Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	church_n	infant_n	visible_a	1,818	5	10.0471	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94730	An antidote against the venome of a passage, in the 5th. direction of the epistle dedicatory to the whole book of Mr. Richard Baxter teacher at Kederminster in Worcestershire, intituled, The saints everlasting rest, containing a satyricall invective against Anabaptists / by Iohn Tombes B.D. Lately teacher at Bewdley in the same county.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1650 (1650)	Wing T1797; Thomason E602_20; ESTC R206421	26,378	40

this the rather I am induced to conceive not only from mine own knowledge and the credible testimony of others but also from their Petition to the Parliament April 2. 1649. and the Parliaments answer to them and their late heart-bleedings for Professors abominations in their faithfull generall Epistle Printed for the same man for whom Mr. Baxters published Bookes have been Printed But I perceive Mr. Baxter was willing to let his pen have the reynes and therefore addes How many of these c. May I not as well aske the parishioners of Kederminster how many have they known that have proved so palpably guilty of the soule sins he names How many Anabaptists or Antinomists they have known I cannot tell Mr. Baxter names me for one and I confesse his parishioners of Kederminster have had meanes to know me from my Cradle as being borne and bred up and lived a good part of my life near them if they know me so palpably guilty of the sins Mr. Baxter speakes of they shew but little love in that they rebuke me not but suffer sin on me contrary to what Mr. Baxter hath taught them I would have trod this passage under my foote as dirt were it not that the Devill by this and such like passages breeds such hatred and nourisheth such fury in mens brests that were it not for the mighty over-awing power of God and the magistrates Justice they would quickly fall on us to destroy us I add no more but the Lord rebuke them SECT. 10. Of the Anabaptists confident expressions and weaknesse upon triall and the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. YEt Mr. Baxter hath not done with us They have confident expressions sayth he to shake poore ignorant Soules whom God will have discovered in the day of triall But when they meet with any that can search out their fallacies how little have they to say you know I have had as much opportunity to try their strength as most and I never yet met with any in Garison or Army that could say any thing which might stagger a solid Man Answ. For other men I cannot make answer my own expressions in my Bookes and Sermons have no more confidence then strength of proofe or answer as there was occasion As solid men as Mr. Baxter have met with that which not only hath staggered but also hath brought them to assent to my Tenet Me thinks the institution Mat. 28. 19. the practise of Iohn Baptist the Apostles and first Churches who did Baptize no Infants that can be found might stagger as solid a man as Mr. Baxter and it is very likely Mr. Baxter met with some in Garison or Army that alledged these or some of these to him For my part I cannot tell how to construe it any other then a Judgement of God on men that hold so earnestly against Papists and Prelates and Presbyterians too that in Gods Worship humane Inventions are to be left as Will-worship and yet contend so much for Infant-baptisme so cleerly proved and so frequently confessed not only by learned Papists but also many of the more ingenuous of the Prelatical party and others to be onely a Church Tradition Yea the Oxford Divines in their late Reasons of the present Judgement of the Vniversity of Oxford about the Solemne Covenant c. Approved by generall consent in a full Convocation June 1. 1647. doe Sect. 4. Pag. 9. say that without the consentient Judgement and Practise of the Vniversall Church which they are not able to prove they should be at a losse when they are called upon for proofe in the Point of baptizing Infants But there yet remaines that which it seemes was first in his intention though last in execution to wit the blazing abroade his Dispute with me Ianua 1. at Bewdley of which he speaks thus You heard in my late publick Dispute at Bewdley Ianuary 1. With Mr. Tombes who is taken to be the ablest of them in the Land and one of the most Moderate how little they can say even in the hardest point of baptisme what gross absurdities they are driven to and how little tender consciencious fear of erring is left among the best Ans. Mr Baxter not content to be cryed up by his party hath thought good to glory in his imagined victory and to crow over me in print for that which I am assured the most considerate and godly Auditors of that Dispute have thought meet to mourn as perceiving it to have been his hour of temptation and God I hope will yet open his eyes to see how he hath been abused to become an Instrument to hinder the receiving of Truth and the Ringleader to a party of men who neither mind the things of Christ nor regard Mr Baxter saving wherein they make use of the keenness of