Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n law_n sin_n sin_v 8,157 5 9.6294 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A26959 More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. 1675 (1675) Wing B1312; ESTC R17239 210,005 430

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

out of Aegypt Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Aegypt did make him his Son that was none before or to prove that Israel was Gods Son before he called him out of Aegypt If you should maintain the former I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself to whom the Evangelist applieth this text and so you may prove as fairly that Christ was none of Gods Son till he was called out of Aegypt but was made his Son by that call Certainly the Text termeth him Gods Son that was called as being so before that call By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine and try whether it be a transeunt fact or a Law and Covenant that made Infants and all others Church-members and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it and go so far on such a ground yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable nonsense or absurdities then let them still follow you in the dark for I expect not that reason should recover them Reply To all this I find nothing said that needeth any further reply SECT XLIV XLV R. B. I Come now to the eighth Question that is to speak to the point which you propounded You urge me to cite to you the particular Texts that contain this Law Ordinance Precept or Covenant To which I answer thus 1. There are two sorts of Laws one which first make a duty the other which suppose it so made and do only call for obedience and excite thereto or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto If I could shew you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty or granting the priviledge of Church-membership it were not the least disparagement to my cause as long as I can shew you those following Laws which presuppose this You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of Where then was Gods will manifested about such things as this but in tradition and nature If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the Infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit then what need he make a new Law about it Or why should God promise it as a new thing I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause though yet I think there would enough remain 2. There are yet higher two sorts of laws the one for the constitution of the Common-wealth it self the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted The former are called by some Fundamental Laws as laying the frame and form of the Common-wealth and the quality of the materials c. I think indeed that as constitutive of the form of the Common-wealth these are scarce properly called Laws though as they look forward obliging to duty and prohibiting alteration they may But if they be not laws they are somewhat higher and lay the ground of all laws and obedience and so are laws eminenter virtualiter though not actually and formally And in our case as this constitution did subject us to God making it our duty ever after to obey him so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing it were no diminution of the authority of it seeing among men Fundamentals are seldom written and when they are it is only as Laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively Infants should be Church-members it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing Yet somewhat we shall attempt 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-membership by Laws and Covenants concerning it ever since the time that there was a written word of God and that is sufficient if we could fetch it no higher Having premised this I come nearer to the Question The first institution of Infants Church-membership de jure upon supposition of their existence was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the world when he became mans Governour and determined of his subjects and members of the Common-wealth Which Republick being sacred and devoted to Gods worship and service was truly a Church of which God was head This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man almost all Divines agree But because it is rather implied than expressed in Moses brief History some few cavillers do therefore contradict us But 1. The threatning of death for sin seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it which to you I need not recite But whether this promise of life were natural as the threatning of death was or only positive and more arbitrary Divines are not agreed among themselves Those that say it was free and positive give this reason That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature nor any creature merit of God Those that think it natural as the threatning was say it 's true that God could not be properly obliged because he is under no Law no more is he obliged to punish but only man obliged to suffer if he inflict it And it 's true that man cannot strictly merit of God But yet say they as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject and his works do oblige him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word So that their reasons are these following 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good as to do evil to the evil that is to reward as to punishment as his name proclaimed to Moses Exod. 34. shews 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity and principling him with inclinations thereto and giving him desires love and other affections for that blessed end even the everlasting fruition of God therefore they say God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity if he sinned not For else all these inclinations and affection should have been in vain But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly Also Gods works
act in baptism than one God by his Ministers expresseth his Covenant-Gift and Consent and delivereth it sealed to the Receiver by the instituted investing symbol The party receiving expresseth his consent and this the Parent hath power and trust to do for the child as you may take a Lease for your Child Cannot the Parent do this and so be a Cause of Reception without being a Minister SECT LXXIX to LXXXVI R. B. THe promise to the whole people of Israel Infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdom of Priests and a holy Nation Exod 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sense yet no more truth than when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. It is expresly a promise de futuro to a Nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithful who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmaon the blessing of Church-membership to Infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Church-membership It is undeniable therefore that such Church-membership is here granted by Promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it is to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant vers 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now In Deut. 17.1 2. The Infants with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God And Deut. 26.14 18. the Covenant is expressed Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. And that thou maist be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that Infants are included So Deut. 28.4 9. Where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandments they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as he had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and Promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant on Promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means And Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant only of the successive Israelites and then it is not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It is a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off vers 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Church-membership contained in Gods being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Deut. 30.19 There is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josi●h caused the people to enter 2 Kings 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Mr. T. For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the Parents believing are Deut. 29. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and Parents faith are not the sole efficient so that though the Covenant give a Right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some other transeunt fact Reply The rest let the Reader make his best of We are it seems by this time in a fair way of agreement and have almost done our work It seemeth by this time he could find in his heart to grant that the Covenant is an efficient cause though not the sole efficient well we will not stick on that Gods love and revelation and Christs merits shall be antecedent chief efficients And he seemeth now instead of saying still that It is only by the Physical transeunt fact to be content if we will say it is not till or without that fact that is that men are not members of the Church till they are men We will not be so sowre as to deny him that much And indeed is this all at the upshot But I will not grant him the logical notion too easily though we will not quarrel about it I think a cause materially may long exist before the effect though it be not formaliter causa till it effect And I think that Gods conditional Covenant or Promise is but causa virtualis aptitudinalis till it effect and yet may be the sole proximate efficient of our Right afterward I think the childs being born did not effect his Right to Church Relation nor doth our Faith now nor the Parents faith or consent but only as a condition make men capable Recipients And I think the effect may begin de novo without any change in the efficient upon a change in the Recipient And that the Sun unchanged is the proximate efficient of motion light and heat to the next existent wight that received not his influx before it did exist And the Covenant or