Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	church_n	faith_n	necessary_a	1,742	5	6.7179	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74998	Some baptismal abuses briefly discovered. Or A cordial endeavour to reduce the administration and use of baptism, to its primitive purity; in two parts. The first part, tending to disprove the lawfulness of infant baptism. The second part, tending to prove it necessary for persons to be baptized after they believe, their infant baptism, or any pre-profession of the Gospel notwithstanding. As also, discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mixt communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized, in church-fellowship. By William Allen.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1075; Thomason E702_12; ESTC R10531	105,249	135

sanctification was more comprehensive of all particulars requisite not onely to their being a Church simply considered as such but also as unto the excellency of such a being For their sanctification the thing by which they are described includes in it both their Baptism and all other parts and degrees of that qualification by which they were or might have been eminently the Churches of God Whereas Baptism being one of the principles or beginning Doctrines of Christ and such as which the Apostle leaves behind as it were when he endeavours to advance the Hebrew Church to higher perfections Hebr. 6.1 2 3. if the Apostle had described them by this his description of them would have fallen beneath their qualifications they having now made some progress in Christianity when those Epistles were written to them These things then considered the Apostle his describing the Churches to whom he wrote by such qualifications wherein Baptism is not particularly mentioned will not minister any ground of making Church Members of such who are not baptized 3. Object 3 Another Objection and indeed all that I know further considerable is this The Apostles exhortation to the Church at Rome was that they would receive such as were but weak in the faith to wit such as erroniously held it necessary to abstain from such meats which in themselves were indifferent and lawfull to be used Rom 14.1 2. and if their weakness in the faith or error in their knowledg hereabout was no sufficient bar against their admission into Church fellowship then why should a like error and weakness in men now about Baptism be counted a sufficient and just impediment to their admission into Church Communion For answer to this Answ several things may be considered by which gradually we may come to a clear resolution and full satisfaction in the Case as touching the invalidity of this Objection As 1. That as on the one hand it is not every weakness in faith or errour in knowledge about the things of the Gospel that does exclude a man from Church-Fellowship as appears by the Scripture now mentioned in the Objection so on the other hand it is not every profession of the faith neither which men make that does render them duly capable of it For then the worst of men if but making any kind of profession of the Christian Religion should be admittable into the Communion of Saints which yet is a thing altogether dissonant unto the Laws of Church-communion Some errours then must be acknowledged to be in some men professing the Gospel which do justly debar them from Church-communion 2. This being granted in the next place to the end men may be upon terms of certainty is to know what errours they be which do de jure exclude men from Church-Fellowship and what do not recourse must be had to some fixed standing rule by which to make a right judgment in the case otherwise men will but rove at random and be in danger of making such errours exclusive of mens Church-membership which are not as likewise of making the door of this admission wider then God hath made it 3. That then which must be the standard by and according to which to make a right judgment in the case must be that thing what ever it be which is appointed by God as the next and immediate means appropriately of mens visible union with the Church and the reason hereof is because as on the one hand less then a mans coming up to that mean what ever it be which is the immediate inlet into the Church cannot minister either a right or opportunity of his being of the Church so on the other hand nothing more then this can be duly insisted on as absolutely necessary to make a man capable thereof and therefore who ever attains thereto cannot upon any account of infirmities otherwise be justly debarred his communion with the Church 4. That thing then which is the appropriate and immediate means of a mans visible entrance into and union with the Church is Baptism it being as the Bridge over which or as the Gate through which men declaredly pass over from the friendship of the world into the fellowship of the Saints this hath formerly been proved and therefore needs not here to be repeated It is true indeed Baptism is properly the immediate means of admission into the universal Church but whoever is by it duly made a member of the universal Church hath thereby a right of admission into a particular Church and not otherwise 5. Therefore in the last place If Baptism duly administred and received or mens coming up to the laws and terms of its due administration be the standard according to which men are to be judged meet or unmeet for Church-communion then it follows that whatever errours or infirmities are in men yet if they be not of that nature as to detain them from imbracing Baptism on Scripture terms those errours do not cannot justly debar them of Communion with the Church and on the other hand whatever other quallification there is in men towards the disposing and fitting of them for Church communion yet if they be under the power and command of any such errour which causes them to refuse baptism upon those terms according to which upon Scripture account it ought to be administred and so causes them to fall short of the formall and immediate mean of their regular union and visible conjunction with the Church that errour does necessarily deprive them both of right and opportunity of being of the Church visibly These things then being duly considered we may easily come to a resolution about the two Cases mentioned in the Objection viz. Whether this errour about Baptism of which we speak does no more deprive men of a right of admission into Church-Fellowship then that weakness in the faith did of which the Apostle speaks For that error about abstaining from meats which is the weakness in the faith of which the Apostle there speaks being an errour of that nature only which did not keep them that were under it from closing with Baptism as the means of their union with the Church I mean upon those terms according to which God had authorized the administration and reception of it but that they might and did repent and believe the main Principles of the Gospel the terms quallifying men for Baptism and did thereupon receive Baptism for all this weakness of theirs Hence it came to pass that they were to be admitted into Church-communion this weakness of theirs notwithstanding But now their errour about Baptism of whom we speak being an errour of that nature by which they are kept off from imbracing Baptism upon Scripture terms and so of attaining to and making use of that which is the appropriate mean of their visible union with the Church this errour of theirs does in a direct way unavoidably cut them short both of right and opportunity of a regular admission into Church-Fellowship There being then so broad a difference between the two errours compared in the Objection as you see there is the one consisting with the other being repugnant to that very mean without which a visible conjunction and union with the Church is not attainable on Scripture terms it therefore no wise follows that because the one was no just impediment unto mens Church-Fellowship that therefore the other is not neither for where things and cases do really differ as these do there the consequences of those things cannot be the same Thus having finished my Answers to these Objections I suppose it doth appear by what hath been offered to consideration on this behalf these Objections notwithstanding that persons baptized refusing to joyn themselves in Church-communion with those who are unbaptized is not without such grounds which will render them approved in so doing ERRATA PAge 6. l. 29. for to r. by p. 10. l. 15. r. is p. 16. l. 3. for end r. need p. 18. l. 19. for disciples read visible members p. 20. l. 35 for who r. we p. 21. l. 20. r. of p. 22. l. ● r. no. p. 22. l. 33. for any r. my p. 84. l. 20. for dealings r. deelinings p. 89. l. 7. r. to p. p 91. l. 4. r. upon p. 93 l. 38. omit old p. 93. l. 37. omit the deeds p. 94. l. 30. omit in p. 109. l. 7 for into r. unto p. 109 l. 19 for lights r. light The End

living active Faith which is the Faith of Gods acceptation and therefore to believe and to obey are in Scripture frequently put one for another and accordingly indifferently so translated as appears by the double readings I shall not here again answer the case of Infant-Circumcision which possibly may again rise up in the minds of some against what hath been now layd down in this Argument also but shall refer the Reader for satisfaction herein to what hath been already done about that subject in answer to a former Objection as judging it sufficient at this turn also I shall not proceed further to levy more Arguments to serve in this Controversie unless occasionally though many more of like import with the former might perhaps readily be formed and drawn up as judging these already insisted on abundantly sufficient to detect the vanity of Infant-Baptism Nor shall I apply my self to answer those many contrary Arguments which are wont to be mustered up in defence of Infant-Baptism not because I count them or any of them either impregnable or of hard or difficult attempt but partly because in those Arguments I have produced there is a ground or foundation layd of answering all contrary reasonings and which is of easie application this way and partly because some of the chiefest Arguments on that side have been produced already Objection-wise and received their answer and partly likewise because this hath been sufficiently done by other hands and lastly for brevity sake as perceiving copious discourses hereabout to be burdensom But because there is one Argument which seems to be much taking with some which as it is of a later invention then others so perhaps hath not received such answer and refutation as others have therefore as to this I shall give in some what by way of answer The Argument is this If the love of God to persons be the first and original ground of their being capable of Baptism then Infants are capable of Baptism The reason of this consequence is because Infants are in the love and favor of God in as much as God hath pardoned that sin of which they were guilty in and by Adam and so put them into a condition of Salvation by Christ But the love of God to persons is the original or first ground of their being capable of Baptism Assumption To make good this minor Proposition two things are alledged 1. That the reason why Faith is necessary in persons who have not been baptized in their Infancy to render them capable of Baptism is because it is that mean by which those that are to administer Baptism come to know that they are in the love and favor of God and if such a thing could be known without such a profession of Faith as it may in the case of Infants such a profession of Faith would not be necessary in order to such an admission 2. That it was upon this ground that Christ himself was capable of Baptism for otherwise he had no such Faith as is required of men to render them capable of Baptism viz. a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ but as he was a person beloved of God upon this account Baptism did belong to him and accordingly was administred And yet that Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary though he himself was a person extraordinary but upon the same terms upon which others do and ought to receive it appears by this viz. in that even his Baptism was administred and received in conformity to a standing Rule or Law of Righteousness common to others as well as to him for so he himself saith to John Baptist speaking of his own Baptism Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness Matt. 3.15 Before I come to answer particularly to this Argument Answ I shall desire these two things may be observed by the way 1. That this Argument contradicts another that is wont to be employed in this service to wit that the promise of God belongs to children of believing Parents and therefore Baptism by which Baptism is restrained to such Infants onely as are the children of believing Parents But by this Argument Baptism is made to appertain to all Infants whatsoever whether they be children of believing or unbelieving Parents because it supposes all Infants to be in the love of God in the forementioned respect and therefore if this be true the other must be false in its restrained sence and contrarily if the other true this false so that you see the witnesses do no better agree in their evidence in this behalf then the false witnesses did that came against Christ in their testimony 2. This Argument if it were good would render not onely all Infants capable of Baptism But all men likewise whether Christian or Pagan because they are beloved of God in such a sence as it 's said Infants are to wit in having that sin of which they were guilty in Adam remitted to them For if that sin were remitted to them in their Infancy surely that act of grace and pardon is not recalled when they come to be men in as much as we no where find in Scripture that any mens perishing is at all charged upon that sin which they were guilty of in Adam but upon their own voluntary neglect of Grace and on their actual transgression And therefore if it be absurd as I suppose it will be granted to be to argue all mens capability of Baptism from this ground which yet is common to all men as well as Infants why should it be thought any other then absurd likewise to infer Infants capability of Baptism from the same ground Since in things which are the same or like there is the same or like Reason and Judgment as Logicians speak But to come closer to the Argument I do deny the consequence of the major Proposition I do deny that it therefore follows that Infants are capable of Baptism though it should be granted that the love of God is the original ground of rendering persons capable thereof And the reason of this denyal is taken from that difference which is between the original ground of persons capability of Baptism and the next and immediate ground thereof for however the love of God be the ground of all Dispensations of good to the Creature yet it is not som the self same respect but as it exhibits it self in one Dispensation of it in one respect so in another Dispensation thereof it exhibits it self upon other terms and respects And therefore we must distinguish of the love of God as it is the ground of Baptism The love of God then is to be considered either 1. In the whole entire sum or body of it generally and indefinitely considered as comprehending and enclosing in it all particular Dispensations of Grace towards the Creature or else 2. As it exerts or puts forth it self in those particular Dispensations themselves

righteousness then was in the multitude that were baptized before him and if not this what else imaginable but this viz. that his * Iesus said unto them My time is not yet come but your time is alway ready Joh. 7.6 appointed time and season of his appearing with the Gospel in the world was not till then and therefore not his time of being baptized in as much as the one was in order to the other and was to take its rise and beginning from the other And this we have further reason the rather to conceive because of that Particle NOW emphatically here used as it relates to the fulfilling of righteousness by that which was to be done Suffer it to be so NOW saith Christ to Joh. touching his being baptized For thus it becometh us to fulfil allrighteousness Mat. 3.15 Not only in being baptized of him but in being baptized of him NOW to wit at that juncture of time in which he was to be manifested to the world to be the Son of God to manifest to the world the Gospel of God NOW to be baptized viz. upon suchterms it was a thing very comely though John seemed to think otherwise in as much as that it was a fulfilling of righteousness i.e. that righteous law or institution of God given in that behalf And thus we see that the example of Christ's Personal Baptism which was intreated to bless the opinion for Infant Baptism hath contradicted it altogether The Second Part SHEWING How necessary it is for persons to be baptized after they believe their Infant-Baptism notwithstanding as also discovering the disorderly and irregular Communion of persons baptized with such as are unbaptized in Church Fellowship HAving in the former part of this Discourse laid down part of those grounds and reasons which have swayed my judgment and satisfied my conscience in the sight of