Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	church_n	power_n	4,609	5	5.2232	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25573	An Answer to the Athenian Mercury, vol. 4, numb. 14, concerning infant-baptism with an account of divers queries sent by the author (and some others) to the Athenian Society, which they have not yet answered : to which are added, some remarks by way of reply to their Mercury on the same subject, num. 18, published Novemb. 28.		1691 (1691)	Wing A3386; ESTC R15319	31,117	26

of God's Word You ask what Priviledg the Children of Believers have above Unbelievers We answer They have the advantage of their Parents Prayers Instruction godly Education and good Example But say you they are holy Answ We deny it intends federal Holiness such as qualifies Children for Baptism We read in Mal. 2.15 of Marriage and that Children begotten in lawful Wedlock are called a godly Seed in opposition to their being illegitimate Now that it was about Marriages the Corinthians wrote to S. Paul is evident they doubting of the Lawfulness of abiding with their unbelieving Husbands and Wives And to satisfy them about this Matter he tells them the unbelieving Husband was sanctified by or rather to the believing Wife c. that is set apart or consecrated to each other in lawful Marriage for 't is doubtless no other Sanctification else were your Children unclean that is Bastards but now are they holy that is lawfully begotten And we find divers Learned Men give the same Exposition on these Words See Beza That the Word saith he is not to be understood an Adverb of Time but a Conjunction that 's wont to be used in the assumption of Arguments and so the Sense is But now that is Forasmuch as the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten and born We read in Zachary that the Bells and Pots of the Lord's House were holy may be the Papists from thence presume to baptize Bells and they have as much reason so to do as there is by the Authority of God's Word for any to baptize Infants As touching what you speak of little Children coming to Christ that the Original or Greek Word is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proselyte what signifies that how often is that Word mentioned in other Places to signify any manner of coming to c. 'T is a strange way of proselyting Persons and never to teach or instruct them See these Scriptures where the same Word is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.7 There came unto him Mat. 26.17 The Disciples came Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.49 Forthwith he came to Jesus Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.69 There came unto him a Girl or a Damsel Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 26.73 And after a while or a while after came unto him they that stood by Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you proceed further to prove Infants ought to be baptized and that from the Universal Consent of the Churches in all Countries For as you say Tertul. de praescripturâ haeret ch 28. Ecquid verisimile c. Had the Churches erred they would have varied c. Reply If you cannot prove Infant-Baptism from Scripture you are gone for ever for this Argument of yours to prove it is like that of the Papists to prove their Church the true Church viz. Vniversality and Antiquity c. it was not the Practice of the Churches first planted by the Apostles that 's plain and 't is as evident other Errors were as universally received and some very early too besides you can't be ignorant how the Greek Church varies from the Latin But pray take what Dr. Barlow hath said to this a worthy Bishop of the Church of England I believe and know saith he that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Pedo-baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 years after Christ that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it sure I am that in the primitive Times they were Catechumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents The truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not come into the World in the second Century and in the third and forth began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawful from the Text John 3.5 grosly misunderstood upon the like gross Mistake John 6.53 They did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus both your Arguments from universal Consent and Antiquity the Learned Doctor hath sufficiently answered And I rather let him answer you than to answer you in my own words thinking what he says may be more regarded by some than what I say But you to prove from Antiquity that Infant-Baptism was practised int h first second and third Centuries you say you are able to demonstrate that there was never any particular Congregation of Anabaptists till about three hundred years after Christ and seem to build much upon these three last Arguments Reply If you had said there were no Baptized Congregations i. e. such who only baptized Believers you had asserted a great Untruth sith all the Primitive Apostolical Churches were such none being admitted to Baptism for the first and second Centuries but the Adult i. e. such who professed their Faith as in due time may be sufficiently proved notwithstanding all your Flourish or Pretences but suppose it be granted there were no Congregations till then called Anabaptist what doth that signify it was because there were not till about that time any as Dr. Barlow and divers others say who practised Pedo-baptism Baptists could not be called Anabaptists or Re-baptizers till there were some who held for Infant-Baptism so that this directly makes against you Moreover many Rites which you disown as human Traditions crept very early into the World and were practised generally too in the Apostacy of the Church Quest 3. Whether Infant-Baptism is to be found in the Scripture You answer not expresly in the Letter but from necessary and unavoidable Consequences as you say you have already shewn Reply 'T is a hard case that one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament should in your Thoughts lie so dark and obscure in