Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	5,442	5	9.2031	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26961	Much in a little, or, An abstract of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for infants church-membership or baptism with a few notes upon the anti-queries of T.G. / by the same hand that wrote the Fifty queries.	Barret, John, 1631-1713.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. Plain Scripture-proof of infants church-membership and baptism.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Quaeries examined.	1678 (1678)	Wing B1314; ESTC R14073	29,895	84

nor yet of the Law of Works as such how can you say that it is repealed seeing no other Laws are repealed Will you say it was part of the Law of Works which knows no mercy to those who have once offended Was not Church-membership a mercy And if it was part of the Ceremonial Law what was it a type of What is the Antitype that hath succeeded it And how could this be part of the meerly Judicial Law seeing Infants were Church-members long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Common-wealth and the Judicial Laws given them And can you say that this was proper to the Jews Was it given to them only that is only to Isaac and his Seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were entailed Were not many hundreds circumcised as Church-members and among them many Infants in Abrahams family before Isaac was born and so all the Proselites with their Infants afterwards that would come in 13. Is it not clear that there is an Universal Church visible And that every one that is a Member of a particular Church is also a Member of the Universal And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Universal And that this Universal Church is not dissolved Now must not he that will affirm the whole species of Infants are cast out of the Universal visible Church prove it well And since we find that they were once in it what need we any more proof that they remain in till it can be shewn where it is revoked And is it any good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the Universal If a Jew had been forced into a strange Country yet had not both he and his children there been Members of the Universal Church 14. Is not that false Doctrine which makes the children of the Faithful to be in as bad or a worse condition than the Curse Deut. 28. 32 41. doth make the children of Covenant-breakers to be in Is it not said v. 4. that those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their Body And of Covenant-breakers v. 18. 32 41. Cursed shalt thou be in the Fruit of thy Body Thy Sons and thy Daughters shall be given to another people They shall go into Captivity Now is it not a sorer curse to be put out of the whole Visible Church of Christ than to go into Captivity To be in Captivity is but a Bodily judgment directly but is it not directly a Spiritual judgment to be out of the Church 15. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the visible Church of Christ leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil Doth not the World and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture-distribution If you say Infants may be of the invisible Church is not the visible Church wider than the invisible That ordinarily we may not judg any to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible 16. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying Infants in the world Can we have any true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of Salvation and so die To judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is it not likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgment And if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of Salvation then will it not follow that they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of Salvation 17. What a full plain Text is that 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the children of Believers holy in state then ought they not to be admitted visible church-Church-members Are not all Divines agreed in the definition of the Church That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God Will not this Text prove children holy by a stated separation to God Is not the constant sense of the word holy a separation to God And were not the Infants of the faithful Church-members and so holy before Christs time And is it not most probable that the Apostle speaks of the same kind of holiness which was the ordinary priviledge of the faithful before But utterly improbable that he should speak of no other holiness here but legitimation which is common to the children of Pagans And if to be holy in the Apostles sense here be no more than to be lawfully begotten then may we not call all persons holy that are not Bastards Then is not almost all the world holy Because Bastards are called clean will it therefore follow that the legitimate may be called holy The Beasts that chewed the Cud and had cloven feet were clean will you therefore say they were holy 18. When it is said Mark 10. 14. Of such is the Kingdom of God whether this be not more than they may be visible Church-Members And whether these which Christ took up in his Armes and Blessed were not Members of his visible Church Are any visibly Blest without the visible Church And is it not considerable that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ Is it not evident that they were taken for Doctrines of moment for the Churches information And whether those words of Christ so plain and earnest suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not be not a better Plea at Judgment for our admitting Infants than any that ever yet you have brought for refusing them Turn over your Bible and see if you can find where Christ or his Apostles have said as much against our admitting Infants Church-members and then consider which way is safest Now to the Common Objections 1. If these Texts be objected Rom. 9. 8. They that are the Children of the flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed Eph. 2. 3. We are by Nature the Children of Wrath. To the first Text what is it the Apostle mainly drives at but that Men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's carnal seed and consequently not because they are the carnal seed of any other And is it their certain Salvation or their Church-Membership that we dispute for in regard of Individuals And further doth the Apostle speak one word against the priviledge of those Infants whose Parents violated not Gods Covenant nor fell away If a man should affirm That all the Infants of the faithful so dying are certainly saved is there a syllable in the Text against him Were they not aged unbelievers that the Apostle excludeth here And to Eph. 2. 3. What though we are by nature the children of wrath Doth it follow that we may not

