Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	according_a	church_n	faith_n	5,553	5	5.3112	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

as the learned Bossuit confesses it is separated from Baptism in little Infants Were good Schools for catechising the Youth provided and a painful Ministery to keep such Schools this might be a better way to prevent the Delays of Baptism than to baptize Infants for in truth that proving no Baptism at all proves the greatest Delay of all Now for the use of such Schools both the Scripture and Antiquity would stand by us For when all is said that can be said Baptism being the washing of Regeneration a mystical and spiritual Burial with Christ the Church ought to have pious care that none be admitted to Baptism but such as give some competent account of the Work of Faith with Power in their Souls And hereunto agrees the Scriptures with full consent What hinders that I may not be baptized saith the Eunuch If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest saith Philip They that gladly received the Word were baptized Lidea's Heart being opened to attend to the Word she was baptized When the Samaritans believed they were baptized so were the Corinthians The Galatians were Sons of God by Faith and so baptized The Romans were dead to Sin and so baptized and so were the Colossians and so did our Saviour order it that he that believeth should be baptized we find none else by him appointed to it In vain do Men strive against such clear Evidence of the Divine Will and Authority of Heaven and rest upon and soar very high upon the Wing of humane Authorities What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord Wherefore the Doctor 's Flourish about his high Presumption that the Apostles authorized the Practice of Infant-Baptism and that it is most agreeable to Christ's Intention p. 70 71. are but Mans Breath Christ's Intention is not known in this matter but by his Word or the Testimony of his Witnesses from whence no such meaning can with Fairness be gathered And for his Talk here again of Christ's not repealing the Jewish Custom of baptizing is but vain nor does Dr. Lightfoot's Testimony and his own that there was such a Baptism signify so much but that the Test of the learned Sir Norton Knatchbul and that learned Jew Dr. Duveil may serve to ballance them CHAP. VII Answereth the Doctor 's fifth and last Question Whether it be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only baptized in their Infancy P. 72. IN stating this Question the Doctor does little more than repeat what he said upon the second and third Questions and grants that the stating of this depends upon what he said to them And therefore what is said in Answer to these Questions is referr'd to in this place He tells us p. 73. It never entred into the Heart of any of the Ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Persons who had been baptized in their Infancy But the Question is not so much what they did as what ought to be done in this Case Yet I must needs say their Case and ours differ exceedingly as I shewed in answer to the last Question before this They lived when an Error was but creeping in here and there and it was not pressed as necessary till about the fourth Century and so it may be there was no great Division about it tho it 's more than the Doctor can be confident of But we live in an Age when Infants are not baptized but rantized only and the Churches allowing such a practice do not now as then they did consist mostly of Baptized Believers but the Church the Doctor would have us communicate with have not only no other Baptism but the sprinkling of Babes but have been very fierce against all that have opposed it and asserted the Ancient Truth even to the undoing of them nay to the destroying them from off the Earth so that the Separation has been evidently occasioned by the unreasonable and cruel proceedings of the Assertors of Infant-Baptism It is famous in the Writings of Learned Men that the Donatists and Novatians denied Infant-Baptism tho some of them might permit it in danger of Death And it 's certain these Christians were very considerable both for Number and Piety and were more disliked by the other Party for their strictness about their Communion ordinarily than for any thing of Heresy they charg'd them with But the Apostolici were more Ancient and they are expresly called Anabaptists by the Papists because they looked upon Infant-Baptism as ridiculous But now if the Doctor will have the Question truly stated as the Case is in our Judgment and Conscience then it must be put into these Terms Whether it be lawful for Baptized Believers to hold Communion with such Christians as they think are not baptized at all And then the Doctor is a Person of that discretion that he himself must acknowledg that it must be resolved in the Negative till he or some Body else do convince us that the Church of England has some Baptism either true essentially or false in part and form only which would alter the Case But we do believe she has none at all So that Communion with her is more difficult We cannot conceive how Infant Baptism should be necessary by the presumptive Will of Christ as the Doctor phraseth it Such Language is very uncouth to us and seems to open a Gap for Men to presume the Will of Christ to be whatsoever they please or what by Learning and Parts they can make a plausible Discourse for It is a weighty Consideration if it were true That our Opinion does infer that there has been no true Church on Earth for 1100 Years nor a Chruch for 1500 with whom a Christian could Communicate without Sin. But this cannot be true for tho Infant-Baptism was an Error in our Judgment ever since it had a being yet there was always some Churches free of it and those we have taken notice of before to be many of the Greek Churches as Learned Authors do confess even such as were themselves for Infant-Baptism and with them are to be reckoned in this Question the Apostolici Donatists Novatians and a great part of the Waldenses as is fully made manifest by Mr. Danvers and others of which I shall here give a brief Account 1. But first we must premise That all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are ours being baptized upon profession of Repentance and Faith. No Man being able to this day to shew so much as one Infant was baptized in any one of the Churches mentioned in the Scriptures 2. In the next Age to the Apostles Justin Martyr gives this Account of the practice of the Churches I will declare saith he how we offer up our selves to God Those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith being willing to live according to the same are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus

Jews had such a Ceremony as Baptism among them before John Baptist came And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Protestant of the Church of England who writes thus As to their Argument who would have our Baptism to be derived from the Jewish Lotions as there is nothing of certainty in it so it is so far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture that there are hardly any Footsteps to be found thereof in the Old Testament They deduce the Original of Baptism from the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash or cleanse But the Rabbins if I am not deceived use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Immersion thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immersion But the thing is so uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men Rabbi Eliezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews Now to whom shall I give credit To Eliezer who asserts what the Scripture confirms meaning that Proselytes were not baptized or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture meaning this pretended Baptism is not to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion That the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are answering to give this Advantage to the Jews against the Christians But when I see Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was this Talmud sent to us that we should give so much credit thereto for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptism It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Christ This shews the danger of trusting to it it being so lately confirmed Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus who was also a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter He knew no baptising of Infants among the Jews So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in antient times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou be not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came How then there should be so much affinity between Baptism and the Divings of the Jews that the one should be successive to the other by any Right or Pretence is altogether I confess beyond my Faith. It appears from this learned Man's Discourse that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any such Baptizing of Infants or others as the Doctor pretends However God having appointed no such thing in the Jewish Church leaves such a Practice if they had it without any Authority to govern Christians in their Administration of Baptism Nor do we who assert the Ordinance according to the Scripture need to run for Counsel to the Jews Talmud Gemara and Maimonides And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg as if there were not sufficient Instruction in the undoubted Word of God how or to whom to dispence the first Ordinance of the Gospel to a poor Convert And it is a sure sign that the Doctor and all that make such a noise about this Rabbinical Learning to justify them in the case of infant Baptism are conscious to themselves that they have no sure Footing in God's Word for it And yet so partial are our Talmudists that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptism which as Dr. Hammond shews is commonly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immersion never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Aspersion or Sprinkling for such as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture how should they be true to any other Book One thing I marvel at p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments by saying Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New. For this I take to be a great Mistake of the Doctor I never heard of any whom he calls Annabaptists who hold Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism at all But I have met with divers of the Church of England who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptism so that all that the Doctor says upon this Mistake about which he spent some Pages is nothing to the purpose For we own no other Antitype of Circumcision but the Circumcision of the Heart called the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands But had he minded well his own Book he might have seen Mr. Philpot asserting the thing which he would charge upon us where he saith The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptism to Circumcision and baptize Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red-Sea c. Where I think he makes both Circumcision and passing through the Sea to be Shadows and Types of Baptism which is yet more evident because a little before he tells us that Paul calls Baptism the Circumcision made without Hands Which though it be not true seeing all Men know and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptism is made by Hands yet it shews that he looked upon Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision But I shall not fight with dead Men otherwise I might shew his Mistake in saying that the Apostles did attemperate all their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament but this we have shewed before to be an unsound Speech The Doctor seems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11 12. Circumcision saith he hath nothing in it symbolical of Baptism and denies it to be an umbratical but areal Consignation of the Covenant of Grace

erroneous Worshippers The Plague of Unbelief cannot seize them therefore the Medicine of Faith is not applied to them The Disease of transgressing the Laws is not upon them Rom. 4. 15. therefore they have not the Medicine of Repentance appointed to them and consequently not the Baptism of Repentance Secondly This Similitude supposes Infants cannot be cured of the Disease they are under without Baptism which is so contrary to Truth and to Protestant Doctrine that it is to be exploded And thus we see this Flourish about which he spends two or three Pages to the amusing his credulous Admirers comes to nothing at all For no sooner is it looked into but it vanisheth as a Dream when one awaketh Even so Lord shalt thou despise this false Image of the Gospel and all that are like unto it And like unto this is the next following p. 36. For tho it be true that considering the previous Law of Circumcision Gen. 17. it is not to be doubted but that David or Solomon would both observe it in any Commission which they might give to propagate it But what is all this to the purpose Where is the previous Law that commanded Infants to be baptized And such a Law as must be supposed according to the Similitude to oblige our David and Solomon even Christ himself to observe it Where I say is this Law to be found Not in the Word of God the Doctor confesses that Where then why in the Talmud the Gemara c. Very well But then this wretched Talmud was not finished in our Saviour's days but 500 years after and so could be no Rule to him nor in the time of his Apostles and so could be no Rule to them and therefore I hope it shall never be a Rule to us The Doctor p. 38. says we put the greatest stress upon Mark 16. 16. But it is plain saith he that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are capable of hearing and believing the Gospel Now as this is very true and therefore Infants may and shall be saved without believing so it is as true also that Infants are not concern'd in the Duty of Baptism here mentioned but may and shall be saved without that also And as the Doctor tells us he has proceeded thus far to shew how inconclusively and absurdly we argue c. so I have proceeded thus far too to shew how little Truth or Reason he has used to convict our Arguments of Weakness But he adds So weak are all the Arguments of the Anabaptists by which they endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subjects of Baptism to grown Persons c. Even so I reply that our weak Arguments are too strong to be overthrown by such impertinent Similitudes as the Doctor has brought against them And for Scripture as he has none so he has brought none but 2 Thess 3. 10. which he has also very much perverted as he doth also the Arguments used by us Here the Doctor p. 39 40. is pleased to say That Infant Baptism is so universal and ancient a Practice that no body knows when and where it began or how not being it came to be the Practice of the Church since there was never any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange Partiality to think that it could be any less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition And he brings Tertullian saying Had the Churches erred they would have varied but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from Error but Tradition Here the Doctor has left his Jewish Fort and takes Sanctuary in Apostolical Tradition and indeed the wisest Man that asserts this Scriptureless Practice is at a loss where to fix it Nay the Doctor now tells us plainly That no Body knows when and how and where Infant-Baptism came in And we tell him as plainly that this is a sign that it is an Error and came in privily stealing by degrees upon the Churches as false Teachers are said to do Gal. 2. 4. But now if the Doctor will stand to Tertullian's Rule we shall soon prove that Infant-Baptism is an Error For 1. All Churches have not held or practised it no not so much as one Church mentioned in the Holy Scripture or during the Apostles Days The Mother Church at Jerusalem knew no such practice for non apparentibus c. that which appears not is not It 's easy for the Doctor to say all Churches held it but it 's impossible for him to prove it He confesses no Body knows when it came in nor how nor where and why then might there not be true Churches before it came in even in his own Judgment and then all Churches have not held it 2. But now this is our Argument from Tertul. If the Churches varied about Infant Baptism then they erred in it But they varied about it ergo they erred in it The Major the Doctor must not deny because it 's become his own The Minor I shall prove presently first in Tertullian himself for he was not always the same even as he is quoted by the Doctor p. 41. for first he brings him in saying Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismo utilior est praecipue tamen circa parvulos c. It seems then that tho he speaks favourably of it afterwards yet he thought the delay of Baptism ESPECIALLY FOR LITTLE CHILDREN to be more profitable And this also was the Opinion of Nazianzen These two great Men who are at least the first of them as early Witnesses of Infant-Baptism creeping into the Church as can justly be named shewing so much doubfulness about baptizing Infants is a great sign it had no Authority from Christ and his Apostles for what were these Men to teach to delay it if Christ had commanded it And yet so they did expresly teach as the words quoted out of Tertullian by the Doctor do farther shew because it was his present Opinion That cun●tatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior He answers Venient dum adolescunt venient dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur Yea he further saith Fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint but this the Doctor left out And if after this he altered his Judgment as the Doctor supposes though some Learned Men think otherwise it shews that he was contrary to himself in this thing Now that whole Churches varied about it whether we respect the Infant Subject or the alteration of Dipping to Sprinkling has been abundantly made evident by many so that I shall content my self with an Instance or two out of the Learned Du-Veil who from Grotius on Mat. 19. 13. gives this account That according to the Rule of Scripture and agreeing with Reason it self the most part of the Greeks in all Ages even unto this Day retain a Custom of delaying Infant

