Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	act_n	jerusalem_n	zion_n	21	3	8.7506	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62864	Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1657 (1657)	Wing T1800; ESTC R28882	1,260,695	1,095

containing questions and those not touching the argument instead of answers and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities and else-where who are understanding unbyassed men if there be any yea to any that have studied Logick to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section and answered his Letters to me to which I hasten SECT LII It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now 1. I Thus argue If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent The consequent of the major I think will not be denied For supposing there were infants even of Christians and an Ord●nance before that the infants of the godly should be visible church members and yet no part or members then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance if there were such a one Now that the antecedent is true I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further But the antecedent is true Ergo. That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth is proved by these arguments 1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water pag 342. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so it hath one common baptism And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13 Eph. 5.25 26. Eph. 4.5 out of which this proposition may be proved But no infants were to be baptised This is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 5 c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church 2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13 is the visible Church pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body c. pag 39. What is the Church Is it not the body of Christ The same he confirms pag. 60.318 from 1 Cor. 12.13 which he proves to be meant of the visible Church and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24 Ephes. 1.22 23. that the Church is the body of Christ and so the visible Church is his visible body But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13 all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit namely in the cup of the L●rds supper Diodati annot in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi caenae dominicae piscat analys 1 Cor. 12.13 Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur Dicson expos Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13 ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus idem etiam esse intelligatur Beza annot in 1 Cor. 12.13 Calicem quoq●e Domini in hanc spem bibimus Grot. annot in locum But no infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink the cup in the Lords supper Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread if they did they must do so still be admitted to the Lords supper Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5 The whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith Ergo. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the believers the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church or mention of the whole Church the number of believers or disciples in the new Testament But infants are left out of that number in all places in the new Testament Ergo. The major is evident of it self For as we know who was in the church by their mention so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages which make an enumeration or reckoning of all there being no other way to know who were in or out and if this be not true the speeches are false which mention all the whole the multitude as the full number if they were not so The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned Acts 1.15 Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christs preaching and pains bestowed in that city Let but Joh. 2.23 3.2 4.1 Mar. 3.8 Joh. 7.31 8.30 11.28 45. 12.19 42. and divers other places be well weighed and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all who were all Galileans and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me considering the narration all along ●he chapter that v. 4 6. they are said to come together go to mount Olivet and then to return to Jerusalem and their action noted with special notice of some v. 13 14. and then next v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration onely of men of note but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean Mark 14.70 doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ Christs preaching most in Galilee his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see

without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which ● thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should sti●l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chri●●ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infan●s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thi● an heavie and intollerable yoke I● it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infan●s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not a● well come to an infant of a believer unbaptiz●d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of savi●g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and end●avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscie●ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is bet●er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God si●h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who

