Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	know_v	see_v	world_n	2,634	5	4.4966	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30637	Vindiciæ pædo-baptismi, or, A confirmation of an argument lately emitted for infants baptism in a letter to a reverend divine of the Church of England / by R.B. ...	Burthogge, Richard, 1638?-ca. 1700.	1685 (1685)	Wing B6157A; ESTC R40304	32,736	88

Vindiciae Poedo-Baptismi OR A CONFIRMATION OF AN ARGUMENT Lately Emitted for Infants Baptism IN A LETTER To a Reverend Divine OF The Church of England By R.B. M.D. LONDON Printed for Thomas Simmons at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate Street 1685. SIR I Was at the Point of making a Resolution before I receiv'd yours of June 9. wholly to neglect that Libellous Disputation as it is called between a Doctor and an Apothecary as a thing that doth not only betray the Unsincerity the Artifices the Impotent Passions of him that wrote It but that to a Prudent and Judicious Reader doth as is said of the Viper carry in its own Bowels Causes that in time will destroy it But seeing you Advise me that it may not be unfit that something be said to it and I know we ought not to have too good an Opinion of the World which generally being malicious and invidious is apter to take impression from a witty Calumny and Detraction than from the soundest and most solid Reasoning and Argument on these and the like considerations I now resolve to Reply But in doing so that I resemble not my Adversary whom not only I but many sober and indifferent Persons do condemn for Impertinence for Falsehood for Bitterness for Peremptoriness and Presumption and for such other Courses as to use the Expression of a Noble Person tend rather to Rumor and impression in the Vulgar sort than to the likelihood of any good Effect For this Reason I am determined in Replying to him to propose unto my self for my Example That wise and Religious Bishop of whom when he returned Answer to a Pamphlet much it seems of a nature like to this before me My Lord Bacon says That he remembred that a Fool must be Answered but not by becoming like unto him and considered the matter which he handled and not the Person with whom he dealt The Points therefore that I will go upon shall be only these First To shew nakedly and truly the Occasion of my engaging with my Adversary in this Controversy Secondly To shew the Unfairness of his Proceeding in the Publick Management of it together with the motives which as I suppose induced him to the Unfairness Thirdly To Note but as it were in passing and by the By the Undue Aspersions which he casts upon me in reference to my Argument together with the Malice is in them Fourthly Briefly again to state the Argument I made and to demonstrate That as it is not a Log as he calls it nor Vncouth so that he is still extreamly Affrighted at it for he dares not touch it and still hath cause to be so As for my Engaging with him the first Occasion as I have said already was purely Accidental and it was drawn on I scarce know how he says by the importunity of the Lady my readiness to comply with it and his unwariness and let it be so But a casual passing undesigned Discourse it was a Discourse that as it did begin so I thought it would have ended in the same place for my part I scarce had one Thought of it afterwards But as for any Insulting upon him of which he now complains and never before that I know of and with which he thinks to bespeak the Affections of his Readers for indeed he needs them and to excuse his own Acerbity he cannot produce one Witness of any I am sure by me I can many even of Persons that were present at the whole Discourse to Attest the Contrary But that he was Insulted upon and that in his own Terms his Sword was as it were broken over his Head and with Triumph you must believe it and yet all the while the Weapons on both sides They were but Words and you can hardly think He lost His THEN who still speaks Swords and Daggers But you will tell me Well All this hitherto was but a Transient Accidental Discourse such as might happen every day when Persons meet who are of different Perswasions and there is an End But how came it afterwards to be so Solemn and so Deliberate as from Words that are but Birds in the Air to become Writings which are as Bears at the Stake Truly as to this one would think by what my Adversary writes and by the Fashion in which he writes in his Epistle and in Pag. 16. 17. that nothing but Resentment on his part of the Insolence and Affront that then was offered Him and a motion of Vanity on mine to Answer his Challenge drew on this second Engagement Little else can be inferred from what he hath written concerning it But indeed on my part it was nothing less than so and nothing less on his neither Pretendedly for all was Conscience nothing but Conscience and enquiry after further Light with which in a Letter that he sent me above a year and half he calls it in his usual figure Sometime after he importuned my Answer and prevailed For who is there but would have believed as then I did that it was Conscience pure Conscience that Acted him if he had received from him as I had a Letter so concernedly Penn'd and with so much movement with so much importunity and so much seeming sincerity and if he knew him not any better than I did at that time for thus his Letter bearing Date Sept. 9. 1681. doth speak in so many words UPon this Occasion Honoured Sir and that Occasion was a motion he made me about Perfecting the Printing and Publishing of a Book of Dr. Worsley's I shall also take the boldness to remind you of a Conference you were pleased sometime since to entertain with my self upon the subject of Infants Baptism when you were pleased to insist upon the Covenant made with Abraham wherein God Promised to be a God to him and to his Seed after Him from whence you Argued that in as much as by Vertue of that Covenant both Abraham and his Seed after him were to receive the Sign of Circumcision and in as much as the Apostle doth expresly tell us that the Blessing of Abraham was to come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ it thence followed that the Believing Gentiles and their Posterity also as being the Spiritual Seed of Abraham had a Right to Baptism which is the Seal of the same Covenant under the New Testament Administration Having since that time therefore Revolv'd this Argument of yours in my Thoughts over and over I could not satisfie my Conscience till I could either come to some satisfactory clearness in my own mind concerning the Cogency thereof or otherwise till I had drawn up something or other in writing that might at least be a sufficient Justification unto my Self in the way of my present Practice And after many fervent Addresses and Petitions to Heaven that as I might not mistake my way so that I might not Oppose or neglect any part of the Heavenly Truth I have at length drawn up the Inclosed paper which I do

