Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	hear_v	word_n	1,549	5	4.7559	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41334	A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Hooker, Thomas, 1586-1647. Covenant of grace opened.	1653 (1653)	Wing F966; ESTC R16401	67,656	64

conditions of the Covenant of grace and that Baptisme respected one and the Lords Supper the other then there might be some eason why the Church should looke to one more then another but I know but of one condition Page 21. You say moreover The young children of members are unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper yet not to be excluded from Baptisme The reason is because more is required to the Lords Supper then to their Baptisme To which I say 1. If children did as much depend on their parents for the Lords Supper as they doe for Baptisme then for ought I know they may have as was the old custome the Lords Supper as Baptisme 2. You should have proved that lesse is to be required of those who doe give them title to their Baptisme then for themselves to the Lords Suppe● Page 22. So that whereas you say all my false consequences are grounded upon my first false premised supposition viz. That the child hath no right but in relation to the next parent the word next by your favour was not there put in I may consider the Parent and Child as argumentum primum ortum in Logick primum babet arguendi vim in se à se ortum in se sed non à se It s but derived so I say your answer to this argument runs upon a false supposition viz. that children are baptized by vertue of a title distinct from their parents If you can prove that viz. that the parent requires baptisme for himselfe by one title and the child by another title distinct from his then your answer will be strong else it is as weake and weaker then the argument which you so much slight for the rest of your answer I have spoken to it before and therefore repeace nothing for the examples of Scripture or History will you doe nothing but what you have example for is not argument drawne from Scripture-grounds sufficient for me though there be not examples set downe For the personall default I have spoken to it before For my Dilemma which you would turne upon me I see you take that for granted which I have not yeilded therefore my Dilemma stands as it did before against you Page 23. For my Querie Whether the child may not be suspended in case the parent he suspended continuing obstinate you would answer me out of principles which are not mine I pray prove that juspension is an Ordinance instituted onely with respect to the Lords Supper Secondly Being it is called by Divines Excommunicatio Minor prove that the case now standing with us as now it doth in beginning of Reformation wee may not deny the signa gratiae as the Layden professors say though by reason of the multitude we cannot proceed to Excommunication 3. Why may we not proceed to non-communion My second Argument was this Such Parents if now they were to be Baptized ought not to be Baptized Ergo they cannot challenge it for their Children Baptisme belongs primatily to the Parent You againe deny the consequence and the proose of it First you say It is a received maxime amongst the Lawyers quod fieri non debuit factum valet Suppose an unfit person Baptized his Baptisme is not null be is a Member till legally exeluded and so hath right for himselfe and his to be consequent Priviledges Hence first those Indians whom the Fryars Baptized in the West Indies without instruction Heylen Geog. P. 773. have right and title for themselves and theirs to all Church priviledges The persons were unfit who were Baptized I an●●●● yet saith Mr. Ca. unfitnesse doth not debarre till excluded No nor then neither Let others doe as those Fryars did yet this Argument holdes Secondly this answer earrieth it That Baptisme makes a Member of a visible Church observe his words suppose an unfit person Baptized If unfit to be Baptized then unfit to be a Member his Baptisme is not null be is a Member which way came this man to be a Member not by his Christianity which you use to say for he is a person unfit you say but his Baptisme made him thus which is First crosse to your own proposition Review of Mr. Hoo. P. 94. Baptisme doth not make a man a Member of a Church Secondly if Baptisme doth make a Member and consequently gives the title to his Childs Baptisme Then Constantine Valentinianes c. those who deferred their Baptisme were so long no Members of the Church nor could give title to their Childrens Baptisme Thirdly Primum in unoquoque genere est meusura aliorion so take the first in genere Baptizatorum what was the cause of their Baptizing because cause they hearing of the word Taught Believed and joyned to the Church it was not because any other was Baptized so the same holds now a person being reputed a Believer and a Church-member whether in the Parents or otherwise this is the ground of its Baptisme then it is not anothers being Baptized that is the ground of my Baptisme Fourthly the ground of the sealing of the Covenant is because the person appeares to be in Covenant not because it was first sealed to another The Child is looked upon within the Covenant by reason of the Parent as was I shmael before Abraham was circumcised if in the Covenant then say you the child is a Church-member then it is not the Parents being Baptized that gives the title Hence your Notion in the same Page 23. If the Parents sin did annull his own Baptisme it were a question whether it did not hinder his childes Baptisme which also implies it is the Parents Baptisme that is the cause of his childes Baptisme comes to nothing Your second answer is from none of my Principles Your third I have spoken to also I did not expresse excommunication as a qualification in the questions it is true I have spoken to this also before What you have said to the third Argument I have also spoken to before my fourth Argument ran thus To give the seale of the Covenant of grace to a child by vertue of one who appeares to be in covenant with the Devill is a prophaning of the Ordinance To this you answer foure wayes the last I have spoken to but not the other three which I will consider Page 25. First you deny that such persons as the Q. memions are visibly in Covenant with Satan especially if tolerated for so long they are visibly in the externall covenant of the Church What you meane by this Externall Covenant of the Church I cannot imagine not Baptisme I hope nor the Externall Church covenant wee speake of and you so much oppose for the Covenant of grace they are not visibly under that there needs no Covenant formally betweene the Devill and us naturally hee hath us strong enough though wee make no formall Covenants with him But when are men said to be under the Covenant of Grace is it not when

