Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
church_n cause_n just_a separation_n 3,235 5 9.9864 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A63924 A vindication of infant baptism from the four chief objections brought against it ... : in a letter to Mr. **** / by John Turner ... Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50. 1699 (1699) Wing T3321; ESTC R1870 31,861 38

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

all countenance their being baptized because it is no where commanded I answer That if this be all then the Case is changed and the Objection is not that Infants are excluded but that their Baptism is no where commanded I was only now to prove that nothing in the Nature of this Sacrament does necessarily exclude them Infants being in a State of Reconciliation and Favour does I think sufficiently prove that How far a particular Command is necessary to be added to this Capacity is another Question that shall be consider'd in its place 2. I may possibly be asked how I reconcile this Doctrine to our Church-Catechism which teaches that Faith and Repentance are required of Persons to be Baptized Indeed I think the Answer is easie for the Catechism speaks first indefinitely without any respect to Adults or Infants as Christ has done in Matt. 28. and declares what in general are the Conditions of the Covenant and consequently not of this Sacrament only but of our Salvation also And these are Faith and Repentance which every one that enters into this Covenant when they come to Age are obliged to But it no where declares that actual Faith and actual Repentance are universally necessary to all Persons whatever that shall be admitted to this Sacrament No it declares the Contrary that tho' Infants by reason of their tender Age cannot perform these Conditions yet they are baptized not upon their Sureties Faith or believing by Proxy But upon the Expectation grounded on their Engagement that the Children shall be taught and exhorted to perform them afterwards And this I think is agreeable to what I have here maintained 3. It may possibly be objected That if this Doctrine be true it will from hence follow that the Infant-Children of Turks Jews and Pagans may be as capable of Baptism as the Children of Believers because they are innocent as well as others and have their original Guilt as well expiated by the Blood of Christ I answer Infants as to Covenants and Privileges are reputed in the same Estate and Right with their Parents and that because being under their Tuition its presumed they will have the same Principles and Persuasion And therefore as the Children of Unbelievers on this account may in some Sense be said to be Partakers of their Parents Infidelity as they are like to be brought up in it For this Reason they are denied Baptism Otherwise they are capable and may be admitted wherever there is sufficient Satisfaction given to the Church that they shall be educated in the Christian Religion And the Reason why they are not admitted now is only on this Account because it would be preposterous to admit Children into a Religion which they were never likely to be instructed and educated in afterwards But I say could the Church be assur'd that they would be instructed and educated in that Faith they also might be baptized and nothing in our Saviour's Commission necessarily excludes them 4. and Lastly If it be objected That this Doctrine makes the Baptism of Infants unnecessary in that if they were in a State of Reconciliation and Favour before Baptism they can profit nothing by being baptized I answer I did not undertake to prove that the Baptism of Infants was absolutely necessary to their Salvation but that it is lawful and not at all disagreeable to Christ's Institution and therefore no just Cause of the Separation from the Communion of our Church which is all that I now contend for CHAP. III. THE Third Objection is That it is an Unwarrantable and Unlawful Practice to baptize Infants because there is you say no Precept nor Command nor Autority for it in all the Word of God And this is the Sheet-Anchor on which you lay the greatest Stress For when we can demonstrate by God's own Autority and Example that the natural Incapacity of Infants is no necessary Bar to exclude them from the Seal of the Covenant you reply all this is nothing because there was an express and positive Command for Circumcising Infants but there is none at all for Baptizing them and when we argue that Faith and Repentance are made as necessary to Salvation as they are to Baptism and consequently do no more exclude Infants from this Sacrament than from Salvation you plead that tho' they are capable and within the Covenant of Grace yet they ought not to be Baptized because it is not Commanded In Christianity nothing is to be done without the express Autority of God's Word And here you load us with heavy Charges of pretending to take the Word of God for our only Rule of Faith and Manners and yet to keep Unscriptural Ordinances and do that which the whole Word of God speaks not one Word of from the Beginning to the End So that we of the Church of England are guilty of adding to the Divine Laws of God in the most weighty Matters of Christianity without his Autority Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. This is a severe Charge of which if we were indeed guilty it must needs be heavy upon us at the last Great Day And that we may be the better prepared then let it be considered fairly what we have to alledge in our Defence now First This Argument may easily be turned upon you the Baptism of Infants you say is no Gospel-Ordinance 't is not Commanded and therefore it is unlawful I reply 't is no where forbidden and therefore it is not unlawful And this Argument of no Prohibition is of more than ordinary Force here in that God all along in both the former Covenants of Abraham and Moses having commanded Infants to be admitted and sealed by the Sacrament which was ordained for the Confirmation thereof When he changed the Ordinance and instituted Baptism to be the Seal of his Covenant it was then proper to have declared if Infants that were fit Subjects to receive the Seal of it before should now be excluded For his having given no express Prohibition goes a great way to vindicate the Lawfulness of this Paactice in that it seems to show his Pleasure that they should be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as they had had before For if ever Prohibition was to be expected to declare a Thing unlawful it was to the Abolishing a Practice that had been so long established and received I mean the admitting Infants into Covenant with him 2. But Secondly We have the Autority of God for this Practice in two Respects 1. The Autority of his own Example 2. Of his Command in his revealed Word and Laws 1. We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this Practice and as Mr. Keach I remember confesses Page 35 36 that an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of equal Authority with a Gospel-Precept So I hope it will be allowed that a Divine Precedent from the Example of God is of the same Autority also when the Nature of Things and the Circumstances are