Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	reason_n	write_v	1,710	5	5.2625	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56404	Infant-baptisme justified by a nevv discovery and also, several scripture allegories adjusted upon the like account. By William Parker clerk, incumbent of Wrotham in Kent.	Parker, William, fl. 1651-1658.	1668 (1668)	Wing P485; ESTC R218672	58,769	81

we shall be much put to it to make some Scriptures true for where did Esau personally serve Jacob yet it 's said the elder shall serve the younger And if some Scriptures be not to be understood by way of office how barren and low in expre●s and matter do they seem to be in their sense and scope Yea some ridiculous absit blasphemia dicto as that of Jacob his cloathing of his Son in a party coloured Coat as great personages have done their Naturalists we heartil wish that themselves would behold their Naturalists Coat who are the innocent ones in great measure and improve the spectation of it to mind them to return to the end and scope of Josephs party coloured Coat which was to figure forth the various and divers virtues expressed and we exhorted unto 2 Pet. 1.4 5 6. that the Joseph the growing to perfection is cloathed with Phil. 3.14 15. And some passages in the Books called the Apocrypha are smiled at fit for nothing but movere cachinum to move laughter as that of Tobit and his Dog attending on him Now Tobit in its name signifies Goodness and what serviceable creature is there more ready to wait on his Master than the Dog is and therefore is not the Dog the fittest document and representative of the good will which will always wait upon Tobit the goodness in the renewed Humanity Hence in the Mysterie and by way of office and good document Tobit and his Dog are not so contemptible but a most useful meditation And Shingler in his Penteglotte intimates that the Book of Tobit was written in Hebrew and most call that Book and others Apocrypha because not written in Hebrew though in truth that is no reason if leasure would permit to argue it but whether it be a reason yea or no yet we think the truest reason for that those divided Books are called Apocrypha is because their Mysteries for want of Faith and diligence with Prayer to read them are hid from us It might seem as strange to read of our Saviours mixing clay and spittle to open the blind mans eyes if it were not understood to be by way of office and Mysterie as it was for carnal reason cannot but think that mode to be the ready way to have continued him blind but the foolishness of God is wiser than Men 1 Cor. 1.25 ver 27. And how ridiculous was it absit blasphemia dicto to carnal reason to see Christ riding upon an Ass to Jerusalem and garments spread under him and all the People shouting with acclamations before him and strewing Palm-branches in the way crying Hosanna to the highest this was strange to the letter learned Jews hence that was by way of office and good document of higher Mysteries If all were not appointed by design from God by way of office and better Document in Mysterie than the blind reason can comprehend they had been betrer pardon the expression left out what is the reason why the carnal wits say they can get as much good or more at a Play than hearing a Sermon which is or should be a discourse upon some portion more or less of the Scriptures profitable for Doctrine for correction to mend them that are too much lifted up in false perswasions of their safe being to raise them up which are too much though there are but few of them cast down in doubts and fears and also profitable for Exhortation to virtue and Dehortation from vice this should be the mode of a Sermon out of the pattern of healing words 2 Tim. 1.13 which is the speaking as of the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 And as for the Predicant he must do it saith the Apostle there as of the ability which God giveth for the end there expressed the original is more significant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the words properly and most fitly are as out of the strength which the Lord then supplyes for it is an old saying Spiritus non semper tangit corda Prophetarum Gods Spirit doth not always touch the hearts of the Prophets as it did Christ whereby he always spake as one having authority and not as the Scribes Matt. 7.27 Now whether one can get as much good at a Play to his betterment and to the good life that 's the state of the Case they may speak as good words as significant to their purpose and with as much 〈◊〉 to the sensible affections as the Predicant can do but if that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord supplies which comes forth from God be absent that is the enquiry if it be absent then it is not Gods Ordinance ut finis cui and so it passeth away as like water through a sieve one would have thought that Dives argument used to Abraham had been a most prevalent one to warn his Brethren to amend their lives by desiring him to send one from the dead to tell them of his torments who wanted now a drop of water to cool his tongue that abused his plenty of the best Equors in his life time but Abraham tells him they have Moses and the Prophets yet Moses was not then living for them to hear But let us hear them and if they hear not them saith Abraham neither will they be perswaded though one a●se again from the dead And we see it verifyed among our selves of late what hath the fore wasting Plague the raging and violent Fire in this City and the late War what have these we say reformed the generality of the People testify it that can Hence that which Abraham said is most true If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one come from the dead again All this we have spoken is to remove the empty pretence aforesaid and to mind us of that 1 Cor. 1.21 and when the world by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of Preaching to save them that believe and all this cannot be true out of the letter only but it is and must be out of the Spirit The truth is if we come to be perswaded that God designed most of his Holy Writings to be looked upon and applyed or spoken to us for higher Mysteries than the natural Creation we should find more benefit by reading of them than we have words or time to express as for instance if we look upon the 1. or 2. of Genesis which treats of the Worlds and Mans Creation to intend another Spiritual World also and the new Creation spoken of 2 Pet. 3.13 But we look for new Heavens and new Earth according to his promise wherein dwells righteousness would it not raise up your thoughts above this imperial world Secondly By looking upon something in the Scriptures beyond and under the letter it would preserve the Saints honour from that reproach which is cast upon them by something which the letter of the Scripture holde forth they did as what Lot and Noah did in

