Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	behold_v	know_v	see_v	2,299	5	3.1473	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47602	Pedo-baptism disproved being an answer to two printed papers (put forth by some gentlemen called the Athenian Society, who pretend to answer all questions sent to them of what nature soever) called the Athenian Mercury, one put forth November 14, the other November 28, 1691 : in which papers they pretend to answer eight queries about the lawfulness of infant-baptism : likewise divers queries sent to them about the true subjects of baptism, &c.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1691 (1691)	Wing K79; ESTC R12897	42,621	35

Faith Hope c. cease then and that 't is only Love that continues What is it they have not received in Heaven which they trust in God for Nor is your Conclusion good Had they Faith there they may have it here The Text you cite Heb. 11. 27. refers to that Faith Moses had on Earth who saw him that was Invisible God seems so to us here but what a sight we shall have of him in Heaven we know not Doth not the Apostle say we shall behold Face to Face and the pure in Heart shall see God Shall that be such a sight that Moses had whilst on Earth Questions relating to the Fathers with respect t●●●e Controversy about Inf●●-Baptism First WHat reason can be given why Nazianzen an eminent Greek Father should counsel the deferring the Baptism of Infants until the third or fourth Year of their Age except in danger of Death if it were in Nazianzen's Time as some suppose it-was the Opinion of the whole Church as also his own that Infants by an Apostolical Tradition were to be baptized as such that is as soon as born Secondly Whether all the Fathers of the third and fourth Century both of the Greek and Latin Church who have wrote any thing abou●●●nfant-Baptism do not unanimously give this as the Reason why Infants should be Baptized viz. the washing away Original Sin or the putting them into a Capacity of Salvation and some of them p●●ticularly St. Austin sentencing Infants to ●●ernal Damnation if not Baptized Thirdly If so Whether the Fathers might not be mistaken in the Right of Infants to Baptism as well as 〈…〉 the Judgment of most Protestants they are in the Reason why they should be Baptized Four other Queries 1. WHether God hath allowed or enjoined Parents to bring their ●●ttle ●●bes of two or ten days old into a Covenant with him by Baptism since 't is nor to be found in the Sc●●●●ure he either hath allowed or enjoined them so to do 2. If it cannot be proved he hath required any such thing at their Hands Whether that Covenant can be said to b●nd their Consciences when they come to ●ge especially since they gave no Consent to it no● were capable so to do 3. If this pretended Covenant was not of God's Appointment I query how these Children who refuse to agree to the said Covenant when at Age can thereby be guilty 1. Of rejecting Christ 2. Of renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 3. And that 't is Rebellion continued against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and ●●jury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6 That 't is self-killing Crueltie to their own Souls 7. And a damning Sin 4. I query whether this be good Divinity not rather a strange Doctrine And whether unwarrantable Articles of Faith taken out of the Jewish Talmud or Turkish Alcoran may not by as good Authority be put into a Christian Catechism as such Assertions as these Four Queries sent by another Hand to the Athenian Society Gentlemen I Humbly conceive that no Man knoweth what is a Duty but by the Scriptures And since Pedo-Baptism cannot be proved by the Word of God as every Man may know and is generally acknowledged by the most Learned Assertors of that Practice it therefore plainly followeth in my Judgment that Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God's Appointment but an Innovation I therefore feriously query I. WHeth●●●radition Jewish Talmuds the Opinion of private Doctors Schoolmen c. be a sufficient Warrant for the Churches to establish such a Practice that hath neither Precept nor Example in the Holy Scriptures II. Since the pretended Foundation of Infant-Baptism viz. its absolute necessity to Salvation proving ●o be a Mistake of the Text John 3. 5. as is generally acknowledged by Protestants Whether the Structure ought not to fall with it as it did in the Case of giving the Child the Eucharist III. Whether the Faith of the Parent or Gossip on the Child's behalf be required of God or will be imputed to the Child by God If not why ventured on and not rather a waiting for Faith in the Subject as required in Holy Writ by the Apostles and Primitive Churches and seemingly by the Church of England in her Cate●●●sm IV. Whether the Church hath a good Warrant that will justify her before God in changing the Mode from Dipping to Sprinkling and whether that Alteration doth so well answer the Design of the Holy God as that Ceremony which himself appointed Gentlemen I knew nothing of that Gentleman's Animadversions or that he or any Body el●● intended to take notice of your Mercury till I had wrote what I intended to say tho when it was too late I saw it POSTSCRIPT Containing some Remarks upon the Athenian Mercury Vol. 4. Numb 18. published Saturday Novemb. 28. 1691. Gentlemen JUST as my Answer to your first Mercury about Infant-Baptism was finished and almost printed off your second Paper on the same Subject came to my Hand And tho I was not concerned in the Paper called Animadversions on your other Mercury yet till a further Answer is prepared I shall make some Reflections upon what you have said in your pretended Reply to that Gentleman c. 1. Sirs You go too fast to conclude you by that Paper understand wherein our strength lies as by this time you may perceive nor don 't conclude you have it all yet 2. What you say about your pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism from that unscriptural Tradition or Custom among the Jews of proselyting whole Families to the Jewish Religion by Baptism you may see fully answered before I saw your last Mercury Have you proved that Custom among them was Jure Divino or if so that it remained and was continued by Christ Secondly What you have said about Baptism being the proper Antitype of Circumcision is also answered Nor does what you speak of Types and Antitypes not agreeing in every thing help you Have not we shewed that the proper Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh is that of the Heart Thirdly As to your Logical Argument ●● viz. An Ordinance once enjoined and never repealed is always in force but the Ordinance of Childrens incovenanting was once in the Old Testament enjoined and was never repealed Ergo We answer If the Ordinance of Children incovenanting under the Law was Circumcision that Ordinance is repealed Is no● Circumcision repealed 2. If you say notwithstanding Children of the Flesh or the natural Seed being once in the Covenant and never cast out by reason that Law or Covenant for their incovenanting being not repealed is always in force Reply 1. That the Old or first Covenant for their incovenanting is repealed is plain he took away the first that he might establish the second 2. Also 't is said that Hagar and her Son are cast our viz. the legal Covenant and fleshly Seed and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism i. e. the fleshly