Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	prove_v	tradition_n	2,724	5	8.9814	5	false

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

the same is generally acknowledged by the Ancients whose severall Testimonies I can produce here Res This was Austins opinion And yet notwithstanding Erasmus who Laboured much in Austin and Ludovicus Vives who was very well skilled in his Doctrine neither of these beleeved the thing to be true neither were they convinced by his opinion but both of them thought the contrary Moreover you know what I have told you before out of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen I think it needless to repeat the same things again B After this there followed another argument which was altogether the same with the first and therefore I shall not repeat it unto you Thus ended the Dispute of the first day of meeting It was then concluded that they should meet again the next week upon the same day B ON the second day being the 26th day of November the Disputants met together again at which time Mr. Denne was the Opponent and Mr. Gunning the Respondent who having taken his place Began to speak Res One who desires to be informed touching the Baptisme of Infants whether it be Lawfull or Unlawfull I affirm the Baptisme of Infants to be Lawfull Oppo I will prove the Baptisme of Infants to be Vnlawfull If the Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull it is either for some reasons delivered by you or some other But not for any reason delivered by you or any other therefore the Baptisme of Infants is not Lawfull Res The minor is denied Infants Baptisme is Lawfull for reasons by me delivered Oppo If it be Lawfull for reasons by you delivered Then it is either for the reasons delivered from Tradition or from Scripture but neither for the reasons from Tradition nor from Scripture Therefore it is not Lawfull for any reasons delivered by you Res For both namely both from Tradition and from Scripture Oppo If one of these reasons overthrow the other then it cannot be Lawfull for both But one of these reasons overthrow the other Therefore it cannot be Lawfull for Both Res I deny the minor one of them doth not overthrow the other Oppo If Tradition overthrow your Scripture reasons then one overthrows the other But Tradition overthrows your Scripture reasons Therefore one overthrows the other Res Tradition doth not overthrow Scripture reasons Oppo It is generally held by the Tradition of the Ancients that Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved by Scripture and the most part of those that maintained the Baptisme of Infants did acknowledge that it could not be proved by Scripture but Tradition Res I deny it for Tertullian and Austin do both prove it by Scripture for Tertullian interpreting these words of St. John Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven sayth that to be born again of Water and of the Spirit is to be Baptised except a man be Baptised he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven And St. Austin sayth the same in divers places Oppo As for Tertullian he is not to be reckoned among the Men that maintained the Baptisme of Infants for without doubt he opposed it And you your self did say when I alledged Tertullians words that He was an Heretique As for Austin it was his authority that I intended to alledge who hath these words Take away Tradition and the Baptisme of Infants will fall to the ground The like may be found in most authors of former ages You know this to be true Res They did not hereby deny the validity of the Scripture to prove Infants Baptisme but their meaning was That without Tradition the sence and meaning of the Scripture could not appear as Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God we could not have known that to be born again of Water had meant to be Baptised unless Tradition had given this interpretation of that TEXT Oppo Then you grant that without interpretation beyond the letter Infants Baptisme is not to be found in Scripture I will leave this and come to your Scripture reasons And first for your great Piller John 3. I argue thus If Infants cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit while they remain Infants then this reason of yours is voyd but Infants while they remain Infants cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit Therefore this reason of yours is voyd Res Infants can be born again of Water and of the Spirit Opp. If Infants be born again of Water and of the Spirit then are they Spirit and born of God but Infants are not Spirit neither born of God therefore are they not born again of Water and of the Spirit Res I deny the minor Infants are Spirit and born of God Oppo First I will prove Infants are not Spirit In every one that is Spirit or born of the Spirit there is some evident demonstration and alteration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit But in Infants there is no alteration nor evident demonstration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit or to be Spirit Therefore they are neither Spirit nor born of the Spirit Res That Infants are born of the Spirit is de fide a matter of Faith and that is far above all demonstration it is not necessary that there should be a demonstration whereby every one that is born of the Spirit should be manifested so to be Oppo Then are they not like the Wind which though we know not whence it comes nor whether it goes yet we hear the sound and feel the effect and the TEXT saith So is every one that is born of the Spirit Res We know not whence the wind commeth nor whether it goeth so we know not the manner how but yet we have it de fide Faith without ground is but fancy and no Faith Oppo But I will prove in the next place that Infants are not born of God though I account them the happiest of Living Creatures If Infants be born of God then they overcome the World But Infants do not overcome the World therefore they are not born of God Res It sufficeth that Infants are not overcome by the World the World doth not combate with them Name your TEXT Opp. If there be no combate there can be no Conquest But the TEXT saith 1. John 5. 4. Whatsoever is born of God overcommeth the World c. Res It appeareth by the Context that this is not to be understood of Children but of Men and Women of such as Love God and keep his Commandements of such as beleeve in God and by Faith have Victory over the World Who is he that overcommeth the World but he that beleeveth that Jesus is the Son of God Oppo These words are not to the purpose I do not say they are meant of Children But I say they are meant of every thing that is Born of God every thing that is Born of God overcommeth the World Children

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