Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	moses_n	57	3	6.5344	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39566	Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...	Fisher, Samuel, 1605-1665.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1655 (1655)	Wing F1049; ESTC R40901	968,208	646

and people did begin so high as Abraham or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them ceremonially sanctified by the bloud of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people and all the vessells of the Ministery and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same and began and were to end both together were first consecrated didicated purified sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9.18.19.20.21.22 c. whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out af doubt to me that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it so the holy seed as well as the other holy things of that Covenant were not ceremonially consecrated nor formally sanctified nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed though vertually they were a choise seed before till a little before they were to enter it and howbeit I challenge no man yet I intreat any man in the world to shew me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God intituled them so by Moses Exod 22.31 ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts ye shall cast it to doggs which place compared with Levit. 22.8.9 Deut. 7.6 chap. 14.2 chap. 26.19 doth so plainly shew these two things First That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth Secondly that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts and so fully ceased in Christ that I even blush to read Mr. Blake and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself to prove that an inchurched believers meer fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter of the things that have been spoken this is the summe viz. that there are three kinds of holiness of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness and consequenrly the spirit you undoubtedly mean one viz. Matrimonial Ceremonial Moral The Middlemost of which because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intend that chiefly in their books I have treated on last and most largely and I now say three things of it in special First That it is a Holinesse which once was but now is not in being Secondly That it is a Holiness which of it self when it was in being as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things viz. Gospel Promises Gospel Priviledges or Gospel Ordinances 1. Not the promises for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed not his own fleshly seed upon such terms as bare birth of his body or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4.13.14 Gal. 3.16.29 2. Not the priviledges viz. Gospel immunities and Church-membership for those that could plead they were under the typical freedomes of the old house or Church under the Law as Abrahams seed only were are denyed by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house that was now to be built or share in that spiritual freedome which the sonne gives which is the only freedome indeed unlesse they did Abrahams works Iohn 8.32 to the 40th 3. Nor yet the Ordinances no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance it self for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished did plead it as to baptism they were put back by Iohn and not permitted barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house without faith unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father c. Mat. 3.7 8 9. Luke 3.7.8 Thirdly suppose baptism were entailed so to that holinesse and a meer fleshly seed of believers or of believing Abraham himself as truly as t is true it is not yet how grossely were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants for that 's the probandum the very thing which by the holinesse of infants you went about to make good for the minor of your first sylogism which was this but little children have the holy spirit being denied was proved say you first by their faith secondly by their holinesse thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture if then by holinesse you mean this kind of holiness I mean ceremonial which once was in the Iews by nature you have a wet eele by the tail then indeed for ask but Mr. Blake and he 'le tell you that that holinesse was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit yea in truth all the Iews had that holinesse of whom not a Tenth even then when they had it were either in infancy or at years morally sanctified or indued with the holy spirit and as I have said these three things in special concerning that one kind of holinesse so I have three things in general to say in short concerning al these three sorts of holinesse viz. First one of them was in infants of old and now is not but is vanisht and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial Secondly another is but nothing to your purpose I mean the proof of the spirit though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial Thirdly the other is not yet come for ought yet appears to infants viz. morall which if it did appear to be in them positive qualitativè as an inherent quality not negative onely so as to be without sin or absolutely innocent for absolute innocency hath no need of baptism then I should say something more to you but you see it doth not therefore though you said nothing then as I wish since I had suffered you to do from infants holinesse to the proof of their having the spirit and right to baptism yet I have searcht but cannot possibly find what holinesse you could possibly have proved it by I have been the larger here though you gave me but a bare hint by the nomination onely of infants holinesse first because here lies indeed the very principal knot and basis of this controversie which you erring in are consequently erroneous in all your wayes for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio Maximus in fine And as for all o●her arguments pro and

such to be baptized as do not even as your selves being judges there 's not more permission for self examinants to eat the supper in that expression of Paul let a man examine himself and so let him eat then there is prohibition but all this would not then be accepted for an answer without an express Sillabicall formal forbidding it in such word viz. ye shall not baptize infants by the way I wonder where the express prohibition was for circumcising females if it lye not vertually in this viz. that there 's no command nor example for circumcising them whereupon in our after and occasionall discourse that night I calling for an express prohibition of that popish practise of baptizing bells it was returned in sense I am sure as I remember in words to this purpose viz. that if it were not forbidden then it might be done but it was forbidden in this respect forasmuch as bells were not capable of baptism to which I said nor infants neither and so we parted since when I never saw him nor now shall since he is departed this life till we meet before the Tribunall seat of Christ in that life which is to come And least all this should be of as little weight with others as it was with him I shall adde a little by way of proof that there 's prohibition enough of infants baptism in case it be not clearly commanded For First what is not commanded of God is but tradition of man for which men shall have no thank for their labour Mat. 15.9 Secondly neither are we altogether without such positive prohibition as may be sufficient to satisfie you at least who hold the command for circumcision of infants to be a command for the baptizing of them in order to your understanding of which I shall refer you to Act. 21.21 where it s said of Paul that he taught all the Iews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk after the customes In which Scripture I beseech you in the fear of God to observe how t is rehearsed that three things were most expressely forbdiden as unlawful for the Iews themselves much more to any believing Gentiles under the dayes of the Gospel by Pauls preaching First they were forbidden in general to follow Moses i. e. to live after his law and testament any longer they are charg'd to forsake Moses Secondly in particular they were forbidden to circumcise their children that being indeed a business the Jews still so doted on that of all things they were unwilling to let it go which by the way shews us plainly that there was nothing injoyned to be done to infants in the room of it as some but simply conceive baptism was by Peter Act. 2. in order to their comfort under the losse of the other for if there had then surely it would have been specified and Paul would have preached thus to the Jews the more easily to weane them from that antient custome of circumcising their children specially considering how loath they were to part with it viz. you ought not to circumcise your children now but instead thereof to baptize them and this may well serve in liew of and satisfie you under losse of the other as being not so painful a service but an easier sign and that of better things then those promised in the Covenant of circumcision but he saies no such matter if he had there would have been doubtlesse less ado then it should seem there was to bring the Iews off from that practise of circumcising their infants of which even after they believed they were so zealous as not to hear of the abrogation of it without offence for this would surely easily have contented and satisfied them if they might have had their children baptized as of old they were circumcised but this doubtlesse made them so difficult to be perswaded to a forbearance of circumcising there infants because they saw the gospel had no answerable dispensation belonging to their infants in the place of it Thirdly in general again they were forbidden to walk so much as after the manner of Moses for the word here rendred customs is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same that is used in the singular number Act. 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there rendred after the manner of Moses which word after the customes or after the manner of Moses prohibits not onely all observation of those ordinances of the law it self but also all walking after the same fashion way and manner as the ordinances of the law were administred in here 's not only an injunction of non-conformity to the law it self but prohibition of all conformity to the manner of it they are not onely taught not to do the same things that were done under Moses but also not to do under the Gospel in the same way and fashion as of old they are not onely bid not to circumcise children but also not to walk after the manner of circumcision or after the customes of the law and therefore consequently not to baptize children now which practise you of the Priesthood not onely confesse to be agreeable and conformable to that custom of circumcising children under the law but also contend with all your might to have them baptized now upon no other account mainly then this upon which Paul plainly seems to forbid it for you say t was the custom and manner of old to circumcise children therefore though circumcision it self be ceased and baptism come in the room of it yet thus far at least we must follow the fashion of the Church of the Jews that as they then circumcised infants so we in like manner must baptize them but Paul saies plainly that we must forsake Moses and neither circumcise children now as of old they did not yet walk after the manner of circumcision nor conform to such Jewish customes therefore we may not now baptize them which to do your selves as you contend so to have it so confesse it to be after the manner of circumcision Whether therefore we shall believe him or you in this case judge ye This as it is of weight in it self so it must needs be an argument ad hominem however of force enough to stop the mouthes of all such as though they yield the law it self and circumcision to be ceased yet will needs in point of Priesthood nationall Churches Tythes Temples outward administration infants admission have all things at least after such a manner as the Jews had and specially to Mr Marshall and Dr. Holms and all such as assert that the very command that was given to circumcise infants of old is vertually the command to us to baptize them for thus saies not onely Mr. Marshall but Dr Holmes also out of Ainsworth p. 9. and 7. of his animadversions fetching his argument for infant baptism as far as from the first book of Moses called Genesis thus Where there

and ye on the Sabbath circumcise a man that the Law of Moses may not be broken Ioh. 7.22.23 And not only circumcision and sacrifices but even the whole Law is said to come by Moses though circumcision and sacrifices which were parts of it came long before him and grace and truth to come by Christ i. e. the very things themselves of which Moses Testament was but typical and a shadow Though grace and truth were both in the world in part long before Christ came personally into it Iohn 1.17 yea something of both Law and Gospel came into the world before either Moses or Christ yet they are denominated after them Moses Law Christs Gospel and said respectively to begin in them to come with them to be given by them as if they had been altogether unheard of before these times because when they came they gave the things a new that were before and also the fullness of the things respectively perteining to each Testament which in part were but not in their ample perfection till their times and thus the Law was said to begin at Moses Gal. 3.17 and the Gospel to begin at Christ birth Mark 1.1 the one 400 years the other at least two thousand years after both Covenants viz. the Law and the Gospel too began in the word of Promise to Abraham and his two seeds Isaac and Christ to whom respectively the two promises were made of two several Canaans the Earthly and the Heavenly whereof the one together with the promise it self that was made of it and the Promised seed to which it was made viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham by Isaac was a clear type of the other i. e. of the promise and promised seed that by that promise were to be heirs thereof viz. a spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ Gen. 17. For there the Inheritances of both Covenants were both given in the word of promise the one viz. the Heavenly Canaan more darkly through the other typing it out the other i. e. the Earthly Canaan more clearly plainly and in terminis ver 7.8 I will give to thee and thy seed after thee meaning Isaac the onely seed and heir of that promise for Ishmael and his had not that typical covenant established on them p. 20.21 but Isaac and his fleshly seed as also A●titypically Isaac and his fleshly seed who were sons of the bondwoman and a meer fleshly seed in reference to Christ though children of the free-woman and a promised seed in a type in reference to Ishmael had not the true or Gospell Covenant established on them meerly as born of Abrahams body but as believing and so it is established on all men but Christ and Believers I will give thee and thy seed saith he the Land of Canaan even then and there God gave out both the Covenants in the promise viz. the Gospel more implicitly and in a shadow the other i. e. the legal Covenant concerning Canaan in express terms together with a present grant of one of the grand Ordinances of it as a sign and token viz. Circumcision typing out the spiritual Iews or seed of Abrahams circumcision in heart that must be heirs only under the Gospel Rom. 2. Phil. 3. to which Ordinative or beginning or cardinal ordinance circumcision many more Statutes Laws Judgements and ordinances were to be added in after ages when the time of their entring their Possession should draw nigh to the observation of all which as in time God should give them out more clearly by his Servant Moses the Deliverer Minister and Mediator of that Covenant circumcision was an obligation and in these Respects that Covenant is called the Covenant of Circumcision Act. 7.8 and Circumcision it self called an Engagement to keep the whole law i. e. binding to the performance of all things required to be done on mans part i. e. the Jewes in order to their enjoyment of Canaan under that old Testament or Covenant Gal. 5.3 For though Circumcision as well as that promised Land whereof it was a token and that fleshly seed that were signed heirs by it and all other the Ordinances of Divine Service which the first Covenant then had and in a manner every thing else under the Law related thus far to the Gospel Covenant as that they were types and shadowes of something answerable under the Gospel i. e. Circumcision of the heart and that other seed i. e. Iews inwardly both answering to that Circumcision and those Iews which were outward only and in the flesh Rom. 2.27.28 29. Phillip 3.2 3. and of the Heavenly Inheritance which these inward Iews i. e. believers or circumcised ones in heart are heirs to by promise yet both that sign Circumcision and the promise signified by it were all alike relating immediately to that Old Testament of Moses as parts thereof and were not parts but paterns only of the new nor was Circumcision any other then an ordinance of the Law of Moses and not a direct rule for us to square or steer by in our dispensing any ordinance of the Gospel for that were to disparage the Law-giver we are under even that other great Prophet Christ whom Moses pointed at saying Deut. 18. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you him shall ye hear in all things c. as if he were not as faithful and punctual to the full in fitting lawes for his house the Gospel Church as Moses was for that old Israel or Church under the Law which was his Heb. 3.1.2.5.6.7 Though therefore both Covenants were in being i. e. the Law and the Gospell before either Moses or Christ the one concerning the Earthly Canaan to a fleshly seed in a Type the other a Heavenly Canaan to a spiritual seed as the Antitype yet are they said to begin the one in Moses the other in Christ because these two were respectively the two Mediatours of these two Covenants and as it were the two several Masters and Law givers to the two seeds or the two several families of Abraham viz. the two Churches under the Law and the Gospel the fleshly Israel and the spiritual the personal comming of which two Mediators and abiding for a time in their several houses did perfect what was lacking in them before in point of outward Ordinances and institutions and from thenceforth i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them establish them in a more compleat posture then before and each Church severally in its own proper order Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament established upon Earthly promises and so gave precepts accordingly but Christ the Mediator of the new which is called a better Testament established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases Besides all this though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed began before Moses yet whether that denomination of a holy seed a holy Nation