Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	church_n	faith_n	profess_v	3,565	5	8.8932	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94733	An apology or plea for the Two treatises, and appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme; published Decemb. 15. 1645. Against the unjust charges, complaints, and censures of Doctor Nathanael Homes, Mr Iohn Geree, Mr Stephen Marshall, Mr John Ley, and Mr William Hussey; together with a postscript by way of reply to Mr Blakes answer to Mr Tombes his letter, and Mr Edmund Calamy, and Mr Richard Vines preface to it. Wherein the principall heads of the dispute concerning infant-baptism are handled, and the insufficiency of the writings opposed to the two treatises manifested. / By Iohn Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1646 (1646)	Wing T1801; Thomason E352_1; ESTC R201072	143,666	170

words 〈◊〉 the●e For the Covenant or Promise of Grace that is righteousnesse and life as Christ though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity mentioned Rom. 11. 27. yet I know not that God hath made such a Covenant to any much lesse to all the naturall beleeving seed of any beleeving Gentile and Propos 3. I say they have some promises though generall indefinite and conditionall And I mean by generall and indefinite such as determine not the kind of good promised nor the particular person and therefore are true if performed to any persons in any sort of good and conditionall upon condition of faith and obedience as when it is said the generation of the righteous shall be blessed his righteousnesse to childrens children to such as keep his Covenant Ps 103. 17. 18. Ps 112. 2. c. I tell Mr Marshall if he can shew any more promises then I doe I shall count them a treasure if not why doth he endeavour to make me and my opinion odious to the people as if I put all the children of the whole Church out of the Covenant of Grace as I doe the children of the Turkes and acknowledge no more promise for the one then for the other whereas when he hath said as much as he can for them he can bring no more promise for them then I doe nor dares reject the limitations I restraine them by But sayes Mr Marshall you leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill I ask whither the children have actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized or not If he say they have not then by not baptizing I leave them not in the visible kingdome of the Devill they are out of the visible kingdome of the Devill though they be not baptized if he say they have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill afore they are baptized then how is it true which the Protestants disputing against Bellarmin alleage against the necessity of baptizing infants to salvation that the children of beleevers are holy afore baptisme The truth is I neither leave infants in the Devills nor Gods visible kingdome for I conceive they are in neither kingdom visibly till they declare by their profession to whom they belong visibly Mr Marshall used often this expression of belonging to the visible kingdom of the Devill and I told him Examen pag. 41. I feared he did it ad faciendum populum to move the people by affrighting them by a bug-beare word if they keep their children from baptisme then they leave them to have an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill or to please them by making them beleeve that by baptisme their children are put out of the visible kingdome of the Devill This I said not judging his heart but being jealous least it was so and I confesse I am still suspicious he doth so because he still useth it after he hath been told it and it is a meer engine to stirre popular affections For how hath the unbaptized infant an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill unlesse it be true that all unbaptized persons have an actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill which is false in the Catechumeni of old the converted theefe on the Crosse Constantine the Great and many others who were in the visible kingdom of the Christ afore they were baptized On the other side thousands of people in America baptized by the Spaniards had as visible standing in the Devills kingdome as before I confesse when the baptized professeth the faith of Christ then baptisme is a note of a visible member and a distinguishing badge between the people of God and the Devill and so by baptisme a person is exhibited a member of the Church but otherwise I see no reason why an infant that makes no profession of Christ should be counted after baptisme a visible member of the Church more then before Let a child of a Christian be baptized and after being an infant and taken by a Turke be circumcised wherein is that child more a visible member of the Church of Christ then a Turkes child or is hee not rather a member of the Church of Mahomet then of Christ Are the Janizaries any whit the more Christians because they were baptized infants of Christian Greekes Protestant writers are wont to define the visible Church of Christians a number of persons that professe the faith of Christ So Art 19 of the Church of England and all sorts of Protestant writers Now that which makes the visible Church makes each member a visible member and that is profession Baptisme and the Lords Supper and hearing are notes as they signify profession otherwise if a person be baptized if he should heare or receive the Lords Supper and did not professe the faith he should not be a visible member for all that I confesse I have met with some writings which put Baptisme into the definition of the Church as necessary to the being of a visible Church and the words in the Confession of Faith of the 7 Churches of Anabaptists about London being baptized into that faith Artic. 