God touching the unlawfulness of Infant Baptism and which I doubt not will have the like influence and operation upon the unbyassed minds of other men It remains now that I come to speak something to these two questions following 1. Whether men may not rest satisfied with that Baptism which was administred to them in their Infancy without any further reception of Baptism afterwards notwithstanding they come to understand the irregularity of their Infant Baptism 2. Whether it be necessary for such persons who have for some considerable space of time made profession of the faith though as yet unbaptized whether it be necessary for them to be baptized since the ends of Baptism seem to be anticipated by such a continued profession As touching the former of these Questions I conceive I may affirm that none may safely and without danger of sin rest satisfied with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy they coming once to understand the irregularity and sinfulness of Infant Baptism and I do assert it upon these grounds 1. Because the Apostle Paul as may reasonably be conceived did not hold it convenient or safe for certain Disciples with whom he met to rest satisfied with such a Baptism as had been formerly either erroneously administred to them or else which was deficient as touching some special ends of that Baptism which was enjoyned the Disciples of Christ but did proceed to baptize them or to cause them to be baptized afresh The Case before us is touching those certain Disciples which Paul found at Ephesus and of whom he demanded Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed Unto whom they replyed That they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost Vnto what then said Paul were ye baptized And they said Vnto Johns Baptism Then said Paul John verily baptized with the Baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him that was to come after him that is on Christ Jesus When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them c. Acts 19.1.2.3.4.5.6 In this passage of Scripture there are three things which I would have observed as to my present purpose The first is touching the Baptism which these Disciples are said formerly to have received The second is touching their later Baptism which they received upon Pauls instructing them And the third is touching the reason why they were now baptized upon Pauls preaching to them notwithstanding they had formerly been baptized unto Johns Baptism 1. That these Disciples had been formerly baptized unto Johns Baptism is that which they themselves affirm verse 3. 2. That the same Disciples were now again baptized upon Pauls preaching Christ to them I conceive fairly appears by those words ver 5. When they heard this viz. that which Paul had declared to them they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus There are indeed two other Interpretations of these words urged by some that do much differ from that sence which I have now given but are both beside the Scope and meaning of the place as I suppose I shall presently make appear 1. Some by their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as here in this place would have us to understand it not of their being baptized with water but of their being baptized with the Spirit which is Master Calvins sence upon the place and so he takes these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and those that follow in the next verse viz. And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied to import one and the same thing and that the later words are only an Explanation of the former shewing after what manner they were baptized and he further saith That for the visible graces of the Spirit which were given by the laying on of hands for this to be expressed by the name of Baptism is no new thing as he does alledg from Acts 1.5 and 11.16 But 1. That their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and their receiving the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands were not the same thing as is alledged may be discerned 1. By a due consideration both of the different nature of the actions themselves and the successive order of those different actions For the doctrine and so the practise of Baptism is one thing and that of laying on of hands is another as is apparent by that of the Apostle Heb. 6.2 where the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands are differenced by the same note of distinction by which the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are differenced from them both And the same thing appears from the order and suecession of these different actions as well as from the different nature of them For we have 1. Pauls teaching of these Disciples distinctly mentioned 2. The baptizing of them in Name of Christ

the first and purest times of that administration If then the right subject matter to be baptized and the due external form of Baptism be both wanting in that Baptism which is and hath been administred to infants then certainly such a Baptism hath that wanting in it which is essential to the true being of Baptism For what is more intrinsecally essential to the being of a thing then matter and form Or how is it possible to define Baptism or any thing else without the matter and form which do intrinsecally constitute the very essence and being thereof And certainly that which is absolutely necessary to the true definition of Baptism as of all other things is absolutely and essentially necessary to the being of it And therefore where either the true matter or the right form of a thing is wanting much more where both are wanting which is the case in Infant-Baptism there doubtless is a total deficiency or non-entity of the thing it self which clearly is the case of Infant-Baptism