Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	divine_a	tradition_n	2,703	5	9.2704	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47602	Pedo-baptism disproved being an answer to two printed papers (put forth by some gentlemen called the Athenian Society, who pretend to answer all questions sent to them of what nature soever) called the Athenian Mercury, one put forth November 14, the other November 28, 1691 : in which papers they pretend to answer eight queries about the lawfulness of infant-baptism : likewise divers queries sent to them about the true subjects of baptism, &c.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1691 (1691)	Wing K79; ESTC R12897	42,621	35

of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him Ergo. See Levit. 10. 1 2. where Moses told Aaron because his Sons had done that which God commanded them not that God would be sanctified by all that drew near unto him intimating that such who did that which God commanded not did not sanctify or glorify God therein Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience or by adding to his Word by doing that which God hath not required Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men and that that Practice doth profit the Child none can prove from God's Word And in after-times when grown up it may cause the Person to think he was thereby made a Christian c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace and had it sealed to him nay thereby regenerated for so these Gentlemen in their Mercury Decemb. 26. plainly intimate and that Infants are thereby ingrafted also into Christ's Church Sure all understanding Men know Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration but only metonymically it being a Figure of Regeneration But they ignorantly affirm also that Infants then have a federal Holiness as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptism which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace which is a great Error How can Water saith Mr. Charnock an external thing work upon the Soul physically Nor can it saith he be proved that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so then all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the Ground Some indeed says he say that Regeration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so many Years c. is not easily conceived On Regen p. 75. Arg. 6. If the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized and in so saying speak truly and yet Infants can't perform those things then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says that Faith and Repentance are required of all such c. and speak truly and yet Infants cannot perform these things Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized Object If it be objected That they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties Answ. If Suretiship for Children in Baptism is not required of God and the Sureties do not cannot perform those things for the Child then Suretiship is not of God and so signifies nothing but is an unlawful and sinful Undertaking But Suretiship in Childrens Baptism is not required of God and they do not cannot perform what they promise Ergo. Do they or can they cause the Child to forsake the Devil and all his Works the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh In a Word Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jesus Christ for these are the things they promise for them and in their Name Alas they want Power to do it for themselves and how then should they do it for others Besides we see they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Case and will not God one Day say Who has required these things at your Hands Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any Infant was baptized then Infants ought not to be baptized But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture Ergo. If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized let them shew us where we may find it Erasmus saith 'T is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children Union of the Church and on Rom. 6. Calvin saith It is no where expressed by the Evangelists that any one Infant was baptized by the Apostles Instit c. 16. Book 4. Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age and who desired and understood what it was Vide Ludov. The Magd●burgenses say That concerning the baptizing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469. Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor eyer himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions of Baptism of which Infants are not capable viz. Faith and Repentance Lib. Proph. p. 239. Arg. 8. If whatsoever which is necessary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or to be found therein then Infant-Baptism is not of God But whatever is necessary to Faith and Practice is contained in the Holy Scriptures c. but Infant-Baptism is not to be found therein Ergo. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule c. we have the Consent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines Athanasius saith The Holy Scriptures being Inspirations of God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Athan. against the Gentiles Chrysostom saith All things be plain and clear in the Scripture and whatsoever are needful are manifest there Chrysost on 2 Thess and 2 Tim. 2. Basil saith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity and a most certain Sign of Pride if any Man should reject any thing written and should introduce things not written Basil in his Sermon de Fide Augustine saith In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of Living Hope Love c. Let us saith he seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour left a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Aug. in his 198 Epistles to Fortunat. Theophilact saith It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Lib. 2. Paschal Isychi●●s saith Let us who will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us Lib. 5. c. 16. on Levi● Bellarmin saith That though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great Use against the Lutherans forasmuch as they use that ●i●● every where having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it

of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book d● Bapt. I. 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in ●●e Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance as the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abibu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found ●● the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth

Faith Hope c. cease then and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11. 27. refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him that was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect t●●●e Controversy about Inf●●-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's Time as some suppose it-was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born Secondly Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing abou●●●nfant-Baptism do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized viz. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them p●●ticularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to ●●ernal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as 〈…〉 the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their ●●ttle ●●bes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is nor to be found in the Sc●●●●ure he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to b●nd their Consciences when they come to ●ge especially since they gave no Consent to it no● were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and ●●jury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self-killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore feriously query I. WHeth●●●radition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to establish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving ●o be a Mistake of the Text John 3. 5. as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eucharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Cate●●●sm IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentlemen I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body el●● intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a further Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to your Logical Argument ●● viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children incovenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is no● Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast our viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i. e. the fleshly