Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	covenant_n	seal_n	seal_v	4,393	5	10.3434	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74992	An ansvver to Mr. J.G. his XL. queries, touching the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding church-communion, between such who have been baptized after their beleeving, and others who have not otherwise been baptized, then in their infancie. As likewise touching infant, and after baptism. In which answer, the undueness of such mixt communion is declared, the unlawfulness of infant-baptism, and the necessity of after baptism is asserted. By W.A.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1054A; Thomason E713_17; ESTC R207237	74,298	97

ought rather to be appropriated to persons professing the Faith then unto Infants and not the contrary as the Q●erist would have it and the reason hereof is because Baptisme is more edifying both to the B●ptized themselves and also to others when administered to persons professing the Faith then when to Infants And this must needs be so because Infants by reason of their want of understanding and Faith are not capable of receiving that Spirituall edification by Baptisme not of improving it unto their Spirituall advantage as those are that have the Use and Exercise of understanding and Faith too Nor is the administration of Baptisme like to be so taking with others that are but Spectators either as to the informing of their judgements or moving of their affections when applied to a Creature as an Infant is expressing no knowledge of God or Jesus Christ nor Love or Obedience to him or any desire to his wayes as the same would be when administred to a Believer who by his voluntary submission to that Ordinance Preaches to men his beliefe in Jesus Christ as Dead Buried and Risen againe And his exepectation of Remission of sins through Faith in his Name and their own desires and resolutions of giving up themselves wholly unto Jesus Christ unlesse you will suppose there is no difference betweene zeale and no zeale in this behalfe which cannot be supposed without contradicting the Spirit of those and the like Scriptures Mat. 21.32 with Luke 7.29 30. 2 Cor. 9.2 2. I cannot be of the Querists minde I confesse that Circumcision and Baptisme are the same in Spirit and Substance though differing in the Letter Because circumcision was no signe or resemblance of the Death Buriall and Resurrection of Christ and of Mens Death Buriall and Resurrection with him which yet the Scripture makes to be the spirit of Baptisme Rom. 6.3.4 5. Col. 2.12 And therefore this reason is no reason either why Baptisme should rather appropriately belong to Infants rather then any others or indeed that it should belong to them or all though Circumcision did 3. Whereas the Querist directs us diligently to compare Rom. 4.11 with Marke 1.4 Luke 3.3 c. out of which to finde that Baptisme and Circumcision are one in strength and substance of Spirit I confesse I have diligently considered these Texts and till I did diligently consider them was of the Querists mind herein but by a diligent considering of them am now of another minde I suppose the Querist would have us to conceive from these Scriptures that Circumcision was a Seale of the Righteousnesse which comes by Faith and Baptisme a Seale of the Righteousnesse wich comes by Repentance and therefore the same Spiritually But what relation soever Baptisme hath to Repentance as indeed I no where finde it called a Seale of the righteousnesse of Repentance yet confident I am that when the Apostle calls Circumcision A Seale of the Righteousnesse of that Faith which Abraham had before he was circumcised hee does not describe the common nature of Circumcision as he had done in those words imediately before where he calls it a Signe which agrees with Gods own Denomination of it when he first instituted it and therefore most likely adequately to answer the common end and use of it But hee describes Circumcision in these words A Seale of the Righteousnesse c. as that which it was peculiarly to Abraham For 1. It is not called a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith indefinitely but onely A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which HE HAD And 2. A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised And then 3. The end wherefore Circumcision became such a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith and it was this THAT hee might be the Father of all them that believe And were not these things in respect whereof Circumcision was a Seale peculiar unto Abraham onely Or did God ever give Circumcision as is said he gave to Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 to any other as the Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had before he was Circumcised or to ratifie and establish him the Father of all that should afterward believe If not why should we thinke Circumcision was in common a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith to other men as long as the reasons wherefore it is so called are peculiar unto Abraham alone The Apostles scope here was as will appeare in the Context to prove that Circumcision did contribute nothing in the businesse of justification and this hee proves in that Abraham was justified before Circumcised and not onely so but his very receiving of Circumcision from God upon these tearmes hee did receive it was an evidence or demonstration that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before hee received it and that he did receive it for such an end as that he might stand declared under this Seale of God as a Man of such high acceptation with God as to be thereupon called and accounted the Father the famous example and patterne of all those that should believe And if Abraham did receive Circumcision as a Testimoniall of that love which God did beare to him before as Nehemiah sayes that God found his heart faithfull before him and entered into Covenant with him thereupon Neh. 9.8 then it could not be the procuring cause of Abrahams acceptation with God This construction of the word then so directly answering and accommodating the drift and Scope of the Apostle I see no reason to embrace any other that is contrary to it For to understand the Apostle as speaking of Circumcision in the common nature of it as a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith seemes to mee rather to disaccomodate the Apostle in his intendment then otherwise Since those with whom Paul here disputes might rather thereby be confi●med in their Opinion of the nec●ssity of Circumcision unto Justification since things writings for example are not authentick till they are Sealed and therefore should Paul have told them that Circumcision had been the Seale of Justification might not they have inferred that therefore justification could not be compleat without it 3. Should wee grant that which the Querist would have viz. That Circumcision and Baptisme were the same in Spirit and Substance which yet we may not grant yet that would by no meanes follow thereupon which the Querist supposeth viz. That Baptisme is and Circumcision was most edifying when administred to Infants Or else that Circumcision was ordered by God unto the Spirituall losse and detriment of those to whom it was enjoyned For this Assertion cannot be true unlesse you will suppose that which is manifestly untrue viz. That there is no mean betweene most edifying and none at all or which is more that there is no mean betweene MOST edifying and Spirituall losse and detriment For Circumcision might have been edifying as administred to Children to the first or second degree