Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	faith_n	grace_n	righteousness_n	14,541	5	7.8014	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44213	The catechist catechized, or, An examination of an Anabaptistical catechism pretended to be published for the satisfaction and information of the people of God in Lancashire &c. : also some observations both old and new concerning the pretended visibility ... of the present Roman Church and religion / sent to a gentleman upon his revolt to popery and now published for the churches good by Richard Hollingworth.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.	1653 (1653)	Wing H2487; ESTC R28107	42,729	60

was but an Obligation to the Law as a rule of Righteousness Examinat Cap. 9. §. 1. subservient to the Covenant of Grace as Baptism also is Rom. 6.3 not to the Law in the rigor of it as it was a Covenant of Works for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not so obliged they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as we and Circumcision was to Abraham by your own confession a seal of the righteousness of Faith Christ did profit may hundreds and thousands that were circumcised in the time of the Law he was the Lamb slain from the begining of the World and they were saved by Faith in him 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. Heb. 11. but when Christians were circumcised in the time of the Gospel out of a perswasion of its necessity and their justification by it then it did bind them to keep the whole Law and Christ in that case did profit them nothing and this is all can be inferred from your Texts as to this matter As Circumcision did shew it was their duty to circumcise their hearts so Baptism shews it is our duty to wash our hearts Jerem. 4.14 Jam. 4.8 between heart circumcision and heart-washing is no great difference if any And as there was a precept for the circumcision of the heart so God promised his people that he will circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed of which before Chapt. 7. Though Circumcision did shew forth you say a Duty on our part as well as a Promise on Gods part yet you know Infants were then circumcised though they had no actual knowledg of either What you can gather hence if any thing against Infant-Baptism I expect to know ANABAPT CAT. Q. Was not Circumcision also a seal of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 A. Yes to Abraham only and if Abrahams believing children amongst the Gentiles should be baptized as he was circumcised then is must not be till they have the righteousness of Faith as Abraham here had at least they must have it in profession The Text saith It was the seal of the righteousness of Faith §. 2. which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised but it saith not that it was so to him only The Apostle brings it as an argument to prove the way of our Justification to be by Faith alone which were a meer inconsequence if proper to him and not belonging to others There was adult persons Believers in Abrahams Family when Circumcision was first instituted and many be-lieving Proselytes afterward which had Faith while yet they were uncircumcised as Abraham had of whom their Circumcision also was a seal of the righteousness of the Faith they had before yea Moses makes it to all a sign of the Covenant Gen. 17. which doubtless was the Covenant of Grace or to use Pauls dialect the righteousness that is by Faith Rom. 3.22 30. 10.3 6 c. cum Deut. 30.6 10 11 12. Phil. 3.9 this being the Tenor of that Covenant Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 Your passage implying that there are some believing children of Abraham which have not the righteousness of Faith as Abraham here had I do not understand except you make actual believing and having the righteousness of faith two things not only distinct but separable But whatsoever your meaning be I cannot see here any shew of proof that children must necessarily believe or make profession of faith before they may be baptized as Abraham did before he was circumcised Abraham could not be circumcised in Infancy nor before Circumcision was instituted no wonder therefore if he believed before had Circumcision been instituted in the days of his fathers Abraham might have been circumcised before he actually believed as well as Isaac his son was Christ could not be baptized till John did baptize which was about the thirtieth year of Christs age nor did he receive the Eucharist till the night before he suffered yet some that pretend to imitate him can be baptized and possibly preach too at 15 16 20 21 c. years of age though Christ was neither baptized nor did preach till he was thirty ANABAPT CAT. Q. Whether doth Baptism succeed Circumcision in the same Office A. No Circumcision was to every Male though reprobate but Baptism only to the Believer Matt. 28.19 There being a change of the visible Church and of the Ordinances this cannot succeed in the room thereof nor hath any dependance thereon Your Argument against the succession of Baptism to Circumcision is weak §. 3. viz. Baptism is not like Circumcision in some things therefore it is not like in any thing therefore it succeeds not in the same office By this you may prove as well That the Supper doth not succeed the Passover nor the Lords-Day the Jewish Sabbath The office of Circumcision was to shew original sin to teach necessity of Regeneration of Mortification of Salvation by Christ the seed of Abraham to sign and seal the Covenant or the Righteousness that is by Faith to distinguish Jews from others to initiate solemnly and formally into the Church And doth not Baptism also initiate into the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Yea doth it not Circumcision being now abrogated perform the foresaid Offices Indeed it is not every way the same for then it were not a successor Add hereunto that the Covenant was the ground of Circumcision Genes 17.7 9 10 11. the equity whereof obligeth to Baptism as the equity of the fourth Commandment extends to our Lords-Day As for the positive command vers 12. it only determines the time and day which circumstance of day and time was not built upon the Covenant of Grace as Circumcision it self was and therefore is not perpetual and without such a positive determination of the time Circumcision should and might have been administred to Infants the Jews did circumcise children bought with their mony the same day they bought them though they bought them the same day they were born See Ainsw in Genes 17.12 Oft-times Circumcision was not administred the eighth day but deferred in which cases the command of circumcising the eighth day was not observed yet Circumcision was and according to right reason ought to be administred to Infants by virtue of the naked institution thereof as we contend that Baptism ought now to be both of them being as was said seals of the Covenant But you in saying Circumcision was to every Male though reprobate do imply that it Was not to Females true but both Males and Females were then baptized and so they were in the New Testament Acts 8.11 Gal. 3.28 29. which is a sufficient justification of our deserting Circumcision in that point And the Infant-females as well as the adult were counted members of the Jewish Church and though by reason of their incapacity or Gods respect to the modesty of that Sex they were not personally circumcised yet they were circumcised in the Males Hence the whole Church of the Jews

●●ll age which qualifies him for Baptism is not an Hypocrite at this minute and will not be an Apostate the next nor can we know that they are in the Covenant for then we should know they are elected whereas this is a secret known only to God 2 Tim. 2.19 Deut. 29.19 And the little ones of the Church though they make no personal profession as adult persons do yet are as visibly within the Covenant of Grace parents having as much authority and reason to covenant for their children now as Deut. 29.10 with 30 6. and as charitably to be accounted of seeing of adult Christians the weakest can hold forth no more then the least degree of absolute probability and the strongest no more then the highest degree of probability Peter saith § 2. Act. 2.38 39. The promise is to you and to your children Concerning which observe 1. That hereby is not meant Christ is exhibited as some gloss The promise Is id est fulfilled Christ is come for this they had heard before vers 36. and knew to their trouble and therefore were pricked in their hearts and these words are not any where in Scripture so taken nor is Baptism a seal barely to Christ being come in the flesh but to the benefits thereof covenanted and promised not is it a promise of the gifts of the Holy Ghost but the promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel promise of remission of sin Heb. 8.10 12. signed and sealed in Baptism Act. 3.19 which belongs to Gods people at all times might heal their being pricked in their heart vers 37. and is fitly used as a motive to perswade them to repent and be baptized and is a suitable answer to their question What shall we do to be saved 2. He saith not The promise is to you and to as many as God shall call whether of your children or strangers as he might have said if he would have levelled the children of Christians and Pagans but he saith The promise is to you and to your children and to as many making their children a distinct party as from those that then were so from those that after should be called the words holding out their right are in the Indicative Mood The promise is to you the like is never said to Pagans or to any out of the Church 3. These words are the same in substance with the reason and ground of Circumcision Gen. 17.8 10 11. That Promise and Covenant was a Gospel Covenant In thy seed shal all the Nations of the Earth be blessed and was an everlasting Covenant made four hundred thirty years before the Law and to be fulfilled in a great part of it after the ceasing of Moses Paedagogy and of Circumcision Gal. 3.15 16 17. Rom. 4.12 16 24. Heb. 13.20 Rev. 14.6 and the said everlasting Covenant was not only with actual Beleevers but with the lineal seed of Abraham even before they actually believed till some open revolt did disable them and with the Infant-seed of Proselytes or Gentiles converted to the saith 4. His motion that every one of them should be baptized doth imply they had right to Baptism for he doth not perswade them to be Usurpers of that to which they had no right and he grounds his motion not only upon their bare personal interest in the Promise but their childrens joynt interest with them as in Gen. 17. God doth for Circumcision which latter could not rationally be urged as a motive to perswade the Jews to be baptized and to embrace Christian Religion if the joynt interest of their children with them were not at least fully as great in the Christian as in the Jewish Church Now if a Jew had a child born before his Conversion to Christianity that child was Sacramentally to be initiated but if he had a child after you say it was not but was in the same condition with a Pagans child viz. not to be admitted into the Church till it were called And if so then where is the benefit belonging to the children of Jews converted by virtue of their Christianity If a Landlord should move his Tenants to give up his old Lease or Grant which hath certain immunities and priviledges to him and his children and to take a new one in which his children should have no more priviledges then meer strangers could he rationally perswade him to surrender the old Lease or Grant and to take a new one from the benefit that may accrue to the Tenant and his children by it 5. Here seem to be three ranks and conditions of persons 1. The Jews themselves then present and adult 2. Their children the present issue which already was or should be born of their bodies what ever they were younger or elder Infants not excluded 3. Those that were afar off not in estate for the mystery of the calling of the Gentiles was not fully closed with by Peter till Act. 10. nor could the Jews yet bear that saying but those that were afar off in time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we with Piscator may add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a different phrase from that used of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2.13 17. and fitly may denote the posterity of the Jews in after ages 6. These Jews it 's likely were pricked in their hearts not only for their crucifying of Christ but their cursing their children about two months since Matt. 27.25 which curse did include their very Infants then newly born and others that should be born afterward and therefore if Peter had not included Infants in this Promise the plaister had not been large enough for their sore Lastly The Jews were apt long after this to scruple lesser matters Acts 21.20 and can it be thought that they should not startle and be discontented to have both Circumcision and Baptism taken from their Infants nor enquire whether this seclusion of their Infants was not a fruit of their cursing of them or how it could be justified by the Old Testament there being then no other written Word or by what warrant the Church-membership and Covenant-interest which their children formerly had was repealed and taken from them By all which seriously considered it will appear that the children of Believers are included within the Promise and to be baptized Beside● if Infants be not within the Covenant of Grace then they are strangers from it and consequently without God and without hope as Pagans children are and if they dye though in Infancy their Parents may mourn over them as such that have no hope contrary to 1 Thess 4.13 yea while they live they may lament over their children as such whom they have begotten and brought forth to the Devil and not to God in respect of their visible estate ANABAPT CAT. Q. What is Circumcision A. It was an Obligation to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 Rom. 2.24 and shewed unto them that it was their duty to circumcise their hearts Jer. 4.4 CIrcumcision in it self