Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	2,522	5	9.8786	5	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

indeed where this Principle is neglected many Innovations are introduced and many Truths are neglected under as fair shews of Antiquity as can be pretended for Infant-Baptism The Doctor then had little reason to call this a slavish Principle which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery to Jewish Fables Mens Inventions and Traditions Pag. 53 54. the Doctor to support Infant-Baptism tells us how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture otherwise than as interpreted so or so by the Catholick Church as 1. That Christ is of one Substance with the Father 2. That there are three Persons in the Trinity 3. That it is necessary for Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day 4. That the Church be governed by Bishops 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper 6. That Infants are to be baptized And these things he makes necessary no otherwise but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to justify them to be so Sure this is strange Doctrine for a Protestant But were a Man disposed to trace him in all these Particulars it might appear that the Churches in most Ages have been divided in all or the most of these Points that so that he makes the Catholick Church as it is commonly taken so great a Foundation of his Faith as he here pretends to make her will meet with many Difficulties to discourage and take off his Confidence And particularly if I desire him to resolve me but this one What sort of Christians are this Catholick Church But he adds We can prove Infant-Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church But this is a vain Boast and I demand what Church or what Apostle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to such a sense The Doctor replies It is unreasonable to presume that the Gospel would not extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism But I answer if this be granted yet the Doctor gains nothing for 1. The Jewish Church had no Baptism at all of Divine Institution and therefore could not extend that she had not 2. Her Circumcision was limited to Abraham's Family and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither seeing all Females and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it Whereas the Gospel extends holy Baptism to all Nations to the End of the World to both Male and Female as they are qualified for it Thus for his Argument from the Scope Let us now see his particular Passages to prove Infant-Baptism P. 55. The Doctor gives us these Texts as interpreted by the Catholick Church for Infant-Baptism John 3. 5. Mark 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon these Scriptures and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptism in them all The first Place shews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Gospel except they be regenerate and have the washing of Regeneration by Water but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret no Man can know it God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy this David knew for his Child which was begot in Adultery and died without Circumcision yet he nothing doubted its Salvation The second Text our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized yea I say unbaptized Infants to belong to Heaven how unwise then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptism If these very Infants which were brought to Christ's own Person yet were not by him appointed to be baptized it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized And seeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be understood of Infants Look well also upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15 16. and thou wilt find tho the Catholick Church say nothing that the Houshold of Stephanus were such as had been converted and were the first Fruits in Achaia and had addicted themselves to the Work of the Ministry and then these could be no Infants As for the two Housholds Acts 16. it's admirable that wise Men should bring them to prove what they do sufficiently confute For Lydia had no Husband we read of And there is no Infant found in her House but the Persons of her Family received Instruction from Paul and Silas Acts 16. ult therefore no Infants And of the Jaylor's Houshold it is expresly said that Paul spake the Word to all that were in his House and that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House And they went out about Midnight to be baptized All which being well weighed no Man no Church can honestly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptism And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it as he did before in thrusting in the word common And it is ill done to make any distinction of common and unclean from holy which God has not made but rather taken away as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man as such is now to be called common or unclean and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean but being born according to God's Ordinance they are as such a holy Seed or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one and two in the same Flesh God's chief End in this Proceeding was that the Posterity might be sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction And to concude I wish that my self and the Doctor my Oppos●●● in this case be found at last as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew or poor Indian and we shall be sure to go to Hea-Heaven for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish We come now to his last Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find and the Doctor does ingenuously acknowledg that the Baptism here meant was but an Vmbrage or Shadow of Baptism not a real Baptism Nor does the Text speak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptism it seems as clearly restrained to the Fathers in the case of Baptism as the eating and drinking spiritually of Christ is restrained to them ver 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for Infant-Baptism which will not with equal Truth and Reason conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table Read Mr. Diodate upon this place he was for Infant-Baptism yet does not infer Infant-Baptism from this Text as indeed there is no reason so to do For it is certain that all that passed through the Sea were not baptized to Moses

