Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	church_n	pillar_n	1,918	5	10.1330	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84133	The Anabaptists ground-work for reformation: or, New planting of churches, that no man, woman, nor child, may be baptized, but such as have justifying faith, and doe make profession thereof, before, to the baptizer, found false, with all things depending thereon. As being contrary to the Scriptures, and to the examples of Christ and his Apostles, ... Proved by severall arguments. Whereunto one T.L. a principall baptizer, (and apostle in their account) hath given his answers. Unto which answers, replies are also made by I.E. and some arguments annexed, proving, that the children of all such beleevers as were baptized, and so received into the Church, might be baptized, and received also. With a brief declaration what the true reformation is, and shal be, farre above these Anabaptists, and all such carnall builders conceits. And who the two witnesses of God are, by whom chiefly it is to be performed. Imprimatut [sic]. Iames Cranford,	Etherington, John, fl. 1641-1645.; Lamb, Thomas, d. 1686.	1644 (1644)	Wing E3381; Thomason E50_2; ESTC R23515	28,610	37

through the name of Christ a gift of the Spirit of God sufficient to make him a fit subject for Baptisme then he did his being in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquitie through the spirit of Satan sometime after All one as if T. L. should say and argue to prove that Judas his t●eason against Christ so wickedly acted by him when the Divell was entred into him so long after he had through the word of Christ and gift of the holy Ghost beleeved and was baptized made him as fit a subject for baptisme as the faith that he had when he was baptized in the esteeme of Luke and the rest of the Evangelists that writ of him which were very blasphemous to speake or once to goe about to argue to such purpose And whereas T. L. in his third place saith By this reasoning it will follow that a person which in case were in the Church should be excommunicated out of it by the rule should be received into the Church by baptisme which were contradictious In this T. L. saith true in respect to his owne reasoning for if Simon Magus his being in the gall of bitternesse c. made him as fit a subject for baptisme as the faith he had when he was baptized then he was now well fitted by T. L. his arguing to be baptized again and it is very probable if one may judge upon probabilities which is T. L. his rule that he hath baptized some such persons himselfe again and again And let me ask T. L. if it be not contradictious for a Baptizer though as great an Apostolicke one as himselfe to judge all that he baptizeth to have justifying faith and to be a Church of regenerate Saints and yet be but a Church of hypocrites for any certaintie of judgement he hath to the contrary The fifth Argument If Christ and his Apostles knew that there were and would be in the Church such beleeving Disciples baptized according to the rule of Christ as would be like the stony and thorny ground as well as good ground hypocrites and such as would offend the little ones that beleeved in Christ and despise him hold heresies c. and that it must needs be so that they which are approved may be known Then did not Christ nor his Apostles judge and account all that were and would be in the Church to be of the little ones that beleeved in Christ of the approved ones But Christ and his Apostles knew that there were and would be such in the Church as well as of the little ones the approved ones as it is evident by Matth. 13.21 22. Ioh. 6.64 65. Acts 5.1 2. Acts 8.13 Acts 20.29 30. Matth. 18.6 7. 1 Cor. 11.18 19. and sundry other places Therefore they did not so account and judge of all The Answer of T. L. I answer this argument confounds things that are to be distinguished First we must distinguish between the judgement and account of Christ which was above the rule given to the Apostles to judge by and the Apostles judgement according to the same rule Secondly we must distinguish between being and what possibly they might be and the Apostles judgement in relation to both Thirdly we are to distinguish between the whole joyntly and the parts severally and the Apostles judgement in relation to either Lastly we are to distinguish of the persons in respect of the time of their comming for baptisme and the time of their continuance in the Church These things thus premised the answer is easie First that Christ knowing things infallibly did not account of all that were admitted into the Church by baptisme to be true beleevers and approved and yet no rule to baptize any other but such as were so judged when they were admitted by them that admitted them and none of the places alledged doe prove the contrary The Apostles indeed might judge that those whom they conceived to have justifying faith according to probabilitie might possibly be destitute of it according to certainty And that although there were contentions and some great faults in the Church in the generall so concluded by the Apostles yet not determined who were the particulars alwayes that caused the same might leave the search of that to the Congregation who were to censure them accordingly And also having found the particulars they being in the Church the event of private and brotherly admonition and reprehension must be tried before they be excommunicated Whereas if they were not of the Church they must manifest repentance for every evill known before they be received to baptisme Matth. 3.6 Act. 2.38 The Reply of I. E. First where T. L. saith the Argument confounds things that are to be distinguished he speaks not truly it confounds nothing only it proves sufficiently that Christ and his Apostles did know and so may we by their testimonies and our owne experience that there alwayes were and would be in the Church baptized according to rule such as the places quoted doe describe and that the Church in the outward state thereof generally considered was never nor is otherwise to be judged of There will be false brethren false teachers hypocrites such as hold heresies stony ground thorny ground covetous persons lovers of this present world proud boasters lovers of pleasures more then lovers of God carnall corrupt persons whose belly is their God minding earthly things having eys full of adultery contentious c. And also of Gods elect some yet remaining like some of the former of them unregenerate and some regenerate sanctified ones justified by faith in Iesus Christ whom the holy Ghost calleth good ground trees of righteousnesse the children of wisedome the children of God the called of God in Iesus Christ beloved of God Saints by calling sanctified in Iesus Christ the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth the body and spouse of Christ living stones built on Iesus Christ the chief corner stone a spirituall house a Kingly Priesthood which doe offer up spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ and of whom Christ saith And upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it c. For although the other evill sorts are altogether with these in the outward state of the Church partaking with them in common things yet these onely properly and truly spiritually and inwardly considered are the Church of the living God his Temple and Tabernacle And to this Church doe all the most speciall peculiar priviledges and treasures graces gifts and promises belong And when the Apostles wrote their Epistles to the severall distinct Churches as that of Rome Corinth and the rest they directed them chiefly to these who were beloved of God called to be Saints sanctified in Christ Iesus as appeareth plainly Rom. 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.2 1 Thess 1.1.4 1 Pet. 1.2 Although they did not sever them by name nor by person from the

