Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A18926
|
Theologicall axioms or conclusions publikly controuerted, discussed, and concluded by that poore English congregation, in Amstelredam: to whome H.C. for the present, ad-ministreth the ghospel. Togither with an examination of the saide conclusions, by Henoch Clapham. Here-vnto is added a litle tractate entituled. The carpenter.
|
Clapham, Henoch.
|
1597
(1597)
|
STC 5346; ESTC S117152
|
42,593
|
52
|
the princes of the people as Neh. 9.38 In diuerse actions that appertained to the whole people only the heads of the Tribes or the cheife of the families were elected In this place common sense will tell vs that so many thowsands of people cold not conveniently lay on hands 3. Thirdly whither people or the cheif of the people did solemnize this action they had the Lord his ymmediate commaund for their warrant and what maketh that for the other Except therfore such Imposition remayne Good we must as for Baptisme a waite som other callings from heauen that may reare vp this ordinance anewe or the Propheticall or Euangelicall ministrie stirred vp here and there must as did the Apostles incommend this ordinance vnto others which if yet it camnot make all the former of none effect considering som true prophets haue had the conuoyance of the former Conclus 7. Infants bapt Infants vnder the tuition of the faith full are all within the couenant capable of Baptisme Examination THat al infants vnder the tuition of the faith full are all within the Couenant appeareth in Iehouahs pronunciate to Abraham I am thy god and the god of thy seede But no body douts that the faithfull theyr infants vndes the lawe were within the Couenant but how is it apparantâ— that their seede vnder the Ghospell is within the Couenant 1. Thus If the lawe who was but a whipping schoolmaster vnto Christ accepted of Infants then muth more the ghospell 2. Or thus whome God once in truth accepts them he neuer in truth reiects These two arguments can by scripture neuer be gaynsayde But to speake playner the former promise and couenant to and with Abraham and his seede is indeede ghospell and the strength of the Ghospell Galat. 3.8 from whence I thus reason 3. Whome the ghospell doth accept the ghospell doth not reiect except they will haue two Christs and two ghospells but cursed is he that so saith Gal. 1.6.7.8 And the Ghospell accepts as before etc. But the Catabaptist will not sticke to graunt Children of the kyngdome and within the Couenant still Yea the Anabaptisticall sort of them that all children in the world by vertue of the second Adam are within the Couenant but then they deny the seale of Baptisme vnto them all vntill they haue Actual faith Only here concerninge the infants of and vnder the custodie of the faithfull the former sorts of arguments that proue them to be within the Couenant â—o also proue that they are in infancie capable of the seale thus 1. If the lawe sealed infants to mercy then much more the ghospell 2. If God once accepted of infants to the seale of mercy then etc. 3. If the Ghospell once sealed infants it euer sealeth such infants except the ghospell and christ the foundation of the ghospell be yea and nay But this is false 2. Corrinth 1.20 Obj. Not being able to giue direct answer to these arguments they thus wrangle Som may bewithin the Couenant and yet vnsealed for femals vnder the lawe were within the Couenant yet vnseald Ans. To omit this that femals were then sealed in the Male vntill a virgin femall had brought forth a Male for recouering that which Heuah lost for who knoes not that she was of Adams bone and was also called Adam to passe by that what ryme or reason is there in this argument Som infants haue bene within the couenant vnseald therfore all infants within the couenant are to be vnseald In Cambridge this wold be called Tom Skuls argument Som haue therfore all are From Som to Som may be som conseqution or from All to som. If because som then within the covenant were vnsealed now som within the Couenant are to be vnsealed then we pray them leâ— the seede of vnbeleiuers whome they say are within the couenant be those Som that are to be vnsealed Obj. For want of matter they giue vs moe words and say Circumcision was a sacrament of works but Baptisme a sacrament of Faith Ans. Lyke lips like lettuce for our sauiour saith that Circumcision was not of Moses but of the fathers Ioh. 7.22 and blessed Paul saith that Circumcision sealed faith Rom. 4.11 and in the 13. vers that it sealed that promise that was not by the Lawe that is by the works of the lawe but by fayth And the tyme of the guifte therof vz