Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	hear_v	heaven_n	oil_n	4,117	5	10.0452	5	true

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

they that are sent in a Gospel way our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this that we need not press it further The last thing is the extent of the Commission and that a very large one unto every Creature as here to all Nations as Matthew Now the Quaere will be what is meant by every Creature Some limit it to every rational creature Angels men Devils as Origen his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved but that cannot be for 2. Pet. 2.4 They are cast down to hell and reserved to judgement Some more strictly restrain it only to man and that when he is come to age and understanding excluding Children this is too strict True it is Infants are not capable to be taught of men but they may be taught of God they cannot actually understand the Gospel but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel a noble mans Child hath interest in his Fathers Patent and pardon a sucking Infant though he knows it not may be joined in a lease with the Parents Some extend it and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter without any Synecdoche or figure to every creature as if he should say Go and proclame the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed so by Christ the second Adam all creatures shall be blessed Rom. 8.22 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} every creature groans desiring to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God answerable to this Preach the Gospel {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to every creature telling them that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God Object But the creature cannot hear nor understand Answ. It s true not properly no more could John Baptist in his Mothers Womb and yet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Babe sprang for joy Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature Hosea 2.21 And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord I will hear the Heavens and they shall hear the Earth and the Earth shall hear the Corn and the Wine and the Oyl and they shall hear Jezreel Hence observe that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ but every one in their kind men come to years and discretion are capable of actual understanding actual profession actual faith Infants only in actu primo are capable of the first seeds of understanding of profession of Faith which will shew it self in the fruits when they come to years The rest of our fellow creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse so by an other instinct they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing and that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with an earnest expectation or a stretched out neck as the word in the original signifies Rom. 819. Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second wherein is First a Consolatory promise he that beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved Secondly a Comminatorie Curse he that beleeveth not shall be damned In the former we have first the qualification and that either absolute he that beleeveth or conditional and is Baptized Q. Now the Quaere will be what belief is here meant Sol. First the event tells us that belief that saves us he that believes shall be saved Secondly the opposition its contrary to that unbelief that damns Observe that a saving Faith is necessary to salvation without Faith it is impossible to please God all they and only they that have a saving Faith shall be saved so that you see that Faith is a necessary and absolute condition And is Baptized that is upon supposition if Baptism conveniently may be had hence observe that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means as they call it as if none could be saved without it but by necessity of Precept if conveniently it may be had The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised Bernard that saw not all things could see this that non absentia sed contemplus Sacramenti damnat not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damns Valentinian the Emperour dyed as he was going to be Baptized in Jordan and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him answered that he was Baptizatus volo voluntate etiamsi non reverà aquae lavacro Baptized inwardly with wish and will though not outwardly with the laver of water Austin is conceived here to be mistaken who denyed salvation to Infants Un-Baptized hence he is called durus Pater Infantum a hard Father of Infants and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome who hold that Infants that dye Un-Baptized are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants where they shall never behold the beatifical vision Object But here is first placed beleeving and then Baptized so that from the order of placing the words some would gather that we are first to beleeve before we be Baptized Answ. That will not follow for Mark 1.4 There is placed first Baptizing and then Preaching and repentance after whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptized before we can hear the word Preached or repent Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith and yet is a fruit and effect of Faith some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament some after it it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ that Scriptura nescit prius posterius the Scripture does not alwaies observe the precise order in which things were done Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant Sol. A saving Faith Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism and must we Baptize none but of those we know have a saving Faith then we must Baptize none at all never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptize any no not the Apostles for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptized had a saving Faith nay they actually Baptized many that were hypocrites as Simon Magus Alexander Hymeneus Philetus and others hence observe That no rule for Baptizing in general can be gathered out of this Text And to say that none are to be Baptized but they that have a saving Faith which is the Faith that is only here meant or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith which is not here meant is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture and an adding to the word of God against which he hath proclamed a solemn curse The Commination or curse follows in the last words He that beleeveth not shall be damned he does not say he that is not Baptized shall be damned For though the contempt of it is dangerous yet a man may be saved

Baptized under the Gospell T. Mr: T. found fault with that interpretation shall dye an hundred years old that is as if an hundred years old C. He answered to take it literally would imply a contradiction for it was impossible to be a child and a hundred years old and was better than his and the Anabaptistes exposition of 1 Cor. 10.2 they were Baptized under the cloud that is say you as if they were Baptized under the cloud when nothing hindred but they were really Baptized under the cloud And Rom. 11.19 the branches were broken off that is say you as if they were broken off when it was both possible and apparent that they were broken off T. Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the Gospell C. To which was replyed Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England and read the Contents of the Chapter The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end T. Mr: T. said it was verifyed Zacha 8.4 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand for very age and the streets of the citie shall be full of boyes and girles playing in the streets thereof C. To which was replyed what is this to an Infant of dayes or a child dying a hundred years old when it is apparent both from the Contents Text that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity more apparent that that of Es. is meant of the state of Christs kingdome under the Gospell which I prove thus That Interpretation that brings with it Absurditie untruth blasphemie is not to be admitted But to interpret it of the Jews return from Captivitie brings with it absurditie untruth blasphemie Therefore it is not to be admitted T. Mr. Tombs denyed the Minor C. Which was proved in order first that it brought with it absurdity To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd that the wolf and the lamb should feed together and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock and dust should be the serpents meat Therefore it brought with it absurdity Secondly that it brought with it untruth But to apply the 19. v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem for it was twice destroyed after once by Antiochus then by Vespatian and Titus Therefore it brought with it an untruth Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemie for to interpret the 17. verse Behold I create new heavens and new earth and the former shall no more be remembred and come into mind of the second temple is blasphemous Therefore it brought with it blasphemie for it crosseth St. Peters interpretation 2. Pet. 3.13 Wee according to his promise look for new heavens and a new Earth For can any rationall man think that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time was this new heaven and new earth that the former should be no more remembred When the antient men are said to weep because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first Ezra 3.12 It was inferiour to Solomons temple first in respect of the building that was lower and meaner secondly in respect of the vessels before of Gold now of brasse thirdly of five things that were lost first the Ark of God secondly the Urim Thummim thirdty fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices fourthly the glory of God between the Cherubims fiftly the gift of prophesie for after the second temple there was no prophet T. Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words that the truth might be obscured or lost and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose as he had done once before till a gentleman of authoritie told him that it was not fit for a man of his place and calling to speak Yet Mr. Tombs would not be Satisfyed but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford when a place of Scripture was cited was wont to give a large exposition C. Mr. C. Replyed that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair and Judge of the Controversie and might do that which a Respondent may not do whose office is onely to repeat deny distinguish and when a Text is quoted to give a brief exposition that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon And what Dr. Prideaux did he knew not but what Dr. Collins and Dr. Ward did he could tell him but that it was not to the present purpose And that his judgment in this was but the same with his own University of Oxford as he knew of late by a sad experiment T. Mr. Tombes Asked what that was C. He told him an explosion not for disability for his dispute was plausible inough but that he would neither be satisfied with D. Salvage his answer nor the Doctor of the Chaires determination but fell to repetitions and extravagances as now Mr. Tombes launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself till he had tyred the Auditors who cryed out this is but to waste time And a learned Gentleman spake aloud this is but to spend the time in parling that he may avoid the gun-shot for he is affraid the great thunderbolt is behind and so with much adoe he was brought to dispute again where Mr. C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the Gospell began thus C. Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to Baptize they may be Baptized But Christ commanded his Disciples to Baptize Infants Therefore they may be Baptized The Minor being denyed was proved thus He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations commanded them to Baptize Infants But Christ commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Baptize all Nations Therefore Christ commanded them to Baptize Infants T. Mr. T. denyed the Major C. Which was proved by this Enthymema The whole includes every part Infants are a part of Nations Therfore he that commanded to Baptize all Nations commanded to Baptize Infants T. He denyed the consequent though the whole included every part and Nations were the whole and Infants were a part of Nations yet it did not follow that Infants were to be Baptized C. He returned that that saying of Aquinas posito toto generali pars ejus negari non potest a generall whole being granted no part of it can be denyed was an axiome both in Logick Philosophie and Divinity as Psalm 117.1 Prayse the Lord all yee Nations is interpreted by another Psalm Old men and babes young men and maidens prayse yee the Lord T. Mr. T. Said it was an Axiome