Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A36686
|
A treatise of laying on of hands with the history thereof, both from the scripture and antiquity : wherein an account is given how it hath been practised in all ages since Christ, the mistakes about it rectified and the sence of Heb. 6.2. cleared / by H. D'Anvers.
|
Danvers, Henry, d. 1687.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing D236; ESTC R8336
|
28,018
|
61
|
Order in which this is administred betwixt Baptism and the Supper or presently after the Baptism 6. The principal Ground Principal Ground upon which they assert it viz. The Scripture especially from Heb. 6.2 Acts 8.17 19. Thus have you an Account of this Rite Wherein all Parties do agree not only from Scriptures but how it hath been owned and practised since the first times by several sorts and who notwithstanding the vast differences among them in the Ceremonial part yet do all of them harmoniously agree in the following Substantials viz. That there is a warrantable ground to conclude that the Hands of the Bishop Elder or Presbyter should be imposed upon every Baptized Person for the receiving of the Spirit or Confirmation and that without it none ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper It remains therefore in the next place that we consider the said Grounds upon which so great an Ordinance is enjoined and which we find to be either Tradition or the Scripture 1. That of Tradition which is principally asserted by the first four is made good either from the Sayings of the Ancients and Decrees of Councils or the Usage of the ancient Churches 2. And that of Scripture which is principally urged by the two latter is especially from Heb. 6.2 compared Act. 8.17 19.6 Which we shall examine distinctly and apart Tradition And first As to the Sayings of the Ancients that are avouched to make this good we shall first consider what they say about this Rite and 2. Of what Credit and Authority the said Authors are who be produced for the same And first As to the Rite it self which they would make us believe to be so great an Ordinance of Jesus Christ we find it to be so blasphemous and Ridiculous that the very naming of the Particulars thereof may be sufficient to detect the Folly and Impiety thereof to all discerning Christians Whether respecting the Name which they call Chrysm Vnction Perfection Confirmation of which the Scripture is so much a stranger or the Nature which must be by putting the Sign of the Cross with a Bishop's greas'd Finger in the Forehead of the Confirmed with these words of Blasphemy I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and with the Chrysm of Salvation in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit the Party being in a white Garment his Head bound with Linnen his Hair cut and attended with Gossips or Sureties And this is that which the several fore-cited Popes and Fathers have reported to be Apostolical and the several Councils have by their Canons and Decrees determined and enjoyned as the great Sacrament of Confirmation and so transcendent also to Baptism it self and which without dispute we must believe was so much the appointment and practice of Christ and the Apostles and as yet practised accordingly by the Church of Rome to this day Concerning which Hommius Hommius tells us That it is not only unknown and contrary to the Scriptures but blasphemous and Idolatrous and the vain Invention of superstitious men And Tilenus Tilenus upon their lifting it up above Baptism and confining it only to a Bishop's hand saith That they make an Excrement of Antichrist so much more excellent than the Sacrament of Christ by how much they make a Bishop excel a common Priest or an ordinary person Syntag Part 2. c. 58. § 15. And Amesius saith Ames The Reasons given by the Papists for the same are both empty and impious Bel. Enervat c. 4. And notably Mr. Calvin Calvin In Pref. ante Catechis inter Opuscul That beyond measure they have dâ—ckt this Adulterous Confirmation like an Harlot with great splendor of Ceremonies and many pompous Gauderies moreover while they will adorn it they do it with execrable Blasphemies boasting that it is a Sacrament more worthy than Baptism and calling them half-Christians whoever have not been besmear'd with their stinking Oyl but in the mean while their whole action contains nothing else but Histrionical Gestures or rather wanton Apish Plays without any Art or emulation c. 2. What their Authorities Secondly From the Authorities themselves urged in proof hereof concerning whom we may so well say as is the Doctrine so are the Doctors viz. Those that are first cited to deliver the same the very naming of whom may be sufficient to detect the Cheat we having already by substantial evidence proved that all those first-recited Authorities viz. Dionys Areopag Clem. 4. Ep. Justin Martyr's Respons Hyginus's Decree and the Decretal Epistles of those first Popes to have been Impious Lies and Forgeries things that in after-Ages by the Rise of the Mystery of Iniquity were feigned and invented by some Monks and Friers and put upon those men of Name of the first Ages the better to countenance those Antichristian Impieties that were to be imposed upon the World for Apostolick for by such Lies and Forgeries did the man of sin ascend the Throne And is there not good ground think you to suspect the Justice and Truth of that Cause that cannot otherwise be defended nor maintained but by suborned Witnesses and Knights of the Post for upon no better Authority have they imposed this which they call the Sacred Rite of Confirmation Infants-Baptism Exorcism and a hundred ridiculous Ceremonies more which they would perswade us to believe were Apostolical though as to this of Confirmation some of themselves are constrained to acknowledge Rivet nec ab Apostolis nec à Christo fuisse Institutio c. That it was neither instituted by Christ or his Apostles but by Pope Calixtus Anno 218. Rivet's Controv Tom. 2. Yet so intoxicated with the Whores Cup were all these Councils upon no better grounds to decree it and all these after-Doctors as Ambrose Jerom Austin and others to assert and plead it for an Ordinance of Christ which was not only so contrary to the Scripture but so blasphemous and ridiculous as before And if it had been an Apostolical Tradition to practise this as the first Councils decreed and the Fathers and others practised viz. for many hundred years as a Baptismal Rite to be performed at one and the same time with Baptism whether upon Infants or Adult and to whom also as perfect and compleat Christians they gave the Eucharist how came the after-Councils to be so bold to alter and change it from Infancy to the Adult state putâ—ing it upon them only for so many Ages and the Church of Rome afterwards to alter and change it again returning it to its first practice leaning upon the Validity of those first Authorities concerning whom though it is no wonder that they should hold fast such impious Forgeries and have recourse to such lying Fables to maintain it yet it is matter of admiration to find our Protestant-Writers and Churches to fly to these Authorities both Fathers and Councils to create some colourable pretence for Confirmation Objection as to the Waldens Church
hath been born all along thereto for as Mr. Baxter so ingenuously acknowledgeth that Justin Martyr Irenaeus and others in those times are as silent about it as the Scripture is that any of the Apostles did ever so practise it in the first times those Authorities that are pretended to assert the same in the first Centuries having been proved to be so spurious and supposititious Answ 2. But Secondly If the Practice of it should be granted to be as ancient as the keeping of Easter and Lent Diocesan Bishops and Patriarchs and many other things that have been so generally received and practised it no more proves it therefore to be Apostolical than each of them For a pretence to Ancient Prescription without a Word of God to warrant it can never justifie the Divine Authority of any Practice Obj. 9. The other is this viz. That as to positive Scripture Institution so much called for to justifie our practice of laying on of hands upon all the Baptized from Precept or Example it is not only unreasonable but dangerous as to many Truths to be demanded as hath in express words been lately told me for where is the plain word either for Women's receiving the Lord's Supper or to lay on hands upon Officers In answer whereto I must needs say I am much grieved and astonished at such prevarication and than which what can more betray the Truth and Justice of your Cause for do not your own Answers to such like Instances so usually brought by the Paedobaptists sufficiently confute you And do you not know that if we had not plain and positive Scripture for both that we would not practise either For is not 1 Cor. 11.28 compared with 1 Tim. 2.4 5. Gal. 3.28 a sufficient Precept for Womens Receiving And Acts 1.14 with Chap. 2.42 44. substantial evidence for the Practice thereof And as for laying on of hands upon Officers is not 1 Tim. 5.22 a full Precept And Acts 6.6 13.3 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 as clear Presidents for the same And may we not warrantably say Let there be but as good Scripture-Authority produced for laying on of Hands upon all Baptized Believers before they are permitted to