Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	efficient_a	faith_n	instrumental_a	2,644	5	11.5403	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

to twelve men only and no women So that if that which you can never prove should be granted you that John Baptist and Christs disciples did then and there baptize by dipping yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources wherein it cannot be proved that they dipt nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie if it were supposed 8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism or simply necessary thereto is mentioned in some clear example or express precent of Christ But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example nor any express precept of Christ therefore it is not essential or simply necessary to baptism Christ omitted nothing necessary and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation And let our Antagonists now seriously consider what they do when they rebaptize upon that fancie that washing or sprinkling with water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost is not true baptism CHAP. VI. Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered THE malitious Serpent ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters obstructing or hindering their effect lest they should heal sin-wounded souls somtimes moved Pelagius Donatus and others reviving their errors to deny the most innocent children of believers baptism sometimes he teacheth them to except against the manner of baptizing as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon sometimes he causeth deluded people to annul their baptism and in effect to renounce their faith and Christ whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism by receiving a second third or iterated baptism we read that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized every day supposing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed on which fancie possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought ro be iterated the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times The Anabaptists rebaptize baptized Infants coming to age and affirm that the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in Infancie is not a renouncing baptism but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind errors are fruitful one absurdity granted many will readily follow they think first that Infants having no present actual faith and repentance not present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached are not as such to be baptized but until they ●ome to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance to be kept from baptism and that so Infant-baptism is void and to be esteemed no baptism Secondly they dream that those who are not dived under water are not baptized and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie though that ground may often fail them because some have been baptized by immersion Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things who are not wilfully bent with Simo in the Comedian rather to erre then to be directed by any Therefore to avoid repetitions let the issue be if Infant-baptism in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost either by washing sprinkling with or dipping into water be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ then Anabaptists rebaptizing do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had at least sacramentally put on Christ and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation And let the prudent Reader judge whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said which being proved the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads The Church of Christ holds that Infants of enchurched Parents or others of yea●s converting to the faith being once sprinkled washed or dipt in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost according to Christs institution ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ because the Samosatenians Sabellians Marcionites Arrians or the like who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity or denied any persons thereof did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ and therefore in case any of their disciples converted the true Church baptized them because the former pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ and so no true baptism it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Covenant of free Grace and mercie with man But the Anabaptists after their manner object We are regenerate not only by Baptism but also by the Word Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated and therefore so may baptism We answer 1 The word mentioned Eph. 5. 26. is that which comming to the element makes the Sacrament as Chrysostom wel interpreteth that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word What Word saith he why this In the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament ought not to be more repeated then the Sacrament it self because it is essential thereto 2 The regeneration of man is only one whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost the means or instrumental causes on Gods part are the Word and Sacraments on our part faith which the holy Ghost begetteth encreaseth and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means Therefore when they are baptized who were before regenerate by the Word as a spiritual feed they have not need of any other regeneration nor can they be twice regenerate but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regeneration So Abraham first believed as so was regenerate and afterward was sealed So Cornelius spiritual sanctification preceded in the gift of the holy Ghost and then he received the Sacrament of regeneration to confirm the same to him But when the elect who being baptized dye in their infancy it is certain that they are regenerate by the Sacrament without the ministry of the word preached unto them whereof they are not capable who yet without regeneration could not enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. And if the baptized Infant live to be capable of teaching and so receive the word as that it begets in him actual faith repentance and obedience to God then that word is as Sincere milk to nourish and confirm not to

be damned for their fathers carelesness or malice c. You trifle here you know that we hold no such necessity of the means as hath been said your foundation therefore failing nothing of your superstructure can stand If men neglect or contemn the ordinance of God toward their infants salvation they do as much as in them lieth to shut them from heaven but yet the foundation of the Lord remaineth sure having this seal the Lord knoweth them that are his though men neglect to mark them who cannot help themselves thereto yet the Lord knoweth all his and is not unjust to punish the childs involuntary defect for the parents voluntary neglect which God will severely punish though the child shall be held guiltless thereof as may appear in the fore-recited example of Moses which might perswade considering men to beware of denying children baptism for if the neglect be such a sin what is the contempt thereof to which their parents faith giveth them right not as an efficient principall or meritorious cause of infants salvation but as a sign and seal of Gods good will towards their children whose providence causing them to be born of such parents sheweth that he vouchsafeth them the priviledge of his covenant and how horrible a presumption is it for man to take away that which God pleaseth to give It follows say you that it is not necessary at all to be done to th●m to whom it cannot be prescribed as a law and in whose behalfe it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity We have said enough concerning the necessity you stil harp on and fear to weary the Reader by telling you we hold no such absolute necessity as we have expressed but that it follows not that it is necessary at all to be done c. is evidently false as may appear in circumcision which was enjoyned the parents not the children as untrue is your second branch in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others for the infants circumcision was reasonably entrusted to the parent under this necessiry The uncircumcised man child that person shall be cut off from his people Gen. 17. 14. And you say if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable Stay and prove that it is not necessary before you build up many conclusions upon that which never was not will be granted you We have shewed how 't is necessary It is nowhere in terms prescribed Neither is the Sabbath which we observe nor many other things which of duty we do perform See what hath been answered hereto pag. 240. Num. 28. and so we baptize infants for it is both reasonable and they have a capacity thereof though you deny both Either baptism produc●th spiritual effects or it produceth them not c. A rare Dilemma but that 't is fallacious Reduce it to a Syllogism and it will appear a Paralogism ex accidente Suppose thus That which produceth no spiritual effects is not to be contended for but baptism produceth no spiritual effect ergo it is not to be contended for Who knows not that 't is accidental to baptism to produce no spiritual effect in the baptized This is for mans unbelief and forsaking the Covenant● by wilfull sinning which doth ponere ●bicem and make the Ordinance of none effect to salvation If we should thus dispute That which causeth wrath is evil but the Law causeth wrath ergo the Law is evil the Fallacy were the same For it is accidental and through mans disobedience that the Law causeth wrath of it self it is good and holy right and pure so here though baptism produce no good spiritual effect in the reprobate or not ex opere operato yet by the institution of God whose spirit worketh on his Ordinance it doth What are we nearer heaven if we are baptized If I were of your Councel I would entreat you to beware of these political temporizings which come so near Atheism Believe you the Scriptures who thus slight Gods holy Ordinances But if baptism does do a work upon the soul producing spiritual benefits and advantages these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient Here you bring another fallacy à non causâ pro causâ We say that neither are the effects or spiritual advantages of baptism produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone nor by that as it is helped by the co-operation and pre-disposition of the suscipient as hath been proved but by the spirit of God working on his own Ordinance If you say by the external work alone how doth this differ from the opus operatum of Papists save that it is worse If the Skie fall we shall have Larks Who affirms that which you suppose For they say the Sacrament does not produce it's effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparations of piety faith and repentance Do they say so when they speak of infant-baptism slander them not herein they are better then you who deny infants baptism which they grant though children cannot actually believe confess profess or repent But this opinion saies it does of it self without the help or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the meer reception Make much of the Minerva of your own brain if it be your opinion we own it not But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the suscipient then because infants can neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it it does them no benefit at all You might have pleaded the same against circumcision with as good success They could neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it did it therefore do them no benefit at all But who saith it is per modum recipient is c. which is not properly expressed according to the predisposition Per modum speaks a cause ad or secundum a condition We say that the Sacrament doth work according to the dispositions of the receivers because God gives that to infants which makes them fit to be baptized giving them by his own Covenant with his believieving parents federal holyness and so a right to the external initiatory seal of his Covenant with them Whether it do them good or no whether it produce a spiritual good effect or no that is to regeneration and salvation a right they have to the external seal as being born within the Church and that as soon as they are born we understand not any other predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility more then the unborn Jacob was in relation to the love of God which indeed never found any cause but it self yet ere the children were born God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Further we say

