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	law_n	sin_n	1,446	5	5.0523	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97212	Caleb's inheritance in Canaan: by grace, not works, an answer to a book entituled The doctrine of baptism, and distinction of the covenants, lately published by Tho. Patient: wherein a review is taken, I. Of his four essentials, and they fully answered; ergo II. Dipping proved no gospel practice, from cleer scripture. III. His ten arguments for dipping refuted. IV. The two covenants answered, and circumcision proved a covenant of grace. V. His seven arguments to prove it a covenant of works, answered. VI. His four arguments to prove it a seale onely to Abraham, answered: and the contrary proved. VII. The seven fundamentals that he pretends to be destroyed by taking infants into covenant, cleeered; and the aspersion proved false. VIII. A reply to his answer given to our usual scriptures. For infant-subjects of the kingdom, in all which infant-baptism is cleered, and that ordinance justifyed, / by E.W. a member of the army in Ireland.	Warren, Edward, Member of the army in Ireland.	1655 (1655)	Wing W956; Thomason E856_2; ESTC R9139	117,844	134

God did so much priviledge them above others was that all his might believe but yet some did not implying that some did i. e. many of them were justifyed T●erefore ch 4. 9. he draws t●wards a result cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also how was it then reckoned i. e. If Abraham was justifyed in uncircumcision then the righteousness of Faith comes not upon the Circumcision onely and ver 12. To them who are not of the Circumcision onely and ver 16. Not to that seed onely which is of the Law And then the Apostle concludes ver 23. that it was not written for Abrahams sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him but for us also i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles if they believe to whom Abraham is as well a Father as to the Jews So that this triumphant place gives not the least continuance to his opinion either that Circumcision was a covenant of works or that it stands in direct opposition to saith or that God gave a covenant of works to Abraham to seal a covenant of Grace as he consequentially affirms p. 53. Therefore such an interpretation as he hath given of this place is most unsound The like answer is to be given to that place Ph●l 3.2 3 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this second Argument the Philippians were also revolting to seek after Justification by the works of the Law the teachers of which Doctrine the Apostle calls dogs and evil-workers And if any had cause to boast of the law of Works he had more yet to him it was but dung and dogs meat all his priviledges of being a Jew a Pharisee Circumcised one that concerning the Law was blameless All this saith Paul I can boast of but what is this as to matter of justification which is by faith alone in Christ The like plain answer also is and may he given to that other place Gal. 3.3 which Church also were back sliding into the same error and therefore he calls them fools and tells them they were bewitched ch 5.1 And if they would be seeking Justification by works they should find they were mistaken For as many as sought to be justifyed by the works of the Law were under the curse And that no man by the works of the Law was ever justifyed is evident because the just shall live by Faith ver 10 11. And therefore he sends them also to Abrahams covenant For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made And ver 18. he shews them the ill-consequence that would follow if they thought to be justifyed by works For then the inheritance must be by works that is the inheritance of Abrahams promises both for the Land of Canaan and all other spiritual blessings If it were by the Law then it is no more of promises But God gave them to Abraham by promise And not by a covenant of works remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection Wherefore then serveth the Law If a man may not be justifyed and saved by the works of the Law to what end and purpose then was it given The answer is it was added because of transgression that is to make sin look like sin and thereby to ingage Gods people then to walk close in the duties thereof and in ver 21. The Apostle directly confutes Mr. Patients Doctrine Is the Law then against the Promises or in opposition to the Promises God forbid By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works nor is Circumcision or any part of the Law opposed to Faith as he would make us beheve but this was the great mistake of many in Primitive Churches by false teachers means And so of all Israel as it is also of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works which God never intended to any such end or purpose CHAP. IX The next thing we come to is the several Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumcision onely a seal to Abraham answered I. FIrst because the righteousness of Faith which it sealed Abraham had it before the seal was given but his posterity could not be said to believe at eight days old Therefore it was a seal to him and not to them A. The seal was not annext to Abrahams Faith as Abrahams but to Gods covenant made with Abraham therefore it is called the seal of the righteousness of Faith So that what it sealed to Abraham was as he was an heir of the same Promises with Isaac and Jacob Heb. 11.9 therefore what it sealed to him as an heir it sealed to Isaac and Jacob and so to all believers as co-heirs of the same inheritance Heb. 6.17 2. If it was a seal of Abrahams Faith onely then it must be either as it was a weak faith or strong faith 1 It could not be the first because Abrahams faith is by the Apostle said not to be weak Rom. 4.19 20. 2. If it had been given as a badge of honor to Abrahams Faith as I have seen it affirmed in a piece or C. B. as a strong faith then it should have been given to Adam and Noah who had as strong faiths as Abraham and less Gospel-light then Abraham had to work it 3. There was no necessity to have Abrahams justification sealed more then Adams Seths Noahs or any of his predecessors especially if it be considered what M. P. himself grants that he was justifyed twenty four years before this seal was given therefore 4. Had it not been a seal to Isaac as well as to Abraham and so not onely a seal of Abrahams faith it might have been given upon the birth of Ishmael and Abraham need not have staid for a son of promise for it would have sealed as much then to Abraham as it did after if it was not the covenant-seal 5. Had it not been a seal to Isaac and so a part of the covenant then Isaacs not being circumcised had been no breach of the covenant directly against that place Gen. 17.10 For a seal the Apostle calls it and a sign God calls it So that had it onely been a seal of Abrahams Faith the covenant had not come sealed to Isaac because the seal reacht onely the Faith of Abraham and when he dyed the seal was broken off Therefore 6. It is a cleer truth that as the blessings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promise and to his seed so Gods main drift being to make those covenant-blessings sure to all the heirs of Promise Heb. 6.17 he therefore deals as a man that would be believed First he promise● secondly he swears to confirm that Promise Thirdly he seals what he hath promised So the seal becomes the covenant-seal as the oath is the Covenants oath and what God promised to Abraham he promised to his seed and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his

