Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	church_n	deny_v	tradition_n	2,831	5	9.1401	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41787	A religious contest, or A brief account of a disputation holden at Blyton in the county of Lincoln between Mr. William Fort minister of the perochial congregation at Blyton on the one part, and Thomas Grantham, servant to the baptised churches on the other part : whereunto is added Brief animadversions upon Dr. Stilling-fleet his digressions about infant baptism in his book intituled, A rational account of the Protestant religion, &c., in both which are shewed that the generality of the nations now professing Christianity are as yet unbaptised into Christ : 1. Because their sprinkling and crossing the fore-head is not the right way of baptising, 2. Because infants ought not to be baptised.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1674 (1674)	Wing G1544; ESTC R39430	28,329	42

but upon the pre-supposition that the person so doing to have seen or known them that gives him his authority to Baptise infants and then indeed it 's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words Disciple the Indians Baptising them would exclude infants But yet I must also say that his ground to believe so could not arise from the words themselves but from the practice presupposed Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations Baptising them without the least knowledge of any Infants Baptized by any Baptists which were before them or from whom they received their authority here is no place for the Drs. suppositions at all As little cause hath he to think that had any one said to Abraham he that believeth and is circumcised shall be saved it ought so to have been interpreted as that infants ought to be circumcized For if this had been all the rule given for circumcision it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only and unless the Dr. know how from good ground to satisfie his conscience that Infants are believers of that which is taught or Preached according to Mark 16. which place he aludes unto he must so limit the diversion for baptising But if indeed he take Infants to be such believers then he is answered by Dr. Hammond in his Let. of Resol p. 297. who saith as for the Question whether Infants have faith I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it I freely confess to believe Faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding that they that have not understandisg cannot have faith whethe actual or habitual The conclusion therefore is sith in the case you put the word believe cannot concern infants and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation though they believe not it is every way safe to think them unconcern●d in the other duty that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding Finally the Dr. proposes five considerations about the suitableness of In●ant baptism to the administration of things under the Gospel and first he saith 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants there had been far greater reason for an express prohibition then for an express command if his intention were to admit them because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before Answer Here is little said but what hath been answered before and may be answered by saying had it been Christs intention that infants should not be admitted to the Lords Table there had been more need of an express prohibition c. then of an express command c. because suitable to Gods dispensations among them before Thus Argumentum ad hominem But I answer further it is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments from Gods dispensations among the Jews seeing the state of the Church and the di●pensation is so much altered as that the former was but carnal in respect of the Spirituality of the other 2. The Dr. saith it is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ when after Christs ascention they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customes even when they had baptized many thousands Answer It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customes because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel which is the mark you ought to hit or you say nothing but the reason why they did observe such Customes for a time was the weakness of the Jews and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customes as they could Acts 15. 24. to 32. Acts 1645. which clearly shews Jewish Customes was not suitable to things under the Gospel and here circumcision one of the chief of Jewish rites is clearly abolished among the rest so that a man would think infant baptism should never have been built upon it 3. The Dr saith If admission of infants to Baptism were a meer relique of judaism it seems strange that none of the judaizing Christians should be charged with it who yet are charged with the observation of other judaical r●tes Answer I find no man saying that Infant baptism was a relique of judaism save Dr. Hammond and some from him and he indeed would make believers baptism also a jewish relique whiles he teaches that the jews baptising Proselites and their Children was the Original and the baptism ●f the Christian Church but the Coppy by which device he hath opened a gap to our late N●tionists to deprive the Church of sacred baptism altogether and hath done more to weaken the cause of infant baptism then any other of its favourites in laying its foundation in jewish ceremonies for which they had no clear command from God But great is this truth of believers baptism and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond for it was no jewish rite the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was from Heaven Mat. 21. 25. and the Pharisees who ●ere ●ealous enough for jewish rites rejcted holy baptism which Christ asfi●ms to be the counsel of God Lu. 7. 