Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	true_a	visible_a	8,362	5	9.3033	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47605	The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1692 (1692)	Wing K84; ESTC R27451	144,738	231

say I as much ground as Dr. Taylor says for the one as for the other and there is the same Parity of Reason to conclude as they err'd in the one so they did in the other Why do you not from hence give Infants the Lord's Supper the reason you give I have before proved insignificant As to your third Demonstration it is not denied her that Infant-Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century with many other Fopperies but that does you no Kindness the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many respects in those and after Times downward Your fourth Demonstration is this viz. Pag. 33. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned were guilty of the greatest Impiety c. Answ What then I ask you whether you do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it were not guilty also of as great Impurity Besides did not the same Fathers hold other Errors see Mr. Perkin's Demonst of the Problem pag. 488. these are his words viz. And whereas some Fathers viz. Ireneus Justin Clement Tertullian held that the Law of Nature had Power to save the Gentiles without Christ And again he saith The Fathers have Errors yea and that sometimes gross ones Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also and that in Baptism See Perkins p. 549. The Fathers saith he used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted as kissing of the Child which was baptized in Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. use of Milk and Hony use of Milk and Wine Hierom. in Isa cap. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the baptized and the Party baptized used to exufflate the Devil whom he renounced What Credit is to be given to such Fathers They gave the Eucharist to Children likewise You say the Church of England is for Infant-Baptism Article 27. also the French Dutch Bohemian Helvetian Churches What of all this why did you not put in the Church of Rome with them 't is clear the Church of the Hebrews a Church at Rome in the Apostles days the Church of the Corinthians Galatians Philippians Ephesians Colossians Sardis Smyrna Pergamus Philadelphia and Laodicea owned it not We must go to the Fountain and not to the muddy Stream to drink pure Water From the beginning it was not so But say you if now the Anabaptists can believe that Almighty God has suffered all his Churches Ancient and Modern and that in all parts of the World to fall into one and the same destroying Practice They have a Power which I shall never envy namely of believing what they please pag. 34. Answ 1. You take that for granted which you prove not viz. That all these Churches who hold Infant-Baptism are true Churches of Christ Sir I must tell you we have not such a Power of Faith as to believe that 2. Doth not the Apostle declare that a general Apostacy from the true Apostolical Faith and Doctrine would after his days ensue And hath not the Church of Rome that Mother of Harlots made all the Earth drunk with her Cup for near 1200 Years or more and corrupted all those Churches more or less with her poisonous Errors and false Doctrines Rites and Ceremonies and yet Almighty God hath suffered her for so long a time and many other Errors among Protestants 3. See Mr. Tombs his Answer to this For if the whole Church might err saith he in one Age it may also in all Ages collectively considered the Promises being no more to the Church in all Ages collectively considered than in each Age distributively considered nor any means given to them after the Apostles collectively considered to keep them from Error than to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more means to keep them from Error than other Ages yet they err'd in Doctrine and Discipline as many Writers shew As for the Promise Mat. 16.18 it is not true of the whole Church visible the Gates of Hell have and do prevail against her so but of the invisible and yet the Promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but they shall not err finally to Damnation which if they did then the Gates of Hell should indeed prevail against them 4. Your Church and all those other Churches mentioned by you have other Errors besides this and yet God suffers you and them to continue at present in those Errors for Reasons best known to himself nor do we say we are without any Errors or any Church on Earth we pretend to no Infallibility But in the Point of Baptism we are right by your own Concession I mean as to the baptizing of Believers 5. And lastly We do not say this Error of yours about Infant-Baptism is a Soul-damning Error God forbid tho it doth tend to destroy too far the nature of the holy Sacrament of Baptism and so also a right Gospel-Church according to the Apostolical Constitution making your Church National when the Gospel-Churches planted by Christ and his Apostles were Congregational So much in Answer to all your Arguments for the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism CHAP. VI. Shewing Infant-Baptism is of no use at all in opposition to what Mr. Burkit affirms but contrariwise sinful i. e. it being an Error hath also many evil and bad Consequences attending it With some Reflections on Infants Baptismal Covenant as asserted by Mr. Dan. Williams as well as this Author Mr. Burkit YOU say the Anabaptists assert Infant-Baptism is unlawful because 't is unuseful Children understanding no more than Brute Beasts what is done to them therefore you may as warrantably baptize a Beast as a Child Pag. 34. And then say pag. 35. That Infant-Baptism is greatly advantagious as an Act of Initiation into the visible Church Answ 1. You have no Warrant to baptize a Child but who of the Anabaptists ever said such words as you here mention dare you accuse your Neighbours falsly 't is a bad and unseemly Comparison But 't is no marvel we meet with it from such as you who are prejudiced against us some of your Brethren formerly charged us with baptizing naked God will judg between us and you in his due time Answ 2. You should have proved it an Institution or an Appointment of Christ but that you have not yet done nor never will True were Infant-Baptism ordained by Christ to be an initiating Rite into the Gospel-Church doubtless it had been useful 3. But what good doth your baptizing them do them what Priviledge of the Church do you allow them I know not one if indeed it did adopt the Child to be a Son or Daughter of God you say something or if God had appointed it to be a Sign or

