Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	father_n	worship_v	worshipper_n	5,153	5	12.8389	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85387	Cata-baptism: or new baptism, waxing old, and ready to vanish away. In two parts. The former containes LVIII. considerations, (with their respective proofs, and consectaries) pregnant for the healing of the common scruples touching the subject of baptism, and manner of baptizing. The latter, contains an answer to a discours against infant-baptism, published not long since by W.A. under the title of, Some baptismall abuses brielfy discovered, &c. In both, sundry things, not formerly insisted on, are discovered and discussed. / By J.G. a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.	1655 (1655)	Wing G1155; Thomason E849_1; ESTC R207377	373,602	521

11 12 13 14. Yea Solomon saith The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord. Pro. 15. 8. 21. 27. These places with many more of a like import that might readily be added unto them doe with a surplussage of evidence prove that much benefit did NOT accrue to the doers of the things specified upon the account of the deed done And yet of the two there is much more reason why benefit should accrue unto the doers of such things of the Law as these upon the work done then upon their being Circumcised For 4. Whereas he saith that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done if he speaks of those that were circumcised according to the standing Law viz. on the eight day who were farre the greatest part of the Iewish nation the work it self of Circumcision was not done by them but by others to them unknown Whereas the offering of incense and of sacrifices the observation of the new moons sabbaths and other feasts appointed by the law were works done by persons themselves Now questionlesse if there be any benefit accruing unto men upon the work done it is more like to accrue in this kind upon works done by persons themselves then upon works done totally by others and without their knowledge desire or consent Nor doth nor can Mr. A. give us any substantiall account either from the Scriptures or otherwise why the benefit of Baptism should be more suspended upon the knowledge faith c. of him who is baptized then the benefit of Circumcision was suspended upon the like qualifications of the circumcised For Sect. 128. 5. The Texts of Scripture which he cites prove no such difference as this between the two Ordinances Circumcision and Baptism nor do they either divisim or con●unctim prove or so much as colour with a proof that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done For what though the Apostle saith and this by way of contradistinction from the voyce of the Gospell or righteousnesse of faith The man that doth those things shall live by them yet is it no part of his meaning to implie or teach that by the literall performance of the Legall ceremonies men either were or might have been saved The Law of which the Apostle speaks is not the Law of Ceremonies which Mr. A. understandeth but the whole system or body of precepts and commandments delivered by Moses Nor is the Apostles doing those things the same with Mr. A's doing them The Apostle must needs be conceived to speak of such a doing of the things of the Law which includes as well the spiritualitie or perfection of the Law and of the severall precepts thereof at least in will desire and endeavour as the bare letter or externalitie of it For God never made any such Covenant with or promise unto any man that by doing externals only he should be either justified or saved which Mr. A's doing evidently supposeth Nor doth his second Scripture stand any whit closer to his cause then the first For when the Apostle saith Gal. 3. 12. The Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them his meaning is not that the Law required not as well the conformitie and subjection of the inward man unto it as viz. in Love Faith Holinesse Humilitie c. as of the outward consisting of a meere bodily observation of so much of it as might thus be observed but that the voice purport or tenour of the Law did exact of all those who expected justification by it yea in a sense of all men simply an universall and constant obedience and subjection unto it in the whole compasse and extent of it according to what he had more plainly said a verse or two before Cursed is every one that CON●INUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the Law to do them in which respect it is said not to be of Faith i. not to promise justification unto any act of Faith or beleeving in another Whereas the tenor of the Gospel although it simply requireth as perfect and thorow an obedience unto all the precepts of it as the Law did to all the precepts thereof yet it exacteth not this obedience upon the same inexorable terms nor doth it threaten every person no nor any person with a curse who shall not con●nue in all things which are written therein to d● them in case they shall truly and unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ So that these two Scriptures rightly understood know nothing either of reason or truth in Mr. A's cause Sect. 129. His other Scriptures levied upon the same account p. 27. 