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	righteousness_n	seal_n	13,716	5	9.8320	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62869	A plea for anti-pædobaptists, against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entituled, The anabaptists anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653. Betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism. By John Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1811; ESTC R206989	34,969	48

actual faith but their own profession It is not true no not according to Mr. Vaughan's own grant that they were admitted into the same Covenant by Circumcision into which we are now admitted by Baptism For we are not admitted into that Covenant which hath the Promise of the inheriitng the Land of Canaan and descent of Christ from us which he before acknowledged to be promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. Neither need we say that the circumcised had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves or that of their Parents imputed to them or that Circumcision was a false seal For neither is it said Rom. 4. 11. of any mans Circumcision but Abrahams in his own person nor of his that it was the seal of the righteousness of faith to any but a believer This was my answer not as Mr. Vaughan mistook me that Circumcision was a seal onely of Abrahams own faith in particular Nor is there a word Rom. 4. 13. Gen. 177. Acts 2. 39. to prove that the Covenant or Promise was the same and alike to Abraham and his seed and to us believers and to our children Nor is it true that 1 Cor. 7. 14. is meant of covenant holiness of children nor doth he bring any proof that it is so For that which he dictates that there is certainly some special privilege set forth to the children of believers accruing to them from believing Parents is false the Text ascribing nothing to the faith of the one Parent but to the conjugal relation And for that which he saith it was no news to tell them that they might have the lawfull use one of another I say though they might not doubt whether they might lawfully use one another when both were unbelievers yet it is manifest the believer doubted whether it might be so still and therefore the Apostles telling them it might was an apposite resolution of their doubt whether it be to be called news or no and their not doubting of the legitimation of their issue is the very Reason from whence the Apostle by an Argument ad hominem infers the continuance of their lawfull copulation And what I said of the use of the words sanctified and holy 1 Tim. 4. 5. 1 Thess 4 3 4 7. was right nor do I think Mr. Vaughan would have urged that Text as he doth if he had read what I have written in the first part of my Antipaedobaptism in which is an ample disquisition of the meaning of that Text to which I refer Mr. Vaughan and other Readers who shall be willing to search out the truth What I said that if Baptism succeeded Circumcision and thence infant-baptism be deduced female infant-baptism could not be thence inferred for they were not circumcised is manifest nor is it pertinent which Mr. Vaughan brings to infringe it For though Females be granted to be in the Covenant of Circumcision yet they were not circumcised and if in the eys of all Laws whatsoever women are but as ignoble creatures and so not circumcised this confirms what I allege that by virtue of Baptisms succession to Circumcision their Baptism cannot be inferred What he thought to have told me about the Proselites of Righteousness and the baptizing of their Infants I conceive I have considered and answered in the second part of my Antipaedobaptism or Full Review now in the Press in which the feebleness of Dr. Hammonds Proof is shewed It is neither true that Col. 2. 11 12. is an explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words being buried with him in baptism nor any thing said of the analogy between circumcision and baptism which Mr. Vaughan saith is so evident in this place nor if it were doth it prove that our baptism succeeds the Jewish circumcision And what he grants that Col. 2. 12. Rom. 6. 4 5. Immersion and emersion in Baptism are alluded to as the custom then of baptizing and that which he saith that indeed it seemed to him that for some centuries of years that Baptism was practiced by plunging for sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the Chinicks taking what further is manifest and not denied that sprinkling is not baptizing but rantizing it is manifest that in infant-sprinkling now in use there is a mockery when the Minister saith I baptize thee and yet doth not baptize but sprinkle or rantize And it was truly said by me that it is a nullity it being done neither on persons nor in the manner Christ appointed to be baptized as the Spaniards baptizing the Americans was a meer nullity and mockery Not do I know why Mr. Vaughan should say This concludes our selves and all our Ancestours even all in the Western Churches for fifteen hundred years under damnation unless he imagine with the Papists infant-baptism necessary to salvation That which Mr. Vaughan saith p. 13. of the Churches power to alter any thing from the Form of Christs institution to be confessed by all Divines and that he is none that denies it is not true except he account none Divines but the Papists For I know none but Papists that do acknowledg that the Church hath power to alter Christs institution Nor in my practice do I acknowledg it I plainly tell Mr. Vaughan I do use to administer the Lords Supper in the evening and though I do not say it was instituted by Christ to be in the evening yet because it is called the Lords Supper and the Apostle takes notice of the time 1 Cor. 11. 23 c. and the administring of it in the morning occasions many to think they must take it fasting and not a few that they are first to receive Christs body in the popish sense I think it very requisite the Lords Supper be administred in the evening The Love-feasts I finde not appointed by Christ and therefore might be altered But in requital of Mr. Vaughans advice to me I advise him to take heed of that erroneous and dangerous Tenet which avoucheth a power in the Church to alter Christs institution which serves to justifie Popish corruptions and to condemn the practice of all the Reformed Churches I fear to embroil the Church of God they do it who oppose the truth I am willing to submit to the judgment of the Church when they agree with Christ but to none but Christ in what he hath appointed It is neither true that the practise of infant-baptism much lese of infant-sprinkling hath been fifteen hundred years nor if it were is it so strange a thing that God suffered such an error as that is I thank Mr. Vaughan for his ingenuous grant and his modest carriage and with expressions of my pity of his being misled by the conceit of the Churches power by which what is meant is hard to say conceiving I have answered him sufficiently I take my leave of him and pass on to Mr. Cragg Concerning whom the Reader is to be premonished that by reason of his fast speaking and