Infant-Baptisme JUSTIFIED BY A NEVV DISCOVERY And also Several Scripture Allegories adjusted upon the like Account By WILLIAM PARKER Clerk Incumbent of WROTHAM In KENT London Printed for the Author 1668. To the Reader Courteous Reader AS necessity brought and brings forth the investigation of all Arts especially Mechanick and perfects them So a kind of necessity puts us upon this attempt which we offer unto thee in reference to Infant-Baptism otherwise we had not put manum ad tabulant to declare what we have offered on Gods behalf for his allowance of the practice of Infant-Baptism upon the accounts respectively betwixt it and Circumcision in general and betwixt Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism in special to be considered in their Administrations respectively The said necessity is for that we have been scandalized and impleaded at Law for Printing as it 's fained in a certain Book called The late Assembly of Divines Confession of Faith examined concerning Infant-Baptism Where there is nothing we do appeal to all intelligent and unbyassed by-standers to give evidence against us if there be any thing Printed against it in the said Book when it 's examined what we have replyed to a certain Section in their Chapter of Baptism which they have there laid down and declared Their assertion in the fourth Section of the said Chapter is That not only those that do actually profess Faith in and Obedience to Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents for so they order it are to be Baptized To that aforesaid we have replyed and tell them that the said assertion so disposed in order and so magisterially laid down as it is we say it 's too far dipt in errour the reason why we use the said express Dipt is for that it 's an allusion to their own express Dipt Sect. 3. And truly there their fourth assertion is Dipt in errour upon a twofold account one the lesser yet an errour the other the greater which they are guilty of the lesser is the point of Order and Method For they say the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized which is à dictum frustra and immethodical For if it be true that Infants of one believing Parent are to be Baptized then much more of both believing Parents must be in rationality understood to be Baptized Therefore to lay down Infant-Baptism of believing Parents in that Order aforesaid is immethodicè dictum For it 's an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against method for if one of Believing Parents then much more of both ought to be Baptized This aforesaid we do but hint for that it 's but a Criticism from our observation though re verâ true against Order and Method as it is disposed by them in their said assertion And as for their further asserting that Infants are to be Baptized but not so much as taking notice and expressing in what respect Infants of believing Parents are to be Baptized is a great failing in defectu ex omissione for that there are two modes or respects to be considered in Baptizing Infants One is as it 's expressly commanded in Scripture to Baptize Infants The other as it is not forbidden in Scripture Both these respects aforesaid ought to have been considered by them and declared whether they do mean as it 's commanded expressly in Scripture or as it 's not expressly forbidden to Baptize Infants Now for them to impose as they do in their said assertion a kind of necessity of Baptizing Infants saying Infanss of such and such are to be Baptized and not declaring in what respect they are to be Baptized either as commanded or not forbidden This may occasion much errour for that it may make many to mistake their meaning upon the account aforesaid in reference unto the two said respective modes or manners of Baptizing Infants For who can tell but themselves since they deelare it not in what of the two modes they intend their said assertion to be taken viz. that Infants are to be Baptized Hence we come with our Reply and say their said assertion is two far Dipt in errour being too loosly and too generally laid down by them in that they name not the mode or manner how or in what respect Infants are to be Baptized for that as we reply Infants are no where in express tearms commanded to be Baptized Yet they may as we presently after say be Baptized for that Infant-Baptism is no where forbidden and also for that their being Baptized may be to as good purpose as we shall by and by demonstrate to others at present and to themselves afterward if occasion serve as ever Infant-Circumcision was administred for So that it appears that what we have there replyed unto their said assertion is and must be comprehended in a compound discr●et axiom which contains the totum integrale of what we have said constituted in two distinct modes manners or respects in and upon which Infants are not to be or may be Baptized And further we say in reference to their 5. Section that to deny Infant-Baptism in the Countreys and places where the Christian Magistrates require and command it to be done there to deny it we say is a Sin of contumacy against those Magistrates for that obedience to Magistrates is absolutely commanded Rom. 13. and Infant-Baptism is no where forbidden and for that it may be done upon so good an account as aforesaid From all aforesaid the intelligent and impartial by-stander may observe simplici uno intuitu that we have not Printed omnino altogether against Infant-Baptism but only against one mode or manner of Baptizing Infants as not commanded in express Scripture but owned in the other mode as it 's not forbidden Hence if our accusers had had so much discretion in them as to distinguish of a discreet axiom in which all that we have said in reference to Infant-Baptism is disposed and laid down as aforesaid they would have blusht to have impleaded us to Print especially altogether against Infant-Baptism for that a discreet axiom consists always of a negative and affirmative or affirmative and negative wherein it 's disposed at least it always consists of two dissentany or disagreeing parts in which one of them only is true the other is not as for instance Nabal was a rich man but a Fool Abraham was a rich Man yet a wise Man Where we see in those two instances two differing parts respectively both parts disagreeing respectively in each as rich but differing in both other parts respectively in reference to wisdom and folly Abraham being a rich Man and Wise But Nabal a rich Man yet a Fool but they might have been respectively one like the other in Riches and Wisdom and in Riches and Folly for that both are contingent and not necessary axioms because they might have been otherwise then they are Hence such axioms are called discreet axioms differing only in some Logical respects in their parts and not