Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	flesh_n	lord_n	7,800	5	4.2773	3	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

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