Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49508
|
An apologie for our publick ministerie and infant-baptism written som years ago for private satisfaction of som dissenting brethren and upon request enlarged and published for the same ends / by William Lyford.
|
Lyford, William, 1598-1653.
|
1652
(1652)
|
Wing L3544; ESTC R24102
|
42,825
|
54
|
that Covenant to Abraham and to the Nations hee gave withal a Commandment Gen. 17.12 that the initial mark of the Covenant should bee set upon all whom hee had taken into Covenant both Jews and Gentiles and their Infants The Covenant it self and the mark of the Covenant are alike extended to all the same persons whether yong or old Note farther that when Christ renewed and established that Covenant in his own blood though hee changed the Sign yet hee repealed not that Commandment Nay Mat. 28.19 hee added a new commandment enjoining the new Sign Baptism to bee given to all Nations without exception of any persons formerly received into Covenant so that wee are under a twofold Commandment to Baptize our Infants one of God who first made the Covenant and gave that Commandment the which is still so of force that if Christ the Lord of the hous had not changed it wee were all bound at this day to bee Circumcised and seeing hee hath changed that Sign into Baptism but not the Covenant it self nor the Commandment thereto annexed it followeth that by the old Commandment enjoining Infants to bee marked and by Christ's new Commandment enjoining Baptism to bee that mark all that are not excepted out of the Covenant stand bound to recei it In like manner as the fourth Commandment injoining one day of seven for an holy Rest to the Lord doth binde us to observ our Lords-day the Commandment stand's of force though the first day bee changed so the Commandment for signing of the Nations whom God received into Covenant and their seed doth still oblige us to set the New Seal upon them especially seeing wee are again commanded by Christ so to do without any exception of Infants Hence I thus argue Argument 1 All that are taken into the Covenant of Grace ought to receiv the judicial Sign of the Covenant what ever the Sign be that God shall chuse and that according to the Commandment of God and our Lord Jesus Christ But Infants are taken into Covenant with their Parents as is proved therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to recev the Sign which God hath enjoined to bee used and that Sign is Baptism Or thus If Infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof then it is a wrong to deny them But Infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial Sign thereof both by God's Original Grant Gen. 17.11 14. And by Christ's confirmation of that Covenant made with the Fathers Rom. 15.8 therefore it is a wrong to deny it to them The Covenant under which wee are is the Gospel-Covenant made long since with us Englishmen and our Infant-seed with a command of giving them the Sign which at first was Circumcision and now Baptism by the same Divine Autoritie enjoyned and commanded to bee given without any exception of any within the Covenant Argument 2 My second Argument is grounded on Act. 2.38 39. then Peter said Repent and bee baptized c. In which passage of Scripture I note three things 1. Who the persons were of whom Peter saith The promise is to you and to your children they were a mixt multitude of many Nations as appears vers 10. strangers of Rome Jews Proselyts Creets and Arabians Note 2. What promise that is of which S. Peter saies it belongs to such people and their children and is applied to his hearers as the ground of their beeing baptized It is that grand promise made to Abraham to bee a God to him and his seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Gospel-promiss of good tidings gratuitum Dei promissum quatenùs opponitur legi saith Beza in a word it is that promiss of blessedness Jer. 31.34 which consists in remission of sins to bee obtained by the promised Messiah Object Nay Why not rather understand it of the promise of the gifts of the holy Ghost promised Joel 2.27 and given by laying on of the Apostles hands especially becaus it is said in the end of vers 38. Bee baptized and yee shall receiv the gift of the holy Ghost Answ The promise here spoken of cannot bee understood I conceiv of the miraculous gifts of the holie Ghost 1. Becaus Peter's bearers received no such gifts and therefore S. Peter made no such promise to them for doubtless they received what was promised 2. Such a promise must here bee understood as belongs to Parents and their children and to all that shall bee called to the worlds end But there is no such promise in all the Scripture that the miraculous gifts of the holie Ghost shall fall upon Parents with their children and all that are to bee converted to the worlds end 3. A promise of such gifts seems not sutably applied to Peter's hearers comfort for their Question was what shall wee do to bee saved And Peter gives them 1. A direction 2. And a Promise A direction to repent and to acknowledg Christ to bee head and foundation of the Covenant of Grace and that life and remission of sins is in his blood where of Baptism is the Seal And then hee recites and applies to this comfort the promises of the Covenant q. d. yee shall receiv the benefit of the Covenant remission of sins and also the gift of the holie Spirit the Seal thereof those first motions now begun in your hearts shall bee followed with increas of Sanctification of spiritual light of joy comfort and assurance This interpretation doth exactly agree with the Apostles discours Gal. 3.14 where speaking of the blessing of Abraham to com on the Gentiles hee saith that wee being delivered from the Curse and restored into God's Grace by Christ shall receiv the promise of the Spirit through Faith i.e. the spirit of Grace which is the Seal of the promises of the new Covenant the gifts of the holie Spirit which had been so often and so solemnly promised by the Prophets Es 44.3 I will pour water upon him that is thirstie as Peters hearers now were and Floods upon the drie ground I will pour my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring and one say I am the Lords and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob with Ezek. 11.19 cap. 36.27 A new spirit will I put within you I will take the stonie heart out of your flesh and give you an heart of flesh Act. 2.38 Gal. 3.2 14. So that the gift of the Spirit in Peter's Sermon and the promise of the spirit in the Galatians and in the Prophets is all one thing for substance As for that place Joel 2.27 S. Peter expounds it Act. 2.17 of the descending of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles in fierie Tongues and it may well have relation to all those upon whom in like manner it did descend But if any man conceivs that that place hath a farther accomplishment in the New Testament in the larger pouring forth of the gifts of the spirit of illumination
