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
A91845	The second part of the vanity & childishnes of infants baptisme wherein the grounds from severall Scriptures usually brought for to justifie the same, are urged and answered. As also the nature of the divers covenants made with Abraham and his seed, briefly opened and applied. A.R. May 3. 1642.; Treatise of the vanity of childish baptisme. Part 2	Ritor, Andrew.	1642 (1642)	Wing R1541; Thomason E59_5; ESTC R3120	27,552	31

holinesse or unholinesse of the Parents But from the Lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of the Parents in the begetting of their Children for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men Universally Obj. It seemes then by this that the holynesse here of the Children ariseth not from the faith or holinesse of the Parents but meerely from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the Parents in begetting their Children Ans It is even so for the question or doubt was onely whither they might put away or depart from their unbeleeving yoke-mates the which the Apostle answers that they ought not to put them away and he implies this reason Because they were lawfully married unto them according unto Gods ordinance and this he backs with a double reason First because their unbeleeving yoke-mates were sanctified to their use Secondly because their Children begotten in that state are legitimate and holy on the other side if they were not so lawfully married to them then these three conclusions would follow First They would not be sanctified to them Secondly Their Children would be uncleane and Bastards Thirdly They might and ought to put them away Obj. But what holinesse hath the unbeleeving wife seeing in some translations it is rendred that she is sanctified by the beleeving husband which seemes to be more then to be sanctified to the beleeving husband Ans That which is sanctified to a Beleever being unsanctified to an Unbeleever must needs be sanctified unto him by his beleeving and so the meaning is all one and may be expressed thus The unbeleeving wife is sanctified unto the beleeving husband by or through his Beleeving Obj. Why may not then the wife be admitted to Baptisme and Church Fellowship with her husband seeing she is made holy by his Beleeving Ans Not so for she is no otherwise sanctified then Servants and all other lawfull things are sanctified to a beleevers use In which sense likewise his Cattell and Beasts are holy and sanctified for to the pure or Beleever all lawfull things are pure and holy by which reason all these may as well be admitted for all these are holy in one and the same sense Obj. But here they object and say Have the Children of Beleevers no more Priviledge then the Children of Heathen Turkes and Infidels Ans To which I answer in respect of the Covenant of Grace and Salvtation none at all For this comes not by any naturall Birth but onely by a new birth of the Spirit and the Spirit bloweth where it lusteth Jo. 3. 7. 8. And God is no respecter of Persons But in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted of him Act. 10. 34 35. yet notwithstanding in respect of the meanes of Salvation their priviledge in having beleeving Parents is farre more then those that have not for beleeving Parents may be a meanes to bring their Children to the knowledge and faith of Iesus Christ and so be Instruments of their Salvation as Saint Paul saith here The beleeving Husband may save his unbeleeving Wife 4. The fourth Scripture is That which speakes of Christs commanding little Chrildren to be brought unto him and said that of such is the Kingdome of God hence therefore some reason the Kingdome of God belongeth to little Children why not the Seales 1. To this I answer First that if Infants have right to one of the Seales if wee may so call them then to both to the Supper as well as to Baptisme But here they say not to the Supper untill they be able to examine themselves which is required of all that receive the Supper To this I answer so Faith and Repentance are required of all that are baptized But here they say that these are required onely of men of yeares not of Infants who are not able to performe them And the very same is my Answer in respect of the Supper That examination is required onely of men of yeares and not of Infants who are not able to performe it Besides if neither my Author nor memory faile mee Children Parker on the Crosse were admitted as well to the Supper as to Baptisme for many yeares in times past And why not as well to the one as to the other seeing the same reasons are alike in both and will center into one if fully prosecuted For as no Infant is required by God in Scripture to beleeve or repent So likewise no Infant is required to be baptized nor is any man any where required by God to baptize an Infant and the same may be said in respect of examination and receiving the Supper Secondly I answer that this reason is grounded upon a great mistake of the sense of the text for the words are not unto them belongs the Kingdome but of such is the Kingdome that is of none else but of such as the next words which follow in these texts doe manifestly declare for in Luke 18. 17. Marke 10. 15. In both places where Christ had said Suffer little Children to come unto mee for of such is the Kingdome of God He presently confirmes it in the next words thus verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little Child shall not enter therein As also in Matth. 18. 34. Christ speaking to his Disciples saith Except yee be converted and become as little Children yee shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven whosoever therefore shall humble himselfe as this little Child the same is the greatest in the Kingdome of Heaven Whereby it is evident that when Christ saith of such is the Kingdome of Heaven his meaning is not of them nor of such as them in age nor understanding 1 Cor. 14. 20. But of such as them in humility and such like qualifications Then they say that Christ tooke them up in his Armes laid his hands on them and blessed them 1. To which I first answer that all this is not baptizing them for Christ baptized not Io. 4. 2. And therefore this place seemes not at all to prove the baptizing of Infants 2. Secondly I say let them that please doe as here Christ did yet much rather let us all learne the lesson which Christ here taught without which wee cannot be saved But wee quite perverting Christs meaning do in another sense become li●tle Children for some at first had no sooner hence sounded out this tune in our eares that the Kingdome of Heaven belongs to little Children and therefore Baptisme But wee all presently like little Children dance after this Pipe as though our heads were lighter then our heeles And in the meane time loose the true sense the marrow and fatnesse of these Texts which so much do concerne us And thus it is not onely in these Texts but in many more insomuch that wee through this our Childish if not Brutish following the heard of Interpreters from humane Authority rather take many grosse errors for undenyable Principles then once open our eyes to see and

