Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	damn_v	unrighteousness_n	2,037	5	11.2658	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31094	A briefe answer to A discourse, lately written by one P.B., to prove baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the ordinance of Iesus Christ, and the baptizing of infants to be agreeable to the word of God wherein is declared ... that true baptisme and a false church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together : and also maintained, that the baptizing of infants hath no authority from the Scriptures / by R. Barrow.	Barrow, Robert, d. 1697.	1642 (1642)	Wing B967; ESTC R12474	18,380	26

Antichrist had beene thus universall he saith the Waldenses who appeared in the dawne of the day could not truly have beene called the first fruits unto God as he conceiveth they were pag. 2. We say so too and also firme that the visible Church could not continue under that defection because it 's said it was given to him to make warre with the Saints and to overcome them and if to overcome them they could not continue for if they had not continued then he did not overcome them and kill them with the sword as it is said hee did Rev. 13.7.10 compared with Dan. 7.21.25 Moreover it is said that those which worshipped the Beast were such whose names were not written in the Lambs booke of life therefore the visible Church could not continue under that defection But if it did not there continue yet haply it might continue under the Greekes To this he answereth that indeed the Greekes did not alwayes subject themselves to the Romane power yet were they very little short in defection in so much that according to the measure whereby the Romanists are measured they will stand and fall together well but I demand although the Church did not continue under the defection of Antichrist nor yet under the Greekes whether he doe not conceive that some man may be found able though hee cannot himselfe to make it appeare that the the visible Church hath continued elsewhere in the world Vnto this he answereth that he believeth none can be found able to make any such continuance of the Church to appeare page 3. if any could he would thanke God for such a discovery And who then can believe his exposition of Esay 9.7.59.21 c. seeing that his owne mouth testifieth that no man can be found able to make the truth thereof to appeare and therefore it must needs follow that he hath given a false interpretation of the Scriptures by him alledged to prove the perpetuity of the visible Church neither will he himselfe nor any other be able to cleare him from the imputation of a false Prophet and one that hath spoken presumptuously in the name of the Lord Deut. 18.22 therefore having thus confuted himselfe in this point I thinke it a needlesse thing for mee to spend any more time in the confutation of it But seeing hee confesseth that none can be found able to make any such continuance of a visible Church as he speaketh of to appeare why are we by him blamed for not believing such a continuance page 4. and why are we so often charged for not believing the continuance thereof under the defection of Antichrist pag. 3.4.5 and 9. And why also are we accused for making Christ a widower in not believing a perpetuall succession of the visible Church of Christ seeing he himselfe believeth no man can prove the perpetuall succession thereof What would he have us believe that which he cannot believe himselfe Herein hee is much more uncharitable then the Pope who requireth none to believe what hee and his Church believeth not If Christ must be a widower except he hath alwayes a visible Church in the world then there is no salvation out of the visible Church because none can be saved which are not first united to and made one with Christ and then what shall become of those believers which in all ages have appeared such as Ierome of Prague Iohn Hus c. who lost their lives for the testimonie of Jesus and were never members of any true visible Church I hope P. B. will not say that they perished in their sins and if they were saved then were they espoused unto and united to Christ and if so then Christ hath and so may have a Spouse although no visible Church but P.B. I conceive was so studious when he wrote his booke to bring absurdities upon us that he altogether forgot himselfe Furthermore seeing hee cannot believe that any can be found able to make the continuance of the visible Church to appeare and that as hee saith The administration of Baptisme doth so depend thereupon that by no meanes possible it can be had elsewhere without a speciall commission given from heaven for that purpose such as Iohn the Baptist had page 4. 6. I demand where or of whom P. B. received his Baptisme from the visible Church he received it not for he knoweth not where any such Church is neither doth hee believe that any man can make any such Church to appeare to have continued in the world if any could he would blesse God for such a discovery page 3. 4. Belike then hee received it from one that had a speciall commission like to that of Iohn the Baptists at least by his discourse he would have us to thinke so but I know it will appeare that it was but a Bull But being unwilling to receive this confutation from himselfe or having begun a Discourse so quickly to finish it hee proceeds and tells us that seeing he believes that none can make it appeare that the visible Church hath continued from under the defection of Antichrist then it is more then probable that it hath continued under that defection page 3. But I demand how that can be probable seeing that but a little before he told us and also proved that the defection and falling away under Antichrist was very great and marvellous universall and therefore were the Waldenses who appeared in the dawning of the day not unfitly called the first fruits unto God for they could not be the first if there had beene a continuance page 2. but he saith 2 Thes. 2.4 it is said That the Sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe above all that is called God or that is worshipped sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himselfe that he is God and therefore the Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist What is this but I Sir no Sir But I answer That the Temple here spoken of wherein the Man of Sinne sitteth and is worshipped cannot be taken to be the Church of God or that Temple of the living God whereof Iesus Christ is the Head Ephes. 1.22 and wherein God himselfe dwelleth and walketh 2 Cor. 6.16.17 The reason is because that in 3. verse of this Chapter it is said That the Man of Sinne is not revealed untill first there be a falling away and therefore his comming is said verses 9. 10. to be withall deceivablenesse in whom not in the Church but in them that perish who because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved therefore God sent them strong delusions that they should believe lies that all they might perish who received not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousnesse verse 9.10.11.12 Whereupon it must needs follow that that Temple or Societie wherein Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped consisteth of persons departed from the faith verse 3. who are by God justly for that cause given up to believe lies that so

they may perish and be damned and therefore not in any wise to be esteemed the Church of Christ or Temple of the living God And this must needs be so from his owne ground seeing that by Antichrist here spoken of he understandeth the Beast mentioned Rev. 13. as apeareth by his applying this Scripture against Antichrist pag. 2. Now for as much as those that wonder after the Beast and worship him are said to be such whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of Life Rev. 13.8 he cannot therfore understand the same to be the Temple of God where Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped unlesse he conceive that the Church of Christ consisteth of such persons whose names are not written in the Booke of Life which I suppose hee doth not and therefore I conclude from his own grounds that the Temple spoken of in the 2 Thes. 2.4 is no more the Temple of God then Antichrist who sitteth therein and is worshipped is God himselfe nor is otherwise to be esteemed nor hath hee any reason more to affirme the one then he hath to affirme the other from hence therefore it cannot be made to appeare probable that the visible Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist but it must stand as P. B. at first affirmed page 2. that under the defection of Antichrist it could not continue But suppose it were probable that the Church had continued under that defection then he saith pag. 3. that Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is differenced hath there likewise continued and there also it will be probable that his Baptisme derived from thence is the Baptisme of Iesus Christ Here we may take notice by way that the best ground he hath for his faith in this particular is but a probability well but seeing that he holdeth that baptisme dependeth upon the true Church then where no true Church is there can be no true Baptisme Now I need not here demand whether conceives the Church of Rome to be a true Church because in his Epistle to the Reader page 5. he desireth that none should thinke so of him for there he saith that he holds that state to be the mother of Fornications the great whore Sodome and Egypt c. therfore it must needs hence follow that the Church of Rome hath not Christs Baptisme for thus he reasoneth if the Church hath continued then Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is differenced hath continued page 3. But the Church of Rome hath not continued the Church of Christ but is become the mother of fornications Sodome and Egypt as he faith in his Epistle page 5. therefore the Baptisme of Christ by which the matter of the Church is differenced hath not continued in the Church of Rome whereas therefore page 5. hee desireth those which hold that the Church and Baptisme hath not continued under the defection of Antichrist would shew him the error and absurdity of such an opinion he may easily discover the error and absurdity hereof himselfe if he will but take notice of what hee hath herein written viz. That Baptisme differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false pag. 3.4 whence it will necessarily follow that if the baptisme of the Church of Rome be the Baptisme of Christ which differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false then Rome the false matter must thereby be differenced from it selfe and become a true Church as when at first shee received Christs Baptisme and then shall Rome be no longer Rome but a true Church and State differenced from a false by her baptisme which differenceth the true matter from the false and therefore for any to hold the church of Rome to be a false church as P. B. doth and withall to maintaine that she retaineth the Baptisme of Christ whereby the true matter of the Church is differenced from the false is as much as if a man should affirme even as he doth that Rome is the mother of fornications and also that Rome is the true Spouse of Iesus Christ which is both absurd and contradictory I will therefore conclude this point thus Seeing that true Baptisme differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false as P.B. saith and yet the baptisme of the church of Rome doth not difference her from the false matter as he also affirmeth in his Epistle page 5. therefore the baptisme of the church of Rome is not that Baptisme of Christ which differenceth the true matter from the false page 3.4 Secondly That Church which hath no other baptisme then the Baptisme of Rome which differenceth not the true matter from the false cannot thereby be differenced from the false church but P.B. and his church have no other baptisme then the baptisme of the church of Rome which differenceth not the true matter from the false therfore P. B. and his church are not yet differenced from the false Church Whether therefore Christ will owne the same for his Spouse or reject her as a Harlot sprung from the mother of Fornications and Harlos may very well be a question without Question But he saith page 6. If the visible Church hath not continued then Baptisme is ceased and being ceased without a speciall commission such as Iohn the Baptist had at first to baptize it can never be againe obtained To this I answer That although Baptisme were ceased as hee intends it viz. That there were no baptized persons in the world to be found yet so long as Baptisme the Ordinance of God is found in the word with a Commission serving to the end of the world for Believers or Disciples to make and baptise Disciples as Mat. 28.19.20 Baptisme may be againe obtained without any such speciall Commission as that which at first was given to Iohn the Baptist for it will not follow that because Iohn the Baptist might not baptise before baptisme was instituted he commanded to baptise that therefore Believers after baptisme is instituted and commanded to make and baptise Disciples may not lawfully baptise such as are made Disciples no more then it will follow that because Abraham might not circumcise himselfe and his Males before circumcision was instituted and he commanded so to doe that therefore the Israelites after circumcision was instituted and they commanded to observe the same might not without a speciall Commission such as Abraham had lawfully circumcise their Males It was necessary indeed that Iohn the Baptist should have a speciall commission to baptise Baptisme being not before instituted nor yet he nor any other person required to baptise as it was necessary to the first building of the Temple that a patterne should be given Chron. 28.11.12 but as then another patterne was not expected as necessary for the rebuilding therof at the peoples returne out of captivity who performed all things according to the first appointment and ordination Ezra 3. so neither is it requisite now baptisme being ceased that a new