Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	34,129	5	10.2134	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45397	The baptizing of infants revievved and defended from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes in his three last chapters of his book intituled Antipedobaptisme / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1655 (1655)	Wing H515A; ESTC R875	90,962	116

Antipaedobaptist to found his plea in it and all that I have to do is to shew how useless it is like to prove to him confessing also that to me it is as uselesse and so never attempting to draw any argument from it So again when upon a supposition by him specified he assumes me to grant that which he acknowledgeth me expressely to deny this sure is very incongruous T is visible from the words by me produced § 96. that I deny that that text of Mat. 28.19 can prejudice the baptisme of infants and the only design I had in considering this text at all in this place was to evidence the second branch of the negative part of my undertaking that there appeared nothing in Christs institution of baptisme or commission to his Apostles which was exclusive of infants How then can it be suggested with any shew of truth that I seem tacitely to yield that if the words include not infants under the discipled there is then something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptisme T is evident from whence it is that I infer and positively define Christs Commission for baptisme to belong to infants not from these words of Christ which as I said I never proposed to that end to prove my position from them but only to answer the Antipaedobaptists objection founded in them but from the practice of the Apostles signifying their sense and perswasion of Christs meaning in his institution of baptisme which institution we know from John 4.1 had long preceded the delivering of these words Matth 28. So that whatsoever were the notion of discipling there yet could not I deem infants thereby excluded from baptisme whom by another medium viz. the Apostolical practice I supposed to be admitted to it by Christs institution The short is Infants I suppose may be received into discipleship when their parents bring them and if so then they are or may be included in the words Mat. 28. but if they might not and so were supposed not to be comprehended in these words of Christ Mat. 28. yet that which is not included is not presently excluded he that saith a man is a living creature doth not thereby deny an angel to be so also when Christ gives his disciples power to heal diseases Mat. 10.1 he cannot be deemed to withhold from them power of raising the dead for that we see comprehended in their commission v. 8. and so I could no way be inforced to yield that they were excluded from baptisme as long as from any other medium I were assured they were admitted to it And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not the least appearance of truth in this discourse He proceeds then to some other attempts of proving it necessary for me if I will stand to my words elsewhere to acknowledge infants excluded by that text To which end he hath been very diligent in putting together several scattered passages in my writings in hope to finde some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to raise some shew of argument out of my own words and so from my temerity or inconstancy for want of solid proofs to conclude that if this precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptisme then by manifest consequence it doth deny it The passages he gathers up are these The Doctor saith § 55. that Christs institution makes dipping or sprinkling with water a Sacrament which institution is Mat. 28.19 and therefore the Doctor will have the words there indispensably used in baptisme and § 92. he saith baptisme is a Sacrament that Sacrament an institution of Christs that institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth but only in the positive will of Christ and so that there is nothing considerable in this question or any of this nature but how it was delivered by Christ And § 94. that which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practise to be so And Pract. Cat. l. 6. § 2. he expounding Christs institution saith that the words import that the person baptized acknowledgeth maketh profession of believing in three delivers him to three as authors of his faith and to be ruled by the directions of his Master and this he will have to be meant by baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost These are the passages whence saith he I infer that if baptisme be a Sacrament and made so by Christs institution and that institution founded only in his positive will and the will of Christ be that baptisme be in the name of the Trinity and this is when the baptized makes profession of believing in three to be ruled by them and the Apostles practice interprets Christs rule no infant that doth not profess faith is baptized into the name of the Trinity nor was appointed to be baptized by Christ nor did the Apostles baptize them and therefore they are not baptized according to Christs institution and so no Sacrament to them Here is a very subtile fabrick and great pains taken to pro● me to affirm tacitely what I expressely deny But herein though his pains be great he hath much failed of the successe it were too long to shew it at large yet the reader that will be at pains to survey his processe will certainly acknowledge it if he shall but remember these two things 1. That Christs institution of baptisme was not nor is ever affirmed by me to be set down in those words of Mat. 28. that having been long before instituted and practised as appears by plain words Joh. 4.1 2. Secondly That though Christs will and institution for baptizing infants be not so manifestly exprest in those words Mat. 28.19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gainsayer without any other way of evidence or proof added to it yet by the Apostles practice of baptizing infants appearing to us by other means it is most evident that they who certainly did not mistake Christs meaning did thus understand and extend his institution and commission The truth of this is there made evident § 30. c. I shall not here repeat it 2dly That the infant when he is to be baptized doth though not by his own voice personally yet by his lawful proxies which the Church accepteth in his stead professe the believing in three the Father Son and holy Ghost deliver himself up to three c. By this clue the reader will easily extricate himself out of the Labyrinth there provided for him if such it appear to be and discern a perfect accordance in all the passages which with such hope of advantage were so diligently collected by him But this is not all he will yet drive the businesse somewhat higher in these words Yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of baptisme they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise then Christ

saith he notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policie and not to be taught but enjoy priviledges with other Jewes whether Civil or Ecclesiastical But certainly this is no reason of difference for besides that I in that § 27. acknowledged this accidental difference that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation as a disciple doth not adding that this difference had no place in this matter where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations besides this I say it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are that enter into Covenant with God Thus do we find a proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that cometh to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant and a proselyte of their righteousnesse and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that cometh to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the antient people of God i. e. by baptisme should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ though they neither come from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirme it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one speciall priviledge the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these lawes the immediate end of his proselytisme yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby And when he addes but a disciple of Christ is one that ownes Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might well acknowledge it and aske why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits assoon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as disciples or proselytes to Christ Two sage observations he here addeth 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can very well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of disciples but either of God among the Jews or of Christ among us Christians those being the only discipleships to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptisme the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision and notification of several sects among Jews as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new baptismes to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they doe His 2d observation is that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs proselytes but his disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these terms But I answer 1. that those texts that expresse the Christians entring into discipleship by coming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them proselytes for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediatly from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto And 2dly that if this word whether in it self or in the verb from whence it comes had never been used in the New Testament yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament yet may we not thence conclude that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the known style of the Nicene Fathers is never found used by the writers of the Bible yet sure it no way follows thence that the notion of that word and of this phrase I and my Father are one are different and may not be confounded T is pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple and difficulty as these What now is further said by him in this chapter both concerning little ones coming unto Christ and of their entring into covenant Deut. 29.10 is on both sides but a bare denyal of that which is competently proved in that 28 § For t is there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entred disciples and particularly of being entred into covenant with God and so of being baptized and there is no reason imaginable why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdome of heaven should be denyed water to be baptized The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius Peter durst not deny them baptisme And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin for being blest by Christ for being received into Covenant with him and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learnt For that still they are unqualified till by hearing they own Christ as their Master this is a begging of the question without any the least tender of proof As for entring into covenant when by the force of Deut. 29.10 he is forced to yield it competible to infants yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him 1. by modifying the sense then by invalidating my inference from it First though he yield that they may enter into Covenant yet this saith he but in some sense by their fathers act ingaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant Deut. 29.15 But if we examine the place it will be most clear 1. that the Covenant is entred into by the infants just as by the rest of them the wives and the strangers or proselytes On their part Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the