Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	day_n	good_a	lord_n	2,726	5	3.8026	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

Vision is not certain the Story giving it both ways yet who so absurd to turn the Visions of St. Stephen and St. Paul into Rituals or to assix them to Christ's Ordinances When Men do assume this Liberty without Divine Warrant many Evils do follow upon such doings How much innocent Blood has been shed about this sign of the Cross is not easily to be estimated and indeed for the sake of this and other such Inventions Christians have hated one another with cruel Hatred as late Years have shewed Men more account of those Tradions than of the Word of God by far We have seen it with our Eyes A Man might be a common Drunkard and yet permitted to preach in the Pulpit But if he would not use the sign of the Cross and the Surplice away with him This kind of Zeal shews that it 's from beneath it is not of God. And so long as these things remain and are forced on by Authority there will be continual Strife Contention and Devouring amongst Christians as it was so from the Beginning of them so it will be to the end of them because an evil Plant will bring forth according to its Nature We have more sacred Institutions then we can well observe Why do we seek to burthen our selves or others in matters of Religion with the Commandments and Doctrines of Men all which are to perish and God in Mercy hasten the time that God's People may have but one Heart and one Way Amen POSTSCRIPT SECT I. Of the Manner of Marriages among the Baptized Believers and that they are warrantable by God's Law. SOme of the Baptized Believers having been prosecuted as Offenders for not conforming to the Ceremonies of the Ring and kneeling to the Altar in the Celebration of Marriage we shall therefore humbly offer our Reasons why we dissent from these Ceremonies and why also our Marriages are good in the Eye of the Law for the Substance of them the omission of these Ceremonies c. notwithstanding But first the Reader is desired to take notice that we are not against but for the publick Solemnization of Marriage according to the Law of the Land save that there are some Ceremonies used therein which we cannot comply with And because some of the Priests will not marry us at all and others will not do it unless we conform to all the Ceremonies required in the Service-Book this puts us upon a necessity to have it done without them and the manner thus The Parties to be married being qualified for that State of Life according to the Law of God and the Law of the Land as to the Degrees c. therein limited They call together a competent number of their Relations and Friends And having usually some of our Ministry present with them the Parties concern'd do declare their Contract formerly made between Themselves and with the Advice of their Friends if Occasion require it And then taking each other by the Hand do declare That they from that day forward during their natural Lives together do enter into the State of Marriage using the Words or the substance of them which are appointed for the Words of Marriage in the Service-Book as acknowledging them Words to be very fit for that purpose And then a Writing is signed by the Parties married to keep in memory the Contract and Covenant of their Marriage to this effect These are to testify to all Men that we A. B. of c. and C. D. of c. have the day of the Date hereof entred into the Covenant and State of Marriage according to a solemn Contract heretofore made between our selves and with the Cons●nt of such as are concern'd in order thereunto And we do now in the Presence of Almighty God and the Witnesses hereafter named ratify the said Contract and Covenant Act of Marriage this day verbally made in both which we do in the Fear of God mutually and solemnly and for our Pares respectively promise in the Strength of God to live together in the State of Marriage according to God's Ordinance from this day forward to love each other as Husband and Wife and faithfully to perform all the Duties to which we are bound by God's Law and the good Laws of the Land in that Case provided till the Lord by Death shall separate us In Testimony whereof we have hereunto set our Hands the day of c. Then is annexed a Certificate of the Witnesses thus WE whose Names are subscribed do testify That the above-said A. B. and C. D. the Day and Year above-said did mutually take each other into the State of Marriage acknowledging the Contract and Covenant and ratifying the same by Word and by the Subscription thereof as above-said In Witness whereof we do hereunto set our Hands the Day and Year above-said After these things some suitable Counsel or Instruction is given to the Parties but no Man takes upon him the Office to marry any that being the proper Act of the Parties themselves and then Prayer is made to God for his Blessing upon the Parties married c. And now whether Marriages thus made are justifiable by the Law of God is first to be considered To begin with the Institution of Marriage Gen. 2. 23 24. there we find all that is essential to Marriage For he that had the right to dispose of the Woman was pleased to bring her and give her to Adam And Moses tells us That they who are thus joined together are one Flesh and are to forsake all other Relations in comparison of that Relation The Marriage-Covenant is explained by God himself Mal. 2. 14. She is thy Companion and Wife of thy Covenant of which he himself says the Prophet had been a Witness For whoever else are Witnesses in this Case God is the Principal and will punish such as break their Marriage-Covenant And thus it appears that a Marriage-Covenant between Persons who may lawfully marry with Witness upon it are the Essentials of this Ordinance which is yet more evident in the Case of Boaz and Ruth Ruth 4. 9 10 11. And then we may be sure that God appointed no Ceremony in the Institution of Marriage nor do we find any Ceremony made necessary to the Celebration of Marriage in the Old and New Testament for that passage of loosing the Shoe Deut. 25. 7 9. and Ruth 4. 7. pertains not to Marriage but concerns him that refuses to raise up Seed in Israel to his deceased Brother And as there is no Ceremony ordained so there is no one certain Form for the Celebration of Marriage appointed by the Word of God but this seems rather to be left to Liberty as appears in the Case of Isaac Gen. 24. 67. and the Marriage of Jacob Gen. 29. 21 22 23. and many others The chief Things to be observed in Marriage since the Earth was replenished with Inhabitants are these That regard be had to Religion that a Believer marry not with an Infidel