in reference to the question in hand And therefore he that thinks to build any such thing upon that Baptism he hath received in his Infancy which is competent or proper to true Baptism indeed hath but air and vanity for his foundation THe second thing to be enquired into is Whether baptism by water ought necessarily to be received by such persons who have for some considerable space of time made profession of the faith though it be granted that they were never duly baptized before since such a long continued course of profession preceding baptism renders such an Administration of that Ordinance unparallel and without example in Scripture and since also the ends of Baptism hereby seem to be anticipated or prevented Which question I must needs resolve in the affirmative and do say That notwithstanding all that is pretended to the contrary it is a thing necessary and a duty incumbent on every such man and woman as hath not been baptized before with a baptism duly so called to submit to and take up the Ordinance of water-baptism though it be not till long after the time in which they first began a conscientious profession of the Gospel otherwise Here I take for granted upon account of what I have before delivered that Infant-baptism and no baptism are of the same consideration this difference only excepted viz. That Infant-baptism is a sin of Commission in those that occasion it and Non-baptism is a sin of Omission in those that neglect it when otherwise they are duly qualified for it In the managing of this resolution of the question I shall endeavour 1 To lay down some reasons and grounds thereof And 2. To answer those exceptions and objections which take place in the minds of some against the practise of Baptism upon such terms The grounds on which I do assert Baptism necessary though but on the terms before specified are such as these 1. Because it is a duty enjoyned every one that imbraceth the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to be baptized one time or other This appears by that Commission which was given by Christ to his Servants and Messengers to teach all Nations or every creature as Mark hath it Mark 16.15 and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28.19 In which Commission there are these two things enjoyned amongst others 1. That they should teach all Nations or every creature capable of this teaching i.e. should instruct them in the Doctrine of the Gospel or make them Disciples as the word is rendred Now if we would know what they were to teach and in what to instruct them we may take information here about from the practise of the Apostles when first at Jerusalem they began to put this Commission in execution the brief Sum whereof was to this effect That Jesus of Nazareth approved of God by miracles wonders and signes being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledg of God was by wicked hands crucified and slain and that God raised him up from the dead the third day and hath made him the same Jesus both Lord and Christ They also further taught the people that in order to their being saved by him they should repent and be baptized in his Name for the remission of sins Acts 2.32.28 2. The other part of Christs Commission was that having thus taught the people and made them willing to imbrace the Gospel they should then also baptize them in pursuance of which Commission the Apostles did accordingly in the place and time and to the people before specified Acts 2. For saith the Text ver 41. They that gladly or willingly received his word were baptized According to which beginning we shall find that they constantly proceeded afterwards Acts 8.12.35.37 and 10.36.48 and 16 14 14.31.33 and 18.8 Now then if it were the duty of these Servants of Christ to teach all Nations to repent believe in Christ Jesus and to be baptized in his Name for the remission of sins then certainly it was the duty of all these Nations being thus taught to obey this voice of the Gospel as well in being baptized as in repenting and believing And by the way lest any should think the Date of this Commission lasted but during the Apostles dayes the Lord Jesus in annexing the promise of his presence and assistance to those that should put this Commission of his in execuon causeth the Date hereof to run along to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 which plainly shews that he would have this Commission of his observed and kept on foot even unto the worlds end A second Ground is this Because Baptism being one of the Doctrines of Christ which is practicable ought therefore to be imbraced and practised by all that profess themselves Disciples of Christ and followers of his Doctrine That Baptism is one of the Doctrines of Christ appears by Heb. 6.1 2. Those things which in general are called the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ ver 1. being afterwards particularized the Doctrine of Baptisms is set down for one of those Principles It 's a Doctrine of Christ both because it is a Doctrine concerning Christ in and by which Christ is set forth professed owned acknowledged as also because it is a Doctrine which Christ hath enjoyned to be taught and practised And whereas the word is used in the plural number Doctrine of Baptisms it doth not weaken but strengthen the authority of Water-baptism as being comprehensive of that and any other Baptism taught by Christ Now that the Doctrine of Christ ought to be obeyed and practised by all that profess themselves his Disciples will not be gain-say'd in as much as at what time they give up themselves to him and in particular make a solemn Dedication of themselves to him and his service by Baptism they are said to be delivered into the form of his Doctrine as the Marginal reading imports Rom. 6.17 And