28. do scarce so much as face the design which they are brought into the field to advance For what though the ministration of the Law be called the ministration of the letter and the Ordinances thereof carnall Ordinances and such as did no● make perfect as pertaining to the conscience or again that the Apostle to shew wherein the Gospell or new Covenan● exceeds the Law or old one saith that according to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men and writes them in their hearts Heb. 8. 10 Or again that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth what is there I say in all or in any of these or in twenty more of a like import to prove that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done or that the benefit of baptism is any whit more suspended upon the knowledge Faith c. of him who is baptized then the benefit of Circumcision was c All that can be inferred from these and such like passages are only these and such like notions That God is more communicative of the clear knowledg of himself and of the mysterie of his will concerning the salvation of the world by Jesus Christ under the Gospell then he was under the Law that the anointing of the generalitie of the Saints with the Spirit under this dispensation the Law was nothing so rich or full as it now is under the Gospel that the instituted worship especially the publique worship and service of God under the Law consisted in a farre greater number and varietie of external rites and observations then now under the Gospell that the hearts of the people yea of the people of God themselves were generally nothing so raised or enlarged to the obedience of God under the Law as they are and especially will be when the time cometh under the Gospell c. But none of these things prove so much as inshew that according to the nature of the legal ministration children void of understanding and faith were any whit more capable of holy things or of the end● and benefits of them in part upon a literall administration or reception of them then children now are under the Gospell For my better

affirmed in the case unto all that should have opposed or questioned him about it Origen likewise who lived about 200 yeers nearer to the times of the Apostles then Austin and not much above an 100 yeers after the death of the Apostle John and consequently being a very learned industrious and inquiring man could not but know what was done in a businesse of that publick nature in the Apostles times this Author I say expressely affirmeth that the Church FROM THE APOSTLES had received a tradition or practise to administer Baptism even unto little ones a Pro hoc Eccl sia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi c. Origen ad Rom. c. 6. v. 5 6 c. Yea and subjoins a reason which as he conceived induced the Apostles to this practice However this Author was not so sound in many points of Doctrine as some other of the Fathers although there was none of them who did not now and then step besides the way of truth as neither is there any amongst those themselves who are the severest observers of their errors but are obnoxious also in the same kind yet as to matter of fact I suppose him as competent a witnesse as the Law of God lately mentioned intendeth He that desireth to see more of the sence of antiquity about the point in hand may consult the writing of Dr. Holms and Mr. Stephen Marshal and especially Mr. Richard Baxter against Mr. Tombs the first in his Animadversions upon Mr. Tombs his exercitation c. c. 13. p. 107. c. the second in his Defence of Infant-Baptism in answer to two Treatises c. beginning pag. 7. to the end of pag. 61. The third and last in his Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-member-ship and Baptism Part. 2. cap. 15. pag. 152 153 154 c. See also pag. 262 263 c. and pag. 374 375. To which he may please to adde a short Treatise intituled Infant-Baptism published some yeers since by Mr. Robert Ram Minister of Spalding in Lincolnshire In this Treatise the Reader amongst other things shall find a breviate drawn out of the Centuries of the Divines of Magdeburgh pointing at such passages in the said Centuries wherein the continued practise of Infant-baptism for 1300 yeers together from the Apostles times is demonstrated from Histories and Authors of best account In the two former besides many pregnant testimonies from the most ancient writers evincing the descent of Infant-baptism from the Apostles he shall find both the authentiquenesse of the Authors from whence the said testimonies are cited fully vindicated against those pretences which are levied by Anti-poedo-baptists against their authorities respectively as also such colourable arguments substantially answered which are by these men drawn by head and shoulders from antiquity So that nothing needs to be added upon any of these accounts beyond what hath been done lately by others and is I presume of ready procurement by any that is desirous of satisfaction in any of the particulars Sect. 27. To the testimonies and authorities of ancient writers who are one and all in asserting the lineal descent of Infant-baptism from the Apostles I shall onely subjoin the sence and judgement in the case of that learned and