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	jesus_n	sin_n	17,300	5	4.7228	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

Visible Church Do we not maintain the Church-Membership of Infants as far as Scripture will bear it First By the Covenant of Grace made with all Mankind and now confirmed by Christ by whom they are blessed and pronounced to be of the Kingdom of God 2. According to the Law or Covenant of Circumcision during the term of the Law till Faith came or till the time of Reformation J. B. 3. Doth not the Doctrine which puts Infants out of the Visible Church of Christ leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil c. T. G. Is not this a Diabolical surmise Are any Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil Are your Infants of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till you Sprinkle them Did not Christ declare them to be of the Kingdom of God when yet not one Infant that we read of was Baptized And what if your Crossing or Sprinkling prove no true Baptism will it not follow from this your injurious Doctrine that all your Infants are of the Kingdom of the Devil Are any of the visible Kingdom of the Devil till they submit to his Delusions and can you charge Infants with this Be ashamed O ye Presbyterians of this J. B. 4. And will you leave us no sound grounded hope of the Justification or Salvation of any dying Infants in the World c. T. G. Is not this Query a meer foolish out-cry How plainly do you here damn all Infants that are not Sprinkled Is not this the only cause of all this Clamour What Doctrine can be more mischievous than this J. B. 5. What a full plain Text is that 1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the Children of Believers holy in state then ought they not to be admitted visible Church-Members T. G. How fully and plainly does Heb. 13. 2. explain this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. Is not Marriage honourable among all Men and the Marriage-bed undefiled And is not that which is undefiled holy in state And is not the unbeliever sanctified in this state 1 Cor. 7. 14 Ye who but Men willing to be deceived will say they ought therefore to be Baptized And are not the Children therefore said to be holy because the Unbeliever is sanctified to or by the Believer And how then can that Holiness be any other than Matrimonial And does not Erasmus in his Paraphrase give this very exposition on this Text And does not Austin tell you That whatsoever this Holiness is 1 Cor. 7. 14. yet it is not of power to make Christians or remit Sins And why do you grudg that all Infants procreated according to God's Ordinance should be holy See Malachi 2. 15. Doth not Diodate on the Text say plainly That God's chief end in this proceeding to wit in ordaining Marriage was that the Posterity might be Sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunctions J. B. 6. When it is said Mark 10. 14. Of such is the Kingdom of God Whether this be not more than they may be visible Church-Members c. T. G. Whether we do not readily consent to all that is said Mark 10. 14. concerning Infants do we not grant they are visibly stated in a gracious Right to the Kingdom of God And if this be more than to say Let them come to Baptism Is it not more also than to say Let them come to the Lord's Table And is it not very considerable that though three Evangelists mention these Infants yet none of them so much as hints that they were Baptized And whethese words suffer them to come to me will not be a better plea for us in the Day of Judgment in devoting our Infants to God by Prayer in the Name of Christ than for you in going so much beyond the Text as to Cross or Sprinkle them without the least ground from this or any place of Scripture And whether this your presumption be not the real cause of our differences in Religion DIVISION V. About the Texts objected against the Pedo-baptists J. B. 1. If these Texts Rom. 9. 8. Ephes 2. 3. be objected To the first Text What is it the Apostle mainly drives at but that Men are not therefore saved because they are Abraham's carnal Seed And to Ephes 2. 3. What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by Grace c. T. G. Seeing you here grant that Men but you must mean Infants also are not saved because they are Abraham's Natural Seed and that you dispute not the certainty of their Salvation but only their Church-Membership Have you not meerly trifled all this while Seeing now here is no sound ground it seems from their Church-Membership to prove them saved And seeing none as they are Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh are either saved or Members of the Church so as to partake of Ordinances is it not strange that you should prefer your Carnal Seed before his But how are Infants Children of Wrath in the sence of Ephes 2. 3. otherwise than with respect to that Condemnation which came by Adam And is not that made void by Christ Rom. 5 We readily therefore consent that Infants are otherwise by Grace J. B. 2. If you object that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism To this though Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism yet are they not capable of the principal ends May it not be a Listing Sign c. T. G. Here you grant that Infants are not capable of every benefit of Baptism nor can you prove them capable of all the benefits which you assign For how are Infants capable of receiving Baptism as a Listing Sign Ought there not to be a free consent on the part of him that is Listed Or do you not rather press poor Infants against their will as appears by their resisting you what they can then truly List them Or how do they engage to be God's People or take Christ to be their Lord as you feign are not these meer Flourishes and confuted by all Experience And do not you consute your self when you tell us here that they understand none of these things And what benefit of Baptism are Infants capable of more than they are capable of the benefits of the Lord's Table If Remission of Sin be held forth in the one is it not held forth in the other And will you narrow up Remission of Sin to your way of Baptism And must we still be ordered by Bonds and Leases to transact Gospel Mysteries Do you think to prevail by these Fancies J. B. 3. And may it not be Operative by its signification as soon as the Child comes to the use of Reason And in the mean time as his Interest is upon the condition of the Parents Faith so may not the Parent have the actual comfort of it as of a Lease that assureth an Estate to his Child c. T. G. It seems then