is under the Obligation that is within the Promise These are not things that are barely said but are Abundantly proved before and Evident in the Text. I know he says P. 50 that as to what concerns the Obligation there is nothing in the whole 17 th of Genesis but what relates to Abraham and his Natural Family ony c. God only then designing to signifie unto Abraham together with his Natural seed and Family what was their Present Duty under the Then Present Administration And that God did signifie their Present Duty under that Administration is beyond dispute for therefore he Instituted Circumcision as that Duty But that in that whole Chapter He should signify nothing as Duty and Incumbence but with Reference only unto Abraham and to his natural seed and Family can no more be said than that he Signified nothing there as a blessing promise and priviledge but unto Abraham and to his Natural Seed and Family only For the same persons plainly are in the Duty and Incumbence that are in the blessing an d promise I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed I will give to thee and to thy Seed and therefore thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant And who shall be believed the Apostle that said that that seed is Christ Christ Mysticall or this Disputer that saith no seed is meant there but the Natural Seed and Family But shall the Seed indeed be within the promise and blessing and not under the Duty and Obligation when yet the same Covenant and God in the same Continued speech and to the same Persons under the same Denomination viz. Abraham and his Seed doth both bind on the Duty and make the Promise who but such a Tender man as This is will dare to say that one must still abide and the other be lay'd aside that we may take the blessing but leave the Duty Certainly they that will not look to the Old Testament for new Testament Dutys must not Look to the Old Testament for new Testament Priviledges We must not claim by the Old Testament Promise and blessing if we will not be under the proper Duty and service of that promise and blessing But to Return to his three Points of which he says it is Incumbent upon me to prove them if I will find believing Gentiles any wise concerned in the 17 tth of Genesis with Reference to Signing the First is my three Partys the Second my two signs the Third Abraham's standing for the Carnal seed in Circumcision and Isaac's for the Spiritual in Baptism To the First that the Covenant is Tripartite though still I say as I have said already that as to my Argument I need not stand thereon yet it is Evident enough from what I urged in my last Letter P. 155. 156. to which I Expect a distinct Answer And indeed the three Partys are Distinctly Noted and are God Abraham and Abraham's Seed for first the Covenant is made between God and Abraham singly and separately in his own person Genesis 17. 2 4 5 6. But then in verses 7 8 9. Abraham's Seed is taken in as well as Abraham's self and so the the Covenant which had it been only between God and Abraham would have been but Bipartite Now another party being taken in or Added Namely Abraham's seed becomes Tripartite To this His answer is in the Sixth Letter in which he glorys as Unanswered and there he says P. 121. that there was a Covenant Between God the Father and Christ and after that a Covenant taking in all his seed called the Covenant of Grace and says he doth that make it Tripartite are not Christ and Believers considered as one Party you see how Theologically and how Divine-like he speaks if this be he that speaks and not some Supervisor as if the Covenant of Redemption which yet to Note it by the by is never called in Express Terms a Covenant in all the Scripture as if that Covenant were the same Covenant with the Covenant of Grace and that what passed Between God the Father and the Son before the Worlds were was the very same with what passed between God and Abraham and his seed in time The Covenant of Redemption indeed was Bipartite it was between God and Christ only But the Covenant of Grace is Tripartite between God Abraham and Abraham's seed or Christ for Isaac the seed is Christ. In the Covenant of Redemption are but two named but in this Covenant of Grace are three Partys But on this as being a Logomachy and strife about words I do not much Insist The second Point to be proved is he says my two signs And that Baptism and Circumcision are two signs is not hard to be proved But doubtless That is not his meaning he hath the Confidence to say That I do make two signs not only under the two administrations but Two Determinate Particular signs in Genesis 17. namely Baptism in the 9 th verse which says but falsly I call The sign and Circumcision in the 10 th for saith he P. 80. thus Runs your own Paraphrase upon the words therefore thou Abraham and thy seed Isaac in the Letter and Spirit shall keep the sign of my Covenant that is both he and they and thou also must be Baptised P. 114 he says But say you though Isaac was Circumcised and Ishmael too yet there are two signs in that Text Circumcision and Baptism And P. 115. He says But that there is any such sign as Baptism in Genesis 17 th and that Isaac was signed by it as a Type or Figure of the Gentile Believers as you now seem to Affirm and your Paraphrase Imports I deny c. You Sir who have Perused my Letters know very well how false and how Imposturous an Imputation this is and Bad is that Cause which cannot be upheld but with Impostures Lyes and Forgeries But for the Rectifying of others who happily have not seen those Letters and who otherwise may be too Credulous to this Inventor I must say I was so far from Affirming any thing of any Tendency to what he Impudently fastens upon me in the former Passages that I never once thought it I only Affirmed that Isaac Abraham's Seed did Represent and stand for Believing Gentiles in the Covenant both as to the Promise and Blessing given to them and to the Duty and Incumbence put upon them This I did say and but this and this Let him Confute it if he can Nor did I ever say that there were two Determinate and Particular Signs namely Circumcision and Baptism either Instituted or immediately intended in the Seventeenth of Genesis I said that in the Seventeenth of Genesis there was a double Obligation namely First a more General One Verse the Ninth imposed upon Abraham and upon his Seed viz. Isaac in the Spirit Principally and that was in General Terms to keep the Covenant and to keep the Covenant is to keep the sign of the Covenant which I said