Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	righteousness_n	sin_n	20,387	5	5.1345	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74998	Some baptismal abuses briefly discovered. Or A cordial endeavour to reduce the administration and use of baptism, to its primitive purity; in two parts. The first part, tending to disprove the lawfulness of infant baptism. The second part, tending to prove it necessary for persons to be baptized after they believe, their infant baptism, or any pre-profession of the Gospel notwithstanding. As also, discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mixt communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized, in church-fellowship. By William Allen.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1075; Thomason E702_12; ESTC R10531	105,249	135

respects it was like unto the Feast that was in Iuda to wit of Gods own appointing yet because he took liberty to vary the time of its celebration from the fourteenth day of the first month the time of Gods own chusing unto the fifteenth day of the eighth Month which is therefore called the month which he had devised of his own heart therefore was this Feast worthily esteemed none of Gods Feast but Ieroboams Feast 1 King 12.32 33. And is there not the same proportion of reason to adjudg Infant-Baptism to have none other Authour but man and to be a thing devised of mans own heart Though it should be granted that in respect of the outward Element and actions thereto belonging it were like unto the Baptism which is from God yet in as much as man take liberty to vary the season of its administration from the time of mens regeneration or new birth the time of Gods own appointment unto the time of their natural Birth which is none of Gods it therefore worthily deserves to be called the device of mans own heart And if it be none of Gods Baptism then certainly its no-wise safe to adhere thereto in as much as Christ hath declared That every plant which his Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up and that every such worship is vain which is ordered and taught by the precepts of men Matth. 15.9 13. Isai 29.13 3. Because if Infant-Baptism be sinful sinful in parents to desire it for their children and sinful in those that administer it to them as it hath been proved to be then may none when they come to maturity rest satisfied in that Baptism or in the least own it without danger of partaking with them in their sin because that which de facto is sinfully done by another becomes my sin when I come to own and approve it 1 Tim. 5.22 Luke 11.48.49 50.51 which yet is the case of those which satisfie themselves with that Baptism they have received in their infancy 4. It s not safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism which they received when they were Infants because that Baptism which is so called is a meer Nuility in respect of that thing for which it is taken i. e. it is not worthy to be esteemed any such thing as is Baptism indeed or to pass under that denomination And the reason hereof is because there is that wanting in it which is essential to true Baptism For 1. There is the right subject of Baptism wanting in that Baptism which is applyed to Infants that Infants are not the subject of Baptism is that the proof and demonstration whereof hath taken up the former part of this Treatise and therefore shall take it for granted here 2. As the right Subject matter so the true external form of baptismal administration is wanting in Infant-Baptism as it is practised among us For the external form of Baptism is not a sprinkling of the party baptized with water which yet is that which is used in the Baptism of infants but a dipping or plunging him under water 1. This appears at least in the judgment of very many who so render that which we have translated baptizing or to baptize in so much as Master Daniel Rogers in his Treatise on the two Sacraments saith that dipping is that which Antiquity constantly and without exception of Countries hot or cold witnesseth unto And as it is to the same import frequently translated in the Dutch Bible so it is acknowledged indeed asserted to be the manner of baptizing in the primitive time to dip or bury the body under water by Calvin himself on Acts 8.38 and by our late Annotators on Rom. 6.4 Matth. 3.6 Besides Master Mead on Tit. 3.5 in his Diatribe and Master Thomas Goodwin in his Treatise of Christ set forth in his death c. with very many others 2. It further appears by that which Baptism represents and that is the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and likewise the party baptized his death burial and resurrection with Christ For the water in which men are baptized or dipped is no more an Element for them to live in then the earth is Nay we know the Sea is frequently made the place of burial for the dead as well as the earth and therefore a being put under the water is upon the matter as lively a resemblance of ones death and burial as it would be if one were so long put under the earth and so consequently a mans coming or rising from under the water is upon the matter as clear and lively a resemblance of a resurrection from the dead as if he did come out of the grave and from under the earth upon like terms Now then those that are dipt in their baptism do if they answer the nature of that Ordinance thereby actually profess 1. That they do believe that Christ Jesus into whose Name they are baptized was as truly and really dead buried and raised again in order to the salvation of men as they are then figuratively dead buried and raised again in their Baptism 2. That they do thereby engage themselves to be conformable to the death and resurrection of Christ in their being thence forth dead to those sins in which they formerly lived and from which their lives were then denominated as likewise as concerning their living a new spiritual life unto God in righteousness and true holiness For as Christ when he was crucified then ceased to live any longer such a life in the flesh as thither-unto he had done and when he rose again begun that new and spiritual life which before he had not lived even so all those that answer their engagement and profession entred into by baptism do from the time of this figurative death and burial of theirs really cease to live their former sinful life and from the time of their figurative resurrection or new-birth begin to live a new life of obedience and subjection unto Christ their Lord These things lie fair in those Scriptures wherein such are said to be baptized into Christs death to be buried with him in Baptism wherein also they are said to be risen with him and to be planted together into the likeness of his death and the likeness of his resurrection that thenceforth they should not serve sin but walk in newness of life Rom. 6.3 4 5 6. Col. 2.13 These things then being so the sprinkling of the party baptized or the pouring of a handful of water upon his face is no more a figurative buriall of him or a true representation of Christs death and burial then the casting of a handful of dust upon the face of Christ when he was dead could have been a burying of him And therefore who sees not hereby that aspersion or sprinkling used in infant-baptism is far from the true external form of Gospel-baptism and that which was anciently used by the Apostles and other servants of Jesus Christ in