his Sermon before the Court of Aldermen Aug. 23. 1674. We have an Obligation to the Laws of God antecedent to those of any Church whatsoever nor are we bound to obey those any further than they are agreeable with these Separation from a Church is lawful 1. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an Acknowledgment and Profession of that for a Truth which we know to be an Error 2. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion the joyning with her in some Practices which we know to be against the Law of God. In these two cases to withdraw our Obedience to the Church is so far from being a Sin that it is a necessary Duty Now this being our very case in the point of Baptism it would justify that Distinction which we hold needful between the Church of England and those of the baptized Believers but much more when there are some other things as pressing perhaps as this But now let us hear the Doctor Considering saith he what I have said upon the former Questions this Question must be answered in the negative whether we consider Infant-Baptism as a thing lawful or allowable only or as a thing highly requisite and necessary to be done And as a Foundation on which to build Infant-Baptism as a thing at least lawful and allowable he directly denies this Principle That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept and Example in the Word of God accounting this Rule an Absurdity and inconsistent with the free and manly Nature of the Christian Religion and that it is an impracticable Principle c. p. 49 50. But that this great Principle well understood should be spoken against by a Protestant is something strange and especially that he does not suffer it to take place in that which is essential in a Church-state as who are and who are not to be baptized is such a case but he will have Infant-Baptism to be admitted as lawful and allowable tho it be not warranted by Precept nor Example To free this Principle from Abuse as here suggested against it we will explain it as we hold and maintain it 1. Then we do not say that every thing which is naturally or meerly accidental and circumstantial in the Worship of God must have Precept and Example in the Word of God. 2. Nor do we hold that things which are meerly indifferent if not imposed as Boundaries of Communion are therefore to be esteemed sinful because not expresly warranted by Precept or Example in the Word 3. But we apply this Rule always and so in our present Question to such things as are essential to Church-membership and Church-Government as true Baptism is to the first and cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent and as such allowable or lawful only for it 's either necessary in the Constitution of a Church or it 's nothing and who are of Right and who are not to be baptized is of the Essence of Baptism and can admit of no lower a Consideration The Principle thus explained is clearly justified by the Word of God and if Protestants part with this Principle they will lose themselves Now thus saith the Lord Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God Deut. 4. 2. What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish ought from it Deut. 12. 32. Every Word of God is pure add thou not unto his Words lest he reporve thee and thou be found a Liar Prov. 30. 6. And it is observable that our Lord as he was sent to be a Minister of the Gospel claims no Authority to speak of himself John 12. 5. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me so I speak How ought this to put an awe upon all that speak in the Name of the Lord about Religion Neither does the holy Spirit it self as sent to supply the personal Absence of Christ take upon himself to give or abrogate Laws but to bring things to the Apostles Remembrance John 14. 26. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth FOR he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And this is the Rule also by which the Spirit of Truth is known namely by his advancing the Things delivered by Christ and his Apostles He shall take of mine and shew it unto you he shall glorify me 1 Tim. 6. 3 4. If any Man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome Words even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud knowing nothing 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error Rev. 22. 18. If any Man shall add to these things God shall add the Plagues which are written in this Book and if any shall take away from the Words of the Prophecy of this Book God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life And that this Text does establish as unalterable the whole New Testament our Adversaries do acknowledg See Diodate on the Place And Calvin upon Deut. 12. 32 Sith they saith he cannot deny that this was spoken to the Church what do they else but report the Stubbornness of the Church which they boast to have been so bold as after such Prohibitions nevertheless to add and mingle of her Own with the Doctrine of God. And Luther doth aver that no Doctrine ought to be taught or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God. Beza upon Levit. 10. 3. speaking in the Person of God I will punish them that serve me otherwise than I have commanded not sparing the chief that the People may fear and praise my Judgments Mr. Borroughs in his Gospel-Worship p. 8. All things in God's Worship must have a Warrant out of God's Word must be commanded It is not enough that it is not forbidden and what hurt is there in it but it must be commanded In a Book called A brief Account of the Rise of the Name Protestant p. 12. printed 1688 we read thus Protestantism doth mainly or rather only consist in asserting the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule the only Rule by which all Christians are to govern and manage themselves in all Matters of Religion so that no Doctrine is to be owned as an Article of Faith on any account but what hath very plain Warrant and sound Evidence from the Scriptures Nor no Instance of Religious Worship to be owned or submitted to as necessary nor any thing to be determined as a part of Religion but what the Scriptures do appoint and warrant Thus our Adversaries themselves do say as much for this Principle which the Doctor condemns as absurd as we do And