Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	argument_n	circumcision_n	covenant_n	4,685	5	10.4381	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

be my people ver 33. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them saith the Lord c. Pray observe in the Old Covenant Infants were Members who did not when taken into that Covenant and made Members of that legal Church know the Lord nor indeed their right Hand from their left Therefore they when grown up had need to be taught saying Know the Lord and thus upon this Account every one had need to teach his Neighbour and his Brother but in the Gospel Covenant God saith it should not be thus for that all whom he would make that Covenant with should know him before they were received as Members of that Church tho' afterwards 't is granted they stand in need of further teaching And in this respect the Gospel Covenant and Gospel Church State differs or is not according to the Old legal and external Covenant and Church State of the Jews as well as in other things that being a conditional Covenant the New Covenant Absolute I will and they shall that was a Covenant of Works this of Grace c. They shall all know me from the least to the greatest not one Infant then be sure is in it as a Member of the Gospel Church they are now required to repent to believe to bring forth fruits meet for re●entance They must be made Disciples by Teaching as appears by the great Commission Mat. 28 19 20. before Baptized who are to be Members of the Gospel Church Arg. 5. The Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Gospel Covenant because the Terms of it runs according to the Sinai Covenant which is said not to be of faith but 1 the man that doth those things should live in them Gal. 3. 22. 2 Life was promised to Obedience to it and Death threatned to Disobedience 3 The Promise of the Sinai Covenant was the Land of Canaan Riches Peace and Prosperity to be Blessed in the Basket and Store and so runs the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 17. 9 10 14. Thou shalt keep my covenant c. and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land of Canaan c. ver 8. And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cu● off from his People he hath broken my Covenant ver 14. Thus ran the Law and Covenant of Circumcision it was Life upon the Condition of Obedience Death upon Disobedience 't was do and live but thus runs not the Terms of the New Covenant but directly contrarywise believe and thou shalt be saved are the Terms of the Gospel Covenant from whence I shall draw this Argument That Covenant that was in the Nature and Quality of it as much a Covenant of Works as the Sinai Covenant could not be the Covenant of Grace But so was the Law and Covenant of Circumcision Therefore Circumcision was no Gospel Law or Covenant Arg. 6. The Covenant of Circumcision was of the Letter and not of the Spirit This the Apostle lays down Rom. 3. 29. But he is not a Jew which is one outward and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of man but of God Doth he not clearly hereby intimate that Circumcision of the Flesh was of the Law and not of the Gospel for by Letter the Law is meant all Expositors confess in that paralell Text 2 Cor. 5. Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the letter but of the spirit see our late worthy Annotators by the Letter Here say they the Apostle understandeth the Law or the Law is called the Letter Rom. 2. 27. Who by the letter and Circumcision doth transgress the Law The Law say they in opposition to the Gospel is called the Letter and again they say the Gospel is called the Spirit both in opposition to the carnal Ordinances of the Law and because Christ is the Matter Subject and Argument of it The Law kills but the Gospel gives Life yet some affirm that Law written in Stones was the Gospel or a dark ministration of it What Law is it then that kills and what was the Covenant of Works which as such is taken away But no more of that here 't is plain Circumcision was not of the Spirit i. e. not of the Gospel but of the Law Arg. 7. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness was not the Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant But the Apostle shews us That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham in Circumcision Rom. 4. That faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness vers 9. How then was it reckoned when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision ver 10. What need was there for St. Paul to argue thus against Circumcision if it were as our Brethren say a Gospel Law Precept or Covenant and remarkable 't is that the Apostle puts in this Chapter the Law and Circumcision together as being of one stamp or of the same nature and excludes them both from the free Promise of God made to Abraham which I have shew'd was the Pure Gospel or New Covenant Reader see Mr. Philip Cory's Solemn Call where thou wilt meet with this and some other of these Arguments largely opened and his Reply to Mr. Flavel both worth thy reading Arg. 8. The Law or Covenant of Circumcision is as the said worthy Writer observes contrary distinguished or opposed by the Apostle in Rom. 4. to the Covenant of Faith or Gospel Covenant therefore could not be one nor of the same Nature read 9 10 11 12 13 and 14 verse● Arg. 9. That Covenant or Precept that profited none unless they kept the Law could not belong to the Covenant of Grace but so the Apostle speaks of Circumcision For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law Rom. 2. 