man as well upon the other hand say That he that refused the Apostles refused to baptize the Apostles as you may say the receiving or non receiving of infants is a receiving of them to or a rejecting them from baptism Again He that receiveth an Angell of God is said to receive God may not a man as well plead from hence Therefore Angels may be baptized as you may in saying He that receiveth a little Child receiveth Christ Therefore a little Child must be baptized And whereas you say That a refusing to baptize infants is a refusing to receive Christ How strangely do you contradict your selfe Did not you say in the former part of your paper That many that we baptized were not inwardly and effectually called till afterwards Now doth not this plainly prove That we that refuse to baptize Children doe yet notwithstanding receive Christ for what is it to be inwardly and effectually called but to receive Christ In the fourth place you say that Mr. Kellie THey are included in baptism for whom Christ appears so much as we find Mark 10.13 Luke 18.15 which you say Luke saith were infants c. Mr. Ive's I Answer You take great paines to prove that which nones denies That these that Christ tooke in his armes were infants But how doe you prove that which is denied That these infants were baptized by Christ You say That Christ reproved his Disciples for not suffering the infants to come to him Which shewes plainly that baptizing them was no part of their businesse that brought them First because if it were a Command of Christ to baptize infants the Disciples that were his Messengers were then ignorant of a great part of their Message that they were to deliver in their Ministry Or else 2 If they did know that it was their work and Christs Command to baptize infants they were desperately wicked in keeping any from it This was not onely to break a Command but to teach men so and to be guilty of that abominable evill the Pharisees were guilty of Viz. Of not entring into Heaven themselves nor suffering others This will follow if to keep infants from baptism be to keep them from Christ as you would make it But that they were not baptized when they came to Christ appears because the Text saith John 4.2 that Jesus himselfe baptized NOT but his Disciples And whereas you say Mr. Kellie HAnds were laid upon them by which greater things then baptism was done Mr. Ive's I Answer By the same rule you may give the bread and wine in the Sacrament to infants because greater things were done by laying on of hands then eating bread and drinking wine And why doe you not by this rule preach to Children in their Cradles because greater wonders were wrought by laying on of hands then ever were done by Preaching Who sees not but this Argument is as strong for Preaching to infants and giving the Lords Supper to infants as it is for baptizing infants And yet though you allow them baptism you deny them both the other Ordinances You say Christ blessed them as well as layd hands on them which say you is as much if not more thâ—n baptism And is not his blessing as much if not more then your giving the Sacrament of the Supper to them Why then doe you deny them of it You say Mr. Kellie THat was a good reason for Christ to blesse them viz. Because the Kingdome of Heaven belonged to them and therefore it must needs be a good reason for us to baptize them Mr. Ive's I Answer first why this was not a good reason for CHRIST to baptize them yet the Scripture saith He baptized none 2 Doth not infants right to the Kingdome of heaven intitle them to all other Ordinances as well as baptism since under the Gospel whoever were found to be members of a true Church by baptism had also fellowship of all other Church-priviledges except they had by some scandalous evills deprived themselves thereof so that infants right to the Kingdome of Heaven serves nothing for your present purpose Your fifth Reason is Mr. Kellie INfants are branches of the true Olive Rom. 11.17 Therefore they are included in the Command of baptism Mr. Ive's I Answer first by denying the antecedent for the infants of believers are not branches of the Olive in the Text but onely such as did actually believe and there is not the least mention made of their infants in the whole Chapter for the 20 verse saith That for want of faith the Jewes were broke off and by faith the Gentiles did stand which faith is not to be found in your infants you plead for 2 To be branches by generation if that were the sense of the Text could not give them a right to baptism because the Jewes were naturall branches and yet that could not give them a right to baptism without faith Your sixth Reason is Mr. Kellie BEcause infants of believers are Abrahams seed and so consequently members of Christ Gal. 3.16 And baptism you say is an Ordinance of our incorporation into Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Therefore you say they that are members of Christ should not be denied that Ordinance Mr. Ive's I Cannot but wonder at your presumtion doth the word of God any where say that the carnall seed of believers are members of Christ Doth it not say the contrary that even Abrahams owne seed were not the Children of God as they were his carnall seed Rom. 9.7 Neither because they are the seed Abraham are they Children which is expounded Vers 8. That is saith the Apostle they which are the Children of the flesh they are not the Children of God 2 Again How dare you say that the naturall seed