Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	church_n	doctrine_n	1,773	5	6.7675	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13299	A Christian reprofe against contention Wherin is declared and manifested a just defence of the Church against such slanderes and reproches which Sabine Staresmore hath layd vpon vs in his two bookes, the first being 16 questions, called a louing tender. The second is his preface and postscript befor and behind Mr. Answorths last sermon, and making a pretence by that to sett it out as a loue token, hee breetheth out his malice against vs: and lastly her is an answer to a letter written by Mr. Robinson, and sent to vs with the consent of his Church, which now Mr. Staresmore hath published to the world. To these things an answer is giuen by A.T.	A. T., fl. 1631.; Thatcher, Anthony, attributed name.	1631 (1631)	STC 23605; ESTC S103240	40,101	48

driue it nay yet further I say that if the Church of Leyden vvho first receiued him and that by the vertue of that Couenant if they had come to see their errour in so doing yet vvould it not follovv that hee should bee desmembered seeing hee vvas separated but the Church ought to acknovvledge their sinne in so doing and to see that hee corrupted not other Reu. 2. 20. with his errour and that reason helpeth him not from Gen. 29. 24. where hee saith As Zilpah vvas not nor could bee rightfully Leahs handmaide except shee had bin Labanes first rightfully by whose gift shee was transmitted and conueyed vnto her Answer I grant that Laban could not rightfully giue her except shee had bin his rightfully before but if Laban had stollen her and Zilpah had run avvay and come to Leahs into the land of Cannan then Leahs might haue bought her or haue hiered her and yet Laban should haue no injury offered vnto him vnlesse his stealling her made her his rightfully vvhich ne●… man ought to say So likewise neither the Church of Leyden nor any true Church ought not to receiue any from such an vnseparated people seeing they haue but stollen the ordinances of God and haue no right vnto them And whereas hee bringeth these reasons to proue his deepe intrest in the bussines let all know that no conceited intrest vvill beare out any to maintaine an errour and therefore all his reasonings is of little weight And for that hee saith that the Couenant vvas by the Churches both here and there also in the time of those vvorthy gouernors now at rest in the Lord esteemed truely Christian I pray let vs examme the trueth of this that the Churches both here and there did so esteeme for our selues I may say that the Church neuer did receiue it and therefore not so esteeme it neither vvas the voice of the Church euer taken concerning that Couenant but vvhen they showed their minde to bee contrary vnto it and condemned it Or doth Mr. Robin thinke that because our teacher who was a mise informed did a little whille esteeme of the Couenant that therefore the Church must so esteeme also and thought that wee must doe as these which consented to this letter which followed o●… suffered him in all or the most of his declinings And for that Church which is present in the place vvhere those Couenantmaker are as wee are truely informed by themselues they did neuer receiue it How is this true then vvhich Mr. Robin sayd but if it had bin so what vveight is there in that reason to helpe the Couenant much like vnto the reason of the Pharises Iohn 7. 48. which sayd against Christ doth any of the Rulers or the Pharises beleeue in him but this people vvhich know not the law are cursed Therefore I conclud it is not the esteeme of Churches nor of gouernors which giueth authority to such things but the word of the Lord and where hee saith the party intended by you should by your grounds not haue bin cast out but left out of the Church Answer Our grounds inforce not that conclusion seeing the person vvas novv become a separated person and a member of the Church of Leyden from whence wee receiued him as before I haue showed in the next place there is a syd and a halfe of the printed letter spent to excues and to justify Mr. S. in that speech in the vvhich hee seemed to imitat Paule Actes 24. 14. but of that I haue spoken before yet still I answer that those his speechs did proue his stifnes in that his former course and therefore of reconciliation wee had no hope while hee so stod and continued and for Mr. Robinson profering to come and to justifie Mr. S. in that his former proceding to the which I answer wee know well that hee vvas redy to that bussines and that hee was one vvith him in that his errour and therefore just cause wee had not to bee redy to giue him intertainment to come as a moderator to middle the matter seeing wee find no such president in the booke of God yet this wee hold and professe that if any can show that vvee haue sinned in any thing vvee ought and are redy to heare them and this haue vvee signified vnto the Church of Leyden by letter and therefore the way vvas open for them to come in that manner In the next place hee saith And wheras the course well begone and tending to pacification was as wee vnderstand interrupted and broken of vpon a ground taken from the course of not calling againe into question ciuill judgments once passed by the judge according to right let it not bee greiuious vnto you if wee a little warne you of that dangerous foundation vpon which it seemes you to much build your manner of procedings in the Church Answer To hould that matters being ended according to right ought not at mens pleasures to bee called into question againe I see not this proued to bee dangerous by all that which Mr. Rob. haue sayd For if matters rightfully ended should at mens pleasurs bee called into question vvhen vvould their bee an end of contention either in the Church or in the common wealthes and for the distinction which hee puteth between the ending of ciuill judgments of the casting forth of the sinner by the Church namly that repentance should follow to these distinctions Wee agree and signifie withall that if wee could see that good worke in these persons in question there vvould bee quickly are conciliation but yet further I ansvver to take away occasion from such as take an occasion to cauill at things equall that wee hold it lawfull although a matter bee rightly ended yet vvee may go ouer it againe as the occasion may bee offered yea and more then once and this wee haue practised in this matter in the publique with these men diuers times but yet it vvill not follow that at mens pleasurs wee must do this and bring our liberty into bondage and so to vphold contention But wher hee saith that a larger extent of discretion this vvay fevv causes in any age can persuad to then this in hand considering both the ground and cariage of the thing and the number of the persons opposite and vvith these intrest of all other Church in the bussines Answer The comparison of any age is more fit to shovv eloquence and to set a glose vpon the thing in hand rather then to proue that for vvhich it is brought and for the ground and cariage of the thing I haue before spoken of it to the which I refere the Reader and for the number of the persons opposite I answer although I am sory they are so many yet I am glad they are so few seeing these men are such suttell opposers labour so much to corrupt the mindes of the simple and hauing with them Ioab the captaine and Abiather the Preist I meane Mr.

