Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	moral_a	1,736	5	9.5201	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97212	Caleb's inheritance in Canaan: by grace, not works, an answer to a book entituled The doctrine of baptism, and distinction of the covenants, lately published by Tho. Patient: wherein a review is taken, I. Of his four essentials, and they fully answered; ergo II. Dipping proved no gospel practice, from cleer scripture. III. His ten arguments for dipping refuted. IV. The two covenants answered, and circumcision proved a covenant of grace. V. His seven arguments to prove it a covenant of works, answered. VI. His four arguments to prove it a seale onely to Abraham, answered: and the contrary proved. VII. The seven fundamentals that he pretends to be destroyed by taking infants into covenant, cleeered; and the aspersion proved false. VIII. A reply to his answer given to our usual scriptures. For infant-subjects of the kingdom, in all which infant-baptism is cleered, and that ordinance justifyed, / by E.W. a member of the army in Ireland.	Warren, Edward, Member of the army in Ireland.	1655 (1655)	Wing W956; Thomason E856_2; ESTC R9139	117,844	134

still remain within Christs kingdom except our opposits can shew us how when and where they were out-law'd Secondly His insisting upon the Command Matth. 28. Go teach and Baptize doth not at al cross this consequence as hath been already proved therefore no consequence of ours is forc'd to oppose the new Testament Thirdly But such without which his practice is not Gospell because it shuts up the tender bowels of our Lord Jesus in a narrower compass then ever the Law did and the fancies and burthens Master Patient would put upon our shouldiers in that which they call the Ordinance would be heavier then ever the Loyns of the Law were As to that Instance he brings of Peter in Page 26. to prove consequencies against commands unlawfull because he would have disswaded Christ from suffering in these words Far be it from thee Lord Answ Instead of handling the word like a Minister he stretcheth the strings of Scripture till they crack what kind of consequence could this be or from what place of Scripture or against what command was this a consequence to say Far be it from thee Lord Surely the most any English Grammarian can make from thence is That it was a dissuasive but no consequence However by this we may Judg how feeble this mans Judgment is when he thinks God hath Chosen him as one of those that shall confound the wise of the world that doth not yet understand what a true or right consequence is Master Patient afterwards tells us that all such consequencies and books and arguments as are brought against commands to prove Infant Baptism which is cleerly implied he may say of them as Christ to Peter Get the behind mee Satan thou art an offence to me Page 6.27 Answ Alas poor man if the Physicks of truth offend his stomack which should cure him 't is a sad signe hee is near past recovery How ever take this extract from his own Instance that so far as any man shall disswade others from truth and cause them to apostatize from the ways of Christ hee Acts the Divels part Ergo This I say not Get thee behind me Satan but this I say that book by him publisht in which he so bitterly reviles the good old wav of God for the ends aforesaid The state would doe well to have all such books though in Folio put into an Index Expurgatorius amongst the whole Rabble of Erroneous and Hereticall peeces that have been printed in these Licentions book-days and so condemn them to the fire as they have done others not fit to be suffered And by this meanes all Protestant Churches through the world will know what Religion wee are of In Page the 27 he pretends to come nearer the consequence and grounds thereof but doth not close till Page ●8 And then hee tells us of the danger of the practice of Infant-Baptism that if it be maintained in all it's dimensions upon the Ground of the Covenant it will shake the very foundation of the Gospell Answ All these are but great swelling words of vanitie fit for nothing but to delude the simple of which we have been slong since foretold by the Apostles of Christ but to the busines of the Covenant at last hee comes where at length we shall find with what grosse ignorance hee gropes about to find a new way but is mistaken CHAP. VII The two Covenants answered PAge 28. In handling this consequence and to cut off the interest of Children and right to the Covenant hee reduceth the method into these four heads as before the Controversie of Baptism was into four Essentialls First To prove there are two Covenants held forth in Scripture a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace Secondly That the Covenant of Circumcision was not of Grace but works Thirdly That none but beleevers ever had or shall have a right to the Covenant of Grace Fourthly To answer such objections and Scriptures as are usually alledged to defend a Covenant of life in the flesh To prove the first of these hee brings severall Scriptures the main of which is Jer 31.32.33 34. but to what purpose it will afterwards appear the words are these Behold the days come that I wil make a new Covenant with the house of Israel the house of Judah Not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt which my Covenant they brake though I was to them a husband saith the Lord. where saith Master Patient we find an