Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	3,184	5	9.3025	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B23662	The controversie about infants church-membership and baptism, epitomized in two treatises the first, shewing the certainty of the salvation of all dying infants, against the doctrine of the Pædo-baptists, who deny salvation to all infants that die unbaptized, either directly, or by the natural consequence of their arguments : the second, being a plain confutation of Mr. J.B. his second book of more than 60 queries, about infants church-membership and baptism, by a proportionable number of antiqueries : being an essay towards a more Christian accomodation between the Pædo-baptists, and the baptized believers, published for that happy end / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Querist examined.	1680 (1680)	Wing G1529	50,899	65

Mercy to take away a Mercy except it be to give a greater Mercy in stead of it c. T. G. Though we might say much of the Justice of God in Repealing the Covenant of Circumcision and therewith the Infant Church-Membership once allowed in the Jewish Church yet how dare you say that this was to the hurt of any Person whether Infant or any other But we will abide by this that God made this Repeal in Mercy And how should you not see that to be set at Liberty from the Yoke of the Law and from Circumcision which made them Debtors to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. was all done in mercy And was it not needful to abrogate the first or old Covenant that he might establish the new or second Covenant In which though we have no particular order to admit Infants to the Duties of this Covenant yet we are sufficiently recompensed in the assurance given us by Christ concerning Infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven and his blessing them without Baptizing them that so they are as happy whilst Infants as we can desire they should be And is not this a greater Mercy than the Old Covenant did give to any Infant by Circumcision As for the Capacity of those who are concerned in the Duties of the Second Covenant is it not expresly thus That the Law of Christ should be put in their Hearts and written in their Minds Heb. 8. And So God to be their God and they to be his People as knowing him from the least of them to the greatest And whether in these respects any Infant can from Truth or Reason be said to be in the New Covenant And how then are they to be admitted Members of this Visible Company or Church seeing they know not God And yet is it not very evident that the Grace of the New Covenant extends to them from our Saviour's Testimony that of such is the Kingdom of God Again Was not Infants partaking of the Passover and other Sacrifices and Rites of the Law as great Mercies as their being circumcised And yet what Mercies of this kind was given them in the taking away of these and yet were they not all taken away in Mercy And whilst you deceitfully lay the stress of the word Mercy upon your Sprinkling of Infants do you not invalidate the substance of those Types which being come for the Salvation of Infants as well as others is their sufficient Passover though they cannot celebrate the memorial of it in Bread and Wine as the Adult ought and do And is not the true Jubilee which came by Christ a sufficient Gain in stead of the Jewish Jubilee both to the Adult and to Infants though neither the one nor the other hath any Jubilee in the nature of an Ordinance in stead thereof Especially not Infants seeing they know not the sound of the Gospel J. B. 7. And is there any Scripture that speaketh of delivering any from this sad estate meaning to be without hope but Church-Members c. T. G. Will Ephes 2. 12. prove that no Infants among the Gentiles were saved Does not that Scripture Rom. 2. 14 15 26 27. as clearly prove that the Gentiles which had not the Law and yet did by Nature fulfil the Righteousness of the Law shall be as much excused in the Day of Judgment as the Jews who kept the Law And do you not here espouse that Doctrine Out of the Church is no Salvation Not considering that the Vniversal Body of Christ may comprehend many that had never the opportunity to be incorporated into the Visible Company of such as worship God in the use of Legal or Gospel Institutions And will you thus damn all Infants in the World but those that are Sprinkled or Crossed by the Pedo-baptists And will not the Text Acts 2. 47. alleged by you if compared with Acts 5. 14. make against you Seeing those that were added to the Church were not Infants but Men and Women J. B. 8. If it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven nor hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth c. T. G. If I might follow your Fancy I might ask you what hurt it will be to the Church to see an Infant of a poor Indian in Heaven And why then do not you admit them here on Earth But is it not childish in you to suppose that any shall be Infants when in Heaven Seeing according to Austin they are called Infants A non fando because they cannot speak may we not more rationally believe that what is lost of stature and knowledg by the Sin of Adam shall be restor'd by the Righteousness of Christ And are not Infants as frequently seen in the Assemblies of the Baptists as in yours And do we not devote them to God in our Prayers as well as you And what do your Infants partake of except your Tradition of Sprinkling them which ours do not as fully enjoy And is it not as great a benefit to the Church to delay the Baptism of their little ones as to delay their coming to the Lord's Table If your delay make them more fit for the one does not ours make them more fit for the other If ours die without the one do not yours die without the other What cause then of your murmuring For who casts Infants out of the Church Is not this a Barbarism For if they be in we do all we are allowed of God to keep them there by timely Instruction and by imploring God's Blessing for them and you do no more only you Cross or Sprinkle them This is your all on this you build your hope for your dying Infants This your Tradition is therefore your Idol This is that small parcel of bad Wooll about which you make this hideous Cry as if God had no Mercy for poor Infants unless this be done Why are you so Imprudent DIVISION III. Concerning Rom. 11. 17. J. B. 1. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only some of the Branches were broken off from the Church Therefore the rest remained in the Gift was not Repealed Doth not the Apostle say it of that Church whereof Infants were Members c. T. G. Here you seem to hold that the Church in her Legal state and in her Evangelical state were both one in such a sense as that he that by Faith was added to the Christian Church was not broken off from the Jewish Church Hence I Query Does not Paul plainly shew Rom. 7. 1. to 8. That the Christian Church was freed from the Law of her former Husband When therefore she ceased to be a Wife upon the account of the Law did she not then cease to be a Church on that account that she might now be married to another even to Christ and so bring forth Fruit unto God Why then should these words some were

