Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	faith_n	justification_n	2,857	5	9.3476	4	true

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