Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	child_n	kingdom_n	little_a	10,781	5	6.9696	4	true

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

Church many proud men entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. ergo it must be understood of the Kingdome of glory 2 From this that our Saviour directs the speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to his Disciples who were already in the visible Church therefore the requiring a further condition to the Kingdome of God shewes he meant it of the Kingdome of glory 3 The speech Marke 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of glory ergo so here Deodate on Matth. 19 14. so farre are you deceived in thinking that children by reason of their weakenesse and contemptible qualitie are unworthy to be presented unto me that contrariwise no body is capable of my Kingdom unles he be first by the spirit of regeneration brought into a spirituall estate to be like a little child in the order of nature The new annot on the Bible on Matth. 19. 14. yee have no reason to blame them for bringing children to me for they may be such as have interest to the Kingdome of heaven as well as others of ripe yeares and unlesse yee be like them ye shall never come there ch 18. 3. But saith Master Blake Christ had never been so much displeased with his Disciples for forbidding them seeing their election and justification was to the Disciples wholly unknown they had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have knowne I answer The reason of Christs anger was their hindering him in his designe not the knowledge they had of their present visible title this is but a dreame I added further that Christs action in this was extraordinary and so no ordinary rule for baptizing by the Publike ministery Mr Blake would have me consider how this can stand with that I said before that they that brought the Infants might do it without faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the fame of his miracles and account that he was a Prophet I answer there is no opposition they might conceive him to be but a Prophet not the Messiah and yet Christ might act as an extraordinary Prophet and as the Messiah Mr Blake sayes this act of Christ is no direct preced●● for baptisme but for Church-priviledges of which Infants are capable Marke this speech if but be adversative then Master Blake grants that Infants are capable of Church-priviledges not of baptisme which overthrowes all his dispute but the truth is this thing was done to these Infants not by reason of any 〈◊〉 title they had or to enter them into any outward Church-priviledge but to accomplish by his blessing their interest in the invisible Kingdome of God by election Master Blake in the close of this chapter sayes if it were true that padobaptisme had no more warrant then I conceive yet 〈◊〉 not will-worship but a misapplication of an instituted ordinance to a person But I aske Master Blake whether Infant-Communion were not will worship whether baptizing of bells were not will-worship and yet these are but misapplications of an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject We have the word will-worship but once Col. 2. 23. and if it be taken in the worser sense as Protestant Divines hitherto have done though lately Doctor Hammond at Oxford hath written a booke to prove it to be taken in the better part for a commendable thing as a free-well offering and have made it the sinne of the Pharises Matth. 15. 9. and especially non-conformists who have made every invented ceremony will-worship then much more Infant-baptisme being worship it selfe if it be not instituted must be will worship Chapt. 15. Master Blake examines what I say Examen pag. 164. about Gods sealing Master Marshall spake of Gods sealing the baptized I said God seales not to every one that is baptized but onely to true beleevers For his sealing is the confirming of his promise but God promiseth righteousnesse to none but true beleevers Master Blake answers You acknowledge baptisme to be is its nature a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and to be of God therefore in it God must seale to every baptized person or else you must say they are not baptized I reply I acknowledge baptisme of professours of faith to be of God though they be not true beleevers and I acknowledge baptisme in its nature to be a seale of the covenant of God but not a seale actuall but aptitudinall that is all right baptism is in its nature apt to seale as a garland hung out is to signify wine to be ●old yet actually the one signifies so onely to the intelligent and the other onely to true beleevers And God never seales actually till a person be a beleever I said As for the sealing by God upon condition persons ag●ize the Covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the Covenant of grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into Covenant with that he will put his lawes in their 〈◊〉 and in their mindes will 〈◊〉 them Heb. 10. 16. Master Blake answers If you 〈◊〉 this of the Sacraments as the words beare then according to your opinion none ought to be baptized but 〈◊〉 in whose heart the law in wrote I answer him By Gods sealing I doe not meane every right administration of baptisme for though that be in its nature apt to seale the graces of the Covenant yet actually Gods seales not but when it is administred to a beleever It may be called a right act of the administratour according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing I call Gods sealing onely when either by his spirit or oath or outward rite he assures his grace as by circumcision to Abraham Rom. 4. 11. he appointed Ismael to be circumcised but did not seale to him righteousnesse by faith The inference Mr Blake makes from my words as if I held none baptizable but those in whose heart Gods law is written hath no colour for I do not make the administratours baptizing or sith they will have it so called sealing to be Gods sealing God appoints the word to be preached to many hypocrites and the preacher that assures them of the promises doth it by Gods appointment yet God doth not assure the promises to them I do not make him onely baptizable to whom God seales but him whom Christ appoints to be baptized whether God seales to him or no. Master Blake urgeth me with Bellarmines argument of the Sacraments be seales of grace they are often false and God should beare witnesse to a lye and tels of the speech of some that have said that this argument is unanswerable unlesse we confesse that the seale of the Sacrament is conditionall I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall seale for that which seales doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not

