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	parent_n	use_v	1,722	5	5.9300	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51082	The true non-conformist in answere to the modest and free conference betwixt a conformist and a non-conformist about the present distempers of Scotland / by a lover of truth ...	McWard, Robert, 1633?-1687.	1671 (1671)	Wing M235; ESTC R16015	320,651	524

one should be punished as perjured who hath not himself invocated God as witness and avenger But as we do clearly see the Lords judgement in the contraire doth not the same reason which by making the Father's promise for himself and Children also their promise and therefore binding by transmitting the Oath in like manner confirme its righteousness I need not here precaution against the Children their invincible ignorance of the Fathers Promise and Oath their innocencie in this case descending from a clearer distinct head and purging from breach of Promise as well as breach of Oath doth neither inferre the liberty which you plead for nor impugne the transmission of a sworne Promise in its Religion as well as in its Obligation 6. Our Covenant being in the matter necessary and righteous for the manner made with and before God to be perpetually binding and for its solemnity unanimously sworne by almost the whole Nation and confirmed by all the Authority in it hath such a concurring evidence of all arguments and opinions for its perpetuity as an Oath that your nibling at it upon this head is not a greater proof of your perfidie then testimony of your inconsiderate ignorance but if you be ignorant your self you do well to make your N C● no better and therefore you make him objecte against your assertion that Children cannot be bound by their Fathers Oath doth not the Fathers debt oblige the Son and why not his Oath But to give you the advantage you designe I willingly turne the Argument to make for you thus The Father's debt doth not oblige the Son unless he be also his Heir and in this respect only as Possessor of his goods therefore c. To which I answere that as by the tenor of written Bonds for debt it is clear that the Debtor doth only oblige himself his Heirs and Successors in his Lands and goods so both Law and Reason do interpret all ordinary promises for debt to be of the same nature viz. to bind the person himself and to follow and affect his Estate together with the person who enjoying by universal title the promiser his estate is by the interpretation of Law understood to accept of the same with that burthen and no further so that if a Son as Son be not liable it is evidently from the restriction of the obligation according to the meaning of the parties which I already told you that an accessory Oath doth not exceed and maketh nothing for a Son's freedome in Conscience as to such other engagements whereunto both the Father's power and intention do concurre to make him liable In the next place I confess you do your N. C. reason and as just now we have heard the ridiculous objection you put in his mouth so in this place to his unanswerable argument for the Childrens obligation by the Parents Oath from the dutie of our allegeance descending from our Fathers their swearing the same you returne as ridiculous an answer viz. That we are not at all obliged to the King by their Oath but because the right of the Crown is in his Person who can forbear to laugh are you a Doctor in Israel and also a high pretender for the King and understands no better You say the right of the Crown is in his person but supposing it came there by the originall consent and allegeance sworne to his first Predecessor which I am sure is a title which in this place you will not quarrel is not the same that is the cause of his Kingship also the reason of our subjection Or will you admit it to be the Creating and not also the Conserving cause How do the most common maximes of reason militat against you You add and we are born his Subjects but pray doth our birth as men or as men born in such a place bring us forth with this character then should all men or at least even strangers casually born in the place be also born Subjects whereunto then can it else be ascribed unless it be that we are the off-spring of such who for themselves and their posterity did submit to the King by a perpetuall surrender transmitted upon us passivè with the same obligation If these things do not satisfy I intreat you to reflect upon the ordinary strain of all impeachments where you will finde the person accused of Treason though he never actually swore or promised allegeance yet constantly and very congruously charged with breach of Faith Failty and Allegeance nay I nothing doubt but if you were describing to us the crime of Rebellion you would at great length prove it to be both falshood and perfidy Your N. C. proceeds to argue thus How was Adam obliged for his Posterity if Parents cannot binde their Children And in return you say This is strange dealing and because you will have the instance an inapplicable mystery therefore you recurre to secret Divine transactions without either warrant or necessity but Sir is not this a strange stupiditie in you be it so that God's Covenanting with Adam as the common Head of Mankind so as upon his deed to make their standing or falling depend is a difficulty which only Gods Soveraignity can explicat is this therefore also a mysterie that Adam might have been any other father may be obliged both for himself and his posterity so as to ty them to obedience and upon their own 〈◊〉 obedience not their Fathers which is the singularity o● Gods Covenant with Adam to render them guilty or can there be any thing more plain both in Scripture and Reason then that not only the Lo●ds command according to his will should be perpetual to the Posterity but also a Peoples Covenant made with him to observe the same doth oblige both them and after-Generations to continuall obedience as the 29. of Deut. most convincingly holds out But you go on still stumbling thus I Parents can binde duties upon their Children they may as well binde sins and this is to make way● or more Originall sin then Adams Who would not pity such impertinencies The thing asserted is that a Parent may oblidge for his Children to dutie and you subjoin he may as well bind sins upon them Certainly Sir these are not the words of sobriety A Parent may command his Son to dutie may he also command him to sin the ignis fatuus that seduces you is that you appear to be dazled by an imagination of your own that we go about to im●ute to Children not the Parents obligation but their deeds their duties or failings which truly we as little dream of as certainly you will finde your present dream about Originall sin when you returne to your self wholly extravagant But the next lapse you make is in the person of your N. C. whom you cause in place of adducing an obligement by a Father binding himself and his posterity to bring in the instance of the Baptismal vow undertaken by the Father in Name of

