Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	death_n	eternal_a	life_n	10,289	5	4.7511	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B23662	The controversie about infants church-membership and baptism, epitomized in two treatises the first, shewing the certainty of the salvation of all dying infants, against the doctrine of the Pædo-baptists, who deny salvation to all infants that die unbaptized, either directly, or by the natural consequence of their arguments : the second, being a plain confutation of Mr. J.B. his second book of more than 60 queries, about infants church-membership and baptism, by a proportionable number of antiqueries : being an essay towards a more Christian accomodation between the Pædo-baptists, and the baptized believers, published for that happy end / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.; Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692. Querist examined.	1680 (1680)	Wing G1529	50,899	65

* The Law entered that Sin might abound but where Sin abounded Grace did much more abound That as Sin hath reigned unto Death even so might Grace reign through Righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord. You can no more exclude any from the Justification of Life as having abounded towards them by Christ than you can exclude them from the Condemnation which abounded towards all Men by the First Adam For tell me How many came under Condemnation by the Sin of Adam Is there any or any Infant that can plead Impunity Why even so saith the Apostle the Free-gift came upon all Men to Justification of Life And may we not now safely conclude that had Mankind never been guilty of any other Sin but that I say upon a supposition that Adam and his Posterity had from the time of the Promise Gen. 3. 15. lived holily and done no Iniquity would you not conclude with me that none should have perished in Hellish Torments And if you grant this then we must either find some Man SO concern'd in the Covenant of Grace AS that if he sinned against it his Posterity is condemned with him Eternally as all Adam's Posterity were exposed to Condemnation for his Sin Or else we must hold that no Infant shall die eternally for Adam's nor for any other Persons iniquity If you name any Man thus concern'd in the Covenant of Grace you can name none so apt for the purpose as Adam seeing we were all in him when that Covenant was made with him and there is no doubt but that he sinned after the Covenant was made Gen. 3. 15. Yet where do we find any Sin which he afterward committed imputed to any part of his Posterity And seeing we cannot prove an Universal Resurrection from 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. unless Mankind be equally concern'd in the Death of Christ We must necessarily believe whole Mankind to be interessed in him and as they are interessed in Christ they are saved of the Lord and in him they are as clearly interessed in God's Mercy as they were Objects of his Wrath by the first Man So being justified from the guilt of Adam's Transgression who shall lay any thing to the charge of poor Infants that may justly cast them into Hell Fire sure 't is but meet Men should be able plainly to Convict them before they thus Condemn them Yea you that hold the Eternal Damnation of Infants ought you not to bring substantial Proof for so dreadful a Doctrine And when you have done your worst that way you have only destroyed your own certainty of Comfort concerning your dying Infants for I am persuaded you are not so unwise to think whatever you make others believe that your Infants are therefore saved because of your pretended Church-Membership and Baptism seeing 't is too evident that many attain to that Estate and yet are unlikely to be saved SECT V. J. B. pag. 13. To assert the Salvation of all that die in Infancy seems to imply that God's destroying the Old World and Sodom c. were eminent Acts of God's Mercy rather than of Justice c. help me over this Difficulty Answ Although it is not unjust for God to take Infants out of the World yet his Justice in destroying the Old World and Sodom lay not against the Infants as I proved in the Section next before but in Justice he punished those wicked Parents in putting a period to their Posterity Did not God in the days of Noah destroy all Beasts and Fowls almost yet who so weak to think he was offended with them was the Lord angry with the Beasts of the Field God was just in taking away David's Child 2 Sam 12. 14 yet who so rash to say That God did this in point of Justice against the Child Or that God was angry with the Child much less that the Child was damned David was far from any such opinion for though that Child was conceived and born in Sin and Iniquity as much as well could be and doubtless had the imputation of Original Sin as much as any yet David nothing feared that Child's damnation but rather intimates his confidence of its Salvation when he said I shall go to it For had it gone to Hell Torments he would not have comforted himself with thoughts of going to it I cannot make your speech to agree with the Justice of God where you say That Infants perish not purely for another's Sin but for their own contracted For though I can hear Men talk big words against Infants as if they were little better than Devils yet I never saw any proof that any Infant had any Sin of its own for which you would here make them perish or at least some of them The Scripture saith Sin is the transgression of a Law and tells us also that where no Law is there is NO TRANSGRESSION You must therefore either shew some Law to be given to Infants or else you cannot make them guilty of any Sin of their own And though I have not seen Mr. Baxter's Book to which you refer me yet I do not deny Original Sin for I know it is come upon all Adam's Posterity and Death passeth upon them for that all have sinned in him Howbeit I do believe that all Infants are as clearly justified from the condemning power of Sin in respect of Damnation as any Saint whatsoever which I think I have also proved from John 1. 29. and other places And seeing you now grant that none shall perish purely for another's Sin it remains for you to shew what Sin excepting Adam's is come upon any Infant to render him subject to Damnation You talk of their Contracting Sin of their own but I am to learn how this can be truly said of them that neither Act nor consent to Sin at all and surely such Scriptureless Notions are fitter to be exploded than embraced And though you seem to have some Charity for those and their Seed that only come up to the Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noah though they never heard the Gospel whilst you say you do not rank them with Infidels Yet this is but a slender kindness you do not say they shall be saved And you are positive in this That Infants are not saved by the Covenant of Grace if they neither be Believers nor the Seed of such Page 17. How this Doctrine will stand with the justice of a Gracious God I cannot conceive when I consider that God hath neither given to Infants a capacity to believe nor any liberty to chuse whether they will be the Seed of Believers or Unbelievers Will you yet say the most High will be more harsh in the Acts of Justice than the Rules will bear which he hath given to Men Deut. 22. 25 26 It is not the part of a wise Legislator saith a learned Man of the Church of England to recede from his own Laws much less to destroy them by acting contrary

