Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	church_n	kingdom_n	visible_a	4,215	5	9.6422	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

Blessing Infants are capable of receiving benefit by Christ though they do not actually believe though they cannot lay hold on Christ yet Christ can lay hold on them and bless them Object But Baptism is not concerned in the Text except it can be made out that Blessing was Baptizing To this I replyed in my former Answer That it 's true Blessing is not Baptizing but 't is something more and Christ in Blessing them vouchsafed that to them which usually was as an Ordinance administred after Baptism and which is of an higher nature and so we may argue from this to Baptism inclusively or à majori from the greater to the less 2. And further though Blessing be not Baptism yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blest let it be meant if you will of the Kingdom of Glory it supposeth that they must be first of the Kingdom of Grace and were of the visible Church and so it comes all to one it follows they were qualified Subjects for Baptism For grant to Children a Church relation as I have proved it is their Right and their right to Baptism will unavoidably follow upon it Mr. Danvers might have done well to have shewn us the weakness of our arguings from this Text as containing in it a good foundation for Infants-Baptism instead of undertaking to vindicate Tertullian's Paraphrase thereon grounded on a mistake as if Pedobaptists made the word Come in the Text to be a coming to Baptism And for Tertullian's reasons against Childrens coming to Baptism I shall not scruple upon second thoughts to say they are childish ones and the Magdeburgs wonder at their silliness For 1. saith he Children cannot come till they are elder till they know are taught why they come and may not the same be as well urged against the circumcising Children of old Let them stay till they are older till they can know what the Ordinance meaneth 2. And then for the weightiness of the Ordinance in which regard he would have them forbear were there not also many deep Mysteries wrapt up in Circumcision As that it was a seal of the Covenant Did it not shadow forth the mortification of Sin Regeneration and Redemption by the blood of Christ And was it not a ridiculous reason which he gave why young men and those who were newly married and young widows should delay Baptism namely That the lust of concupiscence should be first extinguisht One would rather have supposed that the Ordinance might have proved a Remedy against such violent passions as they were supposed to be subject to for the more temptation any state is obnoxious to the more need it hath of Helps specially such as do not only lay ingagments but contribute strength as Mr. Geree speaks Most of the rest of his reasons as our Divines observe do argue that his words for the putting off Infants-Baptism are to be expounded of Aliens as that about not giving holy things to dogs and that of the Inconveniency by reason of the mortality of Sponsors or Sureties for in that Chapter he is speaking of Infidels as we have shewed before But Mr. Danvers being willing to make the most of a little will not by any means part with this witness such as it is and therefore brings in Dr. Barlow to confirm it that Tertullian disliked Infants-Baptism as unwarrantable and irrational but the Doctor having now declared his Judgment I hope Mr. Danvers will for the future forbear quoting him as he hath done Then we have Daille Scultetus and the Magdiburgs c. But we have told you before from learned men that it is to be understood of the children of Pagans to which we may add the Judgment of Junius that famous Expositor concurring with them As for the Testimony he brings from B. Rhenanus of the ancient Custom of baptizing those of full growth we have spoken to it already and shewed how grosly Mr. Danvers did mistake him And for the rest of his Regiment Vincentius Victor Heribertus Cresconius Fulgentius Regienses Albanus the Swermers Arnoldus Henricus c. We shall confer with him about these or the most of them very shortly and when this is over he wil have no need to complain of my silence which he saith gives consent to the whole or of my unfair and disingenuous dealing Lastly he endeavours to clear himself from some exceptions which I have made against some of his witnesses saying they are frivolous which whether it be so I leave to the Reader to judg 1. I tell him Berinus is nothing to his purpose because it is evident that his Sayings have respect to Pagans But that he conceives will not do because Berinus saith Baptism ought not to be administred to any without Instruction But I must tell Mr. Danvers that Bede saith no such thing lib. 4. c. 16. nor anywhere else that I can find Indeed l. 3. c. 7. Bede tells us of Berinus that Britanniam perveniens ac primum Genissorum gentem ingrediens cum omnes ibidem Paganos inveniret utilius esse ratus ibi potius Verbum Dei praedicare quam ultra progrediens eos quibus praedicare deberet requirere itaque evangelizante illo in prefata provincia cum Rex ipse catechizatus fonte Baptismi cum sua gente ablueretur c. But what is this to Mr. D's purpose Berinus herein did as all Pedobaptists would have done and if Mr. D. can gather from hence that Berinus affirmed that Baptism ought not to be administred to any be they within the Church or without without Instruction I think he will go far beyond either T. Aquinas or Mr. Baxter in the profoundness of his speculation and subtilty of his distinction there being none I am confident besides himself able to perform such an undertaking 2. Next I blame him for bringing in Durandus for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants when he expresseth himself positively for Infants-Baptism and most severely against the Anabaptists For this he hath nothing to excuse himself but that Durandus is in his Index but he doth not know how put in among the witnesses 3. I charge him with another falshood in b●inging in the Bishop of Apamen among his witnesses because though he were for Rebaptization of such as he conceived were not rightly baptized yet was he not an Anabaptist as the word is now taken for being against Infants-Baptism Of this he would excuse himself if he could by telling us the late Century-Writers do call him so in a modern sense which is notoriously untrue 4. I charge him for abusing Peter Bruis having nothing to evidence that he denyed Infants-Baptism but the lying Stories of Abbots but he saith he produced three or four evidences more to prove it But I can find only two Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. in the 290 page The first is that of the Magdeburgs Cent. 12. p. 843. where they tell us nothing but what they take from