Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	act_n	believe_v	faith_n	1,015	5	5.7119	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31663	An impartial account of the Portsmouth disputation with some just reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended narrative : with an abrigdment of those discourses that were the innocent occasion of that disputation / by Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinson.	Chandler, Samuel.; Leigh, William.; Robinson, Benjamin, 1666-1724.	1699 (1699)	Wing C1933; ESTC R24745	96,620	125

a Common Objection and therefore deserves a distinct answer 1. To this I Answer What Express Command or Example can they produce for previous Examination of Persons that offer themselves to be Baptiz'd for Stated Prayer before and after this Ordinance or for dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water All these things must be deduc'd by consequence for no express Scripture can be produc'd for them I may add what express Command have they for singing Psalms in Rhime and Metre which is the Practice of the most Orthodox Anabaptists at this day I mention this the rather to convince Mr. Webber and his adherents what a doughty Champion they have chosen for themselves For this Dr. Russel hath written some Animadversions on his Brother Allen's Essay on singing Psalms wherein he advances the very same Arguments against their Practice of singing Psalms that he doth against ours for Infant Baptism and therefore hath prov'd himself a Hackny disputant that hath one constant Road and train of Arguments upon all occasions Perhaps I may be so dull of Apprehension as not to be able to Answer them therefore must cry Men of Israel help The Arguments of Russel against Allen pag. 9. If it doth not appear from Scripture or any Authentic History that the Psalms of David were Translated into Rhime or Metre till the 16 th Century then it is Impossible any Church could so sing them as our Brethren now do the Major is undeniable the Minor I thus prove If it be so recorded you or some other are able to show it Further if Singing in Rhime or Metre was never practic'd in any Church till the 16 th Century then it was because our Lord Jesus had not commanded it so to be If our Lord had Commanded it his Apostles would have so taught the Churches If the Apostles were faithful in the discharge of their Ministry and kept back nothing that was profitable to the Churches but declar'd to them the whole Councel ●● God then they did teach the Churches all that the Lord Jesus Commanded If the Apostles did teach the Churches to sing in Rhime and Metre then it is somewhere so recorded in the New Testament Thus argues this mighty Man of Logick but as he cannot distinguish between Rhime and Metre ●o I can see neither Rhime nor Reason in his discourse these were the Arguments for want of better he ●rif●ed w●th at Portsmouth but Mr. Webber to whose Civility I am indebted for a sight of this curious peice must either Renounce his beloved Rhimes or comply with the Practice of Infant Baptism notwithstanding the Wonderful Arguments of his Champion to the contrary But to return from this digression 2. Those Truths that were Establish'd in the Old Testament are rather suppos'd than positively express'd in the New but the Grounds and Foundations upon which Infant Baptism stands were Establish'd in the Old Testament Infants were then admitted into the Covenant and Church of God Except therefore Christ had blotted their Names out of the Covenant and Rolls of the Church They are to be continued there under the New Testament Thus a Magistracy was setled under the Old Testament but there is no precept for it under the New the Lawfulness of War was then setled but suppos'd not expres● under the New The forbidden degrees of Marriage were setled under the Old Testament No need of mentioning them again under the New 3. Ans. There are many Virtual and General Commands for the Baptizing of Infants in the New Testament which were mention'd before 4. Ans. There was no need of an express Command because it was the constant Practice of the Church when the Scripture was written in conformity to the Practice of the Iews for many Ages before I cannot here express my self better than in the words of the Learned Lightfoot If Baptism and Baptizing of Infants had been as strange and unheard of a thing till Iohn Baptist came as Circumcision was ●till God appointed it to Abraham There would then no doubt have been an express Command for Baptizing Infants as there was for Circumcising them But when the Baptizing of Infants was a thing commonly known and us'd as appears by Uncontestable Evidence from all their Writers there need not be express Assertions that such and such Persons were to be the Objects of Baptism when it was as well known before the Gospel began that Men Women and Children were Baptiz'd as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shines at noon day 5. There would need a Positive Command to exclude Infants who were admitted into Covenant before The Iews were extremely tender of their Priviledges and you know there was a great dispute among them whether their Children should be Circumcis'd Acts. 21.21 Now if their Children were wholly cast out of Covenant this would have enrag'd them much more seeing therefore there is not one word in Scripture that once mentions the unchurching of Infants not one Apostle that once questions or discovers it the believing Iews did not once Scruple it nor the unbelieving once charge it on Christ nor the Councel in Acts 15. Reveal it tho they that taught Infants should be Circumciz'd did suppose they were Church-Members I say seeing all these things are True Infants are Church-Members still and consequently ought to be Baptiz'd 6. There are Examples of whole Housholds that were Baptiz'd in Scripture and we may well conclude as Abrahams Children In Luk. 19.9 Christ saith to Zaccheus Salvation is come to this House for that he also is the Son of Abraham Zaceheus was a Publican and a gatherer of the Roman Tribute and perhaps a Gentile but upon his Faith in Christ he becomes a Spiritual Son of Abraham and Salvation comes not only to himself but his House God becomes a God to him and his So when we read of so many Housholds Baptiz'd upon the Parents and Masters Believing we have Reason to conclude their Infants were Baptiz'd as Abraham and his were Circumciz'd 7. There is no Instance of any Christian Child whose Baptism was defer'd still he came to Years There was great Reason that they who had been Iews or Heathens before should upon their undertaking Christianity be Baptiz'd at Years as Abraham at the first Institution of Circumcision was Circumciz'd when he was old but we may well suppose their Children as Abrahams were Baptiz'd with them and afterwards in their Infant State Now it is utterly unaccountable that in that long tract of time between St. Mathews Gospel and the Revelations when many Christian Infants were grown adult we should read of none that were Baptiz'd but only of Iews and Heathens I say this is unaccountable and therefore supposeth they were Baptiz'd in Infancy Obj. 2. Infants are uncapable of performing the Duties prerequir'd to Baptism Of confessing their Sins Mat. 3.6 Of Repenting Acts 2.38 Of gladly receiving the word Acts 2.41 Of Believing Mar. 16.16 1. Infants are admitted on the account of their

Parents faith As the Infants of Believing Iews so are the Infants of Christians nor is this at all unreasonable For as Infants contract Guilt from their Parents why may they not also partake of Mercy on account of their Parents except God be more inclin'd to Acts of Justice than Mercy As many were heal'd of their Bodily diseases by the faith of their Parents Math. 15.28 So why may they not be admitted into Gods Church on the same account As the Iewish Infants Covenanted with God in and by their Parents Deut. 29.11.12 So why may not Christian Infants Covenant in and by them As Children are said to come to Christ being brought in the Arms of their Nurses or Parents Luk. 18.15.16 So why may they not be said Spiritually to come to Christ in the Arms of their Parents Faith As Parents enter their Childrens Names in Leases and Covenants and the Children are oblig'd to stand to these Covenants and do Injoy these Priviledges when they come to Years So why may they not enter their Childrens Names into the Covenant and Church of God tho' at present they are uncapable of Personally Engaging themselves 2. Infants are oblig'd to these duties as soon as they are capable and their Early Engagements in Baptism lay the more strong and forcible Obligation upon them to do so If afterwards they revolt from God their Sin will be more highly aggravated as adding Perjury and Apostacy to the rest of their Sins and this may be one Reason why sometimes the Children of Believers are worse than others because they Sin against greater Light and Love and stronger Engagements than other men and therefore justly provoke the Holy Spirit to forsake them The Levites of a Month Old are said to keep the charge of the Sanctuary because they were devoted to this Office and bound to it when capable Num. 3.28 So the Infants of Believers are devoted to the Service of God And bound to Believe repent confess their Sins and gladly receive the word as soon as capable 3. These Texts therefore only shew what was requir'd of grown Persons