I finde is the grace of God said to be either physically or morally conferred by the Circumcision of each person rightly circumcised 2. It supposeth if infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the New Testament than in the old But that is false For the grace of God is as much without Sacraments as with it Above two thousand years before Abrham was circumcised there was neither Circnmcision nor Baptism of infants nor any other Sacrament instead thereof Shall we say that Gods grace was straiter before Abrahams time than since As bad as the Schoolmen were who gave too much to Sacraments yet they held that the grace of God is not tied to Sacraments That question from Heb. 8. 6. How were it a better Covenant if all poor infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circnmcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant that the reason of the circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. Part. 3. Sect. 1. Letter to Mr. Baily Sect. 3. Antipaed Part. 1. Sect. 5. and shall Part. 3. in many Sections if God permit And to the question I answer from the next words Heb. 8. 6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant because it is established on better promises though it were imagined never a poor infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do dot conceive were in Covenant The next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth If infants be not to be baptized the grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have been baptized in infancy whereas he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs Redemption of infants because we deny their Baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false For how were they Martyrs who testified nothing concerning Christ That of the Collect in the Common Prayer book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain For dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. Cragg smels rank of the Common Prayer Book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. Cragg yet retains But is nothing to the proof of his major nor any thing hitherto alleged That which he saith last hath most shew of proof that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12. Ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that buried with him in Baptism but it is not true that he saith ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands in that ye are buried with him in Baptism these are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision For there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without Circumcision as v. 10. c. shew and that Christ came in the place of Circumcision and the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies as v. 17. is expressed And therefore the Apostle asserts the contrary that no Rite but Christ came in the room of Circumcision If any ask why is v. 12. added I have answered formerly and the answer is not gainsaid by M. Marshall that it is to shew how persons come to be in Christ and so to be compleat in him which he usually ascribeth to Faith and Baptism Gal. 3. 26 27. Rom. 6. 3 4 5. and they are put together Col. 2. 12. so that if Baptism be conceived thence to succeed Circumcision Faith also is said to succeed it which is more agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3. 23 25. I add the Circumcision mentioned Col. 2. 11. is either Circumcision made without hands or Christs personal Circumcision therefore if the placing of Baptism after v. 12. prove its succession to Circumcision it proves onely its succession to that made without hands which was not the Ceremony commanded Gen. 17. or to Christs Circumcision not to the common Circumcision of others Yet were a succession granted this proves not it must be in Baptism as in Circumcision without a like command as I prove Antipaed Part. 2. Sect. 2 3. No more than because the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Priests of the Law doth it follow the Ministers children must be Ministers anointed c. as it was in the Law So that Mr. Craggs irresistible argument is as easily blown away as a feather And I hardly imagine any Anabaptist so called to be so weak but that he is able to answer it by telling Mr. Cragg that his first Proposition is false unless there were the like command to baptize infants as there was to circumcise them If the third argument arise thence it hath its answer thence that it is frivolous talk in Mr. Cragg to speak as if denying infants Baptism were putting out of the Covenant disfranchizing and circumcising supposed being in Covenant was a seal of the covenant of grace His proof that the Gospel puts not infants out of the Covenant is true of the elect infants and the covenant of grace expressed in the Gospel And yet his proofs are silly New born babes desire milk little childeren are humble and are proposed herein as paterns to us therefore they are in Covenant whereas this is as true of infidels children as of Christians and therefore proves the one in Covenant as well the other and both these acts of little childeren are onely natural not virtuous and so give not evidence of their being in covenant nor doth the Gospel give them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the Rule of our perfection For there is neither commendation of them 1 Pet. 2. 2. nor Matth. 18. 3. nor making them the rule of our perfection any more than Sheep and Doves Matth. 10. 16. but onely those virtuous qualities which are resembled by their natural qualities