Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	act_n	faith_n	sin_n	2,568	5	4.9286	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79560	The divine warrant of infant-baptism. Or VI. arguments for baptism of infants of Christians. viz. I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God. p.1. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the church. p.20. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptisme. p.25. IV. The sealing of the promise to infants of visible professors, hath been the practise of the universal church ever since God added seals to the covenant. p.30 V. The profit of baptism is great to the infants of Christians. p.36. VI. The promise was sealed by the initiall sacrament aforetime to infants of visible professors, both Jews and of the Gentiles. p.38. / By John Church, M.A. minister of Seachurch, in the county of Essex.	Church, Josiah.	1648 (1648)	Wing C3987; Thomason E441_9	42,925	58

indifferent nor things strangled and blood sinful And if by unclean are not meant only bastards by holy are not meant only legitimate Argum. 4 IIII. The Scripture denominates not any holy for legitimation only Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles 9.2 Tit. 1 15 Mat. 15 26 but all that have not besides it foederal holiness it denominates unclean yea dogs Therefore the Apostle denominates not children holy for legitimation only Argum. 5 V. Interpreting holiness to be legitimation only renders the Apostle an underminer of the priviledg which the children of Christians have above the children of Infidels from the time of the birth Isaiah 61.8 9 and which they ought to be acknowledged to have and a giver of no more to the one then to the other for children of Infidels born in marriage are matrimonially holy Hac ratione nihil plus tribueret liberis fidelium quam infidelium Ames Infidelium filij si ex matrimonio procreentur legitimi sunt Pet. Martyr But the Apostle was no under-miner of the priviledges of the faithful or of their seed therefore he meant not legitimation only Argum. 6 VI. If by holiness is meant legitimation only the Apostle was mistaken about the question proposed which was not whether their living together were not adulterous they being married each to other For 1. Such a doubt could not arise in any having any use of reason all know that living in marriage is not living in adultery and that children begotten in marriage are not bastards 2. It is granted by those that interpret the holiness to be legitimation only that they believed that their children were not bastards how then could they doubt that their living in marriage together was adulterous It is easier for a Christian married with an Infidel to be assured that the Infidel is his wife then to know that the children that he hath by her are his children The Question was Whether a Christian might with a safe conscience have such intimate familiarity with an Infidel as living together in marriage required the Infidel being a professed enemy of Christianity For this was dangerous for the Christian and seemingly inconsistent with precepts given to Christians to have no familiarity with Idolaters but to seperate from them yea from scandalous Christians though orthodox with whom familiarity might seem in that regard more tolerable The answer is The Christian having a lawful calling being in marriage with the Infidel might continue with the Infidel for the Christian had this priviledg by faith and the Covenants that he or she in this case should not be infidellized by the Infidel but preserved yea the Infidel was in some sort sanctified in the Christian for the children born of them were not Infidels but Christians as aforetime the children of Jews were Jews and not Heathens If the answer were that the Christian might live with the Infidel because the Infidel is legitimate by marriage else the children were bastards c. and nothing else were intended it had been no more then that a Christian might live with an Infidel as one Infidel with another and familiarity with Idolaters may be sinful in Christians and pernicious to them though no adultery be committed Such interpreters make the Apostle sectari minutias Object If foederal holiness be meant and the Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian be a consequent of faith and the Covenant then a believing adulterer may live with an Infidel adulteress For where the cause of sanctification is the effect will follow Posita causa ponitur effectum Answer 1. This inference hath no proportion to the case about which the Apostle speaks which was the case of a Christian in marriage with an Infidel which was in those times common one imbracing Christianity and the other continuing in infidelity If a Question had been propounded whether a believing Adulterer might live with an Infidel Adulteress he would have answered silentio et contemptu 2. He meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian 1 Tim. 4.4 As where he saith every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it though it be received with thanksgiving which is usual in thieves and robbers but in the case of civil right only Zech. 11.3 One cause produceth not the effect una causa non producit effectum 3. It supposes a believing Adulterer living with an Infidel Adulteress which is not to be supposed for a beleever may fall into that sin but living in it is inconsistent with faith Acts 15 9. which purifies the heart with Ecclesiastical Discipline which if despised the despiser is to be accounted an Heathen Mat. 18.17 Job 31.11 and not a Christian and with civil Laws for it is an heynous crime to be punished by the Judges And if a defect of these happen the Word of God which shall judg men at the last day judgeth such to be without Rev. 22.15 and such are to be accounted Infidels no l●ss then the Infidels with whom they so impurely live Argum. 6 VI. God never made a visible partition wall between the Parent and the Infant In the first Covenant which was of works the parent and the infant were comprehended alike and the second which was of grace was in this Gen. 17.7 like the former the seed was named with the parent in the most eminent promise of it and the infants of visible professors had it sealed to them by the initial Sacrament so soon as seals were added to it and in the present dispensation of it Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 the Apostles judged the parents and the children alike in it and Christians in their days doubted not of the holiness of their children and it is the doctrine of the Scripture that the off-spring is blessed with the parent Isaiah 61.8.9 and so to be accounted of all until a visible breaking off for Apostacy in those of riper years In adultis incipit omne malum Also when for a violation of Covenant by those of riper years there hath been a visible breaking off the manner hath been to reject the infant with the parent Adam and his were rejected alike for violation of the first Covenant and the Jews and theirs for the transgression of the second Therefore the infants are rightly judged in the promise with their parents Argum. 7 VII Threatnings extend to infants of Covenant-breakers Isaiah 13 18 Iob 20.19 Exodus 20.5 Hosea 2 4. c. 9.16 c 13 16 Ezekiel 9 6 Psalm 109 Deut. 7.9 Psa 103 17.18 to the fruits of their womb with their children of riper years Therefore the promises are rightly judged to extend to infants of such as continue in the Covenant for the Scripture holds forth the goodness of God to be of greater extent to them which keep his Covenant and theirs then his severity against them

