Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	curse_a	law_n	write_v	2,739	5	6.5763	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47399	[The ax laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism and church-membership containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3, 10].	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1693 (1693)	Wing K48_pt2; ESTC R20690	57,342	56

to it since they are forced to fly to such an Argument as this to prove Circumcision to be a Gospel Covenant I shall not now enter upon the Debate Whether the Ceremonial Law was a part of the Covenant of Works or not tho' I must say I judge it was an Appendix to it and that it appertained to the First Covenant the Apostle affirms Heb. 9.1 They are to clear up this viz. How the Ceremonial Law is part of the First Covenant and yet no part of the Covenant of Works 2. Yet their Work lies not so much in that neither as it doth in this Respect viz. They are to prove That the Ceremonial Law was part of the Covenant of Grace which as yet none of them that I ever heard of have attempted to do tho' we grant it was a Shadow of it when they have proved that they have in the 3. Third Place another Task viz. To prove that Circumcision was ● part of the Ceremonial Law for tho' it was a Figure or a Sign yet it may be doubted of Whether it was a part of that Law or not Yet 4. It might be a part of or appertain unto the Sinai Covenant for 1 t is called a Covenant that 's evident but Where is the Ceremonial Law ●o called 2. It gave the Children of Israel an Assurance of the Sinai ●ovenant and that the Apostle calls The great and chiefest Adv●ntage ●hey had by it 3. It also was of the same nature and quality and had ●e like Promises annexed to it upon their Obedience and the same ●hreatning upon their Disobedience 4. It obliged those who were Cir●umcised to keep the said Law Gal. 5.3 It was I have proved of the ●●me Nature and Quality i. e. a Conditional Covenant and like Promise ●f Earthly Blessings and like Threatnings annexed to it Secondly Was not the Ceremonial Law a Part of that Law St. Paul ●alls The Hand-Writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary 〈◊〉 us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 If Cir●●mcision was part of this Law sure it did not appertain to the Gospel or ●ew Covenant much less the Seal of it for then it could not be against us but for us not contrary to us but agreeable to us as a Choice Blessing 2. And if the Covenant of Circumcision was a Part of the Ceremonial Law 't is evident that Covenant is abolished and if the Covenant be cancelled or abolished What good will the Seal do them 3. That the Ceremonial Law was part of the First Covenant 't is evident Heb. 9.1 2. Then verily the First Covenant had also Ordinances of Divine Service and Worldly Sanctuary The Old Covenant comprehended not only the Sinai ministration as a Covenant of Works do this and live but also the whole Mosaical Oeconomy and Aronical Priesthood Sacrifices and all manner of shadowing Rites and Ordinances whatsoever amongst which Old Covenant Rites or Legal Ordinances Circumcision was one of the chief so that this makes against them 4. All the Holiness and Sanctification of the Ceremonial Law only appertained to the Flesh and therefore no part of the New Covenant Heb. 9.13 What tho' it was dedicated by Blood it was but Typical Blood Blood of Bulls and Goats that could not take away Sin purge the Conscience nor make any thing perfect Mr. Elton on Colossians speaking of Col. 2. ver 14. puts forth this Question viz. Quest. How were the Legal Ceremonies of the Jews a Hand-Writing of Ordinances Answ. I answer saith he they were so in regard of their Use to the Jews who in using them as it were Subscribed to their own Guiltiness of Death and Damnation In using Circumcision they made known they had ordinal Sin and were guilty of it their Washings shewed they were exceeding filthy in God's sight and so guilty of the Curse of the Law and so did their Sacrifices Hence God in infinite Mercy sent his Son to pay our Debts and he has satisfied Divine Justice and so has cancelled this Hand-Writing that witnessed our Guiltiness and bound us over to Punishment What good will it do them to grant That Circumcision was part of the Law I know not these Things considered For they evident it is were bound exactly to keep all the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of that Law which I think a Learned Man says were more then 300 nay and if they continued not in doing all these Things they were Cursed when they sate down and when they rose up whe● they went abroad and when they came home see Deut 27.20 to 26. Gal. ●● 10. Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of t●● Law to do them Mind it well all Things in the whole Book of the Law● not only the Ten Precepts but all things contained in the Ceremonial La● also 6. Therefore tho' the Blood of Bulls Goats and Heifers are called th● Blood of the Covenant yet it was not the Blood of the New Covenan● but of the Old neither the First Covenant was dedicated without Blood Heb. 9.18 True the Blood of the Old Covenant figured the Blood of the New yet that doth no more prove the Ceremonial Law was part of the New Covenant then the Shadow can be proved to be the Substance and therefore tho' those Sacrifices pointed to Christ yet that Law was part of the Covenant of Works i. e. no Life by it In those Sacrifices God's Soul had no Pleasure 7. Nor could they see or look beyond those things which are abolished see 2 Cor. 3.13 From hence I argue If the Ceremonial Law was a Hand-Writing i. e. a Bond or Obligation of Conviction Accusation and Condemnation to the Jews binding them farther to the Curse of the Moral Law it was no part of the Covenant of Grace but the former is true Ergo Therefore whatever gracious Design God had in it or however useful to the Elect yet in it self it was a Law of Works tho' given in Subserviency to the Gospel Law as the Sinai Law was 6. Obj. God gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in the Covenant of Circumcision or made over himself by way of special Interest to them in it so Mr. Flavell positively affirms Therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer This I am persuaded is the grand Cause of their great boldness and mistake in affirming the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace and therefore ought the more carefully to be Examined Considered and Answered for if Mr. Flavel and the rest of our Brethren are right in this Assertion i. e. That God gave himself in Circumcision to Abraham and to all his Seed to be their God by way of special Interest they say a great deal but this we deny 1. As to Abraham God gave himself to him to be his God yea gave him special Interest in himself but it was before he

have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself