Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	adam_n	infant_n	sin_n	4,766	5	6.2598	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85311	The answer of Giles Firmin, to the vain and unprofitable question put to him, and charged upon him by Mr. Grantham, in his book, entituled, The infants advocate : viz. whether the greatest part of dying infants shall be damned? : Which advocate, while he shuts all infants out of the visible church, and denies them baptism, opens heaven to all dying infants, justifying those of his party, who admit them all as he doth, into Heaven without regeneration.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Grantham, Thomas, d. 1664. Infants advocate.	1689 (1689)	Wing F954A; ESTC S122452	14,558	22

conceived in sin 51 Psal 5. It may have some truth in respect of Adam's Sin by which Death passed upon all and Judgment came upon all 5 Rom. 12.18 But Original Sin is not without us Fifthly You tell me Infants have no Seminal Vnbelief p. 25. nor Impenitency in them Answ No wonder since they have no Seeds of any Sin then I hope they can easily believe and embrace Christ upon Gospel-terms when they come to Understanding They can easily Repent if they should chance to Sin. They are all born with Hearts of Flesh God need not take away the Heart of Stone from them But for all your Commendations of Infants we do not find them so ready to believe and repent when they grow up Sixthly Whereas we say That which will be a Thorn will soon prick So we find how quickly this thorny corrupt Nature in Infants begin to prick and shew itself in actual Sin so far as they are capable in Revenge Envy Pride Rebellion against Parents which lately I observ'd to my sorrow These Acts you excuse p. 26. and give to the example of ill Tutors But I pray whence is it they are so apt to learn Pelagius indeed would have Sin come in by imitation not propagation But Tully that Learned Heathen tells us Tusc l. 3. Simul ac Editi sumus in Lucom c. As soon as ever we are born we are presently exercised in all manner of Evil. Vt paene in lacte Nutricis Errorem suxisse videamur As if we sucked down Errour with the Nurses Milk. Compare this Heathen with Mr. Grantham the Christian B. Austin's Observation of Envy in a sucking Child you slight But that Godly Learned Father could judge of Envy as well as Mr. Grantham As for the Scriptures you produce to clear Infants from sin 1 Pet. p. 25. 2.1 2. Like new born Babes i. e. to lay aside all malice guile c. Answ You do mistake the Text it is As new Borns desire the sincere Milk c. it is the Milk and the Babe it is not as new born Babes lay aside Malice c. If Infants have no malice guile c. in semine how should they lay aside what they have not You will make Infants guilty by your Interpretation For the 1 Cor. 14.20 in wickedness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ye Children What do the Apostle mean he would have them as Children in your sence without the Seeds of Corruption Unbelief Impenitency and so cross himself in the 7 Rom. and 2 Ephes 3. and cross the Apostle John 1 Joh. 1.8 cross to David 51 Psal 5. and to our Lord 3 Joh. 6. nor is our Lord cross to himself in that 18 Mat. 3. I resolved for brevity else I would have spoken to these Texts more But what before I spake of the Thorn I may apply it to this Tho' the Thorn will prick and shew itself at first yet it is not so bad then and apt to hurt as it will do two years after when it runs into a Man's flesh So the sins of these little ones tho' cross to the holiness of the Law yet they have not that degree of evil and guilt with the same acts in adult Persons I said Mr. Grantham is very unsound or he must contradict himself How to reconcile his former sayings with what he writes page 13. I know not If this be your sence Children polluted by Original Sin so under Condemnation before they can come to Heaven must be cleansed from these pollutions I agree then you are on my side aginst your own Sect whom yet you justifie But the question is Whether they cannot be cleansed from Sin without they have Faith and Repentance You mistake Mr. Grantham the question was Whether God Regenerates any Infants which your Sect denied It was your Disciple that told me That Faith and Repentance are the two parts of Regeneration From his telling me thus I argued They that are Regenerated have Faith and Repentance they that have the whole have the parts this is his Doctrine But all Infants saved