Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	heart_n	lord_n	see_v	3,172	5	3.4596	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66525	Infant=baptism asserted & vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to a treatise of baptism lately published by Mr. Henry Danvers : together with a full detection of his misrepresentations of divers councils and authors both ancient and modern : with a just censur of his essay to palliate the horrid actings of the anabaptists in Germany : as also a perswasive to unity among all Christians, though of different judgments about baptism / by Obed Wills ...	Wills, Obed.	1674 (1674)	Wing W2867; ESTC R31819	255,968	543

party of Anabaptists but their Principle but that it is the Ebullition of a Malicious or at best Prejudicial Spirit and yet for all that if such tumultuous and rebellious carriages proceed from the distempered brains of some Men I see not why they should be imputed to those amongst us who are of a better temper But if from their Opinions and the very Constitution of their Sect as we have cause to judg much of it doth it will be something difficult to make it out how it may not be chargeable upon all But I think our Antagonist is the only Man that ever Apologized for those Germans But well-fare a sure friend in a corner it seems he loves them so well that he would fain save their credit though by laying an imputation of forgery on the most faithful Historians and grave Divines since the Reformation Yet these Historians cannot be so put off for they are punctual name Persons Time Place Opinions Condemnation and Punishment all matters of Fact open to the World But if all who bear witness against an evil-doer must be held as Enemies and their Testimonie be rejected under that Plea and nothing believed but what themselves are pleased to acknowledge upon record who will be guilty 2. His other Plea is as follows Another thing there was saith he by which people in all Ages took occasion to misrepresent this People at Munster That they were for Community of Goods casting their Estates into one common Stock and was the same thing that Osiander tells us Muncer did in Mulhusian in Thuringia 1524. And which the Waldenses did respecting the Example Act. 4.34 O fearful And did not John Matthias their chief Prophet as they called him take an excellent course to effect it by setting forth a Proclamation to be read through the City requIring all Persons upon pain of Death to bring forth their Glod and Silver Silver and all their Goods unto a publick place appointed for that purpose the severity of which Edict so astonished the People that they were fain to obey it The other Objection which the Author attempts to Answer is that of the Waldensian Confession in favour of Infant-Baptism The first is that of Laodislaus King of Bohemia 1508. presented to Ferdinand 1535. Which Confession he looks on as signifying nothing to the point because they were a mixt People some for and some against Infant-Baptism and disowned the name of the Waldenses This indeed is something to invalidate the Authority of that Confession to which I can say nothing having not had the opportunity to see it However if it be so as he saith then we understand that those of them that were aginst Infant-Baptism were not Waldenses no more than they who were for it The other saith he is a passage in the Spiritual Almanack owning the Baptism of Children which he conceives was written by George Morel 1530. one of the Ministers sent by the Waldenses of Provence to Oecolampadius Bucer and Capito at a time when they were in a declining condition and for self-preservation were ready to comply with the Mass I must take the freedom to tell the Author that he doth prevaricate again and is more than ordinarily at a loss how to come off handsomly in this thing For 1. He cannot deny the Confession that 's smething for us you have the Confession taken from Perin the French-Historian in pag. 62. of the 2d Part of our Answer to which I refer you 2. He supposeth it was put forth by G. Morel about the year 1530. and why so late others suppose it of an ancienter date but however the Church unanimously did assent to Infant-Baptism 3. Farther he supposeth the Confession to be made at that juncture when they sent Morel to Oeclampadius for Resolution whether they might not be present with their bodies at Mass so they kept their hearts right with God This is not to the purose for we gathere hence no more than this that God's own People are Subject to sinful fears and are sometimes tempted to sin rather than to suffer and that the fear of Man worketh a snare all which you may observe from the excellent Letter sent them by Oecolampadius p. 67 68. of the 2d Part of our Answer But all this while what is this to take us off from believing that they were against Infant-Baptism which they say had been owned and practised amongst them for some hundred years This they scrupled not nor sent for any Resolutin in the case nor did they Baptize their Children out of fear of the Papists who accused them that they were against it because they had in detestation their humane Inventions added to the Sacrament and for that reason delayed the Baptizing their Children until their own Pastors came home which were often and long abroad in Propagating the Gospel 4. He saith Oecolampadius sharply rebuking them in his Letter they thereupon promised to suit themselves to the Documents they received from him What they are see in the aforesaid Letter I am sure there is nothing of Baptism in it but only good counsel to stand fast in the Truth and keep themselves from Idolatry and there was a good effect of it as appeared by their constant suffering for persecution came suddenly upon it He saith In conformity to those Documents they received from him it appears there is little or no difference between the French and German Protestants especially those that own Calvin's way being most shrunk up into little more than a bare form But why doth he talk in this manner when all the Documents they then received was to endear Christ and his Truth to them and to fortify