Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	3,063	5	9.7114	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62871	A publick dispute betwixt John Tombs ... respondent, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan ... opponents, touching infant-baptism, the fifth of September, 1653 ... occasioned by a sermon preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark 16.16 ... : also a sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lords day following, upon the same text, wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant-baptism asserted.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Cragge, John, Gent.; Vaughan, Henry, Sir, 1587?-1659?	1654 (1654)	Wing T1813; ESTC R9749	45,440	168

age we might retort it upon our adversaries there is no mention made of Dippers no nor of them that are to be dipped therefore they ought not to dip nor be dipped Generals include particulars in all Lawes Psalm 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations Nations includes old men and babes young men and maids all without exception as another Psalm interprets it Now if Infants be excepted contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose Qui dixit omnes nullum excepit neque parvulos c. He that commanded all to be Baptized excepnone no not little ones If I say they be excepted it s either because they are not named or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized or because they are not capable that fourth cavill being the same with the third I le take away anon but for none of these three therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism Not for the first because they are not named for so neither old men nor nobles nor Ministers are named Not because we read not of their Baptism so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles nor of the Virgin Mary yet we piously believe that they were Baptized De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia such a thing is not mentioned that it was done therfore it was not done or was not done therefore it ought not to have been done is no consequence Christ did and said many things that are not written so did his Apostles Not for the third because they are uncapable which is denyed for if Infants be uncapable it is either because they have not repentance and faith in act which cannot hinder them Christ was Baptized had not repentance for he had no sin to repent of had not faith for faith presupposeth one lost in himself that depends upon another for salvation Christ is that Rock of Salvation upon whom all mankind being lost depends Neither because they cannot hear the Word preached then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism Or because they are not otherwise qualified but that cannot hinder them for God requires no more of them that are in Covenant and born of believing Parents but a pure capacity and receptability which Divines call Potentiam objectivam as God in the beginning created the World of nothing so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerat and recreate us of nothing upon this account it is that we read of many whole families Baptized not excluding but rather including Infants Cornelius was Baptized with his houshold Acts 10.47 48. Lydea and her houshold Acts 16.15 Crispus and all his house Acts 18.8 and the houshold of Stephanus 1 Corinth 1.16 the Jayler {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all that were his Acts 16.31 32. His Servants his Children for can we imagine so many families without a child Arg. 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater are capable of Baptism which is the lesser But Infants are capable of the Kingdom and the blessing which is the greater Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser forbid not sayes our Saviour little Children to come unto me for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God for surely if the Kingdom of Heaven receive them the Church may not exclude them for the Church must receive such as glory receives Acts 2.47 There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved Now for proof of this Argument take these places Mark 10.13 to 17. Mark 9.14.36 37. Matth. 18.2 3 4. Matth. 19.13 14 15. Luke 9.14 15. Luke 18.15 16. Which tho they be spoken upon severall occasions all prove Infants to be Church-members and capable both of grace and glory wee l instance in two Jesus called a little child unto him the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which as Hippocrates in his distinction of ages sayes and Beza seconds him signifies a child under seven years and set him in the middest of them and said Verily I say unto you except ye be converted and become as little children that is endevour to be free from actuall sin as they are ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The other is that of S. Luke 18.15 wherein observe First a Precept Suffer little children to come unto me Secondly we have a prohibition and forbid them not Thirdly his displeasure against his Disciples for hindring them from coming to him he looked on this act with indignation and was much displeased at it Fourthly he adds a reason why little ones should be brought to him because to such belongs the Kingdom of God that is the Kingdom of grace here and glory hereafter they are visible members of his Church and Kingdom and therefore none may hinder their access to him Fiftly he confirmes this reason à majori from the greater to the less Gods Kingdom doth not onely belong to them but I tell you more whosoever will come into this Kingdom must resemble Infants in Innocency humility simplicity Sixtly he adds his benediction of them he took them up in his arms put his hands upon them and blessed them and tells us that their Angels alwayes see the face of his Father which is in Heaven and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones and all this recorded by three Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolencie of these latter times that denyes them the seal Christ is not more punctuall by his Spirit in declaring his own Birth Passion Resurrection than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot And if any object these were not young Children the text easily confutes them they were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Children under seven yeares of age {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Children that could scarce speak they did not lead them but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they carried them unto him Christ is said twice in S. Mark {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to take them up in his armes and embrace them Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand Well then doth Christ take Children in his armes and would he have them all put out of his visible Church would he have us receive them in his Name and yet not to receive them into his visible Church nor as his Disciples How can Infants be received in Christs Name if they belong not visibly to him and his Church Nay doth Christ account it a receiving of himself and shall we then refuse to receive them or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them refuseth Christ and him that sent him For my part to use the words of a godly and learned divine Seeing the will of Christ

