Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	apostle_n	pray_v	prayer_n	1,314	5	6.4509	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47585	Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1698 (1698)	Wing K74; ESTC R8584	65,265	127

mentions two Scriptures for proof viz. Acts 9.17 and Acts 8.14 15. in which affirmation he altogether begs the question and proves nothing nor removes what has been said to this very point In this I must withstand him for he goes too fast I should be glad could I be an Instrument in the hand of Christ to rectify their understanding herein who doubt about it for they seem to be much mistaken about that Text Acts 9.17 but especially that in Acts 8.14 15. I shall therefore offer something in the first place to this Doth not the Scripture say plainly in Acts 9.17 that Ananias put his hands upon Saul that he might receive his sight why should he say then it was for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit If that which is exprest to be the effects of Ananias his putting his hands on Paul was the only end of that Service which is according to his own arguings upon Acts 8.14 Acts 19.16 then it was only for his sight for it is said he received his sight but not a word of his receiving the Holy Ghost when he laid his hand upon him that he was sent to Saul that he might receive the Spirit is granted but whether by laying on of hands or some other means is yet to be proved And this being an extraordinary case and different from that in Acts 8.14 15. viz. Ananias his laying hands on Saul as a blind Man that he might receive his sight which answers to that in Mark 16.18 and Peter and John laying their hands on them in Acts 8.14 as on baptized Believers as such for their receiving the Holy Spirit makes nothing to the Controversy depending tho Mr. D. hath put them together as if the Subject Manner and End were one and the same But Secondly to proceed to that Scripture Acts 8.14 where mention is made of Peter and John's laying their hands on baptized Believers in Samaria which our Brethren affirm was also to confer the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit but how much they are mistaken herein shall be examined Since it appears not that the Apostles at Jerusalem did either send Peter and John to Samaria upon that account or that they laid their hands upon those believing Samaritans to that only end 't is very strange Mr. D. or others should affirm any such thing therefore to prevent this mistake let us once again examine these Texts Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and John who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 't is not said the extraordinary Gifts but the Holy Spirit those you see are the express words for as yet saith the Text he was fallen upon none of them only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost Vers 14 25. I know 't is objected from the following words that the Spirit came upon them in some visible or extraordinary manner because Simon saw that thro' laying on of the Apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given This is only a supposition for who can tell what kind of Manifestations of the Spirit might appear in them to convince Simon that they had the Holy Spirit The Text doth not say they either spake with Tongues or wrought Miracles But if for arguments sake we should grant they receiv'd the Spirit in some extraordinary manner as those in Acts 19. it would not follow that this was the absolute end of this Service for if we may reason as they and others have done after this manner that what was the effects of their laying their hands upon them was the end why they laid on their hands and that End is by none attained in these days therefore Laying on of hands is not practicable in these days we shall shew you the sad Consequences and Absurdities that would follow such an Inference To proceed 't is said Acts 4.31 that when the Apostles had prayed the place was shaken where they were assembled Now mark because this Miracle was wrought as the effect of their praying can it be thought that was the end of Prayer or that we must not pray because no such effects are wrought now And when Philip had baptized the Eunuch Acts 8.39 't is said the Spirit caught away Philip that the Eunuch saw him no more what a strange thing was this that followed Baptism But now because this Miracle followed as the effect of that Administration then shall we conclude it was the end of the Ordinance of Baptism But again in Acts 10.44 while Peter was preaching the Word to Cornelius and unto those that were in his House 't is said The Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the Word so that they spake with Tongues c. Now shall we say the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit or Miracles were the end of Preaching because such kind of Effects followed preaching Surely none will argue so that understand themselves for if that was the End of preaching because it was the Effect that followed and that Effect now never following we may say as many do Preaching is ceased if he and others argue right for such and such extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit followed say they when baptized Believers did come under laying on of hands in the Apostles days and these Gifts are not given now therefore that Ordinance is ceased it being only for the Confirmation of the Gospel Now say I by the same Argument all the Institutions of Christ may be denied as well as laying on of hands As First Meeting and assembling together see Acts 2.1 't is said They were all met together with one accord in one place and suddenly there came a Sound from Heaven as of a rushing Wind and it filled all the House where they were sitting Vers 2. And there appeared unto them cloven Tongues like fire and sat upon each of them Vers 3. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance Here is no mention of any other Ordinance save only assembling together God graciously being pleased first to confirm the Time of Worship under the Gospel viz. the first Day of the Week for so was the day of Pentecost as Tradition has handed it down and mind what effects followed But First 'T is not so now shall we therefore assemble together no more Secondly When the Apostles prayed the House was shaken but 't is not so now doth Prayer therefore cease to be a duty Thirdly When Christ was baptized there was a voice heard from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the Spirit came down in likeness of a Dove And when the Eunuch was baptized the Spirit caught away Philip but such Effects follow not now when Persons are baptized ergo it's not the duty of any

call Commands or Appointments of Jesus Christ Object But you proceed and say That the Church of the Hebrews practised no such thing for there is no mention that the hundred and twenty had hands laid upon them nor the three thousand Acts 2. Answ That the Church of the Hebrews practised this Ordinance as well as other Churches is plain in Heb. 6.1 2. As they repented believed and were baptized so they were under the practice of Laying on of hands for that is a practical Ordinance all confess Not laying again saith the Author Repentance from dead Works c. this plainly sheweth they had once laid all those Foundation-principles Object But may be you will say there is nothing of this signified in Acts 2. when that Church was first gathered Answ 'T is very clear you are mistaken for is it not said Acts 2.42 They continued in the Apostles Doctrine which they could not do if they had not submitted to every Part or Precept of it and is not Laying on of hands as well as Baptism and those other Principles part thereof 't is called the Apostles Doctrine Acts 2. in Heb. 6.2 Christ's Doctrine not the Apostles any other ways than they were taught it by and received it from the Lord Jesus and let none conclude they were not taught Laying on of hands because not plainly exprest or particularly laid down Acts 2. for we may as well conclude the Apostle taught them not the Resurrection of the Dead nor Eternal Judgment since we read nothing there to that purpose Doubtless Philip Acts 8. preached Baptism to the Eunuch how should he else cry out Lo here is Water what doth hinder me from being baptized yet we read not one word of Philip's preaching of it to him The Author to the Hebrews writing to this very People ch 5.12 tells us They had need to be taught again which are the first Principles of the Oracles of God therefore it follows clearly they had been taught it and had practised it as chap. 6.1 2. proves Mr. Danvers goes on and affirms that we find not the least mention of it in any of the Churches in the New Testament neither in Samaria after Philip had baptized them nor Corinth Philippi Colossia Thessalonica Rome Galatia Smyrna Thyatira Pergamos Sardis Philadelphia no nor Ephesus Answ I cannot but admire at such affirmations but first as to the Church in Samaria 't is granted Philip did not lay hands on them after he had baptized them he being only a Deacon it might not upon that account concern or belong to him to impose hands on them and besides God had other work for him to do viz. the Conversion of the Eunuch Yet most evident it is when the Apostles and Brethren at Jerusalem heard that the People in Samaria had received the Word of God and were baptized rather than they should lie short of any part of their duty especially that in which so great a Blessing is promised they would send Peter and John to pray and lay their hands upon them and that it was not for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit has been clearly proved And as to the Church at Rome 't is said plainly Rom. 6.17 That they had obeyed from the heart that Form of Doctrine delivered to them And what Form can the Apostle intend save that in Heb. 6.1 2 we read of no other delivered to the Saints for their obedience And as to the Church of Ephesus we read of their coming under this Ordinance when first planted Acts 19.6 2. And now as to some other Churches he speaks of I grant we read not of their practising this Ordinance yet what doth this make against it For where do we read of their Repentance or Faith of their being baptized or their believing the Resurrection of the Dead or Eternal Judgment There is nothing spoken of several Churches as to any of these other Principles and it is very observable that we read but of one or two Churches that practised the Lord's Supper yet none doubt but all the Churches continued in the practice of it God's way being the same in every Church 1 Cor. 4.17 If in some Scriptures it is spoken of as the duty and practice of the Saints tho not exprest in all places it matters not for if what is the duty of one Believer as a Believer be the duty of every Believer then there is no need for the Almighty to speak of every particular Church's obedience either to Baptism Laying on of hands or the Lord's Supper c. One thing I cannot but call over again owned and confessed by Mr. Danvers viz. That there is a Laying on of hands reckoned amongst the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Ans 'T is well he will grant this nay and it is one of his first Teachings he also acknowledges then I hope he will allow us to say Christ taught a Laying on of hands as a Foundation-principle and if he taught it 't was that it might be practised as a Foundation or beginning Truth and then ought not all to yield obedience thereto For as every Person is actually to repent believe and be baptized so each one ought to come under the practice of Laying on of hands it being of the same extent nature and quality with the other and joined to them and it cannot be said to be obeyed otherwise than by practice as in Baptism I do not yield obedience by believing other Persons were or ought to be baptized but by being baptized my self We grant that some Act done upon or Practice done by others may be teaching to us tho not ingaged in our own Persons to do the same but then it must not be such a fundamental Principle and Practice as this being of the same nature with Repentance Faith and Baptism Will it serve my turn to believe 't is another Man's duty to repent Surely no I must repent and believe my self or else I neglect my duty Object And whereas he tells us in pag. 43 of other beginning Teachings proper for all baptized Babes Answ 1. He pretends to take the stumbling-block out of the way of God's People But in this 't is palpable he rather cast one in their way will he make new Foundation-Principles or call those beginning Principles of Christ's Doctrine or of Church-Constitution which God no where so calls We say such only are to be accounted beginning Principles which God's Word declares so to be 2. It appears as if he would make Laying on of hands for miraculous healing to be that in Heb. 6. which has been fully answered again and again they should have refuted Mr. Griffith and Mr. Rider before they insist on this I think it needless on that account to speak any thing to it and shall only refer the Reader to their excellent Books for satisfaction But this I must say that that Laying on of hands for healing belongs not to Babes as such strong Men and Fathers may be sick

the Laying on of Hands upon Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim. 4.14 are the same which must be rejected since several Reasons have been given to the contrary that have not in the least been removed That Timothy had Hands laid upon him twice t is evident i. e. soon after his Baptism and when ordained to Office One good reason for it is given by Mr. Blackwood Paul saith he speaks of such Gifts as were given by the Laying on of his own Hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Imposition in Ordination was by the Hands of the Eldership 1 Tim. 4.14 where the Greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a conjunction of Persons but 2 Tim. 1.6 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the act of one Man And doubtless such an Exposition as Mr. Danvers gives too much reflects on the Apostle who hated nothing more than Pride and Arrogancy Surely he would not have appropriated to himself alone what was done by others as well as himself But again I am perswaded our Brethren are sensible of what has been said in respect of those Gifts Timothy received through Layings on of Hands which have been shewed by several to be different one only relating to his Office or Ministerial Power committed to him the other to such Gifts as are proper to all the Saints tho they take no notice of it I am loth to say that all that Mr. Danvers has done in his small Tract has been to darken Counsel with words without knowledg yet one would admire to consider how confusedly he hath writ on this Subject who seems to blame us for being so positive as to what Laying on of Hands is intended in Heb. 6.1 2. which is as if a Master should blame his Scholar for affirming A is A and B is B Surely if we have not perfectly learned our first Lesson or Rudiments of our Profession we shall never be good Tutors of others The Apostle blames the Hebrews ch 5.22 for being such ill Proficients that they had gone no further and you seem to blame us for going so far as to affirm positively what are the first Principles of the Doctrine of Christ But give me leave to tell you it is as easy to know what Laying on of Hands is intended Heb. 6. as what Baptism our Saviour refers to Mat. 28.20 But secondly You may be assured were we at a loss in the case we should never come to learn of you for Mr. D. by his own grant pag. 49. signifieth he had not attained to a certain knowledg of it nor was able to be positive in the case many things being hard and difficult to be understood which those that are ignorant wrest saith he c. Answ No marvel if ignorant Men are at a loss and captivated in their understandings abusing and wresting those mysterious places or things contained in Paul's Epistles when Men of knowledg shall lose themselves in such a plain and easy path I knew a Man may be learned too who a while ago knew not but that Baptism and Laying on of hands c. in Heb. 6.1 2. might intend those legal Washings and Laying on of Hands upon the heads of Bullocks sacrificed in the time of the Law I am glad to find other Opposers of this Truth of another Judgment Would Men deny themselves and not trust their own understandings they might soon see the way plain before them that those first Principles of the Oracles of God called Milk for Babes and not strong Meat are none of those things spoken of by Peter so hard to be understood But since Mr. D. says he will not leave us in the dark but resolves to give us his apprehension of this Text in which he thinks he has the mind of Christ pag. 49 50. we will proceed Yet this let me premise that what he has laid down as his Judgment on this Text Mr. Tomlinson has very well answered in a Treatise lately printed pag. 22 23. and shewed the ridiculousness of such an Exposition I fear Mr. D. did not implore the Throne of Grace for Light and Direction before he begun to write on this Subject he is so much beclouded as to the meaning of this Scripture He conceives that the six Principles mentioned here are very comprehensive and may take in the ten Commandments the Lord's Supper and several other things Nay he says that Repentance and Faith may comprehend all both the negative and positive part of Holiness Answ 1. If the whole of Religion or Doctrine of Godliness is comprehended in these six Principles why should the Apostle call them first Principles 't is improper to call those the first that comprehend all by this Argument when the Foundation is laid the whole Building is finished 2. And if the whole of Piety or Holiness be included in the two first Principles Repentance and Faith there was no need to enumerate any more Nay by this Argument obedience to Christ in Baptism and Laying on of Hands together with the belief of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment are not comprehended in the negative or positive part of Holiness to what purpose then have we spent our time in writing about either of these Principles 3. But again as Mr. Tomlinson minds How could it be the weakness of these Hebrews that they had need to be taught them again or how could the Apostle say he would leave them to go on to perfection c Surely if in these first Principles all Religion be comprehended he would not do well to leave them it might rather have been their perfection ever to remain there viz. in preaching studying and practising of them and go no further or if we must needs leave them we must leave all Religion and Holiness and so turn Ranters Atheists or Quakers 4. But if the whole Body of Religion and Holiness is comprehended in these six Principles then no Christian had gone further nay nor perfectly learned the A B C of his Profession and we must always be learning them and so ever be but Babes in Christ and no reason had the Apostle to blame the Hebrews that they had gone no further since in those beginning Principles were comprehended the whole of their Duty 5. And since these Principles are in the Apostle's sense to be looked upon as Milk and for Babes what then is the Meat and who are the strong Men Surely when we have done with our Milk the Feast is ended and there is no after-Dish to speak according to the nature of this Metaphor Again P. 45. as Mr. Danvers would have Repentance and Faith to comprehend both the negative and positive part of Holiness so he proceeds to tell us how comprehensive Laying on of hands is That it takes in all sorts that are spoken of viz. Miracles Healings and Gifts that were for the Confirmation of the Gospel and the Investiture of Church-Officers c. Answ This is as true as the former and as good Divinity every