Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	prove_v	scripture_n	testimony_n	1,765	5	8.0187	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47602	Pedo-baptism disproved being an answer to two printed papers (put forth by some gentlemen called the Athenian Society, who pretend to answer all questions sent to them of what nature soever) called the Athenian Mercury, one put forth November 14, the other November 28, 1691 : in which papers they pretend to answer eight queries about the lawfulness of infant-baptism : likewise divers queries sent to them about the true subjects of baptism, &c.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1691 (1691)	Wing K79; ESTC R12897	42,621	35

Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 237. And the truth of the Business is saith he as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it So the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council a Provincial in Africa never till then I g●●nt saith he it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and though that is no Argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever pretend it to be necessary nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius who had so warm'd and chased him that made him innovate herein Thus far the Doctor As to Clemens Ireneus c. you make such a stir about is contradicted by History Clemens asserts who are the right Subjects and in what order they ought after due Examinations and Instructions to be baptized See Jacob Merningus in his History of Baptism p. 2. upon Cent. 2. p. 209. out of Clem. Epist 3. also Dutch Martyrology Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism asserts That it ought to be accompanied with Faith Love and Patience after preaching see H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois p. 16 to 22. and Dutch Martyrology where Ign●●ius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Traliensis and to them of Philadelphia All that we can find of Ireneus is Lib. 2. cap. 39. adv Haeres That Christ did fanctify every Age by his own susception of it and similitude to it all I say who by him are born again to God In all which is no word of Infant-Baptism Unless you wiredraw Consequences from his words as you do from the Scripture to support a tottering Structure built on a false Foundation That Ireneus or any other but Origen's Testimony was in the case You have Dr. Taylor in his Dissuasive against Popery p. 1. 18. printed 1667 one of his last Pieces saying thus viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants relies but upon two Witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having received it from the former it relies upon a single Testimony which is but a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical He is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a Tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any Truth in the words of Ludov. Vives saying That anciently none were Baptized but Persons of riper Age. And as to Origen's Works there is cause to question whether they are to be regarded for Mr. Perkins and others doubt about them because no Greek Copies thereof are extant And Dr. Taylor saith that many of his Works are Corrupt a●● Erroneous particularly in the Point of Baptism and fell into ill Hands c. To conclude the Learned Curcelaeus Instit lib. 1. cap. 12. thus saith Poedobaptismus duobus primis à Christa nato saeculis fuit incognitus c. Pedo-Baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after the Birth of Christ but in the 3d and 4th it was approved of by a few in the 5th and the following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterward he saith this Rite is indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but not as an Apostolical Tradition The same Author De peccato Originis Numb 56. saith Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepisse ante tertium à Christa nato saeculum c. That the Custom of Baptizing Infants did not begin till the 3d Age after Christ but in the two former no footstep of it doth appear And afterward saith he Sine ipsius Christi mandato introducta est It was introduced without the Command of Christ Now let the Reader consider if our Authority is not greater than the bare Testimony of Zuinglius a● late prejudiced Writer An Appendix to the Answer to two Athenian Mercuries concerning Infant-Baptism containing divers Syllogistical Arguments to disprove Pedo-Baptism and to prove the Baptism of Believers Gentlemen SInce you desire Syllogisms I have gratified you therein Arg. 1. If none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour Matth. 28. but such who are first made Disciples by being taught than Infants who are not capable to be taught ought not to be baptized But none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commission of our Blessed Saviour but such who are first made Disciples by Teaching Ergo Little Babes ought not to be baptized Arg. 2. If Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Infants ought not to be baptized But Infant-Baptism was never instituted commanded or appointed of God Ergo They ought not to be baptized As to the Major If one thing ma●●● practised as an Ordinance without an Institution or Command of God another thing may also so any Innovation may be let into the Church As to the Minor If there is an Institution for it c. 't is either contained in the great Commission Matth. 28. Mark 16. or somewhere else But 't is not to be found in the Commission nor any where else Ergo. The Major none will deny The Minor I prove thus None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commission but such who are discipled by the Word as I said before and so the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies If any should say Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations and Infants are part of Nations therefore are to be baptized I answer Arg. 3. If all Nations or any in the Nations ought to be baptized before discipled then Turks Pagans Unbelievers and their Children may be baptized because they are a great part of the Nations But Turks Pagans and Unbelievers and their Children ought not to be baptized Ergo. Besides that Teaching by the Authority of the Commission must go before Baptizing we have proved which generally all Learned Men do assert if the Institution is to b●●ound any where else they must shew the Place Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized Infants are not required to believe and repent nor are they capable so to do Ergo Infants ought not to be baptized The Major is clear Acts 2 8 10 16 Chapters and 't is also asserted by the Church of England What is required of Persons to be baptized that 's the Question The Answer is Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the Promise of God made to them in that Sacrament The Minor cannot be denied Arg. 5. That Practice that tends not to the Glory of God nor to the Profit of the Child when done nor in after-times when grown up but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him cannot be a Truth

of no Force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Bellarm. in his Book d● Bapt. I. 1. c. 8. Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution and never stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what End the Sacraments are to be administred Ball in his Answer to the New-England Elders p. 38 39. And as to the Minor 't is acknowledged by our Adversaries it is not to be found in ●●e Letter of the Scripture And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom we have proved they are not natural from the Premises and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer positive Right Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptism was an Institution of Christ the Pedo-Baptists could not be at a loss about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism But the Pedo-Baptists are at a great Loss and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptism Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ As touching the Major I argue thus That which is an Institution of Christ the Holy Scripture doth shew as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance as the Subject and Manner of it But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism or for what reason they ought to be baptized Ergo 't is no Institution of Christ The Minor is undeniable Some affirm as we have shewed p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin Some say it is their Right by the Covenant they being the Seed of Believers Others say Infants have Faith and therefore have a Right Others say They have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties Some ground their Right from an Apostolical Tradition others upon the Authority of Scripture Some say All Children of professed Christians ought to be baptized others say None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it Sure if it was an Ordinance of Christ his Word would soon end this Controversy Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham they can have no Right to Baptism or Church-Membership by virtue of any Covenant-transaction God made with Abraham But the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural nor spiritual Seed of Abraham Ergo. Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism 't is no Ordinance of Christ But no Man can prove from Scripture that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism Ergo. Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word nor Promise to such who do it nor Threatnings to such who neglect it But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes nor Promise made to such who are baptized nor Threatnings to such who are not Ergo. That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized let them prove it since it is denied Arg. 13. If no Parents at any time or times have been by God the Father Jesus Christ or his Apostles either commended for baptizing of their Children or reproved for neglecting to baptize them then Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children c. Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God This Argument will stand unanswerable unless any can shew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children or reproved for neglecting it or unless they can shew a parallel case Arg. 14. If Men were not to presume to alter any thing in the Worship of God under the Law neither to add thereto nor diminish therefrom and God is as strict and jealous of his Worship under the Gospel then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worship under the Gospel But under the Law Men were not to presume so to do and God is as strict and jealous under the Gospel Ergo. The Major cannot be denied The Minor is clear See thou make all things according to the Pattern shewed thee in the Mount Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1 2. See how Nadab and Abibu sped for presuming to vary from the Command of God and Uzzah tho but in small Circumstances as they may seem to us How dare Men adventure this being so to change Baptism from Dipping into Sprinkling and the Subject from an Adult Believer to an ignorant Babe Add thou not unto his Word c. Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship is a great Evil and to be avoided But the Practice of Infant-Baptism opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship Ergo to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil and to be avoided The Major will not be denied The Minor is clear because there is no Scripture-ground for it no Command nor Example for such a Practice in God's Word And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing she may do another and so ad infinitum Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more obscure in God's Word than any Law or Precept under the Old Testament cannot be of God But the Practice of Infant-Baptism reflects on the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ and renders him less faithful than Moses and a great Ordinance nay Sacrament of the New Testament to lie more dark and obscure than any Precept under the Old Testament Ergo Infant-Baptism cannot be of God The Major cannot be denied The Minor is easily proved For he is bold indeed who shall affirm Infant-Baptism doth not lie obscure in God's Word One great Party who assert it say 't is not to be found ●● the Scripture at all but 't is an unwritten Apostolical Tradition others say it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture but may be proved by Consequences and yet some great Asserters of it as Dr. Hammond and others say Those Consequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it are without Demonstration and so prove nothing I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over and never be thereby convinced he ought to baptize his Children tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties Now can this be a Truth

