Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	holy_a	know_v	scripture_n	1,758	5	5.8907	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67270	Baptismōn didachē, the doctrine of baptisms, or, A discourse of dipping and sprinkling wherein is shewed the lawfulness of other ways of baptization, besides that of a total immersion, and objections against it answered / by William Walker ...	Walker, William, 1623-1684.	1678 (1678)	Wing W417; ESTC R39415	264,191	320

use dipping and it is more agreeable to the mystery to use it three times and that so the Ancient Church understood it therefore these things are a sufficient warrant to acquit us from the obligation of the contrary custom because a custom against which there is so much probability and in which there is no necessity and no advantage is to be presumed unreasonable The reason if I may presume to guess was partly because he saw the Doctor 's dispute lay not against the unlawfulness but obligatoriness of the contrary custom And he might see that as the probability against it was not so great as the Doctor fancied so the necessity of it was sometimes so much and the advantages in cases of necessity and charity so considerable as that it could not be presumed unreasonable but on the contrary ought to be judged very rational Partly it was because the Doctor doth in the very next words in the former clause of the same period assert that because there is even in sprinkling something of the analogy of the mystery as is rightly observed by Aquinas and Dominicus à Soto and because it is not certain that the best representation and the most expressive ceremony is required therefore the Church upon great cause may lawfully do either Which he was unwilling any of his Party should know And thus much for Dr. Taylor § 67. From this Champion of our own Church we are next called to receive a charge from a brisk Champion of the Church of Rome nay from the Church of Rome it self as Mr. D. words it The Church of Rome saith he confesseth by a Learned Pen the Marquis of Worcester in his Certam Relig. That she changed dipping the Party baptized over Head and Ears into sprinkling upon the Face § 68. Mr. D. should rather have said as I think a Learned Pen of the Church of Rome confesseth For not the writing of every Learned Man is presently the Confession of the Church he is of for when so Learned Men of the same Church are of contrary judgments and write contrary things then the Church they are of must be judged to be so too and that is to speak her a Church of no judgment And the Church of Rome will not endure that Nor would Mr. Danvers's Church I believe be willing to espouse all his assertions as her Confessions But that is to be taken for the Confession of a Church which is professed by her in her publick Writings compiled by Persons authorized thereunto confirmed by the Subscription of her Ministers and made authentick by the attestation of her Supreme Magistrates § 69. But what is it that the Marquis saith she did That she changed dipping into sprinkling This cannot signifie that before that change there was no sprinkling at all in that Church but that it wholly left off to dip which had been the publick and solemn way of baptizing in that as well as in other Churches and in stead thereof even in the publick and solemn baptizings as well as in the private baptisms upon cases of necessity she baptized by way of sprinkling § 70. And what was the change in this respect made Dipping all the whole Body under the water into sprinkling upon the Face The Marquis even as Mr. Danvers quotes him saith not so but dipping the Party baptized over Head and Ears That may mean no more but dipping his Head only all over and by a Pleonasm of speech his Ears too under water and not his whole Body And that such a way of baptizing has been in use in the Western Church I have shewed before Ch. 10. And if that were the Church of Romes meaning in what she confesseth here by her Learned Pen then Mr. D. gets nothing to his Cause by her Confession But if not yet still what change soever she made therein she did no more than she lawfully might being invested with the same power in such cases as other Churches have and the thing it self being no substantial part but only an accidental circumstance of that Sacrament wherein Churches have power to continue or alter as they shall see best conducing to order decency and edification and proceed upon grounds of necessity charity or great conveniency § 71. But I am of opinion it was not the Church of Rome that made this Change but a Church that had more power than that Church ever had even the Catholick Church which Rome is not any more than any other particular National Church is even so far as she holds union and fellowship with the Church Catholick in truth of Doctrine Essentials of Worship and Substantials of Discipline And this appears because the Church the Marquis there speaks of is that Church that could deposite the observation of the Jewish Sabbath and introduce the observation of the Christian Lord's Day which sure was not done by that particular Church but by the whole Catholick Church throughout the World And that Church indeed that could do that could without doubt change the dipping over Head and Ears in Water into a little sprinkling upon the Face by reason of some emergencies and inconveniencies occasioned by the differences of Seasons and Countries as the Marquis there adds and may upon the like occasion accordingly dispose of the manner of her administration of her Sacraments For sure to deposite the observation of a day expresly commanded to be kept holy and to introduce the like observation of another day touching the keeping of which holy never any Command was given as none that we know of was ever given for its sanctification though in all probability it was founded in Apostolical Practice partly intimated in the Scriptures and further notified by Tradition implies a power as great as if not greater than to change a Rite in a Sacrament not more commanded than the Sanctification of the Sabbath day nor so much as that if it were ever at all under any command which is denyed by Learned men as in those Papers is shewn § 72. So then if there were no change made then we are as we were at first And if there were a change made it was made by a Church whether the Catholick or Roman that had power to make it Either way will serve our turn For which way soever it be our practice will be free from guilt either as being it self Primitive and Apostolick or as being taken up into use instead of somewhat that then was used by a Church that had power to make that change § 73. Though after all I shall not grant any change made herein other than what I have already said from a practice but privately used in case of necessity to become the general practice even where Baptism is administred with greatest solemnity § 74. Having done with the Marquis he goes on to tell us that until the Third Century we find not any that upon any consideration did admit of Sprinkling and that the first we meet with is Cyprian To

