Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	abraham_n	servant_n	time_n	367	4	3.6686	3	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

tertium semen Abrahae two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions but a third sort cannot be assigned all and only those that descend from his loines as the Midianites and others by Keturah the Ishmaelites by Hagar the Edomites and Israelites by Sarah which last only were the holy seed and children of promise in reference to the Hagarens in a type and sole heirs of the typical Canaan all these I say were the first sort all believers of what nation soever are the second sort but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one nor of the other As for the children of the Proselites i. e. Iews not by birth but profession which by way of exception against this may possibly pop into some of your minds I utterly deny them as so born to be any seed of Abraham at all or heirs of either inheritance unless they believed also though their parents believing might be his spiritual seed and heirs of the heavenly inheritance and if you ask why then was every male among the infants of Proselites circumcised I answer not upon any such account as their being Abrahams seed or heirs with him of either this or that but meerly as they were Males in the house of one that was a Jew at least by devotion though a stranger as to fleshly relation that being the express command of God for the time then being and during the standing of that Covenant of circumcision the like to which if you had for infant-baptism the controversie were at an end between us that every man child in every family throughout all generations whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger that was no● of Abrahams flesh should be circumcised Gen. 17. 12. for there was but one Law and ordinance for the stranger or Proselite Iew and him that was a Iew by birth concerning circumcision and the Passeover Numb 9.14 upon this same and no other account very many viz. forreign man-servants in every family of any Iew were by appointment to be circumcised meerly as being males of the family though neither born of Abraham nor believing with him nor any way at all his seed nor yet heirs with him of either Canaan which injunction and order of God concerning that old covenant ordinance of circumcision or the Passeover either to which the Supper answers more lively than baptism to the other if we might at all regard what was done then as a Rule for us now who so shall produce as the Pattern or infer any thing from as the instution of God according to which we are to act in the New Testament ordinances of Baptism and the Supper and yet not act according to them neither but abominably besides them both as the Priest-hood doth baptizing as not at all but rantizing so not at all after the manner of circumcision viz. not males only not on the eighth day only but any other when they may as well upon that not servants also upon the Masters faith as well as the Children upon the parents and as for the Supper denying it utterly to infants that might then eat the Passeover I avouch them to be not a little besides their natural but much more besides their spiritual intellectualls Let this then satisfy as to any conceit that any may have as that the Proselites seed were the children of Abraham and heirs with him because circumcised viz. that though all Abrahams seed that were heirs with him were circumcised yet all that were circumcised were not thereby proved to be Abrahams seed nor heirs with him of either promise and though his fleshly seed Israel the heir especially and his spirituall seed also i. e. believing Jewes and Proselites were both thereupon to come under that dispensation and that as heirs too severally of the two severall promises viz. the typifying and typified Canaan yet many past under circumcision upon that forenamed account only of being males in the house that were neither Abrahams seed after the flesh nor after the faith as Servants and the seed of Proselite Masters Fathers not appearing yet to believe with them for even such were to be circumcised under the law though by your leave not such to be by the like reason baptized under the Gospell for as there is no command for such a matter so if there had the Servants of the Eunuch himself only turning Christian must have been as t is known they were not baptized together with him besides if baptism must be like to circumcision in its subject then not only he that is not yet apparently an heir but he also that is apparently not an heir by faith must be baptized aswell as Abrahams sonne Ishmael and his servant Eleazer and all the other males of his house were circumcised who were all well enough known to Abraham to be none of the heirs of that land of Canaan whereof circumcision was given to him and his seed in Isaac in token of their inheriting of it at that very time when he circumcised them I demand therefore yet once again what seed of Abraham your infants are in that thereupon you undertake as so to baptize them you tell us in your Review pag. 14. They are Semen fidei the children of his faith his spiritual seed I am ashamed to hear you say so which way do they come to be in that minority his spiritual seed sith believers only are so you seem to tell us they are so by believing themselves for so Zachaeus say you by believing was made the Son of Abraham as who should say Zachaeus became as infants do the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing which word believing is as much as not having only but acting faith which to act not others only but your selves who sillyly assert them to have faith do somewhat more sensibly p. 8. confess them to be uncapable Others tell us and even your selves too sometimes and in effect in that very same page that they are semen fidei or the seed of Abrahams faith upon another account viz. as their parents are believers for the promise is say you though that is no Scripture phrase at all in that place whence you quote it viz. Act 2.39 to believers and their seed and if the adversaries say that the Iewes were Semen carnis and had right by the promise so these say you concerning the seed of believers are semen fidei and the promise is to them which words The Promise The Promise The Promise you will scrible down twenty times in one Treatise before you will sit down once and search out seriously what it is or once shew distinctly what it is you mean by it So then howbeit with Iohn baptist Mat. 3. with Christ Iohn 8. Luke 19.8 9. with Paul Rom. 4.13.9 6 8. Gal. 3.7.9 there is but one way of becoming Abrahams spiritual seed or the children of his faith so as thereupon to be signed by baptism as heirs with him of the Gospel-promise and this is