Promises do onely belong under the terme seed for if it were otherwise then must they be comprehended Gen. 17. 7 8. under the terme thee And then the rest of the Phrase to wit and to thy seed would be in vaine and superfluous which to thinke were very irrationall But put case it be granted them to be fathers as they desire to be like to Abraham then must they be fathers of only such as beleeve and not untill they beleeve for according to the Tennor of this New Covenant and in the Gospell sense Abraham himselfe is father of none other nor otherwise And then are they Fathers of their owne Children no otherwise then they are fathers of Iewes and Turkes Children which is when they beleeve and not before and then let them baptize all such their Children warrantably Hence therefore I affirme that Puplicans and Harl●ts may be the seed and have as much right to Baptisme as any Beleevers seed or as any of Abrahams owne naturall seed for all and every of these must first repent and then be baptized Act. 2. 38. And upon the same termes may any yea the most wicked in the world and their seed be baptized for the partition wall being now broken downe the Gosp●ll knowes no difference betweene any but is to be Preached to every Creature in all the World and whosoever beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Mar. 16. 15 16. And go make Disciples all Nations baptizing them Mat. 28. 19. For to Christ Iesus neither Circumcision avayleth any t●ing nor uncircumcision but a new Creature Gal. 6. 15. And if any be Christs then they are Abrahams seed and Heires according to Promise Gal. 8. 29. And no otherwise ought any to challenge to be the seed or to have inte●rest to the Promise or grace of the Gospell All which considered I then demand of them in cold blood how they themselves doe become Abrahams seed They will say onely by Faith Then dare I say their Children must become the same seed by the same way and no other for Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sence and acceptation of he Gospell They further reason from the equity of Circumcision thus As Infants then by Gods allowance received that Seale of the Covenant so by proportion why not this now of Baptisme To which I answer God commanded Abraham to circumcise all the Males in his House and every Male Child at eight dayes old as well he that was borne in his House as he that was bought with money of any stranger that is not of his seed Now it was both right and equall that Abraham should do herein as God had commanded him and it had bin sinfull for him to have done otherwise more or lesse And so likewise it is right for us to do as God hath commanded us to do and no otherwise The question then is where the Institution for the baptizing of Infants is If they say that to Abraham I answer that was to circumcise not to baptize that all his Males not his Females that all borne in his house or bought with Money at eight dayes old If they ground it from this Institution then must they observe it in every thing for so did Abraham who had sinned in doing otherwise in any thing But here say they we have another Institution to Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. To which I answer then ought they to observe that Institution which is first to make Disciples and then to Baptize them so made For so is the Institution and no otherwise But here they say it is not any where forbidden to Baptize Infants To which I answer that it is as much forbiden as it was forbiden Abraham to circumcise his Females for it is not said to him thou shalt not circumcise thy Females nor thou shalt not circumcise any other save such and such nor onely these and these And whosoever therefore was not included in the Institution was excluded for else might Abraham lawfully have circumcised also all the Males of his Beasts as his Camells and Asses for this is not otherwise forbidden him They further say That Infants now being as capable of Baptisme with all its significations as Infants then were of Circumcision they see no reason but they may as well be Baptized as the other were circumcised To which I answer if they meane by capable Faith and Repentance which is required of every meete Subject as before was shewed in this sense they are not capable but if they meane although they be Infants yet they may be baptized in water and are as capable to indure it as Infants then were to be circumcised To this I answer and say that so are all Infants in the world capable of Baptisme and so all Infants from Adam to Abraham were capable of Circumcision I demand of them why these were not circumcized they will say because Circumcision was not then commanded but as soone as it was commanded it was done Then must wee baptize Infants when wee are commanded to do it and not before Notwithstanding their being thus capable thereof with all its significationss Object God gave to Infants Circumcision which was a signe and seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith and Regeneration Gen. 17 11. Rom. 4. 11. And wee know God giveth no lying signe nor sealeth a Covenant to any Persons that are not therein Therefore Infants are in the Covenant have Faith and Regeneration and so ought to be baptized now as well as circumcised then Answ It is true that God giveth no lying signe nor sealeth to any persons that they are in the Covenant when they are not therein And therefore seeing that Ismael was Circumcised after that God had declared and made it knowne that he was not in the Covenant Gen 17. 18. 19 20 21. It must thence follow that Circumcision was not by God ordained nor by Abraham understood to be to the persons circumcised a seale of their being in the Covenant and much lesse of their being in the Faith or Regenerated wherefore Gen. 17. 11. Rom. 4. 11. which this Objection is grounded upon of necessity must be understood as the Apostle there applyeth it to wit that the Circumcision which Abraham received both upon himselfe and seed was to him and them a signe and Seale that Righteousnesse should be not by the Law or Circumcision in the flesh but by the Faith which Abraham had when he was yet uncircumcised That He should be the Father of all those of many Nations which should afterwards b●leeve And that as faith was imputed unto him for Righteousnesse even so likewise it should be imputed to all Beleevers whatsoever whether they were Circumcised or not And that all these are and were to be the only heires and true feed to whom the everlasting Covenant and Promises of life are assuredly made and do properly and undoubtedly appertaine ver 3. 11 12 13 14. 16 17. 18. 22 23 24. And therefore Circumcision never was nor is