Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	2,779	5	9.3007	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45681	Infant baptism God's ordinance, or, Clear proof that all the children of believing parents are in the covenant of grace and have as much a right to baptism the now seal of the covenant, as the infant seed of the Jewes had to circumcision, the then seal of the covenant / by Michael Harrison ...	Harrison, Michael, Minister at Potters-Pury.	1694 (1694)	Wing H905; ESTC R9581	26,416	65

out of covenant without taking notice of it A Doctrine may be very clear the Scriptures brought to prove and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing and yet it may remain dark to one that is uncapable of discerning it An Object may be very obvious and yet not well discerned by reason the Eye is clouded How plain are the Doctrines of the Trinity the Divine Nature of Christ Justification by Imputed Righteousness c. and yet many are so blind as not to see these things So the matter in debate viz. That the Infants of believing Parents have a right to Baptism is as clear to me as the other yet many will not see it The generality of Christians are but Babes in knowledge have but dark and confused apprehensions of the clearest Truths in Religion and must needs be much more at a loss in what hath not that clearness and perspicuity in it CHAP. II Containing the First Argument for Infant Baptism IF God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his then they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them But God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them which is Baptism Now that God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his I prove by these Four Arguments 1. If the Children of believing Parents are God's Children their Sons and Daughters his Sons and Daughters then God owns them But the Children of believing Parents are God's Children as is evident Ezek. 16.20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed to be devoured Thou hast slain my children and delivered them to pass through the fire for them These Idolatrous Israelites were at this time much degenerated but yet God had not given them a bill of Divorce the Covenant was not dissolved and therefore these Children born within the Covenant were God's Children and his not merely by right of Creation so all are his but by right of Covenant There was little reason to believe the Parents were gracious but however being visibly in covenant God claims their Children as his own as belonging to his Church and Family by a Covenant-Right 2. If the Children of such Parents who are one or both of them Believers are federally holy then God owns them but the former is true 1 Cor 7.14 therefore the latter else were your children unclean but now are they holy the question was Whether when the Husband was a Believer and the Wife an Unbeliever or the Wife a Believer and the Husband a Pagan they might yet continue to live with the Unbeliever To this the Apostle answers they might and gives this reason for it viz. The unbeliever is sanctified by the believer Sanctified in Scripture usually signifies either 1. Savingly sanctified by Grace and Spiritual Life infused into the Soul by the Spirit of God or 2. Setting Persons apart for some holy Use or Office as the Priests Sabbath Tabernacle and all the Utensils thereof and all the People of Israel who were circumcised but the unbelieving Husband or Wise here were sanctified in neither of these respects therefore it 's otherwise to be understood Candidatus est fidei say some they are in a fair way of being won over to the Faith of Christ or prepared by God for such a use so sanctified signifies in Isa 13.3 but the meaning is plainly this That in regard that all the Faithful are Heirs of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17.1 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children This Promise being to believing Parents and their Infants this Covenant the unbelieving Party cannot undo by his or her unbelief hence their Children were holy 1. Not merely legitimate for so they would have been had both the Parents been Pagans to say as the Anabaptists do they are not Bastards is saith Doctor Featly a Bastard Exposition 2. Nor can it be meant that they are saved justified and sanctified by the Holy Ghost though if that were the sense it would not contradict but confirm the Doctrine of Infant Baptism for whoever hath Justification and Sanctification the thing signified by Baptism hath undoubtedly a right to the Sign and Seal 3. Then by holy must unavoidably be meant federally holy i. e. within the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews were a holy Seed and had a right to Circumcision so the Infants of Christian Parents though but one of them a Believer had a federal holiness and a right to be baptised as if both the Parents had been Believers 4. If the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children then Christ owns them but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them Matth. 19.13 14. Then were there brought little children unto him that he should put his hands on them and pray and the disciples rebuked them But Jesus said Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven Here Christ declares the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them By the Kingdom of Heaven is meant either the Kingdom of Glory in the next World or the Kingdom of Grace here the latter is most probable for so the Church is called Matth. 22.1 2. Now be it the one or the other its evident Christ owned them as his 5. If the promise of the Covenant of Grace may be made to the Infant Seed of Believers then Christ owneth them but the promise of the Covenant of Grace is to the Infant Seed of Believers as well as to their believing Parents Gen. 17.7 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee And this Promise the Apostle recites as belonging to all Believers Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children Now from all it 's abundantly evident that God doth own the Children of believing Parents as his Therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning them which is Baptism The conclusion is unavoidably If it be evident God owns a Person that Person ought to be baptized let him shew that can any reason why a Person so owned by God should not be admitted into the Church by Baptism CHAP. III. Containing the Second Argument for Infant Baptism IF the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members then such Infants ought to be baptized but the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members therefore they ought to be baptized Now that such Infants ought to be received into the visible Church as visible Church-members I prove by these Arguments Argument 1. If by the merciful

