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	dead_a	lord_n	2,678	5	4.1577	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

another after their coming out of Aegypt Now if this was not a Covenant of grace by Christ spoken of Deut. 29. what doth it availe to the matter in hand unlesse you say they that are in any Covenant have a right to baptism And if you say it was a Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ that is here mentioned then pray consider what followes that the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ was made with them that as the 4 verse saith The Lord had not given a heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor ears to hear unto that day So that whereas you have been telling of us a of Covenant with believers and their seed all this while you now come to tell us of a Covenant made with unbelievers and their seed for so were these at the time of the making of it So that if your Logick be good Viz. Believers and their infants are in Covenant therefore they and their infants must be baptized And the Text you bring to prove it saith the same of unbelievers then by your owne Text infidells and their infants may be baptized But the Text you bring saith the same of unbelievers Ergo. That the Text saith this Covenant was made with unbelievers compare Deut. 29.4 with Rom. 11.8 where speaking of the Jewes not believing in Christ he saith God as it is written alluding to this very Text Deut. 29.4 had given them the spirit of slumber eyes that they should not see and eares that they should not hear unto this day And yet these are the believers whom you say are in Covenant and therefore their infants must be baptized But I confesse I doe not wonder at this because most of them whose infants you baptize are such believers if I may so call them as have not a heart to perceive nor eyes to see to this very day else they would not receive for doctrine the traditions of men and leave the plain way of Christ You add though to as little purpose as before Deut. 30.11 12. Rom. 10.6 7 8. where I confesse the Apostle alluding to the fore-cited place of Deuteronomy saith that the word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and heart even the word of faith which he preached and therefore the righteousnesse of faith he tells us is this Vers 9 10. That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation You bid me compare this Text with Deut. 29. which I much wonder at since I doe not know any two Texts in all the Bible that have more disparity for in the one place it 's said They had not a heart to believe and in the other it is said With the heart man believeth Again as this Text hath no affinity with the former so it hath no affinity to the matter in hand for to what purpose doe you cite a Text that speaks of believers who professe Christ with their mouths and believe him in their hearts to justifie the baptism of infants that never opened their mouths for Christ Truly Sir were it not that I am relieved with this saying Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum I should despair of having any thoughts of charity towards a man that professeth himself as you doe both a Christian and a Scholar and yet reason at this rate You add a second Argument and say that Mr. Kellie BEcause they are in Covenant the initiating token of the Covenant must needs be theirs Mr. Ive's I Answer That here you have not concluded the tearms of the Question therefore I may deny the whole Argument 2 But further If by the initiating token of the Covenant you mean baptism let me see then how you can call this a second Argument except you tell the first twice over For was not this the Argument that went before Viz. They that are in the Covenant have a right to baptism and is not the second the same word for word if by the token of the Covenant you mean baptism therefore the answer to the first is also an answer to that you call a second And whereas you say that the Text Gen. 17. tells us that every Man-child had the token of the Covenant because they were in the Covenant why I pray had not the women-children the token of the Covenant were not they in the Covenant Can you deny it and yet you see they were not circumcised And were not the males in the Covenant as I have said once and again as soon as they were born why were they denied the the token of it till eight dayes old they might have died as doubtlesse many of them did in this intervaile of time between their birth and the eighth day Therefore you see that infants being in the Covenant could be no Argument to prove their Circumcision till the time God appointed though their lives had laine upon it In the like manner all your talking of infants being in the Covenant cannot lawfully justifie their baptism till the time comes that God commands it And this kept female infants from Circumcision Viz. because God had not commanded it Although they were in the Covenant yet you see they were denied the token of the Covenant You urge another Text which is Ezek. 37.25 where God promises by his Prophet that The Tribes of Israel shall be joyned together and shall dwell in their owne Land they and their Children and their Childrens Children for ever under the Conduct of Christ their Princee in the latter dayes And you say this proves infants should be baptized Did ever any body infer thus from a Text Israel and their Children shall come to dwell in their own land in the latter dayes and Christ shall be their Prince Ergo. The infants of believers must be baptized This is the substance of the Text from whence you thus infer as any body may see that doth but read the Chapter But now suppose this that this were applicable to believing Gentiles doth it not follow that if the seed of the righteous and their Children and their Childrens Children for ever should be baptized that then we may baptize all the world since they are all and will be for ever the seed of Noah who was a faithfull man You tell us in the third place that Mr. Kellie INfants are included in the Command of baptism because Christ saith Luke 9.48 They that receive a little Child receive Christ Mr. Ive's MIght you not better have said that this little Child was Christ then have concluded that the little Child was included in the Command of baptism May we not as well say That the Converts were Commanded to baptize the Apostles rather then the Apostles were commanded to baptize them because Christ saith to his Apostles Mat. 10.40 He that receiveth you receiveth me May not a

