Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	infant_n	visible_a	2,976	5	9.7844	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

Children and that by Water were meant Baptisme yet will it not follow that Children can not be saved without Baptisme because here is only mention made of entering into the Kingdome of God you know that the Kingdome of God hath manyfold exceptions in the Scripture sometimes it is taken for Gospel Preaching sometimes for a visible Church state Mat. 13. Sometimes for that happiness which Men and Women and not Infants do enjoy through beleeving Rom. 14. 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost This Kingdom Infants do not enter into although they should be Baptised neither can they enter so long as they continue Infants Now if Water here do mean Baptisme it will infer no more but this that except any one be Baptised he cannot enter into a Church state or he cannot Enjoy righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost These are three answers I have for this TEXT Oppo I will prove your first answer to be insufficient Res Take notice that if you can prove two of them insufficient yet if the third stand good it sufficiently answers your argument Oppo I will prove in the first place that Children are here meant and included The TEXT sayth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} except any one it comprehends all none exempted Res We find many propositions in Scripture spoken as generally as this where the Scripture speakes only to Men and you your self will confess that Children are not included as Mat. 16. 24. If any one will come after me let him take up his cross c. Mark 8. 34. and Mat. 10. 38. He that taketh not up his Cross and followeth me is not worthy of me These and many more places you will confess are not spoken of Children John 3 36. He that beleeveth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life Oppo Have you a Greek Testament I pray look the place as I remember the word in that place is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} he that rejecteth or rebelleth against the Gospell of Jesus Christ which Children do not Res I do confess the word is so indeed and I do acknowledge a difference between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Child cannot be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but a Child may be sayd to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not a Beleever therefore I refer you to the 18 Vers of that Chap. He that beleeveth not is condemned already and unto 1. John 5. 10. He that beleeveth not hath made him a lyar in both which places Children are not included Opp. It is true that Children are not included in these TEXTS But here are many reasons in the context whereby it may evidently be proved that they are not meant of Children but of Men and Women of years of discretion but you are not able to prove by the context in the third of John that Children are not included in the word any Man Res It s not my duty to prove any thing at this time it is my part to answer and your part to prove or disprove when I am to be the Opponent I shall prove that Children cannot be here included for the present it is sufficient for me to deny it Oppo For your second answer I will prove that by Water in this place alledged is meant Litteral Water it is plain the Scripture cals it Water plain Water besides in the 22th Vers is rehearsed Christ tarrying with his Disciples and Baptising and in the 23 Vers John also was Baptising in Enon near to Salim because there was much Water there here by Water is meant Literal Water and Plain Water And where can you find in the Scripture especially in the new Testament that by Water is meant any other thing but Literal Water unless the TEXT doe declare it to be Allegorical As out of his Belly shall flow rivers of Living Water where presently the TEXT adds This spake he of the spirit besides the constant tradition of the Church and the Unanimous consent of the Fathers did interpret this place of Literal Water and of Baptisme even Tertullian himself who is the man that is principally urged by you doth interpret this TEXT in the same manner except any one be Baptised with Water and the Spirit he cannot be saved Res I answer first of all it is no reason that it should be meant Literall Water here in the first Vers because Literall Water is spoken of in the 22 and 23 Verses for those words are a report of what was done at another time and in another place and hath no reference to this matter at all Secondly that the scripture is frequent in using the word Water Allegorically is very plain as Esay 51. 1. Come to the Waters John 4. 10. He would have given thee Living Water And as I deny not but in the places alledged by you Water is taken Literally so may it be evidenced that it is very frequent in the scriptures to take Water Mistically and the sence in this place will be very good with this interpretation Thirdly whereas you say that all ancient writers were of this mind even Tertullian himself I say that cannot be that Tertullian should be of your mind that Infants could not be saved without Water Baptisme for he himself who was the first that ever mentioned Infants Baptisme in writing doth reprove it Oppo Tertullian was not the first that mentioned Infants Baptisme for Justin Martyr makes mention of it in his Apologie and you can never find in all Tertullian that he sayth Infants Baptisme is Vnlawfull Res Justin Martyr never once mentioned Infants Baptisme for Tertullian I do not say he sayth in so many words that Infants Baptisme is Unlawfull But in a Sermon of his intituled Qui sunt Baptizandi Who are to be Baptised He indeavours to perswade Parents to keep their Children from Baptisme untill they were Capable of it You will not sayth he Trust them with Earthly treasures untill they know how to use them why then will you trust them with the Heavenly speaking of Baptisme and sayth he Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint Let them be made Christians when they are able to know Christ And one thing more I must tell you that when I did first read this Sermon of Tertullian I met with one passage which I did not understand neither could I make any sence of it wherefore I consulted one that had written notes upon Tertullian and he plainly confesseth that those words were added by him to this end Vt Authoris sententiam mitigarem That might qualifie the Opinion of the Authour concerning Baptisme where you see what fair dealing we have had with the writings of the Ancients when an Index expurgatorius hath passed upon them and expunged by confession many

53. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all A multitude of witnesses might be produced Res This is none other but what was said before he did not impute them virtually not but that he did impute them actually until the performance of the conditions afore named Oppo I will leave these places to consideration and prove that the sin of Infants was taken away wholly before Baptisme by another argument If the law whereby they were held guilty was wholy taken away then the sin was wholy taken away But the law whereby they were held guilty was actually and wholely taken away Res The law whereby they were held guilty was not actually taken away Oppo If the Covenant that God made with Man before his fall be wholely and actually taken away then the law whereby they were held guilty is taken away But the Covenant that God made with Man before the fall is actually taken away therefore the law whereby they were held guilty was taken away Res The major is denyed the Law or Covenant made before the fall of Man is not actually and wholely taken away Oppo If that Christ have established a New Covenant then the Old one is taken away But Christ hath established a New Covenant Therefore the old and former Covenant is taken away Res I deny the consequence both remain Oppo If two Covenants cannot stand together then the consequence is true but two Covenants cannot stand together but the second makes voyde the first therefore the consequence is true Res Two Covenants may stand together Oppo Heb. 8. 13. Heb. 10. 9. He taketh away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 9. 15. Res The Author speaks not of the Covenant made with Adam But of that which God made with the Children of Israel Oppo I urge the reason of the Apostle which if it hold good in that it will also hold good in this if the Covenant made with Israel must be disanulled then also must the Covenant made with Adam before his fall be much more disanulled in asmuch as it hath as great an oposition I shall easily prove that Covenant to be taken away If no Man in the World neither is nor shall be judged by that Covenant then it is wholely taken away But no Man either is or shall be Judged by that Covenant Therefore it is taken away Res Persons shall be Judged by that Covenant made with Adam Oppo If Infants shall be judged by that Covenant made with Adam then Infants dying Unbaptised shall be shut out of Heaven but Infants dying Unbaptised shall not be shut out of Heaven Therefore Infants shall not be judged by that Covenant Res Infants Unbaptised where there is no desire of their Baptisme in their Parents or Friends shall be shut out of Heaven Oppo If Unbaptised Infants be shut out of Heaven then God punisheth some Creatures for that which they cannot help but God punisheth no Creatures for that which they cannot help Therefore Unbaptised Infants are not shut out of Heaven Res I deny the consequence Oppo Then Shutting out of Heaven is no punishment B Here the Auditors some of them brake order some crying out Bear witness he sayth It is no punishment to be shut out of Heaven because of the denyall of this consequence some also affirm he plainly said so in so many sillables which they can witness Res The minor also may be questioned for God may do what he will with his own having all power in his hand as the Potter hath power over his clay to use it at his pleasure Oppo I do not say what God might or may do but what he doth Now we know that God cannot do contrary to his oath but to punish Creatures for that they cannot help is contrary to his oath therefore God cannot do it Moreover thus I argue if God punish Creatures for that they cannot help then he doth not leave all the World without excuse But he will leave all the World without excuse Therefore he will not punish any Creature for that which they cannot help B This the Opponent repeated three or four times over and received no answer at all no notice was taken of it The Respondent complaining of the injury done unto him by the disorder of the Auditors which the Opponent confessed and said it was his sorrow and altogether without his approbation And then he spake as followeth and departed Oppo Although I have many things to propound yet considering the time allotted and agreed upon is spent and my own infirmities begin to press me I shall at this time cease A I pray declare to me what success this disputation had B Surely according to the different affections rather then Judgements of some Men and Women Although Christ himself preached Church Gospel of the Kingdome yet some beleeved and some beleeved not Some spake evill and some well Some cryed Victory on the one side and some on the other A The censure of the vulgar that know nothing is not worthy of the least account in the World their approbation is very near to disgrace and the censure of the Learned who want conscience is as little to be esteemed it was wisely spoken by one of old to a lewd person who commended him highly I am afraid said he I have done something amiss Because thou speakest well of me But I desire to hear how it was resented by those that were truly both Judicious and Consciencious especially what resolution the Gentlewoman●ound for whose satisfaction the dispute as you said at first was appointed B I am not able to render a particular account of every one But as touching the Gentlewoman the event was thus The Dispute was ended the 26th day of November and shee as I have heard was Baptised the first day of December A Her practice declares her satisfaction But I remember that day was very cold and sharp it seemes strange that a Gentlewoman should endure it at that season of the year and in such weather to go into the water and to be dipt all over B You know that Fantasticall Ladies have a proverb that Pride feels no cold and their naked necks and breasts and arms even in the coldest weather declare the truth of it know that Faith is stronger in Christian Women who serve the Lord Jesus then Pride is in vain ones who serve the Prince of Darkness Take therefore this for a Maxime That Faith and Zeal feel no cold Peter will adventure to walk upon the water if Jesus say Come And tender Women will not be afraid to go under water when Jesus bids Go very hardly will that person follow Christ into the fire who scruples to follow him into the water But is it not very prejudiciall to the health of such persons who have not been accustomed to wet their feet in water I remember Mr. Baxter writes that it is very dangerous And many thereby are likely to perish if they should not miraculously be preserved