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	faith_n	holy_a	4,881	5	5.2910	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62861	Anti-pædobaptism, or, The second part of the full review of the dispute concerning infant-baptism in which the invalidity of arguments ... is shewed ... / by John Tombs ...	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1799; ESTC R33835	285,363	340

from the words to Paul Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arise baptise and wash which all require voluntary action on his part as well as ministration on Ananias his part out of which this argument is formed They are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers and Spirits Name who do not perform the acts required in that expression But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers o● Spirits according to the meaning of it in the institution So that this argument is not a petty reasoning but a solid reason to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions yet I will tell him they were yet this is nothing to the business in hand about the meaning of the Phrase to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit which manifestly implies the party baptized his act which infants cannot do Whereas no where there is such a command Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ nor is it all one to be circimcised as to be baptized which is still supposed but never proved 4. I further urged Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism Teach them to observe what ever he commanded But this direction could not pertain to infants they could not be taught to observe Christs commands therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded But the Text knits these together Baptizing and Teaching so as that they that were baptized should be taught that by them that baptized them which the Apostles could not do being to go up and down from place to place to plant the Churches in all Nations if they had been to baptize infants for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus Make infants disciples and baptize them and then after five six or ten years when they are grown to some understanding come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism that is in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred as it could be well done Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ which is impossible For presently is not restained to an instant but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing onely it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism but sooner by much than it could be done to infants Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof pag. 341. argues thus What Christ hath conjoyned man must not separate but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing I add and Teaching therefore we must not separate them 5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles the resolution of Philip the practice of John Baptist the Apostles and other men sent by God to baptize but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding What hindereth me to be baptised If thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou maist it is lawfull or allowed thee Acts 8. 36 37. John the Baptist the Apostles and other holy men sent by God to baptize baptized none but Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18. 10. 47. 11. 17 18. 16. 15 31 32 33. 18. 8. 19. 5. 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onely Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ and therefore not infants of believers The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture and that the Apostles knew Christs minde and did observe it The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose Divine Right of Church government cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ Jesus To this Mr. M. Defence pag. 227. says that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance I reply 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism did amount to as much till Mr. M. to help himself referred then to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry of which the objection was to which in those words he answered For the objection was that they always taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism which if not understood of the time of their Ministery it was an answer besides the objection 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other but such baptized by them and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently if it had been their duty would have occurred and their story lead them to mention and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should 2. He saith It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism Reply I think not 1. what they did sure was required of them else it had not been an acceptable thing and by John else he had failed in his duty Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized required confession of sins which is a chief part of it afore Baptism But so did John Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord required confession of sins afore Baptism for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins and then to baptise them But

what was imposed on infants but on persons taught and commanded As for Mr. Bs. reasons the first he himself answers by his second For he saith that doctrine was true to the Jews before Christ therefore sure the Fathers were acquainted with it it was doctrine known among them whether the Scripture mention it or no and whether it were true or false if it were received by them it must needs be burdensome to them And for his second 1. That it was true doctrine to the Jews before Christ that except they were circumcised after the maner of Moses they could not be saved and that it was needfull to circumcise them and to Command them to keep the Law v. 1. 5. is in my apprehension diametrally opposite to Pauls doctrine Gal. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rom. 3. 4. 10. Phil. 3. concerning the non-necessity of observing the Law for justification justification by faith without the works of the Law both in Abrahams Davids Moses his time 2. If the doctrine were true to the Jews it was the more intolerable it wouldly the more heavy on their consciences finding themselves unable to observe it therefore this reason is against Mr. B. and proves the doctrine was the yoke But he adds Mr. T. saith it was the Pharisees doctrine of being justified by the Law which was the yoke But I answer 1. the Pharisees were not of so long continuance as to be the burden of the Fathers by their doctrine 2. these in the Text taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law so did not the Pharisees Answ. 1. Those in the Text taught not onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law by way of Precept but also of means that except they did so they could not be saved and that was still taken by the Apostle in the Epistles to the Romans Galatians Philippians as the Doctrine of Justification by the Law And that this was the yoke which was so intolerable Acts 15. 10. appears by the next words ver 11. But we trust or believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ even as also they The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being adversative shews the Apostles assertion v. 11. to contain an Antithesis to their Thesis or Doctrine that is whereas they impose this intolerable yoke of Doctrine that without Circumcision and keeping the Law Disciples cannot be saved We believe they may be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ purifying their hearts by faith v 9 without the observation of Moses Law 2. It is not true that they taught onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law as if they exempted others For though there is mention onely of their teaching the Brethren yet doubtless they held a like necessity of it or rather a greater for Jews whether converted or unconverted as for Christian Gentiles 3. But were it true that they taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law yet the Doctrine might be an intolerable yoke both to Disciples and to the Ancestors from whomsoever they learn'd it Whose Doctrine soever it were yet it was a yoke intolerable to present Disciples and the Predecessors of former Generations 4. The antiquity of the Pharisees is variously conceived by Writers it is conceived that Sect began three hundred years before the birth of Christ by some higher sure they were ancient enough to burden the Fathers that is the Ancestours of the modern Jews when Peter spake those words 5. Were it that others spake that Doctrine and burdened the Fathers with it yet it might be well called by me the Pharises Doctrine who taught it afterwards 6. That Mr. Bs. willingness to cavil may appear let v. 5. be read and there it is said The false Teachers were of the Sect of the Pharisees 3. Saith Mr. B. The Doctrine is no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice therefore it is evident that the Doctrine is not the yoke but the judgment and practice which that Doctrine did teach them else it would be in the power of men to yoke and burden us at their pleasure But till we obey it we are free from the yoke therefore the yoke lieth not in the Doctrine but the obeying Answ. This Argument however faulty yet it plainly crosseth Mr. Bs. purpose for his aim is to expound the yoke so as that it may be said to be laid on infants and so they be reckoned for Disciples but if it be that the judgment and practice which the Doctrire did teach were the yoke if the yoke didly in obeying as he here saith then the yoke was not put or endeavoured to be put on infants the false Teachers neither did put nor endeavoured to put any thing on the judgment or practice of infants nor to have brought them to obeying What was to be done to them was not to be done by false Teachers but the Parents there was no act to be done on the infants mindes consciences judgments but on their flesh nor were they to be active in practice or willing in obedience but meerly passive and likely very unwillingly And therefore I infer from Mr. Bs. own Argument If the Doctrine were no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice that the yoke is the judgment and practice which the doctrine did teach that it lieth in the obeying then it is no yoke to infants then it is not Circumcision as acted but as taught and yielded to then it was not to be put on infants and consequently no infants are meant by the Disciples Acts 15. 10. But for the thing objected as I have sayd before the doctrine may be considered either in se in it self as it came from the Teachers or in the event to the persons taught being yielded to by them It is true the doctrine was not à yoke to the Disciples eventually till the Disciples yielded to it but it was in it self a yoke and might so be called before as the truth of Christ is the Gospel or glad ●idings in it self and may be and is often so called though it prove not so to all that hear it Wherefore I have sometimes called the yoke the command sometimes the doctrine sometimes the necessity of observation sometimes the opinion of the necessity and all these in different respects are rightly made the Yoke in respect of God the command and necessity of observance of the Teachers the doctrine of the persons yoked the opinion and judgment when it becomes such in the event not onely in fieri but in facto esse yet no way