Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n church_n ground_n pillar_n 16,417 5 10.6783 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

A RELATION OF A DISPV●● 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 meū 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