they know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or else we must conclude that some Children shall be damned dying in their infancy for not knowing God in Jesus Christ when they were no way made capable of such a knowledge Lastly The Scriptures say Deut. 1.39 that Children in their infancy have no knowledge of good or evill the like is said of Christ himself in his infancy Isa 7.14 15 16. How then can you imagin that infants can know God in Jesus Christ and yet not know good when the knowledge of God in Christ is the knowledge of the best good of all But you goe on and tell us That infants dying in their infancy are saved Which is not the thing denied but the thing denied is That they cannot be saved without the knowledge of God in Christ and instead of this you would prove that infants shall be saved which I never denied Only let me tell you That you miserably abuse the Scripture you bring to prove their salvation which is Isa 65.20 from which Text you observe That they dye in as good a case as Disciples of a hundred years standing O miserable blindnesse the Text saith There shall not be in the New Jerusalem an infant of dayes and yet you bring this in favour to your eight dayes infants Again You say That infants dye in as good a condition as Disciples of a hundred years standing whereas the Text saith The Child shall dye a hundred years old I pray how many such infants doe you baptize So that this Text I believe you urged without Book for there is not the least word of such infants as you plead for nor of such old Disciples to whom you would compare them But are you so charitable towards infants that you believe they shall be saved then pray let not the Midwives baptize for fear they should be damned which some of your cloath have allowed making the sprinkling water upon their face a cause of their salvation rather then the knowledge of God in Christ that you now plead for But you goe on and tell us Mr. Kellie THat if we judge infants shall be saved then they should be daily added to the Church by Baptism And for this you cite Acts 2. ult Mr. Ive's I Shall first speak to your Argument and then to the Text. This is a palpable non sequitor for by this Argument Moses might have Circumcised Children the first day they were born for Moses might have said I judge these Children have a right to salvation the first day they are borne therefore they have a right to be added to the Church by circumcisiō the first day they are born Upon this account he might have circumcised the females because he judged that salvation did belong to them But if you shall think to salve this sore by saying He was commanded to circumcise the eigth day and to circumcise the male Children let me tell you that he was not forbid either the one or the other But if you shall say that in as much as God commanded the eighth day he did forbid doing of it before and in as much as he did Command the Circumcising of males he forbid the circumcising of females Let me tell you then that in as much as God hath prescribed believing to be the time of baptizing it will be found a sin to doe it upon any persons at any other time but when they believe with all their hearts according to Acts 8.37 And as for that Text which you urge Acts 2.47 The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Compare this but with vers 41. and you will find these to be no such Babies as you baptize and add to your Church for the Text saith Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about three thousand soules And Acts 5.14 Believers were added to the Lord. What serves this to prove that which you would have Doth it not strongly carry the contrary That infants were not baptized because they are no where called believers You now face about as though all were not safe in the Rear and goe back to the Text in Esay 54. Surely you feared all the hay and stubble that you built upon that Text was set on fire by the Answers that I gave to it at your house and now you are returning to quench it But you must know that your clouds of Arguments are without water as I shall make appear upon Examination First You say Mr. Kellie THat teaching must be inward and effectuall in Isa 54.13 1 Because it hath the great peace of God going along with it From whence you Argue thus They that have the great peace of God going along with their teaching are inwardly and effectually taught But all the Children of Gods people have the great peace of God goe along with their teaching Therefore they are inwardly and effectually taught Mr. Ive's I Answer this by denying the major for all the world gave the great peace of God going along with their teaching in as much as God holds forth life and peace in the Gospel And yet you will not say that all the world are inwardly and effectually taught 2 Again to your minor if by all the Children of Gods people you mean all their natural Children in their infancy as you must or else you say nothing to your purpose then I doe deny the minor because it supposeth God doth inwardly and effectually preach peace to believers infants whereas he preacheth nothing at all to them Neither doth the Text say he doth for then they must viz. all the infants of believers be actually saved although they should live to perpetrate never such horrible wickednesses for if they to wit all the naturall Children of believers are in this condition in their infancy what sin can deprive them of eternall life when they come to years unlesse as I have said before you will hold falling from this grace and peace you speak of totally and finally which is an opinion that you doe not reckon among the least of errors Again if believers naturall Children as such are thus priviledged as you speak of with this grace and peace then the Children of the flesh are the Children of God But the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God Ergo. They are not as believers naturall Children thus priviledged You goe on to a second Reason to prove the teaching in Isa 54. to be inward and effectuall teaching which what if it were granted doth it prove that this was to infants in the Cradle of eight dayes old But we have before shewed the contrary that it is not meant of such But however let 's hear your other Argument which is Mr. Kellie THat if it were not inward and effectuall teaching it were rather a judgement threatned then a mercy promised Mr. Ive's BElike then by this kind of reason when God teacheth