regular and peaceable being in it the other the Church and men therein called unto spiritual duties and eternal life And lastly of their different administrations the one grounded on the dictats of reason and using external Magisterial authority and power and sensible rewards and pains the other proceeding on divine revelation and carried on by no such externals save a simple Ministerie and the power internal and spiritual and then I doubt not but you will of your self rectify such aberrations 2. The parallel of Gods Government over the World with the Kingdom of Christ over his Church is so far from concluding that Arbitrary or Architectonick power which you endeavour to set up in Ecclesiasticks equall to that in Civils that the contraire may from thence be sufficiently evinced thus therefore God hath not determined the order of Civil matters either in the World or in his Church because an Architectonick and free disposing Government limited with general rules necessare to its ends was most suitable to that almost absolute right and power which he hath given unto man in and over the things about which it is conversant but so it is that the things of the Church about which our Lord Jesus his Kingdom is exercised being wholly Spiritual are neither committed to our power nor left unto our arbitriment And plainly such whereof the Lord in all times hath reserved to himself the sole determination and therefore it was clearly necessare that all the Ordinances Ministerie and Government thereto pertaining should be also by him alone ordered and appointed which disparity doth not only reject but unanswerably retort your Argument from this pretense 3. Your great error and greater presumption in this question is that apprehending our Argument for the Determined Ordinances and Government of Gods house to be taken from the simple position of his Kingdom and the consequences that by allusion to the Kingdoms of the Earth may be thence deduced you remember not that the Scripture not only holds out his Kingdom and the nature thereof very distinctly but also doth particularly exhibite all the Ordinances necessare unto its ends and appointed to be therein observed So that our reasoning being wholly Scriptural both in its ground and superstructure your redargution from imaginary reason opposed to the clear and positive Counsel of God is plainly irrational if in the dayes of old Israel had changed the Law and Ordinances given and therein disowned Gods particular Kingdom and Government over them and notwithstanding thereof pretended to the liberty of the Nations about seing this their liberty was no wayes determined by but very consistent with the Lord 's high Soveraignity under which all do bow had this poor reasoning justifyed their rebellion certainly not how much less then can it conclude the exemption of the Church from Christs Kingdom in these Ordinances therein by him established of which the Lords peculiar Kingdom over Israel was but a slight adumbration But you say Seing justice is a part of Gods Law as well as devotion why doth not the Lord determine how his Church should be governed in Civils It 's answered Justice is indeed a part of Gods Law and he hath therein determined as particularly as the right which God hath given to man in Civils doth permit or the ends thereof do require but as this your Arithmetical equalizing of Mans liberty in matters of devotion to that power he hath in things Civil doth sadly discover the woful vanity of an unserious Spirit So the Geometrical analogie of Gods determining anent our Devotion wholly dependent upon his prescript unto his general appointment in matters of outward justice accommodate to that power and liberty he hath therein left us in place of inferring an equal power to Man in both doth on the contraire evidently demonstrate that the Lords determination in matters of Religion is as much more particular then his Commandments are in the things of justice as our Liberty in the former is more restricted then our Liberty in the latter if you had but considered th● th● 〈◊〉 hath given the Earth unto the Children of Men and that the things thereof being put under his feet an agreeable power of Government thereanent is certainly given unto his hand whereas our Lords Church and People are his peculiar people his chosen Nation redeemed and bought with his precious bloud and not their own let be to have the things concerning their Souls redemption in their power how happily had you been delivered from this strange confounding of things Sacred and prophane And how clearly might you have perceived that Gods Dominion over the World consisting in General Laws suited to its object and swayed by his Soveraign Providence in order to his holy ends doth bear but little likenesse to our Lord Jesus his Rule and Government in his Church as a Son over his own house and also its Ordinances But to inforce your point you adde that you hope we will grant that the Civil Peace is more necessary to the very being of the Church then is Order in Discipline Whence you insinuate that the former as well as the latter requires Chri●●s particular determination Not to Scandalize you by frustrating your hope Sir you know so well that a thing though more necessary Yet if such only by a mediate and consequential necessity may therefore fall under a quite diverse disposition from that which though less necessary by this mediate and extrinsick necessity to the being of the Church then the Sacrament of the Lords Supper do the former therefore aswell and in the same manner with the latter belong to Christs Kingdom As to what you adde That it was for this reason that the things of Civil peace were determined in the Old Law This did so certainly flow from Gods peculiar interest in that People as a Kingdom as well as a Church that I make no answere That which you subjoin for evincing that either the Lords Kingdom over the Earth doth extend to the appointing of Civil Officers or els his Kingdom over his Church imports no such thing is so manifestly repugnant to the very nature of the things and the Lords declared pleasure the best decision Nay this whole discourse doth so foolishly and laxely cast and weigh things Religious and Profane in the same ballance of vain conjecture that I almost repent my noticeing of it so much but see the flatterie of delusion having made your N. C. childishly to decline all Reason as Carnal and in the fright forsooth of your strong reasons retreat to his Ministers and the Bible you ridiculously triumph over him and think your self so much Master of the field of Reason that insinuating your own praise in the description of Sound reason you puff at other mens as pitiful niblings thus being first in your own cause● you would seem just how I have Searched you let others judge for Scripture you tell us That to qu●te it is not to build sure upon it the