Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	grace_n	work_n	1,598	5	6.0605	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66525	Infant=baptism asserted & vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to a treatise of baptism lately published by Mr. Henry Danvers : together with a full detection of his misrepresentations of divers councils and authors both ancient and modern : with a just censur of his essay to palliate the horrid actings of the anabaptists in Germany : as also a perswasive to unity among all Christians, though of different judgments about baptism / by Obed Wills ...	Wills, Obed.	1674 (1674)	Wing W2867; ESTC R31819	255,968	543

whose condition he bewails which was the generality of the body of the Jews or 2. Some conceive by children of the flesh he meaneth not in this place children by natural generation but such as trusted in outward fleshly priviledges and by children of the promise put in opposition to them is meant true Believers which are indeed the true Seed in whom the word takes effect and who were figured forth by Isaac Si sensum mysticum spectes non ii qni ex lege justitiam quaerunt sed fideles sed quod promissionis filius intelligantur is quos diximus secundum literam ingelligi apparet ex vers 9. This is a truth saith Beza but not apposite to this place for Paul doth not here distinguish Ahrahams children from others by their Faith as in the fourth of Romans Quia vero promissionis filios interpretantur eos qui fidei amplectuntur promissionem dicunt quidem quod res est sed non satis appositè loquuntur Neque enim Paulus boc loco filios Abrahami a caeteris distinguit ex fidei nota ut supsa c. 4. sed de primariâ cansa● id est de ipsius fidei fonte gratuitae videlicet electionis aeterno proposito disserit Beza in Locum but disputes of the primary cause even of Faith it self which is the eternal purpose of God according to his Election of Grace verse 11. So that the Apostles express Doctrine is that Election and Salvation is not from works but free Grace But the Opposerss of Infant Baptism have always perverted the scope of Paul in this place as if he intended it of outward Church priviledges not to be had by being born of believing Parents which the Text has nothing to do with as every unpartial and judicious Reader will apprehend Nay this very place proves the quite contrary for the Apostle makes two sorts to be within the visible Church viz. Some are of Israel that is in mans cyc these partake of the outward priviledges v. 4.5 Others are Israel that is the true spiritual Seed that belongs to Gods Election and obtain the saving Promise So Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant made with him is the same for substance with that we live under and as persons were under it then so is it now it is not streighter now and larger then but the same And the like appears verse 14. and 17. the Identity of the Covenant is there manifest which is a truth destructive to the Opinion of Antipaedobaptists and therefore they so strike at it Having thus examined the Expositions which according to his Imagination the Scripture it self puts upon the Seed spoken of Gen. 17.7 and discovered his great mistake I could do it too very fully as to most of the Authors following which he saith do give in their concurrent sence with his upon the Text. The first named is Calvin upon Gen. 17.7 who saith that it is manifest that the promise understood of spiritual Blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4.9 c. In this I find the Author guilty of shameful Oscitancie and it is intollerable for any man thus to impose his mistakes upon the Reader The words are not Calvins but Estius his Answer to Calvin who again and again in his Comment upon Gen. 17.7 asserts the promise to be made to Abrahams natural and fleshly Seed and to all of them for thus he saith Nunc videndum est quem populum designet Falluntur autem qui putant solos hic electos notari They are deceived who think it to be meant only of the Elect Again clara est Pauli Doctrina de naturalibus Abrahoe filiis quod sint Sancti rami quia ex sancta radice prodierint Rom. 11.16 the Doctrine of Paul shews clearly 't is understood of the natural children of Abraham for if the root be holy so are the branches Then afterward Quare nihil certius est quàm Deum foedus suum pacisci cum filiis Abrahae qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi erant Wherefore nothing is more certain than that God made his Covenant with the children which were naturally to be begotten of him And then answers the Objections that may be made against it from Rom. 9.8 Neque repugnat quod dicit Paulus The cause of this mistake in our Author is meer carelesness for he never examined Calvin but finds in Mr. Tombes his Examen pag. 50. This passage quoted by him viz. Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hìnc Calvinus eo ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad eum pertinere promisstonem Abrahae factam that is hence Calvin gathers that the promise belonged to the children of Abraham as they were his natural or carnal Seed To which Estius replies thus Responsio manifesta promissionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahami pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatus est Rom. 4.9 Which is according to the Authors Translation It is manifest that the promise underdood of spiritual blessings pertaineth not to the carnal Seed c. here I might pass some observations upon this mistake of the Author 1. That he is very careless in quoting Authors and taking one for another and that the testimony he cites for himself is against him 2. That he and his party and the Jesuites and Papists agree very well in the interpretation of those Scriptures that relate to the Covenant The Author lies open to the lash also in what he quotes out of Amesius de praedest For Amesius speaks but just half of what he sets down in one and the same character and the promise that he disputes of there against the Remonstrants is that in the ninth of Romans 8. So that it is not ad idem for we are speaking of that Gen. 17.7 God said indeed he would not establish his Covenant with Ishmael but with Isaac Gen. 17.27 but by Covenant there is not meant the Covenant we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special Prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church remain in his posterity Next folows the dismal Consequences which as he saith the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is attended with But they are only imaginary not real ones Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis as the man thinketh so the Bell c. But let us hear what they are 1. If God made his Covenant with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts then saith he all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have grace bestowed upon them Reply No such matter for we have proved they may be said to be in Covenant in regard of external prividledges only and not partake of the spiritual grace or saving benefits of the Covenant Which saith he Mr. Blake doth confidently

