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	marriage_n	parent_n	2,707	5	9.3519	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89563	A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1646 (1646)	Wing M751; Thomason E332_5; ESTC R200739	211,040	270

sure you will also agree that it were easie for mee to bring ten for one who interpret this Text as I doe though I forbeare to bumbast my booke with them no wayes desiring that this cause should bee carryed by number of suffrages Secondly there are many things in this Section wherein wee differ but the cause depends nothing at all upon them first you severall times cite the learned Beza as if hee were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text to construe it of matrimoniall holin●ss● I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement but your reputation depends much upon making this good That you should dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofesso interprets it against you Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawfull use but withall sets himselfe to prove that that 's not all but saith it 's such a sanctification as I contend for and saith no man may interpret it otherwise then I doe of federall holinesse according to the Covenant Ero Deus tuu● c. And out of that very Text doth in his annotations upon that place assert Infant-Baptisme Secondiy you thinke this Text was never interpreted of federall holinesse untill the dayes of Luther the cause I confesse depends not upon this but it discovers some defect in your reading since it is apparent that Athanasius one of the most ancient of the Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most antient of the Latine Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you doe that their children were legitimate nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace Thirdly whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. upon which you spend almost two whole pages bee good or no or whether these places doe interpret one another is not much materiall to the present controversie about this Text although it be plaine that by Jewes by n●ture the Apostle intends the Church-priviledge of the Iewes in opposition to the Gentiles as I have elswhere shewed Fourthly whether Bellarmine was the first who expounded holy for Iegitimate in confuting whereof you spend another page and alledge sundry Authors before him who so understood it this is not to our businesse though you take occasion to shew your reading in it Thirdly this therefore onely remaines to bee tryed out between us whether this bee meant of lawfulnesse of wedlock between man and wife and legitimation of children as you affirme or of Instrumentall sanctification betweene husband and wife quoad hoc and federall holinesse of children as I affirme wherein I shall first make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold secondly that mine must stand The sense which you undertake to justifie is that it is a Matrimoniall sanctification when the Apostle saith the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife c. the meaning i● their marriage is lawfull and their children are not unclean but holy the meaning is they are not bastards but lawfully begotten Against this I dispute First in making good the foure Arguments used in my Sermon against this interpretation the first whereof was this uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to another are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull but are alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of admission into or use in the tabernatle or Temple which were types of the visible Church holinesse is always taken for a separation of Persons or things from common to sacred use To this you except many things First you like not the term civill holinesse you rather would call it matrimoniall holinesse because its institution is of God not from the laws of Man I Reply this is a poor shift by holy and civill wee distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table All second Table duties are civill things though their institution be of God civill Magistracy though instituted of God obedience of children to their Parents though instituted of God and all the judiciall lawes given to the Jews about meum and tuum were they not therefore civill because they were Gods institutions Or is marriage a businesse more concerning Religion then these are is it a Sacrament or how else is it more holy then these other civill things You except secondly uncleannesse may bee taken for bastardy in an allusion to a Tabernacle use Bastards being numbered among the uncleane I Reply this is spoken without any proof for although the Lord saith Deuteronom 23. 2. That a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord it cannot be meant that bastards shall bee numbered among the uncleane or having nothing to doe about Tabernacle or Temple services for there was the same law for Eunuchs who were not excluded as unclean no unclean person might eate the Passeover might no Eunuch or Bastard eate the Passeover Beside when you thus construe else were your children unclean you make there a Bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles consequently every unclean child must bee a bastard Now if any man would suppose that bastards might bee reckoned amongst unclean yet all unclean children must not bee reckoned amongst bastards all the children of the Gentiles were unclean but they were not bastards It is needlesse to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the Congregation whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some or whether his not entring bee of bearing Office as others or of not marrying a wife an Israelitesse as others it matters not it 's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean Thirdly you refer me to the 1 Thess 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holinesse and desire me to tell you whether uncleannesse be not there meant of fornication and by holinesse chastity I answer I prevented this in my Sermon and shewed that chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghost but among beleevers it may be called so because it is a part of the new creation a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghost and though the chastity of beleevers is onely a morall vertue in respect of the object yet in respect of the root principle end it 's a Christian vertue and it 's an act of pure Religion to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh as well as from the world Iam. 1. 27. Besides I now adde there is no reason that that place 1 Thess 4. should be restrained to fornication because many other sins are named in that place besides fornication Mark the words in the 3 ver the Apostle tels

the Sabbath thou shalt rest the seventh day that is thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath and thou shalt rest the first day of the week when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme To this you answer You referre your selfe to what you have before declared Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader where I have vindicated this answer from you I further adde you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament onely you adde here I forget the marke at which I shoot the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments I reply first I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation among the Jews Sacraments as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies Secondly I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God as well as the Sacrament and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme which touches but a circumstance of age this Argument from the one to the other will appeare to the impartiall Reader to bee too strong for you to answer Next follows the blow which will tumble downe all if your selfe may be believed Mark Reader how heavie a one it is I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham we claime our part in it as the children of Abraham and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct and bring up our Children for God not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment All these things God commanded Abraham and wee by vertue of that Covenant being Covenanters with Abraham stand bound to all these duties though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force To all this you answer supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham and the persons claiming to bee beleevers this passage you grant to bee true be●ause these are mor●ll duties Well then the deadly blow is not yet given I meane this which you suppose and I meane more then this I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever we may claime as invisible beleevers what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor wee claime the same as visible Professors and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor the same are wee obliged to I meane all this and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all I said and the same command which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment Your answer is This Consequence is inferred from a Judaizing principle without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be that we are still bound to circumcise that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day that by no rule of Divinity Logick Grammar or Rhetorique any man can construe this Command Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day that is let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants male or female by as good Consequence I might say thou art Peter and upon this rock Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes So then the din● of your mortall blow lyes in this that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies Rites do not bind Christian men but that they are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick but sure if this be all you can say against it the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound When I said but just now That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force You granted this rule was true if meant of beleevers I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that especially it being cleare in the Scripture that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant if it be a good consequent That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force because their children had right to be so trained up therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions because our children have right to be so trained up is not this other consequence I say as good That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children the seale of admission into Covenant because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration we are to doe the like to our children now because they belong to this administration I say further because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath which consequence your self grant to be good though the thing be a part of instituted Worship and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament I appeale to al Divinity Logick whether this consequence

of imitation of Jewish circumcision Thirdly without universall practice Fourthly together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall Traditions that is deserv●dly doubtfull But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages Ergo c. I answer first by denying your Major the observation of the Lords day hath beene by some accounted a Tradition others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath at all because Sabbath dayes were a shadow of things to come but the body is Christ what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universall I desire you to remember that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum may wee plead thus such and such a thing was not generally observed Ergo it was not a duty the boyes in the Schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference from the dayes of Iosoua to the dayes of Nehemiab the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles in Booths or Tents which was about a thousand yeares was it therefore not their duty to have done it Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath urgeth this very argument against the Lords day in such and such Fathers days many did not observe the Lords day many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day ergo the Lords day was not generally observed and if it were not generally observed in those days Ergo we are not bound to observe it This kind of arguing is almost as wilde as that which the Schools call a baculo ad angulum my staffe stands in the corner Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange There were many other things went under the name of Traditions which were meer humane inventions Ergo Infant-baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention Shall I shew the naturall face of this argument in a glasse such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves Ergo all that goe ●nder the name of honest men are knaves It is true many things went in those dayes under the name of Traditions which were but humane inventions and it is as true that many points of faith and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions as I have made apparent Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true though the things were as you set them downe but I have abundantly proved the contrary I have shewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution and upon such arguments as we doe though some of them prest some corrupt grounds which we reject and as for the universality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients who either beld it unlawfull or denyed that it was in use from the Apostles dayes One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism as they did also the baptisme of grown men and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptized as you think in their Infancy to all which I have spoken at large Part. 1. sect 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants I have denyed and shall doe still till you bring some evidence for it that there was any such universall practise indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin but I finde no such generall practice of it however the Argument follows not That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants Your sixth Argument runs thus that which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-Baptisme it selfe may bee underpropt partly the defect in the p●licy of the Church supplyed that is deservedly douhtfull But the matter i● so in the businesse of Infant-Baptisme and here you bring in witnesses in Baptisme Episcopall confirmation the reformed union by examination confession before receiving the Lords Supper Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship c. I answer briefly if by occasioned you meane that Infant-Baptisme hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things I deny your minor Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church Infant-Baptisme may very well stand and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses without confirmation or any other examination confession c. before the Lords Supper or other Church-discipline then such as might bee in use to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy but if by occasioned you meane not 〈◊〉 da●a but 〈◊〉 temer● a●●●pta that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occasion for other errors and mistakes if you meane that which hath thus ●●casioned many humane inventions is doubtfull then I deny your major there is scarse any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament and that hath occasioned suspension excommunication separation what will you thence conclude against the Lords Supper Ergo the Lords Supper is a humane invention Your seventh eighth and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth Argument possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury And the selfe same answer serves them as was given to the other I will conclude as strongly against you out of your owne premisses thus Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errours many abuses and faults in discipline divine worship and conversation of men together with many unnecessary disputes fostering contention onely Ergo Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme I leave out that passage onely in the major of your ninth Argument viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule because therein you doe very heartily beg the question Your tenth argument is framed thus That in the midst of the darknesse of Popery the same men who opposed invocation of Saints Prayer for the dead adoration of the crosse and such like opposed also the baptizing of Infants and here you bring in Bernard his 66 Sermon upon the Canticles and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretick as you call him and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry also a passage out of Ostander accusing the Albingenses ●s consenting with the Anabaptist● To which I answer first I deny the consequence because they opposed invocation of Saints prayer for the dead c. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme