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	child_n	parent_n	1,952	5	8.8211	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily follows that either Moses and all Israel were Damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say ●…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any

in the World to clamour so loudly against us for want of express Presidents for Infant Baptism whilst your self confesses you want even one President in the New Testament to legitimate your own Practice and in the mean time are found in the sinful neglect of a sweet and heavenly Gospel-Ordinance viz. the singing of Psalms for which you have both Precept and President in the Gospel Col. 3. 16. James 5. 13. 1 Cor. 14. 26. 2. It is objected against you Page 2. That if the Commission Matt. 28. excludes none from Baptism but such as are to be excluded by the order therein to be observed and if Baptizing and Teaching are to precede or follow one the other as there named by Christ then these two Conclusions will follow 1. That Infants are not there excluded from Baptism 2. That a Person may be baptized before he be taught for there we have First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations make them Disciples or Christians Secondly We have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which literally to translate is Baptizing-teaching Now then Discipling being a general word that contains in it the two others that follow viz. Baptizing and Teaching and being the Imperative Mood whereas the other two are Participles it is manifest that the whole Command or Commission is given in that and the mode of Execution in these and if the mode of executing that general Commission be expressed in these where Baptizing is first and teaching comes after what is become of the order the Antipoedobaptists have so long talk'd of The Summ of your Answer is That if Baptizing be first and teaching comes after then it will follow that the Apostles understood not their Commission aright for they first preached and then baptized them that by their preaching believed Acts 8. Acts 10. Acts 2. with many other places you heap up to the same purpose and therefore Infants must be excluded by that Commission because uncapable of being taught And therefore let us criticize as we please upon Imperative Moods and Participles the case is clear Teaching must go before Baptizing Reply It had been more modest to suspect that you understood not the Text aright than that the Apostles understood not their Commission aright The order of the words as this well fortified Objection declares and you cannot deny puts Teaching after Baptizing and though we should allow you that they discipled adult Persons by teaching and taught others Baptized in Infancy after their Baptizing them in both they followed their order and commission in Discipling the Parents by Preaching and teaching their Children Baptized by vertue of the promise to them after their Baptism For he declares Acts 2. the Promise is to them and to their Children which gives a right of both unto Baptism and so teaching according to the order of this Commission may be an antecedent Duty to the Parent and a subsequent Duty to him and his baptized Children For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includes Teaching before Baptizing why should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is put after Baptizing respect the subsequent Duty of teaching both the one and other 3. Mr. Allen's next Argument mentioned by you pag. 5. is taken from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Whence he argues against your Objection of the Incapacity of Infants for Baptism That if they are capable of Interest or Membership in the Kingdom of Heaven or Church they are equally capable of the Sign or Cognizance which is Baptism To this you reply three things 1. That it remains to be prov'd that these little Children were Infants and not grown Boys or Girls capable of making an actual profession of their Faith in Christ. 2. 'T is doubtful whether they were for present in the Kingdom of God or were only elected and so in time should be of his Kingdom And 3. Whatever they were they were brought unto Christ who himself baptized not not to his Disciples who did baptize Reply Your first Exception is vain and groundless that they were very young and little ones appears not only by Christs taking them in his Arms but from the very Notation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Diminutive Word signifying a little Child or Infant So John was call'd when New-born Luke 1. 76. and Christ when he lay in the Manger and Moses when among the Flaggs And if this be not enough St. Luke gives them another Name Luke 18. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants a word given to a Child in the Womb Luke 1. 41. And for what you object out of Piscator that the same word is us'd of Timothy who knew the Scriptures from a Child 'T is an evident mistake or shift for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He knew them not being an Infant but from his Childhood or Infancy that is when he had past his Infant State in which State th●…se were that were brought unto Christ. And 2. Whereas you question their present Right in the Kingdom of God or whether it were not future by vertue of their Election The Text will not allow your Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be the Kingdom of God Their present Church-membership asserted by Christ is also a known Rule to regulate for the future the Disciples Carriage towards them which was too severe harsh and therefore highly displeasing to Christ but by telling them they were Members of the Church or Kingdom of Heaven they being very probably the Infants of believing Parents as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection through the Frowns and Repulses of the Disciples shews he gives them a known and plain Rule how to distinguish Infants and regulate their Carriage towards them which God's Election can never be that being an unrevealed Secret And 3. Whereas you say Christ did not Baptize them I reply We never urged this Scripture to prove he did so but only to prove their Chruch-membership which methinks Christ asserts as plainly as words can assert it when he saith Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and tho you use to quibble at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such as though it respected not the present Infants but grown Persons resembling them in humble and innocent qualities Mr. Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that Interpretation by shewing its inconsistence with the Scope and Argument of the place and how ridiculous this Sense would be when reduced to a formal Argument 4. The fourth Argument you pretend to answer pag. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy To this you answer two things 1. That the Holiness here spoken of is not a Federal but a Matrimonial Holiness namely Legitimacy and is as much as to say your Children are no Bastards seeing one of you is a Believer Reply If this be true and the