of believers in their infancy are the seed of Abraham since that Abrahams own seed were under the Gospel no otherwise reckoned for his seed then by believing Gal. 3.7 Know yee therefore that they which are of faith the same are the Children of Abraham v. 9. They which are of saith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And what ever Abrahams seed and the Proselites seed were accounted under the Law it makes not at all to your purpose unlesse you prove God doth so account of them under the Gospel And therefore the Apostle saith not of seeds as to many but to thy seed which is Christ So that by this which you cited out of Gal. 3.16 it appears the Promises were not made to the naturall seed of believers but unto Christ or them that were Members of his mysticall body by believing And the Apostle tels them That so many of them as had been baptized into Christ had put on Christ which was by making profession of Christ which your infants doe not and therefore the same Apostle concludeth That if they were Christs then they were Abrahams seed Not if they were believers naturall Children that they upon any such consideration should be Heires of the Promise Your seventh reason is
they circumcised were Disciples Now if you look to the foregoing verses you shall see that the false Teachers taught circumcision to the brethren and not to infants and told the Disciples that if they were not circumcised they could not be saved And now if it be granted that they would have circumcised infants as well as old folks doth this prove infants are old folks No more doth your saying they would circumcise Disciples prove infants to be Disciples You proceed to a third Reason why Children should be Disciples and that is this viz. Mr. Kellie THat if you should grant they are not learned but ignorant yet ignorance you say did not debar from Circumcision therefore not from baptism Mr. Ive's I Answer by shewing you how willing you are to gather up any thing to serve your turne though nothing to purpose one while they viz. infants are to be baptized because believers Children doe know the Lord and are taught of God c. And now you plead they may be baptized though ignorant What a miserable shuffling is here What knowledge the cause all this while and now be baptized though they are ignorant what strange Logick is this But to the Consequence viz. Ignorance you say did not hinder from Circumeision therefore not from baptism I answer first ignorance could not hinder infants from that which God commanded Parents to doe unto their Children while they were infants so that if God had commanded parents to baptize their infants then their ignorance could not hinder no more then it could hinder their parents from Circumcising them after God had commanded it But here you doe beg the question by taking it for granted that God commanded infants to be baptized as he did Command the Children of Abraham to be Circumcised 2 Again in Gospel worship whatever is not of faith is sin God will in Gospel worship be served in Spirit which is a service no where required of infants therefore ignorance must needs hinder infants from that which God no where requireth and which they are no way capable to perform You goe on and tell us that Mr. Kellie IGnorance did not hinder Peter from his Masters washing his feet John 13.7 8. The 7th verse you say shewes his ignorance and the 8th the necessity of his washing Mr. Ive's WHy doe you not conclude somewhat from hence or else why doe you bring it If you bring it to prove that therefore ignorance may not hinder Children from baptism then pray see whether or no Peter did not know Christ washed his feet and whether in reason can you believe that Christ could wash Peters feet and Peter be as ignorant of his washing as your babies are of their sprinkling Again it plainly appears that Peter was ignorant not of the washing it selfe but of somewhat Christ would make known by it which was to shew That they whom he washed should learn of him to doe so to others and therefore Christ asketh his Disciples if they knew what he had done to them Now they could not but know he had washed them but they did not know that he had hereby set them a Copy to write after and therefore if your Children had as much knowledge of Christ when you baptize them as Peter had when Christ washed his feet though they might not know all circumstances relating to baptism then indeed it were somewhat to your purpose to quote this place Again is it not a strong signe of a weak cause that you should compare the ignorance of Peter to the ignorance of your infants his being but a partiall ignorance in a circumstance and your Babes are totally ignorant of both substance and circumstance Again this Law of washing the Disciples feet was never in practice before till Christ now did it and commanded it and therefore no marvell though the Apostles were ignorant of the end of it till it was declared neither was there any such qualifications required in washing one anothers feet as is required in baptisme You proceed and say that Mr. Kellie THe Scripture doth not say None shall be baptized but understanding Disciples and if it did you say yet that had not excluded infants for the Apostle saith He that will not labour must not eat and yet Children say you must not starve though they doe not labour Mr. Ive's TO this I answer first that the Scripture doth not say you shall not baptize bells nor goe a Pilgrimage why then do not you