33. are somewhat doubtfull though they seem rather to import that Baptisme is necessary to the right order of a Christian Church then to the being of a Church and I confesse they that hold that members are added to the Church by Baptisme and not otherwise and hold a nullity of Paedo baptisme must needs say the Churches that have no other then Infant-Baptisme are no true Churches nor their members Church-members as Master Ma●shall sayes pag. 84. of his Defence and so voluntary separation necessary But these points of the necessity of right Baptisme not onely to the right order but also to the being of a visible Church and Church-member and so voluntary separation barely for the defect of it I have ever disclaimed as considering the many errours and ill consequences that would follow thereupon and though provocations still increase yet I have in my practise shunned separation from my disenting brethren and I presume though Mr Marshall count right Baptisme a necessary duty yet he will be more advised then to make it essentiall either constitutivè or consecutivè to the being of a Church or Christian either visible or invisible for feare of giving too much advantage to Separatists and Seekers I suppose in reference to the present point this is the truth that however every infant is either in the invisible kingdome of God or Satan that is elect or reprobate yet no child till hee make profession doth visibly belong either to the one or to the other I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jewes the infants were reckoned to the Church and the reason was from the peculiar Church-state of the Jewes For then God took the whole family of Abraham together in one day and after the whole nation of the

written for me I sent my own to Master Marshall who received it December 9 1644. About a fortnight after Master Marshall sent me word that he would find a time to speake with me I sent him word that for the returning answer to my writing I would not straiten him but forasmuch as by his rejecting me I missed being nominated to the Temple and I was then brought to great straights I requested that he would declare as occasion should offer it selfe whether he held me fit for the Ministery or not notwithstanding my dissent from him in that point His answer was he desired to know first whether I would keep my opinion to my selfe I returned this answer in writing by my Father Scudder I request you to returne this answer to Master Marshall that whereas I requested him to declare whether he thought me fit for the Ministery or not notwithstanding my dissent abo●t Poedobaptism and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point I conceive he is bound by the rules of justice mercy and prudence to do it without requiring that condition and that he hath no reason to be jealous of me considering my carriage in this matter Neverthelesse when I shall understand what promise he would have from me and what is intended to be done by him for the discussing the point and clearing of Truth to which I ought not be wanting and what advantage I may have by his agency for my imployment and maintenance I shall give him a punctuall answer and am resolved for peace sake to yeeld as farre as I may without v●●lating the solemne Covenant I have taken and betraying truth and innocency Decem. 26. This begat the friendly conference mentioned by Master Marshall which was Decem. 30. 1644. in the morning afore the Assembly sate At the very beginning of that Conference Master Marshall having this last written message in his hand reading those words and he demands of me a promise of silence in that point told me that he did not demand of me a promise of silence in that point for that was beyond his line this was his very expression As soon as ever I heard those words I conceived my selfe freed from the snare I most feared of making a promise which as the case might stand I could not keep with a good conscience Then Master Marshall spake to this effect that yet for the satisfaction of those who should enquire of him concerning me he desired to know my intentions Whereupon I dealt freely that I intended not to publish my opinion in the Pulpit if I might be where I should not be put to baptize for I conceived it not likely that there would be a Reformation of that thing in this Age there having been so long a practise of Infant-Baptisme and such a prejudice in men against the opposers of it yet I told him that if any should preach to that people I had charge of that which I conceived to be an errour I did resolve to oppose it there otherwise other mens preaching abroad should be no provocation to me So that it is cleare I made no promise and that intimation of mine intentions which I made was only that I intended not to preach my opinion in that place unlesse provoked there And this any man may perceive was my meaning by Master Marshals owne relation in which the prov●● is rightly expressed That if any should preach in my Pulpit for baptizing Infants I tooke my selfe bound in the same place to preach against it otherwise mens preaching or printing abroad should be