Church and to be afterwards admitted into the Christian Church upon the profession of Faith and Repentance is plain in Scripture not to be contradicted But this contradicteth not the Baptising of the Infants of such being also to be acknowledged Church-Members Neither can you shew in all the New-Testament one instance of any Baptised upon their profession who deferred their Childrens Baptism if Infants till they were grown up and able to make the like profession But to come a little nearer to you would you have none but Men and Women Baptised Then do you not forget your self again and what you said Antiq. 39. p. 31. Who is against as early an engagement of children to God as can lawfully be made Now this one concession of yours that you are for as early an engaging them to God as can lawfully be will prove your way not so certain not altogether clear as you would perswade your Readers in your Preface not beyond the reach of contradiction but full of doubts full of difficulties If the children of Christians are not to be engaged and devoted to God in their Infancy you can none of you tell how then are you like to agree at what age they are to be so engaged and devoted to God What think you Is it not sinful to neglect and put it off when once it might lawfully be done Now what word what Example can you produce out of Scripture to satisfie Conscience how early you may do it What was the youngest Age that ever any Christians child was Baptised at And if you could tell us the minimum quod sic and quod non the youngest age at which any child was Baptised and under which age none might be Baptised it would be some guide to us Because you put the matter to my Conscience I would speak seriously And so I must say was I off from the grounds of Infant-Baptism I cannot see how Conscience would be well satisfied about the time of Baptizing my own Children To defer it after they are come to make a visible profession by your own Principles should be concluded sinful against the Rule of the Gospel but how soon a Childs profession may be taken for a sufficient visible profession I should not know how to resolve or how to determine I have one request to you that you would take into your more serious thoughts that part of the last Query which you left out Think how much of it you have granted unto And let us study the things that make for Peace and whereby we may edifie one another What you seem to hide from your Readers I shall give you the substance of more briefly out of Mr. Baxters Review p. 27. That if you would be contented your selves to satisfie your own Consciences to be Rebaptized as one that doubted whether he were well Married would secure it by being Married over again and would afterwards live peaceably in Communion with your Brethren and not appropriate Church-Communion to your Sect And if you would not deny our Infants part in the Covenant of Grace the promise of Pardon and life by Christ and our Infants Church-Membership and only deferred the Baptismal Investiture as Tertullian desired for the more solemn Inauguration and Obligation Though I should not be of your mind I should live in as loving forbearance and communion with you as with other Christians The Lord direct all his professing people into the way of Truth and Peace so prays Your Friend J. B. After this brief Reply to your Antiqueries I would propound to you these following Queries out of Mr. B's first defence or plain Scripture-proof c. desiring your serious thoughts upon them If you say they are answered already in Mr. T s writings then it will be more easie for you to return an Answer which if clear and succinct may more befriend your cause than greater volumes Preparatory Enquiries 1. Is not the Scripture more sparing in such cases as these 1. In speaking of those to whom it speaks not as concerning the Heathen and concerning Infants 2. In lesser points 3. In points not then questioned 4. Does not the New-Testament speak more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the old And is not this the very case here The main Question not being By what sign Members are to be admitted into the Church or whether by a sign or without but At what age they are to be admitted Members which is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible and therefore what need any more 2. Will the difficulty of a point that it is not so easie or clear as we would have it prove that it is not Truth The Apostle Peter tells us many things are hard to be understood even in Pauls Epistles yet are they not truths for all that Are there not many weighty Controversies more difficult than this And should it not be considered whether the contrary hath not far less evidence and likelihood of Truth 3. If never so clear evidence of Truth be produced will it not still be dark to them that are uncapable of discerning it And is not this the case of many even of the godly that are but children in knowledge 4. When the case is so difficult that we cannot attain to a clearness and certainty must we not follow the more probable way And though there should be far more said against Infant-Baptism than hath been said yet if far more may be said against your way of Baptism should not this stop you 5. And is it not a spirit of rashness and headiness that runs men presently upon new untried ways upon every doubting about the old would not tender Consciences who know errors to be dangerous wait and pray and enquire of those that are likely to inform them c. before they venture 6. Is the overthrow of a mans former weak grounds the overthrow of the Truth which he held Or is the overthrow of other mens weak arguments a weakning of the Truth which they maintain 7. Is not one found Argument enough to prove any thing true what if all the Texts that are brought were put by save one is not that enough 8. Should not the former and present customs of the holiest Saints and Churches be of great weight with humble moderate Christians in cases controverted and beyond their reach 9. Are not evident consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture as true proof as the very express words of a Text If it be proved that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism And then proved That Infants are Church-Members is not this as much as to prove They must be Baptized Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-Baptism as Christ brought for the Resurrection Mat. 22. 31 32. or will you call that weak arguing which is like his 10. Is this Controversie in it self considered of so great moment as some