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	parent_n	precept_n	1,086	5	9.3339	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93044	Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition being a vindication of Dr. Russel's True narrative of the Portsmouth disputation ... Also, a sermon upon Mat. 28. 19. by Mr. John Williams ... As also An answer to the Presbyterian dialogue, by another hand / published by Mr. John Sharp ... who was moderator at the disputation in Portsmouth.	Sharp, John, of Froome, Somersetshire.; Williams, John, minister.	1700 (1700)	Wing S3005; ESTC R217599	120,924	184

discipled to Christ and baptized and the next day made Father of a Son of eight days old that Son must have been circumcised or he had broken the Covenant but God sent John to baptize and Christ himself did baptize by his Disciples long before he was offered up 2. Circumcision belonged only to the Male not to the Female but Baptism belongs to the Female as well as the Male. Did the Baptism of the Female come in the room of Circumcision when Circumcision had never any place with the Female or can the Baptism of the Female be argued from the Circumcision of the Male Is there any room to form an Argument here if it were granted that they came one in the room of another 3. Circumcision was to be administred the eighth day not sooner nor later how comes it about that there is now no precise time for a Child to be baptized in if Baptism came in the room of Circumcision Where did God ever declare that Baptism should be administred in the room of Circumcision But he would no longer tie you to an exact day or time as for that you should take your own time 4. The Subjects treated of Col. 2. were Believers every one of them they had received Christ Jesus ver 6. they were compleat in Christ ver 10. 5. It 's spiritual Circumcision that is there mentioned ver 11. that which is made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ 6. It is not spiritual but outward Baptism that is intended in the 12th vers Buried with him in Baptism that is Water-Baptism Now how inconsiderately do Men argue when they say that Baptism and Circumcision are put one for the other when the one is spiritual and the other outward If you say that Baptism is here to be taken of spiritual Baptism and so they are put one for another I answer if this be granted this is foren from the Case in hand the Question is Whether Circumcision and Baptism as they are considered the Ordinances of God and outwardly to be administred are here put one for the other and that they are not is so plain and clear that he that runs may read there is then no ground from this Text to say that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision nor is there another Text to be found from whence such a Conclusion may be drawn Object 7. If Children be capable of the Kingdom of God and the Blessing of Christ which are the greater then they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser But Children are capable of the Kingdom of God and of the Blessing of Christ that is the greater therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser That they are capable of the greater appears in that Christ saith Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God and he took them in his Arms and blessed them To this I answer It does not follow that they are capable of the lesser tho it be granted that they are capable of the greater The Supper of the Lord may be called the lesser as well as Baptism but Children that are capable of the Kingdom of God and the Blessing of Christ which is the greater are not capable of the Supper of the Lord which is the lesser and yet there is no more required as a Prequalification to the Supper of the Lord than there is to Baptism Object 8. Children are as capable now of Baptism as they were formerly of Circumcision and why then should they be denied To this I answer I do not dispute their Capacity but the Authority thereof there was a Command for that Gen. 17. 10 11. shew me the like Command for this and I will yield the point Abraham did not circumcise his Ishmael at eight days old because there was no Command for it nor would he have circumcised his Isaac at eight days old if he had not had a Command so to do Either Believers are commanded to baptize their Children or they are not if they are produce it if they are not then there is no such thing as Infant-Baptism of Divine Institution If the Duty of baptizing Children in an Infant-state do not lie on the believing Parent then I would fain know on whom it doth lie I can't think that it lies on the Child while in an Infant-state the Child in an Infant-state is neither capable of knowing what is matter of Duty nor yet of doing Nor doth it lie on the Minister for first the Minister hath no Power to baptize the Child if the Parent refuse to have it done Secondly He hath no Commission so to do in case the Parent do consent to it They are Disciples only that are put into his Commission but the Children of Believers are not discipled in