himself thereby as is most clear in the case of the Supper of the Lord he that in eating and drinking does not discern the Lords body eats and drinks Judgment to himself 1 Cor. 11.29 And because this qualification of discerning is not found in Children therefore they are not admitted to this Ordinance And how they should be uncapable of this Ordinance in this respect and yet capable of Baptism I understand not especially considering that they both represent the death of Christ Rom. 6.3 1 Cor. 11.26 both relate to the great benefit of remission of sins by him and tend to serve the important interest of men thereabout Mark 1.4 Matt. 26.28 Since they both then travel with the same blessing in the main how comes it to pass that the blessing of the one accrues not to the receiver but by his discerning the mind of God in it and yet the benefit of the other does without any such discerning if that were true which some imagine Certainly if plain Scriptures will satisfie hereabout they do inform us that it is by means of Faith and the answer of a good Conscience that Baptism becomes beneficial as to its ends as well as the Supper by a spiritual discerning as to its Colos 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 But I shall not insist again upon that which I have already dispatched In a word the whole Ministration is denominated by Faith Galat. 3.23 25. because Faith from first to last from one end of it to the other is to steer all affairs under it on mans part to act every service to accompany every Ordinance to receive every blessing to render all actions acceptable and to make all parts of it beneficial Where this qualification therefore is known to be wanting as it is in Infants certainly there Baptism cannot be applyed without an apparent breach of the Laws and Rules of this spiritual Ministration And thus also have I made good the premisses of this third Argument the Conclusion will follow of it self without help c. AROUM IIII. MY next Argument shall be this If none ought to be baptized but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptized in obedience to God then Infants ought not be baptized The reason hereof is because Infants Baptism cannot reasonably be supposed to proceed from any willingness in them to obey God therein they being no wise voluntary or active but altogether passive therein But none ought to be baptized Assumption but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptized in obedience to God The reason hereof is this because without this obediential willingness Baptism will be unprofitable and fruitless to them and where we know the good of Baptism is not to be attained there it is not to be administred for in case we should it would be a profanation of the Ordinance a taking of Gods Name in vain Though the sowing of seed be never so necessary yet it would be no mans wisdom but folly to sow in such a ground or at such a season which he knows will render his seed fruitless That there is no reason to expect otherwise but that Baptism should be unprofitable to all such who do not take it up voluntarily willingly and in obedience to God appears upon this account 1. Because now under the Gospel this is the standing Rule or Law between Duties and Rewards between the using of holy Ordinances and the benefit that comes by them viz. That Duties be done and Ordinances performed willingly and in obedience to God 1 Cor. 9.17 where the Apostle speaking of his preaching the Gospel saith If I do this thing willingly I have a reward This saying of the Apostle though it were uttered upon one particular occasion yet doubtless it reaches all persons and all duties If any man do any duty willingly as unto God he shall have his reward But as Affirmatives use to include their Negatives by way of implication so it is here If I do it not willingly I have no reward For so the particle IF imports the condition upon which the reward is to be received or not received and you will spoyl the sence of the place if you suppose that if the Apostle did the thing he there speaks of he should receive a reward whether he did it willingly or no. Again 2 Cor. 8.12 If there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that which a man hath and not according to that he hath not This also though it were spoken upon a particular occasion as many the great Doctrines of the Scriptures were yet it is a general proposition which reaches even all duties If there be first a willing mind that is an obedientious disposition God ward and this willingness of mind and obediential disposition is that both which puts a man upon doing his duty according to that ability he hath and which also renders the same acceptable and rewardable with God Here again this conditional particle IF If there be first a willing mind must needs imply that if this willing mind be wanting the man is not accepted his action not rewarded though he do the thing For so Paul speaking of the same duty of giving 1 Cor. 13.3 saith Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I give my body to be burned and have not Charity it profiteth me nothing Still teaching us that if there be an inward principle of a willing compliance with the Will of God wanting in any action which in it self is good and commanded of God yet for that very cause it becomes unprofitable to him that does it in which respect we affirm Baptism of Infants unprofitable to them 2. Promises made unto duty or upon condition of duty are rewards of that obedience which is yielded to God in discharge of duty when they are fulfilled thereupon Now it is no wise proper to say or rational to suppose that God rewards his creature man for that wherein he is only passive they being such actions which we call moral and which proceed from the motion of the Will governed by a divine Law that are rewardable by God And therefore unless Baptism be submitted unto willingly and in obedience to God which cannot be supposed in Infants the good things annexed thereto by way of promisory recompence of such obedience cannot upon any good ground be expected 3. I have proved before in another Argument That now under the Gospel-Ministration there is no benefit comes either by Baptism or any other Ordinance but by means of his Faith who partakes thereof Without Faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 i. e. in any service to approve ones self acceptable to him For whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14.23 It then the benefit we speak of comes not without Faith then neither does it accrue without that willingness of mind and obedientious disposition God-ward we speak of because it 's impossible this should be separate from Faith I mean a

