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
A86506	A vindication of baptizing beleevers infants. In some animadversions upon Mr. Tombes his Exercitations about infant baptisme; as also upon his Examen, as touching the antiquities and authors by him alledged or contradicted that concern the same. Humbly submitted to the judgement of all candid Christians, / by Nathanael Homes. Published according to order.	Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.	1646 (1646)	Wing H2578; Thomason E324_1; ESTC R200604	209,591	247

Infants For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed did know that there was in all the very filth of sinne which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition But of a tradition from the Apostles that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures Tradition being taken in the Scriptures and Fathers not * So our orthodox schools distinguish passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition but actively for the act of tradition or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages to our fathers and so down to us in these instances 2 Thess 2.15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haer●s ●0 cumpendiarver doct But saith he other mysteries as concerning the laver of baptisme and internall mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel and the Acts hath them So Augustin as we shall see after in the Quotations of him And that Origen takes Tradition in this sence appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit That sinne is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ and that this is sealed to us by Baptisme in respect whereof we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture as baptisme hath and baptisme of beleevers infants as wee have proved and are still upon the proofe 2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are speaking of the spirituall uncleannesse of man by sinne It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptisme also to little children according to the observation of the Church seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern and indulgence of pardon did belong unto the grace of Baptisme would seem superfluous Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the washing by Baptisme upon the spirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures Thus Origen 3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are Little children were baptized into remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or when did they sin Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children but as we said a little afore no man is pure from uncleannesse though he lives but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filth of birth is put away therefore little children are baptized All this he speaks of Baptisme as putting it in the room of Mosaicall purifications And first saith for spirituall cleansing Parvuli baptizabantur that is Little children WERE baptized as relating to the practise of the Churches in former ages And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli that is little children ARE baptized as noting the continuance of that practise and that upon Scripture grounds viz. for remission and sanctification from sinne Sacramentally and Instrumentally instead of Ceremoniall washings and purifications which had their Gospel meaning as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Thus Origen But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concernes the Common cause Object Perkins and Vsher EXAMEN saith Mr T put Origen in the year 230. Wee answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc But for his birth and first opening his schoole we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiasticall Writers to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus in Anno 186. About this year saith he was born Origen the Ecclesiasticall Writer at Alexandria which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old Object The Works of Origen EXAMEN saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours and dangerous to be read so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens what not For the Originall being lost we have onely the Latin Translation which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans by Ruffinus it appears by his own confession that he added many things of his owne in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus 1 As we confesse there are some Errours in Origen and in whom not so there are many learned Animadver pious and most spirituall things precious Gospel truthes such as I have admired when I read them considering those darke times in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel may go to Origen if they have but the spirit of discerning to learn to be Gospel-preachers 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen why I say why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himselfe in his fifth Argument in his Exercitation as we heard afore Truly a man can hardly with patience enough look upon Mr T. his dealing in this When wee urge three places out of Origen which you had before quoted and translated and formerly urged by Mr M. for the ancient practise of the Church in baptizing Infants then M. T. bespatters Origen as you heare and Origen is not Origen with him But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore then Origen must be received Or else to what purpose did M. T. alleadge him urging no other by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition 3 Mr T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen to stand good 4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus as the best Editions promise us 5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke 6. If Ruffinus did say he added many things of his owne in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus for there is nothing said of Luke sure he would not confesse he had destroyed the sence of Origen or made him speake that he never meant This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himselfe under his owne hand But Mr T.

constituted in a family Gen. 17.12 13. or in the Nation Exod. 12. 47 41 49. as Baptisme in the New Testament to all and onely those that came into the Christian Church and their children I say into the Christian Church that is the parents came in at least into the universall visible Christian Church by confessing Christ to be the Son of God and so this difference pretended by Mr. T. between baptisme and circumcision comes if not to a samenesse yet to a likenesse and so the reason thus far apparently to me is the same between both And the like argument may be drawn for the administration of the one as of the other The fourth and last exception Mr. T. makes against this argument out of Gen. 17. is Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. that these termes federate and to be signed are not convertible Answ They are convertible jure in equitie For Mr. T. will not doubt but that those signed with circumcision Gen. 17. or c. for of circumcision is the question immediately now according to Mr. T. his instances p. 4. l. 16. were federate were reckoned and to be reckoned in the covenant at the time of doing it and after till contrary cause appeared And all federate or counted within the covenant were to be signed with circumcision So this text Gen. 17.7 8 9. I am a God to thee and to thy seed thou shalt keep my covenant THEREFORE that every man-childe be circumcised But to this fourth exception Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. 1 Partic. Mr. T. argues That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Of Ismael God had said that his covenant was not to be established with him Gen. 17.20 21 25. Rom. 9.7 8 9. Gal. 4.29 30. The same may be said of Esau All that were in Abrahams house whether strangers or born in the house were circumcised Gen. 17.12 13. of whom neverthelesse it may be doubted whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them There were other persons 2 Partic. to whom all or most of the promises in the covenant pertained that were not circumcised This may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham the infants dying before the eighth day of just men living out of Abrahams house as Melchisedech Lot Job If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the males he saith it without proof And by like Mr. T. his answer to an Ob. perhaps greater reason may it be said that the children of beleevers are baptized in the persons of their parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons But it s manifest that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham and circumcised were neverthelesse not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist and Christs disciples till they professed repentance 1 Conclus and faith in Christ Hence I gather that the right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods precept as it is expressed Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 2 That those termes are not convertible federate and to be signed 2 Conclus Answ to 1 Particular That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. Tombes argues from the non-fact to the non-equitie Animad and from the non-efficacie to non-administration and from an after discovery to crosse the present rule which arguing he knows carries not with it in other things any consequence What if de facto some were not circumcised according to the directory of administration therefore jure ought they not if opportunities and accommodations concurred What if some appeared after when men not to have the efficacie of circumcision were they not therefore justly circumcised when the institution did injoyn and cause it to be done whiles they were infants I need not inlarge upon the inconvenient sequels in the use of all ordinances if that administrations may not be though ineffectualnesse appear not alwayes after And howsoever it be apparent in some and doubtful in others and therefore infer nothing that the promise was not established that is was not effectuall to them yet it is most apparent that the institution and administration of circumcision is grounded on the expresse promise As I am the God of thee and of thy SEED therefore thou shalt keep my covenant to circumcise every male Gen. 17.7.9 The promulgation and preaching of the promise belongs to many to whom it is not after effectuall Mar. 16.15 and if the institution must go along with the promise here in Gen. 17. though it might be specially revealed to Abraham what a one Ishmael should prove then sure much more amongst men who have no such revelations And though we grant the 1. line in this 1. partic of Mr. Tombes that no promise in the covenant belonged to Ishmael yet Mr. Tombes confesseth that circumcision signed civill * Sect. 1. p. 3. l. 16. 17. p. 4. l. 1.2 promises to some of Abrahams seed And that promise Gen. 17 20. made to Ishmael of blessing and multiplying him must at least be such though eminently and as concerning the coming of Christ it is emphatically said that in Isaac shall the covenant be established Gen. 17. However Abraham looked so much on the promise I am the God of thee and of thy seed and the commentary upon it touching blessing Ishmael and the institution grounded on that promise however the effect should prove that he circumciseth Ishmael For others within the covenant yet de facto not circumcised we must needs see that it is by reason of other causes and not the want of connexion between those two foederati signandi that is to belong to the covenant and to be signed with the covenant If God exempt infants by death that died within the seven dayes being not fit in nature for so sharp a Sacrament what can we infer more against the institution of this Sacrament then against any other As for Melchisedech which was Sem as the most learned agree upon unanswerable reasons he was born 500 yeers before the institution of circumcision whose institution is not to look higher then to Abraham at the highest and so to descend downward If we could be sure that Lot and Job were not circumcised we could as surely answer that Job was not in the Land Lot not in the County where the institution of circumcision was then made known And for women the institution of circumcision reached not to them because there was no fit matter for that Sacrament That alteration of nature to intimate they were a peculiar seed set apart from the Heathens as well as the males were was done in their fathers on whom was acted more then the water can act namely to make a naturall change though no spirituall followed So that these particular instances did destroy the ground and nature of the institution

