Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	tradition_n	3,170	5	9.1818	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86599	An antidote against Hen. Haggar's poysonous pamphlet, entitled, The foundation of the font discovered: or, A reply wherein his audaciousness in perverting holy scriptures and humane writings is discovered, his sophistry in arguing against infant-baptism, discipleship, church membership &c. is detected, his contradictions demonstrated; his cavils agains M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall answered, his raylings rebuked, and his folly manifested. By Aylmar Houghton minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and teacher to the congregation of Prees, in the county of Salop.	Houghton, Aylmer.	1658 (1658)	Wing H2917; Thomason E961_1; ESTC R207689	240,876	351

Authority Now that Origen calls the Baptism of Infants a Tradition of the Church * in Epist ad Rom. l. 5. so he may call it in the sence of the Apostle 2 Thes 2.15 Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught c with 1 Cor. 15.3 I delivered to you that which I received c. where we see that Tradition signifies a doctrine delivered And it is well known that the greatest points of faith are called by the name of traditions in the language of the ancients 4. Augustine n De Genesi adliteram l. 1● c. 23. you say calleth it a common custome of the Church true but he saith in the very same place that it viz. Infant-baptism is in no sort to be contemned or accounted superfluous as it is by you which words you have cunningly left out 2. What hurt is there in so calling it So is the observation of the first day of the week and imposition of hands on Church officers called a custome of the Church and yet you cannot deny but that they are grounded on Scripture 3. To kill two birds as they say with one stone Austin was not only present at that counsell called Milevitanum but as it is said President also who returning answer to those that desired divine authority for infant-baptism first produceth that rule o) Quod universa tonet Ecclesia nec consiliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi autbo i●ate Apostolicum traditum vertissimè creditur Aug de bapt contra donat l. 4. c. 23. viz. That which the whole Church holdeth and was not ordained by any Councells but hath ever been held that is rightly believed to be an Apostolicall Authority This that great and famous light of the Christian world in his daies took to be sufficient yet for fuller satisfaction he proceeds to dispute for it from the holy Scriptures where wee see what he means by the custome of the Church and by what Authority that Councill did appoint the baptism of Infants 5. Luther you bring in asserting that Infant baptisme was established by Pope Innocent Indeed you speak somewhat warily for some of your party would bear us in hand that Pope Innocent was the first that brought in Infant-baptism which is contrary to the stream of Antient Ecclesiasticall History p See Doctor Holmes Animad on M. Tombs exercit p. 191. c. and neither you nor they tell us which Pope Innocent it was But whoever he was it 's wel known that Infant baptism was practiced many hundred years before this Pope was born Nor is the practice of it to bee counted or called Antichristian superstition mans tradition as you do p. 3 because a Pope decreed the establishment or confirmation of it more then this doctrine q) Acts 16.16 17 18. These men are the servants of the most high God which shew unto us the way of salvation because it was preached and avouched by the Divel 6. For Cyprian you are very confident that Infant-baptism began in the year 248 and that by Fidus a Priest opposed by Cyprian and his Council who ordained that young Children should be timely brought thereto But 1. who this Fidus was is not apparent out of Cyprian r) Epist lib. 3. Ep. 8. who I am sure doth not call him by the scornful name of Priest but most dear brother and that three times in that Epistle 2. The question by Fidus was not Whether Infants should be baptized at all but whether before the eighth day as appears by your own expressions p. 19. Now this clearly holds forth that Infant-baptism was used and practised long before 3. Neither did Cyprian decree simply the practice of it but onely by his decree confirmed the practice of it 4. What a gross mistake is this about the time When it began For how could it begin in Cyprians time when the F●●●man of your Jury tells us it was used in Origens t●●e which must needs be 20 years at least before You deserve the Whetstone for abusing Cyprian and your Reader so grossly For what a bundle of lies have we here together 1. Infant-baptism began in the year of our Lord 248. 2. Brought in by Fidus a Priest 3. That Cyprian and 66 Bishops and Elders ordained it And 4. by our own confessions it 's an ordinance and tradition of man nay Will-worship and Idolatrie All palpably false 7. Let it be observed that your Jury-men are not agreeed on the Verdict concerning the time that Infant-baptism was brought into the Church Origen speaks in effect It must be within 200 years after Christ for he died in the year of Christ 220 you speak for Cyprian Anno 248. Cassander saith 300 years after the Apostles Luther in Pope Innocents time as you alledge him when yet he saith it was Established not begun in that Popes time page 19. 