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	holy_a	spirit_n	8,932	5	5.4539	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B21030	A rejoynder to Mr. Wills, his Vindiciæ wherein the antiquity for believers and novelty of infant baptism is further confirmed : as also his groundless appeal distinctly answer'd, and the forgeries and mistakes boasted of, still found to be his own : with an appeal to his conscience about the same / by H. Danvers.	Danvers, Henry, d. 1687.	1675 (1675)	Wing D227	48,348	89

a subject either capable of receiving or conveying Grace to the Soul But he saith I abuse Mr. Baxters words who saith That Baptism can be no such cause whereby I do as he saith attribute Non-sence and Absurdity to him and that there is neither Innocency nor Truth in so affixing it If to work no such cause be such an error it is a venial one and I can say not wilful but certainly this Man would make notable work with me if he had matter to work upon But what just cause of Complaint or Appeal in all this I profess seriously I see not Misplacing Quotations VI. The 6th is for picking out of Authors here and there and joyning them together as if they were one intire Sentence whereof he gives four Instances To the 3 first viz. Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen Answered and Dr. Taylor I say I have put down nothing but their own and what is congruous one thing answering properly and naturally with another which if it did not we should I presume have heard of And for what relates to himself which is the 4th I have done him no wrong the Pages mentioned by me viz. p. 36 38 101 131 132. I have particularly examined and desire the Reader so to do and let him judge betwixt us whether he doth not in those Pages compared again and again say That as there is no Scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptism nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infant Baptized each Page I would have put down but that I would not burden the Reader which you find exprest by me in my Reply p. 63. and the several Pages particularly exprest I refer to And what good cause is given to complain of me in this I see as little as the former VII The 7th is for asserting notorious untruths Notorious untruths giving Instances of Eight The first for affirming 1. Answered That Antiquity it self so much boasted of is altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism 1. About Antiquity for Infant Baptism an Assertion as he saith so notoriously false that I have confuted my self in owning the ancients asserted it This is already answered again and again I hope to satisfaction viz. That primitive Antiquity is only for Believers and not for Infants Baptism and the Ancients in latter not former Centuries onely for Infants Baptism 2. About Christning a Dead Child The Second for saying That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned putting in the Margent a dead Child Christned the Boy was not taken up and Baptized Dead but after he came to life again he was Baptized In the first place I conceive there is no untruth in my rendring the words Is puerum sine Baptismo mortuum resuscitarit ex mortuis tandem Baptizarit That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned being not exclusive of the sence Mr. Wills would have it bear But 't is the Margent that saith a dead Child Christned he mainly quarrels at which indeed is wholly mine and therefore my sence or explanation of my own words is to be received which admits of a Two fold or double Interpretation viz. either that Child that was Dead now Christned and so not to be blamed in Mr. Wills own sence Or if I should intend the Child then dead when Christned I know no reason but I may have my liberty of Conjecture as well as Mr. Wills And the rather because though resuscitare be generally understood to raise to life yet the phrase here may without any such palpable absurdity be understood a taking up from among the Dead or out of the Grave especially because such an Interpretation so exactly agrees with their then usual practise to Baptize the Dead that dyed unbaptized which certainly is more likely and far more agreeable to truth then that such a Miracle was wrought of raising to life Besides why may not the Dead be sometimes used for the Grave as the Grave is often Metonymically used for the Dead and Death as I could instance with great variety had it been necessary So that this latter should I persist in it is so far from being blameable that it is indeed very probable and therefore Reader take it which way you will no such notorious untruth as he talks of can hence be justly chargeable upon me The third noto●ious untruth he saith I assert is from the Magdeburgs Cent 13. p 419. viz. That the Magd do say 3 About Gulielmus blasphemy that as to the form of Baptism Gulielmus added to the Father Son and Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary which saith he is another notorious untruth for the Magdeburgs say nothing of the Virgin Mary but which of us speak truth let the Reader judge The words of the Magdeburgs are these in the Cent and p above-said viz Male Gulielmus ad Formam Baptismi addidit Mariam 〈…〉 Baptizo te in Nomine Patris Omnipotentis Filii Spiritus Sancti Beatae Mariae Virginis De Bapt ejus part c. 2. Magd. Cent 13. c 419. i e. Gulielmus wickedly added Mary to the form of Baptism I Baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary in his 2. ch of Bapt. and its parts Therefore if this be not daring temerity I know not what is To the 4th that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism 4 About the Donatists which he saith is as true as that a Dead Child was Baptized and that Pope Innocent was the first Inventor of Baptism and Antiquity altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism What ground I had to affirm the Donatists were against Infants Baptism I have given at large enough at least if not to make it good yet to free me from a Forger Whether the Child taken up was living or dead when Baptized what I writ being capable of being i●terpreted either way is left to better judgment that I any where have said that Pope Innocent was the first Invetor of Infants Baptism is I presume Mr. Wills his Invention not to be ma●e good from my writings I do indeed say p. 111. And this was that Innocent who was the first great Patron and Imposer of this Inven●ion viz. In his Canon in the Milevitan Council and so sai●h Dr. Taylor Grotius Strabo p. 107. as well as my self that Infants Baptism was never determined nor en●oyned nor imposed till th●n And whether Antiqui●y viz. of the first Centuries was not for Be ievers and not for Infants Baptism Let Mr. Baxter himself wi h what hath been said de●ermine 5 About Lanfrank The 5th about Lanfranks Testimony one of my witnesses to prove Berengarius denyed Infants Baptism is I fully acknowledg my mistake which a Person of quality a worthy Friend