case There is another in Mark 7.2 3 4. proposed and urged by learned Persons I will represent it in its due strengths and advantages and so leave it to be considered of by such as are concerned in this debate The words are And when they saw some of his Disciples eat bread with defiled that is to say with unwashen hands they found fault For the Pharisees and all the Jews except they wash their hands oft eat not holding the tradition of the Elders And when they come from the market except they wash they eat not The eating here spoken of is to be understood of common food for it is said they eat not that is not at all not so much as ordinary and common food except they wash And the speech here is not only of the superstitious Pharisees but of the generality of the People all the Jews and sure they did not all and always feed on sacred viands Now what is here said of their washing before that food This that they eat it not except they wash their hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I conceive is somewhat otherwise than it is ordinarily rendered up to the hand-wrist or joyning of the hand to the arm And this if they did either by affusion of water upon their hands so held that the water might run down so far or else by immersing them so far into the water this was all was required of them to render them sufficiently clean for eating of an ordinary meal And there was no such thing required of them or used by them as wholly to immerse themselves in water in order to the fitting of themselves for the eating of such a meal And what pollution had made them unfit for such a meal without a total dipping of themselves had made them unfit for any more sacred meal that day until the evening And yet this washing which was but of the hands and might be indifferently performed either way by affusion or immersion is applied unto the persons and spoken of them in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so run the words in Ver. 4. And when they come from the Market 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as Hen. Steph. has it in his Concord Grac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they wash not or be not washed for the same Verb in the same Voice and in the same Tense is applied unto St. Paul Act. 22.16 Passively and ought to be so as appears by comparing it with Act. 9.18 and so 't is to the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 And though Beza be positive for that Verb's signifying primarily and properly mergo to dip and but consequentially lavo to wash yet here he renders it not according to the primary and special signification of the Verb nisi mersati sint unless they be dipped but according to the secondary and general import of it nisi loti fuerint except they be washed and so Pasor also So that of whom it may be said that he is in any part for instance in his hands washed whether by affusion or mersation and especially if the latter be used of him it may be said that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizatus as the Vulg. Latine here renders the word baptized And so our Infants not being totally immersed but only in part washed whether by dipping or sprinkling hinders not but that when that sacred action is performed upon them they may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be baptized § 4. It may be answered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here refers not to the whole Persons of the Jews as if always when they came from the market they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is wholly immerse themselves but to their Hands only and that the meaning is that whereas if the Jews kept at home and did not go to the Market they needed only to wash their hands by Affusion of water but if they did go from home and to the market then they were to wash their hands by Immersion as if as it is said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they wash their hands namely by affusion so it had been said here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they wash their hands by immersion the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hands being to be understood in the latter Text as it is expressed in the former and so from the word 's being here applied to no more but a part which was wholly immersed no argument can be drawn to prove that the whole may be said to be immersed when the immersion is but of a part and that so the Infants being dipped but in part cannot be called their Baptism much less the sprinkling or pouring of a little water on them § 5. But to this it may be replied that the washing here must be understood according to the * S. Matt. 15.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Tradition of the Elders but there was no such Tradition of the Elders as that all that came from the Market should either immerse themselves or but so much as their hands wholly before they eat bread That they should wash before eating was the Tradition but the manner how they should wash whether by affusion or immersion was left at liberty so they did it either way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 up to the wrist And though because the defilements of their hands were like to be greater in the Market than at home therefore the nicer sort of them especially the Pharisees did rather chuse to wash by immersion than by affusion as looking upon that as the higher degree of purification yet they did not all and few always washt that way Nor were they obliged to it by any Tradition of the Elders And ye may observe that holding the Tradition of the Elders is set with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet they are the same Persons which are spoken of when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used that are spoken of when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used the Pharisees and all the Jews So that the washing implied in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be such as was used not only by the Pharisees but all the Jews too and that as holding the Tradition of the Elders which as has been said was no more than to wash their hands up to the wrist and for the performance of which so much water as was contained in a measure called by them Rebiit which held about the quantity of an Egge and a half was enough So that it is plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designs as well those that washed by affusion as by mersation And if it did not so then John the son of Goodgodah who always used to dip his hands and those few others that chose to eat even common meat with that care of pollution which they were to eat holy meat withal had not observed the Tradition of the Elders but must have by the others been condemned like