Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	abraham_n	faith_n	justify_v	1,422	5	9.0902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19033	The plea for infants and elder people, concerning their baptisme, or, A processe of the passages between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton wherein, first is proved, that the baptising of infants of beleevers, is an ordinance of God, secondly, that the rebaptising of such, as have been formerly baptised in the apostate churches of Christians, is utterly unlawful, also, the reasons and objects to the contrarie, answered : divided into two principal heads, I. Of the first position, concerning the baptising of infants, II. Of the second position, concerning the rebaptising of elder people.	Clyfton, Richard, d. 1616.	1610 (1610)	STC 5450; ESTC S1572	214,939	244

meaning better then you do For Paul speaketh of Abrahams justification by fayth Rom. 4. 3. 11. asketh how fayth was imputed unto him when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver 10. answereth when he was uncircumcised Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus 1. If Abraham received the righteousn●s of faith when he was uncircumcised then his example seemes to belong to them that are uncircumcised No sayth the Apostle for he received circumcision 2. It might be objected yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vayn seing he had received the righteousnes of fayth before no sayth Paul for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his fayth which he had in his uncircumcision Then he expresseth the cause both of Abrahams justification by fayth when he was uncircumcised and also that being justified by fayth he received circumcision viz. that he might be the father of al that beleeve being uncircumcised that righteousnes might be imputed unto them also And the father of circumcision not unto them onely which are of the circumcision but also unto them that walk in the steps of the fayth of our father Abraham c. this is the Apostles meaning Now whereas you affirme that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcised that beleeve I desire this may be proved according as you mean For the Apostle sayth it not but thus he received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of the fayth which he had for how could Abrahams circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us not to himself seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the partie that is partaker thereof By this your exposition you make Abrahams circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed of which difference the Lord spake not a word in the institution thereof nor in any other place Yet you say the righteousnes of fayth is not sealed up to Abrahams particular person but to the uncircumcised that beleeve Which doctrine is very strange that Abrahams circumcision shal seal that to others those uncircumcised not to himself being circumcised you must therefore bring better proofe hereof els your confident affirmation wil be accepted as the facing out of an error As for the cōmon acceptatiō translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say is the mother of this heresie it is confirmed in these words but unto them also that walk in the stepps of the fayth of our father Abrahā when he was uncircumcised which makes it plaine that the Apostle understood by the righteousnes of fayth Abrahams righteousnes which he by fayth apprehended and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision Againe al the persons of Abrahams familie were not circumcised because of Abrahams fayth but the males onely the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ So many of Abrahams familie were circumcised as the Lord commanded to the women it was not injoyned and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male yet as it was a sacrament it sealed unto them the righteousnes of fayth and therefore in Genes 17. 10. it is called the covenant because it was a signe thereof sealing unto them remission of sinns and regeneration by fayth in Christ to come And the femal●s were uncircumcised c. to signifie that those that had not the male Christ in them were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment 1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised seing they were comprehended under the males and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes 34. 14. Deut. 7 3. Esa 3 16. 2 I confesse that such as are not in Christ are no fit members of the church but this seemes not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male but this alegorising proves nothing Further you say as it was with Abraham and his familie in Circumcision so was it with Lidia c. it is not so I shew the difference in divers particulers 1 They of Abrahams familie were circumcised upon particular precept c. 2. They that ●ere males onely were circumcised c. 3. They that were circumcised of Abrahams familie were al the males being of yeares though never so lewd c. 4. As fayth did not intitle the female to circumcision and as infidelitie did not deprive the male of circumcision so fayth did intitle the female to baptisme in the familie of the Gaylor and ●f Lidia c. To these pretended differences I answer 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed onely the ceremonie is changed and that Christ hath given * a cōmaundement for the administring 〈◊〉 28. of the signe as the preaching of the covenant to all nations and by vertue hereof were the families of the Gaylor and Lydia baptised and so it was with Lydia and her family as it was with Abraham and his household els was she not the daughter of Abra. entring into Gods covenāt she hers as Abraham and his entred in seing the holy Ghost saith that the housholdes were baptised without limitation it belongs to you to prove that the children in these families were exempted or els that children are not of the family or els we may not restreyne the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to yonge and old For your first difference I deny that cōmandemēt to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone it was also to all beleevers of the Gentiles and their children and so was it a generall precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant though circumcision was proper to the former Church as baptism is to the church of the new testament and so there needed no particular precept for baptising of infants they being cōprehended under the general For the 2. difference that the ●males onely were to be circumcised I answer this was according to the Lords dispensation then to set his signe on the males now on both sexes but neither then nor now to restraine it from infants Concerning your 3. difference I ask you where the scripture sayth that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abrahams familie Dare you condemne that house which the Lord doth iustifie see Gen. 18. 19. where the Lord saith I know that he wil commaund his sonnes and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord c. and that infants being males in Abrahams house were circumcised you can not deny for the commandement is that every man child be circumcised and Abraham did so Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes the Gaylors families were not baptised els you shew no difference For your 4. difference it stands upon an unequal

sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the ●ame body see also Ephes 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * Mat. 8 12. children of the kingdome and of of the “ Act. 3. 25. covenant and unto whom the † Act. ● 32. promise was made And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites and the conditions therof required at their hands I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now then he was to the Iewes and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy and have right to the covenant “ Mat. 19 14. and kingdome of God and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof But you say Infants wanting actuall faith cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham I answer that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children as Here no● that actua● faith in al● this treatis● is put for t● actual us● faith are grown to yeares And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham and then must you prove that they are not Christs for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. But are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are Christ hath sayd playnely “ Mar. ● 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God And the promise is * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede And you leave them in secrete to the Lord thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth The Scriptures following viz Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with Gē 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham you leave vnanswered Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie the first wherof is this As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with the children of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision Ergo the childrē of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive the baptisme of water This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it for thus we reason for it observing your termes As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful so must it be with th● children of Abraham But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision he and his children Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve● and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive baptisme of water they and their children Here let the reader consider yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause for this is that which we stand for viz that As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the † seale thereof he himself and all his males yea Isaac of eight dayes old ●om 4. 3 ● Gen. 17. ● 14. ● 27. ● 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme themselves and their children But if your meaning be this that as Abraham beleeved first after was circumcised so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of Abrahā which descended from him by the course of nature his seed that are of the Gentiles that the former being infants might notwithstāding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve And that the other viz the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith “ their infants were circumcised as well as ●xod 12. the infants of the Iewes After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also meaning with the Iewes and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents Act. 16. ● 33. Act. 10. ● I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not God hath purifyed the Gentiles and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham therfore yt is an iniury offered to pollute that is to reject from the cove●ant our children whom the Lord hath received Your second ●s this As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admit●d into the Church of the old testament so in the new testament the spirituall children ●ust be spiritually circumcised and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church ●f the new testament But the first was signified by the type Ergo the second is ●rified in the truth First If this Argument should hold proportion then it would folow that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant so should baptisme be a ●eale likewise for it is brought in here to answer circumcision as the dore into the Church But you deny * Chara● pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant 2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament by circumcision for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them and therfore were they circumcised for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong Also to the Majors consequent I answer that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants we are to hold them † 1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk ● 15. Ier. 1. ● spiritually circumcised and therefore to be partakers of baptisme Concerning your assumption as * Mat. 3. 8. Act. ● 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament so was it of “ Gen. 17 ●

the want of those true causes essential Repl. the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posteritie of Abraham or proselyte circumcised the want of those things onely made a false church c. If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament Ans then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites being circumcised were not true churches they were of the posteritie of Abraham as all do know That Israel was an Apostate church is before proved and by you confessed As to your essential causes of this church your carnal covenant which is the ground of your definitiō you may receive answer before pag. 12. c. And this more 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the wayes of God but apostating the Lord did cal them an harlot Hos 2 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down then the want thereof makes them not a false church as you say but no Church Lastly you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church Repl. of Antichrist c. I answere divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two wayes visibly as members of Antichrist body invisibly as pertayning to the Lords election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptism First you graunt a duble consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church but not altogether in the same sence as I did propound it The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God yet as touching the election of God divers of them may belong vnto him whom he knoweth for his people and calleth them out of Babylon when and as it pleaseth him even as that speach doth shew vnto vs which sayth come out of her my people c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham Isaac and Iacob did extend his love to their seed and posteritie to save so many of them as he had * elected And when Israel fel into apostasie did remember Rom. 11. ●-5 this his promise and called thence such as he had chosen to witnes his truth and gave them to separate from their false wayes and to returne to Ierusalem Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in and † made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree vouchsafeth Rom. 11. 7. his grace to them and their posteritie But their apostasie he hateth as he did that of the Israelites And yet notwithstanding he hath his people Rom. 11. 8. in Babylon whom he calleth out to confesse his name for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasie of Antichrist then in the apostasie of Israel And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this that wheras 〈◊〉 11. 28 question might be made of the saving of the Iewes they being now enemies c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect to wit of the Gospel which now they received not yet that in an other respect they are beloved of God to wit for his election and promise made to the fathers so as through the grace of his covenant by which he had chosen that people to himself Israel shal be called and ingraffed agayne and saved from their sinnes c. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes shal be into that estate from which now they are fallen and which before time their fathers were partakers off As concerning baptisme I do not read that it is called the doore of * Ro● 3-4 3. 27. the Church the scripture hath these phrases Baptised into Christ baptised into his death and such like Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the doore because it sealed vnto vs Christ who is the doore and for that it is the first-ordinance that eyther such as came to the Church or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the Re. covenant may therevpon 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism and then vpon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism but that the dore of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ Ans c. I answere 1. do not your selfe intimate thus much concerning such as being of yeares and makes themselves profession are baptised into Antichrists Apostacy 2. My spech was of such of Gods people as are borne † Carra● pag. 52. in Babylon which your selfe calles * members of a false Church 3. Baptism that is retayned in the Apostate Church of Antichrist is not false in that sense as you so call it but is the ordinance of Christ there poluted as formerly I have shewed 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptisme then those his people that separated from the apostasie of Israel came to Ierusalem without circumcision otherwise I do not intimate or speak Whereas I say you intimate so much you teach contrary to Christ who sayth we Re. must go in by the dore c. and that we must first be taught and made disciples and then be baptised c. The doore is * Joh. 10. ● Christ by whome if any man enter in he shal be saved An. And to be baptised first after instructed is not cōtrary to Christs cōmandemēt The words of Christ you wrest frō the true meaning therof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptisme and so your self is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ as formerly I have proved and you might aswel deny Baptisme to women by that Scripture Mat. 28. 19. as to infants for Christ sayth Baptise them vsing the masculine gender and not the feminine Secondly I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptisme for the parents sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents sake otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made vnto them and their seed I meane not Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant according to his grace of chosing a people to himself of