Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	good_a	scripture_n	word_n	3,127	5	4.2624	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34433	The font uncover'd for infant-baptisme, or, An answer to the challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford, never yet reply'd unto, though long since promised wherein the baptisme of all church-members infants is by plain Scripture-proof maintained to be the will of Jesus Christ, and many points about churches and their constitutions are occasionally handled / by William Cook, late minister of the Gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	Cook, William, Minister of the gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	1651 (1651)	Wing C6042; ESTC R1614	62,529	56

Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Bapti●● but n●ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 W●av●rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptu●● 〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons th●● being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally ●rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deac●●● properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshi● They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 ●●unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took th● notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1● Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application

will Christ take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the slaves and Synagogues of Antichrist 2. Yet we are not ashamed to own that which is of God amongst the Italians Spaniards and French Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Testament or be equalled with the Jews because we embrace them as Gods word which the Jews also professe to do Or must we cast off the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and many precious truths gathered out of them because professed by the Papists who yet overthrow by many false doctrines and superstitions what truths they professe no sure Neither are we to think the worse of Infant-baptism because it is used amongst them 3. Yea we make no doubt but that if in Italy Spain and France they would hold only that in doctrine worship and practice which is agreeable to Gods word even the holy Scripture which they professe to imbrace with us and cast away superstitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto reforming according to the word God would own them for his Churches neither should they need a new constitution or new Baptisme any more then new Scripture They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptism of their own but let them repent of and cast away their additions and keep that which is of God in judgement practice and worship according to the Scriptures which are amongst them and they become forthwith true and good Churches The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry by casting away that idolatry in the time of Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah was acknowledged a true and good Church without new constitution Nay more if backsliding Israel after her many abominations had returned to God when they had lien long in idolatry Ier. 3.1 2. 4.1 God would have received them as his people without new Circumcision Fourthly Whereas you say From this Infant-Baptism they are called Christians or Christendom You do not prove it We deny it and assert That we are called Christians or Christendom from our faith in Jesus Christ and the profession thereof and from our interest in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Christ the Mediatour exhibited yet granting that Baptism is the badge of our Christianity but not that which constitutes Christians What they of Rome or Spain say we passe not Fifthly Whereas you say or imply Baptism is dipping in your sense and call it sprinkling by way of scorn in our sense and would imply that Christ ordained and his Apostles practised dipping or as others expresse it dousing over the head not infusion or sprinkling We wish you to prove it if you can either from the proper signification of the word Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the accomplishment of this Prophecie Act. ● v. 3. 17 18. Act 10.44 11 15 16. Luk. 12.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa 63 1 3. or from the nature of the Ordinance or from the historical relation of the Apostles practice or otherwise We finde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash or bedew or imbrew lightly whether by infusion of or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch but that it should signifie only dipping or dousing the use of the word will not allow 1. It is used to signifie the ceremonial washing of cups pots brazen vessels or tables which may be as well done by infusion or pouring water upon them as by immersion or diping into the water yea in some of them much better 2. The same word is also used to signifie Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire This cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or douse men into the holy Ghost and fire but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghost should be poured upon them as the texts in the margin shew and that Christ would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people which Spirit in respect of operation is compared to fire as giving light heat c. 3. This word is used to signifie Christs death wherein his bloud was poured forth and sprinkled on himself and he washed in his own bloud I have saith he a Baptism to be baptized with and again Are you able to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with 4. This word is also used to signifie Christs execution of Justice on his enemies he being compared to a mighty warriour which with wounding and slaying his enemies is besprinkled with their bloud which spouts out of their body when they are gashed and pierced by him Our Translators render that in the Revelation having his garments dipped in bloud Rev. 19 13. But it may be well read as that in Isaiah sprinkled with bloud For warriours do not use to dip or douse their garments in their enemies bloud lying on the ground but well may they have their garments besprinkled therewith as it gusheth out of their bodies being wounded by them 2. As for the nature use and end of Baptism it is to signifie the pouring of the bloud and spirit of Christ on our souls for regeneration remission of sins and sanctification wherein we are not said to be dipped or doused into Christs bloud or spirit but to be sprinkled therewith or to have them poured upon us Heb. 9.13 14. chap. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 Isa 44.3 Act. 2.18 So that Prophecie of Christs besprinkling many Nations Isa 52.15 may be understood of his sprinkling them with his bloud which having spilled he was so deformed more then any man ver 14. for justification and his Spirit which by his truth he purchased for sanctification The scope of the text and coherence speaking of Christs sufferings and the fruits thereof confirm the interpretation as most natural and proper 3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptizing Iosh 3.17 Sometimes indeed it speaks of baptizing at the river Jordan but how improbable is it that they should go into that mighty stream 2 King 2.8 14. Act. 2.41 which could not be passed over safely on foot without a miracle and there be dipped with extream danger of drowning 2. We reade of baptizing in a City divers thousands in one day without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped 3. We reade of baptizing a whole houshold in a City in the deep night without the least intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped which if you consider well it may be you will not be so confident in calling baptizing dipping Sixtly You say that This baptizing or dipping of Beleevers was ordained of Christ and practised by the Disciples for the right constitution of true Churches This you speak as your own sense Ans This opinion was confuted before and by that which follows it shall further appear that neither Baptism

