Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	add_v	book_n	plague_n	2,933	5	10.1547	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

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

Compassion yearn upon him and here I restore him and before you all wash him with pure Water to signify that he is cleansed and restored to his Birth-right Could any Man say that the Action was insignificant because the Child knew nothing of it Now in this Similitude the Doctor begs almost every thing in question between us As 1. That all that are attainted with Original Sin must be washed with Water as a sign that they are cleansed from it 2. That God vouchsafes the Bowels of Compassion to such Infants only as he intends shall be baptized 3. That he does not require the Party baptized to understand or take notice of any thing but bids the by-standers take notice of these Things And 4. this Similitude supposes that all Rules about Infant Baptism are plainly delivered by our Heavenly King when not one of these things are true But the Doctor does very ill to suppose that to be a true Gospel-Sacrament which wants the inward and spiritual Grace as in this Similitude there is no knowledg or consent on the part of him that is baptized but a meer force is put upon him And yet when the Doctor can shew us what Infants in particular the Bowels of God does yearn towards and his Will that they be cleansed by washing with Water that shall suffice to make them capable of Baptism But before we leave this Similitude let us consider whether the Foundation of it be sound Are Infants indeed such attainted Persons Sure no for whatsoever was their Case considered in sinful Adam yet when through Christ Adam was redeemed that is virtually by the Promise of a Saviour Gen. 3. 15. all Infants who then were all in him had the Attainder taken off as much as from Adam himself John 1. 29. So that this Attainder of Treason against Infants as they proceed from Adam is but a Fancy and to think that he has left Original Sin to be washed away by Baptism from poor innocent Babes is another Fancy and yet these were the Grounds on which Infant Baptism was built at first and many are yet under the dominion of this Mistake We conclude then that through the free Mercy of God in the Gift of Christ the Attainder of Sin which lay against Infants to Condemnation was taken away from the Foundation of the World and that Baptism was not ordained of God to take away Original Sin but for the Remission of Actual Sins upon Repentance and Faith. Nor does it appear in all God's Book that he appointed any Ritual no not Circumcision it self to take away Original Sin and he that shall assert it will be intangled in so many Difficulties as he cannot escape For what then took Original Sin from all Males that died before the eighth Day And what became of all Females and Male Infants throughout the World Did God leave them all under a Malady without any Remedy And though the Doctor insists never so much upon that Apochryphal Story of Infant Baptism among the Jews before the coming of John Baptist yet as himself yields p. 18. it was not of Divine Institution so it is looked upon to be a Fable by the Learned of his own Church who tell us as we have shewed That Rabbi Eliezer denies that there was any such Baptism among the Jews though Rabbi Joshua does affirm it To whom shall I give credit saith that Learned Protestant to Eliezer who asserted what the Scripture confirms that there was no such Baptism among the Jews or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture I am not concerned in their answer who do prove Infants more capable of Circumcision than of Baptism because it left a Character in their Flesh But I answer whatsoever makes any Person capable of Baptism the revealed Will of God to order it so is the chief us for Example some Infants might be as capable of Circumcision on the 7th day as others on the 8th yet those of 7 days were not at all capable of Circumcision So that for Men to insist upon their Conjectures about Infants Capacity or Incapacity is but to wander in the Dark It must be the Institution of Baptism the Commission for the use of it in all Nations and the Example of Christ and his Apostles and Churches by them constituted that must decide this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism CHAP. IV. Answereth the Doctor 's second Question Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism AND here in the first place saith the Doctor I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be baptized For as a good Author observes of the River Nile we ought not to ask the Reason why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer Solstice But why it doth not overflow all the Year long But by his Favour he is as wife a Man that asks the first Question as he that asks the second And I know but one Answer to be given to both and that is chiefly and before all things It is the Will of God to order it so Now let this be apply'd to the case in hand And the Will of God shall determine who are and who are not to be baptized And let the Doctor here resolve me whether God excluded Infants of 6 or 7 days old from Circumcision when yet there is no negative Law you shall not circumcise them and he will soon answer his own Question For his Answer must be seeing God did not appoint Infants of 7 days old to be circumcised therefore he did not admit them to it and our Answer is the same Christ did not command to baptize Infants therefore he does not admit them to it And it is observed by some learned Men that tho Negative Commands do usually exclude yet it is also true that an Institution of God and an affirmative Command does exclude all that is above or besides that Command and Institution And they bring Levit. 10. 1 2 to justify what they say For Nadab and Abihu came to a dismal end And saith Diodate Though the Command was not given before yet it was a Sin in undertaking the contrary before God's mind was known And so may the Doctor find the same Acceptance in going where he has no Law to direct him though there were no negative to forbid him however we dare not follow him because we fear the Lord who if we add to his Word will reprove both him and us Prov. 30. 6. But here again the Doctor would build his Infant-Baptism upon that Jewish Tradition of baptizing the Infants of Proselytes though he knows they had no Authority from Heaven for it And we have shewed from a learned Author in chap. 2. that it's very probable there was no such thing And it 's very strange that the Doctor or others should suffer themselves to be thus deluded from the Simplicity of the Gospel by the Jews Talmud which