you do And are you not then deluded to spend so much time in defending your own Tradition And with what credit can you blame others whom you constrain for spending time to break the Snares which you have laid in the way of Sinners to cause them to continue in Error J. B. 11. Though the point of Infant-Baptism be comparatively of less mement yet whether the grounds on which it stands and which are usually denied with it be not of great moment T. G. Whether this be not like a Contradiction For seeing every Ordinance receives from the grounds on which it stands it s very being and value How can the Ordinance be of small moment when the grounds on which it stands are of great moment And how can Infant-Baptism stand upon grounds of great moment when it is not grounded upon Scripture nor determined by Scripture as is confessed by many Pedo-baptists both Papists and Prelatists DIVISION II. Concerning the Commission Matth. 28. 19. Having done with your Preparatory Queries I come now to try your Main Question and the Queries which attend upon it Your Query is thus stated by you J. B. Whether some Infants ought not to be Baptized T. G. Do we not alwayes tell you of Infants in general that they ought not to be Baptized So that you had better ask thus Whether some Infants ought to be Baptized For should you be put to shew That some Infants ought to be Baptized and that other some ought not as Mr. Crage was pleased to Fable it out at Abergavenny it would prove too hard a Task and never be done by plain Scripture proof But I suppose I understand your Question I shall therefore follow you J. B. 1. Ought not all Christ's Disciples ordinarily to be Baptized Matth. 28 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 May not the word Disciple be taken in a larger sence Relatively for one that belongs to Christ as well as in a narrower sence for those who are actually Learners T. G. Here you seem to grant That some of Christ's Disciples ought not to be Baptized i. e. their case being more than ordinary and then I would know why Infants may not be excused sith it must be an extraordinary thing if any Infant be Christ's Disciple For if Infants be Disciples they are either made so by God or Man that God does make some or all or any Infants at all Christ's Disciples no Man can demonstrate And I demand whether ever Mr. Baxter or your self did make an Infant Christ's Disciple according to the import of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if your Consciences shall tell you that you never did or could make an Infant Christ's Disciple how can you suffer your selves to be deluded with this fancy of a Relative Discipleship i. e. for one that belongs to Christ For why may not all Infants belong to Christ as well as those which you sprinkle And then why do you not call all Infants Disciples Is not Christ the Master and King of all Infants whether Men will vouchsafe to devote them to him or no How dreadfully do you lessen his Authority or Soveraignty J. B. Doth not the Holy Ghost call them Disciples Acts 15. 10. Is it not evident that those on whose Necks the false Teachers would have put the Yoke were Disciples If you say not all but some of them then will it not follow that it is but some only whose Circumcision the Synod doth conclude against T. G. Does not the Holy Ghost sufficiently expound Acts 15. 10. not to intend Infants Whilst in Verse 19. he notes them to be such as from among the Gentiles were turned to God and are not all that are called Disciples Ver. 10. called Brethren Ver. 23. and as such are written unto by the Assembly And was not their Epistle read to all the multitude of the Disciples Ver. 30. and did not all the Disciples rejoyce for the Consolation Ver. 31. And is it not ridiculous to say the Holy Ghost intends Infants Ver. 10. and yet excludes them in the Appellation Disciples in all the other places And is it not grosly fallacious to say That because the false Apostles would have put the yoke of Circumcision upon the Necks of the Disciples that therefore all were Disciples whom they would have Circumcis'd Is there any more truth in it than in this Austin would have Infants brought to the Lord's Table therefore all were Infants whom Austin would have brought to the Lord's Table Or is it not clear from Ver. 1. that the Discourse Acts 15. does only concern the Brethren Except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved this they are said to teach the Brethren and thereby to subvert their Souls And can you think the false Apostles could subvert the Souls of Infants And is it not a sad thing that you should thus grope for the Wall at Noon and deceive your selves and others with meer Fallacies and Ridiculosities And why was not the Decree Acts 15. a sufficient repeal of Circumcision in respect of Infants seeing the Disciples themselves were discharged or freed from that Yoke and then whether your Absurdity concern any Body so much as your self J. B. 2. If no Infants are Disciples what is the cause Is it because they are not capable Or is it because God will not shew such a Mercy Can you find a third cause If Infants are capable of being Servants of God how can they be thought incapable of being Disciples Lev. 25. 41 42 c. T. G. Is not Instruction the cause of Discipleship as truly as Teaching is the cause of Learning And what instruction or teaching hath God appointed for Infants and if none as I am sure you can assign none then what cause have they to learn And if no cause to learn then what cause can they have to be Disciples And therefore what cause have you a Learned Man to query so unlearnedly And should I follow you in your Fancies I might also demand what is the cause that Infants are not Repentant seeing they are Sinners is it because God will not shew them such a Mercy To-grant them repentance unto Life what is the cause they have not Faith Is it because God will not shew them such a Mercy as to purifie their Hearts by Faith What is the cause they are not brought to the Lord's Table Is it because God will not shew them such a Mercy as to partake of the Body and Blood of their Redeemer Especially seeing it is said Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God and drink his Blood you have no Life in you What Will God deny Life through Christ to Infants Now if Infants want no Mercy from God though they be denied all these Mercies what reason is there for you to cry so loud against God because they are not Disciples And what though Infants should be called God's Servants does it follow they must needs be Christ's Disciples according to Matth. 28. 19 Why then the