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	family_n	parent_n	3,006	5	8.2083	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35294	A disputation between a doctor and an apothecary, or, A reply to the new argument of Dr. R. Burthogge, M.D. for infants baptism wherein the novelty in which it glories is justly censured and its harmony proved to be no better than self repugnancy and a manifest abuse of scripture / by Philip Cary, a neighbouring apothecary ...	Cary, Philip.	1684 (1684)	Wing C740; ESTC R31289	47,589	144

occasional Discourse which I held almost a year and three quarters agoe about Infants Baptism to engage any further in that controversie Apothecary It would scarce be worth the Readers time to be informed of the nativity of this Controversie betwixt us were it not to undeceive him if he take me as who that reads your Letter but would for the first aggressor I will be short and plain The occasion was thus A Gentleman in the Neighbourhood lying sick the Doctor was sent for to administer to him and I was then also obliged to attend him The Doctor being an active discursive person was pleased if not for pastime yet at least to gratifie the company amongst which the Lady to whom he dedicates it was one of the chief to provoke me to dispute the point of Infant Baptism with him I declined several times the Ladyes importunity in that respect though the Doctor was ready as well knowing my distance and insufficiency to cope with so acute and learned a person but all would not do dispute I must and being unawares forced into the lists a new Argument never drawn before in this field of Controversie was now drawn and brandisht formidably against me till at last I was overthrown and shamefully insulted over as a vanquished person my Sword being as it were broken over my head with great triumph I bore these insults as well as I could but the Reader may easily imagine the anguish I was in especially considering so many spectators present as there were If I had not been so much confounded as I was I might then have told him as I did afterward That as it was no dishonour to Melancthon so neither can it be to any that disputes for truth not victory to answer as he did to Eckius Cras tibi respondebo However though I had no intention to have appeared in my own vindication against a man so much my superior in place and parts yet when I considered how the truth which I profess lay at stake though I had almost lost the sense of the Doctors Argument I did after some time give him a Letter which occasioned his first Letter to me by way of Answer wherein the Grounds he goes upon are laid down and which afterwards he proceeds to illustrate in his following Letters which being now made publick I judge my self under a necessity to publish the Copies of those Letters of mine which I have sent unto him also upon that subject that the Reader may the better be enabled to pass his judgment upon the state of the Controversie between us which I suppose could not but prudently have been suspended upon a partial Information only In order hereunto I have thought it necessary to draw up the following Scheme of what hath passed between the Doctor and my self in reference to the principal Argument in dispute between us the thread whereof might not otherwise have been so clearly discerned through the interposure of divers other intercurring passages in the several Letters that have passed between us After therefore I had dispatcht my first Letter to him in his Reply cutting off what is superfluous and not to the point he was pleased thus to bespeak me Doctor Though I cannot believe my self obliged by the occasional Discourse The Doctors new Argument for Infants-Baptism p. 1 2 3 7 8 52 53. which I held about a year and three quarters ago about Infants Baptism to engage further and that deliberately too in that Controversie yet having received from you so large and so elaborate an endeavour for my satisfaction I may not be so much wanting either in civility to your desires or in obedience to the call that I believe in them as to decline the incumbence and obligation they put me under to answer and so either to receive my self a further illumination in the Point before us or which is better and which I hope to give it As for my sentiments on this Subject without concerning of my self in other Arguments insisted on by others and also touched and reflected on by you I will immediately proceed to display and lay out the Argument for Paedobaptism as it is founded on the Covenant or Blessing of Abraham in all its force and evidence and to do it to some purpose I will demonstrate First That the Covenant of Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham or the Promise of the Spirit is still in force and is that Covenant of Grace the true believing Gentiles are under Secondly That in respect of that Covenant of Promise which is called the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit all the seed that hath the benefit of it are under equal obligations to the duty and incumbence arising from it that Abraham was himself Thirdly I will shew that the duty and incumbence arising from that Covenant or Blessing to which Abraham was obliged was by way of restipulation to dedicate and give himself and all that was his to God and in token of that dedication of himself and all that was his to God to wear himself the sign of that Covenant and to put it as a cognisance and badge and mark of God upon all that were his and were capable of it Fourthly I will also shew that from Abraham's dedication of himself and all his to God there arises a distinction of holiness into internal and external absolute and relative and that this distinction of holiness is Evangelical From all which it will follow That the true believing Gentiles which are the Seed of Abraham and as much partakers of the blessing of Abraham as himself are as much obliged to keep that Covenant of Promise in the sign and token of it as Abraham and his natural Seed were that is in token of the dedication of themselves and all that is theirs every Father of a Family is to take the sign of God upon himself and to put it upon all is his and capable of it and to be sure our Children are ours And since circumcision is no longer that sign but Baptism is it is the duty of every Father and Mother of the Family both to be baptized themselves and to see that all that are theirs their own their property under their dominion and at their dispose be so And I think as it is a duty in the Parent or Father of the Family to give so it is a priviledge in those that are so to be given to God and to have his sign upon them Apothecary Sir I have received yours and shall immediately proceed to consider and give answer to the Argument for Paedobaptism founded on the Covenant or blessing of Abraham as it is now represented and insisted on by you And as to the four Propositions on which your conclusion is founded I must beg your patience to see that frame of Argument which you have so strongly built and fortified dissolved in these following distinctions I have made upon them and consequently your whole Argument