to the Visible Church have a right to Baptism therefore in denying Infants Baptism they throw them out of the Visible Church And let him shew that can tell how what grounds there are to hope or expect the Salvation of any out of the Visible Church I grant a person may want the engaging Sign and yet have a right to Church-membership yea to Salvation so an Elect Infant dying unbaptized is saved though it have not the Sign yet it had a right to it Now without a promise we can neither believe nor hope Rom. 15.4 13. Eph. 1.18 Eph. 4.4 Col. 1.5 23 27. Heb. 6.18 19. Again such as God intends to save he adds to the Church Acts 2.47 't is the Visible Church there spoken of and such who are not so added or have not a right to be so added let them shew that can what ground there is to hope for their Salvation And thus all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infant dying in Infancy is taken away by the Anabaptists For thus they argue from Mat. 28.18 19. None but those who are Taught are Disciples Infants cannot be Taught therefore are not Disciples and that this is the only way to make Church-members and may we not on the same ground say they cannot be saved because they cannot believe Mark 16.16 He that believes not shall be damned I appeal to all unbiassed persons whether there is not on their own bottom the same reason to say they are uncapable of Salvation as of Baptism but there is great reason to believe and hope for the Salvation of some Infants for as we have shewed they are in the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. they are to be joined in standing Church-ordinances 2 Chron. 20.13 Joel 2.16 From all which and much more might be said it 's evident some Infants are Saved though the Anabaptists by their erroneous Doctrine take away all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy CHAP. VI. Objections of Anabaptists Answered Obj. 1. IF it be God's Will Infants should be baptized Why is there no Command for it as there was for their Circumcision 1. The general Command includes Children therefore there was no need of any particular mentioning of them 2. The promise is as express to Children as to Parents Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your Children 3. It had been absurd to have given a new Command for Children seeing they were in the actual possession of their Priviledg and had been so ever since Abraham's time none had ever questioned their right and title to the Covenant There was no Anabaptists in the Apostles days nor of many hundred years after Obj. 2. But that Covenant Gen. 17.7 was a Covenant of Works Indeed some weak Anabaptists have said so But it was not a Covenant of Works for that knows no Mercy to fallen Sinners but there is Mercy in that Covenant that God will be a God to his People and to their Seed It was a Covenant of Grace and that the Apostle proves Rom. 4.11 as hath been abundantly proved before Obj. 3. Though Infants were then Church-members it doth not follow they are so now the Church is now built on another foundation Thus a Preacher among the Anabaptists lately urged to me Ans 1. If this be true then the Church of Christ under the Old Testament had a different foundation from the Church now under the New Testament The Foundation is now Jesus Christ but what was it then What will not Proud and Ignorant men say to maintain an Errour 2. The Foundation of the Church then was Christ and the Covenant of Grace was the same then as now only then was but the dawning of the day the darker appearances of the Son of Righteousness but now the Sun shines in his full strength Heb. 10.1 Rom. 4.3 11. Obj. 4. But though Infants were then Visible Church-members and had a right to the Sign of the Covenant God has now cast off the Jews and so Infant Church-membership is ceased Ans The Apostle assures us That Church-membership and all other Priviledges are as sure and ample now to the Believing Gentiles as they were before to the Jews Rom. 11.17 And if some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive tree wert grafted in amongst them and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Obj. 5. But Circumcision is abolished therefore Infant Church-membership Ans Circumcision and Infant Church-membership were two things Circumcision was but the Rite of admitting Visible Members the Rite is changed but not Church-membership Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.10 11 12. Obj. 6. Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism for it 's an engaging Sign and signifies the washing away sin both guilt and stain Infants being uncapable of the use of Reason must be so of Baptism Ans Baptism hath more ends than one 1. It 's Christ's listing Sign for admitting Soldiers into his Service or Disciples into his School or Subjects into his Kingdom and this is what Infants are capable of 2. It 's an engaging Sign wherein they are by Parents or other engaged to God and this they are capable of also 3. The inward Grace thereby signified as Pardon Justification Sanctification Adoption these Infants are capable of otherwise they could not be Saved and if these are not the Sacrament may be without them 4. A lease for years with a Covenant to a Child that understands it not may be of great use So Baptism though at present the Child understands nothing of it yet it may be and to converted Believers is of great use afterwards and Godly Parents at present have the comfort For God herein hath provided for the comfort of Parents 5. A Person may be Baptized that is not capable of all the ends of Baptism one end of Baptism is to wash away Sin c. this was an end Jesus Christ was not capable of and yet he was Baptized 6. Those Infants Christ took into his Arms and Blessed and those Circumcised at Eight days old knew no more of the benefits they received than ours do now they were no more capable of Faith and Repentance than ours are and yet they entered into the Covenant of Grace Rom. 4.11 Obj. 7. But we have no express Command in the New Testament to Baptize Infants Ans I have shewn there needed none their Priviledg had been setled many Ages before and never questioned by any nor repealed by Christ their former Right continuing firm Acts 2.39 the general Command includes them Obj. 8. But if they had a Right we might expect to find some Examples of their Baptizing Ans 'T is manifest that Believers housholds were Baptized with them Acts 10. Acts 16.15 16 33. and if no Infants are mentioned so neither any Children of Believing Parents Baptized at Age and we have much more reason to believe there were Infants