Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	work_n	work_v	worth_a	23	3	8.9277	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47591	Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the antient Britains [sic] being an answer to a book, iutituled [sic] Children's baptism from Heaven, published in the Welsh tongue by Mr. James Owen / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1696 (1696)	Wing K75; ESTC R32436	280,965	390

when they will for in this Secrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb because in that Confession the Liberty of every ones Choice is declared Whence we may infer 1. That in that age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them 2. That in those times in the Confession of Faith in the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ which was done in a Publick and Solemn manner in their Baptism a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb to declare this Choice and Consent is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother 3. That it was then judg'd necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this passage viz. that concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child that her Baptism concerns not her Child for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession saith however the interpreters draw it to another purpose it does appear that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother which notwitstanding ought not to be used nor to be baptized except of its own proper Election and Profession Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to Mr. T. saith I believe there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-Baptism nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom and Naziarzen a good while after dislikes it Sure I am saith he that in the primitive times they were Cat●cum●ni then Illuminati or Baptizati and that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans Converted but Children of Christian Parents The Truth is I do believe Pedo-Baptism how or by whom I know not came into the World in the second Century and in the third and fourth began to be practised though not generally and was defended as lawful from the Text John 3. 〈◊〉 grosly misunderstanding it upon the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. 53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church Communicate Infants and gave them the Lord's Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either c. Thus Bishop Barlow 〈◊〉 saith Pedo-Baptismus duobus primis a Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit incognitus c. Pedo Baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ but in the third and fourth it was approved of by a few in the fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received And therefore as afterwards he saith the right in indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom but 〈◊〉 an Apostolical Tradition The same learned Author saith De peccato Orig. Numb 〈◊〉 saith Morem Infantes Baptizandi non capisse 〈…〉 Seculum c. That the custom of 〈◊〉 infants did not begin till the Third Age 〈◊〉 Christ but in the two former no footsteps of it appear And afterwards saith Sine ipsius Christi 〈…〉 it was introduced without the command of Christ Athanasius in sermone 3 contra Arianos saith our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize but first of all said Teach and then Baptize that true Faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by Faith Haimo in Postilla upon the Text Go teach all Nations Fol. 278. In this place saith he is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize that is that Teaching should go before Baptism for he saith teach all Nations and then he saith and baptize them for he that is to be baptized must be before instructed that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive for as Faith without works is Dead so Works when they are not of Faith are nothing worth Idem in Annatationibus in mar The Apostles were commanded first to Teach and then to baptize The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledge of the Truth but Christians must learn to know them first Beda saith all those that came to the Apostles to be baptized were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptism then they received the Holy Administration thereof Rabanus the Catechi which is the Doctrine of Faith must go before Baptism to the intent that he that is to be baptized i. e. Catechamenus may first learn the Mysteries of Faith Arnobius Thou art not first saith he baptized and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith but when thou art to be baptized thou signifie unto the Priest what thy desire is and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth Jerom upon Matt. saith The Lord commandeth his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all Nations and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith for it cannot be saith he that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul have received the true Faith Sir What think you now of the Testimony of the ancient Fathers and of the practice of the Churches after the Apostles days Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have the advantage here too and you must yield whether you will or no and give up the Controversie But to proceed Your first Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism in the days after the Apostles is this viz. because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority Ans This signifies nothing for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes so they changed imposition of Hands which I own to be a principle of Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 12 to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith But clear it is in the primitive Apostolical times none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of laying on of Hands as Acts 8. 14. and 19. 6. But your Brother Mr. Burkit acknowledgeth that formerly there were such called Catechumeni Persons taught or instructed and afterwards baptized He saith further that there were two sorts the last he brings for his purpose but I know not where he hath his Testimony and therefore pass it by So much to your first Demonstration from the Fathers Your second Demonstration to prove Infant Baptism is this viz. because in the primitive times Infants were admitted to the Lord's Supper therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism Ans And they had say I as much Ground for the one as for the other and there is the same parity of reason to conclude as they erred in one so they did in the other Why doth you not from hence give Infants also the Lord's Supper The Reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to his third Demonstration