worthy Martyr in Queen Maries daies Mr. John Philpot in a letter written to a fellow prisoner of his at the same time in Newgate recorded in the book of Martyrs Vol. 3. pag. 606. of the last edition A. 1555. together with a testimony from Robert L. Brook cited by Mr. Tombs for Anti-poedo-baptism in which respect I conceive his testimony will be the more passable with Mr. A. and men of his judgement But first in one place the Martyr saith Now will I prove with manifest arguments that children ought to be baptized and that THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST DID BAPTIZE CHILDREN In another Since the Apostles were the Preachers of the word and the very faithfull servants of Jesus c. who may hereafter doubt that THEY BAPTIZED INFANTS since Baptism is in place of Circumcision In a third Therefore we may conclude that THE APOSTLES DID BAPTIZE INFANTS OR CHILDREN and not onely men of lawfull age More of like import might be cited from this letter if it were needfull So that unlesse Mr. A. or men of his mind can produce some negative testimony or witnesse from the Scripture which do as expresly deny the baptizing of children by the Apostles as these lately produced by me and many more in far greater numbers produced by others do affirm it the affirmative is to be taken for truth and this by the expresse law of God mentioned which saith that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established This Law was made by God to over-rule and issue cases and questions of life and death and consequently of far greater import then whether children were baptized or no by the Apostles Secondly for the L. Brook his words towards the end of his book concerning Episcopacy are these First for ought I could ever learn it was the constan● custome of the purest and most primitive Church to baptiz● infants of beleeving Parents For I could never find the b●ginni●g and first rise of this practise whereas it is very easi● to track heresies to their first rising up and setting foot into the Church Again I find all Churches even the most strict have ge●erally been of this judgement and practise yea though th●re h●ve been in all ages som● that much affected NOVEL●Y and had parts enough to discusse and clear what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ●ver questioned by men of note till within these last ages And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture It may be Mr. A. will object that the witnesses intended by God in his law are onely such who can speak to the case in question upon their own knowledge as having been either eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses themselves of what they testifie not such who testifie upon the credit or assertions of others To this I answer that Justin Martyr Ireneus Origen Cyprian Augustine with many other studious and learned men about their times all things considered had as considerable as unquestionable grounds for what they testifie concerning the practise of Infant-baptism by the Apostles as a witnesse who speaks or gives evidence upon the credit of his eyes can reasonably be supposed to have for such his testimony For as it is possible for a man to have a myst cast before his eyes or to suffer such a Deceptio visûs a deception of his signt that may occasion him to beleeve with confidence that he seeth such or such a thing which indeed he seeth not yet this possibility dis-ableth no mans testimony who giveth evidence upon the authority of his eyes in like manner there being no more then a bare

possibility and this not degreed neither like the other that the Authors mentioned should be mistaken in the grounds upon which they build their testimony of the practice of Infant-Baptism by the Apostles it is very importune dis-ingenuous and hardly consistent with a good conscience for any man to reject their testimony in the case And if Mr. A. himself and three or four more of his judgement of equall repute with him for sober and conscientious men although I beleeve his new opinion and way hath not at all tenerized or bettered his conscience nor any other mans should report any thing upon grounds as pregnant with evidence of truth unto them as the grounds upon which the fathers testified the baptizing of children by the Apostles were unto them I should without much scruple beleeve him yea though the thing reported by him in this case should in it self be much more incredible then that children were baptized by the Apostles Nor is it at any hand to be beleeved or thought that the said Authors their gravity wisdom interest and authority in the Churches of Christ in their daies over and besides the most approved goodnesse of their Consciences considered would upon conjectural or light grounds or such which had been liable to dis-proof asserted any such matter of fact as that Yea that which is more then this their adversaries themselves I mean the Pelagians who were great opposers of Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers about his daies men of great learning subtile diligent and studious in their way against whose Doctrine and Tenents the baptizing of infants was one of the grand arguments or objections urged and insisted on by the Orthodox Fathers yet never denied or so much as questioned the truth of what they constantly affirmed touching the descent of Infant-Baptism from the Apostles To pretend that the writings at this day passing under the names of the fore-named fathers may for ought we know be spurious and counterfeit or else depraved and corrupted and that upon this account the authority of any thing found in them is not much to be valued thus I say to pretend argue and conclude is worthy onely such men whose consciences will serve them rather to say any thing and to seek out any frivolous or puted evasion then to yeeld to the truth However if Mr. A. can offer any thing for proof of the negative that children were not baptized by the Apostles which in the eye of unpartial and considering men doth any waies to any proportion or degree ballance the weight of what hath been alledged from many competent witnesses for the affirmative I shall let go the hold I have taken on the credit of their testimony in the case which untill then I suppose himself will judge meet and Christian that I should keep In the mean time the premises together with what we shall upon somewhat a like account immediately subjoin considered I do with very little lesse confidence beleeve that Children were baptized in the Apostles daies then I beleeve the Sunne to be up at noon day Therefore Sect. 28. 7. It is very considerable also for the discovery of the truth in the businesse in hand that the times when and for the most part the occasions whereupon those additional ceremonies which for a long time accompanied the baptizing of infants as God-fathers and God-mothers so called with some others had their first rise and original may from current histories be shewed and found Whereas no history whatsoever undertaketh to report when the baptizing of infants came first into the Church which is no light argument or proof that this practise was more ancient then any Ecclesiastical history now extant and consequently as ancient as the times of the Apostles For it is altogether improbable that any History should take notice of appurtenances or additional circumstances and record the time of their introduction into the Church and not withall take and give knowledge of the time when the fundamental and main practice it self first began in case the beginning hereof had fallen within that compasse of time which the said History traverseth What Mr. Tombs impertinently attempteth from the councel of Carthage hath been sufficiently staved and beaten back by others a Dr. Hosms Animad upon Mr. Tombs his Exercit. p. 167 168. c. Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 40. Nor is there any thing more apparent from History then the mention of Infant-baptism before that councel For the first councel of Carthage which it is like Mr. Tombs meaneth though he distinguisheth not there having been several of the name was held about the yeer 217. according to some computations several yeers after whereas there is mention of ●nfant-Baptism as we heard both in Origen who died before this councel as also in Justin Martyr Ireneus yea and Tertullian who all lived neerer to the times of the Apostles then Origen And it may be worth some observation that Augustine who as we have heard so frequently constantly upon occasion asserteth Infant-baptism it self to have been practised in the Apostles times yet speaking of the custome of interrogating the infant to be baptized by the Susceptores or those that brought it to Baptism whom we call God-fathers and God-mothers affirmeth no such thing concerning this though otherwise he indeavoureth to give the best account of it he can to his friend and fellow-Bishop Boniface Epist 23. Sect. 29. 8. Although no History records either when or by whom Infant-baptism was first brought into the Church yet is the first opposing of it ascribed by good History to an Arrian Heretique named Auxentius with his adherents as the most learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Phi●pot formerly mentioned affirmeth in that letter whereof we took notice in the beginning of § 27. The diligent perusal of this letter alone is enough to make Ana-baptism the abhorring of any intelligent mans soul This Auxentius I find upon the stage acting the part first of a subtile and afterwards of an imperious insulting Arrian about the year 369. So that untill this time the baptizing of Infants it seems was never so much as questioned in the Churches of Christ and he who first questioned and opposed it opposed withall the God-head of Christ So that Mr. A. and his have no great cause to boast of the founder of their Faith in the Doctrine of Anti-poedo-baptism as neither have they of one of the greatest defenders of it since the late resurrection of it from the dead in Germany Lodivicus Hetzer by name who with Auxentius denied the Divinity of Christ and besides was a notorious Adulterer and withall was confident that he was able to justifie his adulterous practises by the Scriptures Indeed the History reporteth that at last he very seriously repented of all as well his Anabaptism for so I understand my Authors Quorum omnium as of his Arrianism and Adulteries a Constantiae quarta Februarij capite truncatur Ludovicus Hetzer Ana-baptistarum