partake of the Lords Supper and it shall suffice But to set up a Practice in God's Worship without a warranty from his Word by some plain positive Rule and Direction the thing pleaded for by you is no less in my Judgment than to give countenance to all the Antichristian Innovations to let go at once the strongest Hold of Protestantism reproach the Wisdom of Christ and slight the Authority of the Holy Scriptures as though we had not a sufficient direction therein in all parts of God's Worship And therefore to all those worthy Sayings to this purpose of those Eminent men mentioned in the Treatise of Bapt. p. 93. I shall add that most remarkable Expression of Dr. Owen which you 'l find in his Communion with God D. Owen p. 171. viz. This then they who hold Communion with Christ are careful of they will admit of nothing practise nothing in the Worship of God private or publick but what they have his warrant for for unless it comes in his Name with Thus saith the Lord Jesus they will not hear an Angel from Heaven they know the Apostles themselves were to teach the Saints only what Christ commanded them Mat. 28.20 By which sound and wholesom Rule well observed we are delivered from all Humane Inventions and Traditions and by which Confirmation Infants-Baptism Lent Easter c. and a hundred more of like import are turned out of doors as accusing Christ of unfaithfulness and the Scripture of insufficiency And to which purpose T. G. himself hath so very well urged lately to Dr. Stillingfleet about Infant-Baptism from Dr. Fulk out of Irenaeus Irenaeus viz. When the Hereticks are reproved out of Scripture they fall to accusing the Scriptures as if all is not well in them and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not Tradition And therefore that Tertullian saith Take away these things from the Hereticks which they hold with the Ethnicks that they may stay their Questions upon the Scripture only The Conclusion THus you have had a candid Account of the Rise Growth and Progress of this Rite of Confirmation or Laying on of Hands from the beginning to this day amongst all Perswasions that have owned it with the Authorities upon which it hath been founded and imposed together with a genuine Examination of the Grounds and Reasons each Party have given to justifie the same And may we not upon the whole fairly come to the following Conclusions viz. 1. That there doth not appear to be the least Scripture-Precept or Practice for any such Ordinance of Confirmation or an Imposing of Hands upon all the Baptized before they break Bread or are admitted into Church-Communion 2. That the Instances produced to prove it an Apostolical Tradition are impious Lies and Forgeries 3. That the Authorities by which it hath been heretofore enjoyned were nothing but Antichristian Canons and Decrees 4. That the most eminent Witnesses and Confessors that opposed the Antichristian Vsurpations and Innovations have all along witnessed against and impugned this of Confirmation viz. The Novatians Donatists Waldenses Greek Churches Wickliffians c. All which are worthy the serious Consideration of all Sober and Judicious Christians and are especially recommended to them who having rejected Infants and embraced Believers-Baptism do yet cleave to this Practice with these following Observations viz. 1. That it is most manifest that those Popes Councils and Fathers that have enjoyned and imposed Infants sprinkling for a Sacrament or an Ordinance of Christ have enjoyned this also as such 2. That the Principal Arguments that have been pretended for the one have been urged and pleaded for the other also viz. Apostolical Tradition and pretended Inferences and Consequences from Scripture 3. That the Famous Churches and Confessors that have opposed Infants-sprinkling as Superstitious Popish and Antichristian have upon the same account opposed this also 4. That it doth not appear that any Baptized Church or People did ever in any Age or Countrey own such a Principle or Practice to this day except some in this Nation in these late Times But then it may well be enquired if this be so Novel a thing amongst the Baptists how came those in this Countrey so to receive and practise it as before asserted To which I give the following Account as I have received it under the Hand of one that affirms to have had the perfect knowledge thereof as being an eye and ear-witness of the same and who certifies to this purpose viz. How when and why laying on of hands was practised by the Bapt. in this Nation That about the year 1646 some 27 years since one Mr. Cornwell heretofore a publick Preacher then a Member and Minister of a Baptized Congregation in Kent was a great Asserter of this