Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	holy_a	son_n	teach_v	15,032	5	6.6919	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

hundred sentences and who knows how many they have inserted Oppo I can make it plain out of Tertullian that he alloweth the Baptisme of Infants in case of necessitie and danger of death Besides it is known Tertullian was an Heretique and died an Heretique But I shall refer to the Auditors what hath been said unto this argument You have said any one doth not include all and that water is not Literall water I will proceed to another argument to prove the Lawfullness of Infant Baptisme A There was yet nothing spoken to the third answer of the Respondent which is of as great consequence as any of the other and if the other were of no force yet if that stand good the argument is of no force it was this that supposing the TEXT alledged did speak of Baptising yet by Entring into the Kingdome of Heaven is meant no other thing then a state of happiness which beleevers do attain unto here in this life through faith in Christ Jesus viz. Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost B I suppose the Opponent had forgotten to refell it and the Answerer had also forgotten to call for it Let us hear the Opponent prosecuting a second argument Oppo That which is no sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to perform being required is Lawfull But it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants neither for Ministers to perform it being required Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull Res I deny the minor It is a sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants Oppo That which is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World is no sin for Parents to require or for Ministers to perform But the Baptisme of Infants is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World Therefore it cannot be sin in Parents to require or in Ministers to performe being required Res I deny the minor and say There is No commission authorizing Parents to require or Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants being required Oppo The Commission is Mat. 28. 18 19 20. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go ye therefore and make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World AMEN Here the Apostles are Commanded to make Diciples of all Nations Baptising them and then teaching them Here it is plain Baptising after Teaching Res I do not deny that Teaching should follow Baptisme But I deny that Baptisme should go before all Teaching moreover here is not one word of Parents requiring Baptisme for Infants or one word of Infants being Baptised And whereas you seem to imply that the Apostles should make Disciples by Baptising of them I demand of you before this assembly whether you beleeve that by vertue of this Commission by you alledged the Apostles or their successors either had or have authority to take all Nations and Baptise them whether they will or no Whether they consent or not Opp. No I do not imagin so but that they were first to make those that where of years of discretion willing by Preaching and then to Baptise them And those that were not of years to make them Disciples by Baptising of them Res Now you say something first make them willing and then Baptise them But you have not exprest in the Commission any thing of Children who are not willing How willing Children are appears by their Crying and Strugling at the Font Oppo I will prove Children are not unwilling for as Ignoti nulla Cupido there can be no desire or will to a thing we do not know so neither can there be any Vnwillingness to that which is unknown now Children knowing nothing of Baptisme it is not possible they should be Vnwilling seeing they know not any thing of the matter Res You might have spared this labour for I did not say Children were Unwilling But I said they were not Willing your duty had been to prove they were Willing there is a vast difference between Unwilling and not Willing you know how willing Constantinus Copronymus was to be Baptised when he was an Infant and how he came to have the name of Copronymus I can tell you the story But I will not in this auditory I desire you to frame a Silogisme out of the TEXT alledged concluding that here is a commission either to Baptise Infants or to require their Baptisme Oppo I will The Apostles are here Commanded to make Disciples of all Nations now Infants who are part of the Nations cannot be made Disciples any other way then by Baptisme therefore they are here commanded to make Disciples by Baptisme Res First I say you cannot prove that this Commission under the title of all Nations extendeth any more to Infants then that in Mark 16. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature extendeth to Infants you will confess you have no warrant for to Preach to an Infant in the Cradle from this place Secondly I deny that Baptisme maketh Disciples it manifesteth one to be a Disciple it doth not make him one I pray prove if you can that Baptisme maketh any one a Disciple it is written John 4. 1. Jesus made and Baptised more Disciples then John It is one thing to make another thing to baptise a disciple Oppo I had thought it had been a matter of conscience your deniall of the Baptisme of Infants but now I perceive you go about to deny all Baptisme I will prove it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants Where there is no Law there is no Transgression for sin is the Transgression of a Law But there is no Law forbidding Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants or forbidding Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants therefore it is no sin either to require or administer Baptisme to Infants Res There is a Law forbidding it and that under a severe punishment Oppo Shew where that Law is to be found Res I will Deut. 18. 20. Here Moses Prophesieth of Christ in these Words A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you c. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name which I have not Commanded him c. Even that Prophet shall die Mark this One word and Prover 30. 6. Add not thou to his Words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar So that until you be able to prove a command there must needs lye a prohibition in the way Oppo I have proved a Command already and I will further prove it All Church members may Lawfully be Baptised Infants are Church members Therefore Infants may Lawfully be Baptised Res I deny the

