Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41782
|
The loyal Baptist, or, An apology for the baptized believers ... occasioned by the great and long continued sufferings of the baptized believers in this nation / by Thomas Grantham ...
|
Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.
|
1684
(1684)
|
Wing G1540; ESTC R26748
|
84,492
|
109
|
Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World But the Church of England does believe hold and maintain such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of that Christian Liberty wherewith Christ hath made his Churches free and of that sacred Baptism and holy Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World Ergo It is lawful just and needful to maintain a prudent and friendly Separation from the Church of England in her present Parochial Constitution Supposing the Major is not to be denied by any Christian we shall endeavour to make good the Minor To begin with Sacred Baptism It is evident from the Scripture and partly from the Confession of the Church of England that the Things prerequisite to Baptism on the part of every one who is to be joined with the Church Militant or to be baptized are these 1. They ought to have the Gospel preached or some way made known to them 2. To believe the Gospel 3. To repent of Sin And 4. Willingly to put on Christ in Baptism Or to express it in short They are first to be dead with Christ and then secondly to be buried with Christ by Baptism Now that the Church of England does hold such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of this Baptism may in our Judgment be thus proved 1. She believes holds and does teach others to hold That all or the very most of her Church-Members are regenerate without hearing the Word of God without Faith without Repentance or any Knowledg of God and so believes what neither we nor any Body else can understand to be true and errs in Faith 2. Yet she does not believe that her Members are regenerate at all till she cross or sprinkle them with Water neither does she know because she has no ground to believe that Infants are thereby made anew so as to become the Children of God and Heirs of Heaven and believing this without possibility ordinarily to know it to be true she errs in Faith 3. She believes and maintains that those ought to be baptized whom she knows do not cannot believe nor repent nor in any measure know God nor any Duty of Religion and herein she errs as we conceive concerning the Faith 4. She believes and maintains that Sponsors do believe and repent for Infants or that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sponsors and believing these things and teaching her Youth to believe them without any ground from the Word of God she believes amiss or errs in Faith 5. She holds that Persons may lawfully be baptized when they are asleep and does actually pretend to baptize Infants when they are asleep which we think verily must needs be a very great Error both in Faith and Practice 6. She believes holds and maintains that Crossing or Sprinkling is a lawful way of Baptizing when indeed it is no Baptizing at all Insomuch as those that use that Mode dare not speak as they act saying I sprinkle thee in the Name c. their Conscience bearing them witness that the sacred Act of baptizing in the Name c. cannot be expressed by the word Sprinkling They therefore believing what they know is not true in this matter must needs err in Faith as well as in their Practice And this Error has in a manner destroyed the way of Baptizing used by John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 7. Thus tho we grant that the Church of England is no less zealous for the Doctrine of Baptism than our selves yet it is apparent to us that she hath accidentally lost this holy Ordinance both in respect of the Subject and Manner of it and in the due Use and End of it which was not appointed nor fitted to receive new-boru Infants into the Church Militant And by this unwarrantable Change she has defaced the State and lost the Praise of a true Church 1 Cor. 11. 2. because she has not kept this Ordinance as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but hath rather suppressed it and much oppressed those that labour to restore it to its due Use and Practice in all Churches which is a great Aggravation of all these her Errors in Faith and Practice concerning Sacred Baptism SECT III. Concerning Discipline WHat manner of Discipline the Church of Christ ought to observe is sufficiently declared Matth. 18. 1 Cor 5. 2 Thess 3. Tit. 3. and other places And it is very well expressed by a Minister of the Church of England in his Defâ—nce of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England in these Words The manner of proceeding in Excommunication is first by gentle Admonition and that once or twice given with the Spirit of Meekness even as a Brother if the Fault be not notoriously known and next by open Reprehension afterward by publick Sentence of the Church to put him from the Company of the Faithful to deliver him to Satan to denounce him an Heathen and a Publican if no Admonition will serve and the Crimes and Persons be very offensive Thus he And to this Discipline we can heartily subscribe it being indeed the very same which is religiously observed by the Baptized Believers in this Age and Nation But where now shall this Discipline be found in the Church of England Does any one Assembly or Court of the Church of England observe it Or does she not practise that in her Courts which is too evidently destructive of it For so far as we can understand instead of this brotherly Admonition Men are clandestinely presented and accused and often excommunicated for they know not what What Man is now taught or bound by any Order of the Church of England that in case his Brother trespass against him by defaming his Reputation offering Injury to his Person or by wronging him in his Substance to take that brotherly Course prescribed to all Christians Mat. 18. Or if he would take this Course what Congregation is empowred or allowed to hear or determine the Strife as Sin is in such cases committed against God We see not how it is possible for the Offended to do his Duty in an orderly way to the Offender if he go about it he shall probably be derided both by Teacher and People So far is he from obtaining Justice against the Offender in any Congregation of the Church of England because the ancient Discipline is an unknown thing to the People generally And for want of this Christian Government are Men continually exposed to Suits and Troubles in Courts of Law wherein the Poor can have small Help as it is written Eccles 5. 8. old Translation If thou seest the Poor to be oppressed marvel not for one great Man keepeth touch with another and the mighty Men are in Authority over the Poor 3. But that which is more grievous We do not see that open Prophaneness can be met with or suppressed by your Discipline For suppose a Man be
Jewish Washings which are expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Danvers further shews And sure I am that Rom. 6. and Col. 2. is so very clear for our way of baptizing that the Learned of your way do grant these Places allude to the ancient way of baptizing which say they was by dipping the Party into the Water 4. What you say of your Sprinkling to be as significant as Dipping is not true for indeed unless it be commanded to signify the Death Burial Resurrection of Christ and our Mortification and Vivification it can signify none of these things Otherwise every time you wash your hands might signify what is signified in your Baptism yet you will not say it doth so And the same Answer may serve to what you say of Sprinkling and Dipping being equally obliging for unless God hath given them to oblige they have no obliging Nature or Virtue in them 5. What you say of the Searcity of Water can be no Plea for you that have no want of it whatever it may be for them that have it not But sure where God gives not Straw he will require no Brick He does not make Baptism so necessary that we shall perish if we cannot but rather if we will not obey him therein 6. Your Surmise that Dipping seems an indecent thing is indecently said both by Mr. Walker and your self seeing it may be done as decently as your Sprinkling for your Talk of transparent Garments shews your unacquaintedness with the right way of Baptizing And know this your ruffling Ladies in their gorgeous Apparel may work upon your pravity of Heart sooner than to behold and humble penitent Sinner cloathed in comely tho mean Garments to be buried with Christ by Baptism 7. To your Objection about the Coldness of the Climate you need but put on the Garment of Love to God and his Truth and act from a Principle of Faith and you need fear no Ill tho this Path may seem to you as the Valley of the Shadow of Death Yet if any Person be really weak of Body and cannot be satisfied to delay as I confess that may be dangerous there may such care be taken as in the Eye of Reason no Inconvenience need be feared And if the Water be frozen as you object surely he that will allow us to thaw that for our natural will not blame us if we do so for our spiritual use 8. Does plunging or dipping take away the Understanding Why not more now than in Christ's Time And is it so necessary that the Understanding act in the Duty I marvel then why you baptize Persons as you call it when they are asleep 9. What you say of the great Labour of dipping and the Impossibility for one Man to baptize 3000 in one day and that it is therefore unreasonable to think the Apostles did dip all that they baptized c. I answer First you grant then that they dipped some that they baptized prove now that they sprinkled so much as one and the Dispute is at an end Secondly But Sir what need was there for one Man only to baptize the three thousand Acts 2. 40. Does not Mr. Walker himself suppose that there were of the hundred and twenty Disciples eighty two in a Ministerial Capacity to wit the Seventy two besides the Apostles Surely they might easily baptize three thousand in a few hours But you will now prove the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of Sprinkling let us hear what you say 1. You now make Sprinkling not only equally signified in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to be more congruous with its genuine Signification your reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Derivative can admit of no larger Signification than its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find say you in the History of Nebuchadnezzar when like a Beast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was wet with the Dew of Heaven But for Answer 1. I say this Place in Dan. 4. will never prove that Sprinkling is more congruous to the genuine Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Dipping For Nebuchadnezzar being seven Years to live with Beasts out of Habitation or House was sufficiently washed especially being probably naked too so that this kind of wetting holds some resemblance with plunging in Water there being no part free from the Water thus rained upon Nebuchadnezzar In which respect it seems the Septuagint renders or expresses his lying open to the Snow Hail Rain or Dew so long a time by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 2. My Answer is That the Greek here is Hyperbolical and not properly to be understood and our Translators knowing this did not as I suppose translate the Word according to its proper Signification our Language not well bearing it in that case but according to the thing which was to befall Nebuchadnezzar And it seems very disingenuous for you to conclude from this Hyperbole that Sprinkling is more congruous to the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Dipping tho in so saying you contradict most of the Learned that have interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I am sure and you know it much better than I can tell you for my Learning is nothing when compared with yours that our Lexicons Dictionaries and Grammars do make the prime Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a dipping as they do who dye Colours and Scapula does not make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Sprinkling at all 2. What you say in your 2d 3d 4th and 5th Particulars is answered before but here you say The Church was never confined to that Mode of Dipping but had several Ways of baptizing dipping or sprinkling c. I answer What Usages the Church has had is not the Question but the Ground of her doings is the matter of our Enquiry But yet I will venture to say she was always confined to dip if she kept that Ordinance according to Christ's own Example which I think is a better Expositor of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than any Lexicon in the World 2. The Alteration of the manner of this Ordinance has not only occasioned us to say You that only cross and sprinkle are not baptized but the Muscovites declare the Latin Church to be unbaptized for the same reason For this you may read Daille on the Fathers lib. 2. p. 148. where he tells us The Custom of the Ancient Church was to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in Water as Tertullian Cyprian and Epiphanius testify And this is still the Practice of the Greek and Russian Cnurch at this day as Cassander de Baptismo pag. 193. And yet notwithstanding this Custom is now abolished by the Church of Rome and this is the reason why the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized Thus he Nor is this the only