Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	child_n	parent_n	sin_n	1,848	5	5.5136	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B20542	Believers-baptism from heaven, and of divine institution Infants-baptism from earth, and human invention. Proved from the commission of Christ, the great law-giver to the gospel-church. With a brief, yet sufficient answer to Thomas Wall's book, called, Baptism anatomized. Together with a brief answer to a part of Mr. Daniel William's catechism, in his book unto youth. By Hercules Collins, a servant of the servants of Christ.	Collins, Hercules, d. 1702.	1691 (1691)	Wing C5360; ESTC R224066	50,763	158

in the late Persecution the Churches of Christ some of them did find it very convenient to break Bread upon a Week-Day yet we alway think it best on the First when it may be And as for Baptism we do not find the Apostles tarried for the Revolution of the First Day but as occasion offered they did it upon any Day Page 69. he insists upon the order of words Mat. 3. I baptize to Repentance See this answered in my Book p. 54 55 56. That is a false Argument he so largely insisted on pag. 44. If Persons have a right to Remission of Sin they have a right to the Sign Baptism This Argument I have handled in p. 36. Infants are not called Disciples as he supposeth pag. 43. from Acts 15.10 and upon his Request we will shew him a Command and Example for Womens communicating at the Lord's Table p. 42 43. For answer to pag. 21. where it 's asserted That many of the 3000 whom the Apostles batized in Acts 2.39 were Children seing the Pardon of Sin was by the Apostle Peter applied to their Children O horrible perverter of the Word of God! these Children whom he speaks of were no more as yet baptized than the Gentiles which were afar off uncalled 2. Suppose some of their Children were baptized it must be believing Children not Infants my Child is my Child though thirty or forty Years old for you cannot think the Apostle would go beyond his Commission to baptize an ignorant Infant in the room of an understanding Believer O how sophistically doth this Man reason see pag. 29 30 31. of this Book Lastly I refer you to Mr. Cary's Solemn Call which clears up the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 19.20 and that in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. are plainly proved to be three several Editions of the Covenant of Works Though Mr. Wall will have it to be a Covenant of Grace in Christ And though he spends many Leaves of his Book about it 't is as far from being proved as Believers-Baptism is a Sign to the Infant of the Remission of Sins and being in the Covenant of Grace which yet is confest a few Years after he is neither in the Covenant of Grace nor yet one Sin pardoned These are some of this poor Man's Self-contradictions is he not Felo de se a Self-destroyer Whereas he saith pag. 117. Mr. Ainsworth's Book called A Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists was never answered That in Abraham 's Seed all Nations should be blessed This Grace Abraham 's Infant-Seed had this Grace Christ gave to little Children See your self and Mr. Ainsworth both answered in pag. 37 38. and p. 34 35. CHAP. XII A brief Answer to a part of Mr. Daniel Williams's Catechism in his Book of the Vanity of Childhood and Youth IN pag. 131. he propounds these Questions What if a Child will not agree but refuse to agree to the Covenant to which his Infant-Baptism engaged him Himself makes this astonishing Answer 1. It 's a rejecting Christ our Saviour and a renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 2. It 's the Damning Sin 3. It 's the Heart of all Sin 4. It 's Rebellion continued against my Maker 5. It 's Ingratitude and Perjury to my Redeemer 6. It 's gross Injustice to my Parents 7. It 's an Affront to all the Godly 8. It 's self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul Here are hard and dreadful Words to make up the defect of weak Arguments for ●hen some Persons want Arguments 〈…〉 to perswade into an Error they do use some terrible Words and Ways to fright People thereinto Pray Sir shew your Hearers where you have Divine Authority for your Assertions or else there is no ground to be concerned at all about it though laid down in a formidable way Though I know 't is the Duty of Parents to pray for their Children give them moderate Correction good Education and good Examples yet God never made it the Duty of any Parent to dedicate their Child in Baptism nor the Duty of any Child to Engage and Covenant with God in their Infant-State being altogether uncapable therefore the not heeding it cannot be any Sin much less a damning Sin and if so be Persons do then ingage against the Custom of this World as you say they do then they must engage against Infant-Baptism being a worldly Custom I shall speak briefly to all these Particulars 1. Not to agree or to refuse to agree to the Covenant made in Infant-Baptism is no Sin because Where there is no Law saith the Apostle John there is no Transgression Now if this Gentleman can shew us any Law of God for Parents to dedicat● their Children in Baptism or Children to covenant with God in Baptism I will give him the Cause but if this cannot be done I think he can do no less than make a publick Recantation of his Assertions to undeceive those whom he in ignorant Zeal may have deceived 2. It 's no Rebellion against our Maker because Rebellion is interpreted in the holy Writ to be a wilful breach of God's Law and Command as you may see in Numb 20.24 Ye rebelled against my Word Chap. 27.14 Ye rebelled against the Command of the Lord so Deut. 1.26 Now then let this never be more called Rebellion except it can be proved to be against the Command of the Lord. 3. It can be no Ingratitude nor Perjury to my Redeemer 1. No Ingratitude because to own a thing he never appointed and is the ready way to thrust out his own Appointment will never be accounted by Christ Ingratitude 2. Neither can it be Perjury Mr. Pool on 1 Tim. 1. saith Perjury is a false Swearing or swearing to an untrue thing Now I suppose this is not Mr. Williams's meaning by Perjury for the Propositions were true if any which were promised in Infant-Baptism But I suppose he means the Covenant the Child made in Baptism against being governed by Satan and the Flesh taking up this World's Goods as my Portion and against the Customs of the Men of the World as my Guide when grown up and found walking in the Ways of the Devil the Flesh and the World contrary to God's Command and his own Vow This I supose he calls Perjury to the Redeemer But let it be considered a Man must first make a Vow or take an Oath before he can be said to break it and be perjur'd Now if the Child never made any Vow or Covenant in Baptism it being impossible how then can he be said to break Covenant and be guilty of Perjury to his Redeemer 4. It cannot be Injustice much less gross Injustice to my Parents because what is accounted Injustice to my Parents the Word of God makes it appear to be so some-where or other but the Word of God doth not any where call that Child an unjust Child that doth not own its dedicating