Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	faith_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,203	5	9.2236	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47605	The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1692 (1692)	Wing K84; ESTC R27451	144,738	231

Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society

qualifies them for it but what Christ hath ordained and appointed as the alone proper and meet qualification which is not that external relative Covenant-Holiness you talk of which the New-Testament speaks nothing of as I shall shew by and by but actual Faith Regeneration or Inherent-Holiness which is the thing signified by Baptism therefore a thousand such Arguments will do you no good since Baptism is of meer positive Right 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy viz What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized prove if you can such an external Federal-Holiness qualifies any Persons for Gospel-Baptism for if such federal or external Holiness qualifies Persons for Baptism then the Jews before cast off might have been admitted to Baptism since they had then such a kind of federal Holiness which kind of Holiness you cannot prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel but if it qualified them not for Baptism it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism And that is did not qualify them is evident see Mat. 3.9 where some of the Branches of this Root came to John Baptist to be baptized and he refused to admit them with these words i. e. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for I say God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees From whence it plainly appears that that external relative Covenant-Holiness which qualified under the Old-Testament Persons for Circumcision and Jewish Church-membership will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Testament for Baptism and Gospel Church-membership 2. I also deny your Minor and say the Scripture of the New-Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy The Text Rom. 11.16 speaks not one word of Infants nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness Mr. Tho. Goodwin who was a very Learned Man urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 tho a Pedo Baptist saith in the New-Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary And Sir with your Favour if you cannot from any place of the New-Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only What if I agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root but what Root Why the Root of all his true spiritual Seed And if so the Holiness of the Branches was real in word and spiritual for such Holiness as is in the Root is in the Branches And indeed for want of Faith or of that real and spiritual Holiness in many of his natural Branches for he was a two-fold Root or Father as I before have proved they were rejected or broken off for their Vnbelief and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham who was the Root or Father of all that believe The Truth is as Mr. Tombs observes the Holiness here meant is first in respect of God's Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's Intention Ephes 1.4 Secondly It is also Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a natural Father but as a spiritual Father or Father of the Faithful and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture thinking to prove a Holiness that the New-Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of saving Grace● into the invisible and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny But let the Jews Covenant and standing before they were broken off be what it would I am sure no Gentile is grafted into Christ but by actual Faith nor can any be grafted into the Gospel-Church without the profession of such Faith therefore you do but beat the Air. The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also no more a Church nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was viz. a National Church for they amongst the Jews who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham receiving Christ by Faith were planted into the Gospel-Church and between them and Gentile Believers Now there is no difference Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith not by external Covenant Privilege-Right or Holiness Thou standest by Faith O Believer mark not by Birth-Privilege but by Faith Thy standing is by Faith saith one yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none then they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded And though under the Law we deny not but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham were all Holy with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges Yet now 't is otherwise Old things are past away now we know no Man after the Flesh 2 Cor. 5.16 That Church-State is dissolved and manner of admission into it by external Birth-Privilege c. so that this Text doth not help you I shall further open this place of Scripture 1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans a treating of the Election of Grace and of that Covenant of Grace and Election God made with Abraham these were his People which he had not cast away chap. 10.1 and of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. But the Election hath c. ver 7. He further shews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How were they broken off Why by their Unbelief they not receiving Christ but rejecting the Gospel and New-Church-State were broken off but that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham And to prove this in ver

