Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	circumcision_n	covenant_n	seal_n	7,337	5	9.8059	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65671	Infant baptism plainly proved a discourse wherein certain select arguments for infant baptism, formerly syllogyistically handled, are now reviewed, abbreviated, and reduced to a plain method, for the benefit of the unlearned, and persons of weaker capacity / by Joseph Whiston ; with a large epistle to the pious and learned among the anti-pædobaptists, especially the authors of the late confession of their faith.	Whiston, Joseph, d. 1690.	1678 (1678)	Wing W1694; ESTC R1322	72,861	137

Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And that it may clearly appear how this Command doth warrant yea require the Application of Baptism to the Infant-Seed of Believers as they are Subjects of the Promise these five things must be distinctly proved 1. That by Covenant in this Command is meant the Token of the Covenant 2. That the Covenant of Grace always had and still hath an out outward Token annexed to it 3. That this Command obligeth not only Parents to have the Token applied to themselves but to apply it or to take care that it be applied to their Infant-Seed as Joint-Subjects with them of the Promise 4. That as Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant during the Old-Testament-Administration so Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New 5. That this Command doth equally and alike concern Believers with respect to Baptism as it did the Jews with respect to Circumcision These five things being cleared up and proved what we affirm will be sufficiently established And therefore for the first 1. That by the Covenant in this Command is meant the Token of the Covenant This is plain from the Verse immediatly following Only let it be observed that the Covenant is first more generally laid down Thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And then what should be this Covenant at that time during the first Administration is declared in the next Verse it should be Circumcision The Command requires the keeping of the Covenant in general Circumcision is specified to be the Covenant at that time to be kept though not the only Covenant to be kept 2. That this Covenant which hath been already proved to be the Covenant of Grace always had and was to have and consequently still hath a Token annexed to it This is evident 1. From the express Letter of the Command We evidently see the Command is given to Abraham's Seed in their Generations that is to all his Seed in their Generations 'T is not limited to either his Natural or Spiritual Seed but takes in both And that this Command reacheth Abraham's Spiritual Seed as well as his Natural is further evident because the same Persons must needs be intended in the Command that are intended in the Promise vers 7. Now Abraham's Spiritual as well as his Natural Seed were undoubtedly intended in the Promise Hence this Command obligeth the one as well as the other So that while Abraham had a Seed upon the Earth they in their Generations that is they and their Children are under the Obligation of this Command which undoubtedly proves that this Covenant always had and was to have a Token annexed to it otherwise God would not command Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant unless there had been a Covenant that is a Token to be kept 2. And yet further this is evident de Facto that there always has been and still is a Token annexed to the Covenant That it had a Token annexed to it during the Old-Testament-Administration is granted by all and that it still hath a Token and that Baptism is that Token will appear when I come to the fourth Particular And therefore 3. That this Command obligeth Parents not only to have the Token applied to themselves but to apply or take care that it be applied to their Infant-Seed This is evident two ways 1. From the express Letter of the Command Abraham's Seed in their Generations are expresly commanded to keep the Covenant and under that Phrase their Generations we are to include their Infants both Parents and Children are included in the Promise and consequently both must needs be included in the Command So that Children are under the Command to keep the Covenant which in respect of them can only intend their reception and bearing of the Token of it and so they are under the Obligation to keep it Whence they not having it applied to them are said to break the Covenant And if they are thus far to keep it it will undeniably follow that it is their Parents duty to take care that it be applied to them 2. This is evident from the Displeasure of God against Parents when the Application of the Token of the Covenant to their Children hath been neglected Exod. 4.24 25 26. From whence it is plain that as the Infants of Abraham's Seed be they Jews or Gentiles are under the Obligation to keep the Covenant that is the Token of it so it is the Duty of Parents to take care that it be applied to them and answerably that they do keep it 4. That as Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant under the First-Testament so Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New That Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant under the first Testament is expresly declared Gen. 17.19 And that Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New-Testament is evident in the general 1. Because unless Baptism be the present Token the Covenant hath no Token at all which we proved before it was to have Now if Baptism be not the Token what is the Token to be kept The Command is yet in force therefore there is a Token still to be kept But now there is no Token can with any shew of Reason be supposed to be intended in this Command but only Baptism and therefore that must needs be the present Token of the Covenant 2. This will more fully appear if we compare Baptism with Circumcision the former Token of the Covenant Look what Ordinance under the New-Testament most exactly agrees with Circumcision and serves to those uses and ends for or with reference unto which a Token was annexed to the Covenant that must needs be the present Token and that is undeniably Baptism For let us but consider what were the Uses and Ends with reference whereunto Circumcision the first Token of the Covenant was appointed and we shall find that Baptism is appointed with reference to the very same Ends and Purposes As for Instance 1. Circumcision as the Token of the Covenant was that solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby Persons were admitted into and incorporated in the Church visible Now that Baptism is appointed for and serves to the same use and end is plain 1 Cor. 12.13 2. Circumcision was appointed for the sealing confirming and assuring to those that were the Subjects of the Covenant all that Good or all those Benefits and Blessings contained in it Hence it is said to be to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And of what use it was unto him with respect unto the Righteousness of Faith of the same use it was to him with respect to the whole Good of the Covenant And look of what use it was to Abraham of the same use it was to all that were the due and proper Subjects of it seeing he received it not only as a particular