8. The Carthaginian Council is brought in p. 19. Wee will that Children be baptized Thus say you we see it is Wee WILL therefore Will-worship But 1. mark the ground of Baptism there because Children are within the Covenant which you cannot endure to hear of 2. What a ridiculous Inference do you make me thinks you shame your self and all your friends You tell us that on a supposal you ſ) Found p. 29. Will confess your error or justifie your practice If I should infer Thus we see it is I will therefore Will-worship in Mr. Haggar Risum tenea●●s amiei I should be justly laught at So Josh 24.15 We will serve the Lord therefore Will-worship c. 9. I am loath to spend any more time in answering the particulars here alleged what hath been replied to may be satisfactory to any judicious Reader I shall conclude with this That you who are an enemy to Humane Learning are not guilty of much learning or else guilty of much dissembling I am perswaded of the former for these quotations are but as stollen waters you never read these Authors whose testimonies are alleged by you For what Scholar would have written Bullinger s) As p. 19. numb 14. in ex Augustino unlesse you had a mind to make more sport and to play in and out Or that Anselm Legate of the Church of Rome t) Ibid. num 17 was present with Austin at the Miletan Council I have read of Milevitan but never of the Miletan Council till now And how could Austin and Anselm be present at that Council when Austin flourished in the year of our Lord 430 and Anselm in the year 1080 as he that can but read English may see u) Clarks marrow of Ecclesiastical History p 162. 188. Or what learned man can tell what Tuicensi pag. 20. numb 19 should be except perhaps Tuitiensis or Bilander n. 21 for Bibliander c. If these and the like were the Printers faults why have we them not with most of your book among the Errata's 2. You do not set down these Authors

was to them c. You give up the cause and grant that children may be baptized for what is the promise but the Covenant for they are interchangeably set down one for the other a) Gal. c. 3. and the Covenant runs upon promises b) Ephes 2.21 specially consists of that grand promise Gen. 3.15 The seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpents head Now if the Covenant is theirs who can deny the initiall sign and seal of the Covenant which is baptism Let it be observed that this Text is the first Argument used after Christ's ascention to provoke the Jews to repent c. as discovering the new Testament-application of the Covenant and it is continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the old Testament Now that children of believing parents are within the Covenant of grace shall be made evident hereafter 5. In saying the promise doth belong to their and our children but they must be called first I answer 1. Why may not children be said to be called in their parents aswell as Levi is said c) H●b 7.9.10 to pay either in the loins of Abraham And that God is said d) Hos 12 4. to speak with the Israelites when he spake with Jacob in Bethel 2. If you will needs understand it of a direct immediate and personall call and so exclude children from the promise till they believe repent c. This glosse doth rather darken then enlighten the Text and cannot passe currant for these ensuing reason● For if children should be excluded out of the promise 1. What priviledge above others have the children of repenting parents Now it is clear the Apostle adds children in the Text to shew that they had some speciall priledge above those that were uncalled 2. What poor encouragement is this to such parents to submit to Christ under this Administration nay would it not have discouraged them that their children should bee excluded out of the promise who stood in it for 2000 years before under the other Administration 3. what cold comfort would this be to your wounded hearts for crucifying Jesus Christ That they indeed on their repentance should be saved but their children should be the same with Heathens Now here the scope of the Text is urged by the Apostle for consolation aswell as incouragement 4. What hope could they have of your childrens salvation For hope without promise is presumption though you say infants are saved by Christ without actuall faith p. 61. That shall be examined in its proper place 5. What a losse would the believing Jewes bee at for their children had once a right to the Covenant and to the seal of it but now neither to covenant nor to Baptisme till they believe 6. What unlikelyhood is there that the Apostle would use the same Dialect of the Covenant that was formerly used I am thy God and the God of thy seed the promise is to you and to your children if it had been his mind that children should be excluded 7. Then the word Children would be superfluous in this Text and so the Spirit of God would be charged with Tautologies which would be blasphemy to affirm 8. The Tense is changed the promise IS to you and your children in the present tense but when he speaks of the Call he speaks in the future tense As many as God SHALL call These are some of those Reasons which I thought good here to give an account of with some alteration of the phrase and method which through the Lords blessing became happily instrumental to reduce an Anabaptist e) See the Leper cleansed