lest any should stumble at this that the Promise here made Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham was circumcised he is to remember that St. Paul expresly teaches the contrary Gal. 3. 17. as I have shewed And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him we have asserted in such full terms in the Context as none can rationally doubt thereof and moreover in verse 17. we have the time of God's establishing this Covenant with him so exactly noted it was saith the Text 430 Years before the giving of the Law viz. on Mount Sinai now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Israel came out of Egypt and from the Beginning of the first Promise to Abraham which was Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of these Years made as will be evident to him that shall diligently compare the Chronologie of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of 430 Years even the self-same Day it came to pass that all the Host of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt From the time of the first Promise to the end of Israel's sojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years though their Abode in Egypt was not near so long And hence saith he we collect that in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him although Moses makes not express mention of the term Covenant until occasion be offered Gen. 15. 18. for the Promise there mentioned the Apostle-asserts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Christ unto Abraham The Sum of all that has been said is this That the Covenant of Circumcision properly taken is not the Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant nor the Sign thereof Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as the Doctor maintains and affirms that Circumcision did seal to its Subjects the same Grace as Baptism does now which cannot stand with Reason because those who had been circumcised should not then have been baptized for Remission of Sins for if Circumcision did seal that Grace to its Subjects why should it be now conferred in Baptism they came to Baptism not as Righteous but as Sinners The Doctor 's long Paraphrase on Rom. 4. is rather destructive of than advantagious to Infant-Baptism For whilst therein he makes Faith yea such as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham ' s Faith the absolute Condition of the Covenant c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith yet he endeavours to do this by telling us that the Faith and Consent of the Father or the Godfather or Congregation under which he was circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground saith he in Scripture for this their Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children And to strengthen this Jewish Doctrine he brings Austin with his accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credunt aliorum Linguam ut fateantur To all which very strange Doctrines we reply By the Doctor 's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for these Jewish Fables And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees can find no ground to say that the Jews there did circumcise any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers for they did not stay for Consent of Parents but circumcised them valiantly or by Force as in the Margin which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Christian Church tho God knows they have been too forward in such violent Proceedings And no less strange and unsound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumcised Infant In which he is not so well advised as some Papists and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Protestants who both in this case acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punishment Cajetan tho a Papist speaks well Consentaneum est saith he It is fit that none should be punished but they which had committed the Fault but Infants can commit no Fault therefore the Punishment here design'd doth belong only to the grown Persons for they only are justly punished who only are justly blamed for the omission of Circumcision And Dr. Willit a Protestant speaks to the same sense It is no good reading saith he to say the uncircumcised Manchild but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpose omitted here though mentioned ver 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no such absolute necessity of Circumcision that Children wanting it should be damned And saith Mr. Diodate This is not to be understood of Children but of those who by reason of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion refusing or contemning the use of the Sacrament As for Augustin his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized and with the Hearts of others to believe and the Tongues of others to confess it shews that in his Judgment Baptism ought not to be given but where 't is sought for and where there is Faith and Confession going before it But that one may do these things for another that is one believe and another to be baptized we will answer it as Jerom did another case Non credimus quia non legimus We cannot find it ought to be so neither in the Old Testament nor in the New and therefore we believe it not And let the Doctor consider whether upon such Presumptions as these he may not allow the Feet Heart and Mouth of others for the Dead that they also may be baptised from 2 Maccab. 12. 43 44. The Truth is should we admit the Dictates of the Doctor in this and many Parts of his Book it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superstitions used by the Papists and others would obtrude upon us In page 6 7. the Doctor tells us That the Gentiles who were born of Gentiles in Abraham ' s House or bought with Mony as Servants were and Blacks are now among us were the spiritual Seed of Abraham and Children of the Covenant And thus also he makes the Medes Persians and Idumeans to be constituted in the Jewish Church by Regeneration as the Church Christian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham because they were turned Jews and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain these Dictates are may be seen when we consider that St. Paul