after he beleiued not after he wrought makes the case playner Obj. Ey saith the blynd Catabaptiste after Faith they sholde be seald because Baptisme seales faith Ans. So Paul hath taught that Circumcision only sealed Faith yet I trowe it also sealed Infants of the faithfull that yet professed no faith but in and by the Parent And therfore Abrahams children had faith Actuall in the Parent of whose loynes they were vntill they Apostated by rebellion and faith imputed vnto them Hauing no reason they first ask why the first day is not still kept Secondly what one president we haue in the newe testament of an infant baptized First for the day I answer That externall ceremonie is put away togither with thexternall signe Circumcision The day and the signe came in togither no maruel then if they depart togither Secondly no man demeth it symply vnlawfull to baptise the 8. day Thirdly if that 8. day was partly a figure of the day after the 7. wherin our Christ rose for our iustification which is in a sense the 8. day Ioh. 20.26 and so therewithall of our lords day it may then teach that the lords church prouided they be not in the vnconstituted wildernes it is that being the speciall day of Convocation to be obserued for Baptisme For the other question I will first answer with another question Is nothing warrantable wherof there is not direct and expresse warrant in the new Testament Indeed such teachers flatly reiect the old testament May a man marry with his syster No. How proues thow that by the new testament The 1. Cor. 5.1 is of a mother and I talke of a syster It may be that that Incestuous person was one of these madding spirits that thought nothing of the old might stand with the Newe without expresse warrant in the newe Secondly it is saide the whole housholde was baptised Act. 16.15 et 33. as it is said that all Abrahams houshold was circumcised Gen. 17.23.27 the one ey looking to the other for likenes of speach and action shal we thincke that there was no infant nor anie one but could professe true faith It is absurd Nay the Apostle telleth the Iaylor plainly that if himself beleiue his whole houshold that is such as were vnder his tuition were within the compasse of saluation He doth not say If thou and all thyne houshold belieue but If thow beleiue And indeed so it was with Abraham he beleiuinge the lord looked not if his houshold beleiued togither with him his whole housholde was sealed 1. Let the Catabaptists knowe therfore that with Herods servants
had no better Baptisme Where is there anie Baptisme that hath not lyneallie bene diduced from the Corruption of Rome The strength of our Baptisme is in the practise of the Apostles and primatiue church for the first hundred yeares and we cannot com back vnto that age but through the Corruptest age of Romes Church If this Baptisme then be wholy fallen then we must be all vnbaptised till som other Iohn Baptist or Christ himself com downe againe to begin and lay the foundation a newe Except it be lawfull for euery man to Baptise and then I se not why others before vs aswell as now did not well inough baptise These absurd errours following vpon the denyall of the former conclusion haue not bene considered of many for had they many poore english sowles wold not so haue hunted after new Baptismes And if Baptisms administred in the grossest popery be notwith standing not to be repeated how much lesse the Baptisme administred by the church of Englande where the foundation of Christian faith is layde suerly If it now be replyed though Baptisme haue bene administred in som tollerable measure yet it may as the supper of the lord be againe administred else why is the plurall nomber Baptismes Heb. 6.2 vsed as also why doth Paul Act. 19.2.3.4.5 Baptise som againe who be fore had bene baptized by Iohn or by Apollos 1. I answer first to the word Baptismes or washinges the Learned haue affirmed Beza in Heb. 6.2 that it was the custom of primatiue churches to referre baptisme ouer vnto the days of Easter and Pentecost forwhich cawse they were called the Days of Baptisme that is of baptizinge Many Catechumenistes vnto which practise Mayster Beza demeth this forme of speach had relation That this Epistle to the Heb. shold be so late written for myne owne part I doubt and therfore though not easly be remoued from such a blessed mans iudgment yet I cannot for the present vrge it much 2. Baptismes also may plurally be vsed because Many were at one tyme baptized that being the tyme of the lords haruest though not at the former two tymes as Act. 2.41 etc. 10.47.48 3. Thirdly it was customarie with the westerne Churches to baptise with 