pag. 7 8 9. and through the Lords blessing may prevail with some that follow you as they did Absolon f) 2 Sam. 15.11 in the simplicity of their heart knowing nothing of the depth of your design no more then they did of Absolons Neither do I altogether despair of your conversion for Mart. Cellar g) J.G. Catabapt pag. 145. Et Melob Adam de vita Borrhaui p. 400. who after he had stood by his sect severall years went and setled at Basill where he taught divinity and being ashamed to be known or called by that name under which he had professed Anabaptisme changed his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus under which name he wrote very learned commentaries upon the 5 bookes of Moses c. To say nothing of those converted by Musculus h) Melch. Adam de vita Musculi p. 377. And now I hope you will have little cause to brag as you do in the close of this Section Thus the objection is fully answered whereas indeed it remains unanswered SECT 7. H. H. pag. 5. Again If ever the Apostle baptized children it must needs be now according to their argument who say the promise is to children ergo but that they baptized no such children is evident because they that were baptized were such as could and did GLADLY receive the word v. 42. continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and felloship c. All which little babes that cannot speak words nor understand reason cannot possibly do Therefore none such baptized Reply 1. This is the same Argument with the former Therefore let it receive the same Answer which may suffice But because it 's drest up in another form and put into a seemingly better Garb Therefore secondly the weaknesse of it is made evident by this Argument they are rationall creatures who can understand reason and speak but Infants cannot possibly do all or any of these Therefore they are not rationall creatures 3. In saying if ever the Apostles baptized children it must needs be now you art too peremptory in divining and determining It 's a received maxime that 1) Argumentum ad Authoritate duum negative non valet a negative Argument from authority proves nothing SECT 8. H. H. Act. 8.12 Where we read 2. Instance that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and wowen in expresse terms but we never read a word of little children Reply 1. We never read a word of little children What not in all the Bible where were your eyes k) Mat. 19.13 Then were brought to him LITTLE CHILDREN l) 6.14 but Jesus said Suffer LITTLE CHILDREN Surely the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God Your wide and wilde expression is liable you see to just exception 2. If you mean as I suppose we never read a word of the baptizing of little children Why did you not speak out It 's said of Barnabas that m) Acts 11.24 he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith but we read never a word of his being baptized must we therefore conclude and believe that he was not baptized What Sophistry is this 3. Sometimes in Scripture where men are onely named Women and children are

understood Ex. gr n) Mat. 6.44 They that did eat of the Loaves were about 5000 men o) Mat. 14.21 And they that had eaten were about 5000 men beside Women and Children surely there 's no contradiction between Mark and Matthew Again under the expression of men and women children are understood as p) Josh 8.25 12000 men and women of Ai fell where children must be understood for it 's said q Ver. 264. Joshua utterly destroied all the inhabitants of Ai and no exception is made but r) Ver. 27. onely of the cattel and spoil and it 's vtterly improbable that in that City and among so many thousands no children should bee found SECT 9. Hen. Hag. Acts 8.36 37. The Eunuch said to Philip See 3. Instance here is water what hinders me to be baptized And Philip said If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist but little Babes cannot believe with all their hearts therefore they may not be baptized Reply 1. ſ) Beza Jun. c Trem. Grotius 〈◊〉 c. Diverse learned men assert that the whole 37 verse is not to be found in many Greek copies and sundry antient Translations as the Syriack c. What then will become of your Argument No building can stand long without a foundation 2. Admit that verse to be in the Original the Major whether you take it as an hypothetical Proposition if people believe with all their hearts they may be baptized or as an universal Categorical proposition equivalent thereto whosoever believeth with all his heart may be baptized is granted to be a solid truth if it be understood of those that are not yet baptized For those that are already baptized must not be baptized again every day or every hour because they believe with all their hearts one Baptism is sufficient and agreeable to the rule 3. As to your Minor though you prove not that Infants cannot believe with all their hearts neither may you nor any man else put bounds to Gods omnipotency who is able to regenerate and sanctifie Infants ſ) Luke 1.41 * as John Baptist in his mothers womb yet it 's granted that such a formal rational and professed faith as is required in grown persons they have not and in that sense let your Assumption passe for currant But now this is the misery that when it might be expected that both propositions being yielded the conclusion should be unquestionably assent●●● to which yet I deny