are Regenerated say I from Christ's words 3 Joh. 3.5 Therefore all Children saved have Faith and Repentance i. e. seminally To this you answer for him pag. 11. He that granted this extends it only to the Adult of whom these are required So that this is but a meer Caption unbecoming a grave Disputant It seems he wanted your Wit to express himself plainly But as for you who thus help him according to your Doctrine then there are two Regenerations one for Infants another for Men when their Beards are grown I pray do you define these two Regenerations and shew us how they differ then bring forth the plain Scriptures upon which you ground these and prove your two Definitions I never read but of one Regeneration in the Holy Canon for your two Regenerations I suppose you must fetch y our proof from 23 Revel 19. That Infants saved must be Regenerated the Text is clear 3 John 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an indefinitive word limited to no age Infant or Adult Infants are born once but whoever are generated and born after the ordinary course of Man if saved must be born twice or again Nicodemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fourth verse tells us how Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse is to be translated so must Infants else no Heaven Secondly That which is born of the flesh is flesh 3 Joh. 6. So are all Infants then they must be born of Water and the Spirit ver 5. else no Heaven for Infants Besides the other Scriptures I mentioned before I should define Regeneration thus It is a work of the (a) 3 Joh. 5. Spirit of God in fallen Man dead in sin (b) 2 Eph. 1. whereby infusing a principle of Spiritual Life (c) 2 Eph. 5. causing an habitual Conformity of all the Faculties of the Soul to the Image and Will of God (d) 4 Eph. 24. all the Faculties are inclined actu primo to live the Life of God (e) 4 Eph. 18. by the same Spirit acting (f) Phil. 13.1 Phil. 11.15 Joh. 5. this first Grace they do actu secundo bring forth the fruits of Spiritual Life and by the (g) 2 Tim. 1.14 Rom. 11. 1 Pet. 15. 1 Cor. 1.8 Indwelling and continued acting of that good Spirit they continue so to do till Man comes to Glory Mr. Grif. told me he did not say God could not Regenerate Infants but God doth not Regenerate But I say if God can do it then according to his revealed Will he must do it if Infants be saved And as for the first part of the Definition God can do and doth work it in all Infants in which to use the Metaphor are sown the Seeds of Faith and Repentance as well as of any other Graces For what difficulty there should be in sowing the Seeds of

I never spake it I never wrote it I never thought it It was never the Question Those which I treated of were Quest I. Whether God Regenerates any Infants 2. Whether God Circumcise the Hearts of any Infants Which your Disciple said true come both to one Both which were denied by two of your Sect and the latter denied by your self * Against Mr. Petto p. 51. I proved if Infants be Saved they must be Regenerated 3 Joh. 3. They must be Sanctified Heaven is an Inheritance only for Sanctified Persons 20 Act. 32. and 26 chap. 18. They must be made meet for it 1 Col. 12. I am sure they are not meet for it by Nature But whether God Regenerates all Infants or the greater or the lesser part of Infants I wrote not one word How should I know what God hath not revealed 29 Deut. 29. How could you then charge such a Doctrine upon me in your Title-page In the Conclusion of your Book you tell your Reader Mr. Firmin seems displeased at the multitude which shall be saved if my Opinion be true all dying Infants are saved c. I shall answer you very briefly That you might shew your self to be a Learned Man in the Arminian Controversie which I gave you no occasion to meddle with you tell me Presump p. 8. This strange Doctrine of damning the greatest part of the World and that before the World was makes God the Author of all sin c. To the first part I only answered by Christ's words 7 Matth. 14. As for Huberus and Caelius Secundus Curio they were of your side But mark your own words Mr. Grantham the damning of the greatest part of the World not the greatest part of Infants I hope the World and Infants are not the same then as yet you cannot fasten this Cruel Doctrine upon me As for the words of Christ 7 Matth. 