grace he gives power yet Gods grace doth not lead man to destroy nature therefore when he comes to apply he abuses the Scripture it hath been before proved that dipping is not the way of Scripture-baptism Consider 1 Cor. 10.1 2. and compare it with the history was Israel plunged in the Red-Sea the opposers dare not say it if they have any Conscience And yet Paul tells us they were baptized and David in the place before quoted tells us how the clouds poured forth water the like appears from Act. 1.3 ch 2.17 with Joel 2. compared t is cleer that baptism was by pouring out water to intrude such a destructive practice is therefore against the Apostolical interpretation of the word and against the very light of divine or humane reason for shall we think that he that bids us put on as the beloved of God bowels of mercy and tenderness should be so hard a master to command us in the most sharpest seasons to be duckt yea an action that cannot be done in many Countries for shame harden not your hearts against truth any longer and be of a more tender hearted spirit to poor deluded Christians and do you that fear the Lord remember that you do not abuse your power God hath given to such licencious practice that would ruine the very foundations of the Gospel P. p. 164. Doth acknowledge there may be good people not of his opinion yet they are not to be lookt upon as a Church unless they will be dipt A. He hath before called us such as offer up our children to devils and can he have so much charity to judge such good people these are but terms of insinuations to gain the more upon such good people to bring them into his strain of discipleship He brings us again the example of Cornelius Lydia the Jaylor and then tells us the Church of Samaria was gathered by faith and dipping and to practice o herwise is contrary to Christ and the Apostles All which is before proved false and there is not a word in the Scriptures that saith as M. P. doth that the Church mentioned was gathered by dipping yea so to practice and apply it as he doth is to adulterate and so destroy the Ordinance Away therefore with such st●ffe t is abominable it is likely is it not that Peter could stand a whole day in a River to plunge 3000 souls or that Lydia should be duckt before she went home or that the Jaylor should be plunged in a deep River at midnight were Jesus Christ preacht to the Turks or Pagans upon these terms by some of those dippers or to the Jews upon their imbracing the faith it is the way to harden their hearts against the truth P. p. 172 173. He perswades Christians it is a sin to neglect plunging and if they have truely repented they will be drawn to practice all the commands of God and this amongst the rest or else they cannot be admitted as persons that have repented at all A. We may here see the mystery of iniquity in its workings It must Lord it in the Conscience or else it cannot stand thus did those Circumcision-preachers Act. 15. there was no salvation without it as here there is no repentance tr●e without dipping it is a sin to neglect it Christians look to your Consciences keep out such false-teachers who bring upon you greater burdens then Circumcision ever was Christs house will have no such washings and if you once let them into your Conscience possession will be soon lost P. p. 174. But some will say they were baptized in their infancy and shall such be kept out that are good people To which he answers that though many are good yet they live in a sin though it be a sin of ignorance to them for otherwise they could not be Christians But however the Church knows it to be a sin therefore they ought to be kept out and if any such be in that baptize their children they ought to be cast out A. The Reader may still see his censorious spirit wherein he flyes in the face of all the Ministers of Christ wounding their credit and esteem in the hearts of Christians For whosoever doth knowingly oppose their dipping and not ignorantly cannot be gracious so that either the Ministery must be ignorant or graceless And that their Church knows it to be a sin and therefore ought to keep out and cast out such as practice it A. I hope you shall have no cause to threaten such with casting out and if you speak in the name of all the Anabaptists when you say the Church knows it to be a sin I must then needs say they are as ignorant as your self though it is hard so to be P. In p. 176. he useth another way to make us yield up to his practice and answers an Objection that some do make that though it be an Ordinance yet many do rest in it and therefore its better not to practice it he grants that many do rest in them yet he would admonish all those that fear God to be conformable so was Paul Gal. 1.16 so was Peter when Christ bids him let down his net so was Abraham in sacrificing his son he disputed not and therefore he would have Christians suck in this as a maxim never to dispute a command and so he concludes his whole with Phil. 2 12 Do all things without murmurings and disputings A. We are now drawing to an end in all which we may see how many ways and wiles the Tempter hath to get within us he useth his weapons every way and comes so high now that it is a sin against Conscience to dispute it and it must be suckt down as a maxim which I could easily grant if it could be proved that either the subject or manner were commanded as it is by him practised But he that so sucks it in had as good suck down Ratsbane The instances brought are of such who had a cleer command for what they did from Christ himself hold forth therein nothing relating to dipping In fine we may say of his whole book it is nothing else but a lump of error and bitter revilings against the ways of God and Ministery of his word wherein he hath dealt like those unfaithful spyes that went to view the Land of promise who by the ill reports he makes disturbs the multitude and sets them a murmuring against Gods Joshuas that so his people may either retreat back to Egypt or run into Babylon His charge against us appears to be false the truth is cleered from the contempt and reproach cast upon it Reader I shall therefore commit thee to the grace keeping of our L. Jesus Christ And as for such who turn aside to their wicked ways the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity But peace shall be upon Israel Psal 125.5 FINIS