Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	faith_n	scripture_n	word_n	6,782	5	5.1236	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93044	Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition being a vindication of Dr. Russel's True narrative of the Portsmouth disputation ... Also, a sermon upon Mat. 28. 19. by Mr. John Williams ... As also An answer to the Presbyterian dialogue, by another hand / published by Mr. John Sharp ... who was moderator at the disputation in Portsmouth.	Sharp, John, of Froome, Somersetshire.; Williams, John, minister.	1700 (1700)	Wing S3005; ESTC R217599	120,924	184

the Command Repent and be baptized that 's the Ground the offer of the Promise is a Motive to inforce the Exhortation If the Question then be What must those do to whom the Promise is the Answer will be this Repent and be baptized Repentance must come between the offer of the Promise and the taking up of the Ordinance But here it may be objected that Repentance is injoined the Parent not the Child I answer that Baptism also is injoined the Parent not the Child there are no more required to be baptized than are required to repent antecedently thereunto Object 3. If the Children of Believers are federally holy then they have a right to Baptism but they are so 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or to the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy To this I answer 1. These three Objections are but one in substance tho they vary in terms for to have an Interest in the Covenant an Interest in the Promise and to be federally holy is the same thing If neither of the two former Objections will stand then the third will not stand for they are all built on the same foundation and it appears by the Answers given already that it is but a sandy Foundation that they are built upon 2. Tho one of the Parents to whom the Apostle wrote was a Believer when he wrote to them yet they were not so to be considered in their being sanctified each to the other but as Husband and Wife There was a Case of Conscience sent to the Apostle for Resolution whether it was lawful for the Believer to abide with his or her unbelieving Yoke-fellow this he answers in the Affirmative but withal tells them ver 12. To this speak I not the Lord. Therefore it was necessary to demonstrate it and here first he professes the lawfulness of their Continuance by the lawfulness of their State The unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or to the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified in or to the Husband that is by the Ordinance of God when both were Unbelievers according to that Scripture Heb. 13. 5. Marriage is honourable among all and the Bed undefiled Be they who they will Believers or Unbelievers they did not live in Fornication but in Wedlock they were Husband and Wife and so were separated from all others to the lawful use of each others Bodys Their Cohabitation was lawful according to the Word of God and in this sense the word sanctified is taken elsewhere for that which is lawful 1 Tim. 4. 5. Every Creature of God is good and nothing to be refused for it is sanctified by the Word of God c. that is lawful to be used they were married and so were sanctified each to the other this he illustrates by an Argument drawn from their Offspring Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy If they had not been married and so sanctified each to the other by the Ordinance of God their Children had been unclean they had been illegitimate unlawfully begotten The word unclean is elsewhere taken for that which is unlawful Acts 10. 14. Not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean nothing that is forbidden by the Word for the unclean Meats were no otherwise unclean than as they were forbidden Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in it self There is no inherent Uncleanness in those Creatures but they are clean or unclean as they are lawful or unlawful according to the Word of God and in this sense I take the Uncleanness and Holiness of the Children they are not illegitimate but lawfully begotten 2. I deny the Holiness of the Children here to be federal Holiness For 1. The Holiness of the Child doth not arise from the Faith of the believing Parent but from the Sanctification of the unbelieving whose Sanctification did not arise from the Faith of his Yoke-fellow but from the Ordinance of God when both were Unbelievers Now there is nobody doth account the Sanctification of the Unbeliever to be federal Holiness and if that be not federal Holiness then the Holiness of the Child can't be federal for that 's the Root from whence the Holiness of the Child doth spring Now such as the Root is such are the Branches such as the Fountain such are the Streams the Effect can't rise higher than the Cause The Holiness of the Child springing from the Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent must necessarily be of the same kind 2. The Apostle speaks here of their Children indefinitely such as were born when both were Unbelievers as well as those that were born after one of the Parents did believe some of which for ought we know remained profest Pagans as well as one of the Parents and yet holy Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy The Holiness of the Child did not depend on the Faith of the Parent nor is there a word spoken of the Faith of the Believer in the Text as if that were the ground either of the Sanctification of the Unbeliever or of the Holiness of the Child 3. I deny federal Holiness to be the ground of Baptism 1. The Scripture doth no where make it the ground of Baptism neither directly nor consequentially if it doth produce it we may not run hand over head and say this is the ground and the other thing is the ground when we have no ground in Scripture for what we say 2. It 's very apparent from the Word that federal Holiness was not the ground of Baptism all the Jews were federally holy when Christ and John baptized yet they were made Disciples before they were baptized and so not baptized as considered federally holy but as discipled unto Christ John 4. 1. They that came to John to be baptized Mat. 3. 7. were federally holy and did in effect plead their federal Holiness as the ground of their Claim to Baptism they pleaded that they were the Children of Abraham now the Children of Abraham were federally holy considered as such they were born interested in that Covenant that peculiar Covenant by virtue of which they were federally holy a separate People Had their federal Holiness been questioned they could have produced the token of the Covenant in the foreskin of their Flesh and yet these were denied the Ordinance notwithstanding their Plea That they were denied may appear 1. In that he calls them a Generation of Vipers who can think that he would have branded them with so black a Mark and afterwards baptize them Would all the Water in Jordan have washed it off again Was Baptism an Ordinance appointed for a Viperous Brood 2. He overrules their Plea Think not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father He doth not deny their relation to Abraham but rejects their Plea