Robinson and his people to establish them in their straying and wee hauing bin to backeward to withstand them in these their doings These things considered it is the Lords mercy that wee are preserued but if these opposers were many more then they bee it is no argument of weight to cause vs to yelde to any vndirect course whereby the trueth should bee betrayed but obserue I pray you that one if not more then one of those persons whom Mr. Robin would at aime haue respected yet a little before hee calleth a light person and I will not striue with him about it seeing his or their change was like the Barbarians Act. 28. 6. and for the intrest of all other Churches in the bussines I answer I knovv no proper intrest that any Church had in this bussines for the which they were cast out but our owne in which they were members for vnto vs it did appertaine to looke vnto their faction in the vvhich faction they indeuoured to corrupte our members vvith that their errour and hath not euery Church a particular right to vvatch ouer their owne members therefore I conclude that this is but a glose to deceiue the minde of them that readeth it And vvheras hee telleth that satisfaction for the manner of the cariage hath bin tender by the parties censured Answer Wee should haue bin glad if they did tender repentance for the matters themselues and had they not bin vpholden by these men in these their errours it may bee before now long they might haue repented of the matters also for they were as stiffe at the first when they vvere cast out for the manner as the matters And where Mr. Robinson saith that in a matter of meere counsaile and aduise more then which neither the Church of London requiered nor you could afford them any particular person aduised with and hauing their reasons of differances from the Church persuasion may and in causes of weight such as this was ought by speech or vvriting as their is occasion signifie that their different judgment and aduise to them whom it concernes prouided the same bee done in good manner and with due respect to the Church Answer The trueth ought to bee respected and also the Church which maintained the trueth but neither of these was so respected as they ought as before bin showed by those men in that their doings Moreouer I could except against this that it was not properly counsail or aduise in this point in question vvhich that Church desired but to let this passe I ansvver might not any heriticke haue such pretences to broch their errours by such smouth grounds or termes as these bee vnder the pretence of counsaile or aduise what if the Church of Smyrna Reu. 2. 8. being solissited by a seducer to receiue the doctrine of Balaam and should therefore send to the Church at Pergamos Reu. 2. 12. for their counsaile to know whether they ought to receiue it or reject it if then the Church of Pergamos did giue them counsayle not to receiue it and that by the word of God might those others vvhich vvere corrupted vvith that errour in that Church gather themselues apart from the Church and send their counsaile to receiue that errour and so oppose the trueth and the Church in their procedings M. Robin saith yea in smouth tear●…es But I say no because that if the vers 14 Church of Pergamos and Thyatira Reu. 2. 20. were blamed for suffering them before to teach and deceiue the Lords people then their sinne would bee more to lett them go on to corrupte the Lords people although they should plead with Mr. Rob. smouth termes of counsaile or aduise and therefore the Scripture out of Prou. 11. 14. is by him abused neither is their any liberty taken away from any seeing none hath liberty to broach errour and herein was the Church to vse authority and also to show reason vvhich vvee haue done and vvhen wee did it although it was at the request of the Church to vvhome vvee vvrit then this man toke an occasion thereat to make all this trouble Further hee saith That seeing both Moyses in the Law Deut. 19. 15. and Christ in the Gospell Matth. 18. 15. 16. 17. ordains that euery matter should bee established by two or three witnesses Answer There were more then tvvo vvitnesses vvhich knew the facte vvhich they had done from their one mouth besides some that were their but what need is here not to presse for vvitnesse vvhen themselues allwayes confessed the fact only here is the difference they thinke it was well doing and so Mr. Robinson saith also but wee say and knovv it to bee euill why then do they not lay this contention a syd and stand to maintaine their cause to make it good or to acknowledge their euill and for these Scriptures by him alledged wee acknowledge the force of them that no man which denieth a fact can bee condemned vnder two witnesses but what of this I hope they should also acknowledge that if there bee no witnesse yet if a man do freely confesse a fact worthy of death that then that man should dye and yet those Scriptures not in the least broken for Dauid which put the Amalakit to death knew these Scriptures alledged and also hee knew that hee broke them not because his owne mouth was as sufficient as many vvitnesses Now if no more vvere sayd it were sufficient to gainsay that vvhich Mr. Robin saith that wee do herein against Moses and Christ and the Law of the nature it selfe where hee bringeth Actes 24. 8. 13. Yet further I answer Mr. Robin faileth in his ground for hee taketh it for granted from Mr. S. information that vvee went vpon suspected euills and this Mr. S. runeth vpon also bringing our 8. position as before is showed seeing then they mise in the ground all falleth at once and now you may see how well the Church of Leyden hath made good their charge and which Mr. S. boasted of before And therefore Mr. Rob. clamours of that large liberty which hee speaketh of and saith hee can maintaine will here fall to the ground But vvhere hee saith And novv brethren vvhat shall wee say more vnto you our and all other Churches aduise you reject in confidence of your owne vnerring judgment and proceding in this matter Answer For vs wee confesse that wee are subject to erre yet ought wee not therefore to forsake any part of the trueth for tanting words which Mr. Robinson herein vseth to reproch vs withall and also maketh a show of that which is not wherein hee dealeth like Mr. S. vvith vvhom hee is a brother in euill But vvhat and where are those other Churches hee speaketh of hee should therefore haue keept himselfe to his ovvne Church vvhich had consented to this euill Letter vvhich hee hath written but if hee could shovv other Churches vvhich did so aduise vs were it not a vvorthy argument to conuince vs. Therefore I