Men have seen cause in this and former Ages to reject this Tradition though it has cost them the loss of all that this World could afford them And the Authorities here brought by the Doctor are not so ancient some of them as is pretended even by his own Confession and they have been scan'd and answered by the learned Pens of Den Tombes Blackwood Fisher Danvers Delaun Duveil and others Lastly The Doctor says The Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from Scripture without Tradition and Practice of the Church As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations or to preach to every Creature and to baptize all that believe to the end of the World were not a sufficient Rule to us to teach our Children and to baptize them Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. We see evidently that Jesus Christ has given but one Rule to us and to our Posterity and therefore it was unadvisedly spoken to say that we cannot produce one Precept for teaching and baptizing our Children when they are grown up being bred and born of Christians as I suppose that is his meaning by being bred and born in the Church Had the Doctor considered that Exhortation of the Apostle to all Christians Ephes 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady 2 Ep. John Who are found walking in the Truth as the Apostle and the Lady her self had received Commandment from the Father it might have passed for a better Precedent in this case than Mans Tradition without Scripture can possibly be for Infant-Baptism I conclude then that seeing Christ's Command is as clear for teaching and baptizing our Children as any other Mens Posterity and that it is the express Duty of Christian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord that is as Chrysostom expounds the place to make them Christians and this Advice he gave in opposition to the training up Children in prophane Literature And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady whose Children whilst under her Care and Tuition obeyed the Truth and walked therein according to God's Commandment and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers but as the Apostle had received Commandment from the Father and so he exhorts them to continue and to beware of other Doctrine and to have no Fellowship with such as should bring any other Doctrine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apostles This may suffice to answer the Objection CHAP. VI. Answereth the Doctor 's fourth Question Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism I Marvel why the Doctor puts not the term Infant into his Question he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptism as soon as we can But how does he prove that Christian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptism Why this he doth by repeating what he had said under the 3d Question 1. About the Lawfulness or Allowableness 2. About the requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been answered to these things in the former Chapter And now when the Parents may very rationally expect some Command from God to bring their Infants to Baptism The Doctor tells us There is no Necessity of having a Command or Example to justify it but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden But he refers them to the Orders of the Church and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over You But never shews at all who gave such Orders to the Church that Parents and Proparents should bring their Infants to Baptism And therefore all that is here said is meer Talk without any good Warrant He quotes Acts 16. 4. which shews that the Decrees which were ordained at Jerusalem ought to be kept And we allow it but here 's not a Word for to bring Infants to Baptism in these Decrees but here is a Decree against the eating of Blood which is little regarded by the Doctor or however his Church does not regard it Yet this Text of the Decrees he would make serve for Infant-Baptism and indeed had the Apostles had Power to make such a Decree this was as fit a time and occasion for it as could be the Question being about Infant-Circumcision and the Apostles disannulling their Circumcision would certainly have given some Notice that they had or ought to have Baptism instead of it but seeing they do not in the least mention it we may be sure there was no Infant-Baptism in being at that time The Doctor will now shew us the Benefits of Infant-Baptism and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptism and the first is their Consecration to God. As if no Infants were consecrated to God but those who are baptized Methinks our Saviour should know how to consecrate Infants to God as well as the Doctor but he did it only by Prayer or Blessing not by baptizing them There is no doubt but such as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer do act warrantably but he that will do it by baptizing them acts without a Guide and deprives Children of the Baptism of Repentance when they come to Years and have need of it His second Benefit is to make Infants Members of the mystical Body of Christ As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they please Members of that Body and that when they are fast asleep too Is not this the plain Consequence of this Opinion that all Infants unbaptized being not of Christ's mystical Body must perish I know the Doctor does not hold this but it 's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error that they can make Infants Members of Christ's mystical Body by sprinkling or crossing them with Water and they think they can be made so by no other way Now I demand of any Man whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Christs mystical Body not doubting but it will be granted I desire it may be considered whether these unbapcized Infants whom Christ blessed were of his mystical Body I suppose this will be granted too and then consider also whether all Infants of whom Christ said to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are not of his mystical Body as it contains all saved ones I believe none will deny this The last Consideration is Whether Christ does speak of Infants indefinitely and as such comprehends them all and if not how is it possible for any Man to know one sort of these infants from another all dying Infants then are of the mystical Body as it contains all that shall be saved The Doctor 's third Benefit That the baptized Infant by that Solemnity may