Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	day_n	time_n	year_n	3,093	5	4.9048	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62871	A publick dispute betwixt John Tombs ... respondent, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan ... opponents, touching infant-baptism, the fifth of September, 1653 ... occasioned by a sermon preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark 16.16 ... : also a sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lords day following, upon the same text, wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant-baptism asserted.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Cragge, John, Gent.; Vaughan, Henry, Sir, 1587?-1659?	1654 (1654)	Wing T1813; ESTC R9749	45,440	168

in your sermon yesterday That our Baptism meaning of Infants and by sprinkling was but a nullitie and Mockery which concludes our selves and all our Auncestours even all in the western Church for 1500. years under damnation For the Church hath power upon the sight of any inconvenience and for order and decencies sake to alter the circumstantials and externalls of any Ordinance T. What have they to doe to alter any thing from the form of Christs institution V. That they have such a power is confessed by all divines and he is none that denies it yea I believe it is acknowledged by your own practice T. Wherein V. In the administration of the Lords supper which was done by Christ in the Evening and also then by his Apostles after their Love-feastes The whole Church of God and your self I suppose take it in the morning which custome hath taken place and obtained every where for very many ages even from their dayes who immediatly succeeded the Apostles Thus advising him to be wise to Sobriety and cease to imbroyl the Church of God so infinitly torn already and to submit to the judgment and scarce-interrupted practise of the Western Churches even for 1500. years To which Gods providence could not be so far wanting as to suffer them to fall into such an Errour of admitting and retaining a Baptism which in his account was none we broke off A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism Mr. Cragge having briefly expressed that he was forced to undertake this task on a sudden and unprovided against so experienced a champion desired first if he should fail the cause might not suffer prejudice in mens opinions for his sake 2. That libertie might be granted of a premeditate and treatable dispute hereafter not doubting that if he should but study the Question so many hours as Mr. Tombs hath done dayes so many dayes as he hath done weeks so many weeks as he months or so many months as the years the truth was so evident on his side he would not fear Maugre all opposition to make it clear In the mean time trusting to Gods assistance whose cause it was he would attempt it beginning with this Enthymema C. Some Infants may not be Baptized therefore some Infants may be Baptized T. Having repeated he denyed the consequence C. Which he proved thus Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true But these viz some infants may not be Baptised some infants may be Baptized are Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter Therefore they may be both true T. Having repeated the Syllogism he said there were four terms in it C. He enquired where T. He answered in these words may be both true in the Premisses and are both true in the Conclusion C. He returned that was Mr. Tombs Syllogism none of his reciting that distick of Martial Quem recitas meus est ô Fidentine logismus Sed male dum recitas incipit esse tuus T. Repeating it over again after him said that C. Which he took thus away That which proves the thing denied is sufficient But that Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true proves the thing denied that some infants may not be Baptized some infants may be Baptized Therefore it is sufficient T. He denyed the Minor tho it be an Axiom Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true yet it was not consequent that these subcontrary contingent propositions some Infants may not be baptized some Infants may be baptized may be both true C. Which was proved thus That which is affirmed and predicated of the Species may and is affirmed of every Individuum and particular under that Species But it is affirmed of the Species that Subcontrary Propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true therefore it may be affirmed of these particular Propositions some Infants may not be baptized some Infants may be baptized that they may be both true T. He said it was a fallacy he went about to entrappe him in confessing that subcontrary Propositions may be both true where the subject is capable but here the subject to wit infants are not capable of Baptism C. Then replyes he they are not Contingent which is here required but Necessary Propositions in materiâ necessaria if the subject be not capable but we speak of Contingent Propositions the Predicate whereof may be affirmed or denied of the subject without contradiction which while he was framing into a Syllogism T. Mr. T. interrupted him saying what would the man say if he could speak C. You love not to hear truth speak but would strangle it in the birth like the Egyptian Midwives but to give you further Satisfaction I will prove that they are actually both true especially that some infants may be baptized for of the other there is no controversie Which he did thus To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism they may be Baptized But to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism therefore some infants may be Baptized T. He denyed the Minor that the Essence of Baptism did belong to some Infants C. Which was proved thus To whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the Essence But to some infants belongs the definition of Baptism Therefore to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism T. He answered first to the Major to whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the Essence it was idem per idem proving of the same thing by the same C. To which was replyed why then sayes Aristotle that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the definition is a manifestation of the Essence and Logicians describe a definition to be explicatio rei Essentiae the expression of the Essence of a thing now that which expresses a thing and which is expressed are two distinct things Then he denied the Minor which was proved thus C The definition of Baptism as of all other Relations is made up of the fundament correlative and termini But all these three fundamentum correlatum terminus belong to Infants Therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants T. He denied the Major that Baptism was a Relation or was made up of those ingredients C. He replyed that seemed strange to him seeing all the Divines and Logicians that he had read affirmed Baptism to be a Relation and it was evident it could be put in no other Predicament as might be proved by Induction but that the people understood it not seeing the whole nature of Baptism is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Relation to another T. He said he cared not for authorities but bid him prove it C. Which he did thus Every Sacrament is a Relation But Baptism is a Sacrament Therefore Baptism is a Relation T. He said he might deny both Propositions first The Major for