3. dippings as signifyinge the Trinitie of persons in the vnitie of one essence why may not Baptismata importe these immmersions in one baptisme 4. Besides if baptizing of feete Ioh. 13. were not a Ciuil but an Ecclesiasticall ordinance and who knowes not that it was of auncient vsed why may not Baptismes haue relation to this and the other Baptisme this being called by som auncient the Consummation of the sacrament Any of these 4. senses are more probable then Anabaptisme or Rebaptization 2. To the place in the Acts I answer such learned as deme Paul to baptise those disciples vers 5. They expound this Baptisme by ver 6. not to be the common Baptisme with water but the peculiar baptizing them with the holy ghoste that is a conferringe of extraordinarie guifâ—es by layinge on of hands And of this mynd is Mr. Caluin Mr. Beza and others more attent to the Originall or Greeke text ioyning the 5. ver vnto ver 4. they obserue the greeke particle de to answer vnto the particle men goinge in the former clawse Pauls speach according to thenglish vers-section lieth in ver 2.3.4.5 His Action vers 6. That therfore vers 5. Paul relates to haâ—t bene Iohns action viz That Iohn baptised his disciples in the name of the Lord Iesus after he had taught his hearers to beleiue in Christ. Far inough therfore is this place from Anabaptizinge or Polybaptisme Conclus 6. Imposition in som corrupt manner Imposition of handes to the ministry of the word sacraments administred by an Ecclesiasticall Ouer-seer or ouer-seers by the appointment of that church wherevnto He or They so ouer-se it holdinge the foundation of justifyinge fayth the hands so imposed being to a man tollerablie qualified for the work of the ministry though otherwise the Imposer Imposed Church be notably corrupt in manie thinges such imposition is not vpon any occasion afterwardes to be repeated or againe don Examination THe equitie of the 5. Conclusion is vnto this an inuincible Ramperâ— If there be as but One god howsoeuer corruptly worshipped by Manie so but one baptisme Ephes. 4.5 though the same baptisme be by manie corruptly Giuen and Taken what shold let that layinge on of handes may not by like proportion of iustice passe on without interruption the ordenance of god vnreiterate though otherwise corruptly Giuen and Taken Specially if Baptisme stand good though administred in the grossest idol church and that vnto vnbeleiuers and their seede what shold let that Imposition by and to such as holde the mayne grounds of iustifyinge faith it sholde not much more remayne effectuall If they iumpe ouer the orderly Callinge or Election vnto this Imposition so much more iumpe they ouer manie Orderly Trialls and approbations for pitchinge vpon Baptisme If the former more rude ouerships yet frustrate not baptisme much lesse can this ouer-leape annihil imposition But som wil say that hands may be ofâ—ner imposed as the Lord his Supper ofter administred This is easely propounded but how will it be proued Nay is there not far more seminge reasons why the former Baptisme might be repeated Shewe me somuch as one seminge argument drawen from Doctrine or Example in the whole booke of good Sic volo sic iubeo or autos ephe wyll not be sufficient ground for my conscience Now steppeth in one with an imagination of a deepe difference betwixt Baptisme and Layng on of handes for saith he Lay-men or the Common people may in a Churches begininge and first razing lay on handes as Nomb. 8.10 so may they not Baptize 1. First for argument salte let it be vnderstood so in Nomb. 8.10 Yet it followeth not That watsoeuer was lawfull to be don then of the common people that also is stil lawfull If they put out the vniuersall All or whatsoeuer and say Somthynge that the Common people then did may now be don This I graunt But that sacramentall imposition is one of these Somthinges how will that be proued Nay marke the contrarie In the Begininge of the New testaments church people had no such libertie and this appeareth in that Christ and the Apostles from Christ and the Euangelists from the Apostles did stil set forward this OrdinaÌ„ce If Moses were same in this point It foloweth not that Christ is so vnto his Tabernacle Common people might Circumcise may they therfore now baptize answer that and then I shall haue somthinge more herein to say and yet make nothinge for recapitulating Imposition 2. But what if the place of Nombers teach not that Mr. Calvin and others vnderstand there a Part for the Whole and comparinge it with a practise of church which rather required the act of the vulgar sorte Nehem. 10.29 it semeth most like that by people he meaneth