an Infant-state therefore they are not put into his Commission Where shall we find on whom the Duty of Infant-Baptism is incumbent if there be any such thing Precepts do not leave us at a loss who it is they bind to that Duty Object 9. We read of whole Houses that were baptized and it 's probable that there were Children in some or all of them To this I answer 1. If it be probable yet it is not certain and therefore no Argument can be drawn from it could it be proved that there had been Children there then there would have been some room for an Argument but that can't be done 2. It 's more probable that there were no Children there in that there are but four Housholds mentioned among so many thousands that were baptized and were all known to be Believers This affords a strong Presumption that the Apostle did not baptize the Houshold upon the Faith of th● Parent if he had there would have been multitudes of Housholds that would have been baptized if it had been common to baptize whole Housholds I see no reason why these four should be mentioned more than others 3. The Jailor believ'd in God with all his House Acts 16. 34. and Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believ'd in God with all his House Acts 18. 8. Here are two of the four Houses that were all Believers here are no Children in these for Children are not capable of Faith Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God but Children in an Infant-state are not capable of hearing so as to understand and to believe Stephanus and his House are said to be the first Fruits of Acaia and that they had addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints which is tantamount to believing Here are three of the four Housholds that had no Children and as for Lydia no body knows whether she was a Maid Wife or Widow We read of the Brethren that were in her House but we read nothing of Children there Acts 16. ult Object 10. But if Children be denied Church-membership and Baptism under the Gospel

Avely with Mr. Pomfret and Mr. Yaylor and there was no mention made of this place in Daniel either by them or me 2. There was no Hebrew Bible produced nor was there any occasion for it So that I must return this Story to the Father of Lies from whence it came And that the World may see that what I say is true I shall insert the following Certificate written by Persons of known Integrity and Ability who were present at that Dispute which was obtained by your self and sign'd in your presence WE whose Names are under-written do testify That at the Dispute at Avely in Essex between Dr. William Russel and Mr. Samuel Pomfret concerning the baptizing of Infants there was not any mention made of Hebrew Words nor any Hebrew Bible spoke of nor produced for there was not any occasion for it their Dispute being more about the Subjects than the Manner Witness our Hands John Lowke Joseph Jackson Cornelius Denne Octob. 13. 1699. There are several other things that deserve to be remarked but because they will occur in my Observations upon the Dispute it self and their Reflections upon it I shall take notice of them as they occasionally present themselves in my following Observations Some OBSERVATIONS upon their DEDICATION By Dr. WILLIAM RVSSEL THey dedicate their scandalous Pamphlet to the Honourable Major General Earl Governor Colonel John Gibson Lieutenant-Governor of his Majesty's Garison of Portsmouth and the worshipful Henry Seager Esq Mayor of Portsmouth 1st These Men quarrel with me for calling Colonel Gibson Deputy-Governor when themselves acknowledg that Major-General Earl is Governor Is not Deputy-Governor as honourable a Title as Lieutenant If they think I speak too diminutively of him can they suppose they have mended the matter in presuming to yoke their Worshipful Esq Henry Seager who drives that common Trade of a Baker in the Town of Portsmouth with such honourable Persons as the other two Is this all the Respect and Honour they can afford to give them 2dly They say We humbly lay these Papers at your feet Surely they have reason to trample upon them in disdain when they find themselves intituled to such a false and scandalous Pamphlet 3dly They say who procured for us a Grant from his Majesty publickly to vindicate the common Cause of the Reformed Churches 1. Infant-sprinkling is the thing you must intend How then came you to decline the Vindication thereof and refuse to give so much as one single instance for your Practice altho you were often call'd upon to do it in the time of the Disputation both by Mr. John Williams and my self 2. How comes Infant-sprinkling to be appropriated by you to the Reformed Churches Surely there are others in the World practise that besides those of the Reformed Churches Are you so ignorant as not to know that all the Papists in France Spain Portugal Germany Poland Italy and Rome it self the Seat of the Whore of Babylon do practise Infant-sprinkling as well as you How then have you the confidence to tell these Honorable Persons and the whole World it is the common Cause