Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	womb_n	word_n	write_v	13	3	5.0544	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94166	A Christian, sober & plain exercitation on the two grand practicall controversies of these times; infant baptism and singing of psalms Wherein all the scriptures on both sides are recited, opened and argued, with brevity and tenderness: and whatever hath been largely discussed by others, briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the saints. By Cuthbert Sidenham, teacher to a church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine.	Sydenham, Cuthbert, 1622-1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing S6291; Thomason E1443_1; ESTC R209635	113,076	235

a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this That the fulness of salvation and the virtues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible and visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love then it is to the invisible Church but the former is true v. 28. Ergo. Sol. 1. It 's said That as touching election the Jews are beloved for their Fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to Believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham But 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling then of any Nation but yet still the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is only or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing The last and weakest Argument is this If the ingraffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then it is into the invisible Church by election c. but so it is Ergo. Sol. You see he hath spent his stock and strength to be so low at last This Argument needs no Answer but by shewing you the unsoundness of this universal proposition on which the Argument is built Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church Which proposition is most false universally considered Are not health meat and drink preservation all outward priviledges fruits of Gods mercy Is not long-suffering to these that perish and the affording the means of grace and salvation the institution of Ordinances fruits of Gods mercy and yet must they be given only to elect ones and do they ingraff to the invisible Church but satis est repetere you have seen the utmost strength of the greatest Antagonist to the Truth we hold out Chap. X. The Harmonie of Mat. 19.13 14. with Mar. 10.13 and Luk. 18.15 16 17. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ his acts to them how far it contributes to prove Infant-baptism YOU have seen how the Scriptures agree in holding out some special priviledges in the New Testament as in the Old to Believers and their seed Let us now come to view Christs own carriage and actions to Infants which shews both the special respect he had to them and would have his Ministers and Churches to have likewise For this compare Mat. 19.13 14. Mar. 10.13 14 15 16. with Luk. 18.15 16 17. Where when little Children were brought to Christ and his Disciples did forbid them Christ was angry and charged them not to hinder them for theirs was the Kingdome of Heaven and he took them up in his arms laid his hands upon them and blessed them For the opening this place more clearly Consider 1. Who they were which were brought to Christ 2. Who brought them 3. Why the Disciples did forbid them to be brought 4. Christs reason why he would have them not hindred 5. Christs actions to and on them what they amount unto For the first who they were which were brought to Christ in Mark they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated little Children or Infants the word is a diminutive word and is specially to be applied to Infants Luk. 1.76 Zacharias useth the same word of John when he was newly born And thou Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest c. Videtur esse aliqua emphasis diminutivi hoc saltem loco minime negligenda saith Beza The same word is given to Christ when he was in the manger Mat. 2.11 The Wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young Child or Infant with Mary c. Heb. 11.23 Moses is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he was hid among the Flags 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teste Hippocrate de primo vitae septennio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem de secundo Gurtl This word saith Hippocrates is given to these which are under the age of seven years and it 's mostly used among the Evangelists for to express the tenderest age of man which is Infancy So Spanhem dub Evang. But in Luke the holy Ghost useth another word of full signification for Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is used for a Babe in the womb an Embryo Luk. 1.41 When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the Babe leaped in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's the same word but more properly it is used for a Child newly born a sucking Babe that we carry in our arms Thus 2 Tim. 3.15 Timothy is said to know the Scriptures from a Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his Infancy not when he was an Infant but from his Infancy that is as soon as ever he was past a Babe and came to understand any thing he was learnt the Scriptures The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given also to Christ when the Wise men found him in swadling clouts Luk. 2.12 So that this is most clear that they were Infants tender young ones Babes which were brought to Christ And if the two words did not properly signifie Infants yet in that it 's said they were brought to Christ would prove it for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to carry as it 's used mostly in Scripture for But 2. Who those were that brought them it 's most probable that their Parents brought them and these had believed themselves or made some profession of faith for they bring them to Christ to be under his blessing for some special favour to be shewn by Christ to them it was for a spiritual end they brought them to be touched by Christ c. to have some virtue from him and who could have such bowels to bring Infants to Christ but their own Parents and to abide the frowns of the Disciples and their checks but Parents who love their Children next themselves and would have them blessed together with them so that it 's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others and that they were believers who had such a sense of their Infants conditions and of Christs respects And besides they were then in the Coasts of Judea where many had profest their faith and were baptized by John and longed to have their Infants confirmed by Jesus Christ especially

Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the

is the same Psalm only inserted into the body of the Book of the Psalms the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sing Psalms And thus the same word in the same verse is exprest by these two words yet hold forth one thing In Esay 12.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the title of Psal 38.1 Mizmor is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated a Song and in most of the titles one is used for another without distinction and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schir which is most usually rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Song yet is also rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Psalm Psal 45.1 and 47.1 And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn Esay 42.10 As for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tehillim that comprehends fully both Hymns and Songs it is the general title of the Book of Psalms where the variety of them are contained And as some particular Psalms are called in the Greek Hymns or Odes according to the two former words so this word is put at top holding forth the significancy of all the rest and distinguishing the Psalms from all other Books of Scripture as these that know the superscription of that Book understand and it signifies the most universal and full way of praising God especially by singing and it 's exprest by various words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to praise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commend or set forth the reputation of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to glorifie or discover the glory of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bless with many other expressions So in particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 145.1 but most especially is this last word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word for all Psalms exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn as 2 Chron. 7.6 and 23.13 Psal 39.4 2 Chron. 29.30 Psal 21.13 Psal 64.1 and 99.3 where the one word is translated by the other For their conjunction of each of them together in one title of a Psalm is very usual and often inverted The title of Psal 29.1 is in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mizmor Schir in the Greek Translation it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Psalm of a Song or a Song and a Psalm So 64.1 and 47.1 and 86.1 but in 65.1 there the title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Song of a Psalm or a Song and Psalm So Psal 82.1 But unto the title of Psal 75. the 70 Greek Interpreters from whom these words are borrowed in the New Testament do adde all the three together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Psalm to Asaph in or with Hymns a Song to the Assyrians By all which we see and might by many more 1. That there is not such a critical distinction to be made between a spiritual Psalm and a Hymn and Song but that they are put indifferently one for another 2. Having opened the words with their use I hope with advantage to those that know the language of the Hebrew with the Septuagint let us now consider them as the matter to be sung and what these Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs are whether Davids Asaphs Hemans and such other which are found in Scripture pen'd by holy men upon special occasions or another of a new composure the former of which I affirm to be an Ordinance of the New Testament 1. These are the titles given solely to Davids Psalms and the other Scripture-Songs which these holy men Divinely inspired breathed forth and left on record And as Mr. Cotton excellently argues What reason can there be why the Apostle should direct us in our singing to the very title of Davids Psalms and other Scripture-Songs if he meant we should not sing these Psalms and Songs Either we must exclude Davids Psalms and the rest from being called Psalms or Hymns or Spiritual Songs or else they must be sung as well as others 2. The names are borrowed from the Greek Translaters of the Old Testament and there is no distinction of them in the New neither can any one tell what they mean but as by their use in the Old Testament Now these names were used there as peculiar characters to express and distinguish the works of David and the rest which were penned to be sung in the Church Let these which are against singing Davids Psalms and of other holy men shew us any one word or syllable in the New Testament where any of these words are taken in any other sense then as they were in the Old and yet we are commanded to sing them in the New on this ground the case would be soone concluded when the question is propounded granting this is a command for singing what shall we sing why Psalmes Hymnes and spirituall Songs how shall we know what these are we must looke in Scripture where these words are used now we finde them nowhere explained so properly as in the Old Testament where they are the usuall titles of Davids Psalmes and the Songs of other Holy men and no other use of them exprest in the New why may not we judge then these are the Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs we are there commanded for to sing But 3. Come to the New Testament and there when ever Christ or his Apostles speak of Psalmes they refer us to Scripture Psalmes Luke 20.42 Christ saith As it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes that is the 110. Psalme The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand in Luke 24.44 when Christ would make an exact division of the Old Testament he divides them into the Law of Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes distinguishing the Psalmes from all other Scripture as a peculiar booke by it selfe And as when we are commanded to read the Law and the Prophets we cannot thinke them to be any other then the writings of Moses and Samuel and the rest of the Prophets in the Old Testament So when we are commanded to sing Psalmes not the Law or the Prophets how can we imagine it unlawfull to sing that part of Scripture which is properly called the Psalmes as the writings of David Asaph c So the Apostle Acts 1.20 speaking of Judas his fall and ruine saith as it was written of him in the Booke of the Psalmes Let his habitation be made desolate c. Psal 69.26 and in the 16. verse saith Peter the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake this concerning Judas v. 20. for it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes Acts 2. Acts 25. and 29. in stead of saying as in the Psalmes he saith David speaketh of Christ thus and thus in Psal 16. Acts 13.33 speaking of Christ againe he saith As it is written in the second Psalm and v. 35. As it is written in another Psalm which is the 16. By all which is cleare