Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
sin_n believe_v faith_n unbelief_n 3,235 5 10.7449 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
A45244 A treatise concerning the covenant and baptism dialogue-wise, between a Baptist & a Poedo-Baptist wherein is shewed, that believers only are the spirituall seed of Abraham, fully discovering the fallacy of the argument drawn from the birth priviledge : with some animadversions upon a book intituled Infant-baptism from heaven and not of men, defending the practise of baptizing only believers against the exceptions of M. Whiston / by Edward Hutchinson. Hutchinson, E. M. (Edward Moss) 1676 (1676) Wing H3829; ESTC R40518 127,506 243

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

were now altered and the Church it self removed For before the Gospel came they stood members of the old Church though as much unbelievers for many generations as they were when they were broken off and why did not their unbelief break them off before But now Abrahams Church state is at an end and all the priviledges and immunities cease the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church the Messiah being come and about to build him a new house into which none are of right to enter but profest believers and the Jews not believing now in that saviour who has the substance of the shadows and which all their types pointed out and whom all those ordinances signified yea for whose sake they did enjoy their ordinances and to which end were committed unto them the oracles of God the giving of the law and the promises yea therefore was their seed counted holy to point out and keep them in memory of that holy child Jesus that was to come as the Anti-type of all these things For the old house or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever but to the time of reformation then the law must be changed the priesthood chang'd the priviledges and ordinances chang'd the seed chang'd yea the Covenant chang'd which they not believing being willing to abide in the old house still and to remain Churchmembers upon a meer fleshly and natural birth still crying out Abraham is our father and we are his seed and are free and were never in bondage and here it seems they are resolved to stand wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or not by reason of their unbelief that is because they would not believe that the old Covenant and all the priviledges thereof were ended and the substance come the Lord Jesus the Antitype of their types The second thing is from what they were broken off I answer From all the glory they boasted so much of as the Apostle sayes thou art called a Jew and makest thy boast of God and trustest in the law but all these things are now gone yea the Typical Adoption the glory and the Covenants the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises all their birth-priviledges Church membership and ordinances which continued but till the time of reformation yea from that Covenant which had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary which is now all abolished as you see Heb. 9.1.2.3.4 c. And all because they did not believe in him who was the Antitype and substance of all their shadows but were willing to abide in the old house still and loath to lose their outward priviledges their worldly sanctuary their ordinances and Church membership upon the account of Abrahams faith for it was indeed an easy service a flesh pleasing religion if salvation could have been obtained by it notwithstanding the bondage and laboriousness of some services yet how willing would the carnal Jew have born all if he might have been saved by the faith of another rather then to lose all the righteousness of the law and to count his circumcision and Church membership as dung to winn Christ as Paul did when converted and be found in him only not having his own righteousnesse which is of the law but that which is by faith in Jesus Christ Thus you see why the Jews ars broken off and from what But they are not all broken off from the Gospel Covenant for there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace and as many of them as believe and repent of their sins shall be admitted to the more easy and more excellent priviledges of the Gospel Church membership and ordinances and shall be a pillar in the Temple of God and shall go no more out Besides we see many of the Jews have been converted and shall be more generally in the later days And if you say May not the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant I answer They are no more broken off then the children of the Gentiles for those that dye in infancy as many as belong to the election of grace shall be saved if they live to years of discretion and then believe they shall be saved as soon as any children of believing gentiles But if the children of the Jews be broken off from the Gospel Covenant it is either because of their parents unbelief or their own personal unbelief If it be meerly their parents unbelief then if any do believe in their own persons they cannot be admitted because of their parents unbelief for that which cuts them off will keep them off and so the parents unbelief keeps the children from the Gospel Covenant and so is the cause of their damnation for causa causae est causa causati But where do we finde that children shall be damn'd for the sins of their parents the