If the Image of God consisting in Holiness was received by the Soul in the first Creation without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it Why may not the same Image of God be restored to the Soul in the second Creation without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Restitution of it for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect ●egeneration whereof we are now speaking as well as he did that perfect Holiness in which our first Parents were originally created 1. I answer Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of some of your impertinent Interrogations I might pass them all by without any further Answer than I have before given you Sir who questions the Power of God who is a free Agent and may do what he pleases He may 't is true regenerate an Infant or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb and may be doth change or regenerate the depraved Nature of those Infants who die in their Infancy but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon and fits for Heaven Secret things I tell you again belong to him 2. But should God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptism no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and you know well enough the first Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptism to wash away that Pollution of their Nature or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin and also those Fathers gave the same Infants the Lord's Supper and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other And assure your self they shamefully erred in both because both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God But Sir how inconsistent are you with your self even just now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God as well as their Parents and are therefore holy and from that ground ought to be baptized But now it seems as if that Argument was gone with you and notwithstanding that federal Holiness they are unclean and unless they have actually sanctifying Grace and their filthy Natures are changed they cannot be saved You just play the part of a Fencer and resolve to try your Skill with every Weapon one while you are a Presbyterian another time a Church-of England-Man But Sir speak doth Baptism change the Nature or regenerate the Child or doth it not the Seed which St. John speaks of he affirms remains in those Persons in whom it is wrought sow'd or infused see 1 Joh. 3.9 And no doubt was there indeed such a Divine Habit or Seed of Grace infused into Infants in their Baptism but it would appear in their Lives when grown up Such as is the Cause such is the Effect or Product that is produced i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize Holiness would be the Effect of it when they come to Age of Understanding but all Men see the contrary i. e. they shew their evil and unclean Natures as soon nay before they can speak plain therefore you preach false Doctrine if you affirm that Baptism renovates or changes their Nature Nay and were it so all that are baptized would be saved Shall one Soul who passes through Regeneration miss of Salvation Reverend Stephen Charnock tho a Pedo-baptist speaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do See his Book on Regenerat sol p. 75. saith he Many Men take Baptism for Regeneration the Ancients usually give it this term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration this confers not Grace but ingageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner Neither can it be proved that ever the Spirit o● God is tied by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation when Water is applied to the Body If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated then all that were baptized should be saved or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground And again he says That some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so long even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable So far Mr. Charnock 'T is well you call it an imperfect Regeneration Abortive or a Monster no doubt for Baptism forms no Child of God if it did how come Simon Magus who was baptized to miss of Regeneration Acts 8.13 And indeed this is an easy way to Heaven I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptism I know your Church saith that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God a Member of Christ and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Sad Doctrine God deliver England from such Guides as teach the common People Nay all who will be led or taught by them that Baptism makes them Christians and so never teach them to look after any other Regeneration tho such whom you baptize as you call it if they live when they are grown up prove wicked and ungodly Persons or carnal Worldlings Sir take heed what you do lest the Blood of your deceived and miserable People be required at your hands Is not this to heal the hurt of your People slightly and to cry Peace Peace when there is no Peace This is the Sting I saw in the Tail of your Argument You ask many Questions Why may not this be so and Why may not that be so Who taught you thus to argue what do you prove But that which troubles me most is this viz. That after you have put forth these unlearned and weak Questions you draw Conclusions therefrom with daring Boldness after this manner viz. What an high Affront then do these Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit who affirm that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray that Almighty God should regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit as to expect that he should illuminate a Stone or a Tree pag. 16. But say you if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace and Remission of Sin as I hope appears then surely they are capable of Baptism for the outward visible Sign ought not to be denied to such as are capable of the inward spiritual Grace Answ 1. Sir you are to be rectified Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant if he pleases so to do but you are to prove God doth do it and that by Baptism too for that 's the thing you seem to contend for which we deny we say God can of