Selected quad for the lemma: church_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A90803
|
A relation of a dispute of baptisme of infants of Christians at Holgate in the county of Salop, Maii. 30. 1650. betwixt P. Panter, Dr. in Divinitie, rector of the place, and Mr. Brown, preacher to the Anabaptists in that circuit.
|
Panter, P.; Brown, Mr.
|
1650
(1650)
|
Wing P274A; ESTC R43711
|
11,586
|
16
|
A RELATION OF A DISPVâ—â— OF BAPTISME of INFANTS of CHRISTIANS At Holgate in the County of Salop Maii. 30. 1650. Betwixt P. PANTER D. in Divinitie Rector of the Place And Mr. BROWN Preacher to the Anabaptists in that Circuit LONDON Printed for Thomas Vere dwelling at the upper end of the Old-Bayly 1650. A Relation of a Dispute of Baptisme of Infants of Christians BEing come into the Hall of Holgate and the Question put to Mr. Browne of the cause of his secession and separation from the Church of England in which he was brought up and had for certain years been an instructer of others He answering with a distinction as he termed it of the name of the Church from the true Professors whereof he said that he had not receded It was askt whether he did hold with the people of England professing as they did according to the Articles of Doctrine and Faith authorized in the same whereabout after some tergiversation he called for the Book of Articles and after some turning over it pitched upon the Baptisme of Infants which and no other at that time he seemed to give for the cause of his separation he spoke somewhat of originall sinne but that Question being woven and wrapped in the other it was thought sufficient to speake of either for both and indeed the Baptisme of Infants was that which over-night he had desired to be handled and wherein he could not but come prepared with all the answers and shifts which could be devised especially he knowing what arguments the Doctor would chiefly urge by a disciple of his there present by him who had beene brought to the Doctor not long before for satisfaction The Doctor albeit not liking of such Meetings knowing how often such Conferences doe end in Wrangling yet that they should not have occasion to brag of refusing the Challenge did not decline the Dispute and albeit the other shunned to be the actor and by arguments to prove his reason or disprove the baptisme of Infants still taking himselfe to the defenders part by negatives which are easier then proofes albeit the Church of England was in possession of that custome without prescription and therefore should have been ejected of her custome by reason and Divine Law it not onely being the custome of the Church of England but also of whole Christendome from all time out of mind or record the beginning of which custom the Separatist could not show for albeit once he said that it begun 200. years after Christs birth in the dayes of Innocentius Pope yet being desired to show that by evidence he passed from it which is the mark and rule proposed by the Ancients for knowing Divine Apostolick Ordinances Customes whatsoever hath been universally kept in the Church the beginning of which cannot be found out that is presumed alway to have proceeded either from our Saviour or his Apostles He standing at this and holding close to the Negative the Dr. askt him what proofes and from whence should they be sought Hee answering out of Scriptures the Scriptures of truth as he often mentioned seemed to brag of them it was replyed that the Question would be about the meaning of Scripture who therefore should be the interpreter and pointer out of the mind of God in them Should it not be the Universall Church of Christ the pillar and ground of 1 Tim. 3. 15. Truth by whose consent Heresies and Errours in all Ages had been judged as the stile of the Canons and Conclusions of Councels doe show Ita credidit tenuit docuit semper Catholica Ecclesia and would he not follow the wholsome direction of Vincentius Lirinensis adversus haereses taking the Scripture alway Cum catholica interpretatione which is not adding to the Scriptures but declaring the sense and meaning of them which as the Eunuch humbly acknowledged to Philip saying How should he understand without a guide Acts 8. 31. are not onely in allegoricall Prophecies as Mr. Browne pleaded but also in Commands and Ordinances about the Sacraments not so obvious and open to every one wherein if the expresse Letter be holden to as he still craved and urged for Infant Baptisme then what shall be said of the other Sacrament in the words Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ hic est sanguis novi Testamenti which words the Anabaptists doe leave out in their administration And indeed if this way be followed as some of his Disciples there present declared except they saw and read the name of Infants expressed in the Text they would not receive it Thomas-like as by some present was returned to them not onely Infant baptisme but all the Articles of the Creed shall be called in question as appeared by Mr. Brownes Questions concerning Arrius Macedonius and Pelagius when the Dr. named them as condemned by the Doctrine of the Church what they did hold and for what they were condemned Which M. Brown said he knew not for their books were not extant not onely doubting of the justice of the proceedings against them as appeares and giving great suspition of a favourable construction of them as with Pelagius they hold and more Alwayes he still provoking to the Scriptures held up the same to the people although it was but a Translation of the Bible and done by these men and that Church which they account Antichristian and no Church I mean by the Church of England the Doctor seeing his resolution lest the meeting should have been broken up without doing any thing as was expected resolved to take the part of the Actor and by their owne weapons as they boast take them which way they would to deal with them First proofe Matth. 28. 19. And first argued from the Ordinance of Baptisme which being universall To baptize all Nations without exception expressed in the words as they required why should not Infants be understood to be included And when one Nation was entred in Covenant by Circumcision Infants were circumcised why not then when all Nations are to be entred in Covenant with God Infants baptized they being a part of Nations as Mr. Logane argued afterward from the etymon of the word Nation being from Nati born so that all that are born ought to be included they being able to satisfie Christs command of comming to him which by our Saviours own declaration acceptation of those who were brought to him albeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sucklings not able to walk on their own feet was proved Suffer saith he little children to come to me and forbid them not for of such belong the Kingdome of heaven But Mr. Browne answered to the Doctor That it did not follow that Infants were included in the Command because they were not excluded or excepted for then saith he the baptisme of Bells and Horses and of his Hat were included because they are not mentioned to be excluded And as having a great advantage did call the people to heare the
5. and our Saviour himselfe saying that a man is borne againe by the Water and Spirit To these words of Scripture he replyed nothing but talkt still of regeneration and making the sonnes of God by Faith which indeed an effect rather of regeneration and holy Spirit then a cause he endeavoured to confirme by these words Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the Law or by the hearing of Faith Ioh. 1. 12. where he speaketh of the first receivers of Christ being in the world as appeareth verse 10. 11. before where as Gal. 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hearing of Faith is the hearing of the Gospel which is the Doctrine of Faith for it is opposed there to the Law of Moses so the Spirit there spoken of is the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit to the doing of Miracles as it is after verse 5. not the ordinary gift of sanctification for then all the Churches of Galatia had been inwardly sanctified beside that receiving of the Spirit by Faith doth not exclude the Sacraments every one working in their owne way and order for particulares affirmantes nec contradicunt nec contrariae sunt â—â—fth proofe â—rom examâ—â—es â—cts 16. 14 15. Here the Answerer did call for an example of Infant-Baptisme in all Scripture and did reade to all the Auditors an example of beleevers baptized Wherefore the Arguer brought first the example of Lydia's household baptized where mention is onely of her hearing and beleeving next an insinuation of Iohns That little Children had their sinnes forgiven in his Joh. 2. 12. Name where there is an expression of the forme of Baptism at least a part of it as 1 Cor. 6. 11. But now ye are washed sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus To the first he begun to cavil that Lydia had not a Husband which was more then he could affirme howsoever she had a Family said the Arguer To the second he said first that these Children were of ripe yeares as having Iohns Epistle directed to them next that In the Name of the Father was in the power of the Father which he said it signified principally and properly apparantly mistaking himselfe for frequently saying properly and principally for he cannot be so ignorant to think either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Synonyma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significare magis robur quam nomen ex vi vocis for that is proper thirdly that the words 1 Cor. 6. 11. were said to them of yeares who sometime were theeves c. fourthly that the distinction there was not of age but of gifts and some were called Little Children for their gifts of mind accordingly Against which the Arguer did insist and first that it did not prove that they were of ripe yeares because S. Iohn wrote to them for Epistles may be designed for them that are not yet able to reade them as whatsoever was written before in former ages was written for our instruction Rom. 15. 4. Next suppose they had been able to reade then when S. Iohn wrote yet he putteth them in mind of forgivenesse of sinnes before obtained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atticè pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is praeteritum perfectum but the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. being a Diminutive with the opposition not only to Fathers but also to young men the like of which is not when there is a Spirituall Childhood onely insinuated for then the opposition is onely to perfect men doe sufficiently shew their age Neither is the Question to whom the Apostle speaketh in that place to the Corinthians but whether there Baptisme and the form of it be not insinuated So that In the Name of the Father or Sonne as there in the 1 Joh. 2. 12. Name of the Lord Jesus are paralell and like phrases neither doth the use of the word Name of God sometime transferred to signifie his Power whether in Greek or Hebrew make any thing against the forme of Baptisme insinuated in the words of S. Iohn for when we are baptized In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and Holy-Ghost not onely is it in Name and Authoritie from him but also in the Power of him accompanying the calling of his Name upon us Neither if any should object which he did not remarke â— Joh. 2. 14. That they are said to have knowne the Father doth that prove that either they had that knowledge before Baptisme although when he wrote it may be they were beginning to know him or that even then their knowledge was such as the Anabaptist requireth for Children begin betimes to know their Parents according to that of the Poet Incipe parve puer risu cognoscere matrem and to this small measure of knowledge accompanying Infancie it selfe the Apostle seemeth to allude writing to these little ones as he alludeth to that which is incident to youth-head and old-age writing to the other 2 distinctions of age wisdome in old men strength in young men Beside that the receiving of Baptism is a sort of acknowledgment of the Father not mentall but real whence Sacramentum fidei professionis Christianae dicitur although after following Sixth proofe From the types and figures of Baptisme This proofe the Adversarie did shift saying That it was nothing to the purpose what was among the Jewes and that they had no reference to our Sacraments That a type could not be a type of another type where the Disputer askt If Baptisme was to be called a type the other answering That it represented Christs death and buriall The Doctor insisted That albeit in a large extent of the word it might be called a type yet not according to Ecclesiasticall use of the word in which it is joyned to figures shadowes which are abolished for Baptism is not a shadow but a putting off of the body of sin Heb. 10. 1. Col. 2. 11 12. yea S. Peter saith the Ark was a type of baptism 1. Old Circumcision answering to the Circumcision of Christ which is Baptisme Col. 2. 11 12. Alwayes albeit he shifted them here I set them downe and first Gircumcision to which not onely succeeded but answereth our Baptisme Now it was bestowed upon Children as soone as possible for Nature to endure it and God had dealt more hardly with our Children then with the Jewes if he had not provided for us a meane and conveyance of Grace to us as well as to them his Covenant Here they said they recommended their Children by prayer to God but this answereth not to a Sacrament which the Jewes had beside prayer 2. Baptisme in the Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10. The second prefiguration of Christian Baptisme was the baptisme of the Israelites unto Moses in the Cloud and Sea wherein as the Children were as well as their Parents yea pars magna for the Fathers were but a many of them not all