his spirit and abilities to oppose the Truth and to uphold their repute But to the matter Mr Baxter reckons me among the Heretiques he had before described yet with difference In an Accusation of Heresie Jerom saith a man is not to be patient Mr Baxters Opinions about Justification Universal Grace in Amyralds middle way avowed by him in this place of his Epistle his Tenet about the Magistrates being an Officer under Christ as Mediator in his Aphorisms of Iustification pag. 273. may and are taken to savour more of Heresie then any Tenet I hold yea sure as our Protestant Divines are wont to answer Papists that the Tenets of the Protestants denying their additions when otherwise the same Faith is avouched cannot be justly charged as Heresie so neither can I be justly charged with Heresie who do avouch the Baptism appointed by Christ and practised by his Apostles and onely deny that the Consequences from the Old Testament are convincing to prove Infant-Baptism They that alter Christs way and introduce another way from Circumcision or the Jewish Church-state as Mr Baxter doth are more justly chargeable with Heresie His conceits of me I regard not His Neighbors of Kederminster might hear how little I did say but surely they could not hear in that Dispute how little I could say much less how little Anabaptists so called can say in the hardest point of Baptism His Neighbors and others may know by this and my other Writings and Sermonâ— that I can say more then I said then and I know other learned men who can say more in the point then disputed though I then said enough in answer to Mr Baxters Arguments then produced notwithstanding my care to speak no more then was necessary and my natural hesitancy in answering an Argument at the first hearing And how ever the business was packed to cry up a Baxter as if they had been a company of Boys at a game yet the whole Auditory might know and many did that Mr Baxter gave no sufficient Answer to that which I alledged That no good Argument could be drawn from the Infants of the lews visible Church membership to our Infants visible Church-membership because the visible Church of the Iews was the whole Nation brought into Covenant together by Abraham and Moses without previous instruction but the Christian visible Church had another state and

the Christian Church however it did in the Jewish Church there being a different Church state or frame in the Christian Church which was gathered by the preaching of the Gospell from the Israelites Church state frame made by the Authority of Abraham Moses without teaching of the persons gathred 4. Be it that the Covenant were to establish them to be a people to God and that he may be a God to them yet this doth not prove the Covenant to be a pure Gospel Covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish Nation For there is a plaine restriction in the words as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworne unto thy Fathers to Abraham to Isaac to Iacob which undoubtedly comprehended their settling in Canaan which was proper only to them as Israelites which may be proved out of many passages following as Deut 29 21. 28. Deut. 30. 1. 4. 5. 9 c. Yea Ainsworth v. 15. notes that the Covenant was made with their posterity with exception of the new Covenant in Christ so that by him this Covenant and the Covenant in Christ are not all one As for that which is alleaged out of Deut. 30. 14. that it is the Gospell Covenant because it is said Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach I Answer the words v. 8. 10. 11. speak expressely of the word of Command v. 14. the word is nigh to thee that thou mayst do it which is not meant of a promise but a command of the Law nor will it prove that then the Appostle allegeth it inpertinently for it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them as Rom. 10. 18. c. Lastly if it did containe promises purely Evangelical yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot be meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would be a God to them that is sanctify justifie adopt them to be Heirs of eternall life For then Gods promise to them should not be true For with many of them God was not well pleased 1 Cor. 10. 5. Heb. 3. 17 19. but only of the elect As for that Deut. 30. 6. I confesse it is a promise of spirituall grace but to the Jews after their captivity upon condition of obedience and to them indefinitely which was never performed to all their seed but only to the elect among them and therefore must be so limited as the promise Isai. 54. 13. is by our Lord Christ Iohn 6. 45. and the promise Gen. 17. 7. is by the Apostle Rom. 9. 6. 7. 8. SECT. 6. Of the text Acts 15. 10. alleaged to prove our Infants Disciples of Christ THe next Text alleaged by Mr. Baxter is Acts 15. 10. where he would have it thought that God sayes that our Infant Children are Disciples and therefore to be baptised according to the institution Math. 28. 19. To which I answer 1. By putting Mr. Baxter in mind of his own objection against my interpretation of the words 1 Cor 7. 