Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	believe_v	know_v	word_n	4,525	5	4.2540	3	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

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

so of any infants that they have not a naturall birth for though Solomon saith We doe not know how the Children are formed in the womb yet he denies not but they are all formed in the womb But you as you doe not know how so you confesse you doe not know who are spiritually thus born But is not this strange that you should spend so many Arguments as you did a little before to prove that all infants of believers are inwardly and effectually taught drawn and come to Christ and that now you should tell us that some of them are not called till the last houre And if you should think to excuse the matter by saying that you mean some unbelievers Children are not called till then that will not doe because you told me in the beginning of your paper that it was for believers infants that you pleaded and the whole scope of your paper speaks forth the same thing and not one word of unbelievers Children c. You tell us That some that we baptize are not effectually taught till afterwards To this I answer That it justifieth us if they doe professe so to be when they are baptized For with the heart man doth believe and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Rom. 10.10 And so it would justifie you if that there were a confession of faith made at the time you did baptize and a life conformable thereunto which is all that we are to look after because it 's Gods work to search the heart and not ours You proceed to prove if you can that infants are Disciples thus Mr. Kellie THey to whom we may give a Cup of cold water in the name of Disciples are Disciples But we may give a Cup of cold water to little Children Therefore little Children are Disciples Mr. Ive's I Answer first by denying the major for may I not as well say that they to whom we may give a thing in the name of a King are Kings and they to whom we may shew favour in the name of God and Christ are so many Gods and Christs as you can say they to whom we may give a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple are Disciples Who seeth not the weaknesse of this kind of arguing But now to the minor Proposition where you assume that we may give to little children a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple I answer If by little Children you mean such as John means 1 John 2.1 Little Children these things I write that you sin not And ver 12. I write unto you little Children because your sins are forgiven I say if you doe mean such I doe grant the minor Proposition viz. That to such little ones we may give a Cup of water in the name of a Disciple But this I suppose cannot be your meaning in as much as you are to prove that infants are Disciples and there is nothing to that purpose in the Text However I take notice of your wandring up and downe in saying Sometimes infants are Disciples not telling us whether you mean believers or unbelievers infants Sometimes that all believers infants are Disciples And sometimes that some are not called till the last houre Only we take for granted what you said at first that you would undertake for believers Children if so then suppose that the little ones here in Mat. 10. last were understood of infants yet how doe you prove that they were believers infants But it will be a task too hard for you to doe either the one or the other You goe on to tell us Mr. Kellie THat you have five things more to say for infants Disciple-ship The first is this If that infants may be called his servants though they doe no service Lev. 21.41 42. Then they may be called Disciples though they doe not appear to learn But they may be called Gods servants though they doe him no service Ergo. They may be called Disciples though they doe not appear to learn Mr. Ive's I Answer first by denying the major for if it be granted that Children were called his servants though they did God no service yet it followes not that therefore they are Disciples though they doe not learn May not a man as well prove the unprofitable servant Luke 19. by the same Logick to be a Disciple as thus If one may be called Christs servant though he doe him no work then he may be called Christs Disciple though he doe not appear to learn But the unprofitable servant Luke 19. was called Christs servant as appears by vers 13. and Mat. 25.14 and yet he did him no work Ergo. He was Christs Disciple though he did not appear to learn And by this Rule the non sequitor of your major Proposition appears But now to your minor that Children are called Gods servants though they did him no service I answer first That infants of eight dayes old are not called Gods servants any where in Scripture 2 As to the Text urged in favour to this Lev. 25.41 42. if you compare it with vers 39. you will see it was not spoken to prove infants in the Cradle Gods servants but rather to shew that because the Nation of Israel that he brought out of Aegypt were his servants therefore they should not be slaves one to another and sold as bond men which they never did use to doe to Children in the Cradle 3 Again Cannot God speak many things concerning Children as that they are his servants c. and yet not speak of Children in their infancy May not a man as well say because Israel was bid to teach their Children that therefore they were to teach infants of eight dayes old And because Josh 22.10 it 's said The Children of Gad built an Altar therefore the infants of Gad were Masons and Stone-cutters And because it 's said of the vertuous woman Prov. 31.20 Her Children rise up and call her blessed therefore her little infants of eight dayes old did call her blessed Is not this as good reason as that which you bring viz. Because God saith the Israelites children were his servants therefore their infants of eight dayes old were his servants 2 You goe on and tell us that Mr. Kellie PEter in Acts 15.10 calls infants Disciples Mr. Ive's ARe you not ashamed to speak such a notorious falsity Doth that Text say that Peter calls infants Disciples Oh what a mercy is it that we can read surely if we could not you might as well say that Peter said you should have the fifth penny of our estate for preaching as say he saith Infants are Disciples Now indeed Peter blames them for putting the yoke of Circumcision upon Disciples but this doth no more prove infants to be Disciples then if a man would say The Clergy are opprest by Taxes therefore every one that 's opprest by Taxes is a Clergy-man for is it not the same that you bring The Disciples were circumcised therefore all that