of the Reformed Churches whereas it is notoriously known that it is the common Cause both of Papists and those you call Reformed 3. If it be appropriated peculiarly to either it must be to the Church of Rome for you know that the Reformed Churches did receive it from her and have retain'd it as one of her Relicks to this day For they have no Scripture Authority for it 4thly They say it tends very much to the advancement of early Piety and Religion 1. If they believe themselves why were they guilty of so great a Sin of Omission as not to vindicate their Practice when they were so often prest to it and yet could not be prevailed upon to give any Scripture Instance for it And would not so much as try their Skill when so fair an opportunity was put into their hands to prove their own Practice and thereby settle those that are wavering among them notwithstanding they pretend it was the thing for which those Honourable Persons procured for them a Grant from his Majesty But 2. How the sprinkling a little Water upon the infants Faces and calling that Baptism should be to them an occasion of early Piety and Religion is sooner said than proved It seems to me rather to have a contrary tendency especially your telling them when they come to years of understanding that by their Baptism they are put into a new Covenant-relation that you have dedicated them to God that they are in a state of Salvation that those who neglect it have no more reason to hope for the Salvation of their Infants than the Heathens but they must only leave them to the unfathomable depths of God's Goodness having no Promise to rely upon p. 11. That they are solemnly admitted by Baptism into the Visible Church how this agrees with Mr. Leigh's Argument from Mat. 19. he would do well to consider that they are the more special Objects of the Promises of Grace that the Vein of Election frequently runs in the Channel of believing Parents and their Seed and that if they die during their Infant-state they shall be saved pag. 8. Add to this what is said in their Preface that the Covenant of Grace does fix the Terms upon which Christ will be a Saviour to any that thence only it is to be known whom he will save and whom he will not Now unless these Men will deny the Doctrine of final Perseverance as held by the Calvinists they do rather give those Children an occasion from hence to neglect the most important Duties of the Gospel For why should they repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their Sins if they are baptized already and their Sins all pardoned and this Pardon sealed to them by sprinkling a little Water on their faces Why should they believe in Christ that through him they might have an Interest in eternal Life and Glory if it be secured to them already another way Why should they work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling if it be secured and sealed to them already by what you call Baptism without any possibility of miscarrying For they say that if such die in their Infancy they shall be saved Now Do they not hereby do all that in them lies to perswade such Persons that if they had died in their Infant-state they should have been saved by being in the Covenant of Grace and in the Line of Election And can they after all this sin themselves out again and become Reprobates I thought you Presbyters had been of another mind Can you put them whilst Infants into the Covenant of Grace and turn them out again when they come to be Adult as you think fit I cannot imagine you do believe your selves when you thus write nor can you ever think to gain us to your Party by such Inconsistences as these For

for tho they seem to be all confident that Children are the Subjects according to the Rule yet they are greatly divided whose Children they are that are the right Subjects according to the Rule some will baptize all Children whose Parents make a verbal Profession of Christ tho their Conversation do utterly destroy their Profession a second sort will baptize all except Bastards A third sort will baptize none but such whose Parents are true Believers in the Judgment of Charity A fourth sort will baptize none but such whose Parents one or both are in Communion with themselves Here are four Opinions and there is but one Truth therefore three of these must needs err either they are too large or too short in their Judgment and I do not in the least question but the fourth is in an Error also he that is most strict in the Point of Infant-Baptism is too large there being neither Precept nor Precedent for his Practice 2. Consider if you baptize a wrong Subject you do it in your own Name not in the Name of Christ my meaning is you do it by your own Authority not by the Authority of Christ having no Commission from him for what you do 3. Consider it 's a bold attempt for Ministers to say I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost if the Subject be not a Disciple of Christ This is like setting the broad Seal of Heaven to a Patent of their own drawing up 4. Ministers must give an account of their Stewardship another day The Books shall be opened and every Man shall be judged out of the things that are written in the Books according as his Works have been Rev. 20. 