Scripture saith the soul that sins shall dye And if you say the Jews unbelief doth not keep their children from the Covenant of grace but only from the administrations of it as Baptism c. I answer that according to your principles it amounts to the same thing for you say out of the Church no salvation But if you say their parents unbelief keeps them out of the Church only during their infancy when they come to years if they believe they may be admitted Then it will follow that such children of the Jews yea of all unbelievers that dye in infancy are in a miserable condition their case is deplorable for their parents secundum te can have no hopes of their salvation Poor souls had you lived a while longer you had been in the Covenant of grace and enjoy'd the priviledges thereof but meerly because of your parents unbelief you are cut off while you are infants But if this be true parents have cause to mourn to the breaking of their loynes when their children dye But David was of another mind who when his child dyed rejoyced though it dyed on the seventh day the day before circumsion and that not without hopes of its good estate as learned men conceive for he said I shall go to that but that shall not return to me which is not meant only of going to the grave but to a state of happynesse for our going barely to the grave is no cause of comfort Poed But we are told that Circumcision was a great priviledge as the Apostle saith Rom. 3.1 What advantage is there of Circumcision much every way and therefore to be broken off was their misery Bap. It s true the Apostle propounds that question what profit is there of Circumcision his meaning is that there was a time when they had advantage by circumcision and the main was that Christ should come of their flesh of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came But this and all other advantages are ceased and now it is a mercy rather then a misery though they thought otherwise to
was no questioning of their faith no enquiry into their conversations c. But now you practically own no children to have right to Baptism but those whose immediate parents have given some visible demonstration of their conversion and manifested their faith and Repentance who are so few that were their number reckoned up it would not amount to one amongst a hundred of them that are true believers in the world But further if the children of believers only as you say have right to the Covenant and Baptism and that of such believers as you count so and so their parents only have hope of their salvation then what shall become of the children of unbelievers yea of such whom you count unbelievers may not they make this appeal to their parents and say O wretched and miserable parents that have brought forth so deplorable an off spring other children as soon as they are born are in the Covenant of grace and by vertue of their parents faith have aright to Church membership and baptism wherein they are made children of God heirs of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven But wo and alas to us that ever we were born of unbelieving parents or at least of such that were never enchurcht nor members of any Presbyterian or Independant congregation We are unholy unclean doggs that must not meddle with the childrens bread without the pale of the Church aliens from the common weal of Israel without hope and without God in the world We must not be admitted to the priviledges of the Covenant of grace though diverse of our parents are professed Christians and believe Christ crucified c. yet because they have not made a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance and so joyned to some Church diverse ministers will not admit us to Baptism But stay children there is hope for you for all this If you dye in infancy as many of you as belong to the election of grace shall be saved though ye are not baptized and if you live to years of discretion and understanding if then you believe in Christ and repent of your sins and obey the Gospel you shall be saved as soon as they yea upon those terms and none other shall those that are Baptized in their infancy be saved if they live to years of understanding Poed Well Sir I see it is a hard matter to prove that the infants of believers have a right to the Covenant more then the infants of unbelievers but yet methinks they should have right to the administration of the Covenant Bap. In no wise and that for the want of an institution as you have heard and it is answer enough to satisfy any that are willing to be satisfy'd for none ever had a right to the administrations of the Covenant any otherwise then by vertue of a law had it been otherwise of old then Enoch Lot Noah and their seed had been circumcis'd and Ishmael Esau and others had not been circumcis'd now if the natural branches the seed of Abraham had not this priviledge to be circumcis'd by vertue of a right but vertue of a law how can you expect that your infants should have a right to the administrations of the Covenant by vertue of your faith Besides you your selves deny one administration to your infants but what reason you have for so doing I know not seeing the same grace is signified in both Will you say because your children are not capable to examine themselves then let them plead their own cause and suppose they should make this Apostrophe to their parents O our tender and indulgent parents you have brought us into the visible Church as you say and admitted us to Baptism and membership but why must we not partake of the Lords supper that soul strenghtning and soul-nourishing ordinance you take care to feed our bodies dayly and that in order to our growth and have you no pitty to our souls must they starve the children of the Jews of old were admitted to the passeover all the males were to appear thrice in a year and very early partook of that Sacrament and were instructed in the use and end of it and have we lost this priviledge by this coming of Christ besides the ancient Church did use it for many years and must we be kept from it till we be come of age yea and not then neither notwithstanding our Baptism contrary to all Scripture president unless we make a personal manifestation of our faith and repentance Will you say it is because we cannot examine our selves We answer that Scripture concerns the Adult not us You might as well have kept us from Baptism because we could not believe and repent but surely the Apostle never intended that infants should examine themselves Besides you say we are clean holy with a federal holyness innocent in the Covenant of grace Church members that we have habituall faith and without any sin except original therefore there is no need of self-examination Why then are we not admitted will our parents faith serve to admit us to Baptism and not to the supper Who will unriddle this surely we want some Alexander to cut this Gordian knot for none will ever untie it But again if infants have a right to the administration of the Covenant by vertue of the parents faith then if the parents turn Atheists or Apostates the children lose their right and are cast out from the said priviledges That it must be so appears if we consider Rom. 11.20 thou standest by faith that is say you thou standest in the Gospel Covenant and hast right to ordinances by vertue of their own faith and thy children by vertue of thine Now this standing is not unalterable a state which cannot be fallen from but a changable state from which thou mayst fall for the Apostle adds be not high minded but fear Now if thou fallest by unbelief and so casts out thy self thy children must needs be cast out with thee for ablatâ causâ tollitur effectus take away the cause and the effect ceaseth thy personal and actual faith was the ground and cause of thy Childrens admittance so then thy unbelief must dispriviledge them for so it was with the Jews when they were cut off how many thousands of their infants were cut off with them from membership ordinances remain so to this day by reason of their parents unbelief And do you expect a greater priviledge then the natural branches the Apostle lays them in an equal ballance Rom. 11.20 21 22. and what ground have you to expect better the unbelief of their parents broke off their Children By unbelief they were broken off and thy standing is but conditional if thou abide in his goodness otherwise thou shalt be cut off By which you see what absurdities and contradictions to your own practise your opinion leads to if the father be cast out the children must be cast out with him Thus you see that as
1. The piece of the Waldensian Confession which he sayes is not to our purpose is but an Introduction to the 7th Article in the same page which sayes That by baptism we are received into the Holy Congregation of the people of God declaring openly our Faith c. which our Answerer takes no notice of That of Vignier is pertinently enough brought wherein the Waldenses reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in Scripture and all Ceremonies and Romish Traditions because the Baptism of Infants at that time was practiced from that ground And that he gives ● testimonial of them that they denyed Infants Baptism in totidem Verbis See what he sayes viz. Nicholas Vignier in his Book called la Vraye Histoire de l' Eglise p. 354. upon the year 1136. speaking of the Waldenses and some of their principal Barbs where he hath these words Et qu'ils condamnoient le Baptesme de Petits Enfans alleguans que le Baptesme n'aportoient qu' a ceux qui ont foi i. e. And they condemned the Baptizing of little Infants alledging that Baptism belongs to none but those that have Faith As to the agreement between the Donatists and Novations it is also properly enough applyed for all Mr. Whiston's hast as the following words of Mr. Ds. make out viz. they held That none ought to be received into Churches but such as were visibly true Believers and read Saints c. The way of being received into the Church Mr. W. knows to be Baptism but he overlooks this also As to the Three other Particulars out of the Waldensian Confessions p. 282 283 284. 1 Ed. he Excepts against as not to our purpose let the same return serve them as before That out of Thuanus from Dr. Vsher viz. that the Beringarians held that Baptism did not profit Children to Salvation is a proper and suitable Argument of their denying Infant-Baptism it being elsewhere evidenced and which Mr. Whiston nor his Associates never Answered that that was the only ground of its administration viz. that it Saved the Child's Soul 3. As to his Charge of Mr. Ds. perverting Authors sayings viz. Paedo-baptists in general it is already fully cleared by himself in his Rejoynder to Mr. Ws. and to him the Reader is referred 2. Mr. Whiston would have us shew wherein lyes the inconsistency of their words with their practice which is also fully done But me thinks it might be a properer task for themselves to reconcile their Contradictions which they are loudly called to do if they can and so either yield up the Cause or remove the stumbling blocks they themselves lay in our way 4. He says Some of Mr. Ds. Authorities are against himself and instances Mr. Baxter we confess he is sometimes against us to the purpose but sometimes he is also kind enough and gave us Twenty good Arguments improved by Mr. Tombs in his Felo de Se. But for the rest 't is but meer prattle Chrysostom is instanced to shew the Erroneous ground upon which Infant-Baptism was practiced viz. to take away Original Sin and if it be a proof for Mr. Whiston let him take it I 'll give him another proof too if that will please him out of his Friend A●stin 23 Epist ad Bonif. Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum precipiendum parvulos ferunt ut gratia spirituali ad vitam regenerentur Aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere ac recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria Ministeria But he must excuse me if I leave him the pleasure of Translating it seeing he may perhaps do it to most advantage That Peter Bruis and Henricus denyed Infants Baptism we have good ground to believe from many substantial Reasons offered by Mr. D. and if we reject the testimony of Papists in whose hands most of our ancient Writings have been for some Centuries which we are well enough satisfied to do in this why not in other things That Cluniacensis owned to be a very learned man disputed with Peter Bruis and Henry is evident he layes down their Position to be this Nos vero tempus congruum fidei expectamus hominem postquam Deum suum cognoscere in eum credere paratus est non ut nobis imponitis Rebaptizamus sed Baptizamus quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus est qui baptismo quo lavantur peccata locus non est i. e. We wait for the fit season of Faith and when a man knows his God and believes in him we baptize him not rebaptize as you charge us for he cannot be said to be ever baptized that is not washt with the baptism that washeth away sins And then makes this pathetick declamation against them enumerating the Absurdities he fancies that follow their Opinion he saith thus Itane desipuere praeterita saecula tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusiorum baptisma tribuerent c. which I thus English And have past Ages been so foolish and have given but a mock-baptism to so many thousand Little ones for this thousand years and more and from Christs time to ours have made them not real but fantastick or imaginary Christians Was the whole World so blinded and involved in so huge a mist of darkness hitherto that it m●st wait for you at length to open its eyes and to dispel so tedious a Night that after so many Fathers Martyrs Popes and Princes of the Vniversal Churches it must chuse Peter Bruis and Henry his Lackey as the last Apostles to correct its long error What hath all the World perished till the coming of these New Reformers of our Age and have all things been managed by the Sons of Light and Truth in darkness and falshood that whereas all of any Age or Rank having been baptized in Infancy and received their Christian name then and in convenient time have been preferred in divers degrees in the Church no Bishop of the Bishops no Priest no Deacon no Clerk no Monk not one as I may say of those innumerable numbers will be a Christian for whosoever is not baptized with the Baptism of Christ hath not Christ nor can he be of the Clergy People or Church And if it be so what manifest absurdities will follow For whereas all France Spain Germany Italy and all Europe for almost three hundred or four hundred years have none baptized but in Infancy they have therefore no Christian if no Christian then no Church if no Church no Christ and if no Christ then certainly they are damned Our Fathers therefore have perished because they could not be baptized with Christs baptism in their Infancy And we that live shall also perish unless after Christs Baptism we be Baptized with Henries Baptism also And innumerable of the Saints shall be pluck'd
branches were broken off the old House removed and a new one built Quest Are not the Infants of the Gentiles Church-members now in the dayes of the Gospel Answ No there being no Institution or Command for it besides the Church and the Common-wealth are now divided and God hath not taken in any one Nation or sort of people distinct from others to be his Church but Believers only out of every Kindred Tongue and Nation Quest Have not then the Infants of Believing Gentiles less priviledg than the Jews had Answ No For Circumcision had been no priviledg nor duty had there been no Institution for it Neither is Baptism a priviledge or duty to any but to those to whom it is Commanded But the priviledges of the Children of Believing Gentiles are greater than the Jews because the Messiah being come which is the sum and substance of all their shadows of Circumcision of Membership and all their Typical Ordinances So that as soon as Infants are capable of Understanding they are to be brought up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord i. e. the Lord Jesus the Anti-Type of all their Types who is to be made known unto them as being already come and hath suffered