no provocation to me to wit to preach that opinion in that place And whereas Master Marshall alleadgeth this for his Quietus est he might have remembred that I told him in expresse termes that it Lawes were likely to be enacted to make the deniall of Infant-Baptisme penall I held my selfe bound in conscience to appeare in publique about that matter yea and Master Marshall told me he intended me some animadversions on my Examen whence it may be collected that neither Master Marshall nor my selfe had agreed to lay aside the dispute it selfe It is true Master Marshall did endeavour to possesse me with this That Reformation of Congregations might be without altering the use of Infant-Baptisme To which I answered that though much might be done other wayes yet it would never be right till Christs way of baptizing were restored About two houres after Master Marshall comming to me in the presence of Master Obadiah Sedgwicke repeating the intimation of my intention aforenamed with the proviso told me he would give testimony in my behalfe as I desired Upon this I parted with Master Marshall and Master Sedgewicke walking with me commended my proceeding in that matter and made a notion to me which came to nothing Upon this I went home very chearfull not only because I prized amity with Master Marshall and there was a likely way of my imploiment and maintenance but chiefly because I was freed from that I feared as a snare the promise of silence and there were great hopes that my brethren in the Ministery would not be rigid in ejecting out of the Ministery and Communion those that dissented from them in that point and so separation and mutuall persecution might be prevented which was and is still the great feare that possesseth my spirit and liberty might in time be given for the shining forth of the light in this thing and by degrees Reformation might be perfected which I conceived the only safe and happy way Upon these considerations I acquainted sundry of my near friends with this mercy of God to me and being requested to joyne in keeping a day of Thanksgiving at Anth●l●● I 〈◊〉 1. following for publique mercies I made a speciall memento in my booke of speciall passages of my life to blesse God that day for the conference I had with Master Marshall in peace and amity What Master Marshall did after for me I do not well know I beleeve he did as he promised and after a triall of me three Lords-daies at the Temple I was in the end of Ianuary chosen by the Treasurers and and sundry others of the members of both the honourable Societies of the Temples to be their Preacher for a yeare After these things being acquainted with a Law made in New-England and proceedings against those that denied baptizing of Infants I yeelded to the sending of my Examen thither though not so large as it is now printed for the dissertation about a speech of Master Cotton Part. 3. Sect. 3. Pag 42 43. and some other things were added since meerly to occasion the study of this matter more exactly and to allay the vehemency of their spirits and proceedings against those that dissented from them and therewith I sent this short Epistle To all the Elders of the Churches of Christ in new-New-England and to each in particular by name to the Pastor and Teacher of the Church of God at Boston there

be the God of Abraham and his seed yet I still averre it to be a new Gospell to say that God hath promised to be the God of beleevers and their seed The Cove●●●t with Abraham and his seed I find 〈◊〉 17. 7. and the urging of this Covenant I deny not Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. Levit 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I say not that it contained onely the promise of 〈◊〉 but grant it contained the promise of 〈◊〉 by Christ 〈◊〉 1. 17. yet I like not Cha●iors saying to call the promise of Can●● an app●●●● to the Coven●● sith the Holy Ghost me thinkes speakes otherwise Ps 105. 8. 9. 10. 11. That 〈◊〉 cap. 39. speak not of 〈◊〉 his faederall holinesse hath been shewed before and 〈…〉 which Master Blake cites pag. 57. saying that 〈…〉 biunt expectant baptismum do me thinkes prove that Infants were not ordinarily baptized in his time Nor do I thinke Master Blake can prove the Doctrine of Covenant-holinesse out of Justin martyr Epiphanius Augustin Isidor Pelusiota I had said that I guesse by some words of Master Marshall Mr Blake and Master Rutherfurd that to maintaine the baptizing of all sorts of persons in the Kingdome as foundlings Infants of Papists whores excommunicat persons which is the ordinary practise excepted against by Independents that this assertion was upon the anvil that when a nation shall receive the faith that is a great or eminent part the governours and chiefe cities and representative bodyes shall receive the faith that nation shall in like manner have all their litle ones capable of baptisme and counted visible members of the Church as the posterity of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration Mr Blake askes me in which of these words I pray you can you find one word of that businesse which you say is on the a●vill I answer to let Master Blakes words alone for the present me thinkes Master Rutherfurds sound plainly as much For if notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory who did obstinately deny Christ the children were holy by the holinesse of the chosen nation which I conceive when the Ancestors are not included must meane the body or generality of the nation then the assertion I set downe as theirs must follow but this I did deliver but as my guesse yet so as that I thought necessary to oppose it and I say it opposeth their owne grounds who derive the title to Infant-baptisme from the Covenant to a beleever and his seed but these are not the seed of beleevers but the seed of them that deny and impugne the faith and from 1 Cor. 7. 