excellent Ministry was a Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the consequence of the Major that tho the covenant of the Gospell was a better covenant than that of the Law yet infants were not in covenant as well under the Gospell as under the Law C. Which was thus taken away That which unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation can not be a better covenant But to deny infants to be in covenant unchurches the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation Therefore it cannot be a better covenant T. Without repeating the Syllogism or denying either of the Premisses or formally applying any distinction he said the covenant under the Gospell was made onely with the spirituall seed of Abraham C. Which was thus disproved If the covenant was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as to the Jewes then under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed But it was made in the same manner and extent to the Gentiles as it was to the Jewes Therefore under the Gospell it was not onely made to the Spirituall seed T. He denyed the Minor C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The partition wall is pulled down and Jewe and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner and extent to the Jew and Gentile T. He denyed the consequent that tho the partition wall was taken down and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus seeing the Gospell was offered to all nations yet under the Gospell the covenant was onely with the Elect and believers C. Which was confuted thus That which is made with the whole visible Church is not onely made with the Elect and true believers But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church Therefore not onely with the Elect and true believers T. He denyed the Major C. Which was proved thus That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth Therefore it was not onely made to the Elect. T. He denyed the Major that that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth is not onely made to the Elect. C. Which was proved thus In the kingdom of God that is in the Church Militant there are not onely Elect but reprobates Saints but hypocrites for all that are outwardly called are of the kingdom of God in this sense and many are called but few chosen The kingdom of God is compared to a field where there are tares as well as wheat a fould where there are goats as well as sheep to a noble mans house where there are vessels of dishonour as well as honour And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances which is the Question were onely the Elect then it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth the Jewes had no more visible Church than the heathens the distinction of the Church visible and invisible were frivolous for no man nor angell knows who are Elect nor any but God To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought Mr. C. referred the judgment of it to the people And proceeded to the second that God foretold under the Law that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out C. But Mr. C. told him that it was his office being Respondent to deny or distinguish but not authoritatively to determine the question as if he were the Dr. of the chair And with much ado the Anabaptistes crying let him have liberty to speak on brought him to dispute again and to turn to Esay 49.22 Whence he framed this Argument He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles and set up a standard to the people and that they should bring their sons in their Armes and their daughters shall be carryed upon their Shoulders foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell But thus saith the Lord God Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms and thy daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major And said the meaning was that the Jewes should bring the Gentiles children C. To which he replyed God sayes I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and they that is the Gentiles shall bring thy sons and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons Then a Gentleman read the words and said it is the Gentiles shall bring c. T. Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said the meaning was the Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity And that it did not point at the time of the Gospell C. To which was replyed the contents of the Chapter sayes that it points at the time of the Gospell Mr. Tombs sayes it points at the time of the Jewes captivitie whether shall we believe and repeated the contents Christ being sent to the Jewes complaineth of them to the 5. verse he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse Gods love to his Church to the end then the people laughed c. The pith of which was framed into an argument thus That which is the judgment of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man But that it points at the time of the Gospell is the judgment of the Church of England Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundles assertion of one private man T. He denyed that it was the judgment of the Church of England C. Which was thus proved If the Church of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter then it is the judgment of the Church of England But the Church of England causes it to be printed and commands it to be read before the Chapter Therefore it is the judgment of the Church of England T. Mr. T. said it was not commanded to be printed and read so before the Chapter for he knew not what kind of Bible his was C. He told him it was the same with the great Church Bible which was not onely authorised with a Proclamation but an Act almost fifty years agoe and will Mr. Tombs without giving of a reason condemn a whole nation to have slept in such an errour all that while Then Mr. Abbets preacher resident there one who hath been dipped being in pulpit with Mr. Tombs stood up

Gentiles shall be graffed in Parent with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful Wee l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptise Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Baptise your Infants Ireneus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the begining of the third Century says The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not then to leave them unsealed Austen is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that dyed un-baptized pressing that place John 3.5 Except a Man be Born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches all ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism The twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta●ed flock that had his house burned and his children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to parents and children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11.16 Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} FINIS And that by washing as the Proselytes and Jews Children were initiated Mr. Cradock and Mr. Walter Monmothshire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or to the water