The love of God in the former sence though it be the ground of all particular acts of Grace and so of that also which appertains to Baptism yet it is no sound way of reasoning to conclude persons to be in an immediate capacity of Baptism because they are in the love of God under this general consideration of it For upon the same ground one might as well argue Infants to be strong Christians or fit to be chosen Pastors Teachers or Deacons as to argue them capable of Baptism because persons are in these capacities by vertue of the love of God to them And yet who sees not how absurd it would be to reason thus If the love of God to persons be the original ground which renders them capable of being chosen into the office of Pastor Teacher or Deacon then Infants are capable of being chosen into these Offices because they are in the love of God But the love of God is c. If the love of God to persons be the original ground of rendering them capable of the denomination of strong Christians then Infants are capable of the denomination of strong Christians because they are in the love and favor of God But c. Again to put another case like unto these If life be the original ground or cause why persons are capable of speaking then Infants are capable of speaking because they have life But life is the orignal ground or cause why persons are capable of speaking Ergo. By the light then of these instances the invalidity indeed absurdity of concluding Infants to be capable of Baptism be cause they are in that love and favor of God may you see be sufficiently discerned If then we would come to argue steadily so as to conclude persons capability of Baptism from the love of God to them we must consider the love of God under that particular and precise notion of it by which persons are put into an immediate not remote capacity of Baptism For though it is true that that love of God which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that sin that devolved it self on them from Adam does put them into a remote capacity both of Baptism and all other consequential acts of grace which are vouchsafed men upon their believing and diligent and faithful improvement of all means and opportunities of grace c. yet it does not put them into an immediate capacity of these until they do believe and have improved those means and opportunities upon condition of which such additional and progressionary acts of grace are promised and suspended no more then a childs ability to read his Horn-book or Primmer puts him into a capacity of understanding his Grammar That the Dispensation of Gods grace and love is made to Infants in one respect and to persons in an immediate capacity of Baptism in another and that that act of grace which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that first sin c. does not put them into an immediate capacity of Baptism appears upon these grounds 1. Because that act of grace or dispensation of Gods love unto which Baptism does appropriately belong is that which is exerted and put forth in the pardon of mens actual transgressions and this too not without their repenting or believing whereas that act of grace of which Infants partake is such as is vouchsafed them in the pardon of original sin only and this too without their repenting and believing meerly upon the account of the death of Christ That that act or those acts of grace unto which Baptism appropriately does belong is the pardon of sin upon repentance and such other acts of grace as are concommitant and consequential thereunto appears plainly by this viz. in that Baptism is called according to the nature of it and the intent of God in its institution the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 That is that Baptism which is to be received upon mens repentance for the remission of sins or that Baptism in and by which men profess they expect remission of sins in the way of repentance or because the reception of which Baptism proceeds from a principle of repentance or else because God doth therein authentically assure men of the remission of their sins upon their repentance Take it which way you will it proves this That Baptism is conversant about and subservient unto that act of Gods grace and love which is vouchsafed men in the pardon of their sins upon their repentance and if so then is it irrelative to the grace of God in the pardon of Infants sin which is vouchsafed them without and before repentance takes place 2. The love of God is the immediate ground of Baptism so far only as it relates too or is effective of the good of men in Baptism for the reception of Baptism is not otherwise to be esteemed an effect of Gods love then as the good and benefit of men is concerned therein That which Christs speaks of the Sabbath how that it was made for man Mark 2.27 i. e. for the good of man is true of Baptism and every other Ordinance and Institution of God In as much then as Baptism is not otherwise beneficial unto any but by means of their Faith and answer of a good Conscience and in as much also as that Infants are not under this capacity of means both which I have formerly evidently proved therefore it follows undenyably that God does not love Infants upon any such terms as he does those unto whom he commends and communicates his love in and by Baptism and consequently that the love which God bears to Infants puts them into no immediate capacity of Baptism 3. The extent of Gods love to Infants so far as is pretended in the reason of the consequence of the major Proposition consists onely in the pardon of original sin and the putting them into a condition of Salvation by Christ all which love of God they are invested with before ever Baptism can be applyed to them because the love of God in this respect is not conditional nor does depend upon the action of any creature or application of any means but solely upon the attonement which Christ hath made on that behalf and therefore Baptism lies out of the verge compass or circumference of the love of God as enjoyed by Infants and contributes neither less nor more in that dispensation of Gods love to them in which respect also Baptism is irrelative to the love of God in that precise consideration of it in which it is communicated to Infants Whereas it is alledged by way of proof of the minor Proposition 1. That the reason why Faith is necessary in persons who have not been baptized in their Infancy to render them capable of Baptism is because it is that mean by which those that are to admit them to Baptism come to know that they are in the love of God and that if such a thing could