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
A47605	The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1692 (1692)	Wing K84; ESTC R27451	144,738	231

Discourse to Mr. Cary is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works pag. 217 218 c. To which I answer by way of Concession yet must say that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions as had also the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam by which he stood in the time of his Innocency justified and accepted by virtue thereof Could not God give forth a second Ministration or Transcript of his Righteous and Holy Law though not to Justification yet to aggravate his Sin and so to his just Condemnation And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 That Sin by the Commandment or Law might become exceeding sinful So Gal. 3.19 Nay I will affirm always generally when the Scriptures of the New-Testament speak of the Old Covenant or first Covenant or Covenant of Works it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it to the Sinai-Covenant and to the Covenant of Cirrumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galathians and to the Hebrews may clearly find But to proceed Though we say there is but one Covenant of Grace yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations or Additions of it yet we say the Promise of the Gospel or Gospel-Covenant was the same in all Ages in respect of things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or any Conditions or foreseen Acts of Righteousness or any thing to be done by the Creature Rom. 4. 5. The Substance and essential Part of this Covenant is Christ Faith a new Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it which signified those things and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise was made under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah c. In other Forms to Abraham under the name of his Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the name of a Successor in his Kingdom In the New-Testament in plain words We all with open Face beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord c. 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions of the Gospel Promise and New-Covenant are there so many New Covenants this being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand as a Rock Take another of them That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could not be a Gospel-Cov●●●n● or a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was Circumcised but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4 9 10. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant or a Covenant of Grace That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could not be a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel-Covenant But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed to or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. ● 1● Ergo The Law or Covenant of Circu●●ision was not a Gospel-Covenant And from hence Mr. Cary argues thus By the way saith he let it be observed in reference to the two foregoing Arguments which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works there b●ing no Medium betwixt them and consequently must be the same for substance with that made with Adam and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a 〈◊〉 Covenant in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles ●●me nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works and not of Grace But the Scriptures do plainly represent such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15.10 Gal. 5.1 2 3. Ergo The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant but a Covenant of Works Thus Mr. Cary argues also And thus we have proved from God's Word and sound Arguments that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant Object But lest any should think that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ I answer I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption but as I said before Secret things belong to God But let me here add one word or two further i. e. Circumcision you say was a Priviledg so we say too but not such a Priviledg as you do imagine 1. It doth profit as a Priviledg because it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession 2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel he did not do so to any other Nation This Rite therefore could not be a Gospel-Rite nor the Covenant it was a sign of a Gospel-Covenant in which the Gentile Christians are concerned And thus the Apostle argues Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath th● Jew or what Profit is there in Circumcision ver 2. Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God You may soon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed and of Circumcision which was a Sign of it The chiefest Priviledg which attended it was the giving to them i. e. the People of Israel the Law of the Ten Commandements 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul was a Priviledg if they kept the Law 〈◊〉 for Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou break the Law thy Circum●ision is made Vncircumcision or a Nullity and profiteth thee nothing that is if thou keep not the Law perfectly And thus speak our late Annotators on the place If thou Jew keep the Law perfectly to which Circumcision obligeth Gal. 5.3 If otherwise thou transgressest the Law thy Circumcision avails thee nothing it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumcised What is now become this being so of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant 〈◊〉 as such had by Circumcision if the chief Profit or Priviledg was because unto them the Law should be given which could not give Life but was a Covenant of Works then the chiefest Profit lay not in it as it was an Ordinance of Initiation

washes not away the Filth of the Flesh Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Flesh what Stuff is this you would force upon us and the World We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other Why do you say of no Rite but this We challenge all the World by God's Word to prove they are capable of Baptism any more than of the Lord's Supper 4. You say Baptism administred to Infants has this Advantage That it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin from the consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons Sin Answ 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren i.e. you are of his Belief it seems but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine Have not your Children when grown up enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God but you must bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age and such is the pravity of human Nature there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural Work of Grace their Burden is heavy enough you need not add to it 2. Is it not sad that you should give cause to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury when in truth they never were nor of Apostacy from God upon that account our first Apostacy was bad enough you need not go about to make them guilty of another Alas their pretended Baptism never brought them one step nearer to God than those Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all where then is the Apostacy you speak of 3. You hereby bring them under a necessity of committing of the Sin of Perjury and of Apostacy at leastwise in your own conceit and in theirs too if they can believe what you say and so to cause them to mourn for that or those Sins most which may be if all things were rightly considered are no Sins at all I do not mean that any of their actual Transgressions may not be Sin but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant for if God brought them not into that Covenant nor into any Covenant-relation with himself thereby I cannot see how there should be such a Sting in the Tail of it as you affirm and imagine and indeed had they themselves of their one accord and consent entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant which they were no ways able to perform it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not besides I hope they have not forsworn themselves how then is it Perjury 4. Moreover I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children and you also to consider in the fear of God the natural Tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant 1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God for I challenge you and all Pedo-Baptists in the World to prove God hath any-where directly or indirectly required any such thing at your Hands 2. Consider that 't is not only a Reformation of Life or a bare refraining from the gross Acts of Sin that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into but it is Regeneration it self i. e. a change of Heart and savingly to believe in Christ this you oblige your poor Babes to perform Now what Arminianism is here fomented if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation but if they do not do it woe be to them Moreover what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy and if so what need of their Obligation at all if you intend no more 3. Consider you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent they never subscribed to it nor knew any thing of it nor were they capable so to do 4. Consider whatever you think that such is the pravity of their Natures by means of our first Apostacy from God or Original Sin that they do and must of necessity break it as I said before unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures and remove the vicious Habits thereof which you had not the least ground to believe he would do or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them God having made no such promise and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children are never converted but from the Womb go astray and are guilty of almost of all manner of abominable Sins and so live and die As to the Adult 1. Consider as I said before 1. That all Believers God himself doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant 2. And they before they enter into it have a Principle of Divine Life infused into their Souls or Grace implanted in their Hearts having passed under the Work of Regeneration being dead to Sin of which Baptism is a lively Symbol or is as your Church says an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace Not as Mr. Baxter observes a Sign or Symbol of future but of present Regeneration which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches Rom. 6.2 How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein not may be dead but are dead and so are buried with Christ in Baptism vers 3 4. If you say all Adult Persons baptized are not converted c. I answer They appear so to be and as such voluntarily enter into this Covenant besides God does not require them without Faith to do it Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ but also signifies our Death to Sin or that blessed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that sacred Obligation but so are not Infants 3. That every true Believer baptized considers ponders upon and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation imaginable the Nature of this Covenant before he signs it And 4. That he doth it freely voluntarily and with his full liking approbation and consent neither of which do nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant These things considered it appears as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant since 't is done without Command or Authority from God so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes by making them to be come guilty of Perjury and thereby damning as Mr. Williams says their own Souls 5. Consider every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner by entring into this Baptismal Covenant is by Christ compleatly armed i. e. he hath the Christian Armor put upon him Ephes 6. he has the Breastplate of