Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	old_a	scripture_n	write_v	3,081	5	5.9465	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43469	Some plain letters in the defence of infant baptism and of the mode of baptizing (now generally used in the Church of England), which may serve, for a confutation of a small treatise entituled The reason why not infant-sprinkling, but believers-baptism ought to be approved, &c.	Hewerdine, Thomas, 1659 or 60-1738?	1699 (1699)	Wing H1630; ESTC R5896	62,852	138

every-where find Infant-Baptism receiv'd and continu'd as an Apostolical practice But I 'll not lead you too far into these Historical accounts which yet we must be oblig'd to or else we shall know but very little of the Acts of the greatest part of the Apostles for what they did into what Cities and Nations they Travel'd what Disciples they made whom they Baptiz'd is not written in Scripture But now Sir suppose some wild Theist or Atheist in pursuance of their Mischievous design to discredit the Apostles should come and tell you that the greatest part of them were a pack of Lazy Drones who though they were under the obligation of a Command to Disciple and Baptize all Nations yet never mov'd a Foot upon that great Errand did not the least Hand's-turn in all that weighty Business pray Good Sir what Answer would you make How would you vindicate the Apostles from so black a charge I am sure that all Scripture-Evidence would here fail you you could not quote Scripture in the defence of one half of them but how then would you stop the Mouths of their Accusers Why Sir You must be beholden to just the evidence we have for Infant-Baptism's being practis'd by the Apostles for by all the Authority whereby you could silence their Accusers and prove to 'em the Apostles Travels and the Conversions that they every where made all the wide World over even by all that Authority I say do we prove Infants to have been Baptized by them And further suppose an Atheist should fly in the face of our Blessed Saviour himself and Blasphemously tell you that he was a false Prophet who pretended to foretell such things concerning the Destruction of the Jewish Church and State as never came to pass though he positively prophesy'd that That very Generation should not pass away till all these should be fulfill'd Suppose I say an Atheist should say thus Good Sir I must beseech you to tell me what you would answer or how you would clear our blessed Lord and Saviour from the foul Aspersion you could not in this case have any help from Scripture No but you would be forc'd to appeal to the Historians of that and of the following Ages and particularly to that most admirable Historian Josephus to shew how these Predictions and Prophecies of our Saviour were accomplish'd and most wonderfully and punctually fulfill'd about forty Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion Well Sir and we have altogether as good evidence in the first Writers of the Christian Church for Infant-Baptism as we have for the Accomplishment of our Saviour's Prophecies and as you must prove our Saviour to have been a true Prophet in that Case even so do we prove Infants to have been Baptized in the Apostolical Ages Once more some deny that the Apostles Baptiz'd any Infants and suppose a Quaker who is against all Water-Baptism should deny that they Baptiz'd either Men or Women I know you would say that we have sufficient Proof of this in the Acts of the Apostles Oh but Sir You need not be told that these Quakers many of them are a sort of unmannerly fellows that disrespect and disparage the very Scriptures themselves and perhaps they 'll ask you Who writ that Book in the New Testament call'd The Acts of the Apostles Of what Authority is it Was the Author of it an Inspir'd Writer and what can you say why we are bound to believe what we find Written therein more than in any other Old Book And now pray Sir should a morose Quaker thus put you to 't to prove the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles how wou'd you do it Truly you must answer that we have the whole Primitive Church bearing witness to it that it was written by an Inspired Author viz. by St. Luke and that it has ever been receiv'd as Canonical Scripture throughout the Universal Church of Christ dispersed over the face of the whole Earth And this indeed is sufficient evidence to a Wise-Man But then we have the very same evidence for Infant-Baptism's being an Apostolical practice we have the Universal Church of Christ bearing witness thereto in all places yea and at all times for the first fifteen Hundred Years after Christ without exception Sir That Infant-Baptism was the Universal Practice of the Holy Catholick Church and that no time can be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began is so manifestly and clearly prov'd from the best and most Authentick Writers of all Ages that some of our learned'st Adversaries have had more Conscience than to deny it Menno One of the most Learned of the Anabaptists as the Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism tells us from Cassander acknowledg'd Infant-Baptism to be as Old as the Times of the Apostles and therefore he was forc'd in the defence of his cause to invent the Story That though Infant-Baptism was first taught in the Apostles Times yet that it was then taught by false Apostles and false Teachers which proof-less Story is Learnedly and largely answer'd by the said Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism pag. 47 48 49 50. And our excellent Dr. Falkner has these Words The Christian Church in the first Ages thereof and in a Continued Succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do And this he proves by several plain Testimonies out of St. Austin St. Cyprian Origen and from the famous African Council and concludes that divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the Universal Reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this saith he having been clearly and sufficiently evidenc'd by the Historical Theses of Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who wou'd have more large and ample Proof hereof Treatise concerning Reproaching c. pages 285.286 And now Good Sir have patience with me till I shall briefly summ up what I have said in this long Letter and I will conclude I have shewn you how little we read in Scripture of what The Apostles did in this Case of Baptizing after they had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations and likewise what clear hints we have even in that little of their Baptizing Infants but then I have added that as we find larger accounts of the Apostles Travels and of the Nations Converted by them in the primimitive Writers so that from the same Writers we are more fully assur'd that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Practice And you Sir I hope will not be so vain as to despise this Evidence without which you can never prove that the greatest part of the Apostles Baptiz'd either Man Woman or Child Without which you cannot prove to an Atheist that our Saviour was a True Prophet Without which you cannot prove to a Sullen Quaker the Authority of that very Book in which we have so may Proofs against them of Baptism in general viz. The Acts of the Apostles And thus I have

