Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	3,255	5	9.3290	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

Gospel-covenant Gen. 17.7 as we have abundantly proved and that the Promise of the Covenant is to them is as evident Act. 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children he means the Promise of God to Abraham the Promise of Salvation by Christ which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles but to the Jews in the first place Or suppose the Apostle hath respect unto Jer. 31.33 34. or to Joel 2.28 it alters not the case for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace and Explications of what was virtually contained in that first Promise to Abraham Gen. 17.7 ARGUMENT VI. The Sixth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If the Infants of one or both of the believing Parents be federally holy then they ought to be baptized but the former is true therefore the latter 1 Cor. 7.14 By the holiness of Children there is not meant Legitimacy i.e. not Bastards so they would have been if both the Parents had been Pagans Nor is it meant that they are savingly sanctified but federally holy that is in the Covenant of Grace and so had an undeniable right to the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism ARGUMENT VII The Seventh Argument for Infant-Baptism is this If the Kingdom of Heaven belong to Infants then they ought to be baptized but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to some Infants Matth. 19.14 Suffer little children to come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven 1. Suppose by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Kingdom of Glory little Children when they die shall go to Heaven this sense the Anabaptists cannot disallow for they say all Children dying in infancy are saved the Infants of Turks Pagans Infidels Papists all sorts Then if they are Heirs of Glory this must be by vertue of their interest in and union with Christ for there 's no other way to Heaven but by Jesus Christ John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life no coming unto the father but by me There 's no Name under Heaven whereby we can be saved but only Jesus Christ Now if Infants have a right to Glory by vertue of their union with and interest in Christ then have they a right to be baptized if they have a right to Heaven by Christ then to receive the Badge of a Disciple of Christ which is Baptism no person can have any plea for Heaven that had not a right to be baptized Acts 2.47 The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved This adding to the Church was by Baptism v. 41. And let them shew that can what right those have to Heaven that are not or at least have not a right to be so added to the visible Church 2. But by the Kingdom of Heaven is oft understood the Gospel-Church So Mat. 22.1.13.47.8.20 21.11.12 and in most of our Saviour's Parables And this is most likely to be the meaning of this Text of such is the kingdom of heaven that is the Gospel-Church takes Infants as well as adult persons to be visible Members in it And then the consequence is unavoidable The visible Church and Kingdom of Christ is made up of Infants as well as adult persons Baptism is the Door into the visible Church therefore they must needs be baptized ARGUMENT VIII The Eighth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If Infants are to be received in the name of Christ they are to be baptized in the name of Christ but Infants are to be received in the name of Christ Mark 9.36 Whoso receiveth one such child in my name receiveth me to receive them in the name of Christ is to receive them as the Disciples of Christ or because they belong to Christ And if they ought to be thus received in Christ's Name as the Friends and Disciples of Christ then they ought to receive the Badge of a Disciple to have the name of Christ named over them in Baptism ARGUMENT IX If in our Saviour's time the Head and Master of a Family was never baptized but his whole Family was baptized with him then Children and Infants ought to be baptized for they are a considerable part of Families But we never read of any Head or Master of a Family baptized but his or their whole Houshold were baptized with them as is evident in Cornelius Acts 10. and Lydia and the Jailer Acts 16. So 1 Cor. 1.14 c. Object But there 's no mention of any Infants in any of these Families Answ No more is there of any of riper years And it 's much more likely that there was Infants in those Families than otherwise there is no mention in Scripture of Children of believing Parents baptized at adult age I shall multiply no more Arguments by these the unprejudiced Reader will be abundantly satisfied that infant-Infant-Baptism is God's Ordinance CHAP. V. Shewing that the Doctrine of the Anabaptists in excluding Infants from Baptism and shutting them out of the visible Church makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan and so leaves us no well-grounded hope of the salvation of any dying in infancy and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine Argum. 1. THat Doctrine that makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of the Devil is false Doctrine But to deny Infants Baptism is to deny them to be of the visible Church of Christ and if they are not visibly in the Church of Christ they are visibly out of it and of the Kingdom of the Devil there is no third or middle state on Earth between the visible Kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the Kingdom of the Devil and all men and women and Infants too are visible Members of the one or the other If any know of any middle state let them show it Christ and Satan share the whole world between them and if Infants are not visibly in the Kingdom of Christ they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil the consequence is unavoidable what barbarous usage is this to our poor Infants Christ commands us to bring them to him and tells us of such is the kingdom of God and the Anabaptists perversely thrust them away from Christ and from the Church of Christ set them among Pagans and Infidels who are of the Visible Kingdom of the Devil Argument 2. That Doctrine that leaves us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy is certainly false Doctrine But the Anabaptists in denying Infant Baptism to the Seed of Believers leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such dying in Infancy I do not say That the Anabaptists do positively assert the Damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy for they do the direct contrary assert the certain Salvation of all Infants even Turks Pagans and Jews But I say they leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such for if Infants ought not to be Baptized then are they out of the Visible Church all who belong