do these things 2 Again it did not say as we have elswhere observed that the Children of Abraham should not be circumcised the sixth or fourth day why then did not they doe it before Nor the Scripture doth not say Infants shall not receive the Sacrament of the bread and wine why doe you then refuse to give it them Doe you not plainly see that you condemn others in the thing you allow for you condemn us that will not baptize our infants because you say it 's no where forbidden why may not others as well condemn you for refusing to give the Lords Supper to infants by the same rule because it 's no where forbidden I but you will say it 's implicitly forbidden 1 Cor. 11.28 because the Text saith Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat and Children cannot examine themselves In the like manner say I infants are denied baptism because the Scripture saith He that BELIEVETH and is baptized c. Mark 16. and If thou BELIEVEST thou mayest be baptized Acts 8. Doe not these in the judgement of any rational man as plainly exclude infants from baptism as the other Scripture doth exclude them from the Supper But you presume and say that Mr. Kellie IF the Scripture had said None but understanding Disciples should be baptized that had not excluded infants Mr. Ive's IS not this strange that you should say That they are not to be excluded though the Scripture doe exclude them Doe you not hereby give us to understand that let the word of God say what it will you will doe what you list Neither doe you think to mend the matter by that place of Scripture 2 Thess 3.10 If any will not worke he should not eat Now you seem to conclude from hence that though Children doe not work yet they must eat Ergo. Though children doe not believe yet they must be baptized Now see the fallacy the Text doth not say He that DOTH not worke as you say when you apply it to infants but He that WILL not worke Now if there be any children that WILL not work they must not eat viz. of the Churches Charity therefore infants and they that are impotent it cannot be said of them that they WILL not work Now if God had given you the like Command to baptize Children in their infancy as he hath done to fathers and mothers to feed them in their infancy then you had said something to the purpose otherwise you had as good have said nothing Mr. Kellie
his Acts 2.16.13 And Lydia and her houshold Acts 16.15 Mr. Ive's TO the first of these I answer That the Scripture no where saith that Cornelius had any infants baptized but that those that Heard Peters word and had received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and glorified God Acts 10.46 47 48. were baptized which Text you urge for infants baptism I shall appeale to all that shall seriously mind these words whether there be any comparison between the persons baptized in that Text and the infants that you baptize Next you urge the houshold of Stephanus that they were baptized 1 Cor. 1.16 Hence you would infer infants were baptized Now may not a man as well say that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 16.15 that The house of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints that therefore infants in Stephanus house were addicted to minister to the Saints as you may say Stephanus his houshold were baptized therefore infants in the house were baptized Your next is Acts 16.33 where 't is said the Jaylor and all his were baptized Now may not a man as well say that his infants in the Cradle believed the Apostles and that the Apostles preached to infants in the Cradle as you may imagine that infants were baptized because the Jaylor and all his were baptized For the same Text that saith he and all his were baptized doth also say That the Apostles spake unto him the word of the Lord to ALL that were in his house vers 32. And Vers 34. it is said That he Viz. the Jaylor believed in God with All his house And yet you presume to call this as the rest Scripture practice for infant-baptism Your other instance is in the 15 Verse of the forecited Chapter where we read that Lydia and her house were baptized c. You cannot from hence prove that Lydia was a married woman for when women have husbands as the head of their families the houshold is not usually known by the womans name 2 If she had been married how doe you prove she had any Children 3 If she had had Children how doe you prove she had any alive at this time since it often times so falls out that good people as well as bad may see all their Children goe to the grave before them But 4 If she had Children alive how doe you know but that the least of them were old enough to speak for themselves 5 And lastly if she had any infant Children how can you infer from the Text that she baptized them If you say because her house was baptized I answer That a man may as well say as I said before that the infants of Stephanus did minister to the Saints because the houshold of Stephanus did minister to the Saints You doe urge severall Texts to shew that oftentimes in Scripture whole housholds doe include their infants as Gen. 14.16 Judges 9.16.18 1 Kings 17.12 13 15. 