have no Command nor Commission from God to require Baptisme for Infants then it is a sin in them to require it for Infants but Parents have neither Command nor Commission from God to require it for their Children therefore it is a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants Res Parents have a Commission from God to require Baptisme for their Infants Oppo Shew us a Commission Res Mat. 28. 19. Make Disciples of all Nations Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have Commanded you and lo I am with you always even to the end of the World Oppo Here is no Commission to Parents but only to the Apostles Res The Apostles are here commanded to teach them to observe all things which Christ Commanded them They are sent into the World to teach those that are of years and make them willing and then to Baptise them and as for Children to make them Disciples by Baptising of them and to teach the Parents to require Baptisme for their Children that thereby they may be made Disciples though they be not Capable of teaching Oppo You have often urged me with antiquity and charged me with novelty I do now justly charge you with a Novel interpretation of the Scripture Not above twenty years old at the most viz. that the meaning of the TEXT alledged should be this Make them Disciples by Baptising them Res This is ancient and the Fathers did understand this TEXT so But as for your opinion it was not heard of little above 500 years ago Then there rose up on Henricus that denyed the Baptisme of Infants They that followed him were called Henricians and he and his followers were condemned for Heretiques and excommunicated for their Heresie A Have patience I pray you and bear with me a little I desire to understand the whole matter of these Heretiques and Heresies and by whom they were comdemned and excommunicated for this will give me satisfaction in some things B I will declare the matter from the beginning of it About the year 1047. there reigned in Germany Henry the third King who held two grand Heresies as the Pope and his followers were pleased to stile them the one was detected viz. That Church Lands and Church-men were subject to his Jurisdiction A This was his detected heresie What was the other suspected B De Baptismo parvultorum perperam sonsisse Creditur He was suspected to have an evill opinion of the Baptisme of Infants from this Henry the third King who was afterward Emperour the second of that name Began the Henrician heresie After him succeeded not in the Empire but in opinion Peter de Bruis His opinions laid to his charge were 1. That Infants could not be saved by Baptisme 2. That the faith of other men could not stand them in stead that had no faith of their own 3. That crosses were to be pluck down and burned 4. That the Body and bloud of Christ was not really or corporally present in the Sacrament 5. That the Sacrament was not a Sacrifice to be offered to God 6. That Prayers and Alms made and given by the living did not profit the dead 7. That Christians had no need of consecrated places to Worship God in neither need they to build any 8. Vpon the Lords day before Easter He invited much People to a feast and dressed his meat with a fire made of woodden crosses After this man in the Year 1147. there arose one Henricus a Monk which is the man spoken of by the answerer who was accused of Heresieby his adversaries His heresies as they termed them were these First Infants are not to be Baptised 2. The cross of Christ is not to be Worshipped 3. The Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 4. It is in vain to pray for the dead 5. God is provoked to wrath by Church musick This was the Henrician Heresy in the full They who did condemn and excommunicate these Men were the Pope his Cardinalls andCouncell and Bernard the fairest flower among them A Surely I beleeve the same persons would have comdemned this Answerer also forasmuch as he also is guilty of some of their opinions for which they were condemned B That is true enough I therefore wonder why he did instance in these persons But I will return to the Disputation Oppo I will prove that this interpretation of the place alledged cannot be true viz. to make Disciples by Baptising First By the Grammaticall Construction of the place Secondly By the general Consent of Translators Thirdly By the ●cripture Compared with this place And Fourthly by the practice of the Apostles who were the persons executing this Commission Make Disciples of all Nations Baptising them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I demand what is the antecedent to the relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not understood in the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Res {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nations is the anticedent Oppo That cannot be for then the Commission should be this make the Nations Disciples by Baptising them and you have granted that this Commission doth not extend to all in the Nations but only to such as are willing Secondly {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the Newter gender and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Masculine how do they agree Res It is a figure called Synthesis wherein one gender is put for another which is frequent in the new Testament Oppo I do not remember any place neither do I beleeve any parallel place can be shewed out of the new Testament Res Although I do not carry a Concordance in my head yet I can shew you one place in John 14. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath for his antecedent {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Oppo It is nothing so for the anticedent is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the beginning of the vers and the words between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are a Parenthesis and may be omitted without breaking the sence Res Is the Parenthesis noted in your Book Opp. No But your consience tells you it ought to be Res I will give you another place Ephesi 1. 13 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Here {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for his antecedent this is a plain Synthesis Oppo It is so because of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} understood What is the earnest of the inheritance Res {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Spirit of God A Here the Respondent speaketh not punctually according to the truth