Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	receive_v	tradition_n	2,537	5	8.9791	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

Men have seen cause in this and former Ages to reject this Tradition though it has cost them the loss of all that this World could afford them And the Authorities here brought by the Doctor are not so ancient some of them as is pretended even by his own Confession and they have been scan'd and answered by the learned Pens of Den Tombes Blackwood Fisher Danvers Delaun Duveil and others Lastly The Doctor says The Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from Scripture without Tradition and Practice of the Church As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations or to preach to every Creature and to baptize all that believe to the end of the World were not a sufficient Rule to us to teach our Children and to baptize them Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. We see evidently that Jesus Christ has given but one Rule to us and to our Posterity and therefore it was unadvisedly spoken to say that we cannot produce one Precept for teaching and baptizing our Children when they are grown up being bred and born of Christians as I suppose that is his meaning by being bred and born in the Church Had the Doctor considered that Exhortation of the Apostle to all Christians Ephes 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady 2 Ep. John Who are found walking in the Truth as the Apostle and the Lady her self had received Commandment from the Father it might have passed for a better Precedent in this case than Mans Tradition without Scripture can possibly be for Infant-Baptism I conclude then that seeing Christ's Command is as clear for teaching and baptizing our Children as any other Mens Posterity and that it is the express Duty of Christian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord that is as Chrysostom expounds the place to make them Christians and this Advice he gave in opposition to the training up Children in prophane Literature And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady whose Children whilst under her Care and Tuition obeyed the Truth and walked therein according to God's Commandment and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers but as the Apostle had received Commandment from the Father and so he exhorts them to continue and to beware of other Doctrine and to have no Fellowship with such as should bring any other Doctrine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apostles This may suffice to answer the Objection CHAP. VI. Answereth the Doctor 's fourth Question Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism I Marvel why the Doctor puts not the term Infant into his Question he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptism as soon as we can But how does he prove that Christian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptism Why this he doth by repeating what he had said under the 3d Question 1. About the Lawfulness or Allowableness 2. About the requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been answered to these things in the former Chapter And now when the Parents may very rationally expect some Command from God to bring their Infants to Baptism The Doctor tells us There is no Necessity of having a Command or Example to justify it but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden But he refers them to the Orders of the Church and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over You But never shews at all who gave such Orders to the Church that Parents and Proparents should bring their Infants to Baptism And therefore all that is here said is meer Talk without any good Warrant He quotes Acts 16. 4. which shews that the Decrees which were ordained at Jerusalem ought to be kept And we allow it but here 's not a Word for to bring Infants to Baptism in these Decrees but here is a Decree against the eating of Blood which is little regarded by the Doctor or however his Church does not regard it Yet this Text of the Decrees he would make serve for Infant-Baptism and indeed had the Apostles had Power to make such a Decree this was as fit a time and occasion for it as could be the Question being about Infant-Circumcision and the Apostles disannulling their Circumcision would certainly have given some Notice that they had or ought to have Baptism instead of it but seeing they do not in the least mention it we may be sure there was no Infant-Baptism in being at that time The Doctor will now shew us the Benefits of Infant-Baptism and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptism and the first is their Consecration to God. As if no Infants were consecrated to God but those who are baptized Methinks our Saviour should know how to consecrate Infants to God as well as the Doctor but he did it only by Prayer or Blessing not by baptizing them There is no doubt but such as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer do act warrantably but he that will do it by baptizing them acts without a Guide and deprives Children of the Baptism of Repentance when they come to Years and have need of it His second Benefit is to make Infants Members of the mystical Body of Christ As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they please Members of that Body and that when they are fast asleep too Is not this the plain Consequence of this Opinion that all Infants unbaptized being not of Christ's mystical Body must perish I know the Doctor does not hold this but it 's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error that they can make Infants Members of Christ's mystical Body by sprinkling or crossing them with Water and they think they can be made so by no other way Now I demand of any Man whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Christs mystical Body not doubting but it will be granted I desire it may be considered whether these unbapcized Infants whom Christ blessed were of his mystical Body I suppose this will be granted too and then consider also whether all Infants of whom Christ said to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are not of his mystical Body as it contains all saved ones I believe none will deny this The last Consideration is Whether Christ does speak of Infants indefinitely and as such comprehends them all and if not how is it possible for any Man to know one sort of these infants from another all dying Infants then are of the mystical Body as it contains all that shall be saved The Doctor 's third Benefit That the baptized Infant by that Solemnity may