dogma●ical Faith serve now and if it will then it 's easy to prove that almost all if not every English-Man and his Children have an Interest therein Where will you find an English-Man tho never so profane and wicked that does not as much believe that Christ is come as the generality of the Jews did believe that he was to come If this dogmatical Faith be the Faith that some intend when they say that Believers and their Children have an interest in the Covenant and a right to be baptized why then do they ●xclude and put by the Children of any where this dogma●ic●l Faith is to be found There are many that do agree from the same ground that the Children of Believers have an Interest in the Covenant and a right to Baptism that yet will baptize none whose Parents are not true Believers in the Judgment of Charity 3. I deny that barely an Interest either in this Covenant or in the Covenant of Grace was or is the ground of Baptism First An Interest in this Covenant was not the ground of Baptism those that came to John to be baptized Mat. 3. 7. Luke 3. 7. and were denied had an interest in this Covenant they were the Children of Abraham with whom this Covenant was originally made Gen. 15. 18. which Covenant took in all the natural Seed considered as such and this Covenant remained in being till Christ was offered up yet were these sent away not baptized Had an Interest in this Covenant been the ground of Baptism John would not have sent them away without it Secondly I deny that barely an Interest in the Covenant of Grace is the ground of Baptism where do the Scriptures say that such as have an Interest in the Covenant of Grace have have a Right to the Ordinance For men to assert an interest in the Covenant of Grace to be that which gives a right to Baptism and bring no Scripture to prove it will go but a little way with those that make the Word their Rule in the matters of worship Thirdly An Interest in the Covenant of Grace precedes Sanctification a new Heart is an effect of this Interest not the cause Now this Interest is invisible who can tell who they are that have an interest in the Covenant of Grace till God change their hearts and lives by a work of Sanctification but the ground of Baptism must be visible Object 2. If Believers and their Children have an Interest in the Promise then they have a right to Baptism but Believers and their Children have an interest in the Promise therefore they have a right to Baptism Acts 2. 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you for the Promise is to you and to your Children To this I answer 1. I deny the Subjects here to be Believers at the time when the Apostle said the Promise is to you and to your Children and no Argument can be drawn to prove a Privilege to Believers and their Seed from what is spoken to Unbelievers That they were not Believers may appear 1. In that they were but under some Conviction they were pricked at the heart that 's all the account we have of them but Conviction and Conversion are two things a person may be convicted that is not converted nay he must be convicted before he can be converted the whole need not the Physician but they that are ●ick 2. They were ignorant of the way of Salvation and that a Person can't be that does believe for Faith is as well the act of the Understanding as of the Will their ignorance of the way of Salvation appears in that they cried out Men and Brethren what shall we do 3. It appears in that they were with many other words exhorted to save themselves from that untoward Generation that is as I apprehend from the Judgments that hung over the heads of that untoward Generation for rejecting of Christ but if they had believed they had been saved already there had then been no need of that exhortation 4. They did not all believe at last ver 41. Then they that gladly received the Word were baptized c. There were but a part of them that did embrace this exhortation 2. I deny that by the word unto is intended Interest in the Promise they had indeed the Promise but the Offer is one thing and Interest is another 1st God did never vouchsafe this Privilege of Interest in the Promise to the Children of the dearest of his Servants considered as such not to the Children of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Rom. 9. 6. All are not Israel that are of Israel then all that were of Israel had not an interest in the Promise for the Promises were made to none but Israel Jer. 31. 33. ver 7. neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children But in Isaac shall thy Seed be called ver 8. so then they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed that is the Seed with whom God did establish his Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Here were some of the Seed of Abraham which were the Children of the Flesh that were not the Children of God nor the Children of the Promise nor accounted for the Seed Ver. 11. Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated and yet Esau was the Son of Isaac his first born Now can it be supposed that a Person hated of God had an Interest in the Promise 2ly Such as have an interest in the Promise shall certainly injoy the good and benefit thereof Justification and Sanctification and Glorification Rom. 9. 6. It cannot be that the word of God has taken none effect and if so then it cannot be that such as have an Interest in the Promise should go without one or all of these Blessings for they are the effect of the Promise There are none will say that all the Children of Believers shall be saved and yet they cannot miss of Salvation if they have an Interest in the Promise 3ly Once an Interest in the Promise and for ever an Interest in the Promise Jer. 32. 40. I will make an everlasting Covenant with them that I will never turn away from them to do them good and I will put my fear in their Hearts that they shall not depart from me God covenants here for himself and them too for himself that he will never turn away from them to do them good for them that he will put his fear in their Hearts that they shall not depart from him And here I should think that none that deny falling from Grace should oppose me in this 3. I deny that the offer of the Promise is the ground of Baptism those that did not receive the Word had the offer of the Promise as well as those that did where-ever the Gospel comes there comes the offer of the Promise it 's not the offer of the Promise but