14. but now are they holy that it is more likely the word should be taken in a sense in which it is 600. times taken for separated to God then in my sense in which it is no where else taken signifying legitimate For if this reason be good it holds against himselfe who takes the word Disciples in a sense applicable to Infants in which sense it is no where else taken though it be used for one that is a follower of a Tencher 300. times in the Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles of which either 100. or very neare it is used by Luke 2. Mr. Baxters interpretation will apaeare to be manifestly wrested to any that will but consider that the putting the yoak on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren and v. 5. they said that it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. certaine which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your soulis saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Now if any man so sencelesse as to think they did these things to Infants 3. The Text v. 1. 23. calls them brethren sayes v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but those that are resolved to outface a plaine truth would averre to be meant of Infants 4. Lastly Mr. Baxter confessed in privat conference with mee that the putting the yoak was by teaching and indeed it may easily be evinced that their act was not to take a knife or sharp stone and therewith in their owne persons cut off the little skin of male Infants but that they made it their businesse to subvert the soules of converted Gentiles to hold it necessary that they should be circumcised themselves if the putting the yoak had been actuall circumcision it had not been put on their necks but elsewhere Besides actuall circumâ—tion that is the losse of a little skin was and might be borne and is at this day by many people whereas it is said the Yoak they put was such as neither the present Iewes nor their Fathers were able to beare From all which I inferre that none are there meant by the terme Disciples but they that were taught by the false Teachers nor the yoak any other then the Doctrine or opinion of the necessity of circumcision and keeping of Moses his Law In like manner Christs Doctrine is called his yoak Math. 11. 29. 30. Pisc. in his Scholie on Acts 15 10. Iugum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nempe legem Mosis ex collatione v. 5. Grot. amot ad Actor 15. 10. Rabbini usurpant de doctrina quae aliquid omnino faciendum inculcat And in like manner the yoak of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Law Gal. 4. 21. And is generally by Divines handling the Doctrine of Christian liberty made to be the teaching and holding circumcision and Moses Law as the necessary way to justification and salvation and that the Habassine Christians who are circumcised yet are not intangled with the yoak of bondage because their consciences are free and so it is to be understood v. 2. whosoever is circumcised that is who is circumcised willingly out of the opinion of its necessity and sufficiency to salvation Christ shall profit you nothing yea but saith Mr. Baxter it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law and if it be not meant of circumcision circumcision is not condemned in that Councel I answer All the Colour Mr. Baxter hath from this Text to prove Infants disciples is by conceiving the yoak to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin but to say it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law is to say the samewhich I say that it is not circumcision as

Sermon and elsewhere that I do say as much concerning their interest in them as Mr. Marshall speaking consideratly will avouch I thank God by my preaching and disputing Sundry have beene brought into the Church and Covenant of Christ none do I know that have been kept or cast out by my disputing and therefore in this accusation of me Mr. Baxter may be more truly said to play the Divils part then my selfe SECT. 3. Of Anabaptists affirming their Children to be no Disciples no servants of God nor holy as separated to God BUt however perhaps I play the Divels part in the third thing Mr. Baxter sayes Anabaptists do affiirming them to be no Disciples no Servants of God nor holy as separated to God This I am sure alludes to the dispute between me and Mr. Baxter in which Mr. Baxter would have proved Infants might be baptized because Disciâ—les of Christ which he would prove out of Acts. 15. 10. And because they are called servants of God which he would prove from Levit. 25 41. 42. and holy as separated to God from 1 Cor. 7. 14. And members of the visible Church because of their entring into Covenant Deut. 29. 10. 11 12. And this was the maine of his dispute of which he so much crakes in this passage of his preface to his book in which he urged no more Texts that I remember out of which he concluded Infant Baptisme excepting that of Rom. 11. 19. 20. The thing that I affirmed in the dispute was that Infants are not servants of God as it is equipolent to Disciples of Christ for one that actively and willingly serves God such service of God alwayes requiring the use of reason which Infants have not In which sense also I denyed them to be Disciples that is such as being taught the Gospell of Christ by preaching of it do embrace it which sort of Disciples only are appointed to be baptized Math. 28. 