Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	sin_n	sin_v	3,111	5	9.7434	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58206	Anabaptism routed: or, a survey of the controverted points: Concerning [brace] 1. Infant-Baptisme. 2. Pretended necessity of dipping. 3. The dangerous practise of re-baptising. Together, with a particular answer to all that is alledged in favour of the Anabaptists, by Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his book, called, the liberty of Prophesying. / By John Reading, B.D. and sometimes student of Magdalen-Hall in Oxford.	Reading, John, 1588-1667.	1655 (1655)	Wing R443; ESTC R207312	185,080	220

do it at the most convenient season on the first second third fourth c. or on any day so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance nor unnecessarily delay it 2. As hath been noted baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance but in the thing signified in the end and use 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption à fallacia accidentis from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance as the learned Dr. Featly observeth such a fallacy is this What the Jews were commanded in the fourth Commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day Such is this Paralogism If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision then children ought to be baptized the eight day it no more followeth then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised it will follow rather That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the Sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may But you say The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is impertinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite why shall it not inferre all The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter whom you call Bishop as it is in your objecting it Fidus made a querie or rather affirmed that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day but that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered so that he thought the new-born infant might not be baptized within or before the eighth day Cyprian answereth There is one equality of the Divine gift to all whether they are infants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages but he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to all as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders and to those who have before that much sinned against God and no man is prohibited baptism and grace how much less ought the infant to be prohibited who being new-born hath committed no sin onely that in Adam He hath in his first nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death But concerning the cause of infants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old and that we are to consider the law of ancient circumcision so that you think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day all that were in our Councell are of a far different judgment for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no man born Let the Reader judge how clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cyprian To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substance but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granted many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away witha● And then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justifie in that you baptize women but in the substance the thing signified the end and use or as others say in the inward mystery in the promises in use in effects 2. God expressly restrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 12 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in stead of circumcision and so were they born to God and in his account Daughters of Abraham Luke 13. 16. and so within his covenant of grace and mercy and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day but now in baptism the circumstances of sex age and a fixed day are not expressly mentioned but we have a generall commandement to baptize all without exception to any time sex or age 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision and therefore it was not enjoyned them yet the female is as capable of baptism as the male and therefore without exception to sex they who are all one in Christs account must equally be baptized into him 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance did yet differ in many circumstances First in the Rite or Ceremony Secondly in the manner of signifying For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited Thirdly in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise for then God promised not onely a covenant with his Church but a peculiar place for the same the land of Cauaan untill the coming of the promised Seed but baptism hath no particular promise of this or that fixed place Fourthly in the manner of binding Circumcision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall Law that is faith repentance and newness of life according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law from the curse whereof in respect of non-performance we are delivered in Christ into whom we are baptized Fifthly in their appointed continuance Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity and to● continue onely unto the coming of Christ but baptism was instituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end Lastly in circumstance of sex and age so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day So that to argue as you do from the substance to the circumstance or that which is accidentall is fallacions and captions as hath been shewed You say Therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituall Infants shall be baptized c. This you think a right understanding of the business after your shuffling together many strange impertinencies to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants To which we answer If you mean by Spirituall Infants such as are born again of water and the holy Ghost then you would have them twice regenerate or born If you mean Believers onely for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when and whom to baptize and whom to put by or which infant according to the flesh is not a spiritual infant by the spirit of regeneration If you say that those who are of years profess faith and repentance and therefore are to be baptized it is easily

being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the feed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which opinion were damnable and Antichristian Christ having positively pronounced for them Of such is the Kingdom of God To Infants to be born within Gods Covenant and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith Repentance and Obedience is instead of all these Lastly Baptism is the Seal of Initiation Entrance and Admittance into the Church that therefore we give