Command that the Token of his Covenant whatever that should be should be kept both by Parents and Children which Token of the Covenant we say was Circumcision under the first Testament but now is Baptism And besides there are other Arguments which you cannot certainly be unacquainted with which do supposing that their Foederal Holiness and Church-Membership undeniably establish the dueness and rightfulness of their Baptism So that I conceive you cannot possibly grant their Foederal Holiness and Church-Membership but you must grant their Baptism Now for you to overlook all these Arguments and fain us to argue quite otherwise than indeed we do or if possibly any have done yet their Mistakes have been rectified is to say no more matter of great admiration The reasons of your so doing must be left with your selves yet I cannot but tell you that such Dealings have a sad tendency to obstruct that good Design viz. the Reconciliation of our mutual Love each to other which you seem to carry on It will beget a kind of Suspicion in the minds of Men that you too wilfully shut your Eyes against that Light that is held forth unto you Secondly You only single out some of those Scriptures and Arguments drawn from them that we make use of as additional Enforcements but not as demonstrative of themselves Thus for those Instances of whole Families being baptized we only improve them as a further Confirmation of our main Arguments but not as demonstrative as of themselves and that upon supposition of the foederal Holiness and Church-Membership of the Infant-Seed of Believers and the validity of those Arguments we have urged for their Baptism upon that Supposition That these Instances may be taken in as additional Confirmations of our Practice I am verily perswaded your selves will not deny So that alas Brethren what a slender account have you given us of the Reasons of your non-acquiescence in what is urged by us against you No wonder if you so greatly mistake us on the one hand and on the other hand overlook our main Arguments and then only take notice of what Scriptures and Arguments we make use of only as additional Confirmations though you cannot comply with our practice 2. That which I cannot but judge alike blame-worthy in you is your too evident Partiality This is so apparent in you Citation of and Remark upon Dr. Lightfoot's Interpretation of that Rom. 4.11 that it is a wonder your selves should not see it The Doctor conceives that Circumcision is there said to be a Seal not meerly for in some sence he grants it might be of that Righteousness Abraham had while in his Vncircumcision but more especially of that Righteousness which his uncircumcised Seed that is believing Gentiles should have when they should come to imitate his Faith Now you conceive that this is so evidently the true sence and meaning of the Apostle in that place that it is impertinent for any to alledge that Scripture to prove that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith either to Abraham himself or to any of his circumcised Posterity But Brethren let me prevail with you seriously to weight these few things which I shall but as it were propose to your consideration 1. Consider that this Interpretation seems utterly inconsistent with the Apostle's design and scope in that place The Apostle's design is to shew that Abraham both had a Righteousness imputed to him and had Circumcision given him as a Seal thereof That he might be the Father of all that should believe who were of the Circumcision but this Interpretation supposes him already their Father 2. But secondly And rather consider the utter Improbability that this is indeed the true sence and meaning of the Apostle let me say cum pace tanti viri that the Doctor 's words are so far from having any evidence as you conceit that they have not any probability of Truth in them For 1. Should it be granted which yet it is not that Circumcision might be of this use as applied to Abraham himself who was the Father of all that should believe yet why it should be of the same use as applied to all his natural Posterity as this Interpretation takes it for granted that it was no reason can be imagined A Seal is for confirmation of somewhat to the Parties to whom it is given now why God by this seal of Circumcision should confirm to the Jews the Promise of justifying the Gentiles through a Righteousness imputed to them upon their believing when it did not seal or confirm the same Good to themselves is hard to imagine 2. Circumcision is expresly said to be the Token of that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations but now the Imputation of Righteousness to us Gentiles upon condition of our believing was no Article on God's part in the Covenant as entred and established with Abraham's natural Seed at least as severally and particularly considered and as the Covenant was so entred with them Circumcision was the Token of it Hence how it could seal to them what was no-where promised to them is hard to imagine 3. This Interpretation at least as you seem to take it supposes hat the natural Seed of Abraham though in Covenant yet had not a Righteousness imputed to them for how unreasonable would it be to say that Imputation of Righteousness to the Gentiles was sealed to the Jews and yet that Righteousness imputed unto them not alike sealed unto them that would be to say they had a Good of which they had no Promise sealed to them and yet that Good of which they had a Promise not sealed to them 4. According to this Interpretation the Apostle's words can hardly be good sence seeing the Righteousness of Faith is not a Quality inherent in but a Relation predicable of those to whom it is imputed but according to this Interpretation the Apolste's words must run thus He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness which should be in the Circumcision for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. Adde this one thing more That the very same Phrase in the next verse is and must necessarily be render'd as it is by our Translators in this Now to understand the same Phrase after such a different manner in one verse from what it must necessarily be understood in the next when there is no warrant from Scripture nor any just reason from the Context so to do is unreasonable But 3. Suppose we should grant the Doctor 's Interpretation to be right which you see we have no reason to do yet neither is your Cause at all advantaged nor ours prejudiced thereby seeing he grants that Circumcision in some sence was a Seal to Abraham of that Righteousness which he had by Faith while in his Uncircumcision Now of what use it was to him of the same use it was to all to whom it was rightfully applied as I have elsewhere fully proved Now