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	circumcision_n	infant_n	2,369	5	9.6980	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94166	A Christian, sober & plain exercitation on the two grand practicall controversies of these times; infant baptism and singing of psalms Wherein all the scriptures on both sides are recited, opened and argued, with brevity and tenderness: and whatever hath been largely discussed by others, briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the saints. By Cuthbert Sidenham, teacher to a church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine.	Sydenham, Cuthbert, 1622-1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing S6291; Thomason E1443_1; ESTC R209635	113,076	235

Baptism printed in the year 1646. will have Circumcision to be a type of Baptism which cannot be For 1. Types must have something in their outward face to represent another thing more eminent and real Now Circumcision hath nothing in the outside to set forth Baptism 2. It is not so handsom to make one outward sign the antitype of another 4. Circumcision was as holy an Ordinance as Baptism in the New Testament for they are both in themselves outward acts and no holiness more in one then in another but as they have from institution only Baptism is more easy to the flesh then Circumcision and yet not more easy if that way of dipping should be the only way of baptizing especially at some seasons and to some bodies 5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable characters of Circumcision as it doth of Baptism thus the Apostle cals it in Rom. 4. The seal of the righteousness of faith A character so resplendent and glorious that the Gospel can give no higher to an Ordinance And as much as he saith of Baptism in effect 1 Pet. 3.21 that Baptism saves through the answer of a good conscience the contrary Opinionists are put to hard shifts to avoyd the strength of this place and therefore some would evade it thus saying That the Apostle doth not call it a seal of the Covenant or Promise but of the righteousness of faith Sol. A miserable evasion as if the righteousness of faith were not included in the Covenant or there were any righteousness of faith but what comes by the Covenant and so would make a separation between the promise of righteousness and the righteousness promised Others would cloath the Text with this disguise That it sealed it only to Abraham whereas it was so to Isaac and Jacob and David and all that were in the Covenant This is held forth most clearly in that verse 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the pure Covenant of grace in which righteousness was promised to Abraham and his seed indefinitely 2. That this seal was applied to all the seed that were but externally and visibly in Covenant to Infants and the same sign that Abraham received upon profession of his faith his Child received and therefore he is said to be the Father of Circumcision as of Faith ver 12. 3. Doctor Willet from this place holds forth the sameness of the substance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament both which do seal the righteousness of faith and lays it as a great errour on the Romanists who affirm That the Old Testament Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New 4. This cannot be denied from the place without men will wilfully put out their own eyes that Circumcision had as glorious a use as Baptism viz. to seal the righteousness of faith which must be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant as to Abraham himself and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Testament seal to any There were many other circumstantial and accidentall uses of circumcision according to the Jewish state as we will grant Mr. Tombes as 1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law Gal. 5.2 3. Acts 15.10 2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile Eph. 2.14 But when the Apostle would give circumcision his true character and shew what the primarie and substantiall use of it was he calls it a seal of the righteousness of faith 6. Circumcision and baptism signifie one and the same thing and so agree in being signs of the same grace compare Coloss 2.11 12 13. with Rom. 6.3 4. and 6. v. circumcision signifies the putting off the bodie of the sins of the flesh baptism is into Christs death and to testifie the crucifying the old man with him that the bodie of death might be destroyed as by the comparing these two places it is most clear and 3 v. and 6 ver of Rom. 6. chap. onely baptism hath this larger consideration in it as that it takes in Christs resurrection with it and also the quickning of the soul together with him which was not so fully signified in circumcision but implied according as the Apostle argues in the same place Rom. 6.5 v. for if we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection the one being a consequence of the other and as circumcision did cut off the foreskin in token of the destruction of sin so baptism by washing signifies the taking away the pollution of sin thus God when he would promise to kill sin and work all grace he expresseth it by circumcision I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 And the Apostle Phil. 3.4 saith We are of the circumcision that is we have the true work of grace in us The reason why I urge these considerations is to hold for the capacitie of Infants as well for Baptism as Circumcision there is no reason why they should be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other For First if Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet applied to Infants and Baptism can seal no higher mercie why should it be thought such a strange and unmeet thing to baptize them more then to circumcise them they usually say you put a seal to a blank in baptizing Infants the same might be said as to Circumcision yet they were circumcised as well as Abraham that profest his own Faith I must acknowledge I never could yet understand why Infants should be thought fit to have that seal applied to them in the Old Testament which the New calls a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet be denied it in the New Testament as incapacious when Baptism can seal no more I wish it were seriously considered Especially Secondly when Baptism shall signifie the same thing in substance be both signs of the same grace the one cutting away sin as with a knife the other washing it away with water and yet Infants capable and most fit to have the administration of the one ordinance not of the other if these of the dissenting judgment did with more sobriety weigh such considerations as these they would not with so much foolish contempt write and speak of Infants Baptism A knife may be applied to an Infant as to Abraham though old and in the heighth of his Faith and seal the righteousness of it but water must onely be poured on actual believers and grown persons such as Abraham but not on Infants though it hath no more to seal as if there were some strange excellencie and virtue in the nature of water that it were too precious to wash the Infants of believers For if there be no more virtue in the water that baptizeth then in the knife that circumcised you see there is no more glorious use of the one then the other And what end God should have to

c. as well as for them to interpret the same word so in this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to grown men must signifie visible and Evangelical holiness and must be translated Saints but when applied to Children it must only signifie legitimacy that they are not Bastards when all men know that magis minus non variant speciem and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament Ob. If any shall be so critical as Mr. Tombes is to enquire how they can be said to be holy what holiness is here meant whether inherent or imputative or visible Sol. I answer It 's a holiness of special separation to God and his use as a peculiar people Some call it a federal holiness from the ground of the priviledge others an Ecclesiastical or Church holiness from the account and esteem the Church ought to have of such Children but the first more fully answers the largest use of the word in Scripture As for Infants 1. They are capable of inherent holiness 2. They are in Covenant as we have proved and so have a holy relation on them 3. They are capable of separation to Gods use from the womb and so of being holy to God 4. By the same reason we account grown men holy we may account Infants of believers holy for these that make a profession may have no inward and inherent holiness and a bare profession is not holiness we only account them holy by a judicious charity and we are often deceived and have cause to repent of our judgements Infants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into the Covenant with their Parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of Infants we trust Gods Word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their Parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith and charity on Infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of Professors of riper years Q. But if any one say further What is this to Baptism here is no mention of it in this place Sol. It 's true Baptism is not mentioned here but here is mention of a qualified subject for Baptism which is all that is contended for And if the Apostle had said they were believers then these of the contrary opinion would conclude here is enough for Baptism but it 's all one in that he cals them holy which you see is more then legitimate and you may translate it with as much propriety Else were your Children impure but now they are Saints that is so to be esteemed through Gods Covenant as if they had professed their own faith Lastly As it would be most absurd to imagine the Apostle should use a pure religious word to express a common and ordinary priviledge so there would be no considerable medium for augmentation in that sense and no such force in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were c. which hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue not only to be lawfully begotten as the Children of unbelievers are when lawfully married but to be in a peculiar state of separation to God and to be accounted fit members with the believing Parent of the visible Church of Christ And what a poor and cold answer as to comfort would it be when the believer was scrupled about abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow to tell them Continue together for your Children shall not be Bastards but how full of strength and sweetness must it be if taken in the contrary sense Remain with your yoke-fellows though unbelievers they are sanctified to you and you shall notwithstanding bring forth a holy seed a seed of God as the Old Testament expression in Covenant as if you were both believers this sounds like a medium most demonstrative and consolatory both for satisfaction and comfort What plainer testimonie or fairer character can be written to shew the qualification of Infants of believers then to write them holy and give them the same name that is given to Christ and Saints in Heaven and Earth CHAP. VIII The Harmonie that notable Chapter Rom. 11. hath with the former Scriptures the 15 16 17 verses especially opened THAT the Adversaries of this truth may see we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to confirm our judgement the next place to be considered of is that Rom. 11. especially ver 15 16 17. of that Chapter which if well weighed will demonstrate the holiness and Church-membership of the Children of believing Gentiles as much as of the Jews Children that descended naturally from Abraham The scope of the whole Chapter is to discover the breaking off or casting away of the Jewish Nation from being a Church and the priviledge the Gentiles get by this their ingraffing into the same root and the promise of the restauration of the Jews again when the fulness of the Gentiles should come in and every one of these exprest with variety of notions and interlined with many cautions concerning Gods actings in this great dispensation Concerning the full explication of this Chapter Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Baxter have done worthily and have with much clearness argued for Infants Church-membership from it I shall onely for methods sake and your satisfaction open the main and most controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this subject As 1. What this breaking off or casting away of the Jews imports and from what they are broken off from the visible or invisible Church v. 15. 2. What is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches and how it can be affirmed that if the root be holy so are the branches v. 16. 3. What this ingraffing is and how the Gentiles are said to be ingraffed and to be partakers of the fatness of the Olive v. 17. For the first This casting off and breaking off is not from the invisible but the visible Church 1. This will maintain falling away from grace and please the Arminians the great Enemies of the Gospel of free grace but this the Apostle prevents ver 1 2 3 4 5. by anticipation of that Objection distinguishing the Elect and himself as one of them from being cast off I say then hath God cast away his people whom he foreknew God forbid I also am an Israelite c. If the casting off meant here was from the invisible Church then Paul and the other Elect among the Jews were cast off from that Church but God forbid saith Paul v. 5. there is a

