Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	great_a	think_v	4,338	5	3.9369	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85949	Vindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1646 (1646)	Wing G604; Thomason E363_13; ESTC R201234	35,208	49

held forth that all infants of believers are so in Covenant with their parents as to have saving graces intayled on them which I say is not onely against Protestants principles but believed by M. Tombes himself not to be M. Marshals meaning from pag. 142. of his examen And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning when we say children are in Covenant with their parents That as it was with the people of Israel by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church and so intitled to and enjoyed the visible priviledges of adoption oracles seals Rom. 9 4 5. And the elect among them enjoyed the visible grace which was to be presumed of all in charity till they discovered the contrary So now we conceive that under the Gospel by vertue of the same Covenant into the participation of which Christians are assumed believers with their freedom ●ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ and enjoy outward Church-priviledges And the elect among them enjoy those things in truth which others only have externally and in profession And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers till they discover the contrary And thus have they right to the seal of initiation And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory That the promise is to believers and to their seed c. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae Now I referre it to the judgement of the learned whether M. Tombes had any cause to complain for want of distinctnes in expression or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words pag. 43. of his Apology to make them found harsh and absurd or had cause from my words to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption with such like groundles expressions for want of solid matter of confutation Neither had be ground to say that none would expound the words of the Directory as I doe but he that would make mens words like a nose of wax if he take my exposition whole as I have laid it down above not lamely as he hath unfairly represented it For I conceive the expressions of the Directory were used with reference to the expressions of Scripture Now the expressions in Scripture Gen. 17.7 Rom. 9.4 to whom pertained the Covenants Act. 3.25 Yea are the children of the Covenant must and usually are expounded as I have expounded them And then it s no violent but a charitable yea a rationall interpretation of the words of the Directory to give them that sense which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn The Covenant that the Jews were under none deny to be a Covenant of grace and of a Covenant of grace speak Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches all were under the Covenant that is truly stiled a Covenant of grace But all are not under it in the same sense nor to enjoy thereby priviledges of the same quality but some onely externally and reputatively and enjoy thereby externall Church-priviledges a name to be sons a name to live Revel 3.1 and others to enjoy inward graces really And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace and yet no necessity to take it in that sense that it is in regard of saving graces But in that sense as it would and must have been taken if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews when I think none would have stumbled at it that they are so under that Covenant that is the Covenant of grace as to be reputed children and to be accounted of Gods visible Church entitled to his seals and other externall Church-priviledges The Argument that M. Tombes urgeth to prove that the words of the Directory mean that children are so under the Covenant of grace as to have a promise of saving grace pag. 42. of his Apology are as strong against the true and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited therefore they be but mistakes For Gen. 17.7 is meant of naturall seed not soirituall onely and then God was in one sense the God of Abraham and in another the God of his seed at least some of them M. Tombes confesseth pag. 76. of his Apology that the same word is used in divers senses Rom. 11.17 Joh. 15.2 so that the taking of one word in divers senses in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him And the instruction for doctrine and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong for as they are reputed of the visible Church and to have adoption belonging to them Rom 9.4 and so to have right to the seals may by the goodnes of God in blessing his Ordinance be really partakers of the saving graces promised and so enjoy the highest priviledge of the Covenant of grace internally and really But saith M. Tombes the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus to wit that the Covenant that children are under is the Covenant of saving grace I answer It s true that the Covenant that belongs to children is the Covenant of grace but so is the Covenant mentioned Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 But the query is in what sense and in what respect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace that is no otherwise then Jewish children were all to receive a visible Church estate to be of Christs visible Kingdom the elect to partake of grace indeed And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation whereto good reason may lead us and charity binde us I think with M. Tombes that it is great honour to acknowledge and amend errours that are indeed such But this is an honour that I think few will conceive M. Tombes ambitious of not with banding his good counsell to others that shall read his Apology wherein he shall scarce finde any acknowledgement of errour in the manner of handling his controversy though I may boldly say genera singulorum if not singula generum for he tells of one in this Apology pag. 16 that told him his sharpnes was usefull of such as look into Books judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others CHAP. V. Wherein my second Argument for Infant Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12 13 17 18. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11 c. M. Harrison first complains that it is confused not syllogisticall It s rare for a man of his quality to complain for want of syllogismes being usually they have the better scope to evade Then he examines my four principles

some strength in this consequence but that we make not all the reason for the scruple was in the Corinthians whether notwithstanding their lawfull marriage they might lawfully live together yes saith the Apostle the unbeliever in the use of marriage for so it must be understood is sanctified to the believer else c. so that marriage is the ground-work which satisfied not their consciences for so were they Ezra 9. 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted but now saith the Apostle the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer c. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife And his major proposition must be That man and wife may lawfully dwell together whereof one is sanctified to the other and so his fornicators will be excluded not concluded He saith it is not necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them but to the faith of the one But I answer this is no good ground for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true and on that ground it is made There 's two things required to satisfie spirituall conscience in the use of a thing First that it be lawfull in it self Secondly that it be holy to us The former is common to heathens and Christians in morall things The last is the peculiar of believers if either be wanting conscience is defiled and will be disquieted Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences is an addition to the law of marriage common with them to heathens and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed So this new argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy where I should not have M. Tombes an adversary CHAP. VIII Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant-Baptisme from Col. 2.11 12. MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was To whom circumcision doth agree Baptisme doth agree circumcision doth agree to Infants Ergo. The major is proved because Baptisme doth succeed circumcision in the same place state and signification in the new administration that circumcision had in the old Col. 2.11 12. Here M. Harrison first denies that circumcision and Baptisme do seal the same Covenant I answer circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and that is the same made with us Christians or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham that Christians are justified by faith not the works of the law as he doth Gal. 3.16 17. unlesse we had the same Covenant and of our Covenant Baptisme is the seal 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin But doth not the Apostle say that circumcision was the seal of the righteousnes of faith and that implies remission of sins as he plainly shews in bringing as proofs of justification by faith Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven Rom. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11. M. H. answers it was to Abraham the seal of the righteousnes of faith but that was peculiar to him Wherein again whether of ignorance or of choise ipse viderit he jumps with Bellarmine against Protestant Divines Bel. lib. 1. de sacr in grem cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus he enervates the Apostles argument from Abrahams example to us which is not argumentative in any thing peculiar to Abraham Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousnes of faith except to Abraham what it did seal to proselytes Title to Canaan they had none seal a blanke it must not therefore it sealed the righteousnes of faith Again there being in a Sacrament an outward signe and an inward grace and that under the old Testament as well as the new as Protestants maintain against Papists I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Rom. 2.29 Col. 2.11 were not the grace answering the signe in circumcision and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification and regeneration and so included remission of sins M. H. proceeds If I mean that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament Baptisme of the new c. I answer I mean as I say Baptisme was the Sacrament of initiation under the New as circumcision under the Old and therefore as the one was set to all seleable within Covenant so the other Yet will it not hence follow that children must therefore have the Lords Supper because that is the Sacrament of growth To the place Col. 2.11 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptisme to succeed circumcision then Noahs Ark or the red Sea But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombes that there is not the same reason of these for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use of the same nature vertue and state that Baptisme in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation and so is more properly said to be succeeded by Baptisme But M. H. saith that the Apostle speaks of circumcision to shew the Colossians that they were compleat in Christ by regeneration c. I answer that 's true but that 's not all the Apostle shews they needed not the elements of the world whereof circumcision was one and why not only because they had spirituall circumcision but had it sealed by Baptisme So Baptisme is in the same state and supplies the use of circumcision to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration and this is a manifest proof of my collection from Col. 2.11 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer For that proof of yours that circumcision and Baptisme were not to be applied to the same subject because John the Baptist would not Baptise those that were circumcised without further qualification I have answered already to M. Tombes in pag. 10. It was because Baptisme is a seal in a new administration and so parties to be Baptised were to be under the new administration as well as in Covenant And therefore neither Iohn the Baptist nor the Apostles did Baptise Jews till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found CHAP. IX Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptisme because the grace of the new Testament is not lesse then under the Old MY fifth argument was framed thus If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation whereby their separation from the world is manifested then are the priviledges under the new Testament lesse then under the old But this is not to be affirmed Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about premising three things 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed as such under the old