not the syllogism you make is stark naught and a palpable Paralogism as having a negative assumption in the first Figure wherein the Assumption must alwaies be affirmative else the reasoning is fallacious and unsound which is evident to the meanest capacity e. g. The Sun Moon and Stars shine and give light but fire on the hearth and candles on the table are neither Sun Moon nor Stars Therefore fire and candles do not shine or give light Or thus All four-footed beasts are living creatures but Anabaptists are not four-footed beasts Therefore Anabaptists are not living creatures Or thus All that are indued with humane learning in some eminency are reasonable creatures But Anabaptists for the most part are not indued with humane learning in eminency Therefore Anabaptists for the most part are not reasonable creatures Thus your sophistry and folly is discovered 4. If you say your meaning was to prove from that Scripture that they onely are to be baptized that believe with all their hearts then the Argument is to be formed thus All those that are rightly baptized or to be baptized believe with all their hearts But Infants believe not with all their hearts Ergo not rightly baptized or to be baptized Here it 's granted the form is good but the matter of the first Proposition to say no more to the second then what hath been said is naught For John the Baptist rightly baptized many without enquiry much lesse certainty that their hearts were right in believing S●mon Magus in this very Chap. t) Acts 8.13 was baptized and that rightly for Philip is not in the least blamed but approved in that act yet u) Acts 8.21 his heart was not right before God And multitudes we read of that were daily baptized of whose believing With all their hearts we read nothing and if you must forbear baptizing untill you know that people believe with all their hearts v 1 Cor. 2.11 you must never baptize u For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him Nay neither that nor any other Scripture holds forth in expresse terms that none but such as believe are to be baptized SECT 10. H. H. the same page Acts 10.46 47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized 4. Instance that have received the Holy Ghost as well as wee And he commanded them to be baptized c. By which wee see that no such babes were here baptized for all that were in this place baptized were such as had received the Holy Ghost as well as the Apostles and they heard them speak with tongues and magnifie God which children that cannot speak at all cannot possibly do all rational men will grant Reply 1. Your Argument from hence is sick of the same disease with the former viz. All that were baptized here were such as received the Holy Ghost c. But children cannot receive the Holy Ghost c. Therefore Just like this they that understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written are guiltie of humane learing for in your judgment humane learning is matter of guilt But you do not understand the Languages wherein the Scriptures were originally written as you would bear us in hand by your inveyghing against humane learning Therefore you are not guilty of humane learning This is enough to shew the unreasonablenesse of your reasonings 2. Here is a clear Argument for baptizing Infants they that receive the Holy Ghost are to be baptized but some Infants receive the Holy Ghost Therefore the Major shines clear by its own light They who partake of the inward grace may partake of the outward signe or they who have the thing signified in Baptism ought to have the sign which is Baptism The Apostle Peter justifies this principle and by the authority and strength of it proves the lawfulnesse of baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell Now that some infants receive the Holy Ghost as well as grown men it 's plain for * Rom 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any man or any one have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his and if an Infant be none of Christs you must eat your words and deny that any Infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ x) p. 61. If you say by receiving the Holy Ghost is meant the extraordinary gift of the Spirit as ver 44 45 46. Be it so this makes the Argument stronger for if

We would have Mr. Baxter and all men know that we take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible Therefore now Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook 's folly and wickedness is manifest who would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead but they must help him by their Consequences But their deceit lies in this that because Christ did not bring some other Scripture to prove the Resurrection therefore they conclude he proved it by consequence never minding that what he said was Scripture and what he approved of is approved and ought to be of all without murmurings and disputings Reply 1. Do you take all the sayings of Christ to be as good Scripture and of as great authority as any part of the Bible If you understand it of Christ's sayings left upon Record in holy Writ I am of the same belief but because you speak so largely and indistinctly I imagine without breach of charity your design is to open a wide door for unwritten Traditions to come in and be received as the Council of Trent hath determined pari pietatis affectu * Vide primu●● D●cretum qua tae sessionis Comcilii Tridenti●● Pet. Suar. l. 2. p. 127. i. e. with the like affection of piety as any part of the Bible And this is not a groundless imagination for both your tenents and practices speak a promoting of the Catholick cause as it is so called for which it's strongly suspected and rumor'd that you are an Agent I pray call to mind the Jesuit who pretended to be a Jew and converted and was admitted a member of an Anabaptistical Congregation at Hexham in the North. 