the God of Love yea that God who is Love with these Cruelties Are these his doings Why have you painted him in your Sermons with such bloody Colours Is it to force on your Pedo-rantism O wretched Cause that cannot stand unless the Mercy of God to the greatest part of Infants be impeached We say not that Reason is the chief judge in this Question yet when we meet with Scriptureless Doctrines 't is not unlawful to refute them by Reason And here I again declare that this Error of holding Infants damned without Baptism was the ground of that innovation of Pedo-baptism For thus saith the 5 Con. de Carth. We will that whoever denies that little Children by Baptism are freed from Perdition and eternally saved that they be accursed Wherefore take away this false ground by shewing the Salvation of all dying Infants and then INFANT-BAPTISM vanisheth THE QUERIST EXAMINED The Second Part. WHEREIN More than Sixty Queries taken out of the Works of Mr. R. Baxter by J. B. the Author of Fifty former Queries are Refuted BY A proportionable Number of Antiqueries SHEWING The Insufficiency of the Plea for Infant-Baptism urged by Mr. B. and Mr. J. B. from their visible Church-Membership WHICH Being granted so far and in such a sense as Truth or Reason will Warrant is against and no way for the Baptizing of Infants By THOMAS GRANTHAM Printed in the Year 1679. DIVISION I. About the silence of the Scripture concerning Infant-Baptism IT is certain That to multiply Questions is the ready way to darken Counsel and to intangle the understanding of the weak or unwary Reader Yet thus hath Mr. J. B. been pleased to incumber the Doctrine of Baptism with more than an hundred Queries which being set down in their exact Number would be more than five hundred Queries By which frivolous way of Writing it were easie to involve the Christian Profession in endless Controversies Howbeit as I have formerly redargued the first Book of his Queries so lest he should suppose these to be unanswerable I think it may do some service to the Truth to shew briefly the vanity of his second Book also It would

Visible Church Do we not maintain the Church-Membership of Infants as far as Scripture will bear it First By the Covenant of Grace made with all Mankind and now confirmed by Christ by whom they are blessed and pronounced to be of the Kingdom of God 2. According to the Law or Covenant of Circumcision during the term of the Law till Faith came or till the time of Reformation J. B. 3. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the Visible Church of Christ leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil c. T. G. Is not this a Diabolical surmise Are any Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil Are your Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till you Sprinkle them Did not Christ declare them to be of the Kingdom of God when yet not one Infant that we read of was Baptized And what if your Crossing or Sprinkling prove no true Baptism will it not follow from this your injurious Doctrine that all your Infants are of the Kingdom of the Devil Are any of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till they submit to his Delusions and can you charge Infants with this Be ashamed O ye Presbyterians of this J. B. 4. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the Justification or Salvation of any dying Infants in the World c. T. G. Is not this Query a meer foolish out-cry How plainly do you here damn all Infants that are not Sprinkled Is not this the only cause of all this Clamour What Doctrine can be more mischievous than this J. B. 5. What a full plain Text is that 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the Children of Believers holy in state then ought they not to be admitted visible Church-Members T. G. How fully and plainly does Heb. 13. 2. explain this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. Is not Marriage honourable among all Men and the Marriage-bed undefiled And is not that which is undefiled holy in state And is not the unbeliever sanctified in this state 1 Cor. 7. 14 Ye who but Men willing to be deceived will say they ought therefore to be Baptized And are not the Children therefore said to be holy because the Unbeliever is sanctified to or by the Believer And how then can that Holiness be any other than Matrimonial And does not Erasmus in his Paraphrase give this very exposition on this Text And does not Austin tell you That whatsoever this Holiness is 1 Cor. 7. 14. yet it is not of power to make Christians or remit Sins And why do you grudg that all Infants procreated according to God's Ordinance should be holy See Malachi 2. 15. Doth not Diodate on the Text say plainly That God's chief end in this proceeding to wit in ordaining Marriage was that the Posterity might be Sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunctions J. B. 6. When it is said Mark 10. 14. Of such is the Kingdom of God Whether this be not more than they may be visible Church-Members c. T. G. Whether we do not readily consent to all that is said Mark 10. 14. concerning Infants do we not grant they are visibly stated in a gracious Right to the Kingdom of God And if this be more than to say Let them come to Baptism Is it not more also than to say Let them come to the Lord's Table And is it not very considerable that though three Evangelists mention these Infants yet none of them so much as hints that they were Baptized And whethese words suffer them to come to me will not be a better plea for us in the Day of Judgment in devoting our Infants to God by Prayer in the Name of Christ than for you in going so much beyond the Text as to Cross or Sprinkle them without the least ground from this or any place of Scripture And whether this your presumption be not the real cause of our differences in Religion DIVISION V. About the Texts objected against the Pedo-baptists J. B. 1. If these Texts Rom. 9. 8. Ephes 2. 3. be objected To the first Text What is it the Apostle mainly drives at but that Men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's carnal Seed And to Ephes 2. 3. What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by Grace c. T. G. Seeing you here grant that Men but you must mean Infants also are not saved because they are Abraham's Natural Seed and that you dispute not the certainty of their Salvation but only their Church-Membership Have you not meerly trifled all this while Seeing now here is no sound ground it seems from their Church-Membership to prove them saved And seeing none as they are Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh are either saved or Members of the Church so as to partake of Ordinances is it not strange that you should prefer your Carnal Seed before his But how are Infants Children of Wrath in the sence of Ephes 2. 3. otherwise than with respect to that Condemnation which came by Adam And is not that made void by Christ Rom. 5 We readily therefore consent that Infants are otherwise by Grace J. B. 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism To this though Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism yet are they not capable of the principal ends May it not be a Listing Sign c. T. G. Here you grant that Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism nor can you prove them capable of all the benefits which you assign For how are Infants capable of receiving Baptism as a Listing Sign Ought there not to be a free consent on the part of him that is Listed Or do you not rather press poor Infants against their will as appears by their resisting you what they can then truly List them Or how do they engage to be God's People or take Christ to be their Lord as you feign are not these meer Flourishes and confuted by all Experience And do not you consute your self when you tell us here that they understand none of these things And what benefit of Baptism are Infants capable of more than they are capable of the benefits of the Lord's Table If Remission of Sin be held forth in the one is it not held forth in the other And will you narrow up Remission of Sin to your way of Baptism And must we still be ordered by Bonds and Leases to transact Gospel Mysteries Do you think to prevail by these Fancies J. B. 3. And may it not be Operative by its signification as soon as the Child comes to the use of Reason And in the mean time as his Interest is upon the condition of the Parents Faith so may not the Parent have the actual comfort of it as of a Lease that assureth an Estate to his Child c. T. G. It seems then