Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	believe_v	jesus_n	overcome_v	2,418	5	9.1811	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

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

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