Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	church_n	universal_a	visible_a	4,369	5	9.4736	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41784	Presumption no proof, or, Mr. Petto's arguments for infant-baptism considered and answered and infants interest in the convenant of grace without baptism asserted and maintained : whereunto is prefixed an answer to two questions propounded by Mr. Firmin about infants church-membership and baptism / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1687 (1687)	Wing G1542; ESTC R27161	38,572	48

of Faith to all Nations Rom. 16. 26. And that Typical Covenant of Circumcision being made void and the Gospel appointing no Ceremony for Infants yet assuring them of Heaven but making Repentance and Faith the two first Principles of the Christian Religion and Baptism the third Principle in order to a due Profession of Gospel-worship in a Church-way it is manifest that Infant-baptism is an Innovation and makes a Breach upon the sacred Doctrine contained in St. Paul's Catechism as set down Heb. 6. 1 2. And therefore all good Men should labour that Truth herein according to Primitive Crder may be restored Nevertheless that Infants even all of them dying such have an undeniable Right in the Covenant of Grace to Life and Salvation I hope to make very evident both from the Scripture and right Reason in the last Part of this Treatise to which I now apply my self and though herein I shall not directly answer to Mr. Petto yet I shall scarce fail to remove those things which may seem to be of any moment in his often and unnecessary Repetitions PART III. In which Infants Interest in the Covenant of Grace without Baptism is asserted and maintained IT is evident from the Writings of many Paedobaptists both Papists and Protestants that they do hold either absolutely that no unbaptized Infant can be saved or at least that their Salvation is very doubtful and amongst those Mr. Baxter and from him Mr. Barret and now Mr. Petto has not a little amused the Minds of Men about this matter First Mr. Baxter tells us and Mr. Barret also that Infants are not so much as seemingly in a State of Salvation without Baptism And secondly Mr. Petto thinks they are cut out of the great Charter of Heaven These are his Words It is the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-seed only of visible Believers that I plead for and there are such vast Numbers even millions of these that if Men unduly exclude and raze out the Names of so many out of that great Charter of Heaven they will have a dreadful Account to give thereof to God. In answer to these childish Fears and undue Reflections upon us I shall take the pains to transcribe what I have formerly written upon this Account it being yet unanswered This new Art of pleading for Infant-baptism by virtue of their Church-membership Covenant-Interest c. and not from the Scriptures directly but altogether by remote obscure and far-fetch'd Consequences I say considering these Subtilties of Mr. Baxter and others I perceive the Controversy to rise very high and Questions thereupon to be multiplied insomuch that I have had for my share not less than five hundred of them sent out by Mr. Barret abovenamed which has been redargued in two Books of Antiqueries Hereupon I conceived it needful to consider this matter for I perceived very wise and good Men engaged on both sides and as I believe much more straining in the Point of Church-membership or Covenant-Interest of Infants than needed By which the Readers of the Controversy as handled between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Tombs shall sooner fill their Heads with Amazement than their Hearts with Satisfaction in tracing the several Meanders of their Scholastick Disputations And though I am abundantly short of the Accomplishments of either of these Champions yet standing to view till they engage I hope I have thereby been led to the Consideration of a Medium which if well considered and improved will reconcile the difference about Infants visible Church-membership and Covenant-Interest and yet do not doubt at all that Infant-baptism will be found unnecessary and unlawful To which purpose I shall lay down once more this Position That all Infants as such are in a visible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace and so are of the universal 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 And the better to convince my present Adversaries I will make my Enterance hereunto by a Passage out of Mr. Baxter's Book of More Proves c. pag. 8. where he saith All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain nor repealed by God but as their Abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out For as a Covenant of intire Nature was made with all Mankind in innocent Adam so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah Now this Doctrine being no more than plain Truth we shall apply it to the case in hand by shewing 1. That this Covenant of Grace was a visible Church-Covenant 2. That it was made with all Mankind and takes place in their Infancy 3. That it was never repealed by God. 4. That no Infant did ever abuse the Grace of this Covenant and that therefore no Infant was ever cast out of this Covenant And then fifthly they all stand visible Members of the Catholick or universal Church by virtue of this Covenant however their Parents do abuse or neglect it And hence it will follow no dying Infant is damned but are all in a visible State of Salvation These things I hope to shew to Satisfaction Demonstration 1. That this Covenant of Grace first expressed Gen. 3. 15. was either a Church-Covenant or else there was no Church-Covenant in the World that we read of from Adam to Noah this being indeed all the Covenant which is found in Scripture during these times besides that Covenant of intire Nature made before the Fall. And that Covenant of Nature being broken by Adam and in him by all his Posterity it being not a Covenant of Grace could not afford means to justify the the Offenders in the Sight of God. There must therefore be some supervening Act of Grace or Mercy from God else Adam even whole Mankind who were then in his Loins must have stood under Condemnation for ever seeing no Man could redeem his Brother nor give to God a Ransom for him Psal 49. 7. It is the received Doctrine of Christians that the visible Church began in Adam and that his Family was the Church wherefore the whole World being then the Church and that Church-Covenant being made with the whole World which was to proceed from Adam and this Covenant yet remaining it follows against all Contradiction that whole Mankind considered as they came into the World in the several Ages of it are in that Covenant and so in a visible State of Salvation and therefore of the Universal Church of God. But whereas many did apostatize from the Grace of God's Covenant by corrupting his Way Gen. 6. 12. it was necessary that they should be ejected and therefore was the Profession of this blessed Covenant accommodated and appropriated to that Part of the Adult who had not sinned themselves out of it But still we do not find that the