25.1 2 3 4. This is the ground of Baptism we do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as the Infants of the Elect but as making a visible and credible profession of Religion so the Apostles did presently baptize such as did profess repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Act. 2.41 Simon Magus in barely professing to believe in Christ was baptised Thus all those who visibly profess Christianity and are baptised in the name of Christ and do not scandalous Sins notoriously contradict their Profession are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and their Children to be baptised Ezek. 16.20 21. 3. That all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant This is the principal thing designed from this Text. There are you know a sort of restless people amongst us who are perpetually letting fly and with great indignation spurning at Infant Baptism telling you your Infants have no right to the Seal of the Covenant and thereby tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels Therefore I hope it will be an acceptable service to plead the Cause of your poor Infants who cannot yet speak a word for themselves to assert and prove their right to the Covenant and the initiating Seal thereof which is Baptism I hope to find very few amongst you who will join with the Enemy of Infants but rather put to a helping hand to restore them those Priviledges God allows them In speaking to this I shall 1. Lay down some Conclusions to clear the Doctrine of Infant Baptism 2. Prove the Doctrine by several Arguments 3. Shew the dangerous Consequence of denying Infant Baptism 4. Answer Objections 5. Prove that Dipping over head in baptizing in these cold Countreys is no Ordinance of God but a grievous Sin CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Considerations very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant Baptism 1. COnsider that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express words of Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead may be proved from such a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word as John 5.28 All that are in the grave shall come forth 2. Or from Evident Consequences drawn from Scripture then have we the mind of Christ when we have the right meaning of Scripture thus Christ proves the Resurrection to the Sadduces Luke 20.37 38. Now that the dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush when he calleth the Lord The God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead but of the living Now this Scripture doth not prove the Resurrection in direct terms but remotely and by consequence How little satisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptists if they had been present at the Dispute between Christ and the Sadduces would they not have reprov'd Christ for his Impertinence We will not believe the dead will rise unless we have a plain Text would not these men have reported abroad that Christ could could not prove the Resurrection Thus they deal with us at this day We challenge you say they to prove Infant Baptism to be God's Ordinance bring us a plain Text and we will believe Now if we prove Infant Baptism as plainly as Christ proved the Resurrection then it is certainly God's Ordinance and we are bound to own it Most we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis in just so many words in Scripture then how shall we prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath That a Woman may come to the Lord's Table That a Christian may be a Magistrate 2. Observe That a mind prepossessed with Error and Prejudice that is not seeking Truth but only something to defend their present Embraced Opinions will not be satisfied let the Text be never so clear or the Argument never so firmly built upon Scripture but will still be inventing some shift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument This is evident in the Example of the Sadduces beforementioned we find indeed Christ silenced them but we do not find so much as one of them convinced and brought off to a sound mind Men are generally so fond of their Errors that when they are beaten out of one hold they fly to another 3. Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully confirmed in the Old Testament though little or nothing be said of them in the New Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the New Testament the whole Scripture is God's Word and what need of proving the same thing twice unless the Authority of the Old Testament were questioned this is evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy in an Oath before a Magistrate and making war upon a just occasion There is so little said of these things in the New Testament many of the Anabaptists have denied them yet these being fully setled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament are to be owned though little be said of them in the New Now this is the case of Infant Baptism The Question is not by what Sign but at what Age persons are to be admitted into the visible Church Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Visible Church and suppose little be said of it in the New Testament it is because there was no need of it this truth having been once setled in the Old Testament and never repealed 4. Those Doctrines which were once throughly setled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again We find that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament and much questioned in the New is fully cleared and much is said of it as that glorious Doctrine of Justification by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament and very much opposed by Legal Preachers in the New Testament therefore much is said in the New Testament to clear it But Infants right to the Covenant or to Church-membership there was much said of it in the Old Testament and it was neve● denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days they were setled and had had peaceable possession of their Priviledges ever since Abraham's time Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in Infants Right very much would have been said of it for the Jews who tenaciously adhered to their old Priviledges would never so silently have suffered their Children to be cast