Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	evil_a	sin_n	1,775	5	5.0455	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

saith the Doctor undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but never drew such absurd Consequences from them c. And did they not as well read the History of Communion in the Acts of the Apostles and yet drew these absurd Consequences for 600 Years together that Infants should be communicated But to this the Doctor tells us That God might suffer all the Church to fall into such a harmless Practice as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious Fondness of the People as we do saith he in bringing them to Prayers Now as this may be well guessed so we likewise may conjecture and it 's not improbable but Infant-Baptism came stealing so too upon the Churches at the first but after these Errors had got root they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles drop'd from Heaven And such a Necessity laid upon them as if Infants could not be saved without them Thus did Augustine teach both concerning Infant-Baptism and Infant-Communion The Doctor demands What account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Infants under the new Testament But we may with more reason demand of the Doctor seeing the Jews were so offended at the Neglect of Circumcision why did not the Apostles quiet this discontented People by telling them you need not be offended seeing instead of Infant-Circumcision you have now Infant-Baptism and if indeed there had been any such thing it had been the most pertinent means to quiet them to refer them to that for Satisfaction But seeing the Apostles make no use of this Argument it 's clear they had no such thing to argue from for where they could use it they did as in the case of baptized Believers themselves Coloss 2. 11. which is a sufficient Argument that Infant-Baptism had no being in the Church in St. Paul's time seeing he never mentions it at all no not then when he had the greatest occasion for it that could be given The Doctor observes that the Jews always looked upon the Children of Pagans as common or unclean but upon their own as separate and Holy. And then he tells us that St. Paul makes the same Distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But this is so expresly against the Word of God that I admire the Doctor should write it was not this Distinction between Jew and Gentile the one being common and unclean the other Holy taken quite away Acts 10. 15 18. What God hath cleansed call not thou common which the Apostle expounds thus ver 28. God hath shewed me that I should not call any Man common or unclean And why should the Doctor so much as think that St. Paul should count the Infants of Jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe common and unclean The Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. says not a Word to that Purpose but is an Answer to the Scruple which some Christians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows who were Unbelievers supposing them to be unclean but St. Paul perswades them to continue in that Relation for that they were both sanctified to that Relation of Husband and Wife else saith he your Children were unclean Now this Text is greatly abused by Poedobaptists and the learned Muscullus who had abused this Text as they do at last did confess as much Now this place Acts 10. 15 18 28. does so fully explain St. Paul that no Man can with any shew of Truth or Reason make a Distinction between a Christian's Infant and the Infant of an Indian to call the one common and unclean the other separate and Holy for if we may call no Man as such common and unclean much less may we call an Infant so If they be born according to the Law of God they are called by the Prophet Malachi a Seed of God chap. 2. v. 15. And though this Mercy of God towards all Infants equally might perhaps gaul the Jews as it does the Doctor and his party yet it 's Evangelical Doctrine and shews evidently that God is no Respecter of Persons and Infants being all equally the same as Objects of his Pity he despises none of these little ones The innocent Babes in Nineveh were as dear to him as the innocent Babes in the Land of Israel and yet for all this it is certain that the Children of faithful Men have many Blessings which the Children of evil Men have not being Children of many Prayers and under early Advantages to know the Lord and to cut short the Days of Iniquity whilst on the other side the Children of Unbelievers are in danger by an evil Education to be kept from the Truth and brought up in Error and as such they as their Fathers for the same cause become defiled not by Birth but by Sin Tit. 1. 15. For as born according to God's Ordinance they are his Offspring Acts 17. 28. and so Holy. And to this agrees the Sentence of Muscullus Vnless Marriage were Holy and clean even between Vnbelievers what other thing would follow than that all the Children are Bastards and unclean But far be it from us to say so they are Holy for they are born of lawful Marriage CHAP. V. Answereth the Doctor 's third Question Whether it be lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be baptized THat the Church or People of God ought to be a People separated from them that live in Wickedness and are professed Adversaries to the Truths of the Gospel in things essential to Church-Communion will not be denied I suppose by any Christian Now there are two Causes besides that of the want of true Baptism which does warrant the present Separation maintained by the present baptized Believers from the Parochial Church-Communion The first is that great Impiety and ungodly living which is every where to be seen in such Churches for the worst of Men to be sure will croud into those Churches as their Sanctuaries let the most vigilant Magistrates and the well-minded Persons in National Churches do what they can in their present Constitution for there will they be yea and in places of Preferment too Secondly The many Innovations and continual Alterations in Religion not to be avoided in National Church-Constitutions by reason of the Influence of Interest and of the Revolutions which National Government has always upon them does necessarily enforce at least some Distinction in Communion between such Churches and those whose professed Principles are constantly to adhere to Apostolical Institutions only in all things essential to the Constitution and Government of the Church of God which must ever be the same or should be however the Government of Nations do alter or suffer Revolutions And to this agrees that excellent Sentence of a Divine of the Church of England in