sprinkling Infants Nay the Church of Rome will by this Argument stand on equal Terms with you for many of her Ceremonies which you disallow For admit one Error and a thousand will follow Thus by your Argument Men may run they know not whither and return they know not when I now come to your two main Arguments for this you seem not much to rest upon but you use it ad hominem Mr. Petto's first Argument for Infant-Discipleship Some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit upon them Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptised Answer This Argument supposes that some Infants have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them before they be baptised This I take to be the newest Piece of Doctrine in the World and therefore must needs enquire what Infants these are How Mr. Petto knows them from others And at what time before their Baptism and also by whom this Name is put upon them and in what manner it is done For all these things he ought to know before according to his own Logick he may baptise them Till he do this and he must do it well too I deny his Antecedent Saying also that no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them My Reasons are such as these 1. God hath not made this distinction in Gospel-times between some Infants and other some so as to disciple some of them by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them He has taken down the Wall of distinction between Jew and Gentile accounting the one as clean as the other Act. 10. 28. And has given the same Order for discipling to all Nations Matth. 28. 19. but not a word in that Order to put his Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any Person before they be baptised 2. No Man has Authority by the Word of God to make Infants Disciples at all much less by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them before Baptism But the only Way assign'd by God to make Disciples is first by preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every Creature which shews the true Intent of our Saviour in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which you refer us And our Criticks do allow that it signifies an actual teaching both in the Hebrew and Greek But the best Interpreter of that Verb is the Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles who made Disciples by actual teaching John 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly evincing the Truth of this 3. If it could be proved that the Name of the Trinity were upon the Infants of Christians yet this would not bear your Conclusion that they must be baptised any more than it will bear Augustin's Conclusion that they ought to partake of the Lord's Table Dr. Jer. Taylor and Dr. Barlow confess you may do both as well as either and that the Wit of Man cannot shew a difference in the Sanctions And indeed all your Arguments for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism if they were good might be improved against you concerning the other Ordinance for admit one Error and another will follow But let us examine your Scriptures by which you would prove your Antecedent 1. You bring Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations Now if these Words did oblige the Apostles to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all Persons or Nations before Baptism it quite spoils your Argument which would restrain it to some Infants only Why do you thus abuse the Word Did the Apostles put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any one Infant Is not the Scripture silent as to this Or did they put the Name c. upon any to whom they preached till they received their Doctrine Or did they do this before they baptised them In that solemn Institution they did put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all such as gladly received the Word Act. 2. 40. Act. 10. ult And for this they had full Authority Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. even to preach to and so to disciple all Nations baptising them viz. Mathet as subintelligitur in verbum Mathetusate as the Practice of Christ had directed them John 4. 1. Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. And Junius and Tremelius adds the Particle Et Ite ergo docete omnes populos baptisate eos c. 2. You tell us they are Disciples not only who actually learn but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning This is not true 1. Infants are not in the School or Church of Christ as it is a School to learn any thing whilst they are Infants God has neither bound his Ministers to teach them whilst such nor enabled them to learn as such If you say this future teaching respects not the time of their Infancy then were you very fallacious in your Argument for this will prove all the Infants in the World to be Disciples as well as any of them seeing Christ's Church is the Light of the World and all that come to Years of Discretion having opportunity are bound to learn of her 2. But yet it does not follow that all who are under present means of Instruction are therefore to be accounted Disciples For you know many heard Christ preach who yet were none of his Disciples but his Persecutors many heard his Apostles teach who yet were not their Disciples for they put the Word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of eternal Life I suppose also that all that hear Mr. Petto are not his Disciples how much less poor Infants that never heard him at all And here I require Mr. P. to name one Infant that he ever made a Disciple according to Matth. 28. and that will do more a great deal than his empty Dictates 3. You bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. which shews how Saul made havock of the Churches entring into every House haling Men and Women to Prison and that he breathed out Slaughter against the Disciples Sure you may blush to bring such Texts to prove Infants Disciples nor will Act. 15. 10. bear your Inference The false Apostles would indeed have had the Disciples among the Gentiles to have been circumcis'd but it does not follow at all that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised This is just such a Consequence as this You would have Infants to be sprinkled Ergo all are Infants whom ye would have sprinkled This Consequence you will deny because you would have others also sprinkled who are no Infants And for the same reason I deny your Consequence for the false Apostles would have circumcis'd some who were no Disciples to wit Infants You bring here Gen. 17. but this we will consider