that the promise of grace appertains to them Retinemus infantium baptismum quia certissimum est promissionem gratiae ad eos pertinere Sax. Confess The Helvetian Church condemns Anabaptists for denying baptism to such infants because by the doctrine of the Gospel such are in the promise Helvet Confess To these many more instances might be added which being consonant to the Scripture and right reason soundly conclude Objection 1 The judgment of charity that any are in the prom se is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty Answer Shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take an humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be the Devil he must be baptized 2. The judgment of charity was the rule by which Iohn Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing they had no infallible knowledg of the individuals for they baptized Hypocrites not a few Objection 2 A right to Evangelical promises is not the adaequate reason of baptism for the Iews were in the promise Acts 2.38.39 yet not baptized without praeceding repentance Answer A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the naming a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism For 1. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it 2. Those Iews rejecting and crucifying Christ and atheistically mocking at Gospel-truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance Also they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake and not all Iews Acts 2.8 11 for they were of divers languages Inter illa millia hominum qui baptizabantur multi eo tempore confluxere ex omni natione Ames To which may be added they were adulti 3. It is most probable that repentance was in them only in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostles accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them as Iohn is said to baptize some coming to him unto repentance Matth. 3.11 It may be judged impossible that repentance visible by fruits was in all of them before baptism there being so little space to manifest it for immediatly after the exhortation to repentance they were baptized there could not be time to question every one of them apart whether they repented for the day was but about twelve hours Acts 2.15 and three hours of it were past before the Apostles began the Sermon by which they were pricked in their hearts and that Sermon consisting o● so many weighty points must necessarily belong also they spake many words after it was ended yet three thousand were added to the Church Acts 2.40 by baptism that day Therefore this so much pleaded against baptism of infants of Christians argues more strongly for it These being grievous Apostates damnable rejectors of Christ crucifiers of him and Atheistical mockers at the Gospel preached miraculously confirmed with extraordinary gifts were as it is most like baptized upon probability of repentance Therefore infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance c. Si gravissimis delictoribus in deum multum antè peccantibus cū postea crediderint remissio peccatorū datur a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur quantò magis prohiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundū Adam Carnaliter natus contagiū mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit Cypr. Ep. ad Fidum 4. Being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostles for baptism If any disable the Reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their Converts for baptism being a Sacrament of a new administration of the Covenant newly begun and as it is most like wholly unknown to many of them until then many of them being strangers living in remote parts It was wisdom in the Apostles to give and in them to have a satisfactory Reason for receiving it ARGUMENT II. Infants of Christians are rightly iudged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized Argum. 1 I. THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church Ephes 2.12 for they only are aliens from the Common-weal of Israel which are strangers from the Covenant Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords Children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his Children In the old world some were called the Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3 as children of his people and the infants of Israelites were called by him his Children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21 Mal. 2 14 15 Psalm 22.30 Jer 30.20 Psal 11.6 16 and their lawful seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age until the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they should be converted and of the Jews when they should be graffed in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his hand-maid Therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Argum. 3 III. The Apostle denominates the children of Christians holy 1 Cor 7.14 Isaiah 4.3 Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church which consists of such as are rightly denominated holy to which may be added they are denominated holy because they appertain to the Church Quia ad Ecclesiam pertinent hoc nomine Apostolus eos sanctos praedicat Pet. Martyr Argum. 4 IIII. The Infants of visible professors aforetime were rightly judged to be of the Church with their Parents for they were initiated into it by circumcision Rom. 3.30 Rom. 15.8 which was the Sacrament of initiation for that time for which cause that Church was called the Circumcision Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church for they appertain to it as such infants did to the Church Si rogaveris quomodo silii Christianorum ad Ecclesiam pertineant respondebimus non aliter quam filil hebraeorum Pet. Mart. These may be as rightly judged to be of the Church as Infants of visible professors of Jews and Gentiles were aforetime for faith was then no less required to Communion with the Church then now Rom. 4.11 Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation was called