Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	covenant_n	infant_n	seal_n	3,527	5	9.6632	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41787	A religious contest, or A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the county of Lincoln between Mr. William Fort minister of the perochial congregation at Blyton on the one part, and Thomas Grantham, servant to the baptised churches on the other part : whereunto is added Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his digressions about infant baptism in his book intituled, A rational account of the Protestant religion, &c., in both which are shewed that the generality of the nations now professing Christianity are as yet unbaptised into Christ : 1. Because their sprinkling and crossing the fore-head is not the right way of baptising, 2. Because infants ought not to be baptised.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1674 (1674)	Wing G1544; ESTC R39430	28,329	42

Testainent Ergo Infants ought not to be Baptised Mr. Fort. What do you mean by the general duties of the new Testa ent T G. I mean Prayer hearing the Word and Communion at the Lords Table according to Acts. 2. 41. 42. Mr. Fort This is spoken of grown Persons and not of Infants T. Grantham This is spoken of all that were baptised in the first Church whose pattern we ought to sollow rather then the innovations of Men. Mr. Fort. Your way is an innovation not much above two hundred years old Tho. Grantham Not so for our way of baptising began in the days of John the Baptist and for our opposing Infant baptism 't is very antient for as soon as we hear it mentioned we find it opposed by Tertullian who lived in the third Century Mr. Fort. Tertullian is conceived to oppose only the Baptising of the children of unbelievers T. G. That is a great mistake his words are indefinite for he saith veniant ergo dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant decentur fiant Christiam cum Christum nosse potuerint Mr. W Mr. Wright who was one of the other Priests stood up and said let the business be put to that issue for you only have Tertullian for the Antients and he was a Mantanists T. Grantham If he must be lightly looked at because he was in some errour as that of Montanus then you must lay aside most of the antient Fathers who also had their errours but you are mistaken Tertullian was not the only person among the Antients that opposed Infant baptism for Greg. Nazianzene did likewise disswade from it Mr. Wright We have Irenaeus before Tertullian who speaks for Infant baptism for he saith Infantes pueris senis T. Grantham You act his words amiss for it is not senis but seniores Mr. Wright It is senis it is senis T. Grantham You mistake it is s●niores and beside Irenaeus speaks not of baptism only he useth the words renascunter in d●um Mr. Fort The Antients understood by them words to be baptized T. G. It is inconvenient so to interpret Ir●●eus in this place for then it would follow that unless Infants be baptised they cannot be saved which is absurd but I desire you to answer to the Argument Mr. Fort seemed not disposed to give any surther answer then T. Grantham said I have propounded and prosecuted 7 Arguments against your pretended way of baptising and 7 against your Infant subject of what weight they are and how you have answered them we are no proper Judges but must leave that to the Auditors now because I would not take up the whole time I desire you to be Opponent and I will answer you I conclude with the words of Aug●stine Nec ego te nec tu me sed ambo audiamus Christi in Scrip●●res Mr. Fort Opponent I am now to prove our way of baptising to be the right way of baptising and that Infants ought to be baptised Arg. 1. If our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism then it is the right way of baptising But our way of baptising doth signifie that which ought to be signified in baptism Ergo it is the right way of baprising T. Grantham If you mean that your way of baptising doth signifie all that ought to be signified in baptism then I deny the minor and we have before shewed how short it comes of the true and full signification of baptism Mr. Fort. Our way of baptising signifies the washing away of sins and it agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to wash therefore it is sufficient T. Grantham The contrary to this hath been shewed and I now deny that every kind of washing agrees with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when used to express the sacred act of baptising and I desire you to shew one text where that word is taken for a washing the Fore-head only when the sacred act of baptising is expressed by it Mr Fort. The Jaylor was baptised at midnight and do you think he had a River in his house T. Grantham You are much mistaken the Jaylor went out to be baptised Mr. Fort. You cannot make that appear T. Grantham Yes the reading of the text is plain to that purpose for it is said he was baptised he and all his straightway and then it follows and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them Mr. Fort. That may be meant of carrying them out of one room into another T. Grantham This is contrary to common sence you cannot speak your conscience in this Mr. Fort. I have shewed our way of baptizing is sufficient I will now prove that Infants ought to be baptised Arg 2 If Infants are within the Covenant of grace then they ought to be sealed with the seal of the Covenant and by consequence to be baptised But Infants are within the Covenant of grace and ough to be sealed c Ergo they ought to be baptized T. Grantham Before I answer your argument give me leave to ask you a Question How many Seals belong to the Covenant of grace and what be they Mr. Fort. There are two Seals of the Covenant to wit Baptism and the Lords Supper T G. Then I deny your minor proposition from your own practice for you deny Infants one of these Seals to wit the Lords Supper though you confess them to be within the Covenant and we by as good reason deny the other Seal to belong to Infants Mr. Fort. Yes we have better reason for the one then you have for the other for it is said let a man examine himself and so let him eat T. Grantham 1. It is also said Repent and be baptised every one of you Acts 2. ●8 if thou believest with all thine heart thou maist 2. I might answer your instance out of your own mouth by saying this is meant of persons of years and not of infants which as it is true so it shews the weakness of your answers to many of my Arguments Mr. Fort. I say infants being in the Covenant they ought to be sealed with the Seal and I pray tell me plainly whether you hold them in the Coven●n● or no T. G. I say being in the covenant you mean the grace of Eternal Life by the death of Christ then I say all infants are so in the covenant of say but if by covenant you mean the duties of the covenant then I 〈◊〉 infants are not so under the covenant Mr Fort. You cannot prove that all infants dying in infancy shall be saved T. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were my business I could and would prove it but I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Mr. Fort. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove it if you can T. Grantham Then I prove it by the testimony of the Apostle who saith as in Adam all dye so in Christ shall all be made alive and again as

