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
A39573	Baby-baptism meer babism, or, An answer to nobody in five words to every-body who finds himself concern'd in't by Samuel Fisher.	Fisher, Samuel, 1605-1665.	1653 (1653)	Wing F1055; ESTC R25405	966,848	642

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 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 form ally 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 premises 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 40 ta 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 fylogism 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 ●…le 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

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 ●…ave them baptized now upon no other account mainly then this upon which Paul plain ly 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 nor 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 A●…nsworth 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 is a command for a thing never remanded or contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. 7. 9. never yet remanded or contramanded Ergo signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of Grace namely baptism now is still in force The Minor of which argument hath no lesse then three false assertions in it For First circumcision was not a sign of the Covenant of Grace as baptism now is nor did any further relate to the Covenant of Grace then all other things under the law did viz. as types and shadows of the things to come but that Covenant of which circmcision was giyen to be immediately a sign and token was of that earthly Canaan made with Abrahams fleshly seed onely nor Secondly were they believers infants only who were there commanded to be circumcised but all the male infants and male servants also of every houshold of Abrahams posterity by Isaac onely through their several generations though the parents and masters were unbelievers as the Iews were for the most part of them in all ages and both they and theirs neverthelesse to be circumcised while that Covenant of circumcision lasted Thirdly whereas he saies that circumcision of infants for that 's it he falsely signs there with that name viz. the sign of the Covenant of Grace was never yet remanded or contramanded it is as false as all the rest for we see plainly that it was remanded by that text I am yet in hand with viz. Act. 21. 22. Babist But baptism which is the sign now was never remanded Baptist. I grant it is not yet I le prove it to the faces of you all that t is as much remanded and contramanded as ever it was commanded in Gen. 17. Sith then Mr. Marshall and Dr Holmes both say and so indeed you say all in effect that the command for circumcision of infants was a command to us to baptize them and therefore unless we can shew that command to be remanded again it is still in force to bind us to baptize them I dare be bold to tell them that if infant circumcision and infant baptism were both commanded together in that one and the same precept Gen. 17. 10. where God bidds Abraham and his seed to circumcise their children then they are both uncommanded again in that one and the same prohibition wherein God by the mouth of Paul forbad the Iews to circumcise their children any longer I say if infants baptism were commanded in that very command for the circumcision of infants then by Analogy for contrariorum contraria est ratio infants baptism must needs be remanded in the remanding of infants circumcision the remanding of which by Paul among all the Iewes that dwelt among the Gentiles where he mainly exercised his Ministrie is related plainly Acts 21. 21. To conclude then though I utterly deny as being well assured that nor Dr. Holmes nor Mr. Marshal neither have yet nor ever will make it good that the precept for circumcision is so much as a virtual or consequential command to baptize infants yet if it be I hope they will receive the s●…me Law they give and rest satisfyed in it that this Countermand to circumcise infants is a consequential and virtual countermand also to baptize them By all which it appears still that there is not only no precept but also plain prohibition enough of infant-baptism And as there is no precept so neither is there any president of baptizing infants as there was of circumcising them of old from which practise of circumcision therefore there is no consequence to infant-baptism there is not one example to be found any where upon the file of such a thing as infant baptism unless it be in your Parish Registers and there indeed you may shew us not only three or four hundred as vpon occasion of our calling for example Mr Kentish in a discourse we had with him and Mr Glenden at Swevenock said he could but as many as we can shew you of baptized believers in the Scripture-Register viz. no less then three or four thousand but this though it satisfy them that live by the example of the world yet will in no wise serve their turns that live by the example of the Word and therefore Ms Kents negative precept of non express prohibition and Mr Kentish his popish president of parish church admission may go both together as things that can never pass for currant among the true Christians of Kent though they pass for good proof of infant-baptism among most Kentish Christians and Priest-ridden people As for the Scriptures there 's not so much as the least shew of any example of baptizing infants i●… them for howbeit you draw in the several housholds that were baptized as that which you would fain seem to make somewhat of to this purpose yet how well they serve your tum that way judge ye when as whether there were at all any one infant in any one of them is confessed to be uncertain by your selves so Mr. Blake