17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified man may not deny the signifying element and in common right the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them for these are a part of their inheritance and ought by right to follow the same moreover 't is impious to divide that which God hath join'd the sign from the thing signified as they do who allow children grace remission of sins and salvation by Christ and yet deny them baptism into Christ they will yeild them the Jewels but not the Cabinet the Treasure but not the Purse 6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith ought to be baptized but Infants are capable thereof therfore they ought to be baptized So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision the seal of their future faith our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had 7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends are to receive the initiatory seal thereof for sealing of the covenant respectively is a part thereof Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant which is baptism The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38 39. Be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins-for the promise is unto you and to your children What promise that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed the faithful and when where or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal who as such cannot forfeit 8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ then those sorts of men who were capable of the one are capable of the other but circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ therefore those sorts of men to wit Infants as well as persons of years who were capable of circumcision are capable of baptism The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ and the same Gospel was preached to Abraham and he believed in the same Christ Gal. 3. 8. add hereto there is the same efficient primary cause to wit God making a covenant with his and appointing the respective seals thereof the same necessity on the receivers part original sin in Infants who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of God for remedy as they had under the law and there is the same power and efficacie of the holy Ghost still remaining otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament and covenant in Christ exhibited should be more restrained and of less latitude then it was in the Old under that severe Schoolmaster the Law and which were impious to affirm then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our children which the Law allowed them under the severity therof No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God under severe punishment but the initiatory Sacrament Baptism now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation whereto Infants have right therefore it may not be withheld from such Infants as are within the covenant and have right thereto and to the promise of God See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was and is a part or condition of the same Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. Joh 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the feal thereof but God accounteth children of believing parents holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have borrowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie overthrow this argument 11 All those who being redeemed by Christ have right to the kingdom of heaven have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same that is baptism but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven Mark 10. 14 Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. 5. to wit water of baptism by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto and presently gives the reason that which is born of the flesh is flesh that as such cannot enter into the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth but flesh and blood Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost it is true that God can and doth regenerate many Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit so that they dying without the Sacrament are yet saved in an extraordinary way but for us to deny them baptism and to put their salvation upon extraordinary means where God hath appointed and declared the ordinary is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God and thereby except in case of repentance they shall exclude themselves 12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do that is right and just to be done and we ought to do but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children and that the Apostles did do for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants as being a great part of all nations and we ought to do it 13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ ought to be done but Infant-baptism agreeth with these therefore it ought to be done it agreeth with the institution of Christ who commanding to baptize all nations well knew that there were many Infants therein yet makes no exception of them but gives them so high an eulogium that we may know that the initiatory seal belongeth principally to them as it did under the Law what though God name not Infants to be baptized in so many words and syllables yet seeing he neither nameth men of years nor women it must needs be that under these words all nations he comprehended all those of which nations as their integrant parts consist which are men women and children it agreeth also with the nature of the seal which

