03-19-2008, 05:40 PM
|
 | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 7,976
Thanks: 882
Thanked 832 Times in 523 Posts
| |
| PDF file of Burges
Hi John. Welcome to PB. I suspect that the PDF file of the Burges work you reference has been posted on that site without permission of the owner, Proquest (owners of Early English Books Online). It is clearly theirs as it has the old Bell and Howel authorship in the about file information. The terms of use of EEBO is as follows: Quote:
You will use the Products solely for your own personal or internal use. You will not publish, broadcast or sell any materials retrieved through the Products or use the materials in any manner that will infringe the copyright or other proprietary right of ProQuest or its licensors. You may not use the Products to execute denial of service attacks nor may you perform automated searches against ProQuest's systems to the extent such searches unduly burden ProQuest's systems (including, but not limited to automated "bots" or link checkers). You may print and make copies of materials retrieved through the Products only as permitted below. You represent and warrant to ProQuest that you will not use the Products or any material retrieved from the Products to create products or perform services which compete or interfere with the publications and services of ProQuest or its licensors.
You may create printouts of materials retrieved through the Products via on-line printing, off-line printing, facsimile, or electronic mail. All reproduction and distribution of such printouts, and all downloading and electronic storage of materials retrieved through the Products shall be for your own internal or personal use. Downloading of all or parts of the Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of materials comprising all or part of the Products is strictly prohibited whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form. Notwithstanding the above restrictions, this paragraph shall not restrict your use of the materials under the doctrines of "fair use" or "fair dealing" as defined under the laws of the United States or England, respectively.
| All that to say, I wouldn't make it available elsewhere without the permission of Proquest. Quote:
Originally Posted by onemaster  Quote:
Originally Posted by wsw201 How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't. | Here goes... 
Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself: http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/h...es-baptism.pdf
I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today. | |