30. and testifies out of the consciences of his enemies that he that t●aches otherwise denyes John to be a Prophet This then is the thing that truly seems strange that no mention is made of infant baptism if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church either as a jewish rite or otherwise but not str●●●e at all that none is charged with it seeing none can be named that held it 4. Since theie wish Christians were so much offended saith the Dr. at the neglect of circumcision Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their children being wholly thrown out of the church as they would have been if neither admitted by circumcision nor baptism Answer Since the false Apostles was so earnest to have the christians circumcise their children it 's strange that none of the true Apostles could or would quiet them by saying instead of infant circumcision you have infant baptism if indeed there had been any such thing practiced For this way went the Apostle Paul to still them vvhen they would have brought the believers themselves under circumsion Col. two Telling the chriffians they vvere circumcised vvith the circumcision made vvithout hands in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried vvith him in baptism vvherein ye also are ●isen with him through the Faith c. And why might not the jews as qui●tly take the non-admission of infants to baptism as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lords Supper seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover nor i● it necessary to say that though they were not admitted to either of these that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church For If by church be meant the whole number of the saved then are infants of the churchs for Christ hath told us the kingdom of God belongs to infants and thus were infants of the church before circumcision was for some thousands of years But if by church be meant those only vvho are concerned in the actual profession of the gospel in this respect I grant infants are not of the church God having no vvhere required this of infants in his gospel Infants are novv as vvell as before the Flood vvithin the covenant of the gospel in respect of the grace of eternal Life but are not under the duties of the Covenant to vvit Repentance Faith baptism perseverance c. Nor can my calling the whole number of the saved the church and thus making infants a part thereof offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant doctrines seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine p. 73. upon Art 19. of the Church of England do●h affirm there is an invisible Church and takes all within the compass of ●his Church who are elect tryumphing or that shall tryumph in Heaven Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church all the Elect of Men or Angels caled or not yet called l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these defi●itions of the churc● infants are not thrown out of the Church though not of the number of the called and consequently not that cause for the jews to complain nor any other which the Dr. doth imagine unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the covenant of Gods grace in Christ Iesus our Lord. Five The doctor lastly tells us That had it been contrary to Christs institution to baptise infants we should not have had such evidence of it's early Practice in t●e Church and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us Answer This is altogether unlike a Protestant What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture that vve knovv not vvhen and to vvhom they belong vvithout Tradition but vvhen shall vve see this Tradition Apostolical I think doctor Ta●lor expresly denies there is any Tradit apostolical lib. proph●si p. 117. 120. But the doctor cannot but knovv there be errou●s ●vhich crept into the Church even in the apostles days vvhich also continued in some of them notvvithstanding all endeavours to purge them such vvere circumcision and keeping the Lavv. Or if we list to reckon vvith records of antiquity 't is easi● o show some things held by Papists and opposed by the doctor are better proved by tradi●ion then infant baptism for example the Lent Fast ond prayer for the dead this is not denyed by Mr. Perkins demonst prob What then shall be gained to the protestant Religion by such Traditional arguments It is a notable saying of Irenae●s according to Dr. Fulk Wsen the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures they ●all to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition And saith Tertul according to Dr. Fulk Take away those things from the Hereticks which they hold with Ethnicks that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only FINIS ERRATA P. 3. l. 5. r. is right p. 4. l. 25. r. of a Midwife p. 5. l. 34. for these r. those p. 7. l. 27. for others r. overs

by the offence of once the Judgement came on all men to condemnation so by the obedience of one the free gift abounded towards all men to justification of life Mr. Fort. These places do not prove that all Infants dying in infancy shall be saved for he speaks here only of the resurrection of the Dead T. G. These places do shew that what death and condemnation came on infants by Adam is made void by the death of Christ and I desire you to answer me this Question whether you believe that any infants dying in infancy shall be damned Mr. Fort. yes I do be●ieve some infants dying in infancy shall be damned here the people gave a general sigh as disliking so harsh a saying T. G. Then you are no friend to infants shall the Lord tell us the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the father and shall we no● believe him Mr. Fort. The Lord doth say he will visit the iniquities of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation T. G. yea Sir but it is of them that hate him but yet I grant in respect of temporal punishments the children do often bear the iniquities of their fathers yea all infants do bear the sin of their father Adam to this day but our discourse is of eternal condemnation in which respect I say infants shall not bear the iniquity of their father seeing Christ saith of infants indefinitely of such are the kingdom of God Mr. Fort Well