when Baptism was first appointed in the Christian Church Those Persons were either Iews or Heathens before and therefore must Renounce their former Errors and profess the Christian Faith but this is no Prejudice against Infants who are to be admitted with them As when Abraham was Circumciz'd he first Believ'd in God and Submitted to this Ordinance but afterwards the Infants of the Iews were Circumciz'd in their Infant State● So if we were to Preach to the Indians we must first perswade them to Believe and Repent before Baptism but when once they had Believ'd their Infants would have the same right with themselves 4. As to Mar. 16.16 because many are apt to insist on the order of the words and argue that Faith is put before Baptism and therefore ought to preceed it I Answer The order of the words is not always to be exactly regarded For confessing ●f Sin is put after Baptism● Matth. 3.6 Besides this would condemn all Infants for if because they cannot Believe they ought not to be Baptiz'd then for the same Reason they must all be damn'd 'T is not positively said he that is not Baptiz'd shall be damn'd Baptism is not of Absolute Necessity to Salvation But it is positively said he that Believeth not sh●ll be damn'd If the latter part of this verse be Interpreted of Grown Persons so also must the● former As for Grown Persons Faith must go before Baptism But it doth not follow that Infants are hence excluded from Baptism no more than from Salvation Our Saviour doth therefore here only give a general direction to his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and admit the Gentiles to the same Priviledges with the Iews and shews them the Issue of the Execution of their Commission that those Iews or Heathens that would renounce their former Idolatry and be●●eving y submit to the Ordinance as a Solemn Entrance into the Church should be saved bu● those that wilfully persisted in unbelief shou'd be damn'd So that this is no Preju●ice to Infants who are still in Covenant with God thro their Parents Faith and were never cast out I proceed to the 2d General Question After what manner the outward Element in Baptism ought to be apply'd whether by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water or whether pouring Water on the Face be not sufficient To which I Answer 1. It is not Absolutely Necessary that this Ordinance should be administred by dipping or plunging the whole Body under the Water There are many mistaken Brethren lay too great a stress on this but it proceeds from their ignorance of the Scriptures 1. The Holy Ghost never uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most frequently fignifys to dip but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now why should the Holy Ghost consecrate a new World for this Ordinance if dipping had been the only way of administring it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always us'd where dipping is signify'd Mat. 26.23 Ioh. 13.26 He that dippeth with me in the dish Luk 16.24 dip his finger Rev. 19.13 with Garments dip'd in Blood 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd in a differing sense in Scripture Thus you read Mar. 7.4 The Pharisees eat not except they wash oft Now the way of washing among the Iews was this a Servant was ready to p●ur water on his Masters hands hence Elisha is thus describ'd 2 Kings 3.11 Here is Elisha that pour'd Water on the hands of his Master Eli●ah So we read of washing of cups and pots Brasen Vessels and Tables or Beds Mar. 7.4 the Greek word is Baptizo Surely they did not carry them out to a River and dip them there but pour'd water on them and so made them clean Again Heb. 9.10 we read of divers washings Baptisms in the Greek Now what were these Baptisms but v. 13.21 Moses's Sprinkling the Book and all the People with the Blood of Calves and Goats and Water So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the same thing Let not Injudicious People therefore pretend that ours is only Rantism when we find in Scripture that Rantism and Baptism are us'd promisc●ously for the same 3. There is no certainty that dipping was ever usd in Scripture times All those Scriptures that are commonly urg'd to this purpose may be easily apply'd another way If we begin with Iohn the Baptist he is said to Baptize not in but with Water as Christ with the Holy Ghost and Fire Luk. 3.16 Now how did Christ Baptize with the Holy Ghost and Fire but at the day of pentecost when the Holy Ghost was pour'd on them Acts. 10.45 I know the learned Casaubon's witty Criticism that in Acts 2. when the Holy Ghost came upon them it is said There came a ●ound from Heaven as of a rushing might● wind and it fill'd the House So that they were as