in time call give grace to and so change their evil and depraved Natures if not do you not heap up a multitude of evils upon them and hereby make their condition worse or aggravate their Sin and misery for ever I know not whether you be of this Pedo-baptists mind or not but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Christian Catechism If God had required Infants to enter into such Covenant some reason he might have thus to speak But since neither he nor you can prove it This to me seems a daring boldness in a Minister of the Gospel to assert who I hope is a good Man God I grant expects that all true believers should perform their Baptismal Covenant but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it they freely of their own choice enter into it also they are such God hath given habitual Grace to perform it And he hath promised them also a farther supply of Grace to enable them so to do but nothing of this you can prove in Infants Covenanting in their Baptism but more of this by and by nor will their Sureties help the matter for if they cannot perform those things they promise for themselves how should they be able to do it for others besides 't is an humane Invention and not appointed of God But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrine afflicts my Mind Strange is this Sin the damning Sin I thought the damning Sin by way of eminency had been the Sin of unbelief Suppose your own Child should not believe he is bound by vertue of that Baptismal Covenant you brought him into but when grown up disowns that you call Baptism c. for his not believing 't is a Truth of Christ must he be damned But to proceed Mr. Burkitt having shewed the advantages of Infant Baptism without giving one Scripture Text to prove what he says is true he in Page 38. comes to shew that Baptism is more useful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy then to omit it till riper Age because no Infant Membership is capable of Hypocrisy which Persons grown up are 1. Answ Then give them the Lords Supper also for doubtless if they receive it they will not eat and drink their own damnation as may be some that have it given to them do I tremble at what you dare to say and write in which you seem to arraign the Wisdom of the ever blessed Jesus who he hath appointed believers or Adult persons who are gracious to be Baptized and none else and do you say the Ordinance better suites with the Ignorant Babes should you dictate to your Earthly Prince would he allow it much less to contradict or Correct him as if your Wisdom were more then his 2. Mr. Burkitt sayth 't is more advantageous to Infants than those of riper years as it is a pre-engagement upon them to resist Temptations Answ He may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants which may be more plausible ones too may you not when they know what they do make them take a Solemn Oath or enter into Bonds upon pain of severe Punishment that they shall not yield to Temptations and pretend 't is God's Law they should do so which if you can deceive their Judgments they will dread as much nay it may be more the breaking those Oaths and Covenants then this you bring them into without any authority from Jesus Christ 3. Mr. Burkitt saith Baptism in Infancy is more advantageous then at riper years as it is an early remedy against the malady of Original sin Answ Speak Doth Baptism take away Original sin or free them from that Malady or not you know some of the Antient Fathers were carryed away with such a dream how comes it to pass then that this contagion appears so soon and to be as strong in your Children as in ours who never were Baptized at all But does not St. Peter tell you 1. Pet. 3. 20. Baptism washes not away the filth of the Flesh Or is not Original Pollution a filth of the Flesh What stuff is this you would force upon us and the World we affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance then any other Why do you say of no Right but this we challenge all the World by God's Word to prove that they are capable of Baptism any more then of the Lords Supper 4. He says Baptism Administred to Infants has this advantage it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from that consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons sins Answ He is I find one of Mr. Wiliams's Brethren i. e. he is of his belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children whengrown up enough sins to mourn for and bewail before the Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you know they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of Human Nature that there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural work of Grace their Burden is heavy enough you need not add to it 2. Is it not sad that Men should give cause to their Children to think they are guilty of Perjury when in truth they never were nor of Apostacy from God upon that account Our first Apostacy was bad enough you need not go about to make them guilty of another Alas their pretended baptism never brought them one step nearer to God then those Children are who were never Baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy he speaks of 3. You hereby bring them under necessity of committing the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in others too if they can believe what this Man says and so to cause them to mourn for that or those sins most which may be if all things were rightly con●…'d are no sins at all I do not mean that any of t●… actual transgressions may not be sin but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant For if God brought them not into that Covenant nor into any Covenant relation with himself thereby I cannot see how there should be such a sting in the Tayl of it as he affirms and indeed had they themselves of their own accord and consent entered into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant which they were no ways able to perform it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not besides I hope they have not forsworn themselves how then is it Perjury 4. Moreover I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children and you also to consider in the fear of God the natural tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant 1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God

