Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	place_n	son_n	5,610	5	5.5818	4	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

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

do not overcome the World Therefore they are not born of God Res Every thing in the TEXT must be extended no further then to such to whom the Apostle wrote Oppo I say the same thing this answers not the force of the argument at all I will prove by another argument that Children cannot be born again c. If Infants be born of Water and of the Spirit then are they Church members and Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant But Infants are not Church members nor Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant Therefore they are not born again of Water c. Res The minor is denyed Infants are Church members and Sons of the New Covenant Opp. If Infants be Church members and Sons of the New Covenant then they so know the Lord as not to need any teacher But Infants do not so know the Lord as not to need a teacher therefore Infants are not Church members nor Sons of the New Covenant Res The consequence is denyed Oppo If all the Church members and Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord then the Consequence is true But all Church members and the Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord Therefore the consequence is true Res The minor is denyed all the Church members and Children of the new Covenant do not so know the Lord as not to need to be taught to know the Lord Oppo The minor is proved Heb. 8 8 9 10 11. verses Jer 31. 33 34. verses This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their mind and write them in their Hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People and they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest Res They shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every one his Brother that is they shall not be all Teachers James 3. My Brethren be not many Masters {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is Teachers every one should not be a Teacher to run before he be sent and intrude into the Office without a Lawfull call for no Man taketh this Office upon him but he that is called of God Again we know that not only Children but Beleevers Men and Women need teaching Oppo I am ashamed of your Interpretation of this TEXT so far from the truth and I am perswaded from your own Conscience Would you not have Christians to teach and exhort and edifie one another What manner of Spirit is this You say all need teaching so say I also But there are some things that the Children of the new Covenant need not be taught Ye need not that any Man teach you 1. John 2. 27. and that is to know the Lord which is rendred a reason of the first words they shall all know me from the least to the greatest Res This word All doth not include Children Infants Oppo I do not say it doth but it includes all Church members and Children of the new Covenant from the least to the greatest Least and greatest and middle and all Church members Res You insist much upon the word All All When the word All hath his restriction in many places of Scripture 1. Cor. 15. 27. It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him Oppo I do not marvil that you so much except against me for insisting upon the word All and whereas you say the word All hath restriction in Scripture I do not deny it but to prevent a restriction in this place there is added from the Least to the Greatest I leave this to consideration and proceed If Children be born of Water and of the Spirit and be made Church members then are they Disciples But Children are not nor cannot be Disciples therefore they cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. Res The minor is denyed Infants may be Disciples and are Disciples Oppo If all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and take up their cross and follow Christ then Infants who are not able to do these things cannot be Disciples But all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and must take up their cross and follow Christ Therefore Infants cannot be Disciples Res The minor is denyed It is not required in every Disciple to hate Father and Mother and Life or to take up his cross and follow Christ but of such Disciples as are of years Oppo The minor is proved in every part of it by plain TEXT of Scripture Mat. 16. 24. Luke 14. 26 27. If any Man come unto me here is your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so often alledged and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his own Life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple Many TEXTS of the like kind there are Res If any One and Whosoever doth not include Children But the multitudes that went with him to whom he spake vers. 25th and in the 28th vers. Which of you intending to build a Tower c. he speaks of all them that are Capable to hear him and to understand him Oppo Take notice that this is a weapon of your own that I do oppose you with and consider how strange a thing you presented it to the People that I should restrain that place of the third of John Except any one be born again And you your self are forced to restrain this where the very same word is used I demand whether the proposition laid down in the TEXT be true Res You did restrain it but you gave no reason of your restraining it But I have good reason in the Context why it should be restrained Do you shew as good reason as I have done already Oppo I have shewed reasons equal with yours You say Christ spake to the multitudes which followed him I say Christ spake to Nicodemus who come to him to enquire of the wayes of God for himself Besides be pleased to remember that the restraint of the word was not my sole answer But I gave you answer taking it in the largest sence I gave you three answers you give only this Another argument If it be a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for or in the behalf of their Infants then the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull But it is a sin in Parents to require Baptisme in the behalf of their Infants Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull Res It is not a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants But a thing Commendable and good Opp. If Parents