Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	believe_v	faith_n	justification_n	2,510	5	8.9827	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62868	Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1659 (1659)	Wing T1806; ESTC R33836	48,674	44

professing of such a believing by which both he and his houshold might be saved as is before shewed And so of all others in those times Pag. 163. Argum. 19. If we once admit men to baptism without their own personal profession we shall be utterly confounded and not be able to give any satisfactory resolution whose profession may be a sufficient qualification to entitle to baptism and so never be able to practice the Doctrine of Pae●obaptism as being utterly uncertain what Infants to baptize This might be manifest by considering the several conceits of Paedobaptists some whereof make the faith of the Church sufficient some the faith of albelieving Nation some of any ancestors some of the sureties some of the next Parents some of the Parent inchurched some of the Parent or Proparent and this they claim by a covenant which they can extend to no other then the Parent who is believer not onely by Profession but also really before God which can be known to no administrator of baptism ordinarily Paedobaptists speak so much and purposely of this point particularly Master Baxter of baptism Part. 1. chap. 29. that one would think we may expect an exact resolution of this point from him if from any man and yet he is uncertain what to fix upon and if he resolve on any thing it is without proof as is shewed by Master T. Review Part. 1. Sect. 35. 37. Exercit. Argum. 9. 11. Review part 2. Sect. 10. 12. 17. Part. 3. Sect. 50. c. And I perceive that the stress of the differences between Master Baxter and Master T. did rest much in this and no wise man will leave his grounds till he see where he may have better especially when the grounds are so plain as those of the Antipaedobaptists are from Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. and the Apostles practice which Master Baxter hath here so amply proved to be of the baptizing onely of persons who themselves profess a saving faith unless he mean to be for nothing or of no Religion No man can tell where to fix nor what we must consent to to procure a title if we once forsake the present ground of the Persons own profession of saving faith who is to be baptized What is said to the contrary is answered in the books forenamed and it is not meet to be still writing for those lazie Readers that had rather erre then be at the pains of reading what is already written None are Disciples upon the account of your other faith but of either saving faith or the profession of it none are Christians on the account of your lower kind of faith but onely of saving faith or the profession of it Once for all I let you know that I take saving faith to be the constitutive or necessary qualification of a real or mystical member and profession of that faith to be the qualifying condition of visibility of membership I confess still that the sealis to others besides believers but though the promise be conditional we must not seal to any but those that profess consent to the conditions and therefore not to any but those that profess to be true believers Pag. 190. I find by sad experience to my sorrow that a considerable part of some Parishes or Villages are ignorant of the Fundamentals I have spoken with abundance that that know not Christ is God or man or either but they say he is a Spirit nor that the Holy Ghost is God nor why Christ died nor that any satisfaction is made for our sins or any thing done or necessary to their pardon but our own repentance and amendment and with some that know not that the soul goes to heaven before the resurrection nor that the body shall ever rise again Now I would know of Master Blake whether all the children of these Parents must be baptized again or not For certainly these have not a Dogmatical faith which is the thing that he saith entituleth to baptism And then what certainty have we that any of our ancestors had a true Dogmatical faith And I would know of Master Baxter whether such children are not to be baptized agian Sure if he say no how can he allow that baptism which is without a Profession of saving faith If he say yea how can he assure himself that any of our ancestors had right baptism Me thinks few that hold Master Baxters Tenets should allow of the baptism of the greatest part of English People who are no better then those Master Baxter mentions and yet neither Master Baxter nor other Paedobaptists do baptize such when they come to profess understandingly the faith of Christ Pag. 195. My Twentieth and last Argument is drawn from the constant practice of the universal Church of Christ It hath been the constant practice of the Catholick Church from the Apostles practice till now to require that profession of saving faith and repentance as necessary before they would baptize therefore it must be our practice also But it is otherwise in Infant baptism as experience shews therefore the practice of it is not right For the proof of the Churches practice 1. I have already said enough about the Apostles own practice and the Church in their days 2. The constant practice of the Church since the Apostles to this day is undoubtedly known 1. by the very form of words in baptism and 2. by the history of their proceedings therein 1. It is certain that the Church did ever baptize into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And as I have proved before the voluntary seeking and reception of that baptism containeth the actual profession of saving faith 2. It is certain that the persons to be baptized if at age did profess to believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost 3. It is also certain that they did profess to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devil 4. And it is certain that they promised for the future to live in new obedience and thus they publickly entered the three stipulations Credis credo Abrenuncias abrenuncio Spondes Spondeo Doest thou believe I believe Doest thou renounce I renounce Doest thou promise I promise It was the constant doctrine of the Fathers and the Church then that faith and repentance given in vocation did go first and that Justification Adoption and Sanctification followed after And so they took this justifying faith and repentance to be prerequisite to baptism therefore they ever required before hand whether they believed in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and renounced the Flesh the World and the Devil as is aforesaid and caused them to profess this before they would baptize them And as it is true of the ancient Church that they never baptized any without the profession of saving faith and repentance so it is true of all the Christian Churches in the world that I can hear of to this day The Papists themselves do use the same words in baptism as