nations But infants natural fools mad-men in their fits are neither fit to consent nor to be members in the Christian visible Church no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith Mr. B. adds What then is this making them a Church in one day that Mr. T. so cloudily talks of If he say it is that then the infants were taken in I answer that is to prove the same by the same or else to argue circularly As to say their Church call did take in infants therefore the taking in of infants was peculiar to their Church call this begs the question Or to say their Church constitution is ceased because their Church call is ceased or their Church call consisting in the taking in of infants is ceased therefore their Church constitution is ceased and that Church constitution is ceased therefore the taking in of infants is ceased This arguing is like their cause Answ. I have sundry times told Mr. B. that the call in one day of the whole nation was by Abrahams authori●y Gen. 17. and by Moses Exod. 19 c. otherwise then in the Christian visible Church which was by a daily addition of believers out of several families cities and nations by preaching to them the Gospel And how my arguing is framed without begging the question or any circle is before shewed And the call in one day I mean● of Abrahams and Moses act whether the hearts of the whole nation were bowed to consent to take the Lord for their God or no. I neither envy nor deny the enlarging of the Church by Christ nor do I think the converting or taking in more or less makes an alteration in the nature of the Church call or constitution but a call by preaching the Gospel makes an alteration in the Christian visible Church call and constitution from the Jewish sufficient to exclude infants from Christian visible church-membership But Mr. B. clamours thus against me And what means Mr. T. to talk of here one and there one To speak so contemptuously in such disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ Is not the wonderfull success of the Gospel one of our strong arguments for the truth of the Gospel and our Christian Religion And it seems Mr. T. will give this away to the Pagans rather then admit infants to be members of the Church Answ. I mean to speak as the Holy Ghost speaks 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. James 2.5 6. Rev. 5.9 and as by the Histories Ecclesiastical may be made apparent which rashly Mr. B calls speaking contemptuously in disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ as he formerly did my denial of infant Baptism accusing of my own children Nor by my saying is the argument for the truth of the Gospel and Christian Religion a whit infringed For the force of the argument is not from hence that whole nations cities houses were converted by the Gospel but that though the persons were contemptible who preached their Doctrine likely to affright men without arms against opposition of great ones there was so great success over the world as to conv●●t so great numbers though few in comparison of the rest even in most barbarous countreys from their long accustomed idolatry to embrace a crucified Lord. Yet saith Mr. B. Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once and five thousand afterwards and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe Acts 2.41 4.4 21.20 besides all Gentiles Was it but here one and there one when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord both men and women Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria Acts 8. Answ. It was but here one and there one as I meant it 1. It was not any whole nation or city and perhaps few whole housholds sure I am not one infant in any of the places For in Acts 2.41 they who were baptized gladly received the word and Acts 4.4 they heard the word and believed and Acts 21.20 they believed and were zealous of the Law Acts 9.35 they saw it and turned to the Lord Acts 8.2 they believed Philip. 2. These three thousand five thousand ten thousands inhabitants might and li●ely were but one out of one house and another out of another house As God had much people in Corinth Acts 18.10 yet but few housholds the Husband a believer the Wife an unbeliever the Servant a believer not the Master 1 Cor. 7.11 12 16 21. So many miriads might be yet but here one and there one considering that Jerusalem especially at the Feasts was full of people an● that the myriads are not restrained to Jerusalem but ●ight be in Judaea or perhaps in remoter parts It is evident that the number of Christians was not able to match the Persecuters and that even in Jerusalem Yea it is said Acts 21.30 that all the city was moved against Paul and the people ran together all Jerusalem was in an uproar v. 31. much ado the souldiers had to rescue him from the multitude v. 35. even at that time when the myriads are said to have been of believing Jews v. 20. The Texts Acts 9 35. 8.12 say not as Mr. B. that all that dwelt at Samaria believed nor all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron both men and women but those that turned to the Lord as is shewed Sect. 50. before Yet more Let him shew me when three thousand Jews were made church-members in a day if he can before Christs time I say if he can let him shew it me Sure ever since Abrahams time and I doubt not but before too they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born Answ. If I cannot shew it Mr. B. gains nothing my assertion that the Jewish nation were a Church together in one day by Magistrates authority the Christian Church was gathered by Apostles a●d others preaching whereby one was made here one day another there a believer another day not a na●ion city nor always a house together stands good But sith M. B. wil allow me so much favour as to shew him any thing me thinks he should not deny that more then three thousand were made church-members in one day Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. And if in the time of Solomons reign when Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude 1 Kin. 4.20 three thousand were born in one day by Mr. Bs. own grant there were three thousand added to the Church in one day Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shewed you before that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations It is a base exposition that shall say he means onely Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations and no more Answ. And what childish vanity if not worse he hath shewed in his ridiculous including infants to be discipled in

sine Baptismo compe●ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a m●n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judg●ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Rive● that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fi●st in his Sermon forestal●ed his hearers and readers with the pretence o● the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 ●or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancien●s I had spared this labour of shewing t●eir and and the Ancien●s mistakes Tha● Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants ●hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is reject●d by Pro●estants who i● they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he mis●recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is th●t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and sl●nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first ●uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. in●inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it inv●lid But therein he d●t● bu● abu●e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is a●swered before here sect●● ●● 98. The 4th untruth he ch●rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he th●●ks to ●vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith ●othing but wh●t is ●●●ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I nee● say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the An●ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his ●●ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which mu●● be proved by precep● o● example of the doing it validity●o ●o sh●w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein ●od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is pro●ed b●fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reason● in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a par● of a Nation yet Mat. ●8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is in●ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.