Justification of Life might abound towards them by the Obedience of Christ Now either Infants are thus in Covenant with God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all For the Covenant of pure Nature as Mr. Baxter terms it made with Adam concerns not Infants but as the breach of it is imputed to the Lump of Mankind And the Law of Works concerns not Infants For to them it cannot be said The Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say Infants are in no Covenant with God is to rank them with Devils and the vilest of Men. But seeing Mr. Baxter grants the Covenant made with Noah Gen. 9. to be the Covenant of Grace and the Scripture tells us That it is an everlasting Covenant and made with Noah and his Sons and with their Seed after them and consequently with all Infants for it is not Vain or Repealed till Men abuse the Mercy of it to this Mr. Baxter consents And indeed should it be otherwise God should deal worse with poor Infants than with the Beasts of the Field for he was pleased to make a Covenant with them even every living Creature of them which also was very gracious according to their state and condition and shall we think that he whose tender Mercies are over all his Works will exclude the Infants of the greatest part of Mankind from his Gracious Covenant No He hath said He will remember his Covenant which he hath made with all Flesh Gen. 9. 9. No Man can prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned in Hell Torments therefore no dying Infant shall be damned There is nothing to be held as an Opinion or Point of Faith but upon clear Proof or Rational Demonstration Now though it has been often delivered from the Pulpits that many Infants are yelling in Hell yea Infants of a Span long for such and such offences of their Parents yet this is only said but no proof to make it good I find Dr. Fulk saying That Calvin holdeth Dr. Fulk all Infants under the sentence of eternal Damnation only he admits that such Infants as are Elect and Born again by the Spirit of God may be saved But I find no proof that any Infants are Reprobated to eternal Damnation neither does the holy Scripture say any such thing And whilst Diodate expounds Rom. 9. 12. modestly and soundly he goes back to his harsh opinion of God's casting Esau when or before he was born out of his Love as a Father in what he says upon the 13th ver as if God's Love were taken away from poor Infants But this is no proof that God hath Reprobated any dying Infant for if we admit their Gloss yet God that knew what Esau would be in time did here foreshew what in time should be effected Esau lived to be a Man and a very 〈…〉 l Man God knew all this before Esau is not to be ranked wit 〈…〉 ying Infants therefore the Instance of Esau is nothing to the pu●●ose and this Instance failing as it evidently doth I am sure ●here is not the least shew of proof in the Scripture for the Damnation of dying Infants and therefore no Man ought to believe such a strange and windy Doctrine nor trouble the World nor the Church about it 10. To hold Infants to be Damned is contrary to all good Reason When Paul prayed To be delivered from unreasonable Men for that all Men had not Faith He seems to make Reason a Friend and no Enemy to Faith Now when we hear that wicked Men shall be damned because they received not the Love of the Truth that they might be saved here Reason presently consents to the Judgment of God And when we hear that Men will not be persuaded by Moses the Prophets or one that should rise from the Dead how justly are they punished by that God whose Grace they have so grossly contemned Yea these and many like Instances are according to the common Rules of Justice But now to place poor innocent Babes among these damned ones that they should be tormented with the Devil and his Angels who only was born to cry and die and sometimes to die before they should cry is so cruel a Conceit so inconsistent with Justice as far as the Reason of Man can conceive what is equal that nothing can be more Cruel It looks as if God took pleasure to send poor Creatures to Hell For these poor Infants many of them according to this Scriptureless Doctrine were but created on purpose to be Damned and nothing else some never seeing so much as the Light of this World and yet must be punished with the Devil to Eternity O shameful Doctrine unfit for the Tongue of a Christian to tell the World Infants yea of a Span long are yelling in Hell Will you charge the God of Love yea that God who is Love with these Cruelties Are these his doings Why have you painted him in your Sermons with such bloody Colours Is it to force on your Pedo-rantism O wretched Cause that cannot stand unless the Mercy of God to the greatest part of Infants be impeached We say not that Reason is the chief judge in this Question yet when we meet with Scriptureless Doctrines 't is not unlawful to refute them by Reason And here I again declare that this Error of holding Infants damned without Baptism was the ground of that innovation of Pedo-baptism For thus saith the 5 Con. de Carth. We will that whoever denies that little Children by Baptism are freed from Perdition and eternally saved that they be accursed Wherefore take away this false ground by shewing the Salvation of all dying Infants and then INFANT-BAPTISM vanisheth THE QUERIST EXAMINED The Second Part. WHEREIN More than Sixty Queries taken out of the Works of Mr. R. Baxter by J. B. the Author of Fifty former Queries are Refuted BY A proportionable Number of Antiqueries SHEWING The Insufficiency of the Plea for Infant-Baptism urged by Mr. B. and Mr. J. B. from their visible Church-Membership WHICH Being granted so far and in such a sense as Truth or Reason will Warrant is against and no way for the Baptizing of Infants By THOMAS GRANTHAM Printed in the Year 1679. DIVISION I. About the silence of the Scripture concerning Infant-Baptism IT is certain That to multiply Questions is the ready way to darken Counsel and to intangle the understanding of the weak or unwary Reader Yet thus hath Mr. J. B. been pleased to incumber the Doctrine of Baptism with more than an hundred Queries which being set down in their exact Number would be more than five hundred Queries By which frivolous way of Writing it were easie to involve the Christian Profession in endless Controversies Howbeit as I have formerly redargued the first Book of his Queries so lest he should suppose these to be unanswerable I think it may do some service to the Truth to shew briefly the vanity of his second Book also It would