old Covenant and a new Covenant the old broken therefore of works the new was not like the old therefore of Grace c. Answ Before I shall come to answer the Scriptures by him quoted I shall briefely premise what a Covenant of Grace is The Answer will be this It 's a gracious engagement betwixt God and his people upon Gospell terms requiring duties from them in promising mercy to them what that mercy and duties be and how far Conditionall shall largely appear in its due place this definition of the Covenant importing a Condition is often denied by our opposites and sometimes Granted so that to bee as a stable foundation to build upon I thought it most fit for this place And according to this definition I shall doe two things First Give a brief Epitome or Analysis of Abrahams Covenant Secondly The whole ensuing discourse with all his Scriptures that he brings will be from hence answered and so his weapons brought against us and many more added to them shall be made use of to prove Abrahams Covenant in every part thereof to be a Covenant of pure Grace which I am sure as t is the best fortification I can make to secure the truth so the incursions that shall be made from hence upon his confused and new doctrine will give a rout thereto Abrahams Covenant had two parts Gen. 17.2 4 6 7 8 9 10 14. First Gods part this consisted in blessings carried on in a way of promise and that twofold 1. Inward and Spirituall I will be thy God and thy Seeds God to give grace and Glory 2. Outward and Temporall specially in three things 1. In multiplying his seed as the Stars 2. In making them blessings to families and Nations 3. In giving them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession Secondly Mans part and this respected duties to be done and that twofold 1. Inward walke before mee and be thou perfect 2. Outward and this also in three things especially 1. In keeping to the seale or token which then was circumcision as now Baptism therefore in every Generation 2. In keeping the Morall Law 3. All those Typical ceremonies relating to Worship By all which we shall hereafter see 1. That here are not two Covenants spoken of 2. That the Covenant of Grace is Conditional First it hath Gods part and that consists of promises and blessings Spiritual and Temporal Secondly mans part consisting of

duties inward and outward and all this but one Covenant This Covenant was confirmed First to Abraham as a publique Father Secondly to his seed i. e. all the heirs of promises to the worlds end both Jews and Gentiles 1. By Promise 2. By Oath 3. By seale So that what was promised to Abraham was promised to al his seed and what was sworn and seald to Abraham was sworn and seald to all his seed According to this definition also we shall see a twofold admission into Covenant 1. Into the outward priviledges of the Covenant 2. Into the inward grace of the Covenant Hence also we shall have light to see first how hypocrits and wicked men did then and do now get within the Covenant Secondly how such as are within the Covenant do break it As first hee that contemned or slighted or neglected the token or seale of the Covenant to his seed hath broken the Covenant which being outward they might keep Secondly The breach of any part of the Morall Law was a breach of the Covenant and this also might have been externally kept by all that were externally within the Covenant Thirdly All those typicall Church rites might have been kept and the neglect or breach of any one in the due order or manner required was a breach of the Covenant for neglect of the first Gods wrath was so kindled against Moses that he would have kild him for breach of the second and third Israel was also punisht with death many instances thereof might be given Hence also we shall be led to an answere how the ●ovenant is call'd 1. Old and so vanisht away 2. New and so remaines 3. An administration This being briefly premised I now come to give in the Answer to the place by him quoted Jer. 31.32 which he brings to prove that there are two Covenants but grossely mistaken yet so far as we may goe without breach of faith to the truth of Christ in acknowledging two Covenants shall not deny him friendship as namely First That there hath been two Covenants made with man the one of workes before the fall in which man stood alone without a mediator under which covenant al mankind by nature lies to this day which is also materially the same with that righteous Law Morall given to Israel from mount Sinah though upon other tearmes Secondly The other of Grace made since the fall and tendred to Adam in the promise of Christ since which the Law in any part of it is not given as a covenant of workes but as the Law of Christ put in the hands of a mediator therefore Thirdly It was never intended by God either in giving circumcision to Abraham or the Law to Israel that ever Abrahams seed should enjoy Canaan by the law as a Covenant of works but only as hath been laid down in the Analysis as mans part of the covenant of grace Quest But if that was not a covenant of works given to Israel when God took them by the hand in order to bring them into Canaan what then can be the meaning of that place where the holy Ghost speaks of an old new Covenant tells us the new Covenant which he will make after those days shall not be according to the old c. The clearing of this with a Questian or two more will take in all those scriptures brought to this and therefore I further answer First The Covenant there mentioned is call'd new as the Law of love Iohn 13.34.1 Iohn 2.8 is call'd a new Commandment or Law which yet is not new in it self but the same Command as was given to Israel of old Lev. 19.18 And as the new heavens and new earth are call'd new Re. 21.1 And as the new Creature is call'd new which is not the annihilating the old and creating new but the putting of the old heavens and old earth into a new frame of Government and the old creature into a new state of grace so the new Covenant is the same that brought Israel out of Egypt and contained remission of sins and eternall life in Christ by faith with all the blessings of this life but so call'd new Secondly Because those typicall ceremonies and ordinances which were mans part of the Covenant of grace then and related to his dutie in Gods worship were by Christs coming abolisht and new ordinances under the Gospell establisht in room thereof for the promising part of the Covenant of grace from the beginning hath ever been cloathed with the preceptive Conditional part to bind up man to his dutie and walking close with God in his Ordinances of worship And therefore when Christ was held forth in the first promise immediatly sacrifices were instituted a distinction made betwixt clean and unclean creatures the Law of tithes and first fruits observed blood forbidden familie-familie-duties required all which a diligent reader of Scriptures may easily observe from Adam to Moses before there was a publishing the Law from Sinay and so to Christ Track it from Christ again to the worlds end you have the first abolisht a second instituted and as then so still to bind man to his dutie in walking with God but not as in a distinct Covenant of works but as the terms of grace to which man is bound by the Covenant and thus those typicall ce emonies were as old clothes and are called beggerly Rudiments or Rags in which the promising part was clothed and drest The Apostle in Heb. 10. calls the exhibition of Christ in flesh in offering up his blood by once dying and such manner of institutions as should be written by him to be the new Covenant verse 15.16 and puts it in opposition to the Legall sacrifices verse 4. 5 therefore verse 19 20. the second is called the new and living way consecrated implying that as there is now a way to heaven consecrated by the blood of Christ and therefore new so there was a way to heaven before Christ came consecrated by the blood of Bulls and Goats called old by this then we see in what respect the Covenant is called new and old namely as relating to a new or old Church-state the first given as typicall by Moses to Israel as Christs kingdom the second as substantiall by Christ to the same kingdom but still in the same Covenant of grace for a Church state is given in order to a soules enjoying communion with God in his ordinances which is impossible to be by a Covenant of works since the fall thus then the bringing of Israel into a new Church-state under the Gospell is called a new Covenant which God will make with the house of Israel in those daies This gives us light to answer also that other place Heb. 8.6 7. by Master Patient quoted to prove two Covenants because Christ is called the Mediator of a better Covenant establisht upon better promises for if the first Testament had been faultless there would have been no place sought for the second but finding

Covenant was no Covenant of works but that part of the Covenant of Grace that related to mans duty therefore Gen. 17.14 t is called Gods Covenant and the neglect of mans duty in that Covenant was a breach thereof Q. But if that place Jer. 31.32 with Heb. ● 6 7. be to be understood of a Covenant of Grace and not of works then how may it be said that Israel brake that Covenant Can a Covenant of Grace be broken The Answer to this upon what is laid down in the Analysis of Abrahams Covenant is plain for there is no Covenant of Grace but hath Conditions which bind man to his duty it was so under the Law faith and repentance was the condition of the Covenant then as t is now and because faith without works is dead being alone Jam. 2.17 therefore God hath given O●dinances and the Laws Moral to his people to keep faith alive and man may break his part of the Covenant so it was with Israel Rom. 4. when the Question was put What advantage then hath the Jew Much e●●●y way because to them as to all Israel was committed the Oracles and the Covenant c. Here was the Covenant of Grace externally administred to all but yet there was but a remnant saved and the greatest part of Israel were Covenant-breakers and the like we have now and is and must be acknowledged by all our dissenting friends of the dipt Societies an external and internal administration of the Covenant For their confidence is not so high as to say that all they dip are really within the Covenant for we see many of them turn Apostates from every thing that is good and prove carnal wretches as did Simon Magus Judas Hymeneus Philetus Ananias and Saphira who were all within the Covenant visibly If they say they baptize not upon the account of the Covenant at all but upon the profession of Faith I answer either they baptize as visible believers or real if visible then as visibly within the Covenant if as real then really within the Covenant so that still the Covenant lies at bottom and there is as much falling from Grace and breach of the Covenant