last being joyned together in History as the two first great Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses the first was a Priest the last a Monk hated and persecuted very much by the Romish-Church These being driven out of several places where they stoutly opposed the Popish errors were at last received at Tholouse in Provence and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Brusians and Henricians Now to prove these to be against Infant-Baptism the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombes betakes himself to the Ecclesiastical Historians that have written of the State of the Church in the several Centuries since Christ for from them must we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived or from such who have made it their peculiar work to write the History of the Waldenses as Perin c. The Protestant Century-writers are either the Magdeburgensian Divines or Lucas Osiander I shall give a brief account of what they say of the Waldenses concerning the point under debate and so leave the Reader to judge on which side the truth lyeth whether on ours or our Opposites and shall premise this caution that the Reader do not mistake and take that to be the judgment of those Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus which they transcribe out of the Popish Records Councils Edicts c. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popish Abbots viz. Bernard and Cluniacensis 1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenses tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica flyes out against these men accusing them to be Hereticks he chargeth them 1. To be Manicheans 2. To deny the Lawfulness of Oaths 3. That 't is unlawful to Baptize Children 4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur and accordingly saith Bernard they denyed the lawfulness of eating Flesh and Milk These were then a terrible sort of Fellows if we may believe that old Superstitious though otherwise devout and some think Pious Abbot who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard And certainly if these Petro-brusians were guilty in these things they were even Monsters in nature What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too O Cruelty But as these good men cleared themselves from these false imputations and calumnies so also do the Magdeburgenses in their History speak highly of them and that which is sufficient for their Vindication The other cited by the Author is Lucas Osiander Cent. 12 262. And I doubt some prejudice to his cause Osiander may arise from citing him Whatsoever Osiander saith concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus of their being against Infant-Baptism he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacensis another Popish Abbot and he doth Calumniari fortiter lay very many abominable errors to their charge and among others he accuseth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptism Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot it must be per totum throughout in all or else in nothing And verily if his Testimony be valid as Mr. Tombes would have it accounted and the Author from him our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses that they comported with their opinion nor we be troubled at their dissenting from us Let us now look into the wicked and false Testimony or Account this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis and Henricus as Osiander takes it out of his own Writings Exorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albigensium Ea Romae primo caepisse putant postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros Illustres longe lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur inquit Osiander 1. Baptismum abjiciunt 2. Corporum resurrectionem negant 3. Carnem comedi prohibent 4. Christum non esse Deum nec assumpsisse de Virgine sed de Caelo carnem duxisse 5. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi c. There arose and in progress of time gathered strength the heresy of the Albigenses that is said to take its rise at Rome then dispersed far and wide over the Country of Tholouse that amongst men of quality moreover they say that it got into England They are charged to hold these Opinions saith Osiander They cast of Baptism meaning that of Infants They deny the resurrection They forbid eating Flesh as Bernard before They say Christ is not God neither took he flesh of the Virgin but brought it down from Heaven That the Church should possess all things in common By this time I suppose we may conclude that these Waldenses were vile persons or Cluniacensis a lying Abbot and this latter we do not in the least question Furthermore as if the Author had never enough of him he tells us that the Magdeburgenses set down the Assertions of Peter Bruis against Infant-Baptism Transubstantiation Tombe's Examen pag. 25. Worshipping of Images Purgatory which are distinctly and at large answered by Peter Cluniacensis But you must know he had never any personal conference or dispute with him But that I may not remain in the Author's debt for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenses I shall requite him with what I find in Osiander who tells us that the said Cluniacensis doth profess twice in his Writings that he would not accuse the Waldenses upon uncertain report but from their own Writings nay farther he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Testament and all the New except the Gospels Evangelium creditis Epistolas Fauli cur non Suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas est earum i. e. You believe the Gospel why not also the Epistles of Paul your answer is because the Divine Authority of them doth not so certainly appear to us And upon that account saith Osiander Cluniacensis spends two whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against them I shall conclude this with Mr. Marshal's words to Mr. Tombes upon his quoting Cluniacensis to the same end as my Antagonist doth He saith that Reverend Minister that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish Calumniator for an evidence in this matter and if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis and his followers in these things I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did noless when he chargeth them to be against Infant-Baptism that Children who dyed before they could actually believe were damned which is another Article Cluniacensis brings in against them one as true as the other I see by this that when men are engaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not