Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	bear_v	faith_n	overcome_v	4,249	5	9.4129	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

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

for here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} comming between two words of different genders it may accord with either So that according to rule it may be either {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and in my judgement this is as little to the purpose as the other for here is no Synthesis in either of these two places Oppo I will prove that the commission in the 28th of Mat. cannot be a warrant for Parents to require Baptisme for their Children If the TEXT do require teaching before Baptising then it can be no warrant to Baptise Children who cannot be taught but the TEXT requires teaching before Baptising Therefore that can be no warrant to Baptise Children or require Baptisme for them before they can be taught Res I deny the minor the TEXT in the 28th of Mat. Go Disciple all Nations doth not require teaching before Baptising in all persons indeed in those that are of years of discretion and capable of understanding the Apostles were first to teach them and to make them willing by teaching and afterward to Baptise them But for Infants they were first of all to make them Disciples by Baptising of them and afterward to teach them when they are capable of understanding Oppo I have to oppose unto you The translators and translations of all sorts in all Languages from the first to the last so far as I know translated it Teach without any doubt or scruple Res Do you know what is the Ethiopick word Oppo No I do not Next compare Scripture with Scripture there being no better interpreter this TEXT being compared with Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World preach the Gospel to every Creature These Commissions are the same indifferent words Matthew Saith Go Disciple or teach all Nations Mark Saith Go preach the Gospel to every Creature Res I deny them to be the same neither given at the same time nor at the same place for the one was given in Galilae in a mountain where Jesus had papointed them The other was given to them when Jesus appeared to them as they sate at meat Oppo Time and place doth not alter the Commission or prove them to be two how doth it appear by your words that these words were spoken at several times and in two places was it possible they might sit at meat in the mountain of Galilae The next thing I have to urge you with is the practice of the Apostles who best knew the meaning of the Commission They in the execution of this Commission did preach the Gospel and when the People beleeved they Baptised them both Men and Women but not a word of Children Acts 9. 12. In the City of Samaria were there no Children there Res Philip Baptised both Men and Women under which Children are comprehended which is usual in Scripture for Josua 8. 25. it is said that Josua destroyed all the Inhabitants of Ai And so it was that all that fell that day both of Men and Women were twelve thousand even all the Men of Ai Here Children are comprehended under Men and Women for they also were destroyed for he utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai and Children were part it may be a great part of the inhabitants of Ai Oppo This is not much to the purpose the TEXT doth not say that there were no more inhabitants but twelve thousand but the Men and Women were twelve thousand and that they were all the Men of Ai It is possible notwithstanding that TEXT that the inhabitants of Ai might be twenty thousand the Children being accounted I leave your answer to consideration and proceed to another argument If Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull then it is of God but it is not of God Therefore it is not Lawfull Res Baptisme of Infants is of God and an ordinance of God Oppo Whatsoever is of God is to some good use or purpose But Baptisme of Infants is to no good use or purpose Therefore Baptisme of Infants is not of God Res Baptisme of Infants is to very good purpose namely to wash away their Original sin that so they may be made the Children of God without which they cannot be saved Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Opp. I will prove that Baptisme cannot wash away the sin of Infants If all the sin that Infants are or can be guilty of be taken away before Baptisme then Baptisme cannot wash it away But all the sin that Infants are or can be guilty of is washed away before Baptisme Therefore Baptisme cannot wash away sin of Infants Res The sin of Infants is not washed away before Baptisme Oppo If Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World whereof they are guilty then all their sin is taken or washed away before Baptisme But Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World therefore all their sin is washed away before Baptisme Res I deny the consequence Oppo If the sin of the World be taken away before Baptisme then the consequence is true But the sin of the World is taken away before Baptisme therefore the consequence is true Res I deny the minor the sin of the World is not taken away before Baptisme I know your Scriptures Oppo If Christ took the sin of the World away by his death when he died then it is taken away before Baptisme But Christ Jesus took away the sin of the World by his death therefore it was taken away before Baptisme Res Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World by his death Oppo John 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the World 1. Pet. 2. 24. Who himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many with a multitude of places Deut. 9. 24. To finish sin and make an end of transgression c. Res Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World but only Potentially in procuring a possibility of pardon upon conditions performed namely of Faith Repentance and Baptisme in those that are of years of discretion and of Baptisme in Infants and as they who are of years of discretion cannot have sin taken away without repentance Faith and Baptisme no more can Infants without Baptisme Opp. I will prove that Christ did actually take away the sin of the world by his death That which was not imputed was actually taken away but the sin of the World was not imputed Therefore it was actually taken away Res The sin of the World was imputed before Baptisme Oppo 2. Cor. 5. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them Coll. 1. 20. And having made peace through the bloud of his cross by him to reconcile all things to himself Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Esa.

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