Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	church_n	prove_v	3,145	5	6.1841	4	false

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

enquired into the Apostolical practice in this Case of Baptizing Infants and I thank God that the more I have enquir'd I have found the more and greater Satisfaction in the Case In the next place I am to enquire what Authority they had for this practice of theirs that is I am to enquire whether I can find in all the New Testament that Infant-Baptism was any where Taught or Commanded But I presume you 'll be Content to trust me for this till I may have a farther Opportunity and in the mean while I am Sir July 2. 1698. Your c. T. H. LETTER VI. Dear Sir THE Second part of your great Objection against Infant-Baptism is this You find not in Scripture that any Infants were COMMANDED to be Baptized Now to this I cou'd give you this short Answer When the Disciples of Christ made and Baptized more Disciples than John John 4.1 2. Let any Man living tell me where the Command is written in Scripture which gave these Disciples of our Lord Authority to Baptize at that time and I will undertake to shew you that the very same Command oblig'd them to Baptize Infants This I do affirm that they had then as much Command to Baptize Infants as they had to Baptize either Men or Women And do you Sir make the tryal if you please Go and learn from Scripture where these Disciples had any Command then to Baptize the Elder sort and if you do not find the same Command obliging them to Baptize Children also I do here freely tell you that I dare yield you the Cause But to give a more particular Answer to this as I have done to the former part of your Objection First I will enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Secondly Whether it was Taught or Commanded by him after his Death and Resurrection before he Ascended into Heaven And Thirdly Whether it was taught by any of his Apostles after his Ascension 1. I will make it my business at this time to Enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time Sir The Sadducees cou'd not find in all the five Books of Moses so much as one single Text which taught the Doctrin of a Resurrection and therefore they Confidently deny'd the thing and warmly disputed it with our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself And you may be pleas'd to see how our Lord confuted and convinc'd them by a Text of Scripture which they had overlook'd Mark 12.26 Have you not read said he in the Book of Moses how God spake unto him Saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob to which he added But God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living And this was our Saviour's Scripture-Proof of a Resurrection and from these very words by just Reasonings and Consequences did he make the Truth of that great Doctrin appear to those very Sadducees themselves who had so long and so stiffly oppos'd it It must indeed be acknowledg'd that it requir'd a Piercing Eye to find out a Resurrection in these words I am the God of Abraham c. And yet so it was The Resurrection was a Consequence that our Lord Himself then drew from them and the Consequence was acknowledged to be good Scripture-Proof and the Sadducees were wiser than to Object against it This I have observ'd to let you see that there may be Scripture-Proof of a thing tho' every Eye cannot discern it and that tho' we cannot always produce plain and express words of Scripture in the defence of a Doctrin yet if we can prove it by right and genuine Consequence we do as much as our Saviour himself did in the Case of a Resurrection and I hope that in good Manners and Civility to our Great Lord you will allow such Proof as he made use of to be good and sufficient But further There were a sort of Hereticks of Old call'd Macedonians and a spawn of them we have still amongst us who deny'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and their great Cry was Where do you read in Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God And I do assure you Sir that it was truly Confess'd that there is no such Scripture-Text no such express words in the whole Bible it is not expresly asserted in terminis either in the Old or New Testament that the Holy Ghost is God But what then There are in Scripture such things said of the Holy Ghost as by undoubted Consequence prove him to be God as to give you but one Instance of an Hundred The Holy Ghost is said to be Omnipresent Psal 139.7 and from hence it necessarily follows as a very plain Consequence that he must needs be God because God only is Omnipresent And now Sir with a like manner of Proof I will fall upon the matter in hand Tho' we find not in Scripture any such express Command as this That Infants shall be Baptized yet we find such things given in Charge concerning them as necessarily Imply that they ought to be Baptized that is to say we find in Scripture that Children ought to be admitted into the Church of Christ and we there likewise find that there is no other ordinary way of admitting into that Church but by Baptism And to give you full satisfaction in this matter I will here undertake briefly to prove That our Blessed Lord and Saviour did in his Life-time teach both that Children are to be admitted into his Church and that they are to be admitted by Baptism That Children were admitted into God's Church of old is as well known as that they were then Circumcis'd And what I pray is the Christian-Church but that old Church Reform'd The Root and Stock are still the same tho' as for the Branches some viz. the Jews were lopped off and others viz. the Gentiles are graffed in as you may read at large Rom. 11.16 17 18. Christianity indeed as one speaks very well is Judaism explain'd into its Spiritual sense and meaning and hence it is that the Christians in the New Testament are called Jews that is Reform'd Jews Rev. 2.9 and sometimes the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 and sometimes the Children of Abraham Gal. 3.7 And hence it is that the Christian-Church is called the New-Jerusalem because it is the Old Jerusalem or Jewish Church renew'd and enlarg'd Rev. 3.12 But now Good Sir suppose that our Church should be taken down to the very Foundation and built again a great deal larger and more Glorious than now it is What think you Might we not then take our Children along with us to our Church as well as we do now Certainly the Re-building and Beautifying it wou'd take away no one's privilege of entring into it In a resembling manner there was indeed a great Reformation made by our Saviour in the Church of God a great deal taken away and a great deal added and almost the whole