Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	rule_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	12,255	5	9.8749	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65879	The principal controversies between the litteral presbyters of the Kirk of Scotland, and the illuminated members of the Church of Christ, called Quakers· Truly collected, stated and opened, in a particular reply (herein specified) for general information and undeceiving the deceived. By an earnest contender for the most holy faith, which was once delivered to the saints. G. W.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1947; ESTC R217169	70,788	112

vine in the kingdom Was it not spiriritual a mystery which the outward Bread Cup and Passover were but as signs or shadowes of Pr. There is no such passage written that Christ appointed it to be taken away by his suffering An. As oft as they did it it was to shew the Lords death till he came What coming and when was it or is it to be he intended Wa' st a first or a second or a third And was it inward or outward Pr Neither is the Bread and Wine a shadow Secondly For he being present and it representing him as suffered it cannot be called a shadow as of things to come An. Is the Bread and Wine the substance Then this is popish thus to deny the ●read and Wine to be a shadow and worse then the Episcopals that tell us of their Sacraments being outward and visible signes of an inward and Spiritual Grace Secondly If Christs being present makes Bread and Wine no shadow or not figurative then by the same reason the Passover which the disciples prepared to answer that part of the Law was not a shadow nor Circumcission Offerings c. when done either for Christ or in his presence which to affirm and make that the reason were grose and absurd whereas the mystery substance or end was not so fully manifest when Christ was outwardly present before his being offered up as after when they were indued with power from on high received the promise of the Comforter came to eat his flesh and drink his blood which saying the disciples for a time when he was with them were troubled at and counted hard Pr. It concerneth all who own the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures though they be for baptizing with sprinkling to propound a query to men that do with sacrilegious boldness take away the Ordinances instituted by Christ unto believers An. Is it not then sacrilegious boldness for thee and the Priests to teach or impo●e sprinkling Infants which is neither a Doctrine contained in Scriptures nor a baptizing believers howbeit such a great stress hath been laid on the Scriptures before as being the rule and means for Faith and Salvation revealing the Mystery for receiving Life E●ernal in them Christ in them c. yet we find not sprinkling I●fants in the Scriptures neither by command nor practice though so much pleaded for by one here that tels us Pag. 35. they disallow all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture but sprinkling Infants is not Scripture but onely a Tradition of men And one main plea for it is that Infants baptisme was approved and practised in the Orthodox Church of Christ c. which is just like the Papists and Jesuits plea to believe as the Church believes taking it for granted that the Church is pure as he saith Orthodox in all her Traditions whether they be Scripture yea or nay whereas before all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture are disallowed but instead of Scripture for proof in this matter we have mention made of the Teachers and Guides of the Church as he calls them as Tertullian Cyprian who lived about 247. after Christ and Lactanctius that lived about the year 317. As also the latter sound Fathers as he calls them as Augustin Jerom Bassil Viz. their being for Infants baptisme but what proves all this from Scripture if it be as he sayes they did Must we take it up upon an implicite faith because such and such approved of it And yet at other times lay such a stress on the Scriptures as the perfect rule of obedience of faith c. How hath E. I. undervallued the Scriptures in this matter and spoyled his own cause touching them And Do not the Papists plead for their Traditions and Ceremonys against Protestants and others in like manner as he hath done in this cause And Would he be willing to accept their Arguments against Protestants when they are of the same nature and bear the same face with his in this point Pr. That the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under and therefore the Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were An. Where provest thou by Scriptures that sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant Or that ti 's so called thou herein doest but beg the question and takest it for granted that it is the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace which I deny and then from thence fallatiously drawes thy inference and conclusions for its being to Believers Seed as Abrahams Children to wit the males were Circumcised and that the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under But what of this if it be granted it was Gods Covenant or Promise Must they therefore be under mans tradition which sprinkling Infants is To plead for it from believers being baptized is to ground it upon that you Priests are out of the practice of so as to that it 's not pertinent to dispute with such about it who own it not in practice but onely talk of it for a cover to a popish tradition and thereby shew their hypocrisie the more and Must now sprinckling Infants stand for the substance or antitype instead of Circumcision Or Was Circumcision the type of Infants Baptizme so called Whereas sprinckling Infants hath neither the true form nor matter of Baptisme outward in it for in the next page it 's confessed that the word in the first Language signifying Baptisme is rendered washing Mar. 7.4 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afterwards it 's said that being washed all over best signifies our inward renovation and burial with Christ and thus contradictions and confusions are heaped up in many places And to my saying that it s not commanded under the New Covenant to Baptize Infants thou replyest the Apostle Peter Act. 2.38 39. sayes That those to whom that promise that God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized but to Believers and their Seed he saith that promise belongeth c. Now let the Reader but peruse that Scripture mentioned by thee and compare thy fallacious arguing from it for Peter said Ver. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. Were they Infants such as the Priests sprinkle that he bid repent How grosly hast thou perverted Scripture And Ver. 39. The promise is to you and your Children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now What can be inferred from hence for sprinkling Infants Were all they whom God should call Infants when called Or Did Peter intend they should all have their Children sprinkled before they were called But in contradiction afterward thou sayest though there be no express command yet it s of divine institution and warrant if it be drawn