19. compared with Mark 16. 15. Mr. Baxter The Saints everl rest Page 549. He gave them authority to send forth others on the same message and to baptize and gather Churches As for the terme holy as separated to God the thing I said in the dispute was concâ—rning the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether there holy be as much as separated to God which I denied But for the thing it selfe could I have had liberty to expresse my selfe without checking which all that were present know I could not have in the disputation I would have distinguished of a state of separation unto God either by election as separation is taken Gal. 1. 13. or by calling in the former sense I deny not but our children are or may be holy as the Jewes yet unborne are said to be Rom. 11. 16. which thing I also in my Exercitation pag. 10. had heretofore shewed in my answer to the argument for Infants baptisme out of 1 Cor. 7. 14. but in the latter I deny it If Mr. Baxter understand it in a third sense I shall give an answer about it when I understand what way he affirmes our children are separated to God SECT. 4. Of the Text Levit. 25. 41. 42. alleaged to prove our Children Gods servants BUt Mr. Baxter sayes God saith the contrary to my affirmation Levit. 25. 41. 42. Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. act 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The text Lev. 25. 41. 42. saith the Hebrew servant shall not be held in bondage but till the year of Iubilee then he shall depart both he and his Children for they are Gods servants But this Text speaks only of the Israelites Children whom God brought out of the Land of Egypt and the reason of their being his servants is taken meerly from that and to shew the priviledge they had above other servants and their Children and distinguishingly v 55. unto me the Children of Israel are servants what is this to our Children God saith the children of the Israelites are Gods servants I say our Children are not is there any contrariety in these speeches where the subjects of the propofitions are not the same Besides when I said our Children that is our Infant Children are not Gods servants I meant actually but that which God saith Levit. 25. 42 that they are his servants is meant only of what they are de jure of right and then the predicates of the Propositions are different and therefore no contrariety yet again servants of God are either actively such or passively as the Heavens Psal. 119. 91. are called Gods servants Nebuchadnezâ—zer is called Gods servant Ierem. 43. 10. were the Heavens and Nebuchadnezar Disciples of Christ and to be baptized SECT. 5. Of the Text Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. Alleaged to prove our Infants to be visible Church-members THe next Text Deut. 29. 10 11. 12. was alleaged to prove that our Children are visible Church members because the little ones of the Israelites entered into Covenant with God that he might establish them to be his people and this a Gospell Covenant Deut. 30. 6. 11. 12 13. 14. To this I answered 1 that thou v. 12. doth not necessarly comprehend the little ones This Mr. Baxter in the disputation turning himselfe to the people told them was to contradict the Text expressely and he sought to suggest to them as if it were my impudence and said that if it the Papists had as plaine express Scripture as Deut. 29. 12. was to prove that all even little ones did enter into Covenant he would turne Papist But for all Mr. Baxters hast I presume he would be better advised if he did consider v. 14. you are distinguished from them that stand there before the Lord c. v. 12. thou only is said to enter into Covenant and therefore though all v. 10. are said to stand yet it is not without some likely hood that thou v. 12. notes only some that entred into Covenant in the behalfe of the rest And if the passing into Covenant were as Piscator in his Scholie that thou mayest passe through the parts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the Covenant to which Ainsworth notes the phrase to allude surely neither the little ones nor all the rest did passe between the parts of the beasts divided but some instead of the rest 2. But were it granted that the little ones are said to enter into Covenant yet this doth not prove them to be visible members For. v. 15. it is said that Moses made that Covenant and Oath with him that was not there with them that day that is their posterity not yee borne as lackson Piscator Ainsworth Grotius the new Annot c shall it therefore be said that the posterity unborne were visible members of the Jewish Church in the wildernesse 3. It must be and was granted by Mr. Baxter in the dispute that this entring into Covenant was not by their owne act but by their Parents for them But such an entring into Covenant doth not make a viable Church member in

Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Text snippets containing the quad