Ames and Voetius as I have shewed in this Apology above § 5. Master Blake addes I onely say some more learned then I as learned as you have denied my words to be either absurd or heterodox Be it so yet affection may blinde their eyes But let us examine the speech I reasoned thus if the precedent to be followed be a houshold then those of the houshold are to be baptized either because of the houshold if this be said then the Infidell wife is to be baptized because of the houshold or because they professe the faith and then the precedent is not a houshold but a professor of faith To this Master Blake For full answer I say that wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme if any wife and servant were in those housholds they were baptized else the Scripture would not have said the whole family was baptized It is sufficient that Scripture mentioning baptisme of whole housholds excepts none from a capacity of baptisme I reply in that which he cals a full answer there is no answer at all to my reason for he neither denyes my distinction to be sufficient nor doth he tell us which member he will choose in the Dilemma nor how he will avoid the consequent upon his choice And therefore his learned friends though they were ten times learneder then my selfe yet in this are mistaken in acquitting either the former speech of this answer from absurdity But let us consider what he sayes It is sufficient that Scripture mentioning baptisme of whole housholds excepts none from a capacity of baptisme I reply Is this sufficient to make the baptizing of housholds the precedent that is the pattern by which we may now baptize Infants because Infants are not excepted Then neither are Infidels excepted there nor naturall fooles or idiots of ripe yeares and so are to be the precedent of baptizing But wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme Answer It is not true that wife and servant as wife and servant are in a capacity for baptisme if ●s betaken with reduplication and capacity of actuall right but as they are professors of faith But if it be understood that 〈◊〉 wife that is though wife and capacity in respect of future possibility then it is true of an Infidell of any man shall we therefore make an Infidell or a man simply the precedent of baptizing I said there 's no reason why it should not be laid as well that baptizing Samaria Acts 8. 12. the 3000. Acts 2. 42. all Judea Matth. 3. 5 should be the precedent as baptizing of housholds Acts 16. True saith Master Blake if Semaria be converted all Judaea is taken for some considerable numbers out of every part of Judaea So say I the terme houshold is taken Acts 16. for those of the house that being of growne yeares professed the faith And so there 's no precedent there for baptizing an Infant Chapt. 13. Mr Blake passing over all that I say to Mr Marshals second argument till pag. 145. concerning it tels me that I might have given Mr Marshal leave to explain his own argument And And I tell Mr Blake that so I did and then did my part to shew what was faulty in it so effectually that I conceive in his Defence he hath quitted it and put another in its room as weak as it as I shewed above But Mr Blake thinkes it is sufficient to make the argument good that infants of beleevers have an accesse in Gods ordinary way of dispensation whilst infants Here is a new phraseology which serves for nothing but to puzzle there is no face of an argument in it and therefore I let it passe To shew how uncertaine the argument is from from Matth. 19. 14. for infant-baptisme I produced Pis●a●ors reasons to prove that it is not cleare they were infants that were brought to Christ These reasons I did not stick to and so need not own what is contradictory to my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. before The second exception I took to the argument from Matth. 19. 14. I delivered onely doubtfully and yet I conceived Mr Marshals reason not cogent for somewhat that Christ meant to reach by that Embleme of a little child could not be well resembled by a sheep for though meeknesse might yet not d●ciblenesse I might have added that the similitude or Embleme of a sheep had not so much decorum in it But I stick not to that exposition of not including those infants as conceiving not from Mr Marshals or Mr Blakes reason but from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them and declaration concerning them As for Mr Blakes glosse he puts upon me I disclaimed it It is his owne mistake not my conceit that those infants or infants of beleevers in infancy have no interest in Christ but are without Covenant of promise without God without hope But for that I said thirdly that there is no certainty onely conjecture that they were infants of beleevers I avow it Mr Blake averres a certainty beyond conjecture because Christ was minister of the circumcision Rom. 15. 8. sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 15. 24. carried himselfe otherwise to the Canaanitish woman in behalfe of her daughter verse 22. 23. If these had had no other interest Christ would have been as facile to others as to them I reply Christ was minister of the ci●●●mcision was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel yet cured the servant of the Centurion the Samaritan leper the daughter of the Syrophenician He carried himselfe strangely at first to that woman to provoke her faith and he pleaded against her not that shee was not a beleever but that shee was a Canaanite if this reason prove any thing it is that the childrens parents were Jewes but that proves not they were beleevers few of them beleeving on Christ Iohn 1. 11. Against the fourth thing I say of those children that were brought to Christ that the speech of such is the kingdome of heaven is meant of the kingdome of glory and that this is not common to all infants of beleevers Mr Blake excepts that it is meant of the visible Church and and of all infants of beleevers as such now on this hinge turns the fifth exception also and so the answer to the whole argument I determine the Kingdome of heaven to be meant of the Kingdome of glory and I thus prove it 1 The Kingdome of God must be understood Marke 10. 14 as it is verse 15. and Lu. 18. 16. as verse 17 and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both those this I prove because our Saviour from their estate inferres a likenesse to them in others for the same estate but Marke 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. can be understood of no other then the Kingdome of glory the proposition being false being understood of the visible