Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	4,605	5	9.4382	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

then the Customes of the Church ordained by the Apostles are a Ground of satisfaction Nor are they therfore in themselves less authenticall because they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture as prescribed by the Apostles if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their first Originall It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority See Hooker Ecclesiasticall Polity lib. 1 sect 14. pag 44. Field on the Church lib. 4.20 but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them tho but by word and lively voice onely More certainty to us-ward things have by writing but not more Authority in themselves ex gr That saying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangelists yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul Act. 20.35 That Proph●cy of Enoch Jude 14. These in themselves were no● less authentick truths before than after those allegations So for Apostolicall Customes Those mentioned in the Scripture have a more unquestioned Certainty than Traditions but not greater Authority Neither is this to sett up Tradition as do the Papists to the prejudice of the Scripture Because we admit none for Apostolicall which either are contrary to the Scripture or which may not by good reason from some text of Scripture be confirmed for Apostolicall You see whither all this tendeth viz. To make way for this Assumption That if the Baptizing of Infants may reasonably be judged one of those Apostolicall Traditions one of these Church-Customs which were established in the Churches according to the commandement of Christ Then is ther sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the use and practise of it And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apostles and used by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apostles why should it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Christ and so a Ground for Conscience to build upon Well But you will say how may it appear to have been a custome of the Churches ordained by the Apostles Here it may be worth our Observation That the pattern and president from whence most if not all of them was ●aken was the custome of Israel in the Old Testament It is the observation of Jerome Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Te●●amento Quod A●ron fi●● ejus atque Levit●e in Templo ●●crunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vend●●ant in Ecclia Hieron Epla 85. ad Evagrium And this may be one speciall reason why the Providence of God did not take so much care for the writing of every Custome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Assemblies in the New Testament Because as ther was not so much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine So the President from whence they were take being at hand if any aberration did creep in it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern Yea and who can tell whether the wisdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel and the Authority of the writings of Moses and the Prophets against the frowardnes of some who were but too apt and ready to dis-esteem them That the Institutions of God by Moses for the Church of Israel were the Pattern for the Apostolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Discipline and Order to be observed in the Christian Congregations it will appear more evidently if we consider that the subject matter of these Orders are Times Places Persons and the like In all which the Apostles by the Commandement of Christ setled such Rules as were consonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Israel That we might know that no better Orders for the Church can be devised than such as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Testament may justly and without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace be framed and as it were thence translated Was it not for this cause that divers particulars which should be in the Christian Churches are prophetically described in phrases taken from the Church of Israel See these texts Esai 66.21 23. Zech. 12.16 I said Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace Because as some judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation and to that Age of the World and so may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth So some Ecclesiasticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Christian Church tho others may which are more morall and so more perpetuall Ex. gr In the Old Testament ther was one day in seven set a part to be a Day of Holy Rest i. e. a time for the Assemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion In imitation where-of th'Apostles by the Direction of our Blessed Saviour consecrated the first day of the week to the same ends and uses and gave it that honourable name which still it beareth The Lords Day Then for Places Israel had their Synagogues beside the Temple And who knoweth not that even in th'Apostles times ther were places sett apart for the Assemblies to meet in and even then began to be called Churches So for Persons Israel had those who were sett apart to the service of the Altar and the Temple Accordingly the Apostles ordained in severall Churches certain Elders men sett apart and separated to the work and office of the Ministry who by that solemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a speciall designation to that function from which they might not return to secular employments and the cares of the world The maintenance of them doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament Cor. 9.13.14 And whether the subordination of Some in the Ministery to other in the same Order were not likewise an Apostolicall Institution appointed by Christ and this also fetcht from the pattern of Moses I dispute not But this I make no question will be acknowledged by all That the Censures of the Church That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of those Censures That these I say were received from Israel and that not only by the Apostles appointing them Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but also by our Saviour himself Mat. 18.15 That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles taken from the Pattern of the Passover Nay yet more The Custome of the Apostles to baptise the whol housholds of them that beleeved and that immediatly upon the Conversion of the Master of the family and his subscription to the Faith of Christ whence they should have it except from that like pattern and President in the Old Testament viz. Abraham circumcising all the

