Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	adam_n	death_n	similitude_n	3,593	5	10.9079	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

that which God hath provided for them 1. That the Infants of Christians are as capable is proved by that of Cor. 7.14 They are holy And what is that Ther be who gloss upon the text and say That ●hildren are Holy indeed but how As the wife not otherwise viz. As she is sanctified to the use of her Husband so the children to the use of their Parents But they falsifie the text For the text saith not of the wife She is sanctified to her husband but by her Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of the children it is said as of the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified but they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy which is more full and more emphaticall Others shift it of with this That the children are said to be Holy because Notwithstanding the difference of Religion in the Parents yet the children are legitimate This is further of than the former Nor can it stand except this be presupposed That all the children of Heathens are illegitimate No more than the former can stand without this being presupposed That neither wife nor children of Pagans are sanctified to their use Wherfore ther is nothing left but that they are said to be Holy by the Holines of the Covenant and sanctified with a federall sanctification The which is so much the more manifest because it appeareth by the context That the pretence of them who did repudiate their wives for their infidelity was a fear lest the infidelity of the wife should deprive the Husband of his interest in the Covenant of Grace which hee had imbraced and that his conjunction with her should rend him of as did the Sinn of Fornication cap. 6.15 from Communion with Christ St. Paul denyeth this and sheweth that rather the Faith of the Beleevers should so farr preponderate and prevail as to draw the other parties also after a sort within the Covenant So that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified and accounted as one interressed in the Covenant by the Husband His reason is because otherwise the children of such should be accounted Vnclean or altogether barred from the Covenant wher-as now they are Holy i. e. Heirs of the Covenant and admitted to the Seals ther-of Admitted I say For this is worthy our observation That suppose any of the Corinths would have been so wilfull to doubt of this Medium and deny th' Argument of St. Paul what is ther to convince the Gainsayer but only the practise of Israel continued in the Christian Churches viz. That the children of one beleeving Parent are admitted to the Seals of the Covenant This must of Necessity be presupposed else doth the Argument fall to the ground and overthrow it self To say That it resteth upon the Authority of th'Apostles affirmation is not sufficient in as much as he doth not positively set it down as a thing to be learned as he had done the former point The wife is sanctified but brings it in as a Reason to confirm that former point And we know that the Reason of a Position is alway presupposed as a thing already yeelded and confessed 2. That the Infants of Christians have as much need of partaking in the Covenant of Grace as had the Jewish Infants is thence confirmed Because That which is born of the Flesh is flesh Naturall corruption is common to all Why was Circumcision ordained but that ther-by the Uncircumcision of the Heart might be taken away that the Corruption of Nature might bee cured and the Guilt of that first sinn cut off from the Israel of God That Abraham by Faith apprehending the promise of God might ther-in have a Ground of comfort to himself in respect of his Sonn viz. That tho he had begotten him in his own likeness and had been a mean to convey unto him the Guilt and Filth of Originall sinn yet now by the mercy of God he was provided of a Remedy for that Malady of his child and using that Sacrament in Faith he might comfortably assure himself that the Remedy should prevail against the Malady And is not this Ground of comfort needfull also for Christians Surely they are deceived who either deny the propagation of originall sinn to Infants or dream of any Universall Demolition of it by the Death of Christ without the particular Application of his Blood by the Sacrament of the Gospell If there be no such Malady no such Guilt in our Infants how cometh it to pass that they dy Is ther any place for Death in Mankind wher ther is no sinn at all If the Beasts decay and dy by reason of their naturall mortality yet we know that sinn it was which brought Death upon Adam and his Posterity Where ther is no sinn inherent Death can claim no interest in that party Wher Death seizeth upon man we must not deny sinn some sin ther must be Actuall ther is none in these Infants Not yet have they sinned after the Similitude of Adams transgression viz. by listening to the Tentation of Satan and therfore it is Originall Guilt and corruption which is in them If the Disease be in their Nature Is ther not need of a Remedy Had the Infants of the Jews a Remedy and is ther none provided for the Infants of Christians Is ther a Remedy provided for them and a ground of comfort for their Parents and shall it be denyed and they debarred Objection The force of this Argument some think to elude by denying Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and consequently no Remedy against that originall Malady wher-of we speak We oppose that honourable Elogie of it Rom. 4 11. The Apostle termeth it A Seal of the Righteousnes of Faith They answer it was a seal of Abrahams Faith not in the Promise of the Messiah and the Covenant of Grace but in the promise of a Neumerous Off-spring That he should be the Father of many Nations This was say they that part of Gods Covenant with Abraham which was sealed by Circumcision A fleshly Covenant had a fleshly Seal But in this Answer we find a twofold ignorance bewrayed 1. The mis-interpretation of the Phrase The Righteousnes of Faith A phrase peculiar to St. Paul by which is intimated not the Act of Faith but the Benefit ther-of The phrase is equivalent to and to be expounded by that of Rom. 9.30 10.6 The Righteousnes which is by faith and that also Rom. 3. 21. 10.3 The Righteousnes of God Both which are joined in one Rom. 3.22 The Righteousnes of God which is by Faith and therby is signified the Benefit of imputed Righteousnes which God bestoweth on Beleevers for their Justification This benefit God having bestowed upon Abraham did seal it up to Him afterward by Circumcision which is therfore called Not the Seal of his Faith but the Seal of the Righteousnes i. e. of Justification which cometh by Faith and not by Works 2. Another point of ignorance is in dis-joyning those things which ought