14. Few find it you answer me quoting 2 Pet. 3.9 c. That the far greater part will despise the Riches of God's goodness c. But I say if they do so finally they are damned and this is strange Doctrine with you As for Infants say you they are in no danger by this Text they may be you should say they are not may be all saved and so the number of the saved be much greater by them For none of them walk in the broad way therefore they must needs go the way which lead to Life But I pray is the number of them that are saved so much greater by them that the words of Christ Few find it are not true Else you do not take of my Answer You Confute not me but our Lord the words are his not mine As for your proof David saith 58 Psal 3. The wicked are estranged from the Womb they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies The Apostle tells us 1 John 5.19 The whole World i. e. all that are not born of God lieth in wickedness Infants are a part of the World tho' not the whole World. The corrupt Nature in them do biass and incline them to walk in the Broad Way not in the Narrow Way Betimes we see their little Feet i.e. their Words and Actions stepping in the Broad Way So that our Lord's Words may be true tho' the greater part of Infants be saved As for the Hellish Torments you speak of so much Bellarmin * Tom. 4. p. 144. ● Militissima omnium poena Aug. tells the Pelagians who are your Friends and Catharinus allow Infants Eternal Life and Natural Blessedness without any pain other Opinions you may read in him if you please But where the Scripture is silent why should we speak Having named Pelagius and charging you in my Answer to your Book with Pelagianisin I will here consider your Outcry against me p. 28. where you tell me what you have written in your Book which you call Christianisinus Primitivus I never saw any of your Book nor did I ever hear of your Name till I saw your Book against my self there I found you did own Peccatum Originans but not Originatum So I told you But for all your great Words in that Page I still say Mr. Grantham is a Man very corrupt in the Doctrine of Original Sin or he must grosly contradict himself For First Against Mr. Pet. p. 27. Twice in one Page you tell us Infants are not guilty of any Sin of their own Then they have no Sin of their own It is impossible to part Sin and Guilt tho' God pardon the Punishment If Infants have no Sin of their own Circumcision was Instituted before Christ 1923. Bucolc then the Administration of Circumcision to Infants of eight days old almost two thousand years was a vain Administration In a Sacrament there is the Sign and the thing signified What was signified in Circumcision 10 Deut. 16.30 Deut. 6.4 Jer. 4. 9 Jer. 26. tells us the Vncircumcision of our Flesh is joyned with our Estate dead in Sin 2 Col. 13. But if Infants have no Sinof their own then the thing signified was not there so that it was no Sacrament but the Administration of a Lye according to your Doctrine Secondly Ibid. p. 11. You tell us They need not any Laws to be written in their Hearts during Infancy Answ Infants are born either with that Image in which God Created Man or not If they be born with it then they never fell from God and so have no need of Christ If not so born then there is a Privation of that Righteousness which ought to be and a Position as in a Disease of that Vnrighteousness and Evil which ought not to be This Image is not restored but in Regeneration in which the Law is written in the Heart Thirdly Ibid. p. 13. You tell us Infants are innocent Answ Then they never fell from God. You could stich Innocency and Pardon together in your former Book now you stitch Innocency and Sin together You quote Dr. Taylor to justifie you But he does not stitch Innocency and Pardon together However I read Dr. Taylor 's words but he was neither a Prophet nor Apostle a very godly Man Mr. Anthony Burgess and as learned a Man as himself who traced him in his Writings gives this Character of him He is not meerly Pelagian Papist Arminian or Socinian but an Hotch-potch of all Like a Second Julian in triumphing Language with much boldness he hath decryed Original Sin as if it were but a Non Ens. Thus he We know sin in one sence is not Ens * As Ens convertitur cum Re. and that this Learned Man knew well Dr. Taylor 's Authority and yours are both alike to me Fourthly I suspect you from your Description of Original Sin. p. 23. p. 28. In both your Books you tell us Original Sin is that came Upon all even Infants This word Vpon I do not understand Paul calls it Indwelling Sin 7 Rom. 17.20 I was