sign or seal The Assumption is expressely in the text Mat. 19.14 Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 10.14 Of such is the Kingdom of God So Luk. 18.16 speaking of little children yea ver 17. Christ with a serious asseveration asserts That whosoever receives not the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall in no wise enter thereinto And that this is meant not only of those particular children that were brought to Christ is plain 1. From what was said before to the former Argument 2. From the very words of Christ he saith not of these little children as excluding all other but of such that is the children of parents beleeving and in Covenant as those were which only the disciples and other men that are not able to see the hearts can judge to be such Ob. Ob. Here one objecteth This reason is grounded on a great mistake of the sense of the text A. R. for the words are not To such belongs the Kingdom but Of such is the Kingdom that is of none else but such as the next words which do follow in this text do manifestly declare for in Luk. 18.17 Mar. 10.15 in both places where Christ had said Suffer little children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of God he presently confirms it in the next words thus Verily I say Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter therein As also Mat. 18.34 Christ speaking to his disciples saith Except ye be couverted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little childe the same is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven his meaning is not of them or such as them in age nor understanding 1 Cor. 14.20 but of such as them in humility and like qualifications Ans Ans We neither by mistake say nor judge this place is to be rendred Vnto them belongs the Kingdom But the words are Of such is or to such belongs the Kingdom c. which makes more for our cause then if it had been said To them belongs c. two waies 1. Hence it is clear that our Saviour speaks not of those individuall Infants only but of all such as they Notwithstanding the Disciples through ignorance as before the Ascension they had many mistakes about Christs Kingdom thought possibly that such Infants were unfit subjects for the Kingdom of heaven he peremptorily affirms that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven indefinitely speaking of such that their non-age cannot debarre them from this heavenly and spiritual Kingdom Whereas if Christ had said of them it might have been thought that those children brought to Christ had by extraordinary priviledge or miracle right to Christs Kingdom Whereas by our Saviours expression such it appears to be the common and ordinary priviledge of the children of the faithfull 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas Christ saith Of such is the Kingdom though our Translators render it To such belongeth because the idiom of our Language will not so well bear the other phrase it implies that such are already in the Kingdom of God or visible Church as subjects and members thereof Whereas if Christ had said Belongs to them It might have been understood for the future in a remote possibility as the inheritance belongs to the Infant-heir though he be not in present possession viz. That when they should come to riper years they might be externally called and so brought within the Church whereas this expression of our Saviour shews that such are already within Christs Kingdom 2. Though we should mistake this place as the objector chargeth us in that we would gather hence that children are to be admitted to Christ and have the Seal of spiritual blessings Whereas he would make it the scope of this place not that they or such as they in age or understanding have right to the Kingdom of heaven but such as they in humility and like qualifications yet it 's not like that they which brought the children to Christ should be mistaken in their ends seeing none of the Evangelists speak of them as mistaken but rather mention their act by way of approbation which were for prayer and imposition of hands to conferre and signifie spiritual blessings which are the peculiar priviledges of Gods Kingdom Or if they should so far mistake themselves as to come for Christs blessing for their children though uncapable it is not probable but Christ would have reproved them for their errour before he admitted them and have told them that he would receive them to him only that they might be patterns of humility and such like qualifications to his Disciples but not so as if the Kingdom of heaven did belong to them or such as they were in age and understanding lest he should harden them in their errour But if Christ should have forborn to tell them of their errour and make use of it that he might set before his hearers a pattern of humility and such qualifications yet surely Christ himself would not so far mistake as to lay his hands on and blesse them that were uncapable of his blessing as they must needs be if the Kingdom of heaven belonged not to them nor any such for age for Christs blessing of persons so solemnly represented and signified or sealed with imposition of hands are doubtlesse the priviledges of his Kingdom so that this charge of mistake which the Objector makes must lie on the Objector himself or Christ 3. It cannot be proved that these words Whosoever receives not c. are brought as a reason of that saying Of such is the Kingdom It is not joyned to the former sentence by a causall particle But rather it is brought as a second reason why they are to be brought and admitted to Christ because they are not only fit subjects of the Kingdom of heaven but also may be patterns to the more ripe and aged 4. That place Mat. 18.34 nothing pertains to this History for it speaks of Christs teaching his Disciples humility of which doctrine he took occasion from his Disciples pride and emulation which discovered it self in that question Who is greatest in the Kingdom by setting in the midst of them there 's no mention of taking in his arms a little childe and therefore though this sentence may somewhat illustrate the later of these reasons in Mark and Luke yet it belongs not to this History or doctrine that is principally and purposely handled therein 5. But to make it evident that Christ when he saith Of such is the Kingdom means it of these very children and such as they in respect of age take these reasons 1. The Question was not Whether such as were indued with humility and like qualifications might come to Christ but Whether those Infants and such as they for age might The parents or whosoever brought them whose piety is here approved desired not that those