they intend 1. To answer the Papist I shall onely crave leav to insert among my plain pages a letter of that most godly learned man Dr Reinolds to a friend of his who craved his help to answer the challenge of som Papists touching the lawfulness of our Ministerie Your godly requst good Mr Barker I should bee somwhat better able to satisfie Dr Rainolds his Letter if I knew on what grounds these proud popish challengers do perswade themselvs that none of you can avow your vocation to the Ministerie to bee lawful But I guess they do it on the same that Hart in his conference with mee becaus the ancient Canons Ecclesiastical ascribed to the Apostles say Episcopus duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur Presbyter autem ab uno Episcopo and they think none of us to bee ordained by a Bishop becaus in the beginning of her Majesties reign one popish Bishop of Q. Maries beeing then left none of our Bishops could bee ordained by two or three Now if they build hereupon as to mee it seemeth they do becaus I finde no other reason in b b Decler c. 3. Bellarmine c c Epitom Controv part 1. Con. 4. q. 2. Parsons or d d Harding Stapleton Greg de Valem the rest of this objection against us it may bee that as Hart when hee saw the answer that I made thereunto would needs have that whole point left out in our conference Conclus 2 saying hee would not press mee therewith so these men will renounce their promiss of subscribing to the profession of the Gospel and forsaking Poperie when they see you able to justifie your calling to the Ministerie For I went to the Archbishop of Canterburie his Register and taking thence a note how Bishop Freak who ordained mee consecratus est à Matthaeo Cant. Roberto Winton Edmundo Sarum and how each of these was consecrated by other three or four as Matthaeus Cant. by four that were Bishops in King Edwards time these again consecrated by Archbishop Cranmer whom three with the Pope's consent had consecrated and so brought every one upward to those times wherein the Church of Rome acknowledged them ordained lawfully I had no sooner shewed this extract to Mr Hart but hee confessed hee thought no such thing could bee shewed and that himself had been born in hand otherwise on the conceit above mentioned You who are further from London where the records are kept though your friend if need bee can help you thereunto may ask them if they think not Archbishop Cranmer and the rest in King Henrie's time to bee lawfully ordained Bishops which when they acknowledg becaus the Pope confirmed them you may offer this proof that our Bishops succeeding them in King Edwards time and so in Q. Elizabeths were consecrated by three of them or their succesfors out of the authentical Records of the Archbishoprick sâ—il that Matthew Parker the first Archbishop in Q. Elizabeths daies was thus by William Barlow Bishop of Bath and Wells in K. Edward's time John Scorie Bishop of Chichester Miles Coverdale of Exeter John Hodgeskir Suffragane of Bedford If they acknowledg that hee and all the rest in like sort were consecrated by a number of Bishops sufficient but these not confirmed by the Pope as the first in King Henrie's time were they must bring forth proof that without his consent no Bishop is lawfully ordained which soundly they never can If they say the Bishops since Cranmer's time were and are Hereticks and therefore are not lawfully autorized to ordain first here they will fail in proof too becaus Heresie is an error repugnant to the word of God and that wee hold any such they cannot shew then admitting the contrarie and putting the case wee did to avoid so huge debate of all points in controversie their own Principal Doctors a a In 4. sent dist 25. q. 1. Art 2. Con. 2. Dominicus Soto b b De sacram in genere l. 1. c. 26. Bellarmine c c Com. Theal Tom. 4 dist 9. q. 3. puncts 2. Greg. de Valentia do teach out of S. d d Lib. 2. c. 13. contr epistolam Parmén tract 9. in Evang. Joannis Jo. 9.33 Augustine grounding on the Scripture that Heretical Concl. 2 Bishops may lawfully Ordain and that it is an heresie such as the Dontatists was to denie it What other cavils or sophisms they are likely to use I cannot imagine but very willing to yield you any help that I can upon farther notice I commend you to the Grace of our good God beseeching him to direct and strengthen by his holy Spirit your self and the rest of your fellow Souldiers to fight his Battels At Oxford the third of June 1605. JOHN RAINOLDS IF any doubt of this Letter he may receiv satisfaction touching the Truth of it by som yet living in Corpus Christi Colledg from whom I had this Copie Object But though this stop the Jesuits mouth yet it strengthen's the other part of the Objection with whom wee have chiefly to deal Answ 2 Not at all 1 For though our Consecration and Succession were continued in the times of the Pop's reign yet it did not fetch its Original from the Pope the Gospel sounded out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem even as far as Britain long enough before that Anti-christ of Rome was born Rom. 16.26 Col. 1.6 And though wee should not think the wors of the Gospel though received from Rome in her first pure state whom Paul celebrate's for a famous Church Rom. 1.6 8. Acts and Monoments l. 2. p. 1. c. Whites way to the Church § 49. Yet the light came to England first from Jerusalem and not from Rome as Mr Fox and Dr John White have learnedly demonstrated out of Gildas and sundrie other Autors who affirm that Britain received the Gospel in the time of Tiberius the Emperor under whom Christ was crucified and though there bee som little variance among Autors about the time yet that confirm's the Truth of the matter in which they all concur that England received the Gospel very early either by the preaching of som one of the Apostles or som of that time mostly received is that Joseph of Arimathea was sent by Philip from France to Britain about the year 63. and laid the first foundation of the Christian Faith which was confirmed and increased by others The same is confirmed by the Testimonie of Tertullian Adversus Jodaees c. 7. Et Britannorum inaccessa Romanis lâ—ca Christs verò suhdita in his Book against the Jews where reckoning the parts of the world whither the Gospel was dispersed by the sound of the Apostles reciteth the parts of Britain unsubdued by the Romane's sword yet subdued unto the Concl. 2 Scepter of Christ 2. Again the same Mr Fox relateth that about the year 180 King Lucius the first Christned King sent to Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome to