Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	belong_v	child_n	parent_n	1,633	5	8.8998	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75851	A modest reply humbly offer'd, as an answer to, and confutation of seven arguments collected and deliver'd by Mr. Samuel Lawrence, in a sermon preach'd at his meeting-house in Namptwich, Octob. 16th, 1691, whereby he would shew, that the infants of professing Christians ought to be baptized : with a seasonable word to my brethren of the baptized church / presented by the most unworthiest of her servants, S.A.	Acton, Samuel, d. 1740?; Lawrence, Samuel.	1692 (1692)	Wing A452aA; ESTC R203313	36,660	49

Children to wit Pardon Regeneration and the Kingdom of Heaven if the greater then the less Ans That the Grace of Pardon belongs to Children we believe flowing purely from the Grace of God in Christ to them and not by vertue of any Act of Faith in their immediate Parents That the Kingdom of Heaven also belongs to Children we fully consent to with you but that Regeneration doth belong to Children or the Duties of it is any where required of them I profess my self a Stranger and that this may issue I do sincerely promise that when you can by good warrant prove it the Duty of Infants to be regenerated and that such are regenerated according to the true sence of that word to be one with you in the baptizing of them As to the Objection formed in the close of your Argument I judge it stands strong against you till you have given us a more convincing Answer than telling us it's weakly argued amounts to appealing to your own Conscience whether Infants with respect to Spirituals are any more fit for Milk than strong Meat whilst capable of neither and whether the Prerequisites necessary to Baptism be not superiour to the Capacity of Children as those necessary to the Lord's Supper whether an actual Dying to Sin can be any more the work of an Infant than Self-examination I now come to your Third ARGUMENT I argue from Circumcision Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. they belong to the same Covenant they have the same Nature the same Ends and Vses there is no essential Difference therefore there is the same reason why Children should be baptized now as that they should be circumcised then and had it not been so doubtless the believing Jews would have made a scruple of it and debated with the Apostles about it as they do of other matters and that would have occasion'd a more full Decision of the Point but there was no occasion given them to raise Scruples and therefore we hear nothing of it Objection But there is no Command Answ A general Command there is for the making it an Ordinance a particular Command there did not need as to the determining the proper Subjects of it because it is what might easily be gathered from the foregoing practice of the Church And that there is no particular Command is an Argument to me that though Christ changed the outward Signs yet not the Subjects for if it had been so he would have told us And that there is no little weight in these three Scripture-Arguments and over that which is equivalent to an express Command I spake to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 Third ANSWER If Circumcision be the best Authority you have for Infant-Baptism as I think it may be or at least as good as any in another Case I should mightily pity you to think how poor a shift you make to prove a New-Testament-Ordinance by an Old-Testament-Writ and an abolish'd Ceremony Is not this as good Arguing The Lord's Supper comes in the room of the Passover the Children eat of the Passover why not of the Lord's Supper But that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision is not in the least proved nor can be from Col. 2.11 12. for there the Apostle is speaking of a Circumcision then and to this day in force to wit the cutting of the fore-skin of the Heart a putting off the Body of Sin in token whereof the believing Colossians are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism Besides that Baptism comes not in the room of Circumcision is further evident as they were both in force together from the time of Baptisms institution to the end of our Saviour's Life whereas if Circumcision had been a Type of Baptism the Shadow must have vanish'd when the Substance was come but no man will say that Circumcision was abolish'd until Christ by Death nail'd it with other Ordinances that was against us to his Cross You add They belong to the same Covenant Ans That they may appertain to the Covenant as annexed thereto by positive Institution we believe but as we told you before neither of them as Signs and Tokens proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and therefore can belong only to them to whom they are assigned You say They are of the same nature Ans Is not this to say the Ministration of Christ is as legal as the Mosaical contrary to Heb. 8.6 7. and so on If Flesh and Spirit Legal and Evangelical be one in Nature then Baptism is the same with Circumcision You add further They have the same Ends and Vses Ans How that appears I know not Was not this one end of Circumcision to confirm unto Abraham and the Jews in their successive Generations that Christ the Promised Seed should come of the Line of Abraham according to the Flesh whereas Baptism hath no such End therefore the Analogy betwixt them are not the same as you imagine However from what you have said you conclude there is the same Reason that Children should be baptized now as circumcised then if you have the same warrant for the one as for the other I confess the Reason is the same else not for the tryal hereof I will briefly enquire 1. what it was that made Circumcision the Duty of Children 2. the Qualifications that gave Children a Right thereunto But 1. That which made Circumcision the Duty of Children was not their Covenant-Interest as we have before shewed Had that the Patriarchs Melchisedeck Lot and Job had had an undoubted Right thereto and their Posterity as they were of the same condition with them as before you have argued but it was the positive Command of God given out to Abraham in Gen. 17.10 Every Man-child amongst you saith the Lord shall be circumcised Here Circumcision is introduced by Divine Institution and Appointment and that you may assuredly know who are the Subjects hereof the Lord plainly tells them every male Child amongst them shall be circumcised the time when is expresly set down viz. at eight days old v. 12. They were not to do it sooner nor deferr it longer And as the Law is thus express for the Male Children through their Generations even so it is as positive for those born in their Houses that are not of their Seed and the Stranger that is bought with their Money v. 13. and also for the Proselyte Exod. 12.48 49. And to oblige all to the due observance of this Law the Lord joyns a severe Threatning of disinheriting or cutting off every uncircumcised Male Child amongst them or rather every man amongst them that circumcised not his Males else the Commination would turn its edge against the Child for the Parents Fault knowing the Child could only be passive in the thing Thus you see by what Authority Circumcision was practised 2. The Qualification that gave Children a Right thereto was not their Covenant-Interest for then their Females had the