Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	abraham_n	promise_n	seed_n	2,290	5	8.4156	4	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

Mr. Kellie THat infants may be baptized because they are holy Which you indeavour to prove from 1 Cor. 7.14 Mr. Ive's I Doe deny that the holinesse of these infants gave a right to baptism for by the same rule the believers wife must be baptized though she was an unbeliever for the same Text saith That the believers unbelieving wife was sanctified And may I not as well say That all that are sanctified in any sense may be baptized as you may say Because infants in some sense are holy therefore they may be baptized You further urge Gal. 2.15 which I believe you did mistake your selfe in as any body may see that shall but compare the Text with the matter in hand To as little purpose you urge Dan. 8.24 where the Text saith The King of fierce countenance should destroy the holy people Therefore the infants were holy May not a man as well say from Dan. 12.7 where it 's said He shall scatter the power of the holy people that therefore the infants had power The like answer serves to Dan. 11.8 8 You say Mr. Kellie THey are included in baptism to whom all the promises of baptism belong But the promises of baptism belong to infants Acts 7.38 39. Mr. Ive's I Shall say nothing to this but leave you to read over Acts 7.38 39. and consider if the least promise be made relating to baptism in any of those verses But I am apt to think you meant Acts 2.38 39. which is as little to your purpose as the other where the Apostle bids the Jewes Repent and be baptized where note That if their being Abrahams naturall seed would have given them a right to baptism what need had they to have repented in order to their baptism He further saith That the promise is to them and their Children To that I have formerly said and proved That in the Scripture Dialect many things may belong to a mans Children that hath no respect to his infants in the state of their infancy for Christ tells the same people Mat. 23.27 That he would have gathered their Children together c. Can any man think that Christ here means their infants in the Cradle In like manner the Apostle concludes That the promise was to them and their Children he plainly shewes that he did not mean their infants but that Gods promises should be made good to their Children upon the same tearms that they were to them which was upon their Repentance Faith and Baptism and therefore he afterwards urgeth That it was not onely to them and their Children but to all that were after off even as many as the Lord our God should call And now you conclude and say Mr. Kellie THus much for the proof of infants baptism from Scripture precept Mr. Ives's WHich if all the Scriptures you have urged have any one Precept for infants Baptism I shall leave to judgement You now come in the last place to prove infants baptism from Scripture practice and your first is Mr. Kellie THat they were all viz. the infants of the Israelites baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea 1 Cor. 10.2 Psal 77.17 Mr. Ive's 1 WHat 's this to prove infants were baptized to Christ if one should grant that in a sense they might be said to be baptized to Moses 2 How doth this saying They were baptized to Moses prove that infants were baptized to Moses If you say They were baptized to Moses because they also came through the sea with their fathers Then I demand in The last place whether a man may not as well say That their Cattle were baptized to Moses because they also came through the sea with Moses Let him that 's least among you judge if this Text proves that infants were baptized in water in the name of Jesus because that infants came through the red sea with Moses Your second instance for the practice of infants baptism is laid downe in a down right lame Argument thus Mr. Kellie THe Apostles practised what they were to preach But they were to preach all that Christ commanded Mat. ult ult But Christ commanded that they should suffer little Children to come to him and not to forbid them that he might lay his hands on them and blesse them Therefore the Apostles practiced this in suffering little Children to come to the Ordinance and not forbidding them to that of baptism Mr. Ive's TRuly I could wish that this Argument had been born a little sooner that so it might have been at Oxford or Cambridge the last Comencement because it is in a new mood and figure that was never heard of before in any of the Schooles it may be it might have purchased for you the good degree of a Prevaricator against the next year But however I fear a worse thing that it is still born and hath no strength in it For may you not as well say That the Apostles in all ages were commanded to bring Asses to Christ because when he was upon the earth he did Command them so to doe because he had need of one for so sayes the Text Mat. 21.2 3 6. as say that because Christ when he was in person upon the earth did bid his Disciples to let infants come to him that therefore this was part of their Commission when Christ left the earth But 2 May you not from hence as well command some of your Parish to goe and fetch you an Asse and bring him to you as you may from this Text injoyne them to bring their Children to you for baptism because they were injoyned to come to Christ for a blessing What Command is this to bring my Children to you because Christ commanded them to be brought to him any more then it is for me to bring my Horse or my Asse to you because Christ commanded one should be brought to him But if this be a good Argument to justifie infants baptism I wonder that any Clergy man of your opinion will goe one foot But more hath been spoken to this elsewhere and fore I shall proceed to your third instance of the practice of infants baptism and that is say you Mr. Kellie WHole Houses Cities and Families were baptized And for proof hereof you cite Acts 8.12 where the Text saith That when they believed Phillips preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God they were baptized both men and women Mr. Ive's WHat man would urge this Text but he that was minded to quit the field of this controversie to prove the Apostles baptized the Samaritans infants You say the whole City of Samaria was baptized therefore you would make us believe they baptized infants when the Text saith no such thing but that They that RECEIVED THE WORD were baptized and not the whole City as you would have it Again you urge Mr. Kellie THat the family of Cornelius and his near kindred were baptized Acts 10.24 44 48. And the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 The Jaylor and all

Ergo. They are taught and learn Mr. Ive's I Answer by denying the minor to wit That infants are inwardly and effectually taught according to that Scripture For first The word infants is not in the Text which is the tearm of the minor Proposition 2 If by all thy Children shall be taught of God the meaning should be as you say that the naturall seed of the believers bodies should be all taught of God inwardly and effectually in their infancy then to what purpose doe you teach them to be converted when they come to years 3 If all the naturall Children of believers be inwardly and effectually taught of God then you must hold falling from grace totally and finally or else conclude that all the naturall Children of believers shall be all saved For what is it to be inwardly and effectually taught but to be really and truly Regenerated You goe on to prove the minor viz. That all believers infants are inwardly and effectually taught thus Mr. Kellie IF infants were not inwardly and effectually taught you say there were no hope of salvation in their death But there is hope say you of salvation in their death Ergo. They are inwardly and effectually taught Mr. Ive's I Answer first You leave out the tearm ALL and put your Argument into indefinite tearms But I presume by infants you mean all the naturall seed of believers according to your practice in baptizing all of them that you call so 2 But I shall answer further by denying the major which is That if infants were not inwardly and effectually taught there were no hope of salvation in their death For first there was hope of the salvation of those Children with whom the Lord had not SPOKEN nor to whom he had not given his Lawes Deut. 11.1 2. But if they had been inwardly and effectually taught then the Lord must needs have spoken with them and if they were taught it must be in Gods Law but it is said of those Children That God had not spoke with them 3 Again We have great hope of the salvation of infants because they are made righteous by Jesus Christ Rom. 5.18 19. though they should not know this by an inward and effectuall Teaching Also the Scripture saith That the Child shall not bear the sin of the father and it hath committed in its infancy no sin of its owne what therefore should hinder us from hoping that they shal be all sayed if they die in their infancy although they are not taught inwardly and effectually 4 But last of all it 's a fiction of your own brain to say Infants are inwardly and effectually taught or else there is no hope of their salvation because there is not one word of God for to justifie such a saying in the whole Bible But yet you adventure to bring that Text 1 Thess 4.13 where the Apostle adviseth that the brethren would not sorrow as those that have no hope because that there shall be a resurrection which some did not hope for at the death of their friends which made their sorrow the more intemperate But now that I may have hope of the salvation of my Children at the resurrection although I should not believe that unwritten Proposition to wit That in their infancy they are effectually taught appears because of the Text you so much urge in favour to your Baby-baptism Mat. 19.14 where Christ bids the Disciples Suffer little Children to come to him because of such is the Kingdome of Heaven So that the Kingdome of Heaven belonged to infants before they had so much as been with Christ or before he had actually blessed them But you proceed to prove the minor Proposition That Children must either be inwardly and effectually taught or else there is no hope of salvation in their death thus Mr. Kellie WIthout the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ which is eternall life there is no hope of salvation But without the inward and effectuall teaching of God in infants there is no knowledge of God in Christ Ergo. Without the inward and effectuall teaching of God there is no hope of the salvation of infants Mr. Ive's YOu left out the term Infants in your major Proposition by which your Argument becomes fallacious because it 's a tearm that is afterwards inserted both in your minor and conclusion which if you had played the part of an honest Logician you should have inserted it in your major and then it would have run thus Without the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ which is eternall life there is no hope of salvation for infants then I would have denied the major and that because there is not one word of God for such a Proposition 2 God said he would have pity upon the City of Ninive because their infants did not know their right hand from their left Can any man believe that any body should be acquainted with the great and sublime matters of Jesus Christ and eternall life that knowes not his right hand from his left in nature and yet you say thus of children viz. That they have the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ when as yet they have not knowledge to know their right hand from their left in nature 3 Again They that know his name will trust in him But you see Children in their infancy are call'd upon to doe neither 4 Again They that know God in Jesus Christ are alwayes in the Scripture distinguished from those that know him not If so then all Children in their infancy know God in Jesus Christ or else you must shew how some infants of eight dayes old may be judged to know him and others may be judged to be ignorant of him If you say you cannot distinguish then I say you have as much reason to baptize a Turks Child at eight dayes old as a Christians since there appears as much of the knowledge of God in Christ in the one as in the other and then what becomes of your favour you would shew to believers Children Again if they viz. the infants of believers doe know God in Jesus Christ in their infancy how comes many of them so wicked when they come to years Doe you not here strongly smell of Arminianisme which you so much preach against that men may be in the saving knowledge of God to day and out of it to morrow 5 Again the Scripture saith Without saith 't is impossible to please God Heb. 11. and yet this is not to be applied to Children because James saith Faith without works is dead James 2.17 So that if Children have faith in infancy it 's a dead faith because it hath no works And faith without works cannot save ver 14. So that you see this Text Heb. 11. Without faith it is impossible to please God must for what James saith be understood of men that are arived above the stature of intants of eight dayes old In the like manner must we understand Christ John 17. This is life eternall that

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