Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	holy_a	scripture_n	tradition_n	3,735	5	9.1394	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86506	A vindication of baptizing beleevers infants. In some animadversions upon Mr. Tombes his Exercitations about infant baptisme; as also upon his Examen, as touching the antiquities and authors by him alledged or contradicted that concern the same. Humbly submitted to the judgement of all candid Christians, / by Nathanael Homes. Published according to order.	Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.	1646 (1646)	Wing H2578; Thomason E324_1; ESTC R200604	209,591	247

Infants For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed did know that there was in all the very filth of sinne which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition But of a tradition from the Apostles that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures Tradition being taken in the Scriptures and Fathers not * So our orthodox schools distinguish passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition but actively for the act of tradition or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages to our fathers and so down to us in these instances 2 Thess 2.15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haer●s ●0 cumpendiarver doct But saith he other mysteries as concerning the laver of baptisme and internall mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel and the Acts hath them So Augustin as we shall see after in the Quotations of him And that Origen takes Tradition in this sence appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit That sinne is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ and that this is sealed to us by Baptisme in respect whereof we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture as baptisme hath and baptisme of beleevers infants as wee have proved and are still upon the proofe 2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are speaking of the spirituall uncleannesse of man by sinne It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptisme also to little children according to the observation of the Church seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern and indulgence of pardon did belong unto the grace of Baptisme would seem superfluous Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the washing by Baptisme upon the spirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures Thus Origen 3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are Little children were baptized into remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or when did they sin Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children but as we said a little afore no man is pure from uncleannesse though he lives but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filth of birth is put away therefore little children are baptized All this he speaks of Baptisme as putting it in the room of Mosaicall purifications And first saith for spirituall cleansing Parvuli baptizabantur that is Little children WERE baptized as relating to the practise of the Churches in former ages And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli that is little children ARE baptized as noting the continuance of that practise and that upon Scripture grounds viz. for remission and sanctification from sinne Sacramentally and Instrumentally instead of Ceremoniall washings and purifications which had their Gospel meaning as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Thus Origen But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concernes the Common cause Object Perkins and Vsher EXAMEN saith Mr T put Origen in the year 230. Wee answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc But for his birth and first opening his schoole we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiasticall Writers to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus in Anno 186. About this year saith he was born Origen the Ecclesiasticall Writer at Alexandria which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old Object The Works of Origen EXAMEN saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours and dangerous to be read so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens what not For the Originall being lost we have onely the Latin Translation which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans by Ruffinus it appears by his own confession that he added many things of his owne in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus 1 As we confesse there are some Errours in Origen and in whom not so there are many learned Animadver pious and most spirituall things precious Gospel truthes such as I have admired when I read them considering those darke times in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel may go to Origen if they have but the spirit of discerning to learn to be Gospel-preachers 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen why I say why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himselfe in his fifth Argument in his Exercitation as we heard afore Truly a man can hardly with patience enough look upon Mr T. his dealing in this When wee urge three places out of Origen which you had before quoted and translated and formerly urged by Mr M. for the ancient practise of the Church in baptizing Infants then M. T. bespatters Origen as you heare and Origen is not Origen with him But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore then Origen must be received Or else to what purpose did M. T. alleadge him urging no other by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition 3 Mr T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen to stand good 4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus as the best Editions promise us 5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke 6. If Ruffinus did say he added many things of his owne in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus for there is nothing said of Luke sure he would not confesse he had destroyed the sence of Origen or made him speake that he never meant This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himselfe under his owne hand But Mr T.