upon their own principles as is pleaded for The like answer also is to be given to that other clause of Gods being a husband to them for the whole Nation of Israel was ingaged to God as a spouse Jer. 3.14 and so under the Law of marriage and therefore when they were divorced the whole Nation was cast off yet one of a City and two of a family were taken to Zion I such as were spiritually within the Covenant they had still communion with God v 14. so now the whole Church is visibly under a Covenant of Marriage to Christ believers and their seed and are therefore the children of the kingdom but yet we know the greatest part of a Church may be hypocrites and so the children of the kingdom may be cast out so that it is most clear a Coven●nt of G●ace in this sense may be broken in the visib e p●rt thereof by the v●sible mem●ers of it P. The n●xt I find his piece driving at is to prove the Covenant of Grace not to be made upon conditions but absolute to prove it he takes up many pages though to little purpose for what he in one place denyes in another place he affirms as in pag. 35. where he confesseth Faith and Repentance the condition of the Covenant Answ If it be the condition of the covenant then the covenant is not made without conditions For indeed to speak of a covenant absolute without conditions is to speak of that which cannot be for if it hath no conditions it is no covenant but only a tender of grace And here lyes much of Mr. Patients great mistake to take the tender of Grace for the covenant and thus he falls into the Antinomian Doctrine and therefore as faith and repentance is the condition so the covenant is not concluded betwixt God and the soul till those qualifications are wrought therefore the veins of free-grace are full of riches because as God tenders so he gives secretly the qualifications that lay hold upon the tender so he did to our first Parents 2. But besides if the covenant hath no conditions why then doth not Mr. Patient baptize all that come but they must give such a strict account of their faith as before he speaks of or why are any cast out that prove rotten will they make conditions themselves when God hath made none For the very ground of administring all Ordinances is from the covenant as it is conditional and if it be not conditional then is it made with a drunkard as a drunkard and with a whoremaster as a whoremaster with a blasphemer and Sabbath breaker as such and then to no purpose is that of Paul 2 Cor. 6.14 15. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness light with darkness Christ and Belial together that place Jer. 32.40 had such conditions as God requires For his fear was wrought in their hearts that they should not depart from him the like also Ezek. 16.59 Thus saith the Lord I will even deal with thee as thou hast done which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant● and because he afterward speaks of my covenant thy covenant therfore M P. concludes here were two covenants the one broken which was mans the other kept which was Gods But in this also there was but one covenant which had two parts Gods part and mans which was their manner of covenanting with God to make an oath to walk in his ways and when they had broken this oath they had broken the covenant second their part of the covenant see that place also Neh. 10.29 They entred into a curse to walk in the laws of God that were given by Moses the servant of the Lord The Law given was the terms God bound them to in a way of Grace and Mercy and their oath or curse declared their owning thereof so that when the oath was broken the covenant was broken therefore the deduction that Mr. Patient makes from these Texts that there are two covenants is unsound and rotten and savours of too ignorant a spirit in the covenant of Grace The like also Ezek. 36.25 26 27. I will sprinkle clean water upon you I will take away the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh c. And ver 37. I will yet for all this be enquired of by the house of Israel is not here a condition whereas therefore Mr. Patient tells us if Gods people sin He binds himself to pardon their sins and to remember their sins no more and therefore it is impossible for a soul once in this covenant to miscarry Answ Such an application as this is fitter for a Synagogue of Libertines then a Church of Christ God never pardons the sin of a people but he makes them holy And before he pa d●ns their sin

Covenant PAg. 42. The next general head by him laid down to prove is That Circumcision is no covenant of grace but of works called a covenant in the flesh Gen. 17.13 but before he comes to his Arguments he opens the meaning of the word everlasting which is to be understood of the ever of the Law especially when it comprehends with it their seed in their generations and this he lays down as a maxim to prove which he brings Lev. 16. Num. 25.13 Exod. 40.15 ch 30.20 21. all which places speak of the Levitical Priesthood either of the line in which it should run or the way by which they were instated into their office by anointing or the manner by which they approacht constantly into the Tabernacle or of the manner of their atonement for the people all which should remain as an everlasting statute in their generations A. That by everlasting we are to understand the ever of the Law onely is no sound maxim for though it be so to be understood in the places quoted because it related to the Priesthood and Tabernacle worship yet if that covenant in Gen. 17. Which Circumcision sealed then upon which God promised the Land of Canaan as a type of heaven remains still as an everlasting covenant then his maxim is broken see therefore that parallel Text Psal 105.6 to Gen. 17. O ye seed of ●braham his servant he is the Lord our God he hath remembred his covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which covenant he made with Abraham and his oath with Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant saying To thee will I give the Land of Canaan c. From which it appear that the word everlasting is to be understood to a thousand generations i. e. to the worlds end because the giving Israel Canaan was a type of heaven and from Abrahams days to Christ was but forty two Generations Therefore this difference is to be observed that when he speaks of statutes everlasting to be observed in their generations 'T is meant of those Statute Laws that God gave to Israel for worship and so as Mr Patient observes it is to be understood for the ever of the Law But when the Holy Ghost speaks of a covenant everlasting as in Gen. 1● 15 'T is such a covenant that is to continue so long as the heavens and earth shall continue so Paul calls it Heb. 13.20 The blood of the everlasting covenant And this in Gal. 3.17 was that covenant that Christ confirmed to Abraham and his seed 430 yeers before the Law and called everlasting in that place of Genesis befo e quoted which everlasting covenant ●o●k in an everlasting seed and is called a Gospel-preaching to Abraham Gal. 3.8 and by John Rev. 14.6 is also explained to be an eve●lasting Gospel from hence also it is that Paul in Heb. 6. when ●e speaks of Gods blessing Abraham and multiplying his seed which he c lls ●he h●rs of promise calls it his immutable Counsel as relating to both the covenant and the seed of the covenant Now if there be an everlastingness in the covenant which takes in such a seed as it did to Abraham then must it continue longer then the Law or else there must be a mutability So again if the persons row covenant ng were changed i. e. If God were not the same to believers and their seed now as ●e was t●en or if believers should now covenant onely for themselves and leave out their seed then there is a mutation of the covenant therefore David in Psal 102.26 27 28. before quoted speaking of the infant seed of the Church tells us that though the heavens and earth should wax old and perish as a garment which words are qu●ted by Paul Heb. ● 1 to a Gospel-●h rch yet that Church s●ed should continue so also Psal 103.17 18. from everlasting to everlasting and that by vertue of t at everlasting covenant therefore what feeble maxin s this new Doctor teacheth and how ill he compares Texts we may here see Pag 4● The next thing he opens is these words I will be thy God and thy seeds God and that two ways the o●e b a covenant of Grace the other by a cov●nant of Works the first absolute the second conditional and so God gave himself to be Abrahams God by a conditional c●v●nant of Works A. That this is strange Divinity that God should be a peoples God by a Covenant of Works since the fall I doubt not but it will appear to sound Ch istians from what hath been already said I shall therefore pass it to come to his confused Arguments some of which I have contracted into form to take the better prospect thereof P. H●s first Argument runs thus That covenant that runs upon conditions is a covenant of Works but so doth Circumcision therefore A. To which I answer The first proposition is denyed and d●sproved and it is by him confest that faith and repentance is a condition of the covenant So that by this he affirms pro and con and may as well say plainly that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works because it hath conditions therefore his foundation is too weak and rotten for such a building P. In pag. 45. he would prove the land of Canaan to be given to Abraham and his seed by a covenant of works and so would be their God and then his Argument runs thus If God g●ve the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed upon the condition of Circumcision and keeping the Law then he gave the land of Canaan by a covenant of works but God gave the land to Abraham upon condition he would circumcise his seed Therefore A. This hath been already cleared that circumcision and keep●ng of the law was mans part of the covenant of Grace in which the Church was to walk with God being bound up to visible duties then as it is now and that Canaan was not g ven Israel by works my answer to the preceding head makes clear to which I refer the Read●r yea it is directly against these Scriptures before quoted Deut. 9.4 5 6 7 8 ch 10 11 12 13 16. Exod. 3.24 Heb 3.18 ch 4.1 2. ch 11. 8 9 10. yea so to affirm is to put an affront upon God himself and to make him ashamed of that title of being Abrahams God Heb. 11.16 See also the twelve Scripture-considerations before mentioned P. In pag 45 46. he brings several Scriptures to prove that Circumcision bound to the keeping of the Law But not one of all those places by him quoted speaks that they were bound to keep it as a covenant of works but as the Law of Christ and so Israels Gospel in which Justification was conveyed and therefore when we read of the Primitive revoltings from Gospel-Ordinances to Circumcision and the works of the law as the Church at Rome and Galatia