confess their sins before they were baptised And who knoweth not that the Spirit doth sometime prevent the Water of Baptism 3. Nor yet Act. 8.36 This indeed proveth the affirmative viz. That He who beleeveth may be b●ptised But from thence to conclude the Negative That He who beleeveth not may not be baptised is against all Rules of reasoning which will yet more plainly appear by this Philip saith If thou believe with thy whole heart thou maist Will any man thence conclude That whoso beleeveth not with his whole heart may not be baptised And so take liberty to barre all such as presenting themselves and professing their faith may yet perhaps justly be suspected of Fiction and Dissimulation You see then the texts do not prove the Proposition Nay suppose that not by inference but in direct terms some of these texts should say He that beleeveth not shall not be baptised ought we not to understand it as true only in those persons of whom the text speaketh viz. Of them that have been taught and yet do frowardly refuse and profess a dislike and misbeleef of what hath been taught them And so it will be too weak an Argument to prove that universall Proposition and much less to draw on the desired conclusion Without faith none may be baptised None Ergo Not Infants ex gr That text of Mark saith He that beleeveth not shall be damned q. d. Without Faith none shall be saved Will any man understand this in that Universality as to include Infants Will he assume Infants beleeve not have no faith therfore They shall not be saved God forbid The Proposition hath it's latitude of Truth beyond which it may not be extended So then these texts do shew what is required of the Apostles and their successors What of the Nations and Heads of the Families in the Nations persons that are Sui juris not under the command of another But determineth nothing of inferiours and much less concludeth against Infants Baptism 2. Good reason against it For why First a profession of Faith is enough to entitle men to Baptism Tho there be no soundness and sincerity in the heart at all Witness the admission of Simon Magus True indeed except there be soundnes in the heart God may justly deny man the Benefit which otherwise he might expect But if he make profession to b●leeve in Christ who shall dare to d●ny him the Sacrament 2. That which is presupposed to assert the necessitie of Fait● understanding it of the grace it self is doubtful viz. That without Faith no man hath wher●with-all to r●ceiv the Benefit of Baptism This I say may well be doubted if not denyed especially if we intend to comprehend Infants and little child●en They have a passive capacity which is enough to receive that Gr●ce and Benefit which we conceiv is reached forth to them in that Sacrament And what is that Not s ch a fulness of Grace or the Habits ther-of as may be expected by them who have formerly been prepared by the Discipline and information of the Word But rather initiall and seminall Grace that seed of God wher-of the Scripture speaketh Pet. 1.23 1 Joh. 3.9 The which doth not presuppose Grace in the Heart but is it self the seed and root of Faith and all other actuall Graces whatsoever To men and women converted by the Word and then coming to Baptism viz. To Crispus Cornelius Lydia c. we beleev that Baptism doth as to Abraham Circumcision did convey a super-addition of further Grace to what they had formerly received in and by the Word But to their children Baptism conveyeth as did Circumcision to Jsaac the beginning and first seeds of Grace And consequently calleth for no previous dispositions and preparations in the Recipient only a passive capacity not cross-barred with obstinacy and infidelity It is the property of preventing Grace to be the first mover in the Heart and to make way for it's own Reception Is this acknowledged to be done in the ministry of the Word upon the Parents as it is said of Cornelius and Lydia and shall it seem unreasonable to grant it to be done by this first Sacrament in their children For why Did we conceiv the Spirit who is the chief Agent and efficient working in and by the ministry of the Word and Sacraments and with-out whose operation and assistance they are but as empty vess●ls and edgless tools the Spirit I say did we conceiv him working only as a morall Agent to stand at the door and knock as only ready and willing to enter if the door be opened to proffer Grace if man will receiv it Then were it reason indeed to require Faith in Children no less than in their Parents But it is not so We conceiv him in the Baptising of Infants working as a Naturall or rather as a super-naturall Agent viz. opening the door and entring putting Grace in the Heart and working it in the Will conferring upon them such a Grace as for the present they are capable of viz. initiall and seminall as before was said Add this also That in the Baptising of Infants ther is not Baptism altogether without Faith Ther is presupposed the Faith of the Parent And this sufficeth to qualify the Infant for Baptism yea for the Grace and Benefit of that Sacrament What is the Benefit of Baptism Is it not Remission of sin and spirituall Regeneration To the obtaining of which why may not the Faith of the Parent suffice In the child as yet corruption of Nature which he brought into the world is not active it hath produced neither thoughts words nor deeds against the law and therfore calleth for no personall Act of Grace to remove the Guilt ther-of Guilty he is and polluted but guilty only by i●putation and polluted not by any consent of his own but by the act of another viz. of his Parents * Quantò magis prohiberi non d●het infàns qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd s●cundum Adam carnaliter natus qui adr●m●ssam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso saciliis acced t quòd illi remittuntur non propria sid aliena peccata Cyprian Epla 59. Is it any wonder that the imputation of anothers faith should procure for him Remission and removall of that which cometh by the imputation of anothers act That as he sinned in another so he may be said to beleev in another Here is then the equity of Gods proceedings that what Malady and mischief was contracted without his will shall be cured and remedyed without him and any act of his It is by the ordinance and institution of God that the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed to the Infant and the Corruption of Nature propagated And it is by the Ordinance of God that the Guilt of that sin is remitted and a Remedy against that Native disease provided and both these are done in and upon the Infant without any concurrence of his own will And as by the