Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	abraham_n	faith_n	justify_v	1,850	5	8.6777	4	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

any thing he knew every Sacrament was not a Relation And the Minor too that Baptism was a Sacrament for the word Sacrament was an invention of man not grounded upon scripture C. Which both Propositions together were proved thus That which is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace is both a Relation and a Sacrament But Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace Therefore it is both a Relation and a Sacrament T. He denyed the Minor that Baptism was an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace C. He told him it was St. Austens definition avouched by learned men in succeeding ages confirmed and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism T. Mr. Tombs said he looked for Artificiall or divine Arguments not humane Testimonies at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astomished he took occasion to triumph contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument C. To which he replyed Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot as the Gordian which made him cut it when he could not untie it you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles as where you think the people doe not understand you make no scruple to deny clear truths in Logick and Divinitie Therefore I see I must goe to plain scriptures that all the people may understand the absurdities Now that the Definition of Baptism which was the thing denyed belongs to Infants I prove thus If God institute Baptism for infants Christ merited it for them and they stand need of it then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism But God instituted Christ meritted and Infants stand need of Baptism Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism T. He denyed the Minor that God did not institute Baptism for infants Christ did not merit it for them nor Infants stand in need of it C. Which he promised to prove in order First that God did institute Baptism for infants He that appointed infants Church-members under the Gospell did institute Baptism for them But God appointed Infants Church-members under the Gospell Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants T. He said first the Major might be questioned because to be Church-members whereas he should have said Church-members under the Gospell and to be Baptized were not termini convertibiles C. He confessed it for infants under the Law were Church-members and yet not Baptized but Circumcised and before the Law Church-members and yet neither Circumcised nor Baptized but under the Gospell they were so convertible that all that were Baptized were Church-members and all that were Church-members were to be Baptized which is that which he affirmed now and is a truth a truth so clear that Mr. Tombs confesses it all along in his Books and upon that confessed ground Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments T. He would have denyed it till a Gentleman told him that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before Then he denyed the minor that God did institute infants Church-members under the Gospell C. That I 'l confirm sayes he with a threefold cord which will not easily be broken before the Law under the Law under the Gospell which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive into covenant under the Gospell those God did appoint Church-members under the Gospell But God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the Gospell T. He denyed the Minor That God did not promise before the Law foretell under the Law and actually receive infants into covenant under the Gospell C. Which was proved in order first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell thus That which God did promise to Abraham was before the Law But God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell Therefore God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell The Minor being denyed he proved out of Gen. 17.7 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee Thus framing his Argument He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him in their generations Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the Gospell T. He denyed the Major saying that everlasting signifyed onely a long time not that it should be so under the Gospell to the worlds end and was to be interpreted by the verse following I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan C. They are now dispossest but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion and so have an everlasting possession in the type to the end of the world in the Antitype for ever but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a Gospell covenant That which is a Gospell covenant is to continue to the end of the world But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations is a Gospell covenant Gal. 3.8 and the scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the heathen through faith preached the Gospell before to Abraham saying In thee shall nations be blessed Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world T. Without repeating he confusedly answer'd thus that it was an everlasting covenant and to continue to the end of the world but not to infants C. He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion then took away his answer thus If God command infants to stand before him in covenant then it is to continue to infants But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him Therefore it is to continue to infants Deut. 29.10 11. Yee stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your tribes your elders and your officers with all the men of Israel your litle ones T. He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the worlds end for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law but not under the Gospell C. Yes under the Gospell If Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministrie and is a Mediator of a better covenant which is established upon better promisses then if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospell But Heb. 8.6 Christ hath obtained a more

The Anabaptists ANOTAMIZED and SILENCED in a PUBLIQUE Dispute The Man̄er of the Anabaptists Dipping Their Laying on of Hands Their Washing of Feete The Disputation A PUBLICK DISPUTE Betwixt JOHN TOMBS B. D. Respondent JOHN CRAGGE and HENRY VAUGHAN M. A. Opponents Touching INFANT-BAPTISM The fifth of September 1653. in the Church of St. Maries in Abergavenie in Monmothshire Occasioned by a Sermon Preached the day before by Mr. Tombs upon St. Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned 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 LONDON Printed for H. Twyford N. Brook J. Place and are to be sold in Vine-Court Middle Temple the Angel in Cornhill and at Furnivals-Inn-Gate in Holborn 1654. To his Reverend Friend I. T. P. Grace Mercy and Peace be multiplyed SIR I Received your Letter full of Zeal and Christian Piety the Contents whereof may be reduced to these six heads wherein you desire resolution first what my sense is of the Anabaptists secondly when was the spring and rise of them thirdly what is the cause of this present growth and increase of them fourthly why they are permitted fifthly what I think of Disputes and Conferences had with them sixthly a true Relation of that had with us of late which you say is variously reported of all which briefly I 'le endeavour to give satisfaction For the first I referr you to the Sermon and Conference here following to the Harmonies and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of all Churches since the Apostles especially the Western where you shall find Universalitie Antiquity and Succession besides many pregnant places of Scripture pleading for Infant-baptism And that as Austin saies which the whole Church holds was never begun by any Councel but alwaies observed cannot otherwise be believed but that it came from the Apostles For the second the spring and rise of Anabaptism as all Errours so it had its beginning after Truth the Husbandman first sowed good Corn then the Enemy Tares No Age was free In the first hundred years arose the Ebionites Chiliasts and Gnosticks In the second the Marcionites Valentinians and Montanists In the third the Novatians Sabellians and Manichees In the fourth the Arrians Donatists and Eunomians In the fifth Nestorians Eutychians and Patripassians In the sixth Jacobites Armenians and Monothelites in which time the Mysterie of Iniquity began more fully to work which was first nascent then crescent then regnant then triumphant And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luther's time but there were Herods that sought the life of this Babe Dragons watching while the Woman was travelling to devour the Child Amongst whom the Anabaptists of Germany were most venemous The first Author whereof was one Nicholas Stock then Phipher Knipperdoling Munster with their Tayler-King John Beccold of Leyden who gave out that he had a Commission from Heaven to destroy all Nations that would not submit to his Gospel and be rebaptized raging with sword and persecution till he was taken and being examined by exquisite tortures confessed he received his Doctrine from an impure spirit there you have the spring and rise of it Now for the third the present growth and increase of it the reasons may be many 1. Times of division wherein the hedge of Discipline is broken down Liberty in Religion is like free conversing without restraint or watch in time of pestilence one house easily infects a whole City 2. Satan's malice like a River the further it goes the deeper and fiercer 3. The corruption of man's nature more inclinable to errour than truth 4. The fitness of the engin for devastation and ruinating all former Churches under colour of first-baptisms nullity gathering of new ones after their own mould out of the old ruins by re-baptizing 5. The pretence that Children are uncapable of Church-membership or Communion of Saints as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel which was under the Law 6. False allegation that Infant-baptism is occasion of loose living as if the native Jews that were sealed when Infants were more dissolute than the Proselytes 7. To limit it to ripe years increases Piety as if Jews and Turks and their own rebaptized converts were not more frequently guilty of Apostasie and Hyprocrisie 8. Not understanding that Infants Church-membership in the Old Testament is not repealed but confirmed in the New 9. A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal of which Circumcision is a part as if Godliness in both Testaments had not the promise of this life and of the life to come 10. That Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not his Posterity 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham and his Spiritual Seed onely and not with visible Professors 12. That there is no such thing as National Churches though Christ saies Make Disciples of all Nations and Isaiah saies All Nations shall flow in c. yet they say all Churches must be gathered by actual profession as well in Christian Nations as amongst Turks and Pagans 13. Because we have no particular instance in terminis that any Infants were baptized and because they are not expresly named in the precept as if generals did not include particulars as well for Infants as Old Men 14. Denying equivalencies and necessary consequences from Scripture 15. A vilifying of the judgement and persons of all godly and learned men of this present and former ages building up their rotten foundations upon their ruins 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people which while they dream it s countenanced by men in power cry Hosanna to day and perhaps Crucifie to morrow 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the Goddess Egeria Minos with Jupiter in the Cave Solon with the Delphian Apollo Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel Montanus and the Shakers with the Holy Ghost the white Witches with the Spirit in the shape of a Dove and all but to palliate their unfound opinions and practises Let not his Soul prosper that does not acknowledge and thirst after the true Spirit of God yet let us try the Spirits and not believe every lying Spirit 18. The learning subtilty and industry of some Anabaptists to gain Proselytes Arrius Pelagius Marcion were not wiser in their generation than they to inveagle the poor simple people especially Women and inferiour Tradesemen which in seven years can scarce learn the Mysterie of the lowest profession think half seven years enough gain'd from their worldly imployments to understand the Mysterie of Divinity and thereupon meddle with Controversies which they have no more capacity to pry into than a Batt to look up into the third Heaven These and many more are the causes of the increase of Anabaptism Now for the Fourth you enquire why they are permitted

blessing as well as liable to the curse C. Which distinction was took away thus They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward and visible part But Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part T. Mr. T. denied the Minor and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberidge which they that spoke did not understand themselves C. Mr. C. replyed it was the language of learned men of all ages amongst whom were Vossius Bullinger and Hugo Grotius and that Children of Believing Parents were holy before Baptism and that Baptism did not make but declare them to be Christians Then cryed out a Cobler I. E. that hath been dipped this is Blasphemy C. Well you discover of what spirit you are and your ignorance Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament That Infants are Christians and federally holy before Baptism and therefore are they Baptized Pag 12. And that Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy with a federall or Covenant-holiness I thus prove from 1 Cor. 7.14 Els were your Children unclean but now they are holy T. That sayes Mr. T. Is meant of Matrimoniall holynes or a lawfull use of the Marriage-bed that they are no Bastards C. That Answer I thus infringe That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not so much as once for Matrimoniall holiness cannot be so meant here But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense and not once for Matrimoniall holyness Therefore it cannot be so meant here T. That Argument sayes Mr T. I will retort upon you That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never Once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense and never once for Covenant holiness Therfore it cannot be meant here C. To which was replyed this is to invert the order of the dispute you are to answer and not to oppose T. I may oppose by retorting of an Argument and I will answer anon C. Well to satisfie you I deny your Minor for it s taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness T. Where C. The proof lyes upon you that it is not yet I le give give you one instance or two Rom. 11.16 if the first fruits be holy the Lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches T. That is not meant of a Covenant-holyness C. Yes it s as cleer as the light and so you your self interpreted it at Ross as there are hundreds that will witness which was upon this occasion I pressed that if the immediat parents were holy the children were holy with a Covenant-holiness you denyed the inference and said the meaning of it was that Abraham the father of the faithfull was the first fruits and root that was holy and therefore his posterity was holy and in covenant And in this exposition as he agreed with truth so with Beza who sayes that children are holy that is comprehended in covenant from the wombe and with Bowles who saith that they are holy with outward holiness by which they are judged to be in covenant But to return from whence by your retortion we have digressed I am to prove that holyness is never taken in Scripture for Matrimoniall cleanness in opposition to Illegitimation Not in that place Ezra 9.2 the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands which is either your only or principall hold as far as I can gather out of your books therefore in no place T. He denyed the Antecedent C. Which was proved thus If it be meant of Matrimoniall cleanness then this must be the meaning of the words The holy seed that is the lawfully begotten Jews have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands that is the bastards of those lands But that cannot be the meaning for happily there were some Bastards among the Jewes and in that sense not holy and no Bastards among the Nations but all or the most Legitimate and therefore in that sense not unholy Therefore it is not meant of Matrimoniall holiness T. He denyed the Major affirming that both Jews and Nations were holy before their mixture but then both they and their Children became unclean because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations C. To which was answered they that are Saints are not unholy But some Saints have been begot by this mixture or unlawfull bed as Jepthah who Hebr. 11. Is said to be justified by faith Therefore they are not unholy T. He denyed the Major saying they may be unholy by their Naturall Generation and first birth and yet holy by Regeneration and new birth C. This strikes not home Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman but they were not illegitimate therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegitimate T. Mr. T. Said that was before the Law was given C. Well that Answer will do you little service after the Law was given Salomon had children by Rahab who was a Cananitish and Boaz by Ruth who was a Moabitish woman and yet they were not Illegitimate or unholy as you would have it T. They became Proselites and received the Religion of the Jews C. Well then while they were not of the Jews Religion tho no Bastards they were unholy when they embraced the Jews Religion by your own confession they became holy what is this but a Covenant-holyness which you have opposed all this while and now grant it T. Mr. T. Used many words to clear himself but with little satisfaction to the greatest part of the hearers and still denied that children were holy and in covenant C. Which was further proved thus They that Christ took up in his arms blessed said the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive are holy with a Covenant-holyness But Christ took up little children into his arms blessed them sayd the Kingdom of God belonged unto them pronounced a curse upon those that despised and would not receive them Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness T. Mr. Tombes began to be netled as if something in this Argument galled him saying it was a fallacie and that he went about to entrap him by sophistrie C. What fallacie T. A heaping of many things together that belong to severall matters C. I confess they were spoken upon severall occasions but they all concenter in my Conclusion that children are holy and in covenant I am in hast and named them all together but if you will have patience I le prosecute them severally T. I am willing to continue till midnight but I like not this kind of arguing C. You like it not because it does jugulum petere cut the throat of your tenet T. No not so much as touch