Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	nature_n	1,568	5	5.4669	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41786	The quæries examined, or, Fifty anti-queries seriously propounded to the people called Presbyterians Occasioned by the publication of Fifty queries, gathered out of the works of Mr. Rich. Baxter. By J. B. Wherein the principal allegations usually brought to support infant-baptism are discovered to be insufficient. By T. G.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1676 (1676)	Wing G1543A; ESTC R223637	27,933	56

God by consenting to Gods Covenant for themselves and them Whether it was not the duty of the Israelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant Whether this be not evident from the Penalty even to be cut off from his People annexed for the non-Performance And whether this be not as much our Duty still Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due and are not Infants God's own due Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God by acknowledging his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Inf●n● to God as his own Baptist Antiq. 30. Where are Christian Parents required to devote their children by consenting to any Covenant for them or in their stead as the Jews were in matters of Religion and what penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Insants by sprinkling them as you do And whether we do omit the duty of devoting our children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us abating us all what must be abated And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-relation obligation or right or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity and whether this be not a meer noise of words as if all that do not as you do do lay a side their care and duties towards Infants And where is the institution of your publick way Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer and to educate them in his fear as they are capable then you have to cross or sprinkle them Presbyterian Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves all of them that are truly pious do not vertually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant-relation while they vehe●ently plead against it Baptist Antiqu. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self and those you call Anabaptists in saying they vehemently plead against devoting their children to God yea sure they do it actually as far as Gods Word requires And can you believe that there is no way to devote children to God but in your way How then did Adam Enoch Scth Noah c. devote their children to God And it would do well also if you could shew us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants more then we do or prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants more then we whom you call Anabaptists Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say Enoch justissimum non Circumcisum nec Sibbatizantem c. Enochan upright man was translated by God though he were not circumcised neither yet did observe the Sabba●h --- Vt aeternitas candidatis c. To the end that he who did aspire to Eternity might shew us that we might please God without the burthen of Moses Law And what Law save the La● of Circumcision did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God Presbyterian Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare any adventure on it to justifie all the World before Christs Incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God And do not they that say there is no Law in this case say there is no Transgression A●d dare any in like manner undertake to justifie at the Bar of God all the VVorld since Christs Incarnation from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children'to Christ and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect Baptist Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church which is the only thing you do so complain of And how I pray you did Abraham Isaac and Jacob dedicate their female Infants to God sith we finde no Practical Ordinance for them in Infancy or who goes about to justifie the World if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their Infants And may we not well justifie all men for not doing that which the Law of God never required Presbyterian Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledge to be a visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible Is it not abenefit in it self besides the Consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body Is not such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to the Church an honor And how great is the misery of a contrary state And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit then how were they that had it when they came to Age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it Will any say that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account Baptist Antiqu. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God requires not of them or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it And seeing you make your Pedo-rantism this all in all shew us what benefit or priviledge you had when sprinkled more then the Infants of a pious Baptist And what is that benefit that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive which you ratifie for good Baptism Or how are their Infants Church-members more then ours And whether our children when grown up have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christianity in that they are not entangled with such Traditions Presbyterian Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Commonwealths in the World perfecte sed imperfecte membra And does not Nature seem actually to have taught most people on Earth to repute their Infants in the same Religiou● Society with themselves as well as in the same Civil Society Baptist Antiqu. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is very true And we therefore ask whether Infants be not as capable of the Lords Supper as Baptism if the Lord will give it them And as far as Gods Will is that Infants should be related to his Church we doubt not of their capacity for it And why is the order of Commonwealths so much insisted on in this case Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church from the Civil Policie of Nations We desire you still to show us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our Infants which we do not Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do sure you can

never make this good Baptist Query 35. Whether according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace God will not vouchsafe to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or Law-sense willing to be his people and take him for their God And whether the Infants of believing Parents are not thus willing When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sense must not the reason and will of another be theirs in Law-sense that is of the Parents have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the Law of Nature to choose for them for their good till they come to the use of reason themselves Whether in Gods acceptance the Child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents and doth not Covenant with God as a Child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract as in a Lease for his Life or the like And so granting the Relation of Church-membership to be founded in a mutual contract covenant or consent betwixt God and us yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants and the adult Were not the Israelites Infants Church-members who consented not actually in their own persons but virtually and reputatively Baptist Antiqu. 35. We still require you to shew where this Law is that obligeth Christians to will the baptizing of their Infants and that will warrant the baptizing of one Person by vertue of anothers will And why may not a reputative Baptism serve as well as a reputative Covenant sith the Covenant is greater then Baptism And whether this be an advised speech that the Parent hath the whole disposal of his Child in matters of Religion And who must judge what is good for his Infant in religious matters Must not Gods Word do this And shew us what command we have omitted in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do Or do you think that your instance of a Lease is sufficient to rectifie mens consciences in matters of this nature And what if some of the Jews had failed to consent for their children were they therefore not in Covenant sure it was the Law not the Parents consent that regulated these matters Neither do we finde that the Israelites were bound to repent and believe in the Person of the child and accordingly to make profession in his Name when circumcised as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants when yet you baptize them not seeing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptism Presbyterian Query 26. Whether it be not the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children the Infant being not sui Juris but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good have not the Parents power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly for their own good And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own child And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error that opposeth Childrens Rights and Blessings Baptist Antiqu. 36. Whether this Query be not the same in effect which we have had again and again And we would know what offered benefits the Infant of the Pedobaptists meet with among the Papists or your selves either which we received not meerly for this cause of not doing to our infants as they and you are pleased to do And whether it were not as reasonable for Parents to be baptized in the childs stead as to profess faith and repentance for him And whether it be reasonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his opinion and practice and to suffer for the same And what Law of God requires this and whether this may not be called the unreasonable errour Presbyterian Query 37. VVhether it may be thought or any dare maintain that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World Are they all excluded And why Are they worse then their Parents If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth t● Parents must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents or such as are so far entrusted Or can this be called a Covenant for God only to say I will save all such Infants as I elect and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition nor give a title to any Person that can be known by themselves or others Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant And what Right or Hope doth this give to Christians for their children more then to Pagans Baptist Antiqu. 37. Whether it may be thought that God should require the conditions of the Covenant of grace on them which he knows can observe none at all or whether it be his will that the grace of that Covenant should depend upon others observation of the Conditions for them And whether this be not to put the salvation of Infants out of his own hand and into the hand of such as commonly neglect their own And is not this to expo●e poor Infants to ruine whose Parents generally are so far from keeping that they are strangers to the Conditions of this Covenant And where are we taught to doubt the salvation of the Infants of Pagans or to conclude ours only are in the state of salvation And is it not much more secure to hope the salvation of Infants on the Ground of Christs dying for them and rising again for their Justification then upon any Practical in Religion And where did God ever since the beginning of the World give any Ordinance to be necessary to the salvation of any Infant in the World Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumcised Man-child was a cutting off from salvation how then were all the Infants saved which were born to the Israelites for fourty years together such of them I mean as died during that time And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without any thing done on their part as they were made sinners without any thing done on their part Will not the second Adams obedience salve the first Adams disobedience And may not poor Infants better plead in the day of Judgement what Christ did for them then what your Godfathers or Proparents did for them Presbyterian Query 38. Though all that are saved are saved by the meritorious righteousness of Christ by way of free Gift yet whether the condition be not a suteable acceptance And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child who hath no will to accept it for himself Shall he be certainly shut out unto damnation Or shall he have that gift absolutely which is conditional to all others Or is he not concerned