1 Pet. 3.21 I shall not examine these Texts whether you have urged them rightly or no because I agree with you that often times in Scripture we must from severall reasons and circumstances conclude that when it speaks of housholds it includes infants But if you cannot prove from any reason or circumstance in the Texts under debate that it should here be so understood then you have laboured all this while for that which satisfieth not unlesse you will say that alwayes when the Scripture speaks of house or houshold it intends little infants which you will not say And again you may perceive by what hath been said that in these houses those that were baptized have enough to distinguish them from being infants to any that have not put out the eyes of their understanding You proceed as though your conscience did convince you that whatever you have talked of plain Scripture precept and plain Scripture practice for infants baptism that there is no such thing in all the Scripture because you say Mr. Kellie THat it is not expressed in the Scripture that women were admitted to breaking of bread and yet you say we never question their right to that Ordinance You hereupon demand why then should we question Childrens right to baptism Mr. Ive's I Answer First that if we should doe a thing that we had no plain rule for will this justifie you to doe evill because we doe evill and to walk in the dark without a plain rule because we doe so But secondly we have a plain rule for womens receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himselfe where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Common Gender and Beza renders it quisque Which is as much as if the Apostle had said Let EVERY ONE examin themselves and so let them eat Where have you such a plain Text as this for infants baptism Lastly you urge Col. 2.11 12. where you say Mr. Kellie IF that place doth not give Children a right to baptism then the Apostle doth not write that which could satisfie either the Colossians or the false Prophets that were for Circumcision Your Reasons are Because the false Prophets might have said That the outward Circumcision of Children did point and signifie the inward Circumcision of the heart But if this be taken away what have Children now to signifie the Circumsion of the heart Mr. Ive's SO then by this you would give us to understand that the false Prophets could no way be answered unlesse the Apostle had granted baptism of infants to signifie that which Circumcision did before To this I answer That if Circumcision had signified the Circumcising of infants hearts then the false Prophets might have pleaded thus But I deny that it signified any such thing to or of infants And therefore you said well when you said The FALSE Prophets might say so but I am sure no true Prophet ever said so And again If the question had been about infants baptism he could not have spoken that which had satisfied either the Colossians or false Teachers if he had not conformed his Answer thereto But there is not the least noise of such a thing in the Text as you or any body else that shall but view it may perceive for the Apostle sayes Vers 11. That they were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh c. Doth not this plainly shew that he doth strengthen the Colossians from returning to the beggerly Rudiments of the world by the benefit which they received by putting off the sins of the flesh which they could not obtain by cutting their flesh in Circumcision And now he tells them not onely the Argument of their being converted from sin and made compleat in Christ should strengthen them from falling back to the Rudiments of the Law but also Vers 12. their being buried with Christ in baptism and their rising with him in baptism through the faith of the operation of God should
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 satifaction 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 Jeremiah Ives Prov. 18.17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his neighbour comes and searcheth him Job 6.25 How forcible are right words but what do your arguings reprove Prov. 23.23 Buy the truth but sell it not Luke 7.30 But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of him Printed at London for Richard Moone and are to be sold at the seven Stars in Paul's Church-yard neer the great North door 1655. To the READER Reader IF those men of Berea Act. 17.11 were counted more noble then they of Thessalonica because they would take nothing upon trust that the Apostles said but searched the Scripture dayly to see if what They said were so How ignoble should we be in this Age wherein men are much more divided in matters of Religion then they were in the Apostles times and wherein our Teachers themselves are contradictious one to another in many of the great concernments of Religion if we should receive any thing from them without diligent search into the Word of God to see if it be true or no sith Solomon makes this a distinguishing Character between a wise Man and a Fool Prov. 14.15 The simple believeth every word but the wise man looks well to his goings Neither let a man think that his looking back to the ancient Fathers and his searching of them and reading them will much help in the midst of these Religious disorders because they were in many things as much contradictory to the Truth and one another as any in these times as for instance Hierome and Chrisostome deny Original-sin in the sence it is now maintained Augustine taught That the Lord's Supper should be given to Infants in his fifth Book of Hpognosticks Justin Martyr against Triphon saith God at first gave the Sun to be adored Origen held the Salvation of all both wicked men and devils The Bishops of the East and West Churches opposed one another in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ in the time of Constantius Son to Constatinus Magius And long after Socrates Lib. 1. Chap. 29. and Chrisostome said That Saint Paul spake against Truth and Reason in allowing second Marriages See Moulin's Defence p. 137 138. By all this you may see that we have great cause to search the Scripture and not to follow the Fathers or any but wherein they followed Christ And we may likewise understand that that which the World now calls The Christian Religion is like the Weather-beaten Bark at Athens that had been so often mended and riged that it was hard to say whether it retained any of its old materials onely it retained its old Name The like may be said of Religion as it is commonly profess'd in the world by the generality of men that it hath been so often mended with the new state of â—ens own inventions that if we look into the Word of God and compare the state of the Christian Religion in the Apostles times to the common Religion that is profess'd now in the Nation and we shall finde nothing but the name of it the name of Believing the name of Churches the name of Baptism the name of Ministers of the Gospel the name of the Lord's Supper the name of Christians c. How mightily then doth it concern us all to search the Word of God which is a Light to us in this dark Day and is able to lead us through all the Mists of the Mystery of Iniquity and to set our feeâ— in a fair path where we may walk without stumbling But if you shall say Have not our learned Men undertaken to reform Religion by the Word of God and cannot they as soon hit the right way through these many wayes as we I answer T is one thing what they can do and another thing what they will do considering how much the most part of them are taken with the love of this present World and the pride of life which stops them from laying aside any error that they have preached practised lest it should reflect either upon their profit on the one hand or their credit and learning on the other as some of the Bishops said in the Council of Trent That the School men were like Astronomers which did feigh Eccentricks and Epicycles to save the Phenomina though they knew there were no such thing In like manner as Sir Francis Bacon well observes in his Essaies of Superstition p. 97 98. The School-men saith he have framed a number of subtil and intricate Axioms and Theorems to save the practise of the Church I shall therefore intreat the Reader to see if the Profit of this World and the Credit of the Learned doth not engage them to do so in the present controversie of Infants Baptism and whether it doth not savour more of the spirit of the forenamed Bishops in the Council of Trent then of the self-denying spirit that was Christ and his Apostles For this end that thou maist try all things and hold fast the best I have put forth that ensuing Controversie which at first was in private at Mr. Kellie's own House and afterward according to a promise then made he did send me in a Paper not onely the Arguments that he laid down then but also some others that he had not then time to propose all which are particularly examined and the Scriptures relating to them seriously weighed and considered and therefore if by what is herein written there be any discovery of the Truth on either side receive it and embrace it with readiness of minde and with the like readiness let thy heart be lifed to give God the Glory which is all that is desired from him that is ready to serve thee in the Gospel of Christ Jer. Ives From my House in Red-Cross Street at the corner of the New Street this 16 of August 1655. Infants-Baptism Disproved In ANSWER to Mr ALEXANDER KELLIE His severall Arguments levied in Defence of it Together with the proof of the lawfullnesse OF Believers-Baptism SIR I HAVE received a Paper from you wherein you use your best indeavour to prove that Infants ought to be Baptized Which Proposition you say you began to prove at a Meeting at your house July 10. 1655. in the forenoone Whether you did not at that time doe like the Builder that Christ speaks of Luke 14.28 29 30. viz. begin to doe that that you were never able to finish I shall not now determine but leave it to the Reader to judge when
he shall survey your Arguments with the Answers to them Your first stone that you lay in this building or Argument that you bring to prove Infants ought to be Baptized is Mr. Kellie's first Argument IF all Nations are commanded to be baptized then Infants are commanded to be baptized But all Nations are commanded to be baptized Ergo Infants are commanded to be baptized Mr. Ive's Answer I Doe first deny the major Proposition because that in many places of Scripture the word all Nations is used where Infants are not included as Psal 72.17 All Nations shall call him blessed Deut. 29.24 All Nations shall say wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this Land Mark 11.17 Is it not written saith Christ that my house shall be called of all Nations the house of prayer Psal 118.10 All Nations compassed me about but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them And so Mat. 3.12 All Nations shall call you blessed And the very place upon which you frame your Argument is enough if there were no more Mat. 28.19 where Christ bids his Disciples to Goe and teach all Nations c. I would ask any man that knowes what an Argument is whether by your Rule of reasoning viz. All Nations are commanded to be baptized therefore Infants