Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A54591
|
Infant-baptism vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Thomas Grantham by Sam. Petto ...
|
Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing P1899; ESTC R35388
|
11,225
|
26
|
Infant-Baptism VINDICATED FROM THE EXCEPTIONS OF Mr. Thomas Grantham By SAM PETTO Minister of the Gospel in SUDBURY Acts 2. 39. For the Promise is unto you and to your Children LONDON Printed by T. S. for Ed. Giles Bookseller in Norwich and T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1691. TO THE Christian Reader THere is such Scripture-Evidence for Infant-Baptism that intelligent unprejudiced Men may find what Mr. Grantham saith against my Defence of it a Reply and no Answer Presumption and no Proof The Practice of that Person which withdrew from our Communion was such as if admitted is destructive to all Gospel of Church-Order and so is no slight Occasion to write upon But I had other weighty Matters ensuing which necessitated my Writing and Mr. Grantham not being medled with can shew none such for his Replying As to what he saith to me I shall very briefly answer being still of the same Mind that I was of Let all be measured by the Rule of the Word And that thou mayest have Vnderstanding therein shall be the Prayer of him who is Thine to serve thee In the Gospel Sam. Petto Octob. 12. 1687. Infant-Baptism VINDICATED INfants were diversified by the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. and so still may be by the Will of Christ all not being the Seed of Abraham My Argument pag. 3. was Ad Hominem as appears there and by my Postscript and saith only That Infant-Baptism is not expresly forbidden therefore either it is lawful or else Scripture-Consequences must be admitted which is undeniable It was occasioned by my being told in a Conference that there should be express Scripture in such a Case therefore it was not my Mistake Neither is my Argument answered by saying as he doth p. 2. There is no express Scripture for Infant-Baptism therefore Infant-Baptism may be omitted This is false for there is no express Scripture for Women's Receiving the Lord's Supper and divers other things yet they may not be omitted because by Scripture-Consequences rightly deduced they are required And hence I can subscribe to every Word which he mentions of that Author of our own p. 2. and to Tertullian's Rule I am of the same Mind there is nothing therein against my Argument and I can easily withstand any Innovation which is not expresly forbidden in Scripture for I think things may be commanded or forbidden by good Scripture-Consequence And it was and is my Judgment that all in the Worship of God must be commanded there either expresly or by necessary Consequence Thus Mr. Grantham at his first beginning with me and frequently after by a multitude of impertinent Words would make his incautelous Reader believe that I bring Scriptures for one purpose which are brought for another As p. 4. I bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. to prove that to be a Church-Member is in Scripture to be a Disciple whereas he would have it believed that I thereby would immediately prove Infants Disciples p. 4. So the Scriptures by which I prove p. 5. that the Name Holy is given to Father Son and Spirit as 1 Pet. 1. 15. Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Heb. 7. 26 c. he p. 5 6 7. would make the Reader believe that I bring them immediately to prove Infants discipled And the like use he maketh p. 6 7. of the Scriptures whereby I prove p. 5. that the Name Holy is given to the Church and its Members So that either from great Ignorance or Inadvertency he may blush that he beats the Air and abuseth me As to my first Argument That some Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Trinity upon them At last he denieth my Antecedent saying That no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them In Answer I evidenced it various ways They are said to be holy and so are discipled God hath put his Name upon them before their Baptism though it is solemnly signalized and declared after when they are baptized His first Reason p. 3. from Act. 10. 28. is answered in my Book p. 49 50 51. I grant there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile but those of both who are visibly in Covenant whether Adult or Infants are more clean than others who are out of Covenant and are a holy People differenced from others if not by Qualitative yet by Relative Holiness in Church-state Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. as of old and nothing here against it As to his second Reason I say Men by the Word of God are to be instrumental to bring Men within the Covenant which extendeth to their Seed therefore also to make Infants Disciples Some may be made Disciples without actual teaching or learning as we put Children to School who at first learn nothing Learned Spanhemius well observeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non significat solum docere sed Discipulos facere aequipollet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 4. 2. Dub. Evang. Par. 3. p. 93. giving Reasons for it I do not say that all who are under Means for Instruction though Persecutors are Disciples but all who are in the School of Christ's Church of which some are Infants The Infant-Seed of Believing Jews were in it by Covenant Gen. 17. and so when that was spoken Matth. 28. 19. not being broken off till afterward and so also the Seed of Believing Gentiles I proved some Infants to be Disciples from Act. 15. 10. He denies that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised yet proves it not But all which the Apostle blameth them for imposing Circumcision practically upon are called by him Disciples and these were principally Infants Gen. 17. 10 11 12. Will he say they were not blamed for laying Circumcision upon Infants His Instance of Infant-Sprinkling is not parallel because Infant is not a Genus for all that we would have baptized I proved some Infants had the Name of the Trinity upon them 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are holy This Holiness he takes for being Legitimate but answers not what I said against it nor doth he prove all to be holy that are legitimate Else i. e. Say some If one be not a Believer or else if the Unbeliever were not sanctified to or by the Believer then the Children were unclean not illegitimate For where there is no Sanctification of one to or by the other but both are Infidels or Unbelievers yet the Children are legitimate Heb. 13. 4. are no Bastards The being holy then must be by a Separation unto God There is no Good in Sin but it becometh of humbling and abasing use to the Soul and so accidentally is turned by God to Good to it which I suppose Mr. C. intendeth by its being sanctified to And this is no new Doctrine but as old as the Days of Hezekiah 2 Chron. 32. 25 26. and Paul 1 Tim. 1. 13. And if all Infants be in a visible State of Salvation by the