in stead of the outward signe of circumcision Christ hath instituted another signe namely baptisme that circumcision being to be done away at Christs death at least and this to be used instead thereof more significant then the other for circumcision fitly signified spirituall death to sin which is mortification but baptisme is fitted to signifie more namely your rising from under the water lively represents your spirituall life by Christ your rising to newnesse of life and both these have been effectually signed or sealed to you by baptisme And therefore you are no longer to call for circumcision but to use and injoy baptisme in the stead thereof as formerly you and your children did circumcision for the Apostle hints not the least difference about the subject thereof Even as Christ himself circumcised the eighth day was after baptised to signifie an end now about to be put to circumcision This I ingenuously think to be the naked scope and plain argumentation and method of the Apostle here in this 2 of Colos Which secondly more appears to us by these two arguments 1 From the inconveniences against the Apostles dispute if baptisme doth not so come in the roome of circumcision For first if we have not baptisme in the room of circumcision to us beleevers and our infants we are not so compleat as the Apostle affirms as the Jews by Christ Secondly if baptisme doth not come in the roome of circumcision how doth the Apostle call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their baptisme How doth he truly imply that as the first Sacrament that beleeving Abraham and his children received was circumcision so the first the beleeving Colossians and their children received was baptisme no other seal intervening How are the Colossians said to be inwardly circumcised and outwardly and inwardly baptized in the same Christ who in himself put down the one by taking up the other 2 From the analogie and agreement between both namely circumcision and baptisme which the Apostle hints in this 2. of Colos First the Apostle intimates that as putting off the body of sin which is a phrase to signifie naturall death 2 Cor. 5. and so is here an allusion to signifie spirituall death to sin is the signification of circumcision Colos 2.11 So spirituall burying which argues death is the signification of baptisme Secondly that as neither of these are assured to any but as having Christ sealed to them so as circumcision sealed an implantation into the death of Christ that he put off the body naturally in the grave so the circumcised put off the body of sin spiritually v. 11. Even so baptisme signifies and seals our implantation into the buriall of Christ v. 12. as is more fully expressed Rom. 6.3 4 5. 3 That as the way to kill sin and so to live was by circumcision into Christ in the old Testament Colos 2.11 insomuch that he that should wilfully neglect outward circumcision for himself or his child that might have it should be cut off Gen. 17. So baptizing into Christ is the way to bury sin and so to live v. 12. of this 2 Colos insomuch that he that shall wilfully neglect baptisme with water the seal of regeneration who may have it shall not enter heaven Joh. 3.5 A soul may be saved without the use of a seal in some case but in no case can be saved in the contempt of a seal I am not ignorant that some do understand this Joh. 3.5 of the spirit onely compared to water but who doth not know that as Bullinger saith Omnes penè de baptismo interpretantur all almost interpret it of the water of baptisme Bullinger himself consenting with them onely he would not have the efficacie of the Spirit to be transferred to the signe And sure whiles Christ was instructing Nicodemus of regeneration he would not be silent touching the seal of it baptisme Nor can we so well parallel this phrase with Matth. 3. Baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire where onely the Spirit must be meant because there is no other baptisme of fire But there is a baptisme with water beside baptisme with the Spirit And therefore water must signifie baptisme For it were harsh to run to a metaphor without need and to understand by water the Spirit which in relation to the efficacie of baptisme is usually called fire Thus we have shewed out of this Colos 2. from the scope of the Apostle the analogie of the two Sacraments and the inconveniencies of the contrary that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and to be used instead of circumcision now let the ingenuous Reader ponder and see whether there be not more in this text then Mr. Tombes would acknowledge To that passage of Mr. T. that Col. 2.11 doth not speak of any circumcision but of Christs circumcision meaning I suppose the circumcision of Christ in his own person for else all circumcision and baptisme too is Christs both in regard of institution signe and making effectuall we have answered already in the analysing of the place The summe whereof was that not onely Christs circumcision was imputed to them but the vertue of circumcision was inherent in their hearts by expresse words of the Apostle Colos 2.11 Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh To that other passage that the text Colos 2.11 12. doth not say We are circumcised because we are baptized We answer and adde to our former intimations that the Apostle clearly labours to satisfi● the Colossians from seeking to be circumcised because they were inwardly eircumcised and inwardly circumcised because inwardly baptized according to the outward sealing of baptisme or else he had not mentioned baptisme upon any just ground or pertinent cause to the point in hand that I can conceive He tels them they had no need of circumcision which was abolished and had the effect of it sealed by and conveighed through or with outward baptisme which they had received according to the order of calling men to be Saints in the New Testament In some things saith Mr. T. baptisme doth not succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification For first circumcision did signifie Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh Gen. 17.10 21. But baptisme doth not signifie this but points at the incarnation death and resurrection of Christ Answ Though we have answered to this afore Animadvers on Exercitat p. 4. yet we adde First as circumcision did no more signifie Christ to come of Isaac for any thing that is in the analogie or form of institution or administration then of Abraham so baptisme hath in it as well to signifie the true Christ to come of Isaac as circumcision Secondly that ver 10. of Gen. 17. hath nothing in it but what is spoken in common to Abraham and his seed indefinitely That v. 21. is not the institution or form of administration or any thing to