Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	abraham_n	circumcision_n	seal_n	9,205	5	9.6285	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66526	Vindiciæ vindiciarum, or, A vindication of a late treatise, entituled, Infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr. Hen. D'Anvers his reply : to which is annexed, the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-elect of Lincoln) his apologetical-letter : also An appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both antient and modern / by Obed Wills.	Wills, Obed.; Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Appeal to the Baptists against Henry D'Anvers, Esq.	1675 (1675)	Wing W2868; ESTC R38662	92,093	163

grant Infants-Baptism to be of the number of them But what saith Mr. Baxter in the forementioned place If I prove saith he that all Church-members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-members is not this as much as to prove they must be baptized What thinks Mr. Danvers of that passage of Nazianzen in his 5th Book of Theology Quae colliguntur ex Scripturis Sacris perindè habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent those things that are gathered out of Scripture are to be of like esteem with us as that which is written in Scripture Without doubt Mr. Danvers look's upon this as a Popish saying in Nazianzen The rest of his Parallel is so frivolous that I will not trouble my self nor the Reader with it And truly if one were minded how easy is it to retort upon him and shew the vanity of his discourse in such a manner as for instance Doth Mr. Danvers say that the promise Gen. 17. 7 pertains not to the Carnal seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual so doth Estius the Jesuit against Calvin about which Mr. Danvers committed so great a Mistake that if I had done the same he would have said I had belyed Calvin and abused the World Doth Mr. Danvers say Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to Believers and their seed so saith Cardinal Bellarmin in his first book of the Sacraments and after him other Papists affirming that Circumcision is not said to be a seal universally to any faith but only a seal of the individual faith of Abraham Doth Mr. Danvers say it could not be a seal to an Infant that had no faith Bellarmin speaks the same If it be a seal saith he in that Baptism comes in the place of Circumcision it is in vain to baptize Infants because they have no Faith so that it seems his sentiments about these points are the same with the Papists also Mr. Danvers Exceptions against our Testimonies for Infants-Baptism from the Ancients examined and confuted His first Exception is against that passage we bring from Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Triphon part 2. propos 3. where he saith It was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision which was done by Baptism From whence we argue That if it was lawful for all to receive it then Infants who were the subjects of the legal Circumcision for they must be part of the all and not excluded To this Mr. Danvers saith two things 1. That it is a meer Impertinency and nothing to the purpose why so 1. Because there is not one wo●d of Infants nor of Infants-Baptism nor its Apostolicalness And what of that doth he not know that omne universale continet in se particulare every universal contains within it self the particular And doth not Justin say it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision which is Baptism Nor do we stand in need of a word for its Apostolicalness here since the only end for which the Quotation is urged is to prove that Justin was for Infants-Baptism 2. He tells us it is not only Impertinent but Absurd to interpret the word All to be all men for then it must comprehend wicked as well as good Unbelievers as well as Believers But this is a shift for I say All is here to be limited to those who are within the Church for to them Only appertained the Legal Circumcision under the Law of which Justin speaks and by proportion to such only the Spiritual Circumcision Baptism now under the Gospel As to what he further objects that Justin in this very Dialogue tells us that by the Word and Baptism Regeneration was perfected in all mankind As it is more than the Magdiburgs say for their words are per aquam et fidem regenerationem fieri humani generis so it makes nothing at all against us because this is added by the Magdiburgs in the same place speaking how they baptized in Justin's time De adultis paenitentiam requirunt c. They required Repentance of the Adult before Baptism If Mr. Danvers had set this down he could not have framed his objection Just thus he deals with Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Baptism Ch. 7. p. 49. 2d Edit where he quotes Mr. Baxter as rendring some part of Justin Martyr's Apology in these words in his Saints Rest Ch. 8. Sect. 5. viz. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are renewed by Christ c. Where if you will compare you shall see both how considerably he varies it in the words from Mr. Baxters words and likewise how he leaves out that which would have shewn the Quotation nothing to his purpose viz Justin Martyr speaking of the way of Baptizing the Aged In the next place he excepts against what we urge for Infants-Baptism from Irenaeus who lived in the same Century with Justin in the Age of those that saw the Apostles and so must needs know their Practice It is a passage of his in lib. 2. Advers Haeres c. 39. where discoursing of Christ that came to save all ages he specifieth particulars as Infantes et Parvuli Infants and little ones as well as pueros et juvenes et seniores Boys young men and old men and then concludes Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum All I say who by him are born again unto God Where by Infants being born again unto God must needs be understood after the Scripture-notion and sence and as the Ancient Fathers usually took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism For as Mr. Mede observes that by the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3. 5. none will deny is meant Baptism And Vossius upon that Scripture saith that to call Baptism Renascentia Regeneration is usitata veteribus loquendi forma an usual form of speaking among the Ancients And to put this out of all doubt Justin Martyr in his Apology before-mentioned speaking of the manner how they were baptized saith The party was brought to the place where the water is and regenerated in the same manner wherein we were regenerated To this Mr. Danvers hath little to say and if I mistake not very little to purpose as that it is Impertinent as before and far-fetched and that there is not a word of Infants-Baptism in it or Apostolicalness which is just the 2d part of the same tune which was sung but now And further he adds that as the interpretation upon which it is founded is fallacious so neither Scripture nor Justin doth call Baptism Regeneration absolutely who saith they do but only the Symbol of Regeneration And this is very true and which no body denies but I must tell Mr. Danvers that this is altogether impertinent and far off from the matter we are upon But his Confidence doth not abate for he tells us 't is manifest these Authorities are to little purpose yea wholly insignificant and nothing