at all and so cast off and renounce their Infants Rautism that they hereby become guilty of Perjury and must be Damned for he speaks not of those sins forbidden in God's Word but the violation of this baptismal Covenant which he saith is Perjury and the Damning Sin and Root of all Sin O! what want of Charity is here in these Men and what New and strange Doctrine do they Teach 2. Train up your Children in the fear of God and set them a good example and pray for them and over them and give them good Instruction godly Counsel and Admonition And see that you neglect not to Catechise them daily that so they may understand early the main Grounds and Principles of Religion but dread to Baptize them in Infancy or before they believe and have the inward and Spiritual Grace signified in true Baptism You have had it proved from God's Word that there is no Ground nor Authority from thence to baptize Infants and know 't is not in the power of Man by external Rite to bring Children into the Covenant of Grace nor to make them Members of his Visible Church neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Bread for Infants but for Christ's New Born Babes 1 Pet. 2. 1 2 3 5. not for your Children as such but such only that are the true Children of God who are born of the Spirit 3. Do not go about directly nor indirectly to deceive your Children by making them believe they are in a good condition by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents and Baptized as these Men call Sprinkling and so that way made Christians and so from hence perhaps look for no further or other work of Grace or regeneration but think they by this pretended baptism are the Children of God Members of Christ and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven when 't is in Truth no such thing nor have you any cause to doubt but that your Infants who die tho' not baptized are happy as appears from what we have said neither be you so ignorant to believe that baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents as some of these pedo-baptists intimate they may do Pray see what Mr. Burkitt saith in his Book page 62. Before your Children are born make sure as much as in you lieth that they may be born within the Covenant and under the promise by your being in Covenant with God Your selves see that the Lord be your God in Covenant with you and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed Answ This Doctrine implys that 't is in the power of Men and Women to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace and as also it denotes that the Children of believers are not Born Children of Wrath by Nature for are those that are born in the Covenant of Grace born Children of Wrath O ye Parents know that you may be in Covenant and your Children never in it whilst they live nay die out of Covenant as doubtless many Children of the Faithful do Nor hath God made any such Covenant with any believer and their Natural Seed as such as he made with Abraham who was the Father of all that believe but so are not you nor I tho' we are believers and in Covenant with God and walk in Abrahams Steps Those that are in the Electiof Grace of your Seed never fear but God will in due time bring into the Covenant of Grace and give all the Covenant Blessings and Priviledges but if any of them are not comprehended in the Election of Grace their being born of your Loyns will not cannot bring them into the Covenant of Grace nor give them a right to the Seal thereof viz. the holy Spirit nor can baptism bring any into it which is only an outward Sign of our being in that Covenant or of that divine and spiritual Grace we received before we were baptized as I have proved Your business and your Childrens also is to make your own Election sure by special and effectual calling 'T is not the first birth but the second that brings either you or your Children into the Covenant of Grace so that we and they may have God to be our God by way of special Interest But mark Mr. Burkitts next words page 62. O! were but Infants capable of knowledge how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents make it your endeavour before your Children are born to sanctifie your poor Children this is done by prayer c. 1. Answ This is enough to set the Children against their ungodly Parents nay to hate them in their Hearts Alas the Children of wicked Parents I see not but they may be in as good a Condition as many Children of believers tho' I doubt not but God doth let out his infinite Grace generally more to the seed of the Faithful when grown up then to others but God will not certainly destroy poor Children for the fault and unbelief of their Parents Therefore as your begetting them in the first birth tho' gracious cannot save them so your begetting them tho' wicked cannot damn or destroy them There is no reason saith Mr. Perkins that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Children in things pertaining to eternal Life Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. 2. However if it be as Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Owen say that when believers are in Covenant their Children are in Covenant also Doubtless they are in a safe condition whether baptized or not that doth not bring them into Covenant 3. But may not this Doctrine of theirs put a just rebuke upon unbelievers or ungoly persons for once attempting to Marry and beget Childre that are in such a sad condition by reason their Parents were not in Covenant with God ought they nay may they lawfully Marry this being consider'd and such dreadful effects following upon their poor Babes besides how far doth this Covenant blessing and priviledge extend If my Grand Father was in Covenant tho' my Father and I too are wicked and ungodly Persons are not we still in Covenant with God The Covenant of Peculiarity God made with Abraham viz. that of Circumcision extended not only to his immediate Seed or Off-Spring but to all his Natural Seed successively in their Generations untill Christ came and put an end to that external Covenant and Covenant Right CHAP. XXV Containing several Queries for Mr. Owen to answer since the Athenian Society have not done it who some time since did attempt it Sir I Having wrote a few Queries lately about Infant Baptism for the Athenian Society to answer upon their bold Challenge and since they are too hard for them to do it having said nothing at all to the purpose I shall expect to see them answered by you when you answer this reply to your Book I shall not trouble you with all but only with a few of them Query 1. Whether the