Men have seen cause in this and former Ages to reject this Tradition though it has cost them the loss of all that this World could afford them And the Authorities here brought by the Doctor are not so ancient some of them as is pretended even by his own Confession and they have been scan'd and answered by the learned Pens of Den Tombes Blackwood Fisher Danvers Delaun Duveil and others Lastly The Doctor says The Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from Scripture without Tradition and Practice of the Church As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations or to preach to every Creature and to baptize all that believe to the end of the World were not a sufficient Rule to us to teach our Children and to baptize them Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. We see evidently that Jesus Christ has given but one Rule to us and to our Posterity and therefore it was unadvisedly spoken to say that we cannot produce one Precept for teaching and baptizing our Children when they are grown up being bred and born of Christians as I suppose that is his meaning by being bred and born in the Church Had the Doctor considered that Exhortation of the Apostle to all Christians Ephes 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady 2 Ep. John Who are found walking in the Truth as the Apostle and the Lady her self had received Commandment from the Father it might have passed for a better Precedent in this case than Mans Tradition without Scripture can possibly be for Infant-Baptism I conclude then that seeing Christ's Command is as clear for teaching and baptizing our Children as any other Mens Posterity and that it is the express Duty of Christian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord that is as Chrysostom expounds the place to make them Christians and this Advice he gave in opposition to the training up Children in prophane Literature And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady whose Children whilst under her Care and Tuition obeyed the Truth and walked therein according to God's Commandment and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers but as the Apostle had received Commandment from the Father and so he exhorts them to continue and to beware of other Doctrine and to have no Fellowship with such as should bring any other Doctrine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apostles This may suffice to answer the Objection CHAP. VI. Answereth the Doctor 's fourth Question Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism I Marvel why the Doctor puts not the term Infant into his Question he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptism as soon as we can But how does he prove that Christian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptism Why this he doth by repeating what he had said under the 3d Question 1. About the Lawfulness or Allowableness 2. About the requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been answered to these things in the former Chapter And now when the Parents may very rationally expect some Command from God to bring their Infants to Baptism The Doctor tells us There is no Necessity of having a Command or Example to justify it but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden But he refers them to the Orders of the Church and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over You But never shews at all who gave such Orders to the Church that Parents and Proparents should bring their Infants to Baptism And therefore all that is here said is meer Talk without any good Warrant He quotes Acts 16. 4. which shews that the Decrees which were ordained at Jerusalem ought to be kept And we allow it but here 's not a Word for to bring Infants to Baptism in these Decrees but here is a Decree against the eating of Blood which is little regarded by the Doctor or however his Church does not regard it Yet this Text of the Decrees he would make serve for Infant-Baptism and indeed had the Apostles had Power to make such a Decree this was as fit a time and occasion for it as could be the Question being about Infant-Circumcision and the Apostles disannulling their Circumcision would certainly have given some Notice that they had or ought to have Baptism instead of it but seeing they do not in the least mention it we may be sure there was no Infant-Baptism in being at that time The Doctor will now shew us the Benefits of Infant-Baptism and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptism and the first is their Consecration to God. As if no Infants were consecrated to God but those who are baptized Methinks our Saviour should know how to consecrate Infants to God as well as the Doctor but he did it only by Prayer or Blessing not by baptizing them There is no doubt but such as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer do act warrantably but he that will do it by baptizing them acts without a Guide and deprives Children of the Baptism of Repentance when they come to Years and have need of it His second Benefit is to make Infants Members of the mystical Body of Christ As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they please Members of that Body and that when they are fast asleep too Is not this the plain Consequence of this Opinion that all Infants unbaptized being not of Christ's mystical Body must perish I know the Doctor does not hold this but it 's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error that they can make Infants Members of Christ's mystical Body by sprinkling or crossing them with Water and they think they can be made so by no other way Now I demand of any Man whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Christs mystical Body not doubting but it will be granted I desire it may be considered whether these unbapcized Infants whom Christ blessed were of his mystical Body I suppose this will be granted too and then consider also whether all Infants of whom Christ said to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven are not of his mystical Body as it contains all saved ones I believe none will deny this The last Consideration is Whether Christ does speak of Infants indefinitely and as such comprehends them all and if not how is it possible for any Man to know one sort of these infants from another all dying Infants then are of the mystical Body as it contains all that shall be saved The Doctor 's third Benefit That the baptized Infant by that Solemnity may