Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	circumcision_n	covenant_n	seal_n	7,337	5	9.8059	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94166	A Christian, sober & plain exercitation on the two grand practicall controversies of these times; infant baptism and singing of psalms Wherein all the scriptures on both sides are recited, opened and argued, with brevity and tenderness: and whatever hath been largely discussed by others, briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the saints. By Cuthbert Sidenham, teacher to a church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine.	Sydenham, Cuthbert, 1622-1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing S6291; Thomason E1443_1; ESTC R209635	113,076	235

together will differ in signification 3. We may as well say these promises in the New Testament make up a mixt Covenant and so of a different nature when God saith in Mat. 6.33 Seek first the Kingdome of God and all things else shall be added and 1 Tim. 4.8 Godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come which are as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with Abraham was whereas all know these are but accidental appendixes of the promise of grace and dispensed according to the use he hath for and the conditions of his Saints thus Canaan was added to the Covenant as all other things to the Kingdome of God 4. If this be a mixt Covenant because Canaan is added and the like then how comes it to be the same in the N. T. and to be of force now when no notice is taken of Canaan and the temporal promises Sure in this mixture the promise of free grace was primary and like oyl at top for Abrahams Covenant the very same for substance is clear and without mixture in the Gospel though it is administred externally as it was then and the blessings of Abraham come on the Gentiles though not of an external Canaan If they say that Canaan was added only for the dispensation of the Covenant to the Jews it 's granted but that it should make a mixture in the Covenant is most false which is the same for ever though the outward administration be different things may be added yet not mixt as a mans cloaths to his body and yet there is no mixture between a mans flesh and his cloaths But let us come to Circumcision the seal of this Covenant it sealed it say they as a mixt Covenant Then 1. It sealed the one part as well as the other take it in their own sense that is it sealed God to be their God as Canaan and so it was not a seal meerly to a temporal promise 2. If the Covenant was so mixt in the nature of it then Circumcision sealed unequally though it was added to a mixt Covenant for it sealed the promise of Canaan to those that never went into Canaan as many that died before that time and afterwards many that were circumcised died in the Wilderness and under Gods wrath and so sealed nothing at all neither part of the Covenant visibly and that is hard that to so many there should be neither the fulfilling of spiritual nor temporal part of the promise 3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt then it was either in the substance or circumstances if in the substance then Abrahams Covenant was not Gospel and believers must seek for another Father as to the example of faith and that were to make it rather like Nebuchadnezzars Image of Iron and Clay then made up of Gospel materials If in circumstances of administration and additaments of external types it 's granted and we have the same promise now with new outward administrations if this mixture were in the nature and substance of the Covenant then it must remain as long as the Covenant lasted and so unto this day for no man is so bold though many are bold enough as to say that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated if it be under any other consideration it 's easily waved and the truth the same So that Circumcision sealed the Covenant primarily in its nature as a Covenant of grace and God being a God to circumcise their hearts c. and Canaan and other things consequently and accidentally as God made a promise of them for the better visible administration of the Covenant to them in that external polity And surely it 's beyond an ordinary reach to believe that God should make a Covenant with Abraham and for his faith in it should create him the Father of the faithful in all ages and this Covenant should be brought in the N. T. and renewed and the tenure of it freshly held forth to believers there and yet at the first making of it God should mix temporal promises with the spiritual substance of it and annex a seal that should only or specially seal the temporal part of it and so poorly confirm the main and essential nature of it especially when God speaking of Abrahams faith stiles Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of it Rom. 4. But of this more in another Chapter CHAP. III. The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual into natural and believing considered whether the Infants of believers may not be called in the New Testament the seed of Abraham THE next thing which must have its place of consideration is that question of Abrahams seed with whom the promise was made and upon this hinge hangs all the main weight on both sides and if we make out Infants of believers in the N. T. to be in Covenant as Abrahams seed the controversy would be at end To make out this the most of the following Chapters are designed only in this we shall fall more directly on the question it self Those that differ from us make many distinctions of a fleshly carnal seed of Abraham and of a spiritual seed a believing and a natural seed which distinctions are taken out of Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.23 and Chap. 3.16 and most true if well applyed but before I come to open the Scriptures I would premise these considerations concerning Abraham and his seed 1. That Abrahams spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly Children as if they had been spirituall and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith 3. It 's no contradiction in d fferent respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a Child under the same promise made with the Parent for they both agreed in Abrahams case none was a Child of promise but as he came of Abrahams flesh and as he came from Abrahams flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed 4. There was no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the O. T. but all comprehended under the same Covenant until they degenerated from Abrahams faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise 5. There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the N. T. as our Opposites must acknowledge as well as Infants so are the most visible Professors which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions 6. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal seed in opposition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abrahams flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnall seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore

Baptism printed in the year 1646. will have Circumcision to be a type of Baptism which cannot be For 1. Types must have something in their outward face to represent another thing more eminent and real Now Circumcision hath nothing in the outside to set forth Baptism 2. It is not so handsom to make one outward sign the antitype of another 4. Circumcision was as holy an Ordinance as Baptism in the New Testament for they are both in themselves outward acts and no holiness more in one then in another but as they have from institution only Baptism is more easy to the flesh then Circumcision and yet not more easy if that way of dipping should be the only way of baptizing especially at some seasons and to some bodies 5. The N. T. gives as large and honourable characters of Circumcision as it doth of Baptism thus the Apostle cals it in Rom. 4. The seal of the righteousness of faith A character so resplendent and glorious that the Gospel can give no higher to an Ordinance And as much as he saith of Baptism in effect 1 Pet. 3.21 that Baptism saves through the answer of a good conscience the contrary Opinionists are put to hard shifts to avoyd the strength of this place and therefore some would evade it thus saying That the Apostle doth not call it a seal of the Covenant or Promise but of the righteousness of faith Sol. A miserable evasion as if the righteousness of faith were not included in the Covenant or there were any righteousness of faith but what comes by the Covenant and so would make a separation between the promise of righteousness and the righteousness promised Others would cloath the Text with this disguise That it sealed it only to Abraham whereas it was so to Isaac and Jacob and David and all that were in the Covenant This is held forth most clearly in that verse 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the pure Covenant of grace in which righteousness was promised to Abraham and his seed indefinitely 2. That this seal was applied to all the seed that were but externally and visibly in Covenant to Infants and the same sign that Abraham received upon profession of his faith his Child received and therefore he is said to be the Father of Circumcision as of Faith ver 12. 3. Doctor Willet from this place holds forth the sameness of the substance of the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament both which do seal the righteousness of faith and lays it as a great errour on the Romanists who affirm That the Old Testament Sacraments did not exhibite the graces of the New 4. This cannot be denied from the place without men will wilfully put out their own eyes that Circumcision had as glorious a use as Baptism viz. to seal the righteousness of faith which must be as well to others that had the true efficacy of the Covenant as to Abraham himself and no higher mercy can any Ordinance of the New Testament seal to any There were many other circumstantial and accidentall uses of circumcision according to the Jewish state as we will grant Mr. Tombes as 1. To engage to the performance of the whole Law Gal. 5.2 3. Acts 15.10 2. To be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile Eph. 2.14 But when the Apostle would give circumcision his true character and shew what the primarie and substantiall use of it was he calls it a seal of the righteousness of faith 6. Circumcision and baptism signifie one and the same thing and so agree in being signs of the same grace compare Coloss 2.11 12 13. with Rom. 6.3 4. and 6. v. circumcision signifies the putting off the bodie of the sins of the flesh baptism is into Christs death and to testifie the crucifying the old man with him that the bodie of death might be destroyed as by the comparing these two places it is most clear and 3 v. and 6 ver of Rom. 6. chap. onely baptism hath this larger consideration in it as that it takes in Christs resurrection with it and also the quickning of the soul together with him which was not so fully signified in circumcision but implied according as the Apostle argues in the same place Rom. 6.5 v. for if we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection the one being a consequence of the other and as circumcision did cut off the foreskin in token of the destruction of sin so baptism by washing signifies the taking away the pollution of sin thus God when he would promise to kill sin and work all grace he expresseth it by circumcision I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 And the Apostle Phil. 3.4 saith We are of the circumcision that is we have the true work of grace in us The reason why I urge these considerations is to hold for the capacitie of Infants as well for Baptism as Circumcision there is no reason why they should be thought more unfit and incapable for the one then for the other For First if Circumcision were a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet applied to Infants and Baptism can seal no higher mercie why should it be thought such a strange and unmeet thing to baptize them more then to circumcise them they usually say you put a seal to a blank in baptizing Infants the same might be said as to Circumcision yet they were circumcised as well as Abraham that profest his own Faith I must acknowledge I never could yet understand why Infants should be thought fit to have that seal applied to them in the Old Testament which the New calls a seal of the righteousness of Faith and yet be denied it in the New Testament as incapacious when Baptism can seal no more I wish it were seriously considered Especially Secondly when Baptism shall signifie the same thing in substance be both signs of the same grace the one cutting away sin as with a knife the other washing it away with water and yet Infants capable and most fit to have the administration of the one ordinance not of the other if these of the dissenting judgment did with more sobriety weigh such considerations as these they would not with so much foolish contempt write and speak of Infants Baptism A knife may be applied to an Infant as to Abraham though old and in the heighth of his Faith and seal the righteousness of it but water must onely be poured on actual believers and grown persons such as Abraham but not on Infants though it hath no more to seal as if there were some strange excellencie and virtue in the nature of water that it were too precious to wash the Infants of believers For if there be no more virtue in the water that baptizeth then in the knife that circumcised you see there is no more glorious use of the one then the other And what end God should have to