them against suffering And what an extravagancy is it in the Author to take occasion from this Circumstance to slur the French and German Protestants many of whom doubtless have asmuch of the power of Godliness as himself or as any of the Mennonists or Anabaptists at this day in Holland whose Religion we understand by some friends of theirs is pittifully shrunk up to little more than the Form of Dipping which is worse they say they be very Erroneous in more considerable points 6. Yet more against them he accuseth them to have little of the old purity left amongst them And what need hath the Author to vilify them at this rate and how impertinent is it to the Province he hath undertaken The Lord enable us to search our own hearts and we shall see cause enough to judg our selves and not be forward in Censuring others and it is to be feared the Author condemns them the more as having little of purity because they are for Infant-Baptism his Zeal is so much carried out about the little things of Religion 7. But this saith he cannot at all weaken or enervate their old Confession Practice and Witness confirmed with so great authority and for so many Ages together The words are good but being applyed to a cypher a non-entity they become a

their hurt Therefore he hath not at all repealed it The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency The minor Mr. Baxter proves in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice for if God never revoke his Mercies nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him Therefore to such he hath not revoked it 1. That Church-Membership is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant-breakers may be proved 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealing of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him 2. From his truth and faithfulness for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy 3. His Immutability and Constancy his gifts and calling being without repentance Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Mr. Tombs was hard put to it how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument although a man of great Dexterity and a very Oedipus in the controversy yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer and mark it well Reader viz. That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater instead of it But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked Other Arguments besides this that are invincible may be drawn from that place Rom. 11.17 A Scripture which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with and therefore he gives not one touch upon it throughout all this Treatise of Baptism whereas he knows very well that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents and if they have a Church-relation they must not be denyed Baptism because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership qualifies them also for Baptism But to the Text before us There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth 1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief yet all of them were not broken off for it is said If some of them were broken off not all of them for as was said before most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed 2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius hath it positus es inter ramos illius arboris thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree referring to those words if some be broken off implying that some remained still and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their place and room in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off 3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world they shall be in statu quo priùs become the Church and people of God again as formerly but in a more glorious manner From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued The first we have already insisted upon namely That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first continued to be so after And the reason is because they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged and that was unbelief of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity among Christians Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil or of their Parents as imputed to them Because of Vnbelief saith S. Paul they were broken off If it be said saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Vnity they were dis-church'd in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general it is but an evasion which will not help them for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them For all that were not broken off by unbelief did continue unbroken off that is they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any than the Scripture hath assigned or at least any other without this here assigned and determined by the Apostle is too great presumption and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind and as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly They who kept their Station kept also their priviledges for themselves and their children if they were not broken off their children were not broken off for as the Infants came in with their Parents so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief It is not to be conceived that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake while the Parents remain in the same Church 2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church their children also being before Members were likewise broken off therefore it follows Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in for the ingrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off they succeeding in the place of the former must enjoy the priviledge they lost 3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in the Jews shall be grafted in again not with a diminution but addition to their glory and one part of their glory was that they and their seed were Gods visible Church then so shall it be with them when they are called This we have ver 26. All Israel shall be saved Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State