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	covenant_n	parent_n	1,796	5	9.1412	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49125	The non-conformists plea for peace impleaded in answer to several late writings of Mr. Baxter and others, pretending to shew reasons for the sinfulness of conformity.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.	1680 (1680)	Wing L2977; ESTC R25484	74,581	138

Infirmities of which many instances may be given And why should we so limit the goodness and Power of God as to think that if he sent an Holy Angel for the Preservation of a good Man which he often did before the coming of Christ he could not bless any means for the effecting of a good end The next passage excepted against by Mr. Baxter is that where the Angel says that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Nephthali Whereas the Scripture frequently calls Angels by the name of such Men as they represent Gen. 19.12 The Angels sent down to Sodom are called Men the Angels that appeared at the Ascension are called Men in white Apparel besides these names were assumed as significative of the end wherefore the Angel was sent Azarias signifying the help of God and Ananias the Grace and Favour of God But it is farther Objected that it is not appointed that the Priest shall tell the People that those Lessons are Apocryphal or what that word signifyeth Answ Neither is it denyed them to inform the People as oft as such Lessons are to be read And lastly Mr. Baxter thinks that the chief doubt is whether the Calender appointing those Lessons may be consented to which upon supposition that those Lessons contain nothing contrary to Gods Word or sound Doctrine may undoubtedly be done especially in case of Deprivation Mr. Baxter resolves the case thus p. 191. That the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we must Profess Assent Approbation and Consent nor to which by the Canon we must ex animo subscribe that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God P. 167. Mr. Baxter resumes the business of Godfathers against which he multiplyeth words rather than objections as 1. That no Parent is permitted to be Godfather to his own Child or to speak at his Baptism or Dedicate him or promise in his name or to undertake any part of his Education All which is frivolous for the Godfathers are to be Sureties for the credibility of the Parent as well as for the Child and so the word Surety implyes that the Parent is the principal and who ever thought the Church intended to exclude the Parents Duty to which the Law of God and Nature bind him and from which nothing but death can excuse him Nor did ever any good Man think that his procuring of Godfathers did supersede his duty towards his Child but that it was his duty more especially to do what they promised in behalf of the Parents And though it be not expressed that the Godfather is the Parents Representative yet the contrary is not implyed as Mr. Baxter says because as he there says the Parents are to procure the Godfathers and how can Mr. Baxter tell whether he bespeaks him to be his Representative or not Calvin advised the Parent to bring his Sureties with him Epist 302. And that they should answer to the Interrogatories which was the practice at Geneva and by Beza approved in the Church of England Quis damnare ausit Epist the 8. to Grindal As to his demand whether it be not enough that the Baptized Infant be the Child of a Believing Parent I answer the Church thinks it sufficient in the case of private Baptism where no more is required yet the Church may require witnesses that the Parent is such a one under which notion they do represent him and for the better Assurance the Church requires that the Godfathers themselves be such as have received the Holy Communion i. e. in the Language of the Primitive Church that they be fideles But he makes another Query whether the Godfathers Act be truly the Child 's in Gods account Answ That Infants may be ingaged in a Covenant with God cannot be denyed They were entred into a Covenant by Circumcision under the Law Deut. 29.11.12 And for this reason our Children may be called Holy as entred to a Covenant with God and receiving the Priviledges of Baptism and fit it is they should be early obliged to the Duties of the Covenant And being not capable to do this of themselves it is requisite that some others should do it on their behalf with that solemnity which becomes so great an Ordinance Buxtorf mentions a Susceptor at the Circumcision of Infants under the Law And many Divines think that Custom was practised from Isa 8.2.3 of which see the Notes of Junius and Tremelius in Locum Mr. Calvin to Knox Epist 285. I confess that Stipulation is necessary for nothing is more preposterous than that those should be ingrafted into Christs Body whom we may not hope to be his Disciples wherefore if none of the Kindred appear that may give his Faith to the Church and take charge of Teaching the Child it is but a Lusorious Action and the Baptism is defiled Tertullian among the Ancients speaks of Sureties for Children at Baptism and of the Three Interrogatories concerning their Belief of the Creed Renouncing the Devil and the Christian-Warfare and some think there is an Intimation of the same in the 1 Pet. 3.21 St. Cyprian St. August and many others mention the same The Reformed Churches have owned this Practise The Bohemian Geneva Dutch French and many able Divines have defended it And it is resolved by them that the words I Believe I Reneounce c. being a Form of words to express the contract do oblige the Infant which was anciently done alio protestante and therefore the question being asked of the Godfather in the Childs behalf dost thou Believe and Renounce and wilt thou be Baptized It is plain that the answer also is in the Childs name and the Catechism says Infants are Baptized because they Promise Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Now if Children may be ingaged and there be no way of doing it but by some others on their behalf seeing this way of Godfathers hath been used by the Churches of God who can doubt but that their Act may truly be accepted of God as the Act of the Child and when we grant that the Parent joyns in the same Act with the Godfathers whom he procures and may bring with him and signify his Consent and receive the Charge which though it bind the Godfathers to do their honest endeavour yet it is more especially incumbent on the Parent I see no reason but we may Assent to this And thus the 9. Object that Ministers must Assent to all this Exclusion of the Parents and Presentation Profession Promise and undertaking of the Godfathers is answered All this Exclusion is none at all the Liturgy says nothing of it the Canon says only he shall not be urged to be present and the Reason is supposed because in time the ancient Use of Godfathers would be laid aside which all Protestant Churches have carefully continued P. 169. Mr. Baxter excepts against the Rubrick which says It is certain by Gods Word that Children which are Baptized dying before they commit

actual sin are undoubtedly saved Answ 1. This being a Rubrick and never coming to Use in the publick Worship it cannot reasonably be thought to be imposed as an Article of Faith on others but only as the Judgment of our Superiours with whom for ought I perceive Mr. Baxter is more offended than with that Doctrine For p. 172. N. 12. When young unstudied Men as he calls those of the Convocation who declare this Opinion p. 172. N. 12. have in this point attained to an undoubted certainty which their wiser Seniors cannot attain it behoveth them to convince us of the Truth of their Inspiration or special Indowments either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things or by some Miracles or Testimonies from Heaven Thus did such wiser Seniors in our Saviours time require a Sign from Heaven for Confirmation of his Doctrin though he taught nothing but what was Consonant to the Law and the Prophets He is angry with them for not Citing one word of God in the Rubrick to shew this certainty Whereas had Mr. Baxter been imployed in such a work he could have quoted an Hundred at least viz. all those places which speak of Baptisme for remission of Sins of Ingrafting and Burying with Christ of being Baptized into one Body by one Spirit and the like Acts 2.37 Acts 22.16 Rom. 4.11 1 Cor. 1.15 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Eph. 5.26 Col. 2.12 Titus 3.5 Rom. 6.3 1 Pet. 3.21 All and each of which are as plain Scripture-Proofs of the Salvation of Baptized Infants as any that he produceth for their Baptisme yet he calls it clear Scripture Proof Mr. Baxter is the first that hath accused the Church of England of Instituting a second Covenant of Grace But how impertinently will appear from the distinction which he mentioneth of a Sacrament out of the Church Catechisme viz. An outward and visible Sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us Ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof But First here is no intimation of any inward or Spiritual Grace given to us by this outward Sign Nor Secondly is it pretended that the Cross is Ordained by Christ himself much less that it is a means whereby we receive that Grace Or 4. A Pledge to Assure us thereof And therefore Mr. Baxter doth not well to question whether the Cross be not made a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace or so very near it as to have the greatest part of that Sacramental Nature when no one part of the definition agreeth with it And it is confessed by Mr. Baxter that the Liturgy useth not the Cross as a part of Baptisme but as a thing added after it and therefore not as Mr. Baxter says even in our Covenanting with God for that Stipulation on the Childs part is past before All that is mentioned in the Office of Baptisme is that the Child is Signed with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed c. So that it puts such as have been formerly Baptized in mind of that Duty which is incumbent on them and to be a witness to every one of the Ingagements that lay on him And that the Cross may be thus used will follow from Mr. Baxters Concession in the Third part of his Christian Directory Q. 113. Where he allows of the Use of the Cross before Heathen as a signification that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour Now if this Use of the Cross be forbidden by the second Commandment as a Transient Image or if it be a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace it is so when used at other times as well as after the Sacrament of Baptism The time or the place wherein it is used doth not alter the nature of the thing If therefore he grants such a Use of the Cross as St. August de Civitate Dei and other Antients mention as in open Indication to Heathens that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ and in civil Uses also it may be as innocently used after Baptism to the same end And it may be observed that in Administring the Sacrament of Baptism it is said by the Priest I Baptize thee c. where he acts as Gods Minister but in the Admission of the Child as a Member of the Congregation it is said We receive this Child which cannot be thought any part of that Sacrament But let us hear how Mr. Baxter resolves the Question 49. p. 123. of Direct May one Offer his Child to be Baptized with the Sign of the Cross or the Vse of Chrysme the white Garment Milk and Honey or Exorcisme as among the Lutherans who taketh these to be unlawful things Answ When he cannot lawfully have better he may and must Offer his Child to them that will so Baptize him rather than to worse or not at all because Baptism is Gods Ordinance and the Childs priviledge and the Sin is the Ministers and not his Another Mans sinful Mode will not justify the neglect of our Duty else we might not joyn in Prayer or Sacraments in which the Minister modally singneth that is with none The Parent may make known in such Cases that it is Baptism he desireth and that he disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful and then he is no consenter to it But where the Law or Scandal or greater Inconveniencies forbid him he is not to make his Profession openly in the Congregation but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sober peaceable Person whether the Minister in private or to his neighbours in Converse Now when Mr. Baxter grants a Man may thus Offer his Child to Baptism where he supposeth many unlawful things are Administred he doth very ill to amuse the Laity with the bare Sign of the Cross Yet I think if we take in the Doctrine and Practise of the Church I may declare that it is certain by Gods Word that Children ought to be Baptized And it is observable that the Salvation of Baptized Infants dying c. was as generally Believed as their right to Baptisme The Council of Milevis which was Confirmed by the Sixth general Council delivers this not only as their own Opinion but as a Rule of the Catholick Church C. 2. And St. August De Peccat Mer. l. 3. c. 5. says That of Old the whole Church did firmly hold that Children do obtain Remission of Original Sin by the Baptism of Christ it would be tedious to quote the authority of the Fathers who generally hold that the guilt contracted by the First Adam is done away in Baptism which Ingrafts us into the Second Adam This was the Doctrine of our Church ever since the Reformation agreeing with the Augustan Saxon Helvetick Palatine French and Scottish Confessions So that generally all that Assent to the Protestant Doctrine do Assent to the Truth of this Rubrick and seeing it is certain by the Word of God that