to salvation but no man maketh this profession that professeth not saving faith and repentance Therefore no man that professeth not saving faith and repentance is truly a Disciple of Christ The major is evident in the nature of the relation the minor is as evident in that it is an act of saving Faith and repentance to forsake other Teachers and to take Christ for our sole or chief teacher in order to salvation 2. No man is truly a Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Lord and King forsaking his Enemies But no man doth this but the professors of a saving faith Therefore c. 3. No man is a true Christian that professeth not to take Christ for his Redeemer who hath made propitiation for sin by his blood and to esteem his blood as the Ransom for sinners and to trust therein but none do this but the professors of saving faith therefore none else are Christians The major of all these three Arguments is further proved thus No man is professedly a Christian that professeth not to accept of Christ as Christ or to believe in Christ as Christ but no man doth profess to take Christ as Christ that professeth not to take or accept him as his Priest Teacher and King therefore c. The major is plain in it self the minor is as plain it being essential to Christ to be the Priest Prophet and King and from these essentials related to us and accepted by us doth our own denomination of Christians arise and that a bare assent without acceptance doth not make any one a Christian is past doubt and shall be further spoken to anon If baptism then be commonly called our Christening and so be our entrance solemnly into the Christian state then is it not to be given to them that are not so much as Christians by profession And furthermore if a Faith defective in the assenting part about the essentials of its object serve not to denominate a man justly a Christian then a Faith defective in the consenting or accepting part above the essentials of the object serveth not to denominate a man a Christian but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The antecedent is proved because else the Turks are Christians because they believe so many and so great things of Christ and else a man might be a Christian that denied Christs death or resurrection or other essentials of Christianity The consequence is good for Christianity is as truly and necessarily in the will as in the understanding consent is as essential an act of covenanting as any So that I may conclude that as he is no Christian that professeth not to believe that Christ is the Priest Prophet and King so he is no Christian that professeth not to consent and accept him for his Priest Prophet and King The fourteenth Argument is this Our Divines ordinarily charge wicked men with contradiction of profession which is made in baptism and they expound many places of Scripture which the Arminians take as favouring their cause to be meant according to the profession of wicked men But it chargeth not such contradiction on persons baptized in Infancy therefore it supposeth no profession or baptism of theirs and if we must baptize none that profess not saving faith and repentance we must not baptize Infants who make no profession Pag. 177. Argum. 15. If all that are baptized must engage themselves to believe presently in the next instant yea or at any time hereafter with a saving faith then must they profess at present a saving faith or if we must baptize none that will not ingage to believe savingly then must we baptize none that will not profess a saving faith But no Infant will profess a saving faith as is manifest by reason and experience therefore we must baptize no Infant The antecedent is Master Blakes Doctrine who affirmeth That it is not necessary that they that come to baptism do profess a present saving faith but its sufficient that they engage themselves to believe by such a faith The consequence is proved thus 1. It is not the beginning of saving faith which we are to engage our selves to in the Sacraments but the continuance therefore the beginning is presupposed in that engagement and so we must no more baptize without a profession of faith in present then without an engagement to believe hereafter the antecedent is proved thus There is no one word in Scripture either of precept or example where any person in baptism doth engage or is required to engage to begin to believe with a saving faith or to believe with a faith which at present he hath not Shew but one word of Scripture to prove this if you can if you cannot I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require Let Master Baxter shew but one word in Scripture to prove this if he can that any person in baptism doth engage or is required to believe or profess to believe that another an Infant may be admitted to baptism by virtue of it if he cannot I may conclude that therefore we must not require that which we have no Scripture ground to require nor admit any Infant or other by reason of a Parents Proparents or sureties profession or promise to believe for an Infant Pag. 149. Argum. 16. If there can be no example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession and that his own by his own self and no other Parents Proparent or surety of a saving faith nor any precept for so doing then must not we baptize any without it but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent and therefore we must baptize no Infant who makes no such profession as all examples in Scripture of any baptized are of and every precept for baptism requires Let us review the Scripture examples of baptism which might afford us so many several Arguments but that I shall put them together for brevity 1. I have already shewed that John required the profession of true repentance by the baptized himself and that his baptism was for remission of sin 2. When Christ layeth down in the Apostolical commission the nature and order of his Apostles work it is first to make them Disciples and then to baptize them into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and as it is a making Disciples which is first expressed in Matth. so Mark expoundeth who those Disciples are by patting believing before baptism and that we may know that it is a justifying faith of the Disciple himself that he meaneth he annexeth first baptism and then the promise of salvation Math. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved This is not like some occasional mention of baptism but its the very commission of Christ to his Apostles for preaching and baptism and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order