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
A64576	A vindication of Scripture and ministery in a rejoynder to a reply not long since published by Thomas Speed ... : wherein sundry Scriptures are explained, divers questions (relating to these times) discussed, and the truth asserted against the exceptions of papists and Quakers : whereunto is adjoyned a postscript reflecting upon and returning answer to divers passages in Thomas Speed his last pamphlet / by William Thomas ...	Thomas, William, 1593-1667.	1657 (1657)	Wing T991; ESTC R1167	73,914	98

an end in Christ deny Christ to be come in the flesh but whether taking Tythes be such an upholding which we deny and he shall never be able to prove T.S. Qu. 3. Wheth●r they that claim the Maintenance partic●larly appointed to the Priests and Levites are not to do their work viz. Prepare the Sacrifice● sl●y Oxen Sh●ep Goats c. VV.T. A. 1. We take not the Maintenance particularly appointed to the Priests and Levites they had a far greater proportion of Maintenance then the Tythes we take and of another kind also 2. The Priests and Levites work was not only to prepare Sacrifices and to instruct about Jewish-Rites but also 1. To open the Scripture and teach the good knowledge of God generally Deu. 33.10 2 Chro● 30.22 Neh. 8.8 Mal. 2.7 2. To blesse and pray for the people Numb. 6.23 Joel 2.17 1 Sam. 12.23 The Ceremonial part of their work we do not because we ought not it being abolished yet while we minister the Gospel of God we are still sacrificing spiritually as ●aul did Rom. 15.16 The two other parts which we ought to do those we do and so receive Reward for our service as they did Numb. 18. ●1 3. Melchisedeck received Tythes and yet did no Levitical Work Heb. 7.6 and in him Christs Priesthood is represented whose ●inisters we are and therefore may take maintenance in that way without doing that Work Of Infants Baptism THe next thing is Infants Baptism in the defence whereof I us●d this Argument Christ by the Apostle Paul co●ma●d● to render to all their a●●s Rom. 13.7 Bu● bapti●m is an Infants 〈◊〉 Ergo T. S VVas it ever heard Pag. 14 15. or did it ever enter into the heart of any sobe●-●inded man to conceive that Paul intended the seventh v●rse of the thirteenth Chapter to the Romans to prove the sprinkling of Infants faces with water to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ W.T. Surely if great words would carry a Cause this man would never fail to conquer But to come to the matter I answer That though the Apostle doth not intend in those words to prove Infant-Baptism yet he intends what he saies and what I cited the words for to wit That we must render to every one that which is due and more then that I desire not nor intend to take from that Scripture for that Baptism is an Infants due I prove otherwise and if it be so then by that general Rule both of Scripture and Nature it ought to be rendred to him And I did the rather bring this place of Scripture because the great Objection against Infant Baptism is That there is no command for it whereas if Baptism be an Infants due there lies in this Scripture though not a particular yet a pressing command for it in the general Law of rendring what is due If any shall say for I am not onely willing to answer him which is soon done but to satisfie others I say therefore that if any shall say and object That the Apostle applies this general Precept onely to things civil and therefore it is improperly drawn to Baptism which is a religious Ordinance 1. I answer That the application of a general precept or axiome is one thing the restricti is another The application of a general Rule to one thing doth not hinder the extent and application of it according to the general latitude in it to other particulars rightly ranked under that general So that general sentence like to this we have here in hand Whatsoever ye would that men shou●d do to you do even so to th●m Matt● 7.12 is very justly not onely applyed as Jo● doth cap. 16.4 5 6. to shew that every man should put himself into a miserable mans case and speak and do as himself would expect in the like case but also is justly extended to any particulars in the Law and Prophets relating to the second Table In like manner that general truth It is required in Stewards 〈◊〉 a man be found faithful 1 Cor. 4.2 is rightly applyed not onely to any ordinary Steward in the house of the Lord but to every Minister and spiritual Steward in the Work of his Lord In sum Had the Apostle restrain'd that general Sentence to things civil there had been no room left for enlargement but being that he reciteth it as a known Maxim and applyeth it only to the matter in hand there is both a Liberty and a Pattern to make the like application in other the like cases 2. I answer That if it be true that every one is to have his due in things civil and belonging to the second Table then by proportion in things religious also and belonging to the first Table for the general Rule of rendring to every one his right runs thus not only Render to Cesar the things which are Cesar● that is which are due to Cesar and which are here spoken of to the Romans but also to God the things which are G●ds that is which are due to God Matt. 22.21 3. It 's plain That the Apostle in Rom. 13. doth not only apply this to the rendring of what 's due to Magistrates but carries it further to all that love and duty which is required and owing in regard of the second Table v. 8.19 and therefore it hath a binding force to impose upon all men the rendring of that which is due to private persons as well as to Magistrates and consequently to tye Parents to every due and duty owing to their children If therefore it be Parents duty and childrens due to bring their children to baptism as in my Letter I have prov'd then that general Precept of rendring to every one their due is justly extended to the urging of their baptizing Now its true that baptizing Infants as it is a duty of Religion belongs to the first Table but as it is a duty of rel●tion to the second Table As to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord belongs to the first Table as it is a duty of Piety promoting the honor and service of God but it belongs to the second Table as it is a duty of P●rents and as it is a debt of love in them to teach their children as David and Ba●hsheba did their dear Solomo● Prov. 43 4. 31.2 Now to winde up all since the Apostle applies the general Law of rendring what is due to all men generally and that also in all the duties of the second Table and since to the first commandment of the second Table every due from Parents to children is to be referred it is therefore manifest that if baptizing Infants be a due then Parents are not only permitted but commanded and that not onely by vertue of that general sentence in it self but also by the Apostles application of it to render it to them T.S. Your Argument runneth thu● Pag. 15 If we ought to render all their dues then Infants ought to be baptized but we