Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	life_n	part_n	1,720	5	4.3430	3	false

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

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

not to chuse them nor refuse them they know not their right hand from the left they know neither Good nor Evil whom the Devil cannot tempt them he cannot damn A learned Protestant tells us God will not damn any Person for that which they 〈◊〉 help This Sentence must needs be as true in the case of Infants as any 〈…〉 World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Law Deut. 22. 25 26. may suffice to convince any Man that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation seeing what Sin soever is upon them it was impossible for them to avoid it They therefore shall not be damned for it When Christ puts the Question How can ye escape the Damnation of Hell He speaks to incorrigible Sinners that the Fear of Damnation should not overwhelm weak Persons but never did he speak a Word against poor Infants He never told them they were of the Devil Satan is not the Father of Infants Ergo they are not his Children 4. Christ loved and gave himself for all dying Infants therefore not one of them shall be damned Christ gave himself a Ransom for all He loved and dyed for the chief of Sinners Therefore he loved and died for the poor innocent Babes He bought them that deny him 2 Pet. 2. 1 2. How should he despise the helpless Infant Object If God be so good to all Infants why then is he not so good to let them be baptized I answer God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptism And I appeal to any considering Man whether he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham as he was to the Infants of Abraham and whether God was not as good to an Infant in Israel of 7 days old as to an Infant of 8 days old And whether God be not as good to us in that he accepts us in the use of a very few Ceremonies as he was to Israel accepting them in the use of many Ceremonies And whether if he had pleased to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptism he had not been as good to us as now that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptism The Truth is Baptism is therefore good because it is commanded It is not good in it self no more was Circumcision nor indeed any Ceremony Now Repentance and Faith are good in themselves it 's absolutely necessary that those that sin be humbled for it and forsake it It 's absolutely necessary for the Creature to believe and to depend upon the Creator Now Baptism though it be not good in it self yet Heavens Authority enjoyning it and Divine Mysteries being contained in it and Priviledges conferred by it it is therefore good to those to whom it is appointed But where God requires is not but extends his Goodness without it it is a like Vanity in us to give it where he does not appoint it as it would have been in Abraham to give Circum●●●●●● to every Male Child as soon as it was born or at 6 or 7 days old 〈◊〉 to his Females also because it was a sign of a great Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom it did belong by Appointment And therefore I consider further that as those had no Loss of any Priviledg that was necessary for them in Israel who by the Law were not required to be circumcised as in the case of all Females So neither shall any lose God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not The Danger lieth on the other side For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants Male of 7 days old and all his Females also Sharers in the Covenant equally with those of 8 days old circumcised them he had hazarded both his own and their Loss of the Covenant In like manner whoever will presumptuously at least baptize any Person whom God does not require to be baptized is so far from bringing him into Covenant that he runs the hazzard of losing his own part in the Covenant Rev. 22. For I testify unto every Man. If any shall add unto these things God shall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book But 4. All dying Infants are under the Blessing of the Covenant of Grace therefore no dying Infant shall be damned This how strange soever it may seem must be a Truth or else poor dying Infants are the worst of Creatures When therefore we say all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace we mean it as God hath vouchsafed to interess them in his Mercy by Christ That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin so Justification of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Christ and he himself that best knew God's Design concerning them has declared without excepting so much as one of them that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven And what then is he that should except them as the manner of some is and in their cruel Judgment send them by Millions to Hell Torments Now either Infants even all of them are thus in or under the Blessing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all for the Covenant of pure Nature as made with Adam in Innocency concerns not Infants but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind but here they are lost The Covenant of Works concerns them not it cannot be said of them the Man that doth these things shall live in them And to say that Infants are under the Blessing of no Covenant is to rank them with the vilest of Men yea which the Devils themselves who are therefore most accursed because there is no Saviour no Mercy for them They are shut up in Chains under Darkness to the Judgment of the great day Now far be it from all Christians to have such Thoughts of God whose tender Mercies are over all his Works The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy but presumptuously fell from it Jude v. 6. But poor Babes before they had a being were exposed to Condemnation through the Offence of another Shall these Objects of Pitty perish eternally too without Remedy O God forbid let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences consequent to Original Sin yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants so as to be sufficient to condemn them or if it could yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them if he takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience Dr. Taylor 5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever shall be damned to hellish Torments therefore none of them dying such shall be damned We should hold nothing as a Point of Faith but upon clear Proof and especially things of so high a Nature as this is Some Men talk of some Infants as if they were little better than Devils But could never yet bring a just

