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	prove_v	tradition_n	2,724	5	8.9814	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66526	Vindiciæ vindiciarum, or, A vindication of a late treatise, entituled, Infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr. Hen. D'Anvers his reply : to which is annexed, the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-elect of Lincoln) his apologetical-letter : also An appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both antient and modern / by Obed Wills.	Wills, Obed.; Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Appeal to the Baptists against Henry D'Anvers, Esq.	1675 (1675)	Wing W2868; ESTC R38662	92,093	163

consideration That in this Century Tertullian perswading to defer both the Baptism of Children and others who are of age doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the Church at that time to Baptize the one as well as the other otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other Concerning Tradition which Mr. Danvers saith is the principal ground that hath been urged for Infants-Baptism with an answer thereto Sect. 2. To make out this he quotes Austin who calls it an Apostolical Tradition to which I said in my Answer that anciently the greatest points of Faith were by the Fathers named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they are called by the Apostle 2 Thes. 2. 15. which is all one with Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so the word is rendered 1 Cor. 11. 2. And to make this more fully appear the Magdiburgs tell us that Bazil calls the manner of Baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Tradition by which he means the Doctrine of the Lord Christ. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. Egregie Basilius hâc de re scribit lib. 3. contra Eunomium Baptismus noster est secundum Traditionem Domini in nomine Patris c. that is our Baptism is according to the Tradition of the Lord in the name of the Father c. Again Bazil in his Book de Spiritu sancto by Tradition means the Scripture as Hermannus Hamelmannus observes de Tradit Apost tacitis p. 355. Certum est quod Basilius per vocabulum Traditionis aliquando Scripturam intelligit it is certain that Bazil doth sometimes understand by the word Tradition the Scripture for so he speaks to Amphilochius in his 10th Chapter of the above-mentioned Book of the Holy-Spirit Hanc Traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac Dei cognitionem largita est c. If Austin then means the same that Bazil doth by Tradition viz. the Scripture he says true when he tells us that Infants-Baptism were not to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th Book against the Donatists Chap. 24. which Mr. Danvers doth ill in curtailing namely That if any do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing Children let them know What the Universal Churh holds nor was instituted in Councils but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical Authority to which this is added in the next words Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione Carnis quam prior populus accepit that is Nevertheless we may conjecture how much the Sacrament of Baptism is available to Children by the Circumcision of the Flesh which the former people received His next instance is from Bellarmin that it is an Apostolical Tradition c. But Mr. Danvers is not ignorant that Bellarmin saith Satis aperte Coll●gitur ex scripturis to which purpose we have him Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. de Sacrament It is clearly gathered from Scripture A third passage Mr. Danvers brings from Dr. Field in his Book of the Church Chap 20. Where speaking of the several sences in which the word Tradition is taken he saith That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so And is it fair dealing for Mr. Danvers to stop here when the following words would have cleared the point which are these yet is not this received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our Antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our Infant-Baptism Asserted c. And when I shewed to a Friend that hath a great respect for the Anabaptists how he had served Dr. Field the said person presently said certainly Mr. Danvers is either weak or wicked The last instance is from the Convocation at Oxford and he deals unfairly with them likewise by altering and disordering their words For he quotes them thus That without the Consentaneous judgment and practice of the universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant-Baptism whereas they are expressed in another strain and less advantageous to Mr. Danvers's purpose being thus That the Consentient judgment and practice of the universal Church is the best interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly exprest and then they say that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of Faith and manners believed and practiced when by Socinians and Anabaptists they are called upon for proofs instancing in the Trinity and Coequality of persons in the Godhead baptizing Infants ●●e observation of the Lords day and even the Canon of the Scripture it self c. Mr. Danvers having as he thinks cleared his Position proceeds to draw a parallel between Papists and Protestants to shew that there is no great difference between them after the manner as I have represented the Protestant sentiments in the point To which I reply 1. That the Papists hold many things that are Orthodox and sound especially in Doctrinals but are very corrupt in Discipline and abominably unsound in the point of Tradition for they equal it with Scripture and the Council of Trent determined that Tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu with the like affection as the Scripture c. The Protestants abhor this as may be seen at large in the afore-mentioned Author Hamelmannus in his Book of Traditions where disputing against Staphilus and Cassander and speaking particularly of Infants-Baptism p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex Scripturis Tradition would not satisfie us unless we had Scripture-proof for it Now for his Parallel 1. Do the Papists saith he maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants-Baptism as it is gathered from the Scripture and appointed by the Church is of equal Authority with Scripture it self so saith he doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant Doctrine That the Tradition of Infants-Baptism proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture ought to be esteemed as firm and good as the Scripture it self and to prove that I say so Mr. Danvers refers the Reader to p. 117. of my Book where there is nothing spoken of Tradition but only a position quoted from Mr. Baxter's Scripture-proof viz. That evident consequences or Arguments drawn by Reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very words of a Text. And is there any hurt in this can any man that is rational deny it doth not Dr. Owen positively assert it Nay doth not Mr. Danvers himself tell us We admit of plain consequences Reply p. 69. though he will not