nor could they so judge of all whom they baptized neither did they require such a profession from them as T. L. would have it Thirdly whereas T. L. saith that although Christ did not take it for granted nor so judge yet the Apostles did which to prove he quotes Phil. 1.7 the words are these Even as it is meet for me to think of you all Whereby T. L. would make Paul like unto himselfe to put no difference between judging upon knowledge and confidence and thinking well upon some kind of hope or probabilitie Wherein he greatly wrongs the Apostle For the Apostle he directing his Epistle especially to the Saints as his usuall manner was to all other Churches so unto the Saints in Philippi of whose fruit hee had had good experience judgeth confidently of many thinks well of all that he writes to and sayes of others clean contrary For many walke of whom I have told you often and now tell you even weeping that they are enemies to the crosse of Christ wh●se end is destruction c. Phil. 3.18 So that this place serves nothing at all to prove as T. L. would have it that the Apostles took that for granted to be which was not and judged contrary to Christs judgement The fourth Argument Which is to prove That such a beleife as those disciples had that fell away mentioned Matth. 13.21.22 Ioh. 16.64.65 Acts 5.1.2 Acts 8.17 is sufficient for outward baptisme To this preface of the Argument T. L. first answers saying To which I answer that it is sufficient in respect of the Minister who cannot but conclude them to have justifying faith by their profession till they manifest the contrary but not sufficient in respect of the subject requiring Baptisme The Reply of I. E. to this In this answer T. L. speaks again as though Christs Ministers were bound by the word of the Lord and their own consciences to conclude the glad receiving of the Word such a beleef as men may have fall from and so perish to be justifying faith and the people so to conclude of it in themselves and professe So upon their profession being a lie the Minister is to conclude a lie for a truth and so baptize them Whereas if the people had been so ignorant and bold as to conclude their glad receiving the word or beleefe which they might have and yet fall away and perish to be true justifying Faith professe as much yet the true Ministers of Christ especially the Apostles they understood better and knew justifying Faith to be a more excellent thing and therefore would have reproved their ignorance and boldnes and informed them truly what justifying Faith was and the necessity of it according as Christ and his Apostles did afterward very often and that with many exhortations and teares as the Scriptures witnesse knowing that their gladly receiving the word that common beliefe and outward baptisme was not sufficient to salvation T. L. quotes for the ground of his opinion doctrine Luk 14.33 which how it serves for his turn you may see The Argument it selfe That which the holy Ghost hath by the Evangelist Luke written down and affirmed of Simon Magus he knew to be true and wee are bound to beleeve it But the holy Ghost hath by the Evangelist Luke written down and affirmed that Simon Magus also as the other of Samaria beleeved and was baptized Therefore such a beliefe as Simon Magus had was and is sufficient for outward baptisme according to the Rule The answer of T. L. I answer true in respect of Philip who when he baptized him did not know but that hee had justifying faith but in respect of Simon himselfe not so Secondly I answer that as Luke affirmes of his Faith so he affirmes of his being in the gall of bitternesse and in the bond of iniquitie As the state of being in the gall of bitternesse and in the bond of iniquity doth not present a person a fit subject for baptisme in Lukes esteem no more doth such a Faith as doth not distinguish a person from such a one The former I suppose you will grant Ergo Luke doth not esteeme such a beliefe sufficient for baptisme according to the rule in respect of the subject baptized Thirdly by this reasoning it will follow that a person which in case were in the Church should be excommunicated out of the Church by the rule should be received into the Church by baptisme which is contradictious The Reply of I. E. Here again T. L. grants such a beliefe as Simon Magus had sufficient for outward Baptisme in respect of Philip who when he baptized him did not know but that he had justifying faith but in respect of Simon himselfe not so Where he maketh ignorance which he falsly chargeth Philip with to excuse him but not Simon Magus though he were far more ignorant than he And yet T. L. in his ignorance for I will not say he doth it with knowledge chargeth Philip with two severall great sinnes making him guiltie of them both in that he saith Philip did not know but that Simon Magus had justifying faith when he baptized him For if Philip was to have knowne and did not know that Simon had justifying faith and yet judged and concluded that he had it which is T. Ls. doctrine for the rule Then did Philip sinne in so judging and concluding not doing it of faith because whatsoever is not of faith is sinne as Paul saith Rom. 14. But Philip did not know that Simon had justifying faith yet he baptized him Therefore T. L. chargeth Philip with two great sinnes at least first in judging and concluding Simon to have that which he had not and secondly in his baptizing him upon the same also not of faith For if to eate and not of faith that is to say not of a full perswasion in the heart be sinne as Paul saith Rom. 14.23 then much more to judge and conclude in so great a matter as justifying faith to be in a man when it is not and to baptize him also and not of faith is sinne But it is otherwise then T.L. teacheth Philip did know assuredly and judge and conclude rightly of Simon Magus that he did beleeve as the other of Samaria beleeved So as that according to the rule and example of Christ he might be baptized and was And whereas secondly T.L. invents a kind of Argument against the Evangelist Luke from the Apostle Peters words to Simon Magus written down by Luke Thou art in the gall of bitternes c. saying As the state of being in the gall of bitternes and bond of iniquitie doth not present a person a fit subject for Baptisme in Luks esteem no more doth such a faith as doth not distinguish a person from such a one and hereupon wickedly but cunningly concludes that Luke did no more esteeme the faith that Simon Magus had by the preaching of Philip and his seeing the miracles that he did