Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	circumcision_n	covenant_n	seal_n	7,337	5	9.8059	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45830	Infants-baptism disproved and believers baptism proved, or, An answer to several arguments propounded in a paper by Mr. Alexander Kellie, minister at Giles Criple Gate London, and sent to Mr. Jeremiah Ives of the said parish and is now published for the general information of all, but particularly for the satisfaction of many of the inhabitants of the said parish who have desired it, wherein the arguments for infant-baptism are examined and disproved by the said Jeremia Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1655 (1655)	Wing I1100; ESTC R31669	39,332	78

Again You say I brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that the Command Mat. 28. reacheth only Disciples not all Nations my reason you say is Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Neuter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Masculine Gender But this you say is no reason at all as appears by Mat. 25.32 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must neds have relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse there shall not be a separation between all Nations at the last day This Enallage generis where the Masculine Gender is put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usuall in Scripture and many times you say includes Children as Mat. 25.32 Rev. 2.26 27. 19.15 Acts 15.17 21.25 26.17 28.28 Ephes 2.11 4.17 Mr. Ive's 1 YOu did agree at your house that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did relate to Disciple and accordingly went about to prove that Children were Disciples as appears by many of your Arguments 2 I said not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did no where refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that in this Scripture it ought to refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you also granted 3 Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it doth not follow that the infants in the Nations are included yea the contrary is apparent from the latter clause of the sentence where it is said Teaching them which doth sufficiently intimate that those of the Nations are hereby only meant who are capable of Discipline and consequently had the use of reason which agreeth not unto infants who as the Scripture sheweth together with the attestation of common sense have no knowledge between good and evill Deut. 1.39 Moreover your little ones which you said should be a prey and your Children which in that day had no knowledge between good and evill they shall goe in thither and unto them will I give it and they shall possesse it Isai 7.14 15 16. Therefore the Lord himselfe shall give you a signe behold a Virgin shall conceive a Son and shall call his name Imanuel Butter and Honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evill and choose the good For before the Child shall know to refuse the evill and choose the good the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings Likewise the very instance you bring out of Mat. 25.32 doth refute your opinion for there such only of the Nations are understood as had acted in the world and done either good or evill for they are such as had either relieved Christ in his necessity or refused to doe so neither of which agreeth to infants for would it not be ridiculous to imagine that our Lord Christ should say to the infants Goe yee cursed into everlasting fire for I was hungry and yee fed me not Besides every one of the rest of the places cited by you where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found doth if the circumstances be examined mean them only of the Nations that had the use of reason and so are not a whit to your purpose 4 You goe on to another Argument and tell me that Mr. Kellie THat which God hath once commanded and never repealed ought still to be obeyed But he did once Command that the Children of his servants whom he hath taken into Covenant with himselfe should have the seale of the rightousnesse of faith set upon them which he hath never forbidden only he hath taken away the outward circumcision therefore we must obey that Command still Mr. Ive's I Doe deny this whole Sillogism because first there is not one of the tearms of the Propos in it which had you argued honestly you should have said thus That which God once commanded and never repealed is in force still and then you should have assumed But God did once Command the baptizing of infants and never repealed it therefore that Command is in force still Indeed had you reasoned thus and proved the minor a gracious heart would hardly have denied it But then 2 This Argument contradicts it selfe for you say He did once Command and never afterwards forbid that infants should have the seale and token of the Covenant and yet you say presently after That Circumcision was taken away then it folowes that the seale of it was prohibited and the use of it forbidden is not this a palpable contradiction For what was the seale of faith that God commanded to Abraham Was it not Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Rom. 10.11 If so then when Circumcision was repealed that Law which commanded nothing else must needs be repealed and if the Law be in force it must require some other thing as well as Circumcision and so be but in part repealed if Circumcision be repealed You might as well have said that James Duke Hamilton was a live after James Earl of Cambridge was beheaded as say that that Law given to Abraham Gen. 17.10 is in force and yet say Circumcision was taken away Who but those are willfully ignorant doth not see this empty kind of arguing You proceed to another Argument and tell me that Mr. Kellie THey which had a right to the Ordinance that was profitable every way have still a right to baptism But the Children of Gods people have a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way Ergo. The Children of Gods people have a right to baptism Mr. Ive's THis Argument among the rest we met with at your house and I did then and so I doe now deny the major for if you look the text upon which it is grounded Rom 3.1 2. you will find that this Ordinance you speak of was Circumcision so that then the major Proposition in plain English is this They that had had a right to Circumcision have a right to baptism if this be a good Argument why doe you plead for the infants of believers so much May you not as well plead for the unbelieving Jewes and their infants by the same reason thus They that had a right to circumcision have a right to baptism but the Jewes and their infants had a right to Circumcision therefore they have a right to baptism now If you shall say so they have if they convert to believe in Christ I say then you have answered your selfe and then it followeth not that their right to Circumcision did give them a right to baptism but their believing in Christ for if it did your must baptize a Jew though he did never believe You now come to scare me with great words since you cannot doe it by Arguments and this you indeavour to doe by telling me of fearfull and base Absurdities that will follow upon what I have said in denying infants baptism The first Aburdity you say is Mr. Kellie THat if baptism be denied to the infants of believers then the Children of the Devills servants under the Law had better means of grace confer'd upon them