Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	authority_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	2,840	5	5.9217	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80339	Confidence corrected, error detected, and truth defended; or Some farther reflections upon the two Athenian Mercuries lately publish'd about infant-baptism. By Philalethes Pasiphilus.	Pasiphilus, Philalethes.	1692 (1692)	Wing C5803A; ESTC R223470	47,010	51

neither in its Original nor Progress to be a Type of Baptism till Baptism was made a Gospel-Ordinance by Christ and his Apostles which is a very strange and Self-contradicting Notion For if Circumcision was ever a Type a Baptism it must be so before ever Baptism as a Antitype could have a Being for upon the Coming of the Antitype the Type ceases As soon as ever the Antitype lives and is in force the Type dies and is out of date how then could Circumcision be made a Type of Baptism by Baptism it self when according to this Supposition it must continue all its Life-long without such a Title and when it was dead it could never come at it If Circumcision were not the Type of Baptism before Baptism came how then could Baptism be the Antitype thereof It could not come as an Antitype because it seems there was no Type before it came If you had told us that a Man cannot properly be said to be born till he is properly said to be dead or that the Father cannot properly Be till the Son lives and begets him it had been just such a piece of Philosophy as this is of Divinity But if it be said that Circumcision did not expire upon the coming in of Baptism for they were both in force for some Years together I answer it 's very true but then it 's a good Argument to prove that Circumcision and Baptism were never Type and Antitype And this Supposition our Gentlemen do as good as grant for they tacitly tell us it was no Type before Baptism came and how it should be a Type afterwards I know not You say further Had John the Baptist Christ c. undertook any new Way of proselyting the Jews to the Gospel they had not only struggled with the Oppositions of a new Doctrine but also of a new Practice c. Really Sirs your Words here seem to imply that it was some old Trade to proselyte Men to the Gospel long before it began for if it was not some old Practice before then it must be a new Practice when St. John and our Saviour began it And if the very proselyting of Men to the Gospel were a new Practice and the Doctrine leading thereunto a new Doctrine what force can there be in this Objection of yours However Gentlemen this Suggestion of yours seems to be very raw and inconsiderate for the great and principal Struggle of the Jews with our Saviour was about his Divinity and Authority his being the Son of God and sent by his Father to teach and instruct the World by virtue of that Authority which none ever before him had And accordingly whenever our Saviour taught amongst the Jews he very frequently not only reprov'd their vicious and enormous Lives but corrected and condemn'd their false and erronious Doctrines their idle and vain Traditions and foolish Superstitions wherein they taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. And herein lay the chief Quarrel of the Jews against our Saviour who instead of owning of him in that Divine Capacity he justly challeng'd they counted him a Samaritan a Devil and a Mad-man contradicting opposing and charging of him with Blasphemy for making himself equal with God and condemning them in their Ways as one that had Authority from Heaven so to do It was no part of our Saviour's Business to countenance or encourage any in their vain Inventions and superstitious Fooleries which were never appointed nor approved by God but to enlighten their Minds and take them off from all such Dotages and settle them upon such things as were purely of God and such things as he had in Commission from his Father to teach them And give me leave to tell you that if your Notion in this case were suppos'd to be true it cannot rationally be thought that our Saviour could have made any great Earnings upon the stubborn Jews by virtue of that for if he had only taken their old Custom and alter'd it or added any thing to it of his own Pleasure and made it what it was not before as you say and given it out in his own Name requiring Obedience to it by his own Authority even of the Jews themselves which never submitted to it before and that too in order to their being proselyted or initiated into a new or another Religion he would in so doing have declar'd and asserted his Authority to them and over them altogether as much as if he had requir'd a down-right new Practice of them and have cross'd their Humours and Inclinations as much in the one as in the other And as for those that were inclinable to fall in with his Authority and to own his Divinity as he himself asserted it it may readily be taken for granted that they would give him leave to give out what precepts he pleas'd without struggling with him about it Those that receiv'd his new Doctrine would never contend with him about new Practice for indeed all Practice is comprehended in Doctrine so that the ground of your Notion is altogether groundless That Expression of yours also I must a little remark as another piece of crabbed Intricacy which I cannot make very pleasant Sense of When you tell as that therefore this Custom was continued namely to please the Jews and had the Superaddition of the full force of Baptism viz. a Consignation or a Seal of the Covenant Do not these Words now seem strongly to imply that there was some other Baptism in force as a Seal of the Covenant which the Jewish Baptism had not the force of till our Saviour takes it and gives it now the full force of Baptism viz. makes that Custom a Seal of the Covenant as well as Baptism Baptism being the very Rule and Standard unto which that Jewish Custom was brought for how could that Custom have the full force of Baptism added or given to it if there had been no Baptism then in force unto which this Jewish Custom is now said to be advanced And if so then People may take their choice whether they will have this last made Jewish Baptism or the first made Christian Baptism for it seems though they are two distinct Baptisms yet they are both Seals of the Covenant Really Sirs it is not usual for Men in the face of the Sun to speak Daggers at this rate No more would you I conceive if your undeserving Cause did not force you to it I see it is not for nothing that you so freely acknowledg in your second Mercury upon this Subject that you deliver'd your Assertions a little darkly Indeed Gentlemen I think you were greatly in the dark when you wrote them and therefore no wonder you were deliver'd of such a dark Issue Which though you seem to be sensible of yet you seem to have no Inclination to come into the Light that you may see to make better work But Sirs after all this I might justly enquire how you came by all this Confidence Gentlemen