esteemed Authentick quoting Erasmus for it and for this Mr. Danvers falls foul on me this being another of his great charges in his Preface that I abuse Erasmus who saith quite contrary to what he saith I father on him As 1. That the Translation of the Homilies on the Romans appeared to him to be Ruffinus's and not Jeroms 2. That the Preface to the Translation which represents it as Jerom's was a cheat of the Bookseller as Erasmus notes To this I answer 1st That Erasmus doth not say that the Homilies upon the Romans set forth as translated by Jerom were Ruffinus's Homilies and not Origen's 2. The Magdeburgs reckoning up the legitimate Works of Jerom in the story of his Life do mention that of translating Origen on the Romans to be one and that according to the Judgment of Erasmus Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1218. Extant inter Origenis Opera Latinè facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio that is among the works of Origen some are translated into Latin by Jerom in the Judgment of Erasmus and then they nam which they are as follows As the Homilies upon Jeremy which have Jerom's Preface to them the Homilies upon Ezekiel the 39. Homilies upon Luke cum Praefatione Hieronymi with Jeroms Preface and ten Books of Origen's Comments upon the Romans there 's that which will clear me against all Mr. Danver's reproaches cum ejusdem praefatione with Jerom's Preface I appeal now to the Reader whether I had not good Authority for what I said That according to Erasmus's judgment Jerom translated Origen on the Romans You see from whence I had mine information The Magdeburgs affirm that both Translation and Preface too were Jerom's and Mr. Danvers knew it to be so for in my Answer I directed him to the Century and page in the Magdeburgensian History from whence I had it And therefore 't is a sorry trick of him to slur me as he hath done in this thing and make such an Exclamation against me What credit is to be given unto Mr. Wills let all men judg he might rather have said what credit is to be given to the Magdeburgs and their excellent History as Mr. D. calls it let all men judg for if I was deceived they deceived me 3. I have yet further to say and that is that I have another to speak on my behalf Dr. Hammond of no small note for his knowledg in Antiquity and perhaps not inferior to Erasmus who tells us in his Letters of Resolution p. 215. that though we have not Origen upon the Romans in Greek yet being translated by Jerom and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius prefixt before the Commentary we have his Authority to secure us that the words about Infant-Baptism were Origens And let it be supposed that Jerom did not translate those on the Romans and that the Homilies themselves are spurious and none of Origens Yet those on Luke pass for current without controul and there the point of Infant-Baptism is as fully asserted as in the other place on the Romans Against this also Mr. Danvers hath borrowed a scrap from Mr. Tombes who finding nothing in Erasmus Censures hath yet by good hap hit upon a word in Erasmus Comment on Luke 1. 3. The words of Erasmus are For so he seems to think whosoever he was whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Admantius which shews saith Mr. Tombes that Erasmus took them not to be Origens or at least doubted thereof It is very remarkable that Mr Tombes should spy out this passage much more that he should comment thus upon it For what Erasmus speaks of Origen upon Luke might as well be said of every Book nor can any man say posatively these are the Books written by Justin Martyr or Tertullian so that to interpret that passage of Erasmus for a doubt is but a meer Cavil But that he doubted not that Jerom translated Origen on Luke take his own clear word for it in his Censure Homil. In Lucam Dubium non est quin 39 Homilias in Lucam verterit Hieronimus quod ipse palam in praefatione profitetur There is no doubt to be made of it saith he that Jerom translated the 39 Homilies on Luke And if Jerom translated them as there is no doubt according to Erasmus then we need not doubt but he did it from the Original Copy of Origen Judg now Reader what Mr. D. hath got in this Business notwithstanding all the Clutter he hath kept with his boastings and defamings we see by what is said That we have Infants-Baptism owned as from the Apostles by Origen on Luke whatever becomes of that on the Romans and translated by Jerom of which Erasmus doth not in the least doubt so that the Fabrick stands yet upright never like to be demolisht by Mr. Danvers what-ever great exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Colonelship Our last Testimony is from Cyprian against whom also he hath something to say though methinks that of Vossius is enough to silence all Cavils viz. That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infants-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exception And Grotius speaks to the same purpose viz. That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus maks the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infants-Baptism Against this he gives in three Exceptions in his Treatise of Baptism presented again in his Reply as First Infants-Baptism is not urged by Cyprian for an Apostolical Tradition nor upon any Authority of Scripture but upon his Own and Bishops Arguments though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition his word he saith would have no more been taken than when he tells us Chrysm was so To which I replyed in my Answer That though Cyprian did not say it was Apostolical yet it follows not he did not own it as such yea to put it out of doubt the Magdeburgs tell us he did own it as Apostolical Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. But what though the Magdiburgs tell us so saith he that 's no more than if Mr. Wills had said it Strange that such venerable persons as those famous Divines were that have written such an excellent History as Mr. Danvers else-where terms it should be of no more credit with him than my self whom he so much vilifieth But hath he not forgotten what he speaks just before That Cpyrian held Chrysin to be an Apostolical Tradition and is it not strange that he should not hold the same of Pedobaptism But whether he did or not is not material to the point which is now before us for we are inquiring de facto what was done in Cyprian's time as to the Baptizing Children not de jure upon what ground they did it or whether 't was esteemed Apostolical if the practice was owned 't is as much as we need to put by Mr. Danvers's Cavil and that it was so Mr. Tombes his great

reason to reject the one as the other A strange Assertion For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful yet the Preaching of the Gospel one would think should be lawful and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel than to Baptize either the Adult or Infants But what makes Mr. Danvers judg otherwise as to these Britains It is because he conceives by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively by being ordained by them and not as a company of Lay-men or Mechanicks It seems than this Gentle-man is for Mechanicks Preaching but that which is remarkable is to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation For the Britains to whom Austin addrest his Speech were not Lay-men or Mechanicks but seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop as Mr. Fox informs us Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. Although 't is true they admitted not Romes Supremacy over them which was the main quarrel as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin because they would not admit of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy over them Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum Reader thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position and because I said in my Answer they were trifles he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering next to Bellarmin thou lyest But I must tell Mr. Danvers I did not only say they were trifles but proved them such And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons adding a little and submit it to judgment 1. His first Argument that the Britains were against Infant-Baptism was Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Scripture Before I speak to this know that he hath altered his note for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this Because the Britains received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as Baptizing Children Now this being more than he can tell and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact is not valid as I told him in my Answer and besides I minded him with that of the Magdeburgs who expresly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument But to the 1st as it is here in the Reply which is because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Word This he thinks will effectually do the business that is casheer Infants-Baptism from them To this I answer 1. To say they kept themselves expresly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word is more than Mr. Danvers can prove and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks from whom he hath his intelligence This therefore that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate 2. It is not true what he saith nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expresly set down in the Word and Mr. Fox tells us as before that no less than seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons who were also so proud that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence that in disdain and great displeasure they went away And observe Reader the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage I profess saith he I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries that they denied to joyn their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private respects ought to give place and be forgotten and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this good-mans mind as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account nor is it like that ever the Britains thought of it 2. His next Argument is Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them and besides this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious for we have shewed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision and the Papists as Bellarmine affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from Scripture But to make short work with it I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops and the observation of Easter be Traditions as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism but the Ceremony so they differed not about keeping Easter but only as to the circumstance of time when it was to be kept That the Britains and Picts kept Easter though not at the same time as the Romish Church did see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversie about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie Alfrid's Father and 't is said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland followed not the custom of Rome nor of the Saxons but the Picts and Britains in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month till the 28th of the same against whom Wilfrid replied The Easter we keep we have seen at Rome the same is used in Italy and France and finally all the World over save only by these here present with their accomplices the Picts and Britains 3. Reason is Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptized till aged so in his Treatise of Baptism but in his Reply 't is not baptized in this Island But we have shewn Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth and in all likelyhood lived and dyed a Pagan though he had much respect for Christians and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor 4. Another of his Reasons is Because the custom of the Britains was to baptize after Confession of Faith being in Union and Communion therein with the French Christians And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for Infants-Baptism because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it and had used it so many hundred years witness the Confession at Angrogne Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn which is That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him and that is that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit near twelve hundred years since For the Famous French Historian John de Serres in his History of France translated into English tells us p. 12. That Anno Christi 500 Clovis the great King of France then an Heathen desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault King of the Burgundians whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence Gondebault denyed Clovis because of the difference of Religion Clovis to remove this promised her liberty of Conscience so the marriage was concluded And saith the Author although Clovis were a Pagan yet he was no enemy to the Christians sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys who generally followed the Christian Religion He suffered his Wife likewise to baptize her Children So it 's plain the Burgundians from whence the Waldenses sprang were for baptizing Infants and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls 5. The last of Mr. Danvers's Arguments that the Britains were against Infants-baptism is because Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite that when he came into Britain and the question was here put to him I know not by whom how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptized he was fain to send to Rome for Solution This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britains were against Infants-Baptism that instead of an Answer it deserves to be laught at For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof And if this Argument doth import any thing it is that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptized What in the last place he speaks of Hilary that none were baptized in the Western Churches but the Adult is confronted in the beginning where we have shewn that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate the Book referr'd to and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin As for his other witnesses Munzer and John of Leyden with the rest of that Faction though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge and withal very disingenuously reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation I shall not be at so much expence of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein but quietly permit him to injoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses FINIS Preface to the Reply Synodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9. pag. 873. Laodicens Concilium Cent. 4. cap. 9. p. 833. Common-Prayer Book last Edit Dipt by washing is nonsense * Dr. Richard Allestree the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg † In his Book entit More proofs of Infants Church-membership pag. 343. * In his Treatise of Baptism London 1674. pag. 65 66. † Anno. 1656. * Pag. 343. of his Book before cited ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