seeing there was a Multitude of Strangers did go with the Israelites and they are distinguished from the Children of Israel Exod. 12. 38. Numb 11. 4. But S. Paul appropriates Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea to the Fathers all our Fathers c. Now for any to add and all their Infants is a Presumption not to be justified It is not said that Israel or all Israel were baptized which had it been so express'd would have more favoured the Notion And yet we know that the words Israel and all Israel do not include Infants in many places for example Exod. 14. 31. 15. 1. Deut. 13. 11. Josh 7. 25. much less can they be here called Fathers and such Fathers too as did feed upon Christ in Manna c. as well as were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud c. It must needs be very dangerous to insist upon this Miracle at the Red Sea as a Rule to us to baptize Infants the Cause is weak which needs such Arguments to defend it The Doctor sets down many other Texts in his Margin which I have also put down in mine that the Reader may peruse them and see if he can find any footing for Infant-Baptism in any of them the most likely in the Doctor 's own Judgment is Psal 51. 5. and yet we know that David's Infant which was born in Adultery was saved without Circumcision or Baptism And the Doctor confesses that the Requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism cannot be demonstrated from these Texts without the Tradition of the ancient Church And there is no such authentick Tradition to be found whatever is pretended for he brings none from the first Churches at all And that there is no such Tradition Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witness who in his Disswasive from Popery and in his Rule of Conscience informs us There is no prime or Apostolical Tradition for Infant-Baptism That it was not practised till about the 3d Century and judged necessary about the 4th That Children of Christian Parents were not baptized till they came to Vnderstanding in the first Ages That Dipping and not Sprinkling was the Vsage of Christ and his Apostles and the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients for many hundred Years See also Mr. Tombes 3d part of Review But after all this the Doctor is pleased to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized Because saith he we ought not to tie God to the same means to which he hath tied us It seems then God hath not tied Infants to any Necessity of Baptism nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments Suppose saith he that Scripture and Tradition stood against Infant-Baptism in the same Posture as now it stands for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not baptizing Infants Let us suppose that Christ had said I suffer not little Children to come to me for the Kingdom of God is not of such and that we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no baptizing Infants I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing Infant-Baptism against the concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the Sense and Practice of the Catholick Church The meaning of the Doctor I take to be this that as it is highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a doubtful or probable ground only does give Baptism to Children so it would be highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only should refuse to baptize Infants I confess this is an odd way of disputing for here the Churches supposed to err on either side are yet supposed themselves to be true Churches and only erring about such a doubtful Practice as this on the one side or on the other But alas the case is far different between the Church of England and us For she is wholly made up of Persons thus doubtfully baptized nay perhaps not baptized at all whatever she pretends and by this doubtful Baptism she is disclaiming all other Baptism in respect of all her Members for some hundreds of Years Otherwise I must confess had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century when Infant-Baptism was creeping in there was then a Church truly baptized distinct from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized upon such supposed Grounds as are mentioned by the Doctor here I say a Separation would in my Judgment have been unwarrantable it being but an ill Principle to separate from a true Church tho incumbred with some Error But should I have lived till this doubtful Baptism was forced on with Anathema's till it had overtopped and quite destroyed in such a Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in respect of her Members and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me whether she had any Baptism at all And therewith that she had apparently left the due form of Baptism which she had formerly observed Then I think no Man could blame me if I left this Communion to sit down with those who did yet retain the ancient and only undoubted Baptism both for Subject and manner of Administration and this is our very case Now seeing it is impossible for us or any Body else to hold ample Communion with all sorts of Christians and there are some good folk amongst them all why should any one of these Parties whether Papists Prelatists Presbyterians c. expect that all should come to them or why should the Doctor think we ought to joyn Communion with his Party more than others unless they could not err as well as the rest But seeing that is not to be pretended we must all satisfy our own Souls as well as we can where to communicate and where to forbear for with all we cannot have Communion let us not then grudg one against another about this necessary Christian Liberty Page 60. The Doctor attempts to prove his Tradition not doubtful but certain in the case of Infant-Baptism to which purpose he insists on that Rule given by Vincentius Lyrinensis viz. Vniversality Antiquity and Consent But I have shewed already that all these being truly taken are all wanting in the case of Infant-Baptism because as for other reasons so for these in particular 1. The Churches in the Apostles days baptized no Infants And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Custom of delaying Baptism which yet is no delay to Children till they make Profession of their Faith and the Doctor confesses a few of the Fathers were against it And there might be more for ought he knows though not counted among such Fathers that might deserve as well as any And it is known that many very learned and good

grave Author of the the first part of the naked Truth not that of Mr. H. makes those without doubt to be always the weakest and most carnal who stand so much for Ceremonies and speaking of the Ring he makes it in respect of himself as a thing of meer Indifferency to be married with or without it And were it left to that Liberty we should not much complain but alas 't is made so necessary that we cannot be married by a Priest without it 2. We cannot understand how to worship our Wives yet we can understand St. Paul where he bids us give them Honour as the weaker Vessel To worship any Creature in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is very suspicious but I say to worship our Wives thus is a thing we understand not This seems to be borrowed from the forementioned Jews who had Jupiter in such esteem For the same Antiquerist tell us that the Words of their Dowry-Bill ran thus Be thou unto me a Wife according to the Law of Moses and Israel and I according to the Word of God will worship honour maintain and govern thee c. But where the Word of God obliges a Man to worship his Wife is yet unrevealed to us There is indeed a Civil Worship due to our Superiours or Persons of great Worth Luke 14. 12. But the Law of God and Nature has made the Man superiour in Marriage and why are we to unman our selves to gratify a Ceremony In all that I have written I design nothing against the Church of England whom I unfainedly honour as I do all that heartily love Jesus Christ as Charity commands me to believe she doth yet let me freely say that the Sign of the Cross in Baptism though certainly an Errour because added to a sacred Institute of Christ without any Allowance from his Word yet is much more excusable than this Sign of the Ring For if we consider their Original the Cross was used in Defence of his Honour who died upon a Cross and in opposition to the Blasphemy both of Jews and Heathens But the Ring was borrowed from the superstitious Rites both of Jews and Heathens and so more unfit for any Service among Christians Again The Cross is not so highly honoured in Baptism as the Ring is in Marriage for the Cross is not made or used in the Name of the Trinity as we see the Ring is Moreover the Sign of the Cross may be omitted sometimes even by the Laws of the Church of England as in private Baptism but the Ring is not so That Baptism is not doubted to be valid which wants only the Sign of the Cross but according to some of our present Clergy the Ring must be one or else they will not celebrate Marriage and if it be done without the Ring will almost condemn it for no Marriage at all But sure it is not in the Power of any Church to make Laws Ordinances Rites or Ceremonies so necessary to this Ordinance of God I mean Marriage as that the Omission of them should null God's Ordinance or put a Bar against Mens having the Benefit of that Ordiaance which both the Law of God and Nature allows them Hath not the Church often been not only the least but also a persecuted People in a Nation and may be so again how then can it pertain to her to make Laws in cases which concern Men as Men and all Men in a Nation as much as any and in which she is bound to observe the Laws of these Nations so far as she may do it without Sin rather than prescribe unless to teach the Law of God to them what ceremonies they must use in their Nuptial Celebrations But forasmuch as Marriages are the Foundation of Families and that upon the Legality whereof the Good of Posterity does much depend we therefore conclude this universal Ordinance of God is under the Cognizance of the Magistrate whose care is to see that nothing be done herein against the Law of God right Reason and common Honesty but that all Violation of these rules of Government should be corrected and the contrary encouraged And herein we chearfully submit our selves to their Majesties and to all that are in Authority as in Duty bound most humbly intreating that some prudent care may be taken by our Superiours that whatsoever is grievious herein may be removed FINIS S. Fisher Bap. ●●● p. 311. Mr. Cox on the Covenants Mr. Brouhgton Consent of Scripture Sir Norton Knatchbul Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. 1 Cor. 1. 15 21 22. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Job 14. 4. Acts 8. 46. Acts 16. 14. Acts 2. 38. Acts 8. 12. Acts 2. 41. Acts 18. 8. Mark 16. 16. Dr. Fulk against Saund. c. 13.