CONFIDENCE Corrected ERROR Detected AND TRUTH Defended OR Some farther REFLECTIONS Upon the TWO Athenian Mercuries Lately Publish'd about INFANT-BAPTISM By Philalethes Pasiphilus Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 8.12 When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women Act. 18.8 Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized Col. 2.8 Beware lest any Man spoil you through vain Deceit after the Traditions of Men and not after Christ Mar. 7.7 8 In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of Men as the washing of Pots and Cups and as we are now told Men Women and Children too and many such like things ye do London Printed in the Year 1692. Confidence Corrected c. IT is a sad Thing and much to be lamented that there should continue to this Day not only so many Differences in point of Judgment amongst Christians but also so much Pride and Prejudice of Spirit one against another by Reason of the same insomuch that there can hardly be the least Difference imaginable amongst Professors of Christianity in Matters of Judgment but they are too readily turn'd into so many Marks of Reproach and Causes of Malignity one against another This has been very sadly experimented in this Nation for many Years past and to this Day finds but too much Entertainment in the Minds of many who still reckon themselves Men in Reputation for Wisdom and Honour But though it may justly be expected do what we can that there will still remain Differences in Judgment and Controversies among Christians in some things yet of all the Controversies that ever appear'd upon the Stage of Christianity I cannot but most of all admire at this Controversy about Infant-Baptism And that chiefly upon two Accounts First That ever it should become such a Controversy as it has done Secondly At the strange Effects that it has produced First I cannot but admire how this ever became such a Controversy amongst Christians as it hath done especially amongst such Christians as do daily profess and declare that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Worship the only Guide to all Duty and Obedience relating to everlasting Happiness whenas there is not the least Word nor shadow of a Word and that by the Confession of Parties for Infant-Baptism in all the whole Book of God I cannot imagine what the matter should be that Men should make a Trade of straining their Wits to find out so many Tricks and Inventions to maintain and defend a Practice and count it part of God's Service and Worship that they know and are convic'd in their Consciences as appears by their frequent Acknowledgments is no where to be found in God's Word There is scarcely any other Controversy that ever happen'd in the World among Christians but makes a greater pretence to Scripture than this doth or can It is not so much to be wondred at that there has happened such a Difference among Christians about the Tenets of Arminius and Calvin about Absolute and Respective Election and Reprobation and all the Appurtenances belonging thereunto because there pretty plainly seems to be some considerable Glances in Scripture in favour of both Opinions yea the very Socinians themselves which deny the Deity of Christ challenge a far fairer Pretence to Scripture than any Pedo-baptist can do because the Text plainly saith My Father is greater than I Which as little as it is if the Pedo-baptists could but produce such a Glance as that in Scripture for Infant-Baptism it would be more than ever yet was done upon that account Yea the very Papists are less to be wondred at in their Plea for Transubstantiation because the Text saith plainly This is my Body c. Which is a Plea beyond what any Pedo-baptist can pretend unto in the behalf of that which they make such a stir about Yet how is the Weakness and Folly of Socinians and Papists and others condemn'd and censur'd by many Pedo-baptists whilst they magnify and bless themselves in that for which they cannot produce even so much seeming Authority from Scripture I question not but I may presume that if a hundred of the most Learned and Judicious Men in the World should read the Bible over forty times from one end to the other they would never so much as think of Infant-baptism by virtue of that Reading and their best Consideration into the Bargain if the Voice of Tradition and Custom had not possest them with it beforehand and if so how justly may it be wonder'd at that such a thing should ever become a Controversy amongst Pretenders to Scripture The Baptists say Infant-baptism is no where to be found in Scripture The Pedo-baptists frequently confess the same thing The Baptists say that whatsoever is not to be found in Scripture is no Part of Divine Worship All Protestant Pedo-baptists do freely acknowledg this also Now who can tell where the Controversy lies Is it not strange that Men should pretend to differ yea and to differ greatly too in that very thing wherein they seem to be so plainly and fully agreed Who can give any good Reason now why this Conclusion should not necessarily be agreed to by mutual Consent namely that Infant-baptism is no part of Divine Worship Which if it were the whole Controversy would be gone at once The Baptists do from time to time assert that there is neither Precept for nor Precedent of nor Promise unto Infant-baptism in all the Word of God And their most Learned and Judicious Adversaries do frequently grant and confess the same thing and yet strive to maintain and uphold the Controversy in the World This is one Part of my Wonder with respect to this Matter Secondly I cannot but wonder at the strange Effects it has produced and they are many but I shall only touch upon one namely That though the Principle and Practice of the Baptists so called is in the point of Baptism so plainly and plentifully laid down in Scripture and holds such an undeniable Correspondency and Agreement with Primitive Purity yet that they should be loaded with so much Contempt and Reproach as they have been and yet are by many in this Nation for no other thing than this honest and harmless yea Honourable and Heaven-born Practice Who is it that is any whit wise and judicious that knows not that Christ and the Primitive Christians were baptiz'd as they now plead and practise Yet how have they for many years in this Christian Kingdom been not only slighted but rendred odious and counted as the very Dreggs and Off-scouring of the World even for this very thing Yea the worst and vilest of Men have been counted worthy of more Honour and Respect amongst People than they insomuch that Highway-men and Anabaptists have been almost Titles