Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
sin_n dead_a death_n trespass_n 4,131 5 10.6204 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A23673 A serious and friendly address to the non-conformists, beginning with the Anabaptists, or, An addition to the perswasive to peace and vnity by W.A. Allen, William, d. 1686. 1676 (1676) Wing A1072; ESTC R9363 75,150 222

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

which were and which are much-what the same And if it be so acceptable a thing to Christ for us to receive one such little Child in his name as that he takes it as well as if we received Him nay takes himself to be received in our so receiving it which could not well be if it were not a member of his body the Church can you then think it a thing displeasing to him to baptize such in his name when as that is a sacred Rite appointed by him for a solemn receiving such in his name into his Church as do belong to him as doubtless such Infants do or else they could not be received in his name And when Christ hath given Commission to disciple all Nations and baptize them can you fancy that the same Commission implies a prohibition to baptize little Children though they are Disciples If little Children are made Disciples in their Parents being made so and that in Gods account and by his appointment then to baptize them certainly cannot be a deviation from Christs Commission to baptize Disciples And lastly if our Saviour hath said it of some little Children that they believe in him then the same Commission which authorizeth the baptizing of Believers must authorize the baptizing of them The Commission is general to baptize Disciples indefinitely and therefore must needs extend to all that are so or that are Believers though but in the lowest sense These are no forced or far fetcht consequences but flow naturally from their premises And whereas the Scripture speaks of Baptism as the Sacrament of Regeneration or new Birth which you make as an argument against the administration of it to Infants by reason of their incapacity for Regeneration you should consider first that Circumcision was a Sacrament of Regeneration as well as baptism is and yet Infants were not uncapable of it upon any such account Circumcision in the Letter was a sign of spiritual Circumcision of that made without hands the Circumcision of the heart and was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And what thing more spiritual than this is I pray you signified by Baptism Which considered the spirituality of baptism in nature or use is no more an argument against Infants capacity for Baptism than the spiritual use of Circumcision was an argument against that And this is sufficient to take off your argument But you may consider yet farther that Infants even while such must needs be capable of Regeneration in one sense or other unless you will say they are not in a salyable state which yet you have not been wont to say or else that unregenerate persons may go to Heaven and be saved contrary to that of our Saviour Joh. 3.3 Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God And therefore you seem to be under a necessity of granting Infants to be capable of Regeneration in a sense more or less proper And if you think Regeneration most properly and strictly taken to be incompetent to an infant state as Regeneration signifies that new state into which a person is brought by a change in the frame and temper of the mind and will and by a regulation of the motions and operations of the Soul in reference to their several objects then you must be constrained to accept of another sense of Regeneration and such as is more competent to an Infant State unless as I said you will say that persons may go to Heaven in an unregenerate State Dr. Hammonds Annot Mat. 19.28 Now therefore since the word translated Regeneration according to the assertion of learned men and the reason and nature of the thing it self doth properly signifie a new or second state it follows that if it can be proved that Infants are brought into a new or second State or capacity of being happy other than what is natural to them as deriving from Adam or their immediate Parents which is called a being born of blood John 1.13 then they may be said to be in a regenerate state And that the whole Race of Adam are put into a new state or capacity for happiness by the second Adam after they had lost it by the first until they fall into actual Rebellion against God by actual sin in their own persons of which sure they are in no danger while they are but in their infant state may I conceive be sufficiently evinced from Rom. 5.18 where the Apostle says as by the offence of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life And the same might be backt by many other Scriptures And it may well be that it was in respect of this new state into which little Children are brought by Christ the second Adam that our Saviour said of such is the Kingdom of God Now so far as Baptism signifies our Communion in the virtue of Christs Death and Resurrection by which our state is changed as well as our conformity to it by a moral change in our nature there is in Infants or conferred upon them that spiritual grace which answers the outward sign in Baptism And that such a change of condition as to be raised out of a state of death into which we were brought for sin into a state of life by forgiveness of sin by virtue of Christs Death and Resurrection is called a being quickned together with him as well as that moral change which is made by sanctification is a thing which seems fairly to lie in those words Col. 2.13 And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses And let me say this further that it seems not improper neither to say that Infants are dead to sin to actual sin in their own persons in as much as we cannot say that lust hath conceived in them so as to bring forth sin by any consent of will though it 's true they are not dead to it as having mortified it they having not yet while Infants contracted any ill habits to mortifie So that as burying with Christ in Baptism signifies a death unto sin in the person baptized there is in some sort that in Infants which answers the outward sign in baptism in that respect also These things considered you may well infer that if that new state into which Infants are brought be in some respect a new birth a birth from above and such as puts them into an immediate capacity for Salvation as well as Regeneration in the common acceptation of it does the adult and you see by what reason you are perswaded to believe it is then you have as great yea greater certainty of the regenerate state of Infants in this sense than you have of the regenerate state of any adult persons in the other notion of Regeneration and consequently a more certain ground to baptize them so