Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	baptism_n	baptize_v	infant_n	3,255	5	9.3290	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31043	The nonconformists vindicated from the abuses put upon them by Mr. [brace] Durel and Scrivener being some short animadversions on their books soon after they came forth : in two letters to a friend (who could not hitherto get them published) : containing some remarques upon the celebrated conference at Hampton-Court / by a country scholar.	Barrett, William, 17th cent.	1679 (1679)	Wing B915; ESTC R37068	137,221	250

present Romish Church holds but he who holds them solely or principally on the account of the present Churches Infallibility More particularly I do not say he is a Papist who holds Transubstantiation because as he thinks the Scripture teacheth it but he who therefore believes the Scripture to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope in or out of a Council hath decreed or warranted the same Should I deny the Popes Infallibility in a cause of faith I were to a Trent-Papist a Heretick as well as if I denied all the Articles of the faith because I deny the formal reason upon which all are to be believed Should I hold the Popes Infallibility as the ground and foundation of my faith then I were to him a good Catholick though I were mistaken in many of the things to be believed because I am upon the true and sure foundation of faith Now if any one can shew me any whole ancient Church or any one ancient Doctor of the Church who believed the Article of the Bishop of Romes Infallible Supremacy and made that the ground of believing all other Articles I will be his Convert if he will promise to be my Convert provided I can shew him ancient Doctors and Councils that have either not acknowledged or denied this foundation of the Papal faith And if we speak of the things believed by Papists the most of them are utterly destitute of all primitive Antiquity But there are others in the world generally decried as despisers of the Fathers who had they but men among them able and willing to search the Fathers might from them say more for themselves than would easily be answered I instance 1. In the Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists as they had rather be called some of great esteem among the sons of the Church have said that the opinion of these men cannot be confuted by Scripture at least not by Scripture alone In this they give these men as much as the generality of them desire or care for But of late one of good learning hath espoused their Cause and finding it granted by too too many that infant-Infant-baptism cannot with sufficient evidence be proved from Scripture alone he enquires what it is that together with Scripture will prove it Being referred to the Ancients he there joins issue and hath so acquitted himself that for my part if I were not perswaded from Scripture that Infants are to be baptized I should hardly be brought to be of that perswasion by any thing quoted from the Fathers One deservedly dignified in the Church hath suffered it to be printed as his opinion that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ The first who bears witness to Infant-baptism practised in the Church is Tertullian but so as he expresly dislikes and condemns it as an unwarrantable and irrational custome and Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too c. with much more of that nature Really were I of this learned persons judgment that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptism I should much haesitate in the matter for if there be no precept or example of Paedobaptism in Scriptures I ask whether the Church succeeding the Apostles had any reason or authority to take up that custom if she had then the present Church also hath authority to take it up though it had never before been taken up for the Church hath now the same authority that the Church succeeding the Apostolical times had It will be said that the Church succeeding immediately to the Apostles had better opportunity to know the practice of the Apostles than the present Church hath Ans That must needs be granted and if the Church succeeding the Apostles have given any undoubted testimony that the Apostolical Churches practised Infant-baptism her testimony cannot be refused but that that Church hath given any such testimony is easie to say but not so easie to prove Nothing out of Ignatius or Clemens Romanus is produced to such a purpose The Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox doth indeed qu. 56. plainly insinuate that in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were baptized and gives some account what difference should be in the resurrection betwixt those who were baptized and those who were not baptized and of the reason why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are accounted worthy of Baptism viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And were this Author Justin Martyr the testimony were considerable not to prove that Infant-baptism was practised in the time of the Apostles but that Infant-baptism was soon practised but the Author of those Questions and Answers must needs be some one that lived long after Justin Martyr Origen I believe will be found to be the first that speaks of Infant-baptism as an Apostolical tradition in his Com. on Rom. But the Antipaedobaptist to him and all others may say It is manifest from the Ancients that divers children of Christian Parents were not baptized in their infancy nor till they were come to maturity of judgment and that it was accounted no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no bar to their preferment that their Baptism was so long deferred that they were not before their baptism looked upon as unclean now if this be so how cometh it to pass that in a Church professing to follow and reverence Antiquity they are excommunicated and thrown into prison if they do not bring their children to be baptized Let any man prove out of Antiquity that Nazianzen and his father were accounted Heathens and Publicans till the Son was baptized which was not till he was about thirty years old 2. I hear there are sundry among us here in England that refuse to take an oath judging any oath unlawful in Gospel-times The opinion of these men is very pernicious manifestly tending to perpetuate strifes and contentions which cannot in our Courts of Judicature be ended but by an oath and I doubt not at all but that the opinion may be clearly refuted out of Scripture where the present Patrons of it especially seek to shelter themselves but if from the Scriptures we remove their Cause to the Fathers among them I doubt they will find more friends than adversaries For that an Oath is not at least in any secular matter to be required or taken seems clearly to have been the opinion of Athanasius Nazianzen Chrysostom Isidore Peleusiota Theophylact Hilary Ambrose Hierom and I think to the Greek Fathers I might have added Basil Artifices I know are used to evade their testimonies but such as will not hold when they are examined by those who can understand the languages in which those ancient Doctors did write 3. Men usually exclaim against the Presbyterians as persons who forsake all antiquity to follow Calvin who is but of yesterday and I think if any of them say that Calvin affords a student more light to understand Scripture than

