Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	see_v	sin_n	6,816	5	4.6347	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87485	Nineteen arguments, proving circumcision no seal of the covenant of grace. Whereunto, is annexed; the unlawfulnesse of infants baptisme upon that ground. / Written by R.J.	R. J.; C. B.; Blackwood, Christopher.	1645 (1645)	Wing J31; Thomason E315_16; ESTC R200517	18,269	23

Jewes or those Gentiles who were intangled for want of a Right understanding in that particular For as much as he never once declareth either to Jews or Gentils how circumcision was an old Seal of the same Covenant of Grace which is now opened unto all and abolished only by the introduction of dipping a new ordinance instituted by Christ for to confirm the new Covenant unto believers But the Apostle would not call God to record a lie Acts 22.26 And yet he never declareth this either to Jews or Gentiles And therefore it can be no Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins It may be some jugling Artist will endeavour to deny the latter part of the Assumption by assuring the contrary by Col. 2.11 12. The Apostle doth not there so much as once intimate Answer that Circumcision was an old Seal of the Covenant of Grace or that Baptisme came in the Rome of it But his scope is to arm them against the undermining of Philosophy or worldly Elements vers 8. Whereof Circumcision is one Gal. 4.3 And this he doth by shewing how compleat and perfect they were in Christ vers 9 10. So that they needed not to run once to any rudiments of the world for their further perfection seeing they had the body and substance of all these shadowes by being buried by Dipping into the death of Christ vers 12 13 14. 16 17.19 20 21. Now what consequence is there to say Believers being buried with Christ by Dipping have the very substance of all which was in any wise signified or represented by Jewish shadows And therfore are thereby exempted from all such Ordinances concerning meat drink or holydayes c. vers 14.20 Ergo These shadowes did seal the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins to all that were under them Which is most false For divers things under the Law have been significant which yet did not seal the Covenant of Grace to any soul in particular And for Circumcision though the Apostle here vers 11. As the Prophet elsewhere Jer. 4.4 In doctrine or exhortation have used such a spirituall Allegory as alludeth to the carnall right yet neither of them I think do speak of the carnall right as a proper signe peculiarly instituted to signifie the spirituall Circumcision And though it were declared a signe that God doth circumcise our hearts as you see the Sabbath in a sence little different Ezek. 20.20 yet that doth not prove it a Seal of that Covenant of Grace whereby our hearts come to be circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands Jer. 31.33 34. As Dipping is declared to be c. But the next will make this more evident Arg. 5 If the Apostles in so divers Epistles and upon so many occasions have alwaies inculcated the enmitie of it as contrary to the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins absolutely asserting the nullity of it without any taxing of the abuse or any kinde of Remonstrance concerning the ancient Right use or the abolition of it by the new Ordinance of Dipping now instituted instead thereof then certainly the Apostle knew it to be no Seal of the Covevant of Grace nor would have any to conceit it so having ministred neither matter nor occasion to such erroneous imaginations But the Apostle hath constantly inculcated it enmity to the Covenant of Free-Grace c. Phil. 3.2 With Gal. 5.2 With chap. 2. vers 3 4. The nullity of it also c. Gal. 6.15 1 Cor. 7.19 Without any insinuation of its ancient right use c. Ergo it was never any Seal of the Covenant of Free Grace and Remission of sins c. Arg. 6 That which maketh the Spirit of God to proceed against the Universall Law of Nature must needs be a forced Covenant and no true tenent But this opinion maketh the Spirit of God to proceed contrary to the c. therefore this must needs be a forced Covenant no true tenent The proposition is proved from Heb. 7.11 If therefore perfection were by the Leviticall Priesthood c. What needed there another Priest to arise after the Order of Melchisedech c. Not be called after the Order of Aron where he taketh it for granted that in such matters even God himself multiplieth nothing without necessitie The Assumption is as evident Assump For if Circumcision were a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sins to all Believers and their Infants which Dipping confirmeth to those who rightly receive it Then what needed those who had the Covenant of Grace already sealed unto them by Circumcision but especially their Infants as those fond opinionists do groundlesly affirm be sealed again by Dipping or Baptizing seeing the former Seal left a visible or practicall signe and Character in the flesh Whereas the latter of Baptisme leaveth no impression at all but proveth unto Infants an unprofitable Seal being unto them afterwards a thing much more uncertain then the promise it sealeth nay why did not Peter represent unto those nricked penitenciaries Acts 2.7 The right use of the old seale for their present consolation but peremptorily point them to the use of a new seal without acquainting them at all with any abolition of the old had they been seales of one and the same Covenant even one and the same Sacrament but only for change of the Element as some with sottish confidence do averre then how could he without rashnesse in such a trouble of their spirits urge them unto a needles innovation Nay how did he so slight the former as to take no notice of both their confines nor make them perceive the passage from the one to the other but simply sway their conscience before he dye settle or satisfie their judgements Arg. 7 If the Spirit of God use the promise of grace and remission of sinnes Gen. 12.3 As the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumcision and the practise of i● then that promise of blessednesse by remission of sin● Gen. 12.3 Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17 7 8. Which was sealed by circumcision vers 9 10 11. the reason of this proposition is for els the false teachers might have replied that we do not overthrow the Gospell which you preach but only continue the use of the old seale And therefore you alledge against us the 12. of Gen. little to the purpose as if we could conceit that the promise which was sealed by circumsition to Abraham and his seed should now abrogate the use of Circumcission whereby it was sealed and upon this erronions supposall that the Covenant of Gen. 17. sealed by Circumcision was all one with Gen. 12.3 The Apostle had not omitted according to his duty and usuall Custome 2 Tim. 25. Cor. 9.19 By gentle remonstrance to give them full satisfaction concerning the abolition of the old seale and the introduction of the new without any such passionate clamour against the use of circumcision as pernitious

NINETEEN ARGUMENTS PROVING CIRCUMCISION NO Seal of the Covenant of Grace WHEREUNTO Is annexed The unlawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme upon that ground Written by R. J. GAL. 5.2 3.6 Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every man that is Circumcised that he is a debter to do the whole Law For in Iesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but Faith which worketh by love ROM 2.26 27. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousnesse of the Law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for Circumcision And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature if it fulfill the Law judge thee who by the letter and circumcision doest transgresse the Law LONDON Printed in the Year 1645. TO THE READER Curteous Reader THe Authour of this Treatise Mr. R. I. being beyond Seas and some friends of his and the Truth deeming these Arguments of his to be solid and conducing to propagate the Truth the Authour being known to be learned J have adventured though without his knowledge to make them publike The Copie being Transcribed by a bad Scribe so that there are sundry mis-spellings and oversights J shall desire thee with a favourable eye to bear with Jf delay might not have brought in danger J should have sent forth this and the other Treatises in more exactnesse But thou must remember we come out of Egypt in haste Farewell Thine C. B. Nineteen Arguments Proving Circumcision no Seal of the Covenant of GRACE BEcause that of CHAMIERUS is acknowledged Sacramentorum nulla necessitas nisi ex iustitutione Divina There is no necessitie of the Sacrament but by Divine Institution Some therefore observing how Christs institution of Baptisme Matth. 28. Mark 16. yeildeth no foundation for the Dipping of Infants but imployeth an absolute prohibition of any such practice whereby the Ordinance is prophaned in a prodigall abuse without and against the will of the Testatour and have ceased upon that Law of Circumcision Gē 17.10.11 which is stiled elsewhere in the Law of Moses Joh. 7.23 as the best foundation for besprinkling of Babes in an Apish imitation of that Gospel-dipping which was instituted by our Saviour for the more effectuall ingrafting of Believers into his own death And the rather do they fasten upon it Because finding it to be a seal of that Promise which was made to Abraham and his seed and denying that Promise to be a Covenant of Grace and remission of sins they conclude it belongs in like manner to all Believers of the Gentiles and to their children who are to have the same Seal unto them by Baptisme as they call it which came in the Rome of Circumcision as they contend To this purpose Blake pag. 14. viz. Upon this ground Infants under the Law were to be circumcised and upon the same ground are Infants now to be baptized c. Again what can Baptisme signe and seal but the righteousnesse of Faith This Circumcision did signe and seal to Abraham and his posteritie c. So CHIDLEY Baptisme being come in the room c. Sealeth up one and the same Covenant of life And therefore as Circumcision c. so Baptism is to be administred upon Infants of Believers Chidley pag. 39. If therefore it be proved that Circumcision did not seal the promise or Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins then this their foundation is very false and phantasticall Argu ∣ ment 1 That Seal or Sacrament as they call it which by its institution and the nature of it was not to be administred to some within the Covenant of Grace and yet necessarily to be administred unto others who were known not to be within the covenant of Grace That cannot be the Seal of the covenant of Grace and Remission of sins But this Sacrament of Circumcision was such c. viz. Not to be administred to some evidently within the Covenant of Grace as to LOT 2 Pet. 2.7 8. And yet necessarily to be administred to others who were not within the covenant of Grace and known to be so as to Ishmael c. Joh. 5.6 7 8. Jer. 7.25 26. Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins Arg. 2 That Seal or Covenant which is in the flesh and belongeth and must needs be administred to all the seed of the flesh whether they be Infants or men of age holy or apparantly prophane knowing or ignorant that cannot be a Seal of Grace and Remission of sins which belongeth and is to be administred to Believers onely Acts 10.43 with Acts 8.37 If thou believest with all thine heart it is lawfull for thee to be dipped else not But this Seal of Circumcision is altogether such Gen. 17.10 11 12 13 14. with Joh. 5. 6 7. And therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of Grace and Remission of sins which belongeth and is onely to be administred to Believers Gal. 38.9 Gen. 12.3 Acts 10.43 with Acts 8.37 Arg. 3 That which bindeth unto the Law and becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping of the Law that can never be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme which confirmeth unto Believers their justification from all sinne Acts 22.16 By a mysteriall burying of them into the death of Christ Rom. 6.4 6 7. with Col. 2.12 13. According to the tenour of the New Covenant Heb. 8.12 Jer. 31. Whereby Believers onely are justified and delivered from the Law Acts 13.39 Rom. 7.4.6 But Circumcision bindeth unto the Law Gal. 5.3 And becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping the Law Rom. 2.25 Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme which apparantly discovereth all such Obligations and conditions As appeareth by Pauls Epistles exhorting unto duty from the benefit received but never urging to the keeping of the Law as a condition necessarily required that we may hold or reap the benefit of the Covenant The proposition will appear more cleerly if you examine Acts 13.39 Where any Idiot may observe that if Circumcision had sealed the same promise of Grace and Remission of sins whereby all that believe are justified as Dipping doth then that assertion of the Apostle had been false viz. From which ye could not be justified from the Law of Moses For seeing they were circumcised by the authoritie of that Law Joh. 7.23 It must needs follow according unto these men that by the true sence and right use of Circumcision they might have been thereby justified as well as by faith in that Gospell-promise which there he largely openeth Acts 13.32 33.38 Forasmuch as the Righteousnesse of God had been revealed in both for the salvation of every Believer as Paul speaketh Rom. 1.16 17. Arg 4 If Circumcision had been a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sinnes whereby Baptisme is then the Apostle cannot be free from the bloud of all men Acts 20.26 No not of the