Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	apostle_n	apostolical_a	tradition_n	3,682	5	9.0506	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

they not lawfully be baptised Oppo He that willeth the end must needs will the means to accomplish that end Now of Christ would have Infants to be made alive again and there be no other means whereby they can be made alive but by Baptisme then he willeth their Baptisme But Christ would have them Live and there is no other means for them to be made alive but by Baptising Therefore Christ willeth their Baptisme Res I deny the minor there is other means for Children to be made alive though not by Baptisme Opp. Assigne that other means whereby Children may be made alive Res Children are made alive without any Ministerial Applycation at all Being Sanctified by the Bloud of the Covenant shed once for all God applying the vertue of the Death and of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ unto them Oppo Then there needeth not any ministeriall applycation to make Children partakers of the Bloud of Christ shed for them You do undervalue Baptisme as if it were of no use at all Res I do beleeve the Baptisme of Infants to be of no use at all I do acknowledge the Baptisme of Beleevers to be of good use Yet not to make dead men alive Baptisme is for the living not for the dead Oppo Another argument That the Father hath given Infants to Christ cannot be denied For. All that the Father giveth me commeth unto me John 6. 37. and If Infants be given by the Father to Christ then they must needs Come to Christ and if they come to Christ it must be either by Faith Repentance or Baptisme for there can be no other way assigned whereby any should come unto Christ Res Do you not remember that I gave you a general rule in the answer to your first argument very necessary for the right understanding of Scripture Namely that we must consider of whom and to whom the Scripture speaks And you will find that in this place alledged the Scripture speaks of those persons to whom at that time our Saviour speak those words and cannot be applyed to any persons at any time In the 36th Vers Jesus said unto them ye have seen me and beleeve not All that the Father giveth me will or shall come unto me If you think this answer sufficeth not frame a Syllogisme from the place Oppo If Infants come unto Christ then they ought to be Baptised but Infants come unto Christ Therefore Infants are to be Baptised Res I deny the Consequence though Infants do come unto Christ in some sence though not in the sence of that place alledged yet need they not therefore to be Baptised Oppo If there be no other way for them to come but by Baptisme then if they come they must needs be Baptised But there is no other way for them to come to Christ but by Baptisme Therefore if they come they must needs be Baptised Res I deny the minor There is another way for Infants to come to Christ then by Baptising Oppo If there be no other way to come unto Christ but by Faith Repentance or Baptisme and Infants cannot come unto Christ by Faith or Repentance therefore they must needs come by Baptisme or not at all Res I deny the minor there is some other way to come unto Christ then by Faith Repentance or Baptisme Oppo Assigne another way for Children to come unto Christ Res Christ Jesus is the second Adam the Heavenly Adam As truly as all Infants where dead in the Loyns of the first and earthly Adam so truly are all Infants Spiritually in the Loyns of the second and Heavenly Adam In the first Adam they were by a naturall union In the second by a Spirituall union By vertue whereof they are Sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant and made partakers of grace and favour with God without any ministeriall application And so made alive in the second Adam Oppo You cannot prove what you say to be true Res It sufficeth me at this time that you cannot prove it false It is my duty now to answer when it falls to my lot to prove I shall prove what is or may be required of me Oppo I will urge you with what is writen in the 1 Corinth 10. Chap. 1 2 3. vers. All our Fathers were under the cloud and all passed thorow the Sea And were all Baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea And did all eat the same Spirituall meat And did all drink the same Spirituall drink for they drank of that Spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ But with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the Wilderness Now these things were our Examples or Types or Figures and in the 11. vers. All these things hapned unto them for Types Here you see their Baptisme was a type of our Baptisme In that Baptisme Men Women and Children were Baptised unto Moses Therefore in our Baptisme Men Women and Children ought to be Baptised Res First I say the TEXT doth not say Men Women and Children But all our Fathers Secondly it may be made plain by the TEXT that Infants were not Baptised unto Moses in the Sea for it is said they did all Eat and Drink the same Spiritual meat c. You cannot affirm that Infants did Eat and Drink Spiritually The TEXT speaks not of Children Thirdly It is not the Apostles intent to declare that their Baptisme was a type of ours But that their Punishments were Figures and Types and written for our admonition Oppo He saith in the 6th vers These things happened unto them for Examples and in the 11. vers. All these things happened unto them for Types Res Yea all their Punishments for look in the 6th vers These things were our Examples he saith not To the intent that we should Baptise Infants as they Baptised them but To the intent we should not lust It is no mo●● in effect but this No priviledges how great soever can exempt Men that are sinfull and depart from the Lord from suffering of Punishment Christ hath given you great and many priviledges as he did to the People of the Jews yet do not you presume for as they did not escape when they sinned no more shall you Oppo 2 Thess. 2. 15. Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which yee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle The Apostle gives command to the Church that they should hold the Traditions nor that I do approve of vain Traditions which are the Commandements of Men But such Traditions as are Apostolical delivered by the Apostles themselves are to be held by the Church even as those things which were delivered in writing As Apostolical Traditions are to be kept and hold and so Lawfull But the Baptisme of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition Res I deny the minor Baptisme of Infants is no Apostolical Tradition Oppo Augustin saith that the Church always held it from the Apostles times meaning the Baptisme of Infants

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