11. Then the Commission will be laid open once more and Ministers must be tried whether they have observed Christ's order first to disciple and then to baptize 2. I would caution Ministers to beware they do not mistake the form of Administration and make use of sprinkling instead of dipping 1st Consider there are a great many Ministers that do either mistake or alter and change the form some there are that do grant that the word in the Commission signifies to dip and that it was the Primitive Practice that Christ and John did baptize by Dipping that yet make use of Sprinkling instead of Dipping because we are under a cold Climate and alledg this for their Practice That God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice and that where moral Precepts and positive Precepts do interfere there positive Precepts must give place as when David eat of the Shew-bread and the Disciples pluck'd the Ears of Corn upon the Sabbath-day To this I answer 1. Such as do think it good to alter the form of Baptism from Dipping to Sprinkling under this Consideration had best to consider whether it were not necessary to alter their form of words too and say I rantize thee instead of I baptize thee that so they may speak truth in what they say seeing they do it in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 2. If the coldness of the Climate be such that it will not admit of dipping why do you do any thing in the room thereof Where is your Authority for that you are to baptize if you do any thing it 's not left to your discretion which of these shall be done by you this is to rantize in your own Name 3. I grant that in some cases positive Precepts have given place when they have interfer'd with moral but this is no where made a general Rule for sometimes moral Precepts have given place to positive as when God commanded Abraham to offer up his Son Isaac a Burnt-offering the moral Precept Thou shalt not kill gave place to the positive 4. When positive Precepts have given place to moral it hath been in some case of exigency that hath suddenly fallen out where in a little time the Subject might return to his Duty unto the positive Precept again but if the positive Precept to Dip must give place to the moral because of the coldness of the Climate we shall never have opportunity to return to our Duty to the positive Precept more because our Climate will never alter it will be always cold and so the positive Precept to Dip will be of no more use to us than the Altar that was built on the other side of Jordan was to them which was not built to offer Sacrifice thereon but to be a Witness of what was formerly done Josh 22. 28. so the positive Precept for Dipping shall only stand as a Monument of what was done in the Primitive Time 5. It 's but a begging the Question in this case to say that the positive Precept doth interfere with the moral No instance can be given of any one Person discipled to Christ that ever sustain'd the least damage or had his Health impaired by being Dipt no not in the coldest season under this cold Climate 2dly Consider if you mistake the Form you mistake the Essence for the Essence of a thing lies as well in the Form as in the Matter 3dly If you mistake the Form you deceive the Subject he thinks he is baptized when it 's no such matter he is but rantized not baptized 4thly If you mistake the Form the Subject loses the benefit of the Ordinance for it 's not Rantism but Baptism that obligeth the Subject to die to Sin and to live to Holiness Rom. 6. 4. It 's Baptism not Rantism that doth evidence together with Faith our Title to Salvation Mark 16. 16. Secondly I would caution People and that in two Branches 1st To beware you do not take up this Ordinance of Baptism till such time as you are discipled unto Christ 1. Consider there are many that will desire to be baptized and are so that are not discipled in deed but only in shew Simon Magus was baptized and I suppose there is no doubt but Judas and Ananias and Sapphira and many more were baptized that were never really discipled to Christ 2. Consider you have no right to the Ordinance till you believe Acts 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst the contrary that offers it self is this If thou dost not believe with all thy heart thou mayst not 3. The Ordinance will stand you in no stead if you do not believe it will be no ways acceptable unto God nor profitable to your selves Without Faith it 's impossible to please God and without Faith it will be no Evidence of your Title to Salvation it 's not the putting away the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ that will stand us in stead 4. You will make your selves Hypocrites thereby rank your selves among the number of foolish Virgins and so render your Condition worse than it was 2dly I would caution such as are discipled to Christ to beware they do not