the New Testament that it can't be proved from it but by Consequences but harder that Learned Men of your way should affirm that your Consequences for it drawn from those Texts you mention are not natural and prove nothing besides you can't be ignorant that the first Asserters of Infant-Baptism never undertook the proof of it from such Scripture-Grounds or Consequences but from the Authority and Power of the Church for as you think the Church hath power to change the Act of Baptizing unto Sprinkling so they affirmed she had like Power to change the Subject and instead of Believers to baptize Infants who have no Understanding Pray what Precept of the Mosaical Law lay so dark or obscure that it could not be proved without Consequences Did not Moses make every Law Precept or Command plain that he that run might read it and yet Christ is said to exceed Moses being faithful as a Son over his own House Heb. 3. Those Consequences you

of those that die in Infancy unbaptized You answer Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven Reply So saith our blessed Saviour but they have say I no Right thereto or belong unto the Kingdom of Heaven because sprinkled with a little Water nor would they have any further Right should they be indeed baptized since there is no Command of God for it Quest 7. If Children be saved whether baptized or not what signifies Baptism You answer 't is a Badg of Christ an evident Note of Distinction from the Children of Infidels and as we come to the Knowledg of spiritual Things by Sense so 't is an Evidence of a greater assurance of the Favour of God to them being invisibly introduced into the Covenant of Grace Reply 'T is no Badg of Christ besure because he never gave it to them and if it be an evident Note of Distinction from the Children of Infidels 't is wholly of Man's making You know what wonderful things are ascribed to Chrism by the Papists who use Salt Oil and Spittle c. in Baptism and to other devised Rites and Ceremonies used by them and I have as much ground from God's Word to believe what they say as what you say who affirm and prove not why do you not say they are thereby made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven Pray what an assurance can that give them of the Favour of God unless he had appointed it and imparted some spiritual Grace thereby to them Nay and what Arguments do you bring to prove they thereby are introduced into the Covenant of Grace Can any outward Act bring or introduce People either young or old into the Covenant of Grace if they are brought thereby into the Covenant of Grace I hope they shall all be saved that are baptized as you call it I hope you are not for falling away or that any Soul who is in the Covenant of Grace shall perish eternally Moreover how can they come to the knowledg of spiritual Things by Sense indeed in the case of Circumcision which left a Mark in the Flesh they might more probably understand by the sight of the Eye those spiritual Things signified by it but Baptism leaves no such Mark Nothing appears to their Senses when they come to knowledg that can have any such Tendency I fear rather it is a great means when they are grown up to blind their Eyes and cause them to think as many ignorant People do that they are made thereby Christians and so in a saved State and never look after the Work of Regeneration Quest 8. Whether have Children Faith or no since Faith and Repentance are Pre-requisites to Baptism Your Answer is That you have shewed that according to the words of the Commission Baptizing goes before Teaching therefore there is not such a Pre-requisiteness as some dream of you have said so I must confess from the Commission but have not proved it but rather made work for Repentance by striving to invert the Order of the sacred Commission of our Saviour c. But say you admit Faith as pre-requisite to Baptism we could answer that Children have Faith potentia tho not in actu visibili As an Artist when he is indisposed or asleep is potentially an Artist tho not actually Reply Strange you should attempt to affirm Children have Faith potentia who told you so when was this imaginary Faith infused into them it must be either by Nature Art or Grace or else your Simily is lost You are look'd upon indeed to be Philosophers but this is above my Understanding or your own Demonstration but you suppose that Passage in Matth. 18. doth your business whereas 't is evident that our Saviour speaks there of such little ones who were indeed capable to believer it was not such a little one as you would have baptized We doubt not but God doth oftimes insuse Grace very early in the Souls of some very young and calls them to believe and to the knowledg of the Truth but what is this to all Infants in general But more fully to answer what you say about Children having Faith take what Dr. Taylor hath wrote upon this Conceit Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith he to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove 1. Personal and actual Faith they have none for they have no Acts of Understanding and besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any Sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell 2. Some say they have imputative Faith but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them and as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take from the Necessity of actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith but who told them so how can they prove it what Revelation or Reason teaches any such thing are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an actual Belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been baptized are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better And again to this purpose pag. 242. And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World As to what you speak as to those young Children you mention it proves nothing and some of your Stories seem childless and do not look as if they came from Men of such pretended Ingenuity But to close all We have the worst of you at the last wherein you in a very scurrilous manner cast Reproach upon