new we must in our allegations keep to the substance so the Apostles in alledging Scriptures of the old Testament they kept to the substance not regarding the circumstance as innumerable instances may be given Take this one Rom. 10.15 the Apostle proving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is sent saith out of Isa 57. As it is written how beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace and bring glad tydings of good things Now the place whence it is quoted Isa 52.7 is thus How beautifull upon the MOVNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tydings c. Because the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion Moriah and other mountains on which the Temple and Jerusalem stood Now this place is to be applied to Ministers now though they come not upon those or other mountains or else the Apostles proof fals to the ground So if the command of the seventh day may not be alledged for a seventh day we have no command for the Lords day Chap 2. in our answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except 1. partic To that of Lot Melchisedech and Job we adde by way of answer beside that spoken afore that if Lot Job Melchisedech were not nor were to be circumcised there may be speciall reasons First not Melchisedech alias Shem 1. because he was baptized in the Ark 1 Pet. 3.20 21. Secondly he was to be a speciall type of Christ in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Ministerie and so to be exempted from that ceremony in the shell circumcision For Lot and Job God would shew in them that he was not so tyed but that he could save without an outward ordinance when he will not extend it or if he please to take ☞ away the opportunitie of having it A faire item for the Anabaptists that put so much in Baptisme that the want of it say they doth unchurch Churches c. Lot and Job had churches in their families And the Israelites in the wildernesse fourty yeers is called a Church Act. 7.38 all which time there was no circumcising among them nor but two Josuah and Caleb circumcised left among them Josh 5. 2 Saith Mr. T. It may be so understood Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of baptisme then began when the right of circumcision did or was of ●ight to end but this is not to be said for John Baptist and the disciples of Christ baptized Joh. 4.1 2. before circumcision of right ceased and they who were circumcised were after baptized being converted to the faith as is manifest concerning Paul Phil. 3.5 Act. 9.18 Answ Yet before Mr. T. saith p. 4. that circumcision did sigcifie Christ to come Animad If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Christ to come of Isaac we say we see no more in the analogie of circumcision nor in the words of institution for it to signifie Christ to come of Isaac then of Abraham or Jacob. 3 Saith he It may be understood as if Baptisme did succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification Exercit. p. 5. which is true in some things First it is true that both signified the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Pet. 3.21 Secondly it is true both signified sanctification and this is all may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.11 12. To which I think it meet to adde that if the text be looked into that place speaks not of any circumcision but of Christs circumcision in whom we are compleat and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh Nor doth the text say we are circumcised because we are baptized but we are compleat in Christ because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in baptisme in which or in whom ye are also risen together through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead Answ If they agree but in those two significations Animad● they agree sufficiently in signification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11 12. that baptisme comes in the room of circumcision and fitly that as circumcision signified and signed those two to beleevers infants so baptisme now signifies and signes the same to beleevers infants But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.12 as Mr. T. affirms I shall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our observations on this place of Scripture which are from the analysis scope argument and method of prosecution which if not exactly attended we may easily feign plausible interpretations for our own turns but loose the drift and argument of the Apostle The Apostles designe is to take off the Colossians from false doctrines of false teachers teaching with entising words Philosophy vain deceit traditions of men rudiments of the world among which were the shels of Jewish ceremonies as circumcision considered in the shell of the outward signe c. And the argument the Apostle useth as the best means to fetch them off was to advance Christs fulnesse to the full worth before the eyes of their minds This designe and this manner of pursuance of it are so oft mentioned and repeated combinedly that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text Once v. 3 4. again v. 6 7. a third time v. 8 9. Now the Apostle saying ye are compleat in Christ v. 10. Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filled up or made compleat he intimates what need the Colossians hearken after Jewish ceremonies as circumcision c Now because the Colossians might object that Abraham and the Patriarkes had Christ and yet were circumcised too he anticipates and prevents this objection v. 11. saying they had inward circumcision which is the chief In whom also ye observe the also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of sins c. Your persons are not onely circumcised in the circumcision of Christ who is as our common nature and so imputed to you as in Adam the common nature of man we finned and so his sin was imputed to us but you are circumcised with the vertue of Christs grace signified in circumcision to make you put off the body of sins even as Adams sin was not onely imputed to us but his corruption of sin derived into us But because the Colossians might object again that though Abraham had inward circumcision before Rom. 4. yet he had outward circumcision too and so others and therefore they were not so compleat in Christ as beleevers in the old Testament The Apostle preoccupates and prevents this objection too in v. 12 saying that instead of outward circumcision they had been baptized and baptized effectually into Christ Buried with him in baptisme wherein also ye are risen through the faith of the operation of the Son of God c. As if the Apostle should say

of the youngest and learnedst and most orthodox and pious knew well the last generation in which they lived His words are very considerable in his tenth book De Genes ad literarum cap. 23. The custome saith he of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be despised nor altogether to be reputed superfluous nor by all means to be beleeved but that it was an Apostolicall tradition Where he means by Apostolicall tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another So to be his meaning is plain 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures 2. Because in his first book De pecc mer. remiss cap. 26. saith thus Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptized who cannot go against the Authority of the universall Church which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of the Baptisme of little children saith let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines This the Church alwayes had alwayes held This it received from the Faith or Faithfulnesse of our Ancienters And this it keeps with perseverance to the end 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine we doe know saith Vossius by this that the Pelagians some of them durst not deny them For Augustine writes in his second Booke against Coelestius and Pelagius that Coelestius himselfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptized into remission of sinnes according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL But observe his cunning in what sence he meant that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes to wit into future remission if they lived to commit actuall finnes and thereby stood in need of pardon not into present remission of sinnes whiles Infants as not standing in need of pardon or else they that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said onely in words that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes but thought otherwise in their Principles they held This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell held under Boniface and Celestinus in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus Item placuit qui parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat c. that is It pleaseth the Counsell that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized or saith that they are baptized into remission of sinnes but they contract or draw nothing of originall sinne from Adam which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptisme into remission of sinnes is not truly but falsly understood let him be Anathema Thus the said Counsell By the playster made by this Counsell you may perceive the disease of Pelagius c. And in the Epistle of the Councell of Carthage Anno 416. Bin. to Innocentius which is word for word the 90. among Augustines Epistles there is this mentioned that Pelagius and Coelestius deny the Baptisme of Infants because say they Infants perished not neither is there in them that that needs salvation or to be redeemed with so great a price for as much as in them is nothing vitiated nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remission of sinnes Albeit Coelestius in his Booke hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ And then to explaine this how many and how or in what manner confessed this with Coelestius the following words fitly serve But many who are represented to us to be or to have been their Disciples doe not cease to affirme these evills whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Christian Faith So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected or if they say they never thought those things and deny those writings to be theirs what or how many-soever they be that are brought against them yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye So the Epistle of the Councell at Carthage Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. having said That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptisme what is to be confessed and beleeved what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ confirmes it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these wordes Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem vt sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then addes Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke