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	commandment_n	parent_n	3,515	5	9.0367	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

Men have seen cause in this and former Ages to reject this Tradition though it has cost them the loss of all that this World could afford them And the Authorities here brought by the Doctor are not so ancient some of them as is pretended even by his own Confession and they have been scan'd and answered by the learned Pens of Den Tombes Blackwood Fisher Danvers Delaun Duveil and others Lastly The Doctor says The Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from Scripture without Tradition and Practice of the Church As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations or to preach to every Creature and to baptize all that believe to the end of the World were not a sufficient Rule to us to teach our Children and to baptize them Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. We see evidently that Jesus Christ has given but one Rule to us and to our Posterity and therefore it was unadvisedly spoken to say that we cannot produce one Precept for teaching and baptizing our Children when they are grown up being bred and born of Christians as I suppose that is his meaning by being bred and born in the Church Had the Doctor considered that Exhortation of the Apostle to all Christians Ephes 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady 2 Ep. John Who are found walking in the Truth as the Apostle and the Lady her self had received Commandment from the Father it might have passed for a better Precedent in this case than Mans Tradition without Scripture can possibly be for Infant-Baptism I conclude then that seeing Christ's Command is as clear for teaching and baptizing our Children as any other Mens Posterity and that it is the express Duty of Christian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord that is as Chrysostom expounds the place to make them Christians and this Advice he gave in opposition to the training up Children in prophane Literature And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady whose Children whilst under her Care and Tuition obeyed the Truth and walked therein according to God's Commandment and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers but as the Apostle had received Commandment from the Father and so he exhorts them to continue and to beware of other Doctrine and to have no Fellowship with such as should bring any other Doctrine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apostles This may suffice to answer the Objection CHAP. VI. Answereth the Doctor 's fourth Question Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism I Marvel why the Doctor puts not the term Infant into his Question he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptism as soon as we can But how does he prove that Christian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptism Why this he doth by repeating what he had said under the 3d Question 1. About the Lawfulness or Allowableness 2. About the requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been answered to these things in the former Chapter And now when the Parents may very rationally expect some Command from God to bring their Infants to Baptism The Doctor tells us There is no Necessity of having a Command or Example to justify it but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden But he refers them to the Orders of the Church and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over You But never shews at all who gave such Orders to the Church that Parents and Proparents should bring their Infants to Baptism And therefore all that is here said is meer Talk without any good Warrant He quotes Acts 16. 4. which shews that the Decrees which were ordained at Jerusalem ought to be kept And we allow it but here 's not a Word for to bring Infants to Baptism in these Decrees but here is a Decree against the eating of Blood which is little regarded by the Doctor or however his Church does not regard it Yet this Text of the Decrees he would make serve for Infant-Baptism and indeed had the Apostles had Power to make such a Decree this was as fit a time and occasion for it as could be the Question being about Infant-Circumcision and the Apostles disannulling their Circumcision would certainly have given some Notice that they had or ought to have Baptism instead of it but seeing they do not in the least mention it we may be sure there was no Infant-Baptism in being at that time The Doctor will now shew us the Benefits of Infant-Baptism and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptism and the first is their Consecration to God. As if no Infants were consecrated to God but those who are baptized Methinks our Saviour should know how to consecrate Infants to God as well as the Doctor but he did it only by Prayer or Blessing not by baptizing them There is no doubt but such as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer do act warrantably but he that will do it by baptizing them acts without a Guide and deprives Children of the Baptism of Repentance when they come to Years and have need of it His second Benefit is to make Infants Members of the mystical Body of Christ As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they please Members of that Body and that when they are fast asleep too Is not this the plain Consequence of this Opinion that all Infants unbaptized being not of Christ's mystical Body must perish I know the Doctor does not hold this but it 's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error that they can make Infants Members of Christ's mystical Body by sprinkling or crossing them with Water and they think they can be made so by no other way Now I demand of any Man whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Christs mystical Body not doubting but it will be granted I desire it may be considered whether these unbapcized Infants whom Christ blessed were of his mystical Body I suppose this will be granted too and then consider also whether all Infants of whom Christ said to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are not of his mystical Body as it contains all saved ones I believe none will deny this The last Consideration is Whether Christ does speak of Infants indefinitely and as such comprehends them all and if not how is it possible for any Man to know one sort of these infants from another all dying Infants then are of the mystical Body as it contains all that shall be saved The Doctor 's third Benefit That the baptized Infant by that Solemnity may

pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because