14. of which Master Blake himselfe faith pag. 38. of his answer so my letter The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this proposition All the children of the unbeleever are uncleane that is out of the Covenant in his sense unl●esse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever Which speech of Master Blake I conceive plainly overthrowes Master Blakes position in the birth priviledge pag. 24. c. and Master Rutherfurds in the words before named For if all the children of an unbeleever are uncleane unesse for generation he or she be sanctifyed by a beleever it will not be enough to say the nation is holy or the mediate ancestors were holy sith the Apostles position is of the immediate parents about whose living together the question was and therefore saith else were your children unclean Mr Blakes answer here is a mistake of the force of my reason which was not from the term beleever in 1 Cor. 7. 14. but from this that by their own expo●ition they are unclean who are not borne of a beleever therefore they cannot be holy either by holinesse of remote ancestours or the chosen nation when the immediate pare●ts are as wicked as the Jewes who crucified Christ I said the Independents had the advantage in this and I am sure they have against Mr Blake and Mr Rutherfurd and I guesse that the Assembly were sensible of it when they appointed in the Directory the child to be presented by the Father though I conceive that remedy will little or nothing rectify the abuse Mr. Blake saith it were worth enquiry whom I mean by officiating Priests I tel him non-preaching Priests made by the Bishops Mr Blake saith your selfe were well aware that every weapon that you left up against this Protestant doctrine was forged on the Jesuitas a●vill and that in the whole conflict you were necessitated to borrow help from the Philisten Artists when you were put upon it to say page 13. This is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable To this I say I am well aware that this is a loud calumny the contrary whereof is manifest by the many and best Protestant Divines I quote all along my Examen and very seldome make use of a Jesuite throughout my Treatise Nor was I put upon that speech I used because I borrowed help from Papists but because Mr Marshall spake of his virtuall consequence as undeniable as if he had been Doctor irrefragabilis and it is necessary when men goe about to bind men to the consent of Divines in some Churches that we freely claime our liberty and not become the servants of men Mr Blake saith I doe not know one Protestant writer that hath declared himselfe in this thing but hath declared himself to be your adversary I answer none of the Antipaedopaptists are my adversaries in this yet some of them are Protestant writers in the point of expounding Gen. 17. 7. which is the chiefe hold for Covenant holinesse Twisse Bayne Ames Downame and many others are for me in the point of expounding 1 Cor. 7. 14. Camerarius Melanchthon Musculus O siander are for me Mr Blake saith but a little before pag. 58. Zuinglius in this hand went right in which Luther his contemporary and opposite in this thing is charged to be defective But saith Mr Blake I and you have entred into Covenant to the extirpation of Popery and I would learn of you by what character or marke it may be now discerned I answer not by this that that is to be accounted Popery which all Protestant Divines oppose the Papists in for then many things would not be counted Popery which are nor any thing to be counted Popery till we knew all Protestant Divines oppose it an endles impossible busines But there is a shorter way then that and it is that is to be counted Popery which is commonly known by that name as the doctrine of the Popes supremacy infallibility the doctrine of the Masse Transubstantiation Bread-worship Crosse-worship Invocation of Saints c. Or if you will have a more fixed way you may take that to be Popery which either the 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn in opposition to

say the conceit that making Disciples Mat. 28. 19. is to be done by baptizing them is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it now it is as absurd to say that the Jewes were discipled when they were circumcised and therefore I conceive Mr Blake and Mr Marshall have not any wit But for this inference it is a farre fetched thing I did not conceive the one so absurd as the other nor doe yet and therefore I might impute defect of wit to the entertainer of the one conceit and yet not impute it to Mr Marshal and Mr Blake for entertaining another conceit like it Mr Blake excepts against me for saying these points had strong hold in his mind that baptisme succeeds into the room place and use of circumcision and that the Covenant of the Gospell is all one with the Covenant made with Abraham 〈…〉 used those words that Baptisme so succeeds circum●● 〈◊〉 therefore how could I know it to bee in his mind I answ●● 〈◊〉 it by words equipollent which hee useth as Birth-priviledge page 14. what is