long waited for one but still they delay me They say p. 14. that the Members of a Christian Church have a right to Baptism But I despair to find where they so proved it and I do not think any impartial Judg will give it to them that Church-Membership gives a right to Baptism for the reasons before offered against this Opinion It was not so in the Jewish Church much less in the Christian Pag. 14. line 20. I have shewn before how Infants may be Disciples by the Ministry of Men. How weakly this was done let the Reader judg And we have not said that Infants are uncapable of being made holy or so uncapable as the Beasts of the Field are for they have the Seeds of Reason may be justified sanctified and glorified God can do all this to them we say tho you will not allow Glorification to Infants But we say Men can no more teach them and by teaching them make them Disciples than they can teach the Beasts of the Field Arg. 3. The Infants of Believers are called Disciples Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God c. First I grant some Persons here are called Disciples but deny that Infants are so called as is manifest from the Answer pag. 15. line 1. They are here up again with being taught in their Parents so may as well be said to be baptized in their Parents for any thing they have urged to the contrary but something must be said lest their mouths should seem stopt 2. They deny that all who are here called Disciples are called Brethren ver 1. or are said to be taught This is but a bold denial the Text is plain none are intended in this place but the Brethren whom the false Apostles taught the false Apostles did not preach to their Infants if they had any such And Peter testifieth of the Brethren that God had purified their Hearts by Faith and these he calls Disciples and not Children who could not have their Hearts purified by Faith And tho it was the Disciples of Cesarea that Peter's words relate to yet the case of both viz. those at Antioch and these must be parallel or Peter's words had not been pertinent But say these Gentlemen cannot God give Infants the Seed of Faith and purify their Hearts by so doing c. Ridiculous enough do these Gentlemen believe really that to be the sense of the place Do they think that Peter said this from Revelation Dare they tell the World such stuff to bolster up a tottering Opinion Is there so much as a probability for such a thing or any good Consequences It is manifest Peter was speaking of the Brethren to whom the false Teachers came for he parallels the case of the Brethren at Antioch with those of Caesarea who received the Holy Ghost and Faith and a purified Heart by his Ministry and if these were not Children then neither those at Antioch and here is a good Consequence for otherwise his Instance in them had not been pertinent which is very absurd to imagine The Heart indeed by infusion of holy Habits may be said to be purified but that could not come into the observation even of Peter without a Miracle and here is no need to feign one I say feign one because here is no rational ground of such a Conjecture ver 7. saith Peter God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe I ask now those reverend Gentlemen the Authors of this Dialogue whether those that heard the word from his mouth were Infants did Infants hear the word of the Gospel and believe These are the very Persons of whom he testifieth in the 8th vers That God gave them the Holy Ghost it is to be understood the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost and ver 9. t is said He purified their hearts by Faith 't is the same persons still and yet these Gentlemen feign that they might be Infants saying And cannot God give Infants the seed of Faith and purify their hearts by so doing Yes indeed he can but 't was not done here and this they knew well enough if they examined the place which I perceive they did by their next words for they say they were the Gentiles at Caesarea and then how disingenuous is it for them to put such a blind upon their Readers to cheat them out of their Understandings And I wonder what these Gentlemen hope to gain to their Cause by telling us that Peter spake here of the Gentiles at Caesarea not those at Antioch This we grant but how weak was their Answer just before to suppose them Children But I say if it were not a parallel Case between the Gentiles at Caesarea and the Brethren at Antioch to what purpose did Peter declare the History of their Conversion And that it was so I prove from the 5th verse of this same chap. compared with the first In the first verse 't is said Certain men came down from Judea and taught the Brethren Except ye be circumcised c. not ye and your Children but your selves Thence I conclude that these Brethren were men capable of hearing the word and not Infants And in ver 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees which believed said It was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law but Infants were not capable of such a Command therefore the Brethren intended in both places are Believers and not Infants As to the Equivocations about the manner which they make this I say it only shews that these false Teachers would have the Brethren that they taught to have the Foreskin cut off and it cannot possibly have relation to Children they being not intended by the false Teachers or Paul or Peter or any other in this place as I think I have sufficiently demonstrated We say Circumcision cannot be the yoke because Infants did bear it and because it bound to keep the whole Law To the first they answer that it only signifieth a burdensome Yoke Suppose so this Yoke was to be laid on proselyted Gentiles when adult and of these the dispute is and not of Infants at all And the Apostle saith If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing verily I say unto every one of you that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to the whole Law this was not spoke to Children but to Believers and Mr. Williams said well after the manner of Moses relates to the Form not to the Subject What if the Yoke would have been laid on Infants had the false Teachers obtained the point against the Brethren Yet it proves not in the least the present Dispute was about any other than those that believed as is manifest fully from what hath been before said and therefore Infants are not called Disciples in this place Page 16. the last 3 lines I have seven places at hand c. 1. Mark 1. 7. Except they wash i. e. baptize