Names of their own choice and profess their own Faith In the Neocesarean Council it was framed thus As to those who are big with Child they ought to be baptized when they will for in this Sacrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb because in that Confession the Liberty of every one's Choice is declared Whence we may infer 1. That in that Age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them 2. That in those Times in the Confession of Faith in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which was done in a publick and solemn manner in their Baptism a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb to declare this Choice and Consent is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother 3. That it was then judged necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this Passage viz. That concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child that her Baptism concerns not her Child for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession saith However the Interpreters draw it to another purpose it does appear that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother which notwithstanding ought not be used nor to be baptized except of its own proper Election and Profession Dr. Barlow late Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to Mr. T. saith I believe and know that there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Nazianzen a good while after dislikes it Sure I am saith he that in the Primitive Times they were Catechumeni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted but Children of Christian Parents The truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not came into the World in the second Century and in the Third and Fourth began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawful from the Text John 3.5 Grosly misunderstanding upon the like mistake John 6.53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus Bishop Barlow Curcaeleus saith Poedobaptismus duobus primis à Christo nato saeculis suit in cognitus c. Pedo-baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ but in the Third and Fourth it was approved of by a few in the Fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterwards he saith this Rite is indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but not as an Apostolical Tradition The same Learned Author De peccato Originis Numb 50. saith Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepisse ante tertium à Christo nato saeculum c. That the custom of baptizing Infants did not begin till the third Age after Christ but in the two former no foot-steps of it appear And afterwards saith Sine ipsius Christi mandato introducta est It was introduced without the Command of Christ Athanasius in Sermone 3. contra Arianos saith Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all said Teach and then Baptize that true Faith might come by Teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo in Postilla upon the Text Go teach all Nations Fol. 278. In this place saith he is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith Teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive for as Faith without Works is dead so Works when they are not of Faith are nothing worth ●●dem in Annotationibus in Mar. The Apostles were commanded first to teach and then to baptize The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledg of the Truth but Christians must learn to know them first Beda All those that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptism then they received the holy Administration thereof Rabanus The Catechism which is the Doctrine of Faith must go before Baptism to the intent that he that is to be baptized i. e. Catech●●●nus may first learn the Mysteries of Faith Arnobius Thou art not first saith he baptized and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith but when thou art to be baptized thou signifiest unto the Priest what thy Desire is and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth Jerom upon Matth. saith The Lord commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all Nations and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith he that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul have received the true Faith Sir What think you now of the Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and of the Practice of the Churches after the Apostles days Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have it here too and you must yield whether you will or no and give up the Controversy But to proceed Your first Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism in the days after the Apostles in pag. 30 31. is this viz. Because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority Answ This signifies nothing for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes so they changed Imposition of Hands which I own to be a Principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6.12 to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith But clear it is in the Primitive Apostolical Times none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of Laying on of Hands as Acts 8.14 19.6 witnesses You do well to acknowledg in the same 29 th Page That anciently there were such called Catechumeni Persons taught or instructed and afterwards baptized You say indeed that there were two sorts the last you bring for your purpose but I know not where you have your Testimony and therefore shall pass it by So much to your first Demonstration from the 〈◊〉 Fathers Your Second to prove Infant-Baptism is this viz. Because say you Infants in the Primitive Times were admitted to the Lord's Supper therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism Answ And they had