not to suffer sin to reign in our mortal bodies he saith not Let not flesh and blood the natural man live any longer or any more be active but Let not sin reign c. for Christ came not to destroy our nature but to correct our depraved will and affections 3 There is not in all the New Testament any one precept or example for rebaptizing therfore it ought not to be done the constant judgment and practice of the Church of Christ being to the contrary it is neither commanded in the institution of baptism nor in any Scripture admitted nor is it tolerable by any necessary consequence as is the contrary Johns baptism and Christs were one whatever Jesuites pretend to the contrary Apollos knew only Johns baptism Act. 18. 25. that is the doctrine of John Baptist we read not that Apollos or any other mentioned in Scripture was rebaptized no not any of Johns Disciples coming to Christ and his magistery which had surely been done had Christs baptism and Johns been different in substance and had it been done we should have had in Scripture either some express proof for the same or something so layed down that we might by good consequence have gathered the same which nowhere appeareth but as hath been said the Apostle recalleth penitent sinners once baptized unto the comfort of that which they had once received in baptism 1 Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Circumcision was only once administred but was perpetual and everlasting and under the Law sinners were to return unto the Lord by true repentance compare Jer. 11. 3 4. Jer. 4. 1 2. c. with Jer. 18. 8 c. Ezek. 18. 31 32. Isa. 55. and the principal cause why circumcision was not iterated was Gods divine ordinance and institution the impressed character was secondary on Gods part it ever remained sure to which after their forsaking his covenant into which they had been once sealed he recalled them not to a susception of a new or the same seal iterated but only to repentance as to humble them so to shew that the fault and failing of the fruits and effects thereof which should have appeared in their newness of life was wholly on their parts not on Gods who is unchangeable and the same for ever So hath he appointed it in our sins after baptism I further add that those Christians which had apostated to the most pernitious heresie of Arrians denying the deitie of Christ by the judgment of the Catholick Church if they returned to her were not to be rebaptized but to be received again into the Church and communion thereof by repentance as hath been proved 5 All they that are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection are but once to be baptized but all they that are baptized according to Christs Institution In the name of the Father and the Son the H. Ghost are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection therefore they are but once to be baptized and thus the Church hath ever clearly judged The major is proved because Christ dyed and rose again but once Rom. 6. 3 4 5 9 10. we being therefore baptized into the similitude of his death and resurrection ought to be baptized but once seeing that pluralities of baptisms or baptizings cannot answer in similitude to his death and resurrection who dyed and rose again but only once for our justification Rom. 4. 25. Heb. 8. 25 26 28. Again we are buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. 4. but Christ was but once buried therefore neither ought we to be baptized any more then only once How then shal we be renewed after our falling into sin the Apostle saith Gal. 6. 1. Restore such a one but how he saith no● baptize him again no but godly sorrow saith he 2 C●● 7. 10. worketh repentance to salvation for we must still remember that baptism is the ordinary gate and entrance into Christs Church which stands like that brazen Sea at the entrance into the Temple 1 King 7. 39. in which our sins are washed away and remitted by Christ so not that they should be no more but that they shal be no more imputed and therfore all this life long we have need of daily repentance because we daily fal into some sin repentance being a condition of Godspronouncing pardon to the sense of our consciences which he sealed to us in our baptism and so we may understand that which Christ said to Peter Joh. 13. 10. He that is was'd needeth not save to wash his feet We are washed from our sins by baptism because though we are in respect of the meritorious cause cleansed from them only by the sacred blood of Christ 1 Joh. 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Heb. 9. 14. Rev. 1.5 yet baptism being the ordinary external seal and instrumental cause for the application thereof as also in respect of the analogie between the sign and the thing signified that is often ascribed to the sign which is proper to the thing signified to wit the bloud and merit of Christ sealed to us in baptism therefore we need no more clearing by iteration of baptism but only as it were washing our feet that is our vitious affections and failings by daily repentance that it may please God to pronouce to our consciences the remission of our sins which grieve and displease us There is but one Lord one faith one baptism Eph. 4. 5. That which the holy Ghost testifieth is but one as one Lord one Faith one Baptism no man may multiply iterate or make more But the holy Ghost testifieth that there is but one God one Faith one Baptism Therefore no man may iterate or make them more neither is it any better then a meer illusion of holy Scripture to distinguish between the Sacrament and the administration thereof by saying there is but one baptism but there may be many baptizings of one and the same person the Apostle saying there is but one not only in the unity of substance dispensation and effect but also in respect of lawful use or reception by one and the same person otherwise he must contradict himself who saith we are baptized into the similitude of Christs death which is but only one and once suffered Indeed it is said of the other seal as oft as ye do this 1 Cor. 11. 26. but not one word in Scripture can be found more then once baptizing but the Apostle mentioning baptism joins it with things incapable of multiplication or pluralitie one Spirit one body of Christ the Church one hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for that is eternal life which is essentially but one one Lord one Faith that is one doctrine of faith Gal. 1. 6 7 8. Jud. 3 or objectively one truth of God one Christ shewing that there ought to be no more baptisms then faiths Christs or Gods if therefore said Optatus you give another