that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either was or ought to be understood therefrom much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemies The Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the foundation of Jewish Fables it was perfected and acknowledged for Authentick five hundred Years after Christ and out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine as all the rest of them therefore we cannot acquiesce in such Testimony Gentlemen either answer no more Questions about Religion or take more heed to what you say for your pleading for Infant-Baptism from such grounds all may perceive tends to cast an Odium and Contempt on the Christian Religion Therefore I infer your Proof for this Practice from the Custom amongst the Jews about baptizing of Proselytes both Men Women and Children proves nothing you were better for the Authority of it to urge the Decrees of Popes and General Councils a Popish Innovation is as good as a Jewish one But however you do allow that our blessed Saviour did add something to this pretended Jewish Custom and hath not only put it in full force but also made it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant and this say you is further strengthened by several undeniable Texts of Scripture which Anabaptists themselves can never get clear of and ask them they must either be silent or give such a Paraphrase as we do The Texts are these First Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Buried with him in Baptism c. The second that of baptizing the Israelites in the Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The last is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark 1 Pet. 3. 21. Reply 1. But is it so indeed did our Saviour in instituting Gospel-Baptism do no more than put a Jewish Custom to be in full force and make it a Consignation or Seal of the Covenant Were you not learned and ingenious Men I should not so much admire at your Notions 2. But the Truth is in the second place if you had not told us in your next words to what purpose you mention those Scriptures we should have been at a great loss about it or not well have understood your Intention but you like the ingenious Painter soon inform us and tell us what 't is i. e. you tell us you urge not these things to prove any thing else but the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism or to speak say you more properly the necessary continuance of the old Manner amongst the Jews of continuing their way of proselyting the Heathen 3. Was it necessary then that a human Tradition of the Jews should be continued I am sure the Apostle tells you that Christ nailed all the Jewish Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law to the Cross and that they all ceased when the Antitype was come and besure had the Baptism you speak of been indeed a Mosaical Rite I mean appointed or commanded of God it had vanished with its Fellows But 't is hard Christ should abolish all Legal Customs or Ceremonial Ordinances and yet confirm with some addition a Custom of the Jews own inventing 4. You do not seem to distinguish between your twofold Answer to the Question I thought you had brought those Scriptures to prove Baptism the proper Antitype of Circumcision but you urge the former old Custom again so that here 's no Scripture nor Argument brought by you to prove the thing in hand As touching what you say of the Parallel betwixt Circumcision and Baptism signifies nothing if in some things there should be a Parallel it doth not follow therefore Baptism was the Antitype of Circumcision What tho Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance of the Male Children into the Jewish Church and Baptism is that initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church this doth not prove the one the Type of the other 5. But pray what is it that the Anabaptists can never get clear of or being ask'd the Exposition they must be silent or give such a Paraphrase as you do I must tell you I know no Text more full for our practice of baptizing Believers than that in Col. 2. 11 12. We say from thence that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is the Circumcision of the Heart and therefore not Baptism tho 't is granted by us that in Baptism there is a Representation of the new Birth and Mortification of Sin which Circumcision was the express Type of And this cannot weaken nor silence us but rather strengthen our hands All that can well be inferred from this Text Col. 2. 11 12. where the Apostle mentions Circumcision and Baptism is no more than this viz. Where Baptism is administred upon a proper Subject it represents the Spiritual and Mystical Circumcision of the Heart i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin or that he hath put off the Body of Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ which may refer to the Power of his Death in the Effects thereof by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the holy Spirit on the Heart And as we being dead to Sin we are also buried with Christ in Baptism both in the Sign i. e. covered all over in the Water which resembles in a lively Figure his Burial and also in Signification i. e. the Power and blessed Effects of his Death having been the Death of the old Man or that Body of Sin in us● wherein also in like manner we are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God and this is likewise held forth both in Sign and Signification in true Baptism Now if this be not your Paraphrase on this Text we cannot help it I know many Learned Men who own Pedo-Baptism speak to the same purpose nor is there any reason for you to say we must be silent c. as if we knew not what to say to this Text But what is this for Infant-Baptism or to prove Baptism the Antitype of Circumcision Doth Sprinkling represent a Burial doth the Sign or Figure of Christ's Burial appear in sprinkling a little Water on the Face and as it is done to Infant in whom Faith and Regeneration is not wrought what doth there appear in Signification Doth not the Church of England say that Baptism is the outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace sure that is but a mock-Baptism where there is neither the Sign or Figure of Christ's Death and Burial c. nor that inward Work wrought upon the Person baptized which is signified or ought to be signified thereby viz. That the said Person is dead to Sin and raised up by the Faith of the Operation of God to walk in newness of Life But alas this it seems is not the thing 't is not so much to prove Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision as 't is to prove Baptism to be the continuation of a Jewish Custom