Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	2,525	5	10.8527	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85777	A contention for truth: in two several publique disputations. Before thousands of people, at Clement Dane Church, without Temple Barre: upon the 19 of Nevemb. [sic] last: and upon the 26 of the same moneth. Betweene Mr Gunning of the one part, and Mr Denne on the other. Concerning the baptisme of infants; whether lawful, or unlawful.	Gunning, Peter, 1614-1684.; Denne, Henry, 1606 or 7-1660?	1658 (1658)	Wing G2234; Thomason E963_1; ESTC R202279	30,275	53

hundred sentences and who knows how many they have inserted Oppo I can make it plain out of Tertullian that he alloweth the Baptisme of Infants in case of necessitie and danger of death Besides it is known Tertullian was an Heretique and died an Heretique But I shall refer to the Auditors what hath been said unto this argument You have said any one doth not include all and that water is not Literall water I will proceed to another argument to prove the Lawfullness of Infant Baptisme A There was yet nothing spoken to the third answer of the Respondent which is of as great consequence as any of the other and if the other were of no force yet if that stand good the argument is of no force it was this that supposing the TEXT alledged did speak of Baptising yet by Entring into the Kingdome of Heaven is meant no other thing then a state of happiness which beleevers do attain unto here in this life through faith in Christ Jesus viz. Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost B I suppose the Opponent had forgotten to refell it and the Answerer had also forgotten to call for it Let us hear the Opponent prosecuting a second argument Oppo That which is no sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to perform being required is Lawfull But it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants neither for Ministers to perform it being required Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull Res I deny the minor It is a sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants Oppo That which is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World is no sin for Parents to require or for Ministers to perform But the Baptisme of Infants is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World Therefore it cannot be sin in Parents to require or in Ministers to performe being required Res I deny the minor and say There is No commission authorizing Parents to require or Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants being required Oppo The Commission is Mat. 28. 18 19 20. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go ye therefore and make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World AMEN Here the Apostles are Commanded to make Diciples of all Nations Baptising them and then teaching them Here it is plain Baptising after Teaching Res I do not deny that Teaching should follow Baptisme But I deny that Baptisme should go before all Teaching moreover here is not one word of Parents requiring Baptisme for Infants or one word of Infants being Baptised And whereas you seem to imply that the Apostles should make Disciples by Baptising of them I demand of you before this assembly whether you beleeve that by vertue of this Commission by you alledged the Apostles or their successors either had or have authority to take all Nations and Baptise them whether they will or no Whether they consent or not Opp. No I do not imagin so but that they were first to make those that where of years of discretion willing by Preaching and then to Baptise them And those that were not of years to make them Disciples by Baptising of them Res Now you say something first make them willing and then Baptise them But you have not exprest in the Commission any thing of Children who are not willing How willing Children are appears by their Crying and Strugling at the Font Oppo I will prove Children are not unwilling for as Ignoti nulla Cupido there can be no desire or will to a thing we do not know so neither can there be any Vnwillingness to that which is unknown now Children knowing nothing of Baptisme it is not possible they should be Vnwilling seeing they know not any thing of the matter Res You might have spared this labour for I did not say Children were Unwilling But I said they were not Willing your duty had been to prove they were Willing there is a vast difference between Unwilling and not Willing you know how willing Constantinus Copronymus was to be Baptised when he was an Infant and how he came to have the name of Copronymus I can tell you the story But I will not in this auditory I desire you to frame a Silogisme out of the TEXT alledged concluding that here is a commission either to Baptise Infants or to require their Baptisme Oppo I will The Apostles are here Commanded to make Disciples of all Nations now Infants who are part of the Nations cannot be made Disciples any other way then by Baptisme therefore they are here commanded to make Disciples by Baptisme Res First I say you cannot prove that this Commission under the title of all Nations extendeth any more to Infants then that in Mark 16. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature extendeth to Infants you will confess you have no warrant for to Preach to an Infant in the Cradle from this place Secondly I deny that Baptisme maketh Disciples it manifesteth one to be a Disciple it doth not make him one I pray prove if you can that Baptisme maketh any one a Disciple it is written John 4. 1. Jesus made and Baptised more Disciples then John It is one thing to make another thing to baptise a disciple Oppo I had thought it had been a matter of conscience your deniall of the Baptisme of Infants but now I perceive you go about to deny all Baptisme I will prove it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants Where there is no Law there is no Transgression for sin is the Transgression of a Law But there is no Law forbidding Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants or forbidding Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants therefore it is no sin either to require or administer Baptisme to Infants Res There is a Law forbidding it and that under a severe punishment Oppo Shew where that Law is to be found Res I will Deut. 18. 20. Here Moses Prophesieth of Christ in these Words A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you c. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name which I have not Commanded him c. Even that Prophet shall die Mark this One word and Prover 30. 6. Add not thou to his Words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar So that until you be able to prove a command there must needs lye a prohibition in the way Oppo I have proved a Command already and I will further prove it All Church members may Lawfully be Baptised Infants are Church members Therefore Infants may Lawfully be Baptised Res I deny the