but upon the pre-supposition that the person so doing to have seen or known them that gives him his authority to Baptise infants and then indeed it 's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words Disciple the Indians Baptising them would exclude infants But yet I must also say that his ground to believe so could not arise from the words themselves but from the practice presupposed Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations Baptising them without the least knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptists which were before them or from whom they received their authority here is no place for the Drs. suppositions at all As little cause hath he to think that had any one said to Abraham he that believeth and is circumcised shall be saved it ought so to have been interpreted as that infants ought to be circumcized For if this had been all the rule given for circumcision it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only and unless the Dr. know how from good ground to satisfie his conscience that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. which place he aludes unto he must so limit the diversion for baptising But if indeed he take Infants to be such believers then he is answered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Resol p. 297. who saith as for the Question whether Infants have faith I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it I freely confess to believe Faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding that they that have not understandisg cannot have faith whethe actual or habitual The conclusion therefore is sith in the case you put the word believe cannot concern infants and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation though they believe not it is every way safe to think them unconcern●d in the other duty that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding Finally the Dr. proposes five considerations about the suitableness of In●ant baptism to the administration of things under the Gospel and first he saith 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants there had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then for an express command if his intention were to admit them because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before Answer Here is little said but what hath been answered before and may be answered by saying had it been Christs intention that infants should not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an express prohibition c. then of an express command c. because suitable to Gods dispensations among them before Thus Argumentum ad hominem But I answer further it is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments from Gods dispensations among the Jews seeing the state of the Church and the di●pensation is so much altered as that the former was but carnal in respect of the Spirituality of the other 2. The Dr. saith it is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ when after Christs ascention they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customes even when they had baptized many thousands Answer It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customes because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel which is the mark you ought to hit or you say nothing but the reason why they did observe such Customes for a time was the weakness of the Jews and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly shews Jewish Customes was not suitable to things under the Gospel and here circumcision one of the chief of Jewish rites is clearly abolished among the rest so that a man would think infant baptism should never have been built upon it 3. The Dr saith If admission of infants to Baptism were a meer relique of judaism it seems strange that none of the judaizing Christians should be charged with it who yet are charged with the observation of other judaical r●tes Answer I find no man saying that Infant baptism was a relique of judaism save Dr. Hammond and some from him and he indeed would make believers baptism also a jewish relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptising Proselites and their Children was the Original and the baptism ●f the Christian Church but the Coppy by which device he hath opened a gap to our late N●tionists to deprive the Church of sacred baptism altogether and hath done more to weaken the cause of infant baptism then any other of its favourites in laying its foundation in jewish ceremonies for which they had no clear command from God But great is this truth of believers baptism and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond for it was no jewish rite the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was from Heaven Mat. 21. 25. and the Pharisees who ●ere ●ealous enough for jewish rites rejcted holy baptism which Christ asfi●ms to be the counsel of God Lu. 7. 30. and testifies out of the consciences of his enemies that he that t●aches otherwise denyes John to be a Prophet This then is the thing that truly seems strange that no mention is made of infant baptism if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwise but not str●●●e at all that none is charged with it seeing none can be named that held it 4. Since theie wish Christians were so much offended saith the Dr. at the neglect of circumcision Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church as they would have been if neither admitted by circumcision nor baptism Answer Since the false Apostles was so earnest to have the christians circumcise their children it 's strange that none of the true Apostles could or would quiet them by saying instead of infant circumcision you have infant baptism if indeed there had been any such thing practiced For this way went the Apostle Paul to still them vvhen they would have brought the believers themselves under circumsion Col. two Telling the chriffians they vvere circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried vvith him in baptism vvherein ye also are ●isen with him through the Faith c. And why might not the jews as qui●tly take the non-admission of infants to baptism as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lords Supper seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover nor i● it necessary to say that though they were not admitted to either of these that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church For If by church be meant the whole number of the saved then are infants of the churchs for Christ hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants and thus were infants of the church before circumcision was for some thousands of years But if by church be meant those only vvho are concerned in the actual profession of the gospel in this respect I grant infants are not of the church God having no vvhere required this of infants in his gospel Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood vvithin the covenant of the gospel in respect of the grace of eternal Life but are not under the duties of the Covenant to vvit Repentance Faith baptism perseverance c. Nor can my calling the whole number of the saved the church and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant doctrines seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art 19. of the Church of England do●h affirm there is an invisible Church and takes all within the compass of ●his Church who are elect tryumphing or that shall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect of Men or Angels caled or not yet called l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these defi●itions of the churc● infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called and consequently not that cause for the jews to complain nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Christ Iesus our Lord. Five The doctor lastly tells us That had it been contrary to Christs institution to baptise infants we should not have had such evidence of it's early Practice in t●e Church and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us Answer This is altogether unlike a Protestant What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition but vvhen shall vve see this Tradition Apostolical I think doctor Ta●lor expresly denies there is any Tradit apostolical lib. proph●si p. 117. 120. But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errou●s ●vhich crept into the Church even in the apostles days vvhich also continued in some of them notvvithstanding all endeavours to purge them such vvere circumcision and keeping the Lavv. Or if we list to reckon vvith records of antiquity 't is easi● o show some things held by Papists and opposed by the doctor are better proved by tradi●ion then infant baptism for example the Lent Fast ond prayer for the dead this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonst prob What then shall be gained to the protestant Religion by such Traditional arguments It is a notable saying of Irenae●s according to Dr. Fulk Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they ●all to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition And saith Tertul according to Dr. Fulk Take away those things from the Hereticks which they hold with Ethnicks that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only FINIS ERRATA P. 3. l. 5. r. is right p. 4. l. 25. r. of a Midwife p. 5. l. 34. for these r. those p. 7. l. 27. for others r. overs