Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	baptism_n	circumcision_n	infant_n	2,369	5	9.6980	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47391	The ax laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism, and church-membership. Part I containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3. 10. : being the substance of two sermons lately preached, with some additions, wherein is shewed that God made a two-fold covenant with Abraham, and that circumcision appertained not to the covenant of grace, but to the legal and external covenant God made with Abraham's natural seed, as such : together with an answer to Mr. John Flavel's last grand arguments in his Vindiciarum Vindex, in his last reply to Mr. Philip Cary, also to Mr. Rothwell's Pædo-baptisms vindicatur, as to what seems most material / by Benjamin Keach ...	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.; Rothwell, Edward, d. 1731. Paedobaptismus vindicatus.	1693 (1693)	Wing K47; ESTC R39052	37,123	40

Membership by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham let all Men consider See Heb. 8. 13. Therefore from hence I argue that whatsoever external Rights or Privileges the Jews had under the old Covenant it signifies just nothing to us under the Dispensation of the Gospel even no more then a Legacy bequeathed in a former Will is pleadible which is left out in the last Will and Testament confirmed by the Death of the Testator I would have all Men consider that whether there is any more ground for Men from thence to plead for Infant Church-Membership then for others to plead for Ministers to have the first Fruits and the Tenths of every Man's increase or for me to argue thus Every Child of a Christian is born a Member of the Christian Church because under the Law every Child of the Jews were born Members of their Church and it must needs be so then because theirs was a National Church or for every Ministers Son to plead for a Right to the Ministry for evident it is that all the Sons of the Priests under the Law had a Right to the Priest-hood tho' they were not to enter into the Ministry untill such an Age Also particularly to dedicate all our first-born to the Lord because the Jews were required so to do Nay I may say more by the Covenant of Circumcision Abraham's Natural Off-spring had a Right to possess the Land of Canaan shall we from thence say all our Seed have an equal Right to that Promise if we could persuade our selves of this we may think of another Holy War and get our Seed their Rightfull Possession the like as touching our keeping their Sabbath Lastly And evident 't is all that were Circumcised had an undeniable Right to eat the Passover which they that assert Circumcision was a Type of Baptism say also was a Figure of the Lord's Supper and if so then it follows by the same Argument and Parity of Reason all our Children that are admitted to the Ordinance of Baptism may nay must be also admitted to the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper as indeed they were by the Ancient Fathers who first brought in the Practice of Infant Baptism and so it continu'd for some Hundred of Years see Exod. 12. 45. All the whole Family had a Right to eat the Passover except Foreigners and Hired Servants But in a word The Ax is laid to the root of the trees all these Jewish Rights and Privileges are gone with their national external Church State for as the First Covenant i. e. The Bond woman is cast out so are all her Children also Obj. How can this be that the Children of Abraham and so the Children of Believers who are Abraham's Seed should not have Right to Gospel Privileges and Baptism seeing you cannot deny but that it was the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham Answ. I have told you already that there was two Covenants made with Abraham the Covenant of Grace was that Covenant which is called the Promise which God made with him and nothing can be more clear then that the fleshly Seed as such tho' they proceeded from Abraham's Loins were not concerned in that Covenant or free Promise of Grace 〈◊〉 since this is doubted of by some and utterly denied by others viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham I shall endea 〈…〉 ke this very plain and evident tho' indeed what I have already sa 〈…〉 be sufficient to unprejudiced Persons But to proceed I shall shew what Promises and Privileges appertained to the natural Seed as such and what Promises appertained to his true Spiritual Seed and none else First I will begin with that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed as such I never yet heard but that the Covenants take their denomination from the Promises and the Promises are of Two sorts quite different in their Nature i. e. some Domestick and Civil Promises especially and absolutely respecting the House and natural Seed of Abraham and policy of Israel Others only respecting those that are Believers in Christ or Evangelical belonging to them the Gospel Covenant belongeth 1. The First that belonged to Abraham's natural Seed as such that I shall mention is that of his multiplying his natural Seed by Isaac 2. The Birth of Isaac by Sarah his Wife Gen. 17. 16 19. 3. The Continuation of his Covenant with all that should proceed from Isaac according to the Flesh Gen. 17. 6. 4. The Coming of Christ out of Isaac 5. The bringing the natural Seed of Abraham by Isaac out of Egypt 6. The Promise of giving his natural Seed the Land of Canaan for their Possession Gen. 15. 8. Now pray note Two Things First That as the Covenant of Grace bears the Name of the Promise of God not a conditional but an absolute Promise so likewise say I these Promises distinct from that free Promise contain the legal Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed If you well mind the Nature of these Promises I have mentioned you can't so much as once in the least imagine any of them were made to his spiritual Seed as such I mean that any of them do or can concern us Gentile Believers Secondly But to put the Matter out of doubt pray observe that the Law of Circumcision is expressly called Gods Covenant tho' I know some to strengthen their bad Cause would have it be so called only by a certain Figure pray read Gen. 17. And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their Generations vers 9. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every male child among you shall be circumcised vers 10. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you and that to this Covenant was promised the Land of Canaan 't is expressly said in vers 8. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God So in Gen. 15. 8. In that same day God made a covenant with Abram not Abraham saying unto thy seed have I given this land from the River of Egypt unto the great River Euphrates This Covenant and these Promises I assert cannot belong to the spiritual Seed of Abraham as such but were Blessings that belonged only to his carnal or natural Seed and directly agree with the Covenant made with them by Moses viz. The Land of Canaan Riches Peace Plenty and all other Temporal and Earthly Blessings if they kept God's Covenant with their Church State and visible Worship of God among them Now the New Covenant it could not be because that is established upon better Promises and no other People had any Right to those outward Blessings nor were they made only to the Elect Ones who were of his natural

who are all one in Christ Jesus no difference in that respect under the Gospel-Covenant 4. Circumcision belongeth neither to no Male Children but those born in Abraham's House or such who were bought with his Money c. it did not belong to any other godly Man's Male Children that lived in his days unless they joyned themselves to his Family but Baptism belongs to all the Disciples of Christ or to all true Believers in all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 20. 5. Circumcision was to be done precisely on the Eighth Day not before nor after But Baptism is to be done at any time and is not limited to any precise day 6. Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body 7. Circumcision signified the taking away the sins of the Flesh or the Circumcision of the Heart Baptism signifies the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which Circumcision did not What Parity or Parallel there is between them I know not unless they say that Circumcision was the initiating Rite under the Law and Baptism is the initiating Rite under the Gospel to which I answer if this should be granted yet it did not initiate any but Male Children the Females were initiated without it and by the same Parity of Reason as Dr. Taylor observes no Female Infant should be baptized because none but Males were Circumcised If they say there is another Parity viz. none were to eat the Passover but those who were Circumcised so none are to partake of the Lord's Supper but such who are first baptized we are all baptized into one Body yet I must tell them all those who are Circumcised had a Right to eat the Passover and why do they not then follow the Paralell and give their Children the Lord's Supper as indeed the First Ancient Fathers did in the declining State of the Church for many Years they gave Children the Lord's Supper abusing that Text in the case of Baptism Joh. 3. 5. Unless a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven They taking Water there to be meant of Baptismal Water and thought Baptism did regenerate the Children and wash away Original Sin and accordingly they abused and mistook that Text in Joh. 6. 53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you and from hence 't was they gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking as the Papists do that our Saviour intended the Sacrament of the Supper I needed not have repeated these Things and that which follows but that Mr. Roth-well of Sussex in his late Treatise still insists on this Argument you have the same in my Answer to Mr. Burket To this I might add a word or two of a Reverend and Learned Person of our Perswasion in this Matter They suppose Baptism came in or succeeded in the place or room of Circumcision which may saith he be understood many ways as First That those Persons may be Baptized that were heretofore Circumcised by God's Appointment And in this sence the Argument must proceed if it conclude to the purpose but in this sence it is false for Females were not Circumcised which yet were Baptized Act. 8. 12 13 14. and chap. 16. 14 15. and Believers out of Abraham's House as Lot Melchisedec Job were not to be Circumcised but believing Gentiles are universally to be Baptized 2. Saith he It may be understood as if the Rite of Baptism then began when the Rite of Circumcision did or was to end but this is not to be said neither for John Baptist and Christ's Disciples Baptized before Circumcision of Right ceased Joh. 4. 1. 2. 3. He Answers That of Baptism succeeding in the Place of Circumcision in Signification which as we have shewed in several Respects it doth not But Secondly as I said if there were such a Parity or Paralell between Circumcision and Baptism as they intimate yet it would not do their Business but thus to argue as the said learned Writer observes may be very pernitious For saith he indeed if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood an Egg is laid out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched but if it be taken restrainedly it no more follows thence but Baptism and Circumcision in some things hold forth the same which is more plainly said of Noah's Ark 1. Pet. 3. 22. and the Red Sea and Cloud 1. Cor. 10. 4. and yet we do not say Baptism succeeded into their Place much less do we inferr any Rite to be instituted in their Stead respecting the same Person yea verily it is to be seriously thought on 1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghost but drawn out of our Wit a new kind of instituting R●tes to wit from Analogies are brought in besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 2. This being once said by a like Parity of Reason and Arguing it will be lawful to bring into the Church under other Names and Forms the whole Burthen of Jewish Rites yea almost out of what you will to conclude what you will for Who shall put a Bound to Men's feigning Analogies when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples It is well known That the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid and many other Things in the Writings of Divines are asserted by this kind of Argument besides the Rule of Christ's Precepts and his Apostles Examples 3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed who affirm from 1. Cor. 10. 11. the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine 4. This manner of Arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop because the Jews had a High-Priest and Justifie a Linnen Garment at Mass because there was such among the Jews and for Holy-Water Purification of Women Easter Penticoast and many more such Ceremonies for which the Papists do in like manner argue as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters Yea What hinders but we may give Children the Lord's-Supper if we argue this way since Samuel Jesus Christ under Age were partakers of the Passover And of Right all Males were thrice in the year to appear before the Lord and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passover c. Least any should take this for a light Suggestion I will add That grave godly and learned Men have often warned That we are to take heed that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogies Among others in their Learned Writings in English John Pagit in his Defence of Church-Government Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8. and else-where John Ball in his Reply to The Answer of the New-England Elders Nine Positions Posit 2. p. 14. Lastly saith he It is to be considered again and again how by these Argumentations the Consciences of Men may be freed from the Danger of Will-Worship and polluting so Remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is especially this Care lies on them who by Prayers Sermons Writings Covenants and Oaths do deter Christians from humane Invention in God's Worship diligently and 't is to be hoped Sincerely thus far this Reverend Divine I now might proceed to Answer divers others Objections as First Circumcision was a Type of Baptism 2. Infants were once in Covenant and never cast out 3. Circumcision was part of the Ceremonial Law which was Dedicated by Blood therefore no part of the Covenant of Works or Old Covenant 4. In Circumcision God gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed 5. Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith 6. Circumcision was an Everlasting Covenant 7. There is but one Covenant of Works and that was made with Adam 8. Paul Circumcised Timothy therefore Circumcision could not in it self oblige to the keeping of the whole Law 9 The Root is Holy therefore the Branches 10. The Privileges of the Gospel are restrained and narrower then the Privileges of the Law if Children are excluded 11. The denying Infant Baptism hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion Mr. Rothwell p. 2. FINIS The SECOND PART is in the Press

is to separate all True Believers and all their natural Seed tho' some of them are the worst of Men i. e. vile and ungodly from all other People in the World in a Church State If they should affirm this then the Gospel Church for ever ceases to be Congregational but must be National as the Jewish Church was which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whatever her Practice is Doth not she say The Church of God is a company of Godly Christians among whom the Word of God is truly preach'd and the Sacraments duely and truly administred and do not the Godly Independants say the same Did Christ ever under the Gospel constitute any one Nation consisting of Believers and their carnal Off-spring some godly and some ungodly into a Church read over the New Testament and see whether the direct contrary is not apparent for they were only such who believed were converted and professed Faith in Christ and so were Baptized that were added to the Church and of such only doth the Gospel Church consist 2. But observe the other part of this Argument i. e. Circumcision was a token to Abraham's natural Seed of God's giving unto them the Land of Canaan see Gen. 17. 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations c. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan c. and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you vers 11. The Gospel Covenant the Apostle tells us is established upon better Promises not an Earthly Canaan but Heaven it self What tho' Canaan was a Type of Heaven that will not mend the matter for then it follows that it belonged to the Old typical and shadowing Covenant Moreover if that Covenant was the Gospel Covenant our Children have an equal Right to the Land of Canaan with the natural Seed of Abraham as I said before and then how did that Promise viz. The Possession of Canaan belong then to the Jews as their peculiar Right only Arg. 2. Because there were some to whom the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant did not belong were nevertheless commanded to be Circumcised as Ishmael Esau c. Doth the Gospel Covenant appertain to Scoffing Ishmaelites and to prophane Esau's No God told Abraham his Covenant should not be with Ishmael As for Ishmael I have heard thee behold I have blessed him but my covenant will I establish with Isaac Gen. 17. 20 21. Also there were others who might be in Abraham's Family who no doubt might some of them be in the Covenant of Grace that were not required to be Circumcised nor did it belong to them viz. 1. All his Male Children who dyed before Eight Days old 2. All his Female Children 3. There was also some other godly Men in the Days of Abraham to whom Circumcision of Right did not belong as Melchisedec Lot Job c. Doubtless had Circumcision been a Law or Precept of the Covenant of Grace all these would God have required to have been Circumcised as well as the others but the Truth is being in the Covenant of Grace gave no Right at all to any no not to the Male Children of Abraham to Circumcision but only God's express and positive Command to him Arg. 3. 'T is apparent that the Jews who were comprehended in that legal and external Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed and were accordingly Circumcised were nevertheless denyed Gospel Baptism and their Plea we are Abraham 's Seed was rejected by John Baptist's Now had Circumcision been a Gospel-Covenant I see no Reason why John should not admit them nay and 't is plain also that some godly Ones of Abraham's natural Seed who were Circumcised were nevertheless Baptized What had they Two Seals of one and the same Covenant for Circumcision was in force at that time when many of them were Baptized for many subjected to that Ordinance before Christ dyed and abolished that Rite with the Old Covenant 1. From hence it appears that Circumcision was no Gospel Law nor did it appertain to the Covenant of Grace but was part of the Old legal Covenant which the Ax was laid to the Root of and is gone 2. It also follows from hence that the Covenant of Grace was not the adequate Reason of Circumcision but the mere positive Command of God to Abraham for the Reasons and Designs before-mentioned From whence I argue thus That Covenant that was made with or did of Right belong unto the fleshly Seed of Abraham as such even to ungodly Ones as well as to the godly was not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant or Law of Circumcision was made with or did of Right belong unto the Fleshly Seed of Abraham as such even unto ungodly Ones as well as to the godly Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace I have shewed you that Circumcision did belong to Ishmael and to Esau and to all Isaac's natural Seed tho' ungodly and to their Male Children also and I need not tell you what wicked Men sprang from Isaac's Loins according to the Flesh but let them be ungodly and not have one dram of New Covenant Grace in them yet they were obliged to Circumcise their Male Infants This is enough one would think to convince our Brethren and all that differ from us that Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace or was no Gospel Covenant Also let them take heed who plead for Pede-Baptism from the Covenant of Circumcision how they any more deny to Baptize the Children of ungodly Parents since the Male Infants of ungodly Parents were Circumcised The Truth is it was not to be enquired Whether the Parents were Believers or not whether they had Abraham's Faith or not were godly or not before their Children were to be Circumcised but were they the natural Seed of Abraham that was enough it was that according to the express and positive Command of God to Abraham that gave their Children if Males a Right to be Circumcised Arg. 4. That Circumcision was no Gospel Law or Covenant appears yet further because all in the Gospel Covenant 't is expresly said shall know the Lord Jer. 31. 31. Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them out of the land of Egypt which my covenant they break although I was an husband to them saith the Lord. ver 32. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and I will be their God and they shall

the second but finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah Heb. 8. 7 8. It was not faulty in it self but Holy Just and Good it requiring perfect Righteousness of him that would be Justified and therefore could not give Life the Creature being weak and unable to perform the Requirements of it and therefore Paul saith What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending his own Son in likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh Rom. 8. 3. It discovers Sin and condemns for Sin but could not justifie the Sinner in God's sight from Sin He that kept it not perfectly yea continued not in doing all Things written therein was cursed by it He that was Circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law that Rite obliged them it seems to perform perfect Obedience and yet some affirm it was a Precept of the Gospel Covenant but more of this by and by But say some Was not Circumsion a Priviledge Did it not Profit them The Apostle answers this Question For Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made Uncircumcision See how the Apostle brings in Circumcision vers 23. Thou that makest thy boast of the Law through breaking the Law dishonourest thou God He it is evident shews That Circumcision appertained to the Law to the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works for Circumcision profiteth if thou keep the Law c. No Profit no Advantage by Circumcision unless the Circumcised keep the Law That is saith the late Annotations perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal 5. 5. Now this being so the First Covenant being weak and faulty i. e. through the insufficiency and weakness of the Creature he being not able to answer its just Demands God in his infinite Mercy sent his own Son in our Nature and Stead to fulfill the Righteousness thereof he sought and found out the Second Covenant and the First is gone which brings me to the Third Proof of the Point 3. Heb. 10. 9. He took away the first that might establish the second There is a First and Second Covenant or an Old or a New the First must not be confounded with the Second nor the Second with the First because quite different in their Nature Design and End The First Covenant was made 't is true primarily with the First Adam and all Mankind in him that was the First Original or Beginning of it and then to him it did give Life whilst he stood by his Obedience to it but that Ministration of it of which the Apostle speaks and calls the First Covenant was that which God gave to Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh by Moses and to assure Abraham that unto his Seed should be given that Law or the Oracles of God c. he gave him the Covenant or Precept of Circumcision Rom. 3. 1 2. It served as a Pledge of the Law and obliged them to keep it therefore under this old Covenant or First Covenant 't is evident came in Circumcision and the Policy and National Church of the Jews and all other legal and external Rights and Privileges whatsoever both the National Church and Church-Membership but when the Root was struck at i. e. The First Covenant was took away all its Rights Laws Privileges and Appurtenances whatsoever went with it so that now we saith the Apostle know no man after the flesh 2. Cor. 5. That is we prefer or esteem no Man better then others upon the score of the First Covenant or Fleshly Privileges i. e. being of the Seed of Abraham or of the Church of Jews Old things being past away and all things being become New all Types Sacrifices Priest and Priesthood legal place of Worship legal time of Worship legal Ministers and legal maintenance of those Ministers the legal Church and legal Church-Membership were all taken away when the Covenant was took away and thus the Ax is laid to the root of the trees by the establishing the Gospel Dispensation the Anti-Type being come and the Heir come to full Age God deals with us now no more as with Children in Non-age but as with Men who are come to Knowledge and Understanding This I desire may be considered that whatsoever was a Type or Shadow did appertain to the Old Covenant and a great Error or Mistake 't is for any to say the Shadows of the Ceremonal Law were Gospel because they pointed to the Gospel which Mistake I shall farther clear up hereafter and proceed to the Fourth Proof Gal. 4. 30. Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son What is meant by the Bond-women Agar and Ishmael her Son you may see if you read vers 23 24 25. It is written that Abraham had two sons the one by a bond-maid the other by a free woman vers 22. But he who was born of the bond-women was born after the Flesh but he of the free woman was by promise By being born after the Flesh is opposed to him that was born by the Promise the meaning is Ishmael tho' he was Abraham's Seed or Son according to the Flesh yet he was not his Seed nor Son according to the Promise or Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage ver 24. An Allegory is that by which another thing or things are meant or it hath a mystical Signification more is to be understood then is expressed litterally i. e. Agar held forth the first Covenant God made with Abraham's fleshly Seed and Ishmael the Children of the first Covenant Sarah signified the Gospel or the New Covenant and Isaac the Children of the New Covenant Nevertheless what saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-woman and her son for the son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the son of the free woman ver 30. The Drift and Scope of the Spirit of God in ●his place is as I conceive First To shew that there were two Covenan● made with Abraham which no doubt he himself who is called the Friend of God well understood one with his natural Seed as such the other with his spiritual Seed as such Secondly That the casting out of the Bond-woman shews the Abrogation of the first Covenant and all the external foederal and fleshly Rights and Privileges thereof and the casting out of the Seed of the Bond-woman shews the utter rooting out and rejection of the external and political Church-State of the Jews Thirdly That none of the fleshly Seed as such should be Heirs and Partakers with the true spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel or have a Being in Abraham's true spiritual House or Gospel Church These Things being so what reason there is for any to plead for Infants Church