in the most dangerous occurrences boldly and openly to own the name of his Redeemer without ever being ashamed with bearing his reproach As the Barrels go rumbling up and down the Streets so my Lord Mayor owes me a Groat The King the founder of this noble Order gives the Knights created by him a Garter and a Blew Riband as Badges to be known by others but would not be pleased if they should among themselves invent other badges and cognizances of their Order Christ also hath instituted Baptism to distinguish Christians from those who are no Christians How do we know whether it will like him that we should appoint a Cross to distinguish us more especially seeing thereby we shall be distinguished from a great number of our fellow Christians Again the Garter and Blew Riband are things to be worn and that may be seen and occasion spectators to enquire what they mean but so is not the Cross that was made on our foreheads after Baptism the Pagans that any of us have been among could take no notice of it and if our Parents did at any time admonish us of our engagement to crucifie the old man they put us in mind not of being crossed but of being baptized with Water to signifie the not only death but burial of the old man nor have our Kings of England been so fond of all the Rites and Ceremonies used at making of Knights of the Garter but that they have allowed some of them to be omitted where they have conceived they might be less acceptable King James being much pleased with the valour and piety of Maurice Prince of Orange sent him a Garter appointing his Embassador Sir Ralph Winwood to confer the honour on him freely and without any Rites or Laws but what the Prince himself would spontaneously undergo And the Embassador in a French Speech declared that the Rites wonted to be used in creating Knights of the Garter did seem somewhat abhorrent from the Discipline of the Reformed Churches in Holland and not altogether congruous to the polity of the Republick and that therefore the King to avoid offence had appointed it to be conferred without pomp and external magnificence I suppose Mr. D. thinks there is no Rite used in the creation of the Knights of St. George that is contrary to the Discipline of the Dutch Churches but the King was of another mind and chose rather to confer the highest honour without the wonted Ceremonies than not to confer it upon one who was like not to disgrace it And shall Ministers of the Gospel so stifly stand upon Ceremonies as rather not to administer baptism than to administer it without the sign of the Cross I must follow Mr. D. who tells us That several reformed Churches have a Ceremony of which Presbyterians ought to have as bad an opinion as of the Cross in Baptism The Ceremony he meaneth is Trine aspersion page 42. Why ought they to have as bad an opinion of Trine Aspersion as of the Cross in Baptism is there any Law either of God or man that tieth them to have as bad an opinion of the Trine Aspersion as of the Cross or do their Principles lead them to have as bad an opinion of one Ceremony as of the other I verily believe they do not for they say that Christ hath commanded Baptism and hath not strictly determined whether it shall be administred by Aspersion or Immersion nor whether by trine or une aspersion or immersion therefore the Church hath power to chuse the Rite that to her having consulted the general rules of Scripture and practice of the Primitive Churches shall seem best But they also say that God hath no where commanded that a Child shall be crossed or any where appointed his Church to institute any symbolical teaching signs at all if Mr. D. can shew them any command that a Child should be crossed they will not stick to grant that it is in the Churches power to order where the Child shall be crossed and how often and what kind of cross it shall be But it is to be feared he can shew no such command at least none such is shewed by him and yet he saith he is confident that if the trine aspersion were used or if we had retained the trine immersion as at the beginning of King Edward the sixths reign it would be accounted a gross superstition How may a man do to free him from this uncharitable confidence so contrary to Christianity I dare undertake to give it him under the hand and seal of as many as I am acquainted with that if the Church shall think meet to use trine aspersion or trine immersion she shall not be accounted either grosly or at all superstitious provided she declare that she doth not use either rite as necessary If by trine either aspersion or immersion she should prejudice the Babes in their health that would be a sin but not the sin of superstition But how doth Mr. D. prove that the Church hath not retained trine immersion Immersion it is plain she hath enjoyned unless the Sureties certifie that the Child be weak yet never any Minister of the Church in my hearing demanded such Certificate never did any Parents bring their Child in a dress fit for dipping that ever I could observe and yet I believe that I have seen as strong Children Baptized as are in most places of England and she no where saith it shall be dipped but once as neither doth she say that it shall be sprinkled but once so that Bishop Mountague in his Visitation Articles positively asserts That the Child is to be thrice aspersed with water on the face it may be some other Prelate of that age did as positively assert that the Child was to be sprinkled but once for those who have been most zealous to press Conformity have been at Daggers drawing about the meaning of some passages in that Liturgy to which they required subscription In the Hampton Court Conference the Metropolitan told the King That the administration of Baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the practice of the Church but enquired of by Bishops in their visitations and censured neither do the words in the Liturgy infer any such meaning But the Bishop of London replied That those learned men who framed the Book of Common-Prayer intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any but did intend a permission of private persons to baptize in case of necessity and withal declared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church urging both a place in the Acts and the authority of Tertullian and St. Ambrose plain in that point What could a man have done that had lived in those days to know the meaning of the Church But however King James being clear in his own judgment that a Minister is of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the Sacrament carried it so as the words thereafter did run thus