Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	apprehend_v	faith_n	justify_v	5,487	5	8.9539	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12552	The character of the beast, or, The false constitution of the church discovered in certayne passages betwixt Mr. R. Clifton & Iohn Smyth, concerning true Christian baptisme of new creatures, or new borne babes in Christ, &nd false baptisme of infants borne after the flesh : referred to two propositions, 1. That infants are not to bee baptized, 2. That antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true church by baptisme.	Smyth, John, d. 1612.	1609 (1609)	STC 22875; ESTC S991	85,221	80

I say that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or paterne of justification circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ therby to establish him into Christ for he was in Christ sealed in Christ many yeres before by the seale of the Spirit but Abrahams justification in vncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall two speciall particular the two speciall are these First circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actual faith as he was Secondly circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by actual faith as he was The general vse of Abrah circumcision was common with him to Ismael al the persons of his family al the carnal Israelites viz to seale him vp to the old Testament to the observation of the whole Law wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes it being ther Schoolmr to teach them Christ Now for the place Rom. 4.11 which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon I say it is both falsely translated expounded for tes en te acrobustia is vsually translated which Abrah had when he was vncircumcized this I say is a false translation For this is the true translation viz which is or was or shal be in the vncircumcision meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah particular person but to the vncircumcised that beleve that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification So that circumcision in Abrah was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes as Abrah their Father did otherwise they cannot be justified so Pauls intent is plainly proved namely that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation exposition that the common acceptation translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry Againe al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised bicause of Abrah saith but the males al only the males were circumcised bicause of the special cōmaundement of God Gen. 17.10 the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. circumcision of the hart by him the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring for the males only were offered in burnt-offring to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Testament or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14 but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing they were accepted Gal. 3.28 Further you say that as it was with Abrah his family in circumcision so was it with Lydia the Gaylor their familyes in baptisme that is not so I shew the difference in divers particular 1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement Genes 17.23 you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept but only you say it indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept as he had for baptising infants 2. They that were males only were circumcised but you wil have both males females baptized this is another difference 3. They that were circumcised of Abrah Family were al the males being of yeres though they were never so lewd wicked persons So were not al the persons of Lydias the Gaylors family but only the beleevers being of yeeres according to your opinion 4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor Lydia infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptisme circumcision The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is that the same order is kept in Chr. comission Mat. 18.19 in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant as was kept with Abtah he al his Family were brought in by circūcision after the gospel preached to him Genes 17 1-8 so Lydia the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family were baptized after the Gospell preached to them I answer that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah the other of Lydia the Gaylor according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19 First Abrah al his family by the Lords commaundement came vnder the covenant of the Old Testament actually the males only were circumcised but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized but only such as are made Disciples al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was Secondly The gospel was only preached to Abrah owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse Act. 16.32 so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching So were not Abrah Family who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ Thirdly the gospel was not preached to Abrah therby to prepare him to circumcision as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature that is to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme 〈◊〉 so Paul did to the Gaylors Family this is another difference The third particular in your answer to this argument is ● if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of