I have shewed that infants being in the Covenant ought therefore to be baptized and it is said 1 Cor. 7. that infants are holy and so they are in Covenant with their believing parents T. G I have answered your argument by distinguishing betwixt the duty of the covenant and the mercy of eternal life in the first I say infants are not in the covenant but in the other I say they are for they shall be saved by Christ And for the holiness the 1 Cor. 7. it is expounded by Erasmus and others of your own Doctors to be only a legi●timate holiness and indeed being derived from the unbelievers being sanctified it cannot fairly be understood of any other kind of cleanness then that which is Matrimonial Mr. Wright Mr. W. interposed saying Diodate doth expound that place of a covenant holiness T. G. I grant he doth so yet Augustine far more antient then he saith that whatsoever that Ho●iness is it is certain it is not of power to make Christians or remit sins Mr. E. I marvel you ●…ould deny infants the seal seeing you grant them to be in the covenant T. G. I do not deny them the seal any more then your self who deny them the Lords Supper which was allowed them in old time for 600 years together Mr. F. What Author saies so I do not think you can shew that in any good author T. G. I can shew it from your own Doctors in a learned treatise called a Scholastical discourse about symbolising vvith Anti-Christ in Ceremonies Mr. Fort. Infants being in the Covenant are in the Church and therefore cannot be denyed baptism T. Grantham I answer by the former distinction if by being in the Covenant and in the Church you mean the whole number of the saved I grant infants to be in the Covenant and in the Church but if you mean those onlie who are in the actual profession of gospel Ordinances as baptism and the like I say no Scripture shews them to be so in the Covenant Mr. Fort repeating what he said before rose up to go away then Tho. Grantham said Gentlemen though we differ in opinion yet I desire we may endeavour to maintain the great duty of Charitie towards each other till God shall rectifie our judgements in these things Mr. W Mr. Wright replied saying it was not meet to place all our Religion in these ●hings but to walk in love one towards another or to this effect and thus in a f●iendlie manner the meeting was dissolved everie man went away in peace The next day the baptised Christians met together to preach the Word Mr. Fort and Mr. Wright came to the meeting and i● a very civil manner assaied to discourse with them about the Authoritie by which they Preach supposing that they had no ordinarie calling to the ministry but when it was shewed them that no man was allowed to minister in the baptised Churches in the capacity of a Pastor or other Officer without due election and ordination by fasting and prayer with the laying on of hands by the Presbiterie Bishops or overseers of the Church they then onlie opposed that libertie of Prophecie which we allow saying that gifted men in the church as meer gifted christians might not praie or expound the Word in publick assemblies we on the contrarie alledgd that gifted christians as such might lawfullie speak in the church to exhortation c. in a modest and humble manner for the improvement of gi●ts and the profit of the church Quoting to this purpose 1 Pe. 4 10 11 1 Cor. 14. 31. Acts 18. 25 26. We spent about half an hour in friendlie discourse about the meaning of those Scriptures but not agreeing in our expositions Mr. Fort took his leave and we proceeded in our work FINIS Brief ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S Digressions about the Baptising of Infants In his Book intituled A Rational account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion c. Wherein The insufficiency of his grounds for Infant Baptism is discovered By Thomas Grantham Job 14. 4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean one Isa 29. 16. Surely your turning things upside down shall be esteemed as the petters Clay LONDON Printed in the Year 1674. To the Reader IT is not any conceit of my fitness to contend with Learned Men in the controversies depending about sacred Baptism which moves me to this present undertaking but the experience I have of the mistake of some persons who take the things brought by Dr. Stilling-fleet in favour of Infant Baptism to be of greater weight then what hath been done by other Men in that question as also I might by this Paper move some abler hand to reckon morefully and Methodically with his new devices if upon consideration they find themselves concerned to do it But chiefly my aim is to move if it may be the learned Authour to consider how much he injures the Cause he manages against the Papists with so much Judgement and Learning whilst he endeavours to support his Traditional Infant Sprinkling for Baptism it is not which being allowed other innovations of Popery or other Sects will certainly be supported together with it as having the same grounds and in some respect fairer pretences to obtrude upon the Church of God from all which errours let her be delivered by the protection of the Almighty to whose grace I comit thee Thine to serve thee in Christ Tho. Grantham Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's Digressions about

the Baptising of Infants SOlomon the wise hath told us there are many devices in Mans heart The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of devices old and new which Men have found out to darken the Counsell of God teaching the sacred institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remision of sins Nevertheless the Counsell of God that shall stand and therefore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail nor be found ●o much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant Baptism albeit divers Persons are perswaded that he hath out-done others that have undertaken to defend that innovation 1. First Therefore we shall consider the two Texts John 3. 5. Act. 2. 38 39. which he says according to the interpretation of the Fathers and the antient Church and the Papists themselves do evidently assert Infant Baptism It were answer sufficient to tell h●m that what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers c. yet according to the interpretation of the Protestants the grounds of whose Religion he presents to give an account off these Texts doth not hold forth such a necessity of Infant Baptism as by some of the Antients was imagined seeing the Protestants do not say as the Papists and some before them no Baptism no salvation but they more truly teach that this place is to be understood even as some of the Fathers also expounded it of such as refuse or contemn Baptism and yet saying withall to your confutation that it is not necessary by water John 3. 5. To understand the external rite of Baptism See Fulk Ans to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. so Dr. Willit Synops Papis However it is evident to them that will not shut their eyes that in John 3. 5. Christ is shewing the way of Life and the duties of regeneration to such as came to him for instruction and spea●● nothing there of the case of Infants who as one well observes cannot overcome the World by reason of their natural incapacity to know either good or evil and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new birth to wit repentance faith and Baptism for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world and this is the victory that overcometh the world even our faith And hence it is evident that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants who are wholly uncapable of the duties of regeneration And as eviden● it is that Acts ● 38. 39. intends not Infants seeing the persons there to be baptised even every one of them are required first to repent a duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable and the promise there mentioned is clearly meant of the gi●ts of the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of promise in a special manner according to the Prophesie of Jo●l the extent of which promise is only to the called of the Lord v●rse 39 and this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants See Diodate on the Text and Erasmus on the same Dr Jer. Taylor in his book of confirmation doth fully expound this place of the promise of the Spirit both to the Parents and to the Children as they are the called of the Lord and not to infants in that capacity Lib. Proph●cy So then the pretended evidence of Infant Baptism from this place is taken away because this tr●th is hence very evident that calling by the word of the Gospel regeneration ●y Faith and repentance are the true antecedents to the Baptism of every sinner 2. Secondly Dr St●lling-fleet states the Q●estion between the Baptists and the Paed●-Baptists after this manner Wh●ther our bless●d Savio●r hath by a positive precept so determined the subject of baptism viz. Adult persons professing the faith that the a●teration of the subject in baptising Infants be not a deviation from a●d a p●rversion off the institution of Christ in a substantial part of it 〈…〉 short whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of bapt●sm as to exclude infants This done he tells us that taking in only the help of Scripture and reason it were no difficult matter to ●rove directly that infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the institution of Christ that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature to prove that the baptising 〈◊〉 is ●uita●le to the institution of ●hrist and agreeable to the 〈◊〉 of the Church under the Gospel So then Scripture and rea●on ●nly must now deside the controversie Let us hear therefore 〈…〉 St●ll●ng fleet brings from thence and th●s he speaks If there were any ground to exclude them it must be either the incapacity of the subject or some express precept and institution of our Saviour but neither of them can be supposed to do it But I answer for both these cau●es Infants are not to be bapti●ed and sith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the institution these two reasons are resolved into one Now the institution of baptism whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John and by him to us or as it is established by precept from Christ for a perpetual Ministry in his Church to the end of the world we shall find it delivered by both in such sort as it is exclusive of infants for in the first place it is deli●ered as the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins Mark 1. 4. and every sinner who is said to be baptised by him is said to be baptised confessing their sins verse 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants The precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptism so expresly requires the making every subject a Disciple in order thereunto and that by actual teaching or preaching the Gospel to them Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16 15 according to Christs own example who so made Disciples before they were baptised that no Infant with any shew of Scripture or reason can possibly be brought within the reach of baptism according to it's institution In a word Dr. St●ll●ng-fl●et seems in so many words to grant in his first state of the Question that to bring Infants to Baptism is an alteration of the subject and therefore not agreeable to the institution of Christ in which to admit of alterations is very dangerous But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of divine Institutions must be fetched from the end of them for this was the ground ef the Circumcision of Proselites under the Law Answer That the ground of the circumcision of Proselites was fetched from the end of the institution is not true And indeed had it been left to that Mens various conceits about the ends of such institutions might have made as ill work as we see yours do now wherefore the wisdom of God to prevent those dangers gave express order in that case as appears Gen 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44. 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passeover let all his Males be circumcised and