pre●●●ted by the ancient Fathers of old and the 〈◊〉 Divines doth well agree with an Institution that is a mere positive Right wholly depending on the sovereign Will of the Legislation doth not give just cause to all ●o question its Authority 1. Some Pedo-Baptists asserted it took away Original Sin and such who denied it were Anathematized 2. Some affirm That Children are in Covenant and being the Seed of Believers are federally ●oly therefore to be baptized 3. Another sort of Pedo-Baptists say They ought to be baptized by virtue of their Parents Faith 4. Another sort baptize them upon the Faith of their Sureties 5. Others say By the Faith of the Church as Au●●i● Bernard c. 6. Others say they have Faith themselves and therefore must be baptized 7. Some say it is a 〈◊〉 Apostolical 〈◊〉 Tradition but others deny that and say it may be proved from the Scripture 8. Others say it is a regenerating Ordinance and Infants thereby are put into a savable Some Others say the Infants of Believers are safe before because in Covenant with their Parents To this Query they say nothing pretending they had answered it before Query 8. Whether that can be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Precept nor Example nor plain and undeniable Consequences for it in all God's Word nor Promise made to such who do it nor Threat denounced on such who neglect it This they say they answered in one of our Arguments Their Answer is there about Womens receiving the Sacrament c. Query 9. Whether in matter of mere positive Right such as Bap●ism is we ought not to keep expresly and punctually to the Revelation of the Will of the Law giver They answer Yes Reply Then your Cause is lost for God's Word expresly directs us to baptize only such who are first taught or made Disciples by teaching or who make a Profession of their Faith And Dipping is the express and direct Act of Baptizing as practised in the New Testament and a great Cloud of Witnesses testify Query 10. Wh●●her the Baptism of Infants be not a dangerous Error since it tends to deceive poor ignorant People who think they were thereby made Christians and regenerated and so never look after any other Regeneration nor Baptism that represents or holds forth that inwar● Work of God's Grace They answer They never tell them they are made Christians throughly c. Reply Then I appeal to all Men who have read the old Church-Catechism In my Baptism wherein I was made a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven 11. Since we read but of one Baptism in Water and that one Baptism is that of the Adult i. e. such who profess Faith c. how can Infant-Baptism or rather Rantism be an Ordinance of Christ 12. Whether God hath any where commanded or injoined Parents to bring their little Babes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with himself by Baptism since 't is not to be found in all the Scripture If not how can that Covenant oblige their Child when he comes to Age if it be so great a Sin not to perform that Covenant or to renounce the thing it self Whether there is any Covenant appointed by Christ for Infants to enter into unto which no Promise is made of Assistance to perform it nor of Blessing if it be kept nor one Threatning if cast off and disowned 13. What should be the reason that our Translators of the holy Bible should leave the Greek word Baptism● or Baptisma ●●●ranslated seeing the Dutch have not done so but contrariwise translate for John Baptist John the Dipper and for he baptized them he dipped them The Athenian Society answ●● They are the best Judges themselves if we can understand them 't is enough Reply No tho the Learned in the Greek do know what the word Baptizo and Baptisma is yet the Unlearned in that Tongue do not know that 't is to dip or Immersion therefore 't is not enough 14. Whether such who have only been sprinkled ought not to be deemed unbaptized Persons since Aspersion is not Immersion or Rantizing not Baptizing seeing the Greek word signifies to dip and tho sometimes to wash yet such a washing as is by dipping as the Learned confess To this they say Those that doubt may be of the sure side Ten ARGUMENTS against Pedo-Baptism Arg. I. Those that our Saviour commanded in his Commission to be baptized were such who were first discipled by the Word Infants are not discipled by the Word Ergo Infants according to Christ's Command in the Commission ought not to be baptized Arg. II. To believe and repent are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent Ergo They ought not to be baptized Arg. III. The Church of England saith Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and if Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance then Infants ought not to be baptized But the Church of England says Faith and Repentance is required of such who are to be baptized and she speaks the Truth in so saying and Infants cannot perform Faith and Repentance Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Athenians in Answer to this Argument say The Church of England means only the Adult who are capable c. Reply They mean Infants also why else do they add Yes verily they that is Infants do perform it by their Sureties c. And how true that is I leave to all Men to judg Arg. IV. If there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is no Precept that one Infant was baptized then Infant-Baptism is unlawful But there is not one Precedent in all the Scripture as there is not one Precept that one Infant was baptized Ergo Infant-Baptism is unlawful The Athenians answer Shew us a Precedent for our Wives communicating they mean to receive the Lord's Supper which we have answered already Arg. V. St. Paul declared or made known the whole Counsel of God St. Paul did not declare or make known Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is none of God's Counsel Arg. VI. The holy Scripture being a perfect Rule of Faith and Practice either by Precept or Example makes known every positive Law and Institution of Christ But the holy Scripture doth not make known neither by Precept for Example Infant-Baptism Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Institution of Christ Arg. VII That Doctrine and Practice that reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses can be no Ordinance of Christ But the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ who was not less faithful than Moses Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ The Athenian Society answer The Obscurity of the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism does not at all reflect on the