a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this That the fulness of salvation and the virtues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible and visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love then it is to the invisible Church but the former is true v. 28. Ergo. Sol. 1. It 's said That as touching election the Jews are beloved for their Fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to Believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham But 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling then of any Nation but yet still the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is only or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing The last and weakest Argument is this If the ingraffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then it is into the invisible Church by election c. but so it is Ergo. Sol. You see he hath spent his stock and strength to be so low at last This Argument needs no Answer but by shewing you the unsoundness of this universal proposition on which the Argument is built Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church Which proposition is most false universally considered Are not health meat and drink preservation all outward priviledges fruits of Gods mercy Is not long-suffering to these that perish and the affording the means of grace and salvation the institution of Ordinances fruits of Gods mercy and yet must they be given only to elect ones and do they ingraff to the invisible Church but satis est repetere you have seen the utmost strength of the greatest Antagonist to the Truth we hold out Chap. X. The Harmonie of Mat. 19.13 14. with Mar. 10.13 and Luk. 18.15 16 17. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ his acts to them how far it contributes to prove Infant-baptism YOU have seen how the Scriptures agree in holding out some special priviledges in the New Testament as in the Old to Believers and their seed Let us now come to view Christs own carriage and actions to Infants which shews both the special respect he had to them and would have his Ministers and Churches to have likewise For this compare Mat. 19.13 14. Mar. 10.13 14 15 16. with Luk. 18.15 16 17. Where when little Children were brought to Christ and his Disciples did forbid them Christ was angry and charged them not to hinder them for theirs was the Kingdome of Heaven and he took them up in his arms laid his hands upon them and blessed them For the opening this place more clearly Consider 1. Who they were which were brought to Christ 2. Who brought them 3. Why the Disciples did forbid them to be brought 4. Christs reason why he would have them not hindred 5. Christs actions to and on them what they amount unto For the first who they were which were brought to Christ in Mark they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated little Children or Infants the word is a diminutive word and is specially to be applied to Infants Luk. 1.76 Zacharias useth the same word of John when he was newly born And thou Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest c. Videtur esse aliqua emphasis diminutivi hoc saltem loco minime negligenda saith Beza The same word is given to Christ when he was in the manger Mat. 2.11 The Wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young Child or Infant with Mary c. Heb. 11.23 Moses is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he was hid among the Flags 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teste Hippocrate de primo vitae septennio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem de secundo Gurtl This word saith Hippocrates is given to these which are under the age of seven years and it 's mostly used among the Evangelists for to express the tenderest age of man which is Infancy So Spanhem dub Evang. But in Luke the holy Ghost useth another word of full signification for Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is used for a Babe in the womb an Embryo Luk. 1.41 When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the Babe leaped in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's the same word but more properly it is used for a Child newly born a sucking Babe that we carry in our arms Thus 2 Tim. 3.15 Timothy is said to know the Scriptures from a Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his Infancy not when he was an Infant but from his Infancy that is as soon as ever he was past a Babe and came to understand any thing he was learnt the Scriptures The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given also to Christ when the Wise men found him in swadling clouts Luk. 2.12 So that this is most clear that they were Infants tender young ones Babes which were brought to Christ And if the two words did not properly signifie Infants yet in that it 's said they were brought to Christ would prove it for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to carry as it 's used mostly in Scripture for But 2. Who those were that brought them it 's most probable that their Parents brought them and these had believed themselves or made some profession of faith for they bring them to Christ to be under his blessing for some special favour to be shewn by Christ to them it was for a spiritual end they brought them to be touched by Christ c. to have some virtue from him and who could have such bowels to bring Infants to Christ but their own Parents and to abide the frowns of the Disciples and their checks but Parents who love their Children next themselves and would have them blessed together with them so that it 's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others and that they were believers who had such a sense of their Infants conditions and of Christs respects And besides they were then in the Coasts of Judea where many had profest their faith and were baptized by John and longed to have their Infants confirmed by Jesus Christ especially

when we look on Mat. 19.13 They brought them to Christ to lay his hands on them and pray over them 3. If we consider why the Disciples should forbid them and rebuked these that brought them surely it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants or that the Disciples had no bowels to Infants or desire they might not be happy with their Parents their affections could not be so straitned and bound up in unnaturalness but it must be from some such principle which these of the contrary judgement take up That they were not capable and were first to be taught That only grown men and Professors of faith were fit for Ordinances and therefore they rebuked or chid them and forbad them to do so any more As if they had said What have we to do with Children as to outward Ordinances they are not capable they cannot profess their faith and we must have persons able to hold forth the Gospel which must be visible subjects of Christs Kingdome Doubtless some such grounds they must needs go on or else they must shew a strange kind of passion against Children most unbecoming these which had but the rags of natural affection left in them 4. See Christs affections to them and the reason of it When Christ saw it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was much displeased It 's a word that is used to express such a kind of sorrow as breaks the heart also to stomach any thing and to have the spirit raised in contempt of an unworthy action or person Thus Christ was grieved at them and he looked with contempt on his Disciples as dealing most unworthily with poor Infants in forbidding them to be brought to Christ and therefore he commands them to suffer them to bring Infants to him and not to forbid them These two words shews how vehement Christ was and how much his heart was set towards Infants You find sometimes that Christ gave some sharp words to his Disciples and to Peter especially but never to have his spirit to rise in indignation against them as when they would forbid Infants to be brought to him and that which makes Christ so earnest must needs be of great weight he was never so moved when they all forsook him and Peter did forswear him as when they denied Infants to come to him I could wish that these which with so much contempt and scurrilous language forbid Infants to be baptized might read this place with observant spirits and at least grow more sober and less violent in their expressions concerning poor Infants doubtless it 's a warning to all Christs Disciples Now the reason which Jesus Christ gives is Of such is the Kingdome of God The reason shews what the priviledge was they would exclude Infants from viz. being visibly judged to belong to the Kingdome of God and Christ saith Of such is the Kingdome of God Now take the Kingdome of God either for Heaven and Glory or secondly by way of allusion for the Church and the state of the Gospel it will serve as a full reason Of such that is of Infants is Gods Kingdome made up as well as of grown men and they are as fit subjects as you are But doubtless he especially means by the Kingdome of God as well the Kingdome of Grace in a visible Church as the Kingdome of Glory because else this could be no reason to convince the Disciples of their errour for they were against the visible bringing Infants to Christ for to get some outward sign of favour to them and Christ tels them they may be as well brought to Christ and receive a visible sign as grown persons for the Kingdom of God is made of such as of others 1. Christ shews their interest in one of the highest priviledges The Kingdome of God and that visibly 2. He speaks it de praesenti not only respecting their future estate what they may be but that even now the Kingdome of God is of such 3. He useth this as a common instructive principle for the future never to forbid not only these but such like Infants to be brought to him For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of such is the Kingdome of God Christ would have them take it as a constant principle That wherever they found such like Infants they should not reject them but look on them with Gospel respect Ob. These that differ have nothing to say to this but That Christ means it of such as Children for humility and meekness and lowliness and therefore in the following verse he saith He that shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little Child shall not enter therein Sol. It 's true Christ takes an occasion to exhort them to humility and meekness from the pattern of these little ones But 1. Christ shews Infants right to the Kingdome of God as well as the Disciples and grown persons who can profess their own faith 2. If Christ had meant only to make an example and resemblance he might have taken Sheep and Doves more properly for they are more meek and gentle then Children who are commonly froward and peevish 3. This crosseth the end of Christs reason which was That Infants should not be hindred from being brought to Christ For of such is the Kingdome of God Now if he had meant of such as were only like them in some qualities not of themselves there was nothing at all in Christs reason And thus must the words be rendred on that account Suffer Infants to come to me and do not forbid them for not of them but of humble persons that resemble them is the Kingdome of God Men will rather make Christ speak non-sense then lose their opinions 4. Can we think Christ could be so displeased with his Disciples for hindring little ones to be brought to him meetly to shew them as resemblances and patterns to grown men and adde this reason For of such is the Kingdome of God when he had examples more fit to that purpose even among the meer sensible Creatures No Christ shews the priviledge of such Infants and checks his Disciples pride who would have none but themselves and grown persons to be esteemed as having any visibie interest in the Kingdome of God Lastly Let us view Christs carriage and actions to these Infants he did not onely shew them as examples but took them up in his arms laid his hands on them and blessed them all expressions of the most signal love and favour and of great import if duly considered 1. He took them up in his arms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies to embrace with special affections so the French Translation Embrasser Piscator embrachiare amplexabunde gesto Bud. Christ took them up in his arms and held them forth as Monuments of his love and doubtless to shew his Disciples that he would have some outward sign and character of peculiar respect set on them by his Church and Saints Such a carriage was not out of a