Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	believe_v	confess_v	righteousness_n	2,527	5	7.2907	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26959	More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1675 (1675)	Wing B1312; ESTC R17239	210,005	430

quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice

whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars rather than this one man that hath written us such a book and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness no nor if he had written at that time For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge § 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists or of most or of any in any other age or that I have since said that any continue the same practice he would but deceive men for it is nothing so § 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time I think it is to be taken so much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth require § 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator Adulterer Murderer or Thief as I remember in England And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity and unrighteous justice § 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster or in the time of David George Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely And is he a lyar that saith it because they do not so now I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked as a Prophet before our eyes through the high street and they said they did so in many other places I know not the mans name now nor any of the multitude of Spectators if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him in vain to live But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for I must travel to the place before I could produce them § 8. Yea I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize or baptize the aged But fame saith they do so and none deny it If it prove false I shall be glad and will joyn in vindicating them And so I say of the present case And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting and rash ungrounded defamations of others CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words § 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them and alledging my words as justifying his cause I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers about a particular vindication of my words so triflingly and vainly used by them § 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them or the force of the arguments or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself The first I may well presume it is not If it were the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is If it be the second why do they use any arguments of mine when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author But seeing I must believe that the last is their business I can have leisure to say little more than this to them that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do and can reconcile my words when they cannot If this satisfie not them it satisfieth me § 3. In summ the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils 1. That most of them speak to the Question What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed Or the profession of a saving faith as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent And I prove that it is no other sort of faith but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts as the Condition of his Covenant And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith as to object or act but of this saving faith which the Church must accept to the admission of members A lower profession will serve for none 2. But I still maintain and I think fully proved that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent and doth Covenant with God as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract as in a lease for his life or the like Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child of an Owner a Governour and a Lover God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights as if he had done it himself and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents which in proper speech is They did it for him at Gods Command § 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings with those before and after that explain them or else if he will do as this man doth abuse