not to be dis-joined viz. the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of a Numerous off-springs Is it not evident that in Gen. 17. ther is speciall mention of the Covenant of Grace viz. I will be the God of thee and thy seed after thee and then followeth Thou shalt therfore keep my Covenant thou and thy seed This is my Covenant Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Why should Circumcision be restreyned to the Promise of a Numerous of-spring when the text doth not restrein it If any reply That in Gen. 15. wher the Righteousnes of Faith is mentioned to which the Apostle alludeth ther is only mention made of a Numerous of-spring promised Be it so But that of Calvin is sound who saith That whatsoever promises God did give to Abraham Jn dubium est axioma apud Christianos quascunque promissiones Abrahae dedit Deus pr●mae illius fuisse appendices Ergo cum audiret Abraham Erit sem●n tuum si●ut arena m●●is in hoc verbo non substitit sed ipsum potius includebat in gratia Adoptionis tanquam partem in toto Calv. in C●l 3 6. they were Appendices of that first promise made to Him and so this of a numerous of spring was by Faith received as a fruit of that first Grace he bestowed on Him viz. His Adoption Nay more That Promise of a Numerous of-spring that he should be the Father of many Nations Was it fulfilled in the children of the flesh only or in the children of the Promise also And how came he to be the Father of those children but by Faith in the Covenant of Grace Conclude therefore That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace A Remedy of that Dis-ease which is derived from Father to Sonn by Propagation Which being in the Posterity of Beleeving Christians no less than in the Posterity of Beleeving Jewes It followeth that these have as much need as the other And being Holy by virtue of their Parents interest in the Covenant are as capable of this Benefit as the other were Consequently that the implantation of Infants into that Mysticall Body of Christ by a Sacrament is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament And if not so Since it is not repealed by Christ and his Apostles we conclude That ther is a Precept virtuall and implicit And tho it be not said in direct terms Go and baptise Beleevers and their Children yet in that it is said Circumcise them their Baptism is included so much the more Because it will appear that ther is also for the Baptising of Infants Pattern virtuall and Implicit This is in the Baptising of whole Families upon the conversion of the Masters ther-of The whole Housholds of Lydia Cr●spus Cornelius and others were baptised To say that in them ther might be no children because none are mentioned is to speak against all sense and reason As well may it be said ther were no servants and so make up a Family of I know not how few What say we to those three thousand souls mentioned Acts 2. which were added to the Church in one day Is it probable that they were all present at the Sermon and converted to the Faith by that Sermon it being in a private House Is it not more probable that the Men being present and converted they brought also their Families to be baptised which they might well do because they heard St. Peter say The Promise is made to you and to your children So that the totall summe of men women and children might be 3000. souls Some such thing doubtless is intimated in that phrase 3000. souls answerable to that in the story of Gen. 46. ver 27. Act. 7.14 All that came down into Egipt with Jacob were 70 souls Souls i. e. persons men women and children And here doubtless the course and practice of the Converts was answerable to that in Gen. 17. No sooner is the Covenant made with Abraham but he circumciseth all the Males in his house both young and old So doubtless No sooner is the Covenant of Grace ratified betwixt Christ and the Beleeving Parents by Baptism but the Houshold is also accounted Holy and so baptised Doubtless what St. Peter said to them in Act. 2. The Promise is made to you and to your children The same did St. Paul preach to the Gentiles when they were converted that they might know the large bounty of God to them and theirs in the Covenant of Grace And how should they confirm this to them but by baptising their children Take away this and you leav open a wide gapp to an Objection which is not easily answered For they might object What tell you us of the Grace of God in Christ of the super-abundance of that Grace Do we not see the contrary This is nothing answerable to that of Abraham and Israel They by their Faith received a Benefit for their children yea their servants Not so here We our selves per-aduenture may be the better for our Faith But our children remain still as they were strangers to the Covenant Will you imagine the Apostle to reply Nay but the Promise is to you and your children So that when they come to beleev they also may be admitted How justly might the Objector rejoin what great priviledge is this So may the very Heathen all that are afarr of when they beleev If this be all that we gain Our children notwithstanding our Faith are in no better condition than the Heathen themselves Nothing so good as the children of the Jews And so the great boast of super-abundant Grace falls to the ground Thus we see good Reason to acknowledge this Custome of baptising Infants to be warranted both by Precept and Pattern tho not formall and explicite yet virtuall and implicit And that with so great light and evidence from Scripture that greater in that kind cannot be expected Before I proceed to an other Argument Let me improve this further That Custome and Practise of the Church may well be presumed to be Apostolicall which is so consonant to the text of Scripture that it doth readily illustrate the text and openeth a door of light to understand the same Such is the Custome of Infants Baptised therfore That which being granted giveth light and which being denyed doth leave the text under such a cloud of obscurity that it is not easily understood how it may pass for Truth This must be granted to open a door of light to understand the text of Scripture Now then suppose this Act of the Apostles baptising Infants we easily see how 3000. souls may be added to the Church in one day notwithstanding the Sermon were in a privat house We see how St. Peter might confirm their Beleef in this The Promise is made to you and to your children even the Promise of super-abundant Grace We see how St. Paul might urge this your children are Holy But take away the supposition of this Custome and

Donatists afterward who upon such grounds made a separation from the Church of God Against the Donatists doth St. Augustin dispute as did St. Cyprian before him against the Novatians Note here that often in his books De Bapt. contra Donatist contra Crescon Gram. lib. 2. cap. 15. doth St. Austin cite an Authority out of Cyprian lib de lapsis to prove the conclusion that we have in hand Nos non communicare peccatis aliorum etiamsi cum iis in Sacramentorum communione maneamus and set up select Congregations of their own utterly condemning those Churches and Assemblies who admitted of any such to the Communion of the Church whom they accounted fit to be suspended from the Sacrament and the society of the faithfull That it doth necessarily cast many Christians upon inextricable difficulties and discomforts is evident in this That if it be unlawfull to receiv the Sacramant in a mixt Assembly Then it may fall out that some Christians may for ever be deprived of that Ordinance and so want that comfort both in life and death which they might have by it For why some have not liberty nor means of separation and seeking elsewhere ex gr Wives children servants which are under the Covert and command of their Husbands Parents Masters Some again are shut up in prison others banished or confined to such a place where this Doctrine is not beleeved nor is that Sacrament any where to be had but in the Parochiall Assemblies of that Place and People Now for all such to be deprived of the Sacrament and of the comfort which cometh by it is a matter of such inconvenience that it cannot in any probability be allowed as an Order and Appointment of Christ Consequently I conclude That the Opinion which denyeth it lawfull for a Christian to communicate in a mixt Assembly is in all probability erroneous and not to be received This also may be cast in to make up full weight and measure That we find in the Gospel our Blessed Saviour not excluding Iudas from the Passover even when he knew that he had conspired with the Priests to betray him Nor do any of the Disciples when our Saviour told them Yee are not all clean One of you shall betray me not any of them do call upon Christ to turn out the Traitour no not when by the Sopp given to Judas Christ had manifested him to be the man Wher-in if the Apostles were to blame so it may be these men may think as not sufficiently at that time carefull to have an Holy Communion by separating the pretious from the vile yet certainly our blessed Saviour did not at all transgress the Rule of Holiness Nor would he have permitted Iudas to sit so neer them if any of them might therby fail of Receiving the Benefit that might upon self-preparation be justly expected from that Sacrament Nor do I know what can be excepted against this unless any would deny the Necessity of morall cleanness to the preparing and fitting of the Jews for the worthy receiving of the Passover or boldly avouch that nothing more was required of them but a care of Ceremoniall purity and legall purifications of the Flesh which I suppose is an opinion so gross and absurd that none of understanding would own it and avouch it We read Hezekiah urging the Preparation of the Heart as an Argument to prevail with God to pardon the neglect of Ceremoniall purification which had been of no force at all if those Purifications had not been required only in the way of signification and commonefaction to put them in mind of that spirituall and morall duty the Preparation of Heart If God took any pleasure in washing the hands and scouring the flesh why doth our Saviour blame the Pharisees who were but too diligent and observant of their Ceremonies No no Evident it is that Sacrifices and Ceremonies were acceptable only as Institutions and Admonitions of Morall Duties As at other times So in their Preparation of themselves to the Holy Sacrament Nor was it enough for Iudas that he was clean as farr as the water could reach no not enough that his feet were washed if washed they were by Christ Since the Heart was full of covetousnes and divelish intentions Whose uncleanness might it be an hinderance to the Residue in receiving the Benefit of the Sacrament Can we with reason beleev that our Saviour would not have shutt him out and so have taught them upon such an occasion the Necessity of what these men call for with so much importunity I close up all in a word Since neither Scripture nor Reason do conclude it unlawfull Nay since the Scripture being silent in the cause neither prohibiting nor reprehending Reason doth draw us to conclude against the opinion of these men I conclude It is not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Appendix Extracted out of a Responsary Letter To your two Questions propounded in the close of the Letter I return this breef Answer for your satisfaction To the first viz. Whether it be not a sinn in the Minister to deliver the Sacrament to him that is scandalous i. e. to him who having been such hath not as yet reconciled himself to God and the Church by publik evidences of his Repentance I cannot admit the Affirmative for a Truth viz. It is sin in him except with these limitations 1. When ther is power in the Hand of the Minister to keep such men off and to bring them to the Testification of their Repentance 2. Where it is evident to the Minister that the man hath not reconciled himself to God and the Congregation 3. When the man is indeed scandalous i. e. notoriously known to have given offence But the case is otherwise when either the Minister hath not power in his hand or when he is not certain of the Mans Non-Repentance and Non-Reconciliation Or thirdly when the man is not indeed scandalous I say Not indeed Because some men account some things to be scandalous which indeed are not Ther is a scandal to a weak brother in the want of a charitable use of Christian Liberty Ther is a scandal to them that are without This latter is only that scandal that deserveth repulse from the Communion Not the other To the second viz Whether it be not a sinn in the People to communicate with any such i. e. To receiv the Communion in the Society of such a Minister and such a scandalous Brother I say as before I cannot affirm it sinfull except with these limitations 1. When it is evident to the Christian that such a person is indeed scandalous and hath not reconciled himself 2. When it is in the liberty of the Communicant to chuse or refuse such company But the case is otherwise when it is not evident to him that the other hath not reconciled himself or when it is not in the liberty of the Comunicant to refuse Now as it is not in the liberty of the Christian saving the Duty that he oweth to God to abstein altogether from the Sacrament So neither is it in his liberty saving his duty that he oweth to the Magistrat to abstain from that Congregation wher-of by vertue of his house and Habitation he is known to be a Member At the Communion of the sick peradventure he may forbear from joining in society with such if they should desire Not so from the publick Congregation FINIS Imprimatur CHARLES HERLE