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	law_n	transgression_n	5,599	5	10.5016	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45407	A copy of some papers past at Oxford, betwixt the author of the Practicall catechisme, and Mr. Ch.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.; Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing H531; ESTC R18463	111,324	132

that there was Gospel under the Law and the Spirit c. and divers Iewes penitent beleevers and therefore under the second Covenant Sir all this is granted most willingly and yet Christs comming in the flesh did bring more light more plentifull effusions of the Spirit and so might possibly be allowed to give new precepts also 2 For the promises how plaine they were to the Jews needed not to bee disputed by him who speaks onely of precepts save onely as the height or plainnesse of the promises is amongst other arguments apt to make higher precepts more seasonable and yet that the promises might be cleared by Christ and made more universally knowne you will hardly deny or disprove also For though they were so plaine that they saw them yet 't was afarre off in your owne citation of Hebrewes 11 and they that were present to Christ who was one of the promises might sure have a clearer sight of them The same will bee answer to your third argument for that concernes the promises againe and in that respect 't is sufficient to adde that the promises were they never so high before were now sure clearer under Christ and that is all that is affirmed by that Author and will suffice to inferre his concluded obligation to higher obedience And so likewise the fourth will be answered concerning the Ceremonies which I acknowledge to have had some good in them in order to Christ whom they prefigured but yet many of them had none in themselves I am sure none when Christ is come and hath removed the obligation of them and so may bee allowed to have added some new precepts in lieu of them and I am as sure they have not so much of goodnesse or easinesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as now is in the very highest and strictest precepts that are given us under Christ and therefore there is nothing like unreasonable in the change In your fifth sure 't is not so strange that I should mention the pardoning of sinne now under Christ for though that was to bee had for the penitent beleever under the time of the Law of Moses yet was it 1. Not by the power or purport of the Law but onely by Christ And 2 't was not at all to bee had in the state of nature or first Covenant which required unsinning obedience and to the Law of nature that law of Christ was said to super-add as well as to the Law of Moses and therefore that particular in the 95 page was not impertinent neither or capable of your sad wonder But how I am obliged to thinke your question Whether there is any veniall sinne tolerably pertinent or fit to expect any returne from mee at this time I cannot guesse yet shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answer that also that though no sinne have any title to pardon under the first Covenant yet under or by the purport of the second many sinnes not gotten out of infirmities c. shall be washed in Christs blood and so bee actually pardoned which is more then veniall or pardonable in that sense whereas many other shall never bee capable of that washing or that pardon without particular forsaking but bring them that lye under them impenitent unbeleevers into condemnation This were abundantly enough considering the call I have to the answering of that question at this time Yet to demonstrate to you that I am not over shy of answering you a question though it bee of some nicety when you think fit to ask it me I will goe a little farther to serve you and give you the state of this question if you please by way of supposition at large in such a manner possibily that no party will find much to object to it Thus What is the meaning of this ordinary question an aliquod peccatum sit suâ naturâ veniale will appeare by the answer that must bee given if it bee satisfactory to this argument which I shall imagine produced against it No sinne is in its owne nature mortall for that sinne should bee the cause of damning any or that punishement eternall should bee due to sinne is but an accident that the Law or Covenant of God brought in either to Adam Quo die comeder is morte morieris or after Behold I set before you life and death c. for sure had it not beene for that Law of prohibition that Covenant with that penalty on breach of conditions sinne had never damned any one and therefore those irrationall creatures to whom no such Law is made and Covenant given though they should be supposed to sinne against the Law of their creation they shall not be punished eternally for that Now it is an old rule in Logick that Accident advenit enti in actu existenti and is not de naturâ subjecti though sometimes so ingraffed into it that it becomes inseparable from it therefore this being mortall or damning being an accident that came in by Gods Covenant or Law cannot bee of the nature of sinne what ever that sinne bee For if it were so then God who cannot make contradictions true nor consequently take away the nature of the thing and preserve the thing could not take away the damningnesse of sinne from sinne any more then quantity from a body manente peccato realiter which yet wee know God can doe and ordinarily doth by pardoning of sinne for however it may be said by way of answer to that part of the Argument that Christ suffered and satisfied for sinne or else God could not pardon any not to dispute the truth of that whether hee could or no it still remaines that the damningnesse of sin is then taken from sin by what meanes it now matters not This is the Argument I meant to suppose made against that plaine granted truth and to this argument hee that had proposed the maine question and held it negative if hee will ever answer must say that the Law and Covenant of God whether that signifie the eternall Law or even the eternall will of God who wills holinesse as hee is God or in any other motion of Law is a maine ingredient in the constituting of sin the very formalis ratio that makes that which is of its selfe materially an act to become formaliter a sinfull act that makes the killing of a man which is materially murder to be also formally the sin of murther and therefore if by the Law or Covenant of God all sinne bee made mortall then may it truly bee said in this other notion or respect or for this reason that all sinne is so of its owne nature This answer must bee acknowledged to bee pertinent and satisfactory and so any Protestant will receive it and in stead of excepting against it I desire to strike in and close with both Disputer and Answerer and inferre that then it seemes this is resolved on by that party that holds all sinnes in their owne

