Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	child_n	covenant_n	parent_n	1,796	5	9.1412	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

which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus viz. If the Infants of believing Christians under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants under the Law were then the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism may and ought to be administred to them But the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in Covenant with God as well as the Jewish Infants under the Law were Therefore Baptism the Seal of the Covenant ought to be applied to these as Circumcision was to them Answ Tho this Syllogism is not perfect in Form yet I will pass by that Oversight of yours and consider it in each part and finding it sophistical must deny the whole Argument 1. For first as to your Major If the Infants of Christians were in Covenant with God as the Jewish Infants were yet Baptism cannot belong to them unless God hath commanded them to be baptized and made it also a Seal of the same Covenant for as much as Baptism as I have told you before once or twice already is a meer positive Law or Institution 't is not Man but God himself must make it their Duty to be baptized and a Seal of the Covenant if it were so indeed but God hath neither enjoyned them or made it their Duty to be baptized nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them Ergo. Also you mistake in calling Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham for 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had that is Abraham and which he had being yet uncircumcised 'T is not called a Seal of the Covenant but of Faith and that too of Abraham's Faith only because none before they were circumcised had such a Faith but himself only Nor can you prove Christ's true Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture Ephes 1.13 14. chap. 4.30 If therefore I should grant that the Infants of Believers under the Gospel as such were in Covenant with God which I must deny yet it would not follow in the least that they ought to be baptized from that ground for were not think you all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time or before he received that express Command to circumcise them in your sense in Covenant with God If you do not say this why do you affirm that the Children of Believers were always or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents but if it were so Do you think it was their Duty to circumcise them If you should say no because they did not know to circumcise them was the Will of God But you might say more viz. it was not the Will of God they should do it 't is God's Command only and not their being in Covenant made it their Duty to circumcise their Children and had God given us such a Command or any Authority to baptize our Children we ought and would baptize them but must not dare not without such positive Command or Authority 2. We utterly also deny your Minor and say that the Infants of Believers as such under the Gospel are not in Covenant with God We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account Pag. 8 9. and thus you argue viz. They who by Circumcision were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God and never since were solemnly cast out do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State But Infants under the Law were solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himself and were never since by any Command of God cast out therefore they do still continue in Covenant Answ 1. I answer first of all that your Argument is not true in form Is Circumcision in your Minor Sir if you are a Logician speak like one your Minor should run thus viz. But Infants were once by Circumcision solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant c. But I 'll pass by that and must tell you your Argument in another respect is lame also You do not tell us what Covenant 't is you here intend ought you not to have added They who were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision c. but Infants were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision If you do not affirm that you say nothing that concerns our Controversy If the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace you will and must give up your Cause and if you say that you ought to have put it into your Syllogism 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument If you would include the Controversy ought you not to have said All they who c. Can your Conclusion be good when your Propositions are bad and defective But to the business If you say Infants as such were solemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumcision then I deny your Minor Infants as such were never by Circumcision nor any other ways under the Law taken into the Covenant of Grace Moreover I affirm that tho they were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision yet that Covenant and that Covenant Seed viz. the natural Seed of Abraham are both solemnly cast out and this I shall God assisting prove and afterwards take off all those pretended Absurdities you in the 9 th and 10 th Pages of your Book mention and give a full Answer to your Reasons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Grace 1. And now to proceed to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptism I shall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done whose Arguments could never be yet answered We are first of all to consider whether the Gospel-Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham be the same Secondly Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is of which 't is said I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17.7 Thirdly Whether there be the same Reason of Circumcision and of Baptism in signifying the Gospel-Covenant Fourthly Whether there is the same Parity of Reason for the one as for the other First The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Gospel-Covenant but a mix'd Covenant partly made with his Natural or Fleshly Seed and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed and therefore we thus argue Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respectin● the House and Natural Seed of Abraham and Policy of Israel then 't is a mix'd Covenant But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises and the Promises are mix'd some Evangelical belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth some Domestick or Civil Promises specially and absolutely respecting the House and

them to Circumcise their Male Children will not justify us nor free us in so doing from palpable Will-Worship Were there none among the Gentiles think you in the Old-Testament-time that were Believers and Godly Persons And if there were such I ask you whether they were to Circumcise their Children notwithstanding they abode without the Gate or Pale of the Jewish Church Nay I affirm that it was not the Duty of Melchisedec Lot nor Job because not Abraham's natural Off-spring nor bought with his Money had they never so many Sons to Circumcise one of them because they had no Command so to do Read Gen. 17.8 9 10 11. and you will find the express Command of God was to him and to every Male-Child of his or that was born in his House or bought with Money ver 11 12. 2. Because the Church-State of the Jews or that under the Old-Testament quite differs from the Gospel-Church State the Jewish-Church-Constitution was National the whole Nation of the Jews and every individual Person that proceeded from Abraham's Loins were admitted as Members of that Church under the Law or in Times of the Old-Testament and therefore his Infant-Seed were and might be admitted Members thereof But in the Times of the Gospel the Church is not National but Congregational Shew us what whole Nation or People none excepted were by Christ's Appointmen● constituted as a Gospel-Church as the People of Israel or Jewish Nation were and you will gain a great Point Is it not evident all along in the Acts of the Apostles which gives an Account of the Nature and Manner of the Gatherings and Constitutions of the Gospel-Churches that they consisted of none but of such who professed Faith and Regeneration and so were either gathered out of the Jewish People or else out of the Nations of the Gentiles and consisted of no other but such who were called or did profess Faith in Jesus Christ Which if considered utterly overthrows not only what you speak here but all you speak afterwards about Children being once in Covenant under the Law 3. Whereas you say It is not the Old-Testament alone nor the New-Testament but both together that contains the Rule of our Faith and Practice I answer That though in part what you say here is true yet your Trumpet gives an uncertain Sound for in respect of Practice were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews which no ways in the least concern us or God's Spiritual Israel under the Gospel If you explain your self no better you may soon subvert the People and carry them away to Judaism with a witness nay and instead of Baptizing Children upon such a childish and erroneous Foot of Account make them think they ought to Circumcise them as some of late here in England were deluded to do Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws the New-Testament is our only Rule without the help of the Old Christ alone is our Law-giver and him and not Moses we are only to hear and hearken unto though as to matter of Faith the Old-Testament may be useful 〈◊〉 us in many respects and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature The Old-Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New which I might shew in many respects not only touching the Law of the Decalogue but also of Prayer singing God's Praises Fasting Days c. But for you to intimate in the case of Circumcision that the Old-Testament is a Rule of Practice or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership you strangely betray your Ignorance as will further appear hereafter For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite I shall evidently anon fully prove But so much as to your first Reason your Second shall be now examined 2. So little is said say you in the New-Testament about Baptizing Infants because the custom of Baptizing them was common and the practice constant in the Jewish Church at and before our Saviour's Time Whilst Circumcision was the Covenanting Sign Baptism was the Purifying Ceremony among the Jews for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church both Parents and Children were first Circumcised and then Wash'd in token of cleansing them from the filth of their Heathenism So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's Time Answ 1. 'T is a sign of a bad Cause when Men are forc'd to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner to make out what they have to prove Pray was that Custom among the Jews of Baptizing Infants when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church commanded of God Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept or was it not one of their own Traditions who in their own Wisdom without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver devised that Ceremony possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism as your Predecessors in like manner without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ devised the Baptizing of Infants to wash away the Filth of Original Sin Doth not our blessed Saviour say that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions I do affirm it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the Great God nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old-Testament therefore it was a meer humane Tradition 2. Can any wise Man who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God think this a good Argument for Infant-Baptism I must tell you as I have some of your Brethren called The Athenian Society That a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one You were better plead thus The Romish Church without any Warrant from God's Word received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition and in some Councils early Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris Matrum Baptizandos esse negat Anathema esto Milev Can. 2. and Anathematized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors and General Councils who positively affirm you ought to baptize your Children Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former 3. But is it so indeed did our Saviour say nothing of Infant-Baptism or as you hint leave so little of it in the New Testament because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church What Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account is to their Shame and Reproach rather than to their Honour tho I know it was their last Refuge when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a

Truth of Christ O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism Nay which is worst of all how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention that had said so much for it and made it so common a Practice among them that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it But is not this next to Blasphemy Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins Besides was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People doth it not belong to the Gentiles too Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations and make Disciples and baptize them c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized and yet say nothing of it because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews But Sir what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith viz. that they ought to baptize their Children who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom Or dare you say our New Testament is not authentick or sufficient to teach us the whole of gospel-Gospel-Duties and Obedience without the Jewish Talmud You should not 't is plain only have said the New Testament is not without the Old the Rule of our Practice but also that the New Testament and the Old without the Jewish Talmud is not sufficient and then you had done your business at once Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ even all his Laws and Precepts or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word But would you have People be wise above what is written and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions 4. If it was a Custom among the Jews it must be a sacred Custom I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe or else a human Tradition or vain Custom If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews Christ besure abolished it and nailed it to his Cross with all its fellows and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new Take this Argument That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded nor is any where given by Moses unto them who was faithful in all his House was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children who were admitted into their Church was never commanded of God nor any where given unto them by Moses who was faithful in all his House Ergo That Custom was no Ordinance of God but a meer human Tradition 5. Lastly take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet The thing saith he is uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews for Rabbi Eliezar who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua if he did not live before him asserts that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized was a true Proselyte for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob that they were circumcised but not baptized But Rabbi Joshua affirms that he who was baptized not he that was circumcised was a true Proselyte To whom shall I give Credit to Eliezar who asserts what the Scripture confirms or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was the Talmud sent us they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica that we should give Credit thereto that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel to which they were profess'd Enemies For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished who was a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why doest thou baptize if thou art not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Notes printed at Oxford Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor a very learned Man and a Son of the Church of England Sir what think you now of your Jewish Custom of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture had it been a Truth Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon when the Truth of the Story as to matter of Fact may justly be doubted but if it was true it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon viz. a vile profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins I have been the larger on this matter because the Men you mention as Dr. Hammond Taylor and Lightfoot some People have in such Veneration who were the Persons you need not doubt the learned Sir Norton confuted and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society

hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule That unless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now built of living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men spiritual and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are Partakers made a meet Habitation for God Ephes 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 which vital Supplies from Christ its Head encreaseth in Faith and Holiness edifying it self in Love And saith Dr. Taylor they that baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are signations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in order of Time And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture The Lord open your Eyes Sir I am perswaded you speak as you believe But to proceed You come in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church 1. From the Command of Christ 2. From the Practice of the Apostles 3. From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles 1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church you say appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission Mat. 28.19 Go disciple all Nations baptizing them that is go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations without distinction of Country Sex or Age whatsoever make the Gospel-Church as large as you can Answ 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see It is evident to all Men who understand what they read that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission but such only who are first made Disciples as I have proved or as St. Mark renders it such who believed And that 't is so I have already proved 1. From the Practice of Christ John 4.1 he first made Disciples and then baptized them 2. From the Practice of the Apostles who always required Faith and Repentance of such they by virtue of their Commission did baptize as Acts 2.37 8.27 10.47 3. From the Nature of the Ordinance it self it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have 4. From the Nature of the Gospel-Church it being only built up of living Stones and to be no larger than Christ appointed it But say you pag. 27. doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church he would have acquainted her with this Alteration Christ being faithful to him that appointed him as was Moses in all his House Heb. 3.2 Answ I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason Doubtless say I had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples and so us that it was his Will they should be received since as you well say he was so faithful and the rather because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females though he received no Negative Law in the case What is not commanded I say again is forbid especially in all Instituted Worship or else whither shall we run Thus your first Proof is gone having nothing in it 2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church you say from the Practice of the Apostles who baptized whole Families i. e. Lydia and her Houshold Acts 16.15 the Jaylor and all his c. Answ 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age and this being so what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence 2. Besides you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche a part is put for the whole as Isa 7.2 5 8 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel 'T is said All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan In 1 Sam. 1.21 22. the Text saith expresly The Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up and yet 't is said all his House went up 3. As touching the Jaylor's House 't is positively said Paul preached to him and to all that were in his House do you think he preached to his Infants if he had any And to put the Matter out of doubt 't is said He rejoiced believing in God with all his House as well as 't is said He was baptized and all his 4. And as touching Lydia we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid Widow or Wife but if she was married and had Children 't is very unlikely if Babes that they were at that time with her because she was far from her proper Dwelling nay many Miles from it for she was of the City Thyatira vers 14. but when Paul preached to her she was at Philippi where she was merchandizing being a seller of Purple Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market Besides those of her House were called Brethren who were baptized with her therefore sure Children cannot be here meant vers 40. Will you Sir build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no or if she had whether they were with her at that time or not Our denying of it is as good as your affirming it yet 't is plain she had Servants or some who are called her Houshold therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28. And thus it appears to all impartial Persons that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church How can we prove they did not make use of Honey