Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47399	[The ax laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism and church-membership containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3, 10].	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1693 (1693)	Wing K48_pt2; ESTC R20690	57,342	56

all Mosaical Rites ended so did the Covenant of Circumcision also God never said he would be the God of Abraham's natural Seed as such as he gave himself to him and to all his true spiritual Seed for to them he gives himself or an Interest in all God is or has so far as communicative even for ever and ever or to all Eternity the Covenant of