2. Your silly evasion a Cole wort more then twice sodden is as apparent now as the detection of that Jesuit and needs no further reply 3. It 's a notorious slander that Mr. Baxter and M. Cook c. would insinuate into peoples minds that Christ did not bring Scripture to prove the Resurrection of the Dead For they say plainly u) Mr. Cooks Font uncovered p. 24. that Christ proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by Consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham c. you are one of those men as Mr. Baxter saith p 8. who have reported abroad That Christ was not able to confute the Sadduces or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrine What say you now for you say nothing in this page to Mr. Baxter's motion Will you allow of such an Argument for Infant-baptism as Christ here brings for the Resurrection Will you confess it to be a sufficient Scripture proof 4. If what Christ approved of is and ought to be approved of all and it 's certain that Christ approves this way of arguing from Scripture by Consequence as you cannot deny then do you approve it without murmurings or disputings This was Christ's usual way E. g also he proves the lawfulness of his Disciples v) Mat. 12.3 ● 5 6 7. pulling the ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day by consequence from Scripture viz. from David's eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priest's sacrificing on the Sabbath And 3. From that Expression in Hos 6.6 I will have mercy and not sacrifice To conclude this I see you are like a bird in a net the more you stir the faster you are held notwithstanding your fluttering SECT 49. H H. p. 48. But now to make their folly manifest I will reason with them another way and if they prove as plainly that Infants are to be baptized as Christ did there prove that the dead should rise they shall have it and I will confess my self in an error And now to the matter Reply 1. Here is another confession of yours that Christ plainly proves there the Resurrection of the Dead now either it is Expresly or by Consequence x not Expresly for there is not one word of the Resurrection in Exodus 3 6. Therefore by Consequence will you now confess your error and say That some doctrine is contained plainly in Scripture which is not expresly written therein 2. You will Now make their folly manifest You had said but a little before in the same page that it is now manifest Surely you have manifested your own folly in indeavoring to do that now which you said was done before 3. It seems all this while you came not to the matter but fell short or beside the mark for you say And now to the matter SECT 50. H. H. Mark 12.25 When they shall rise from the dead they neither marry Now do you shew a Scripture that saith And when they shall baptize little children they shall c. Reply 1. This is but the same answer in another form 2. When you bring a Scripture that saith When they shall dipp actual believers or visible Saints they shall c. we will shew you then a Scripture that saith as you say SECT 51. H. H. vers 26. As touching the dead that they rise have you not read c. Now do you produce such a Scripture if you can that saith As touching little children that they may be baptized have you not read c. Bring you but Striptures that come but thus near the matter and we will grant you Infant-baptism but till then you are unreasonable in your reasoning Reply 1. Produce you a Scripture out of Exodus that saith The dead shall rise and then you shall have such a Scripture That children shall be baptized 2. You say and unsay Even now you approved of arguing by Consequence from Scripture and now nothing will serve turn but Express Scripture 3. You would make the people believe that we deny the Resurrection of the Dead God forbid We hold Christ proves the Resurrection by Consequence which you cannot deny 4. When you cannot answer then you fall a railing you accuse and condemn your self nay Christ as well as us as unreasonable in our reasoning SECT 52. H. H. pag. 49. Some will object that I tye Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook to plain Scripture but I my self have written many words in this book that are not plain Scripture Answ It 's one thing for a man to use words to express himself to those that will not believe the Scriptures as they are written and another thing to bring the Scriptures to shew men a rule to walk by and what their duty is in matters of faith and obedience The former we allow but not the latter either to our selves or others c. Reply 1. You take to your self that liberty which you deny to others who may not without a check from you use the word Sacrament p. 14. nor Negative p. 29. c. 2. The phrase of not believing the Scriptures as they are written is dark and doubtful you had need of an Expositor yet I know not who those are that will