the Learned Buxtorf explodes with such Indignation Whence saith he was the Talmud sent to us that from thence we should think that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel which they were prefessed Enemies unto And yet now this is become one of the chief Refuges of this Doctor and of Dr. Hammond before him for the Support of Infant-Baptism And it 's strange that the Doctor should hope by such Arguments to bring any Credit to the cause of Infant Baptism He might as well have referred us to the Turkish Alcoran where divers Washings are also mentioned Page 32 33. Upon this tottering Foundation the Doctor builds divers Suppositions as first That if Christ had not changed the Seal of the Covenant but had said Go make all Nations my Disciples circumcising them I appeal saith he to any impartial Mans Judgment whether the Apostles would not have presumed that it was Christs Intention that the Infants of adult Proselites should be circumcised And in a Word saith he there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord to lay aside the Practice of Infant Baptism as being inconsistent either with the free or manly or universal Nature of the Christian Church I answer 1. The case which the Doctor puts is not at all rational but upon this Presupposition that the Disciples had known the Law before given to Israel and their Practice in that case but they knew no such Law to have been given to any Nation in the case of Baptism so that they must only keep to the Words of their Commission and the Practice of their Master who made and baptized Disciples and none else John 4. 1. 2. I must needs tell the Doctor that Christ was obliged to disapprove and make void the Custom of the Jews in baptizing Infants if they did so seeing it was but their own Tradition and that from the Tenor of his own Doctrine Matth. 15. 9. Mark 7. In vain do ye worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. For it was their divers Traditional Washings which he was here opposing And seeing the Doctor grants their Infant Baptism was but a humane Institution the Pharisees might have replied to our Saviour Why dost thou reprove our Washings Dost not thou also allow the Doctrine of Men in the case of Infant-Baptism Teachest thou another and teachest not thy self And now the Doctor 's Suppositions will tumble down of themselves for seeing the Apostles knew no such Practice as baptizing Infants by God's Appointment in the Jewish Church and they having heard their Master condemn all Washings in Religion founded only on humane Authority as being but vain Worship and now receiving no Commandment as the Doctor must also confess to baptize Infants Matth. 28. 20. they were sufficiently forbidden to baptize any Infants by Christ's severe Censure against the Jews for worshipping God after their own Tradition And therefore though the Doctor thinks he has given some reason why he stated the Question as you have heard yet I humbly tell him he was therein very unreasonable in that he would beg the whole Controversy whilst he will suppose nay conclude that Infant-Baptism had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church and approved or not censured by our Saviour And then indeed if this were true his Suppositions might beguile a wiser Man than I am But all this being meer sophistical beggarly and presumptuous Insinuations it is to me a great Evidence against Infant-Baptism But now the Doctor p. 34 35. will shew that Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Heb. 6. 1 2. does not so much as consequentially prohibit Infant-Baptism And because we think these places do evidently shew that Christ in the two first could not impose any such thing upon his Apostles as to teach Infants and so not to baptize them because all that he commands them to baptize he commands them first to teach or preach the Gospel to them And Heb. 6. 1 2. shews very plainly that Baptism does not go before but follows Repentance and Faith and therefore cannot with any shew of Truth or Reason from hence belong to Infants but the contrary I fay because we thus think and teach from these Scriptures the Doctor says we are grievously mistaken because these and the like Texts do of themselves no more prove that grown Persons are the only Subjects of Baptism than the Words of the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 10. proves that grown Persons only are to eat From whence in their sophistical way it may be argued thus It belongs only to grown Persons to eat because the Apostle requires that Persons who eat should first work But I reply The Doctor does here greatly wrong both the Apostle and us 1. The Apostle does not say Any that does not work shall not eat for he knew that grown Persons who are sick and weak as well as Infants cannot work But he says If any would not work these only are they who shall not eat i. e. such as are able and yet being idle would not work Is this fair for the Doctor to pervert the Words of the Text 2. He abuses us for we do not baptize any grown Persons meerly as such No all that we baptize are or at least profess to be new-born Babes in Christ Now our Saviour designing Baptism to be the Laver of Regeneration must needs prohibit those of whose Regeneration no Judgment can be made nor Demonstration given by any Man whatsoever Surely the Doctor has little reason to talk of his discovering the fallaciousness of our Arguing But he says he will further shew the Weakness and Fallacy of our Argument Let us hear him do that Suppose saith the Doctor there were a great Plague in any Country and God should miraculously call an eleven or twelve Men and communicate to them a certain Medicine against this Plague and say unto them Go into such a Country and call the People together and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Vpon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters if the words of such Commission would be sufficient to conclude that it was God's intention that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none but grown Persons because they only could be called together and taught the Virtues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man c. I answer This Similitude is very fallacious and deceitful supposing what is not to be supposed in our Case no I think not in the Doctor 's own Judgment For 1st no Infant is under the Disease or Plague here meant or intended by the Similitude For seeing Christ has taken off their original Pollution they are just Persons that need no Repentance they are to be distinguished from Infidels Whoremongers Drunkards Swearers Idolaters superstitious and