should thinke ●ay selfe to have been guilty of connivance but my question and Mr. Caw as I said before puts me upon this If the Antecedent be denied I prove it When Ministers have power put into their hands whereby they may reforme if they will and will not then their Toleration comes from connivance and so is sinfull But Ministers have now power put into their hands whereby they may reform if they will c. Ergo The Minor is cleare for what power opposes Church power there is none above the Ministers for the civill power that doth not oppose but that power actually defends such Ministers and Churches as doe reforme and doe deny Baptisme to such scandalous ones This favour once would have beene esteemed very great what ever we conceive of Toleration as now it stands yet this benefit we have by Toleration that Ministers need not Tolerate such persons if they will It is an ill wind blowes no body good But I perceive your Answer in P. 30 you tell us of a Pope-like power 〈◊〉 such a Minister doth usurp who alone shall reforme though by su●●ention you suppose others will charge us with it but whether Mr. Cawdrey will not say so also I somewhat doubt by observing this place and Page 20.21 I will not conclude so of him but that he is against any Minister that shall doe so that is cleare By a Minister alone if you meane thus that a Minister alone without his people or against the Christians consent shall suspend whom he please indeed I doubt of such a practise but if the Members visible Believers shall come and bring in witnesse against persons and desire to have them debarred till they will amend and thus they consent to their Officer in suspending I know of no Pope-like power here usuped To this therefore I will answer further 1. If you and ten Ministers more or as many as you please will combine together and set up a Classi●●ll forme of Government and then you conceive you have power you may if you will who hinders you I know of no power that oppose you Therefore this is not a sufficient P●●● 2. But is 〈◊〉 your meaning in good earnest to deny to a particular Church a power to reform its own Members as you seeme to expresse in that manner I have set downe I hope we shall finde divers Classicall Divines of another Opinion I pray what is your meaning when you say As for Reverend and Learned Whitaker whose Testimony he makes use of P. 52. ●as he grants but what w●●●● Review Mr. Hooker p. 111. that every particular Church hath a power owen 〈◊〉 own Members what power you meane is plaine by the D●scours● of Mr. Hookers and learned Whitaker M. Cawdrey writes himselfe Pastor of the Church at Billing Now I pray give me a reason why so godly and able a Pastor with his Church should not have power over his own Members unlesse he will contradict himselfe as he saith I doe but I hope you doe not meane there is no particular Church but a Classicall Church for that apposeth what before you have said of your selfe our 〈◊〉 runnes 14 miles in length and 20 severall Parishes in it to make all 〈◊〉 o●● particular Church is very hard but if the Church at Billing have power over its own members why may not the Church at Shalford have the same power 3. Would you have Ruling Elders to joyne with me I observe divers of the Classicall Divines question whether there be any such Officer distinct from the Preaching Elder But though I have not Elders actually ordained I perceive also here you doe not ordaine your Elders which is strange if Deacons were yet I have those whom I looke upon to be Elders and without whom I do nothing that concerns Discipline That which hath hindred us is 〈◊〉 uncertainty of my maintenance being cut off from a ●o●● put which I 〈◊〉 from a Sequestration when I was first called The maintenance their if from the place being not sufficient to maintaine my charge I am uncertaine of my abode here 4. When I was ordained by the Pr●sbytery I thought I had the power of a Pastour conveyed to me now one part is to Rule I thinke but to say I cannot put forth that power alone but I must have more Elders to joyne with before I can doe any thing I desire to see a Scripture for that because Discipline was carried on by more then one in the Examples we have in the Scripture there being more then one Officer in those Churches must this needs conclude Therefore the power of a Pastour must lie dormant if he have no other Elders to joyne with him though his people doe as I said before I should deny this consequence 5. Suppose I stay till the Classis be formed and Act shall wee have power then to reform But suppose my people aske other Ministers of the Classis besides my selfe what power they have to reforme them who made them Rulers over the people against their wills and consent having called none but my self for their Pastour you must have a call you say to put forth your power actu secundo in another Church 6. Suppose there were a Church on an Island where there was onely a Pastour should he and his people be denyed to reforme since there is no other Church neere him if you will give him power I pray give me for it is all one to be on an Island where there are no more Churches that can combine and so helpe one another as to be in another place where are thousands but none will it is cannot there it is will not heare Yet Sir there is a Congregationall Church in the next Towne and when need is I seeke counsell of that reverend Officer Mr. Dan Rogers I could say more but I forbeare What you say concerning Mr. Icanes I have not seene that worthy Mans labours for I live in an obscure Village remote from London and seldome heare of Bookes neither will my meanes allow me to buy all Bookes that come out But Sir I take your Opinion for you say in your Epistle it is hard to judge whether his way or mine be the best or worst way of Cure Now if it be hard to say then I perceive you are not clear your selfe for what he hath writ So much for the Antecedent now I come to the Consequence viz. If it be connivance and negligence that is the cause of this Toleration which I doubt is true in many then the word doth no● bind me or I may not lawfully Baptize If sinfull admissions will not justifie a Minister in administring the Ordinance of Baptisme then neither will sinfull Tolerations justifie a Minister in administring Baptisme But the Antecedens is true Ergo the consequent is true Sinfull admissions will not A●ro rod. p. 515. learned Gillespy saith no Consciencious Minister would adventure to Baptize one who hath manifest and infallible