seeing there was a Multitude of Strangers did go with the Israelites and they are distinguished from the Children of Israel Exod. 12. 38. Numb 11. 4. But S. Paul appropriates Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea to the Fathers all our Fathers c. Now for any to add and all their Infants is a Presumption not to be justified It is not said that Israel or all Israel were baptized which had it been so express'd would have more favoured the Notion And yet we know that the words Israel and all Israel do not include Infants in many places for example Exod. 14. 31. 15. 1. Deut. 13. 11. Josh 7. 25. much less can they be here called Fathers and such Fathers too as did feed upon Christ in Manna c. as well as were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud c. It must needs be very dangerous to insist upon this Miracle at the Red Sea as a Rule to us to baptize Infants the Cause is weak which needs such Arguments to defend it The Doctor sets down many other Texts in his Margin which I have also put down in mine that the Reader may peruse them and see if he can find any footing for Infant-Baptism in any of them the most likely in the Doctor 's own Judgment is Psal 51. 5. and yet we know that David's Infant which was born in Adultery was saved without Circumcision or Baptism And the Doctor confesses that the Requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism cannot be demonstrated from these Texts without the Tradition of the ancient Church And there is no such authentick Tradition to be found whatever is pretended for he brings none from the first Churches at all And that there is no such Tradition Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witness who in his Disswasive from Popery and in his Rule of Conscience informs us There is no prime or Apostolical Tradition for Infant-Baptism That it was not practised till about the 3d Century and judged necessary about the 4th That Children of Christian Parents were not baptized till they came to Vnderstanding in the first Ages That Dipping and not Sprinkling was the Vsage of Christ and his Apostles and the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients for many hundred Years See also Mr. Tombes 3d part of Review But after all this the Doctor is pleased to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized Because saith he we ought not to tie God to the same means to which he hath tied us It seems then God hath not tied Infants to any Necessity of Baptism nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments Suppose saith he that Scripture and Tradition stood against Infant-Baptism in the same Posture as now it stands for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not baptizing Infants Let us suppose that Christ had said I suffer not little Children to come to me for the Kingdom of God is not of such and that we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no baptizing Infants I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing Infant-Baptism against the concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the Sense and Practice of the Catholick Church The meaning of the Doctor I take to be this that as it is highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a doubtful or probable ground only does give Baptism to Children so it would be highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only should refuse to baptize Infants I confess this is an odd way of disputing for here the Churches supposed to err on either side are yet supposed themselves to be true Churches and only erring about such a doubtful Practice as this on the one side or on the other But alas the case is far different between the Church of England and us For she is wholly made up of Persons thus doubtfully baptized nay perhaps not baptized at all whatever she pretends and by this doubtful Baptism she is disclaiming all other Baptism in respect of all her Members for some hundreds of Years Otherwise I must confess had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century when Infant-Baptism was creeping in there was then a Church truly baptized distinct from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized upon such supposed Grounds as are mentioned by the Doctor here I say a Separation would in my Judgment have been unwarrantable it being but an ill Principle to separate from a true Church tho incumbred with some Error But should I have lived till this doubtful Baptism was forced on with Anathema's till it had overtopped and quite destroyed in such a Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in respect of her Members and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me whether she had any Baptism at all And therewith that she had apparently left the due form of Baptism which she had formerly observed Then I think no Man could blame me if I left this Communion to sit down with those who did yet retain the ancient and only undoubted Baptism both for Subject and manner of Administration and this is our very case Now seeing it is impossible for us or any Body else to hold ample Communion with all sorts of Christians and there are some good folk amongst them all why should any one of these Parties whether Papists Prelatists Presbyterians c. expect that all should come to them or why should the Doctor think we ought to joyn Communion with his Party more than others unless they could not err as well as the rest But seeing that is not to be pretended we must all satisfy our own Souls as well as we can where to communicate and where to forbear for with all we cannot have Communion let us not then grudg one against another about this necessary Christian Liberty Page 60. The Doctor attempts to prove his Tradition not doubtful but certain in the case of Infant-Baptism to which purpose he insists on that Rule given by Vincentius Lyrinensis viz. Vniversality Antiquity and Consent But I have shewed already that all these being truly taken are all wanting in the case of Infant-Baptism because as for other reasons so for these in particular 1. The Churches in the Apostles days baptized no Infants And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Custom of delaying Baptism which yet is no delay to Children till they make Profession of their Faith and the Doctor confesses a few of the Fathers were against it And there might be more for ought he knows though not counted among such Fathers that might deserve as well as any And it is known that many very learned and good