25. That is as I have observed if thou keep the Law perfectly but if thou break the law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision that is of none effect 'T is strange to me that Circumcision should be a Gospel Covenant and yet not profit any unless they perfectly kept the Law and also obliged them so to do Gal. 5. 3. Could a Man have perfectly kept the Law of the Old Covenant he might have thereby been justified in the sight of God and then no need of a Christ to have fulfilled the Righteousness of it for us and in our nature But doth a Gospel Precept oblige any to the perfect keeping of the whole Law How then could this be a Gospel Precept O see how the Law and Circumcision agree and comport together in their nature end use and design and never plead for it as a Gospel Precept any more unless you have a mind to bring your Selves and Children under the

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

Old Covenant and the Curse thereof compare this with Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man among you that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law Not as a late Writer says in his Opinion or in his intention that was Circumcised that he was such a Debtor for it may be justly doubted Whether they so thought or not nay by the Apostle's Words it seems otherwise i. e. They did not think any such thing tho' they might seek to be justified by the Law and Circumcision yet not that they thought themselves obliged to keep the whole Law perfectly but they who were Circumcised were verily obliged by Circumcision to do the whole Law when Circumcision was in Force Whatsoever Mr. John Flavel hath said in his late Book to the contrary notwithstanding in Answer to Mr. Cary And indeed the Annotators agree with us herein thus I find they express themselves Object But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law Answ. Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of the Law and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from this Obligation by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ who was made a Curse for them Arg. 10. The Covenant of Circumcision could not belong to the Gospel Covenant because 't is called in express terms a Yoke of Bondage Act. 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear I wonder any should call Circumcision a Privilege the Yoke was Circumcision which those false Teachers would have put on Men who were Believers among the Gentiles see vers 1. If the Jews had any Profit Advantage or Privilege by it it was chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God or Ten Commandments not chiefly because unto them was given the Covenant of Grace for had it been a Gospel Covenant or a Rite thereof as our mistaken Opposers affirm he would have said so see his Words What advantage then hath the Jew and what profit is there in Circumcision Rom. 3. 1. Much every way but chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God ver 2. It did not seal to them the Covenant of Grace nor assure them of the Blessings thereof for so a Seal doth all the Blessings and Privileges of that Covenant to which it is prefix'd but the direct contrary i. e. it assur'd them That they should have the Law given to them the Oracles of God i. e. The Sinai Covenant which Law shewed them what a kind of Righteousness it was God did require of all Men that would be justified in God's sight it was not given to them to give Life or Righteousness but to shew the exceeding sinfulness of Sin and to regulate their Lives to put a curb upon their Lusts so hateful to God as also to discover unto them that nothing short of a perfect and compleat Righteousness could justifie the Creature in the sight of God and so the Law through the weakness of the Flesh lay'd all Men under Death and Condemnation exacting hard Service but gave no Strength to perform its Demands it killed but could not give Life And therefore as it was a Covenant of Works do this and live or the man that doth these things shall live in them which Christ abolished it by the Blood of his Cross. And since it appears by what the Apostle says That Circumcision obliged while it was in Force to do all the whole Law which he that did not so do was Cursed by it 't is evident that instead of its being a Covenant of Grace or the Seal thereof it rather sealed the Curses of the Law upon them for their Disobedience and therefore such a yoke of Bondage which they nor their Fathers were able to bear Circumcision it appears then was an Earnest to Abraham's natural Seed of the Sinai Covenant which Law was 't is evident comprehended as a Covenant of Works in Circumcision and so Circumcision was a Part or Branch of it God then and at that time taking his natural Seed into an external Covenant Relation with himself was thereby in his Wisdom obliged to give the said Law in Tables of Stone to them for the Reasons Use and End befo●e mentioned and as 't is by our Apostle frequently in his Epistles hinted the Apostle as a Learned Writer observes doth not here begin a Discourse nor to the number of Privileges and Advantages for he names but one in all but to the quality of this Privilege viz. That it was not an Evangelical or Gospel Privilege but only a Legal or Old Covenant Rite and Privilege this is the Chief of all the Advantages the Jews had by Circumcision i. e. there having thereby an assurance that the Law of God on Mount Sinai should be given to them So much as to the Proof and Demonstration That Circumcision was no Gospel-Precept or Covenant Obj. But perhaps some may Object If Infants as such were not included in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham how can dying Infants be saved 1. Answ. I Answer Must Infants of Believers be comprehended in that Covenant God made with Abraham or else Cannot any dying Infants be saved How then were any dying Infants saved before Abraham's Days or before that Covenant was made with him 2. I never said no Infants were included in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham but not as such No doubt all Elect Persons both Infants and the Adult were included in the Covenant of Grace and had or shall have the Blessings of Christ's Blood and Merits but the Covenant of Grace may be considered Two manner of ways or under a Two-fold Consideration 1st The inward invisible Blessings Grace and Privileges of it 2d The visible and outward Administration or Privileges thereof 1. Now who they be that are comprehended or included in the inward and invisible Blessings Grace and Privileges of it are only known to God not to us But the Gospel or Covenant of Grace as to the outward Administration and Privileges thereof only belong to such who know the Lord or profess Faith in Jesus Christ and therefore all that have a Right to Baptism and Gospel Church Membership must first be made Disciples by being taught by the Word and Spirit of God and so truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the great Commission of our Saviour Mat. 28. 19 20. and the Practice of Christ himself Joh. 4. 1 2. and of his Apostles Act. 2. 37. Act. 8. 14 c. Act. 10. and Act. 16 c. God hath many ways as Dr. Taylor observes to save dying Infants which we know not he can apply the benefit and merits of Christ's Blood to them in ways we are wholly Ignorant of and ought not to trouble our Selves with it Secret Things belong to God

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

to require a Condition of a Covenant of one that we know hath no Strength to perform it If a Rich Man should offer an Estate of 1000 l. a Year to a poor Man that he knew was not worth a Groat provided he fetched him 20 l. of his own Money this Act would be reckoned a mocking and ridiculing this poor Wretch God did not require that small Condition of Adam but that he actually had strength to perform it you will say God will give him ability to perform So he did to Adam previous to the Covenant c. See his farther Answer p. 130. God will in due time bring down and abase the Pride of Man O what a Doctrine do some Men preach 't is time indeed now to lay aside our lesser Differences and make Head against such capital Errors The Foundation seems now to be struck at Reader since I preached these Sermons I met with Reverend Mr. Cotton on the Covenant who confirms the same thing concerning the Ax being laid to the Root of the Trees Speaking of that Text Mal. 4. 1. The Day cometh that shall leave them neither Root nor Branch There are two Things in the Root saith he 1st The First is the Root of Abraham 's Covenant which this People much trusted upon and that is it of which John the Baptist speaks Now is the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees c. This is spoken in Mat. 3. 9. after he had said Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father ver 8. So that all their Confidence they had in Abraham 's Covenant Temple and Tabernacle and such Things is burnt up and so they have no Root left them to stand upon But 2dly There is something more in it for with this Spirit of burning the Lord by the Power of this Spirit doth cut us off from any Power of our own natural or spiritual Gifts whereby we thought to lay hold on Jesus Christ and we are cut off hereby from all Confidence that we have in our own sufficiency c. For there is an usual Confidence that we have in our own state tho' the Lord hath cut us off from the righteousness of our Parents and from boasting of his Ordinance yet we think there is some Power left in us Cotton 's Treaty of the Cov. p. 177 178. Again he saith It is spoken of the Ministry of John the Baptist which did burn as an Oven and left them neither the Root of Abraham 's Covenant nor the Branches of their own good Works He cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham and so by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no ground to trust to Pag. 21 22. I hope if this Text be well considered and our Arguments in the ensuing Treatise no wise and impartial Person will find there is any ground for Men to plead for Infant Baptism from the Covenant God made with Abraham I shall say no more but leave what I have said to the Blessing of the God of Truth who is coming forth to shake all false Foundations and States yea both Heaven and Earth that that which cannot be shaken may remain and rest thy Servant in the work of the Gospel From my House near Horsly-down Southwark this 6th of March 1693. BENJAMIN KEACH Reader My Answer to Mr. Flavel and Mr. Rothwell I find will not come into the first Part but the Second is going to the Press where you will have it THE Ax laid to the Root c. OR One BLOW more at the Foundation of Infant Baptism and Church-Membership MAT. III. 10. And now also the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees every Tree therefore that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down and cast into the Fire THIS Text is metaphorical there is no great difference between a Metaphor and an express Similitude and for the better understanding the Mind of God therein I shall 1. Open the Scope and Coherence thereof 2. Explain the Parts and Terms therein contained 3. I shall observe some Points of Doctrine reducable there-from 4. Shall improve the Whole by way of Application First From the Scope and Coherence of the Place 't is evident that John Baptist endeavours to take off the Jews particularly the Pharisees and Sadduces from the external and legal Covenant God made with Abraham and his Fleshly-seed or Off-spring See vers 7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his Baptism he said unto them O generation of Vipers who hath warned you to flee from the Wrath to come Historians tell us That there were Three more eminent Religious Sects amongst the Jews the First were called Essenes of whom we do not read in the Holy Scripture their main Doctrine was Fate they say our Annotators ascribed all Things to it Secondly The Sadduces were directly opposite to the Essenes they ascribed nothing to Fate but asserted the Liberty and Power of Man's Will in the most largest Sence or in the extravagant Height they denied the Immortality of the Soul of Man the Resurrection Angels c. All which the Pharisees owned See Act. 23. 8. The Pharisees were outwardly a very Zealous sort of People and tho' they were tainted with that false Opinion of the Freedom of Man's Will to do Good yet they ascribed much to the Providence and Grace of God they were Interpreters of the Law and separated themselves from others they spent much time in Fasting and Prayer 1. They held nevertheless a Righteousness by the Works of the Law by which they thought they were justified and accepted of God and so stumbled at the Stumbling-Stone Rom. 9. 32. 2. They gave a very corrupt Interpretation of the Law 3. They held many un-written Traditions of equal force with the Law of God by which means they made void the Commandments of God 4. They were a mere Hypocritical sort of Men in their Practices being very strict and zealous for the smaller Matters of the Law and neglected the weightier Things thereof Whether these Pharisees and Sadduces came with an intention to be Baptized or only out of Curiosity is hard to be resolved since 't is said They rejected the Counsel of God against themselves being not Baptized by John John however sharply treates them both calling them a Generation of Vipers a sort of Serpents of whom 't is said they make way into the World through the Bowels of their Dam. It may be upon this Account he gave them that Name or so called them who thought through the Bowels as I may so say of their Ancestors or being the Seed of Abraham or the Off-spring of Godly Progenitours to come to Heaven who hath warned you to flee from the Wrath to come What is the Reason that you come to my Baptism Whereas some of you think there is no Resurrection no Heaven no Hell no Angels nor no Spirits or you who think you are so Righteous as you need no Repentance

read yet of another Natural Seed of Abraham to whom the Promise of Grace did not belong as Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah Gen. 15. 5. but as they were the Seed of Abraham none will say the Children of beliving Gentiles are the Seed of Abraham now I affirm that there is no mention made of any other Seed of Abraham but these four sorts if any man can shew a fifth sort let him from hence I shall again draw this Argument viz. If the Children of the believing Gentiles as such are not the natural Seed of Abraham nor the spiritual Seed of Abraham then they can have no Right as such to Baptism nor to Church-Membership by vertue of being Abraham's Seed nor are they any ways as such concerned in that Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham but the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the natural Seed of Abraham nor the spiritual Covenant of Abraham therefore they can have no right as such to Baptism nor to Church-Membership by vertue of Abraham's Covenant nor are they any ways concerned in that Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham Obj. The Athenian Society in p. 2. of their Athenian Gazette affirm that the Children of believing Gentiles are the spiritual Seed of Abraham until by actual sin unrepented of they are otherwise Answ. To which I answer as I have once already that then some of the true spiritual Seed of Abraham may eternally perish for certainly many Children of Believers who when they grow up proving to be prophane unbelieving and impenitent Persons and so live and dye are eternally lost 1. Which if so the Covenant of Grace is not so well ordered in all things and sure as we believe it is and the Scripture proves it is 2. 'T is also directly contrary to what St. Paul positively affirms in Rom. 4. 16. therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that which is of the Law but to that which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all If this be well consider'd the Plea for our Infants as such being Abraham's Seed is gone for ever for I from hence argue again that all that are in that Gospel Covenant God made with Abraham or are his spiritual Seed have the Promise of eternal Life sure to them but all the Seed of believing Gentiles as such have not the Promise of eternal Life sure to them therefore the Children of believing Gentiles as such are not the spiritual Seed of Abraham 3. All that are in the Covenant of Grace I mean all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham and walk in the steps of Abraham and have also all the Privileges of the Gospel Covenant God made with him but so have not the natural Seed of believing Gentiles as such nor are they by Birth i. e. by being born of believing Parents in a better Condition than others as such being all being born in sin and in the Covenant of Works indeed if Believers Children as such were in Covenant as soon as begotten or born then they are born in the Covenant of Grace and if so not the Children of Wrath by Nature and if in the Covenant of Grace then their State is good enough without Baptism nor doth Baptism bring them into it and if they say as some do that the Children are brought into the Covenant of Grace by Baptism and so made the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven then it follows they had it not by vertue of being in Covenant with their Parents and then also it would follow that 't is in the power of Men and Women to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace or keep them out of it and so through Negligence or Ignorance the Parents may damn their Children and others have power to save theirs by getting a Minister to Baptise them But if they do not suppose their Seed as such are indeed truly and really in the Covenant of Grace what signifies that which they call the Covenant to whom the Blessing of the Covenant do not belong and if it seals not the Blessings of the Covenant what doth it seal or what spiritual Advantage do their Children receive thereby Either they have the internal Blessings or Privileges sealed to them or else the external Privileges thereof or none at all now I can't believe they judge they have right as such to the internal Blessings and Privileges for then they must all be saved unless those to whom the Promise is sure it being confirmed by the Oath of God may eternally perish I know they whom I have to do with are averse to the Doctrine of falling from Grace And if it seals the External Privileges of the Covenant to them why are they denyed those Privileges Is not Breaking of Bread and Church-Fellowship the chief external Privileges of the Gospel-Church We know as to bearing the Word Prayers of the Church our Children enjoy those Privileges as far forth as theirs besides if they be not absolutely in the Covenant but only conditionally i. e. if they believe they shall c. even what is that more than what the Children of Unbelievers have shall not they be received into the Covenant also if they believe and close in with Christ I cannot learn that they can inform us of any Benefit their Children above ours have who are not baptised or other Mens by their Baptism or as they are their Seed as such tho' 't is evident Abraham's natural Seed had a Right to many external Privileges under that Dispensation as such but I shall now proceed to answer some grand Objection made against what I have said Obj. 1. The first is this viz. There is an exact Parallel or Parity betwixt Circumcision and Baptism therefore as Jewish Infants were circumcised so the Children of Christian Gentiles may be baptised thus they argue Ans. I must deny that there is such a Parity or clear Parallel as they intimate between Circumcision and Baptism but if there were yet the Argument is good for nothing but to prove the first i. e. and that there is no such Parity but in most things a Disparity will now clearly be evinced 1. Circumcision was a shadow of Christ to come by whom we receive the great Antitype of Circumcision i. e. the Circumcision of the heart Col. 2. 12 13. Baptism is a sign that Christ is already come d●ad bury'd and rais'd again 2. Circumcision was a sign of the Covenant with Abraham's natural Seed above all other Nations and a Token to them of many external Blessings and Privileges Baptism is a sign of the inward and peculiar Graces of the Spirit the Person baptized hath received if a true Subject of that Holy Ordinance 3. Circumcision only belonged to Abraham's Male Children Baptism belongs to all that believe truly in Christ both Males and Females