Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptism_n	sin_n	wash_v	5,754	5	9.1902	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

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.

had passed through the Doctrine Of Repentance from dead works and faith towards God in which the present differences of the Men of these times have created no smal difficulties Shee meets with a great controversie about the Doctrine of Baptisme which drives her into a strait and shee remains divided in her thoughts not being able to resolve her self whether her Infant Baptisme were of God or whether it were contrary to truth being none other but tradition of Men a will worship and by consequence vain and unprofitable While thus shee remains uncertain not knowing to which part to adhere whether to those who professing the faith of the Lord Jesus do maintain and uphold the Baptisme of Infants or whether it were not her duty to repair to a Baptised Congregation to require Baptisme at their hands If shee make her addresses to Counsellours one sayeth thus Fear not your Baptisme is good and valid Another tels her that her Infant Baptisme is not of God Both these use Arguments and Demonstrations and Reasons which captivate her understanding that shee discerns not in her self what to imbrace or what to eschew And finding at present no way to deliver her self from this condition is very desirous a Conference may be had between Parties on both sides about this matter To the end that what shee could not be throughly perswaded of in her mind when shee heard them speaking asunder might through grace be happily obtained by hearing them speak friendly Together This was the occasion of the meeting And Mr. Gunning whether solicited by Intreaty of others or moved Voluntarily I know not certainly was pleased to take the business upon himself on the one part to defend the Lawfullness of Infants Baptisme And Mr. Denne on the other part yeelded himself to oppugn the Baptisme of Infants Two dayes were appoynted for this conference The first day was on the 19th of November last when they met at the place before appoynted And Mr. Denne whose part it was that day to be the Respondent stood up in the Pulpit and intreating the multitude to be silent and to behave themselves civilly and orderly and craving attention he spake Res One there is who desireth to be informed whether the Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull or Unlawfull I declare that the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull B After him stood up Mr. Gunning in an opposite gallery and spake Oppo I will prove the Baptisme of Infants to be Lawfull thus That which the supream Lawgiver of the Church hath given in command to his immediate Officers in the Church by a perpetual sanction and unalterable decree to be by them practised is Lawfull But the Baptisme of Infantsis by the supream Lawgiver of the Church given in Command to his immediate Officers by a perpetual sanction and unalterable decree to be by them and their Successors practised Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull A This is a very long Syllogisme I wonder a learned Man should use so many words which must needs procure more disadvantage then advantage for most times in multitude of words there is error B Indeed many of his Syllogismes were long and Shard to be repeated Therefore I cannot promise to rehearse them Verbatim only I will not willingly leave out any word which is Materiall or may be for the Opponents advantage A I think the sum of this may be gathered into fewer words thus That which Christ hath commanded to be practised is Lawfull But Christ hath commanded Baptisme of Infants to be practised Therefore Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull But let me hear the answer Res I deny the minor and do say Christ never Commanded Baptisme of Infants to be practised either by his immediate Officers or any other of their Successors Opp. I will prove that it is the will and command of the supream Lawgiver that Infants should be Baptised If the supream Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved and they cannot be saved without Baptisme or desire of Baptisme in Parents or friends then is it his will and command that they should be Baptised But the supream Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved and they cannot be saved without Baptisme Therefore it is his will that they should be Baptised for he that willeth the end willeth also the means conducing to that end Res The minor I answer in the first place freely granting that it is the will of Jesus Christ that Infants should be saved But saying that Infants may be saved without Baptisme or without desire of Baptisme in their Parents or any other for them A Doe you think that the Opponent speaketh his own thoughts Or doth he speak it for disputation sake when he sayth Children cannot be saved without Batisme B Questionless he speaketh his own thoughts even as he is perswaded in heart that no Infant can be saved without Baptisme or desire at least of the Parents or Friends to have the Child Baptised But hear his proof whereby he proves Infants cannot be saved without Baptisme or desire of Baptisme Oppo John 3. 5th Verily Verily I say unto thee Except any one be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God These are Christ words to Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews who came to Christ to enquire of the way of God And they are confirmed with an oath doubled Except any one that is Man Woman or Child none are excepted be born again of Water that is Baptisme and of the Spirit not Water alone without the Spirit or Spirit alone without Water but of Water and of the Spirit the Spirit working by Water he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God that is he cannot be saved None can possibly be saved except they be Baptised Res The place of Scripture you have brought is Allegorical and therefore not so proper to be a ground for Faith not having one word in it to the matter in hand to be proved which is that Infants canot be saved without Baptisme Now here is in this TEXT neither the word Infant nor Baptisme nor Saved if your gloss be layd aside But I have three things in answer to this TEXT and your gloss or exposition The first is a general rule which will serve to answer not only this but other arguments that peradventure may be brought That Scriptures must be considered to whom and of whom they speak and not to be applyed to any other concerning whom it doth not speak So you find in the quoted place that Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews comes to Christ to learn the way of God that so he might work the workes of God To this Man Christ makes answer except a Man be born again c. speaking neither of Children nor to Children The second answer is this that by being born again of Water is not meant Baptisme but a Mistical not a Litteral Water as in many other places of Scripture spoken of Thirdly if it were granted that the TEXT did include

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

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

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