for all that Believe in him Whereas the Jews could but inform their Children that Christ would come and suffer for the sins of men Quest Have not those that had a right to the priviledges of the Old Covenant a right to the priviledges of the new by vertue of their former right Answ No for then the Jews had a right to Baptism without any profession of Faith and Repentance Besides the Apostle saith Heb 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle And so we say we have a Baptism that Infants have no right to as they had to Circumcision because there is no Institution for it Quest But may not the Children of the Gentiles be counted Abraham 's Seed Answ No For Abraham hath but two Seeds the natural Jew and professed Believers amongst Jews and Gentiles a third Seed cannot be assigned him Quest But may not Infants be counted Christs Seed Answ No for Christ left no natural Issue who shall declare his Generation shewing us that he did not intend to build his Church of Natural Children as of Old not of dead but of living Stones Besides Believers Children are Children of Wrath by nature as well as others and therefore not to be accounted Christs Seed or to be Baptized while so considered Quest Is not Baptism an Ordinance of the New Testament and must it not be proved by a New-Testament Institution Answ Yea. Quest Where is your Institution then for Infant Baptism Answ It is urged to be Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Quest Is there any thing concerning Baptism in this Scripture Answ No But we draw this Consequence that as God promised to be God to Abraham and his Seed so he will be a God to every Believer and his Seed Quest Did God in these words promise to save Abraham and all his Natural Seed Answ No But the meaning is that he and his Seed should be the Visible Church and enjoy the Ordinances which no other people should Quest And does this promise belong to believing Gentiles and their natural Seed that they only shall be the visible Church of God and their Children only enjoy the Ordinances of God successively from their Parents Answ No for then these Absurdities would follow 1. That God has not been as good as his promise for the Church has not been continued in the posterity of Believers since Christs time but often passed out of their Race into the Posterity of Unbelievers 2. That then since the first promulgation of the Gospel there is no such need of Preaching to the Heathen in as much as these being not of the Posterity of Believers they are not to be of the Visible Church nor enjoy the Ordinances So that it is a fallacy to hold that God hath promised to be a God to Believers and their Natural Seed as he did to Abraham and his Seed to continue his Church only in the Posterity of them that first received the Gospel But he is still gathering his Church out of the posterity of Unbelievers and therefore before the end of the World the Angel is said to Preach the Everlasting Gospel to every Nation Kindred and Tongue and People who are not of the posterity of Believers Quest Why do the Paedo-baptists Baptize their Infants Answ Because they say they are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How do they know that Answ Because both or one of the Parents are in the Covenant of Grace Quest How does that appear Answ Because they profess so to be Then if the Parent be an Hypocrite the Child is not rightly Baptized Quest From what Ground do the Baptists Baptize Persons Answ Because they make a Profession of Faith and Repentance which is warrant enough from the Scripture Quest But how if they be Hypocrites are they rightly Baptized Answ Yea because it is not necessary for them to know that the Person is in the Covenant of Grace but that he professes himself a Disciple of Christ for which they have Scripture-president and many Examples POSTSCRIPT SOon after I had finished this Treatise Mr. Baxter's Book came to my Hands And in regard of his long silence some great matter was expected but after my perusal of it I find no News at all The first part of his Book even 180 pages is nothing else but a Collection of certain Old Letters that past between him and Mr. Tombs long since In which whether he hath dealt Candidly with Mr. Tombs I know not the contrary is justly feared if the Reader take notice of those Pieces Scrips and Parcels of Letters from Mr. Tombes but his own Written at large As to the matter contained in those Letters I find it to be nothing but what hath been Answered long since and it would amount to no other than Superfluity and Tautology to Answer over again The truest Verdict I can give of it is that it is like most of his other Controversies a lump of Logical Superfluity a System of Syllogistical Vanity wherein the Man manages his War like some Fresh man that is newly Matriculated into the Faculty of Logicking in Mood and Figure that delights to hear himself Syllogize out every Syllable and so comes out with a huge heap of Hypotheticals arguing at a vast difference from the business of Baptism and sometimetimes Ex Suppositis non Supponendis too as if he should fetch Infant baptism from far since 't is so dark in Scripture as he has confessed it is that he cannot have it nigh at hand proving in a great Circumference of Consequence upon Consequence Syllogism upon Syllogism thus if this then that if this then that but this therefore that when very often neither this nor that is