Person will have enough there to answer him Abraham had an Ecclesiastical Seed even of Infants Gen. 17. The Infant-Seed of Jews were broken off with their Parents from external Interest in and Privilege by the Covenant Rom. 11. unless he can prove the Infants remained in Covenant still The Seed of Believers are visibly under the Promise the Word of Faith as the Seed of others are not and so are of the Faith I see nothing to invalidate what I said thereof I said Infants Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is not cut off Instead of proving a Repeal and the Cutting them off without which all that he or others say is nothing he replieth Obj. 1. Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumcision and have the same Right now v. 17 18. Ans And what if they had and have it That is for me not against me But under favour Circumcision was a new Privilege which Infants had not before Gen. 17. However this doth not prove them cut off from any but the contrary Obj. 2. No Person 's Right to Circumcision did arise out of the Covenant of Grace but it did only issue from the Command of God p. 17. Ans 1. Here is no Syllable to prove that Infant-Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17. is cut off Some Infants certainly had it and so must still unless there be a Repeal 2. The Command is express to all the Seed of Abraham to keep the Covenant by applying the Token And Infants are expresly concerned in that Command Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12. and so all Infants within that Covenant are under that Command still unless cut off 'T is true the Sign of Circumcision is changed but the Covenant is the same and the Subject of it the same So that whether the Right ariseth from the Covenant or from the Command or both it matters not all his Seed Infants and all in it by the Command are to pass under the Sign And Circumcision then being a Token of the Covenant the Right to it must arise from the Covenant although a Command was the Direction for applying the Sign Obj. 3. As Circumcision did not give Abraham ' s Seed an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so the Abrogation did not take that Interest from them He instanceth in the delay of it to Moses his Child the Omission Forty Years in the Wilderness Infants now have no part in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they lost nothing by it And then he speaketh of the Typical Covenant of Circumcision being made void p. 17 18. Ans 1. Who saith that Circumcision did give them Interest in the Covenant of Grace Rather a being in that Covenant gave Interest in Circumcision which was a Token of it Moses his delaylaying of Circumcision was his Sin Exod. 4. 24 25 26. and had like to have cost him his Life and Israel's Omission of it was their Sin And is it no Loss in Mr. Grantham's Account to be cut off from External Privileges unless Men be wholly cut off from the Covenant of Grace and the Salvation thereof Is it nothing for God to say Loami The Taking away Circumcision was a Mercy the Lord giving Baptism in lieu of it but if he had taken away that and all Church-Privilege and External Covenant-Interest also from Infants which once they had it must needs be a great Loss an unspeakable Disadvantage a sore Judgment 2. Now he declareth that Covenant which Circumcision did belong to void and distinguished from the Covenant of Grace and calleth it a Typical Covenant But not one Syllable of Scripture-Evidence for any such thing We must believe it if he will because ipse dixit Here he should have proved a Repeal of that Covenant with Abraham and not having done this he hath done nothing I believe that the Covenant Gen. 17. wherein twice God declareth himself a God to the Seed of Abraham v. 7 8. the Sign whereof Circumcision Abraham received as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. must needs be a Covenant of Grace no Typical Covenant nor void for that Righteousness was not of a Covenant only for Canaan but of Grace for Eternal Life And that Abraham received it as a Sign of one Covenant and his Seed of another can never be proved The contrary is plain viz. that both had it by the same Command and Covenant Gen. 17. 9 10 11. But now Mr. Grantham p. 19 20 c. findeth a Medium by a new Position viz. Posit That all Infants as such are in a Visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace and so are of the Vniversal Church of God and cannot be put out of that blessed State till by their voluntary departure from God by chusing sinful Ways they destroy themselves Ans If this were true one would think that all Infants without exception might be baptized being so in the Covenant of Grace and of the Church for then they are made Disciples and so are expresly commanded to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. I hope Mr. Barret or some other will examine this Position I shall not now insist long upon it If never so many Infants be in a State of Salvation or be saved this is not against my Principle of Infant Baptism I would not diminish the number of saved Ones however I think this to be a false unscriptural Position Obj. He telleth us of five Demonstrations p. 20 to 24. but all of them come to one poor Argument from the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which he thinketh was made with all Mankind with the whole World Ans 1. That all Mankind or the whole World is this Seed of the Woman with whom the Covenant of Grace was made is altogether without Proof and so all his Demonstrations are wholly groundless Let him but form an Argument from Gen. 3. 15. that is universal and any may see it will have a Non sequitur The utmost here said is that a Seed of the Woman or some of her Seed should be saved but it is not said All the Woman's Seed as such should be saved His Position should be his Conclusion of all his Demonstrations viz. That all Infants as such are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace But such a Conclusion hath no Footing in no Countenance from this Text not so much as by Consequence I think I have better than this for infant-Infant-Baptism and I might say as well that all their Seed have the Spirit poured out upon them and the Word in their Mouth Isa 44. 3. and 59. 21. The truth is Gen. 3. 15. cometh in as a Threatning of Punishment or Severity against the Serpent as any observing Eye may see yet implying a Promise of Mercy attainable by some sinning Men through Christ a Seed of the Woman Until Adam did take hold of that Promise by Faith in that Seed Christ he remained out of Covenant as others Ephes 2. 8 12. When Adam was actually