charge against any one of that innocent part of Mankind The Instance of Esau is all that looks like an Enemy to Infants but mind it well there is no such matter in it God knew that Esau should not dy an Infant he knew he would be a bad Man and is judged as such Esau is not to be ranked with dying Infants and this Instance failing there is not the Shadow of any Proof that God will damn poor dying Infants But because the Doctor whose Book we are to examine has some Kindness for all dying Infants as I conceive though the Quality of his Subject does sometimes enforce him to drop such Sentences as may seem to deny all Mercy to unbaptized Infants yet he corrects all such Passages by saying they may be saved by uncovenanted Mercy c. A strange Speech it is but there is some Kindness to poor Infants dying without Baptism I shall therefore insist no farther at present upon the p●int of Infants Salvation but make my way to the Book itself by premising a few things Our late Assertors of Infant-Baptism seem to me to be ready to yield that Christ has not commanded to baptize Infants yea some of them grant it in totidem verbis yet they think themselves safe because in their Judgment Infant Baptism is not forbidden And with this Apprehension away they go to the Jews for Relief who out of their Talmud Gemara and Maimonides give them an account of some such Vsage among the Israelites And now from Dr. Hammond who has searched much into the Rabinical Doctrine they grow confident that Baptism was a Jewish Ceremony originally though they grant it was but of humane Institution and that the Christian Baptism is but the Copy which is taken from that Original Yea the learned Author of the case of Infant Baptism does tell us boldly That our Saviour being obliged to lay by Circumcision consecrated this Custom of the Jewish Church to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church But certainly John's Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins which was from Heaven and not of Men was more fit to be established by our Lord Christ for a perpetual Ministery in his Church than such a Jewish Custom Pitty it is that we should yet be contending about Infant-Baptism from this supposed humane Institution of the Jews When our needful Work is to do our Endeavour to prepare our Youth and many aged Persons too for an orderly Admission to that Holy Laver for Remission of Sins and not to blind their Eyes by fabling to them that they were regenerate and born again as soon almost as they came into the World. We have certainly as much need of good Schools to catechise our Youth and to prepare them thereby for the Profession of the most sacred Religion as the ancient Christians had This is the way to have our Posterity to receive the Truth in the Love of it when their Judgments are informed to understand it in the Beauty and Excellency as well as to see the Necessity of it This is the way to have them stand fast under all Revolutions when they have been radicated in the first Principles of Cathechism Heb. 6. 1 2. These Principles of Christianity are plain and easy to be understood and yet God knows there are but a few that have a competent Vnderstanding of them in this Nation And it is but a bad way to promote Christian Knowledg in Principles of Catechism as that of Baptism is such by Stories out of the Talmud or other Jewish Books which if we had them we cannot understand them why then are we sent unto them Is the Holy Scripture less able to make us wise to Salvation than the Talmud Let us take to the good old way and diligently teach our Youth the Rudiments of Religion so shall Goodness and Mercy follow us all the days of our Life and we shall dwell by our Posterity in the House of the Lord for ever One main thing in the Book now under Consideration is the Covenant of Circumcision which the Doctor will have to be a Gospel-Covenant and Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance Now as all this were true it would come short of proving it our Duty to baptize our Infants For seeing there is a proper time for our Participation of all Gospel-Priviledges so we must learn what time this is not from Circumcision for then the 8th day must precisely be the time but from Christ and his Apostles who are our only infallible Instructors herein But that the Doctor is mistaken in this thing which he makes a Pillar to his Building is I hope sufficiently made manifest Nor shall it be amiss in this place to give you the Judgment of a very learned Jew lately converted and baptized in the City of London bicause he may rationally be thought to understand the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision being a great Student in all Jewish as well as Christian Theology as any other Man. And this is the account we have from him of this matter in his printed Exposition upon the Acts of the Apostles chap. 2. 40. The Jews saith he who were circumcised in Infancy before Circumcision was abrogated were here baptized by the order of Peter from whence it appears that by Baptism and Circumcision two Covenants altogether differing were to be sealed of which the one was with those who by the Law of Nature were born of the Seed of Abraham the other with those who were spiritually reborn by the Gift of Faith. And whereas one main hinge upon which the Doctors Discourse for Infant-Baptism is supported is the Custom of the Jewish Church and the Custom of the ancient Christian Church the said learned Jew speaks very well to that Plea in these Words The Customs of Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Customs of the Church in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Church-Customs are to be built that they may be safe and laudable Whatsoever savours against the Words of Christ savours against the Truth and as Tertullian says what ever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy though it be an ancient Custom It is in the Power of God to pardon those that err out of Simplicity but because we erred once we are not always to go on in our Errors The Doctor divides his Book into a previous Discourse and into the Resolution of five Questions In stating and resolving his Questions he repeats much of the previous Discourse I have endeavoured to take his sence and have set down many of his Words and my Reply to his previous Discourse may serve as a Supplement to my Reply to the Resolution of his Questions because the same Arguments are handled in both What I have added about the Sign of the Cross in Baptism I have collected chiefly from a learned Protestant Writer in a Book intituled A Scholastical Discourse against Symbolizing with Antichrist

in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the