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 circumcision was given 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 contrarior●m 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 same 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 in 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 turn 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 Birth-priv p. 22. and also a matter so immaterial that the cause doth not depend upon it at all so Mr. Marshall to Mr Tombes p. 218. yet both he and Mr. Blake and Dr. Featley p. 42.43 and I think well-nigh every one that writes presses all these housholds as a president and forces from them all they have in them and more too in proof of infant baptism Babist We have examples not to be contemned of the baptism of whole housholds saies Mr. Blake and whether infants were there or no as it is not certain though probable so it not material The president is an houshold he that follows the president must baptize housholds it appears not that there were wives there yet be that followes the president of baptizing housholds must baptize Wives and so I may say quoth he Servants if they be of the houshold Baptist. Pray stay Sirs not to fast at first least you run your selves out of breath at last Is this a competent account upon which to baptize wives and servants too as well as infants viz. if they be of the houshold then tell me whether unbelieving wives and unbelieving servants may not be of the houshold where the husband and Master believeth and if so must these also be baptized for shame call in that again this is a pigge of the old sow believers children are of the Nations and I wonder what man woman or child is not therefore they must be baptized For shame also forbear to name those housholds any more as presidents of infant-baptism wherein your selves confesse that it is not certain that there were any infants nor materiall whether there were any or no. Babist You shall find saies Mr. Marshall the Gospell took place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together usually if the Master of the house turned Christian his whole

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

baptized and built upon the foundation i. e. doctrine of Christ and the Apostles a spiritual house a holy temple i. e. visible church unto Iesus Christ now in these daies of the Gospel and that no mans fleshly seed or natural posterity no not Abrahams own barely on such an account as being his bodily seed much lesse any believing Gentiles who hath not more priviledge then his seed I think but onely the at least seeming spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. those that are children of God and Abrahams too by faith in Christ Gal. 3.26.28 as no infant is have right to dwell in this family the babes the seed of Abraham circumcised in heart the children of the heavenly promise pointed at and typed out by the Iews babes and that circumcised seed of Isaac and those children of that earthly promise of the old Canaan these are the true sons of the free woman the Gospel visible church before whom the bond woman and her son i. e. Abrahams meer ●leshly seed though by Isaac are cast out that they may dwell alone in the house as Hagar and her son were cast out of Abrahams house of old before Isaac and his seed that they might dwell alone for look how Ishmael and his seed stood in reference to Isaac and his that were the children by promise of the earthly Canaan viz. but servants that must not abide the house longer when the other came in to stand so Isaac the type and his seed themselves in reference to Christ the true Isaac and his seed i. e. believers viz. as servants that must be packing when he comes in and not abide in the house together with him see Iohn 8. Galatians 4. ult But that were to begin the work again which I have finisht above where I have given a touch of these things and but a touch in comparison of what might be said And of multiplying Arguments and making many books there is no end Therefore I le hint but a few among which this shall be the first If the standing upon the root Abraham i. e. the family or visible Church of God since Christ be by faith in the person onely so standing and not by faith in the parent as of old then infants cannot now stand therein But so t is Therefore the other The consequence is cleared by the consideration of the incapacity of infants to believe faith being assent to something propounded to us faith comming by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10. so that who so thinks it possible for infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere when it is said how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard is wretchedly inconsiderate The Minor is evident out of Rom. 11. where it is said the very natural branches of Abrahams body that did on that account meerly as the fleshly seed of that father of the faithfull stand in the olive tree the visible Church before time yet now could stand no longer on that old account why were they not the seed of Abraham still that stood without faith in the old visible Church to the very end of it yes but they believed not in their own persons therefore could not stand in this house but were cast out of their own olive their own father Abrahams family i. e. the visible Church now Christ came in because of unbelief and thou saith Paul to the Gentile standest how by fleshly descent no that standing is gone from such as come of Abrahams himself therefore is not to thee nor to thine but by faith i. e. personal and not parentall A Second this If all they that are baptized into one visible body under the Gospell are made in the supper to drink into one spirit then infants who cannot drink into one spirit with the body secundum te may not be baptized into that visible body But this is true 1 Cor. 12.13 Therefore that So Col. 2.19 All the body is knit together and by joints and bands hath nourishment ministred and increaseth by that which every joint and member supplieth Eph. 4.16 But infants are not capable to have Spirituall nourishment Minstired and to grow in grace as all the body ought to do at least and this in the use of the Supper If you say they are capable of spiritual nourishment I say as capable I think as of the spiritual birth for where there 's a birth there 's a growth but then me thinks they should be as capable of the supper which is the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment being capable of that as being capable of spiritual birth they are of baptism the outward Sacrament of the same But Mr. Bax. denies that page 114.115 among other reasons for this because though capable to be washed yet not to eat bread and drink wine in their first infancy Oh strange they may have it then as they can eat and drink A third is this If no infants were baptized and added to the first Gospell visible Church then surely they had no right so to be for the Apostles would not do them that wrong as not to add them that had right But this is true Therefore that The Minor is plain out of Acts 2. where to the 120. men and women that without infants continued in fellowship Acts 1. there were added 3000. more in one day and not one infant among them but as many onely as gladly received the word nor more nor lesse for else Luke couzens us in his history and continued after their baptism in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers which no infants did and yet it is well nigh infallible that those 3000 had some infants belonging to some of them which would have been added with their parents if the promise is to you and to your children and them a far off even as many as the Lord shall call would bear the sense divines drawes it to Yea Master Cotton himself conceives that no infants were baptized at that time and when else either these or any other were neither I not any one else ever found since they began to read Christs Testament with their eyes open Yea Peter commanded no more to be baptized but the same persons whom he speaks to also to repent which me thinks he should have done saying be baptized every one of you and baptize your children also if any such thing had been intended and Christians infants were to have been separated out of the world and called to be saints and baptized as Mr. B. believes they are to be but not I. For what saies Paul in his Epistle to the Romans chapter 1. I suppose he wrote not to infants yet to all the called Saints to all that be in Rome called to be saints So in 1 Cor. 14. the 23. If the whole Church come together and all speak with tongues and all Prophe-y So 26. Every one of you hath a Psalm So 31. Ye may all prophecy one by ons that all may be edifyed He writes and