imply that there must needs be some consent given to actuall sinne I confesse I then proved it not but promised to give you an account of it when I had your grounds of scruples you have now mentioned them to me 1 That Originall sinne is truely and properly a sinne in them that are not of age to consent to it 2 That corruption is so strong in us that it doth many times breake forth without our consent To the first I shall but need remember you that 't was every actuall sin to which I implyed that consent necessary and I hope you are not ready to prove that originall sinne in children as you call it is truly and properly actuall sinne and for the second the breaking forth of corruption in adultis that doth if againe it be an actuall sinne certainly suppose some kinde of consent obtained whether by sodaine surreption passion c. or by something sometimes that is worse then one act of consent viz. by the custome of sinne and glibnesse toward it contracted by many precedaneous acts of consent to it or the like Besides there are two kinds of sinne omissions as well as commissions and there is a criminous consent required to either of them and hee that is bound to use all diligence to subdue his corruptions at least to represse them if hee doe not so this indiligence of his hath some of his consent and that is a prime ingredient in the breaking forth of corruptions which consequently doe not breake forth without all consent And for mee now to undertake the proofe of that that the Schoolmen upon Thomas have so fully proved that every thing is so farre sinfull or criminous meaning still actuall sinne as it is voluntary the yeelding of the will to the sensitive appetite being necessary to the conception of lust and that againe to the bringing forth sinne I shall venture the worst of your censure that I doe not now proceed to demonstrate more largely For indeed actuall sinne being a transgression of the Law will hardly belong to that faculty or appetite which is not capable of receiving the Law and such is that appetite that hath nothing of the consent of the will in it For the complement you charge mee with in the fifth you had answer in mine to your first and second of this subject For my mentioning of Socinians I confesse I have been guilty of it in these Papers and I think you know who was the cause of it and therefore what want of wisdome or degree of folly soever that is you should not bee the Author of it in mee and the punisher also As for any parallel Doctrines you can finde between mee and them any farther then is agreeable to sound doctrine and analogy of Faith I am not so humble or so guilty as to deprecate your threats As for parallels betweene our expression 't is possible you may doe somewhat and so perhaps with some study I could doe the like between the Scripture and the Talmud and to this I would not provoke you though I professe I know not yet of any one such because it seemes in your opinion calling the Trinity a speculative mystery was one of that kinde and I doubt not but at the same rate there are many more to bee met with and then the provoking you might let open another sluce or treasure of your Animadversions wherein the sins of your brethren are laid up and among them one bundle of these parallels and I tell you truly I shall take little joy in spending so many sheets more in proving those whatsoever you shall produce under that title to bee unfit parallels Yet by the law it is not so well that you will doe any thing upon a provocation which you would not doe otherwise but I confesse this sets no such character upon you that I should bee willing to provoke you In your seventh I confesse to beleeve that you meant not the Common-prayer-booke by the designed Liturgy and cannot imagine why you should thinke I did beleeve you meant it And therefore I conceive I inferr'd regularly that I had nothing to do with that designe because I desired the continuing of the Common-prayer-booke and particularly those parts of it which were most incompatible with that designe such were the Doxologies Creeds Letany c. which no Arian or Socinian would joyne in And I wonder you should thus mistake so plaine an arguing In the eight where you take care that I magnifie not the View of the Directory you might have spared your paines for I can cite a Booke for a matter of fact and that is all that I doe in that place by referring you to those places in it my consent to which testifies my dislike of the designe you speake of without any kinde of magnifying it But for the matter so fit for my humiliation which you observe in that Author The using the suffrage of the Iewes Heathens and Mahometans that sure will not much tend to your purpose not onely because those very particulars you pitch on are transcribed and so profest to bee out of a Booke of a Learned member of the House of Commons and your Assembly viz. Mr. Io. Selden but also for these two considerable reasons more First because the suffrage of the Jewes from whence the other two are affirmed to have proceeded doth carry some divine characters upon it that whole Church and State having peculiar relation to the Theocraty and so Gods judgement of the lawfulnesse implyed in their practice And secondly because the Liturgy of the Jewes was by the Apostles and Christ himselfe made use of and out of it with some increases and alterations the Christian Liturgies fram'd in the first age of the Church If I thought it might bee acceptable to you I would serve you here also and give you some observations to this purpose very perfectly and easily reconcileable with what hath been formerly said but yet which are not in the View of the Directory nor yet mentioned in the haste of my former Papers 'T is the observation of a noble and a learned French Protestant that the Apostles were sent not to destroy but establish that pure worship or service of God which was in the synagogues of the Jewes which they therefore retained after Christs example as farre as did not contradict the oeconomy or dispensation of things under Christ and therefore though they changed the sacrifices and the Sabbath Christ being the substance adumbrated by one and the Lords day being appointed to take the place of the other yet the service it selfe in other particulars they did continue The grounds of this observation you have in the Scripture Christ himselfe goes into their synagogues and the Apostles ordinarily at the houres of Prayers and certainely joyned with them in their service as farre as agreed with their present state And by this meanes some sympathy hath been observable between the Jewish and Christian services This