I may not as well say The Disciples were commanded to teach all Nations therefore they were commanded to teach Infants of eight dayes old And again the Disciples were commanded to teach them to wit the Nations according to our Translation all things that Christ commanded his Disciples to doe Now the Disciples were commanded to break bread and drink wine in remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord Mat. 26.27 And they were commanded to wash one anothers feet John 13.14 and many other things Now may I not as well say That Infants were commanded these things as well as baptism since as the 19 Verse saith Baptize them the 20 Verse saith Teaching them to observe all things that I. viz. Christ have commanded you And again May I not as well say from the fore cited Scriptures because the Psalms saith all Nations shall call Christ blessed that Infants in the Cradle at eight dayes old shall call him blessed And because all Nations shall say wherefore hath God done this to Israel therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall say so And because that Christ saith that his fathers house shall be called of all Nations a house of prayer that therefore Infants of eight dayes old are commanded to call it so And because David saith all Nations compassed him about therefore Infants of eight dayes old compassed him about And because it 's prophesied that all Nations shall call Israel blessed therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall call them blessed I say May I not as well reason thus as you may reason If all Nations may be baptized Infants may 2 I yet Answer further as before at our meeting That this Argument pleads as much for the baptizing of all Turks and Infidells because as Turks and Infidells they are a part of all Nations though they never believe in Christ and by this rule the Eunuch Acts 8. might have desired baptism although he had never believ'd in Christ because he was of some one Nation or other which is contrary I presume to your own opinion and to the opinion of the Church of England who will not baptize a Turk or an Indian unlesse he convert and professe Christ But may not the Turk or Indian if he should be denied baptism take up your Argument and say If all Nations may be baptized then we may be baptized But all Nations may be baptized Therefore we may See therefore how this Argument doth interfere with your owne practice 3 Again You seem to plead for the baptism of believers Children onely but your Argument pleads for unbelievers Children as much or more then believers for if that believers Children must be baptized because they are a part of Nations who sees not but by the same rule unbelievers Children may be baptized because they are a greater part of the Nations then the Children of believers I Answer to your minor Proposition as before at your house That it 's a Command for believers and Disciples of Christ that they should be baptized and not for all the Nations as appears by the Originall word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing THEM and not the Nations which you could not deny which made way for your second Argument which was to prove that Infants were Disciples Mr. Kellie's second Argument ALL that are taught of God are Disciples But the Infants of Gods people are taught of God Ergo. They are Disciples Mr. Ive's Answer I Answer first by distinguishing of the Tearm Taught in the major Proposition If by Taught you mean as the Prophet Jeremiah doth Chap. 32.33 where it 's said God taught them but they refused to receive Instruction then I deny the major for those that refused to receive instruction were not Disciples though they were taught But secondly If by Taught you mean taught so as to receive instruction and learn then I deny the minor for that Infants at eight dayes old are not taught neither doe they receive instruction or learn To prove this you bring Isa 54.13 where it 's said All thy Children shall be taught of God Answer This doth no more prove that infants in the Cradle of eight dayes old were taught and learned then the Command the Disciples had to teach all Nations proves that they taught infants of eight dayes old and that they learned instruction 2 This is a Prophesie that all Israels Children should be taught of God and not a Prophesie that they should all be taught so as to learn in your sence which is the thing you are to prove for if they should all be so taught then they should all of them be saved 3 If you shall say the Prophesie respects the believers Children whether Jewes or Gentiles that they shall be all taught c. yet it doth not say they shall be taught in their Cradle or at eight dayes old which you must prove because you say infants are Disciples 4 How soon doe you lose the tearms of the Proposition You are to prove Infants are taught and you bring a Text that speaks of Children as though there were no Children but infant-children Whereas indeed the Scripture tells us of all Abrahams Children that were so by believing and not by virtue of their carnall discent from Abraham Gal. 3.7 You further goe on to prove that this Teaching is to be understood of infants and that it 's a teaching by which they learn and are made Disciples by the Argument that you used at your house which is the same in your Paper Mr. Kellie THey that are inwardly and effectually taught are taught and learne But infants according to this Scripture Isa 54.13 are inwardly and effectually taught