it therefore follow that the believing Gentiles are put into that very state of things as the promise held it so long before the Law Where is that Scripture that says it Jer. 30. the Scripture before mentioned speaks no such thing nor any other that I can meet with Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before as well as under the Law and though Jesus Christ himself is by the Apostle stiled the Minister of the Circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers yet as it cannot be denied but that it was adopted into the legal Family and that it was also adapted unto the nature and quality of the legal Dispensation So it is as evident that it is now abolished And I can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is come in the room thereof or that it is appointed to have the same place and use in the Church of God that Circumcision had but rather much to the contrary as I have elsewhere proved to you And it being manifest that the external administration of the Covenant is now changed from what it was in Abraham's time from thence it doth as plainly follow that there is an alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our practice in that respect Doctor p. 62 63. It cannot be denied but that the true seed the believing Gentiles are as much obliged to keep the Covenant in the sign of it both by taking it upon themselves and by putting it upon their Children as Abraham was for himself and his And this is the proper duty required of them as they are partakers of the blessing of Abraham Nor are we to expect any New Commands in the Gospel-Dispensation for duties setled of old on lasting and immutable Reasons the obligation abiding if the reason of the precept abides A principle that is the ground of the Apostles Reasoning 1 Cor. 9 8 9. 10. And shall the Principle abide and not the duty which arises from it the Covenant abide and not the Restipulation without which it is not a Covenant This you dare not say Apothecary How fair and specious a structure may there be erected upon a false or a wrong Hypothesis All this Discourse of yours proceeds from a mistake in the very foundation of your Argument For you suppose and would fain have it taken for granted That the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel are under an obligation from Gen. 17. to keep the Covenant in the sign of it and that both by taking it upon themselves and by putting it upon their Children also whereas there is not a Word or Syllable there or any where else in all the Old Testament That the Spiritual Seed of Abraham under the Gospel were to keep the Covenant in the sign of it much less that they were to put it upon themselves and least of all that they were to put it upon their Children also All these are meer Inventions and unproved Dictates And therefore though we may not expect any New commands in the Gospel-Dispensation for duties setled of old on lasting and immutable Reasons because the Obligation abides if the reason of the Precept abides yet what shall we say when that which we suppose or affirm of this kind is but a meer Chimera or a fancy of our own Brain only Let it once be substantially proved either from the 17th of Genesis or from any other Text in the Old Testament what you have now asserted and then your consequence shall be as readily granted Doctor p. 23 24 25 26 27. I pray consider That not only Abraham was under Obligation to keep the Covenant in the sign of it but the Seed of Abraham also that is all those to whom the Covenant is made are equally obliged to the observation thereof in the sign of it and therefore not only Abraham was obliged but his Seed too For as God is pleased to say I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed and I will give to thee and to thy Seed So he sayes Thou and thy Seed shall keep my Covenant Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and not only thou but thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Thou thou and thy Seed So that if the Believing Gentiles be as indeed they be the true Seed and principally intended in the Promise For it is Seed not Seeds Seed speaking but of one and that one is Christ and Christ not personal only but mystical or Christ with his members for it is of many in one for the Seed which is to keep the Covenant is to do it in their Generations not in his Generation but in their Generations and that is plural I say if the Believing Gentiles do become the Seed of Abraham as they do they come also under equal Obligation to observe the Covenant with Abraham himself for it is Thou shalt keep the Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed And to keep the Covenant as I have evinced already is for him that is in it in token of his dedication and assignment of himself and of all his to God not only to wear the sign of the Covenant himself in his own person but to put it upon all his that are capable of it so to manifest that he owns not any interest or propriety at all in any thing or title to any but what he returns to God and that both himself and all his are the Lords And are not the Believing Gentiles as much obliged to assign and dedicate and give all as Abraham Yes doubtless and are as much bound to shew and own and declare they do so as he And though as you object Circumcision that at first was the sign and token of the Covenant is taken away yet it will not follow that the Obligation to observe and keep the Covenant in any other sign or token doth cease with it And to demonstrate this it must be minded that as the equity and Reason of the command doth hold in Baptism as well as in Circumcision and for any other sign and token as well as for this and to the Seed as well as to Abraham God being as much a God to the one as to the other So also that in the form of the Words the obligation imposed upon Abraham and his Seed is in the First place to keep the sign and token of the Covenant or to keep the Covenant in the sign of it And but in the Second place to observe circumcision namely but as it is that sign So that a plain distinction is made between the Obligation to observe the Sign and Token of the Covenant or to keep the Covenant in the sign and token of it and to keep it in Circumcision as that Sign and Token the Former arising from the very nature of the Covenant Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and therefore of as perpetual obligation and existence as the