is expresly said That last of all Died the Woman also Sir I should have despis'd to take notice of such Childish Reasonings as these had I not observ'd with what confidence they are written to impose upon Vulgar Understandings In the 33d verse of the same Chapter we read of the Jaylor that he was Baptized and all his The Original words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie all that were of him or in other words his Off-spring But 't is objected that they were not Children because 't is imply'd in the next verse that they were all Believers and rejoyced The Jaylor rejoyced believing in God with all his House To which Mr. Horn has answer'd that the Original words may be interpreted as speaking of none but the Jaylor himself and may signifie Word for Word that he rejoyced House-wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he having believed in God He rejoyced House-wholly that is upon the Account of his whole House that all were Baptized as well as himself And certainly his thus rejoycing upon the account of his House may perswade us that there were some in it that were very near and dear to him and These undoubtedly were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Off-spring or Children Baptized with himself See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants c. p. 58. Again Acts 18.8 We find some Corinthians Baptized and Acts 19.3 5. 'T is said of some who had been Baptized unto John's Baptisms that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And these last indeed were about Twelve Men but that all the Corinthians were Men and no Children will not so easily be prov'd 'T is true 't is said that they heard and believed and yet there might be Children among them for all that as I have just now shewn there will be Infants in the happy number at the Right-hand of the Judge when it shall be said to them I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat Tho' Infants I say cou'd not do this yet this will be said of the whole Blessed number whereof Infants will be a part And so the Scripture very frequently ascribes such things to Companies as are not within the power of Children to do and yet those very Companies may consist of Children as well as of Elder People All Judah stood before the Lord with their little Ones their Wives and their Children when Jahaziel said to them that they shou'd do yea and 't is also said that they did much greater things than cou'd be affirm'd of Children 2 Chron. 20.13 14 15 16 c. And thus I say again that Children may be in a Company even tho' such things are said to be done by that Company as the Children in it are not capable of doing Lastly St. Paul tells his Corinthians that he Baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1.14 16. And here I will observe that of all the Households that we find to have been Baptiz'd there is not the least exception as to Infants or Babes nor can I believe them to have been all Barren and Childless Families because there 's not the least Syllable or Circumstance denoting any such thing I know 't is said that there were no Children in this Houshold Baptized by St. Paul because no Children are mention'd and may not I as well say that here was no Faith no Repentance nor any such thing as some contend for to qualifie for Baptism viz. Because here is no mention made of any such thing and again for the same reason that some deny there were Children another may deny that there were Servants and another that there were any Relations and all by the same Rule and for the same reason still and so at length at this rate of Denying any Children to have been in it may the Houshold of Stephanas be deny'd into an Houshold of mere No-Bodies And this Sir is all that I find in the New Testament to have been practis'd by the Apostles in this Case of Baptizing after our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and in so short an account as this is we have as clear hints of their Baptizing Children as can well be expected For You Sir may venture to assure your self that the Scripture has acquainted us but with little very little in Comparison of what was really done by the Apostles in this Case even by those very Apostles who had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations Nay but as St. John tells us that over and above the Scripture-accounts there are many other things that Jesus did so I will add that there were many other things which his Apostles did which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Books that should be written John 21 25. As in this particular case of Baptizing we do not in all the New Testament find the Hundredth part of what the Apostles did so that if we must believe no more in this matter than what the Scriptures tell us of the Acts of the Apostles we must believe but very little and not a word of above two thirds of these Apostles not a syllable of St. Andrew or St. Thomas or St. Simon or St. Jude or St. James or St. Bartholomew or St. Matthias or St. Matthew for of their or of any of their going out into the world to Baptize we must not speak a word if we must say nothing but what we can quote Chapter and Verse for And yet Sir Notwithstanding this profound Silence of Scripture I verily believe that no Man who has read Books can doubt but a credible account has been and may be given of the Travels of these Apostles and of the Nations Discipl'd and Baptized by them The ancient Writers have some of them been pretty punctual in these matters and in the Histories of all Countreys 't is seldom or never omitted by what Apostle or by whom the Christian Religion was first planted among them And unless all these Historians who agree in these matters can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together tho' as far distant from one another as the East is from the West yet I say unless they can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together to Cheat and Impose upon the World we have no reason to disbelieve their reports But then Sir I add that we have no reason to disbelieve Infant-Baptism for we have the very same Histories and the very same Authors bearing witness to this who bear witness to the other matters For Instance 't is generally agreed among Writers that Christianity was first planted in the Eastern Indies by St. Thomas and 't is very well known that the Christians there are to this day call'd St. Thomas-Christians and 't is altogether as well known that they do as they have always done practise Infant-Baptism I cou'd trace the other Apostles into the many Cities and Nations whither they severally went Discipling and Baptizing and

which all the workings of Mens humours and affections leave the most visible impression and symptoms and it 's Observable that the same word in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Face and the Person because the whole Person is represented by the Face and thus we Baptize the Person in Baptizing his Face which we can look on and wash Naked and not be ashamed So that worthy Author Concludes his 15 Chapter of the abovemention'd Book And now Sir I come to your Last and Grand Argument with which you make so much Noise and Cry and in which you do really Boast and Triumph with what Heat and Bravery do you repeat it to be Demonstration perfect Demonstration that John Baptiz'd by Dipping and why Sir I pray Why say you don't we read that John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there was much Water there Well and what then You add that the much Water there does certainly imply that all that John Baptized in that Water were certainly Dipp'd Very good and before I Answer you as to this I must here rejoyce with you a little that your Stomach still serves to swallow Consequences yea and very lusty ones too But now Good Sir This your high and mighty Argument so Confidently and Hotly propos'd is by no means to be Faintly and Coldly Answer'd but I must e'en force my self to put on a little warmth too and be bold to Challenge all our Learned Adversaries to contradict me whilst I say that the Original words in that Text Signifie That John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there were many Waters there So that we must understand the much Water in our English Bibles in no other Sense than as it may be understood by the Many Waters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the Original words And now you Sir who have not always liv'd within the smell of your own Chimney you know that in some Hill-Countries there are Multitudes of Springs and we may therefore say many Waters and yet not Water enough in any one of these Springs for a Man to be Dipt in And the Truth of this business seems to be this John was The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness and he might have been in many parts of the Wilderness where had he wanted but a drop of Water he must have travelled above Ten or Twenty Miles before he cou'd have found it but he would not continue in any such place because of the Multitudes that daily throng'd to him to be Baptized of him No but He stay'd near Salem where there were wany Springs or Waters because so long as he was thereabouts he had always Water at hand to Baptize the People that flockt to him for that End For there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Waters there And this I say may seem to be the True Account of this Passage and now if you can find any thing in it to prove that John Baptized by Dipping pray let me hear it in your next Letter and you shall then know more of my mind In the mean time having thus given you my Answers to all your Objections which I have as yet heard from you I shall here take leave to rest awhile till you may be pleas'd to shape out some more work for Sir June 19. 1698. Your obedient and humble Servant T. H. LETTER IV. SIR AT the very first sight of yours I presently conjectur'd what sort of Task you were setting me and I am very glad to find that you are grown a little cooler and that your heat against our Mode of Baptizing is somewhat abated for you say very well that if we can prove Infant-Baptism the very Weakness and Tenderness of the poor Babes themselves will be some Plea for Mercy rather than Sacrifice Nay and you say that Infant-Baptism once prov'd would put an end to the whole Controversie and there would be no further need of Quarelling about Dipping or Sprinkling because you are well assur'd that we will not even in the Case of Infant-Baptism refuse to Baptize by Dipping if it be required and certified that the Child may well endure it And therefore you are pleased to say that you are sorry for your beginning at the wrong end of the Controversie or rather where there is no occasion for any Controversie at all And now you ask leave which Good Sir you may freely take to call upon me for my Proofs of Infant-Baptism and for my Answers to your Objections which you have been taught to make against it Dear Sir I doubt not but you have Read at least some of the many Books which have been Written upon this Subject by the very Learned Bishop Taylor Dr. Hammond Dr. Featly Dr. Towerson The Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism Mr. Walker Mr. Baxter Mr. Horn Mr. Sydenham and others and I cannot forbear telling you that 't is an Argument of something which I will not Name that our Adversaries Objections shou'd be so often Printed and Reprinted as if there had never been one Syllable said in Answer to them whereas I will here venture to say unto you that no one can shew you any one Objection in any of our Adversaries Books against Infant-Baptism but I will undertake to shew you enough to Answer it in some One or more of the Books which I can produce in the Defence of it And you must not Sir expect any new Discoveries in this Case from me all that I can aim at is but to speak plainer than some others have done and this indeed is all that you seem to desire from me for you want a little light you say being something in the dark as to this matter because of the silence of the Scriptures in which you can no where find either that any Infants were Baptiz'd or Commanded to be Baptiz'd Sir In very few words you have open'd a wide Field of Discourse and I think that the Case of Infant-Baptism may be pretty throughly Scann'd and Canvas'd by Considering your Objection which I shall divide into these two Parts First You find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptiz'd Secondly Neither do you there find that any Infants were Commanded to be Baptiz'd To both which Parts of your Objection I shall endeavour to return you a very plain and full Answer First You Object and say That you find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized And here you take occasion to tell me what a Triumphant noise the Forty Texts in your lit-Book have made 'T is the Common Boast among some Folk you say that there is not One Text in Scripture to Countenance Infant-Baptism but Forty that are Point-Blank against it I suppose they mean if the Author of your little Book speaks the Truth in this Matter But whether he has done so or no I shall have occasion before I have done still farther to Consider For as fast as any of his Forty Texts come in my way I shall not be