objected against one concludes against both circumcision and baptisme are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken there being the same principall and maine end of both And this is evidence enough for what I said The other Proposition he denies not to be in his mind Sect. 4. ch 11. Mr Blake makes a digression concerning arguments drawn from Analogy And first whereas I had allowed for that which is naturall or morall in worship an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to christians upon this Mr Blake tels me there is the same reason and like liberty in arguing by analogy in positive as in morall precepts To this I reply if the meaning bee that there is like reason of proving morall precepts from the old Testament as positive rites it is most false and contrary to the 7th article of the Church of England but if it be 〈◊〉 ●●tood of the manner of proofe by analogy or resembla●● then I deny that wee have any liberty at all to argue from analogy or resemblance to prove or make a dutie or command in morals or ceremonials though I grant we may use analogy to inforce a duty before proved For an argument to prove a thing to bee a morall dutie from the old Testament must bee by proving the same thing then to have been morall as Master Cawdray and Master Palmer endeavour to prove one day in seven for a Sabbath to bee morall and perpetuall but an argument from analogy is from one thing to another as like for analogy or proportion is betweene not the same but more things as like As for the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. the Apostle doth not by ●are analogy conclude ministers maintenance but from the Lords ordinance 1 Cor. 9. v. 14. which ordinance I take to be that Matth. 10. 10. which ordinanc the Apostle confirmes from common equity which he proves b● diverse instances from v. 7. to v. 14. so that the Apostle doth no prove a morall duty by analogy between two different things bu● from a generall maxime that the labourer is worthy of his reward proved by sundy instances inferres a particular truth concerning ministers The argument 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. is to prove that they which professe C●●t may not partake of the things of Idols from this generall truth that they which joyn in the seruice of any God they hold communion with that God and are one with those that worship that God this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services So that this argument is from a generall truth proved by an induction of instances That Matth. 12. 3. 4. is onely an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy a ceremoniall to a moralll duty not an argument from meer analogy or resemblance of things different But what ever arguing there be in morals certaine it is that no argument is good from bare analogy in ceremonials or meer positives of the Jewes to prove thus it was in such a rite of the Jewes therefore it must be so in such a rite of the Christians there 's no example of such arguing in the Scriptures and therefore I said rightly Examen pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they goe that so argue to wit that in meer positive things such as circumcision and baptisme are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example Master Blake would knowe who they be that do so I answer Mr Marshall in his first argument and five first conclusions and virtuall command from circumcision Master Blake birth-priviledge pag. 15. and generally all that prove Infant-baptisme by Infant-circumcision For circumcision and baptisme are meer positive things baptizing of Infants is confessed not to have expresse institution gathered by expresse precept or example in the new Test and that which is alleaged is either expresse or no precept or example at all and if it were to be gathered by consequence from institution or example Apostolicall in the new Testament without the helpe of the precept of circumcision there would be for as much as it concernes my part an end of the controversie therefore it is clear they that argue from circumcision to baptisme doe frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by them between two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example But saith Master Blake It is not barely the analogy between circumcision and baptisme by which we inforce the baptisme of Infants but the grounds of both circumcision and baptism This is said but when the grounds are required what are they but the analogy between baptisme and circumcision that they are like what 's the reason of the one is the reason of the other and therefore what is done in the one is to be done in the other Now whence is this arguing but barely from the likenesse which makes an argument meerly from analogy If the argument were drawn from some thing proper to baptisme it were another case but being drawne from circumcision to baptisme it is an argument meerly from analogy If they rest not on this let them lay aside this argument and sticke to precept or Apostolicall example in the new Testament To shew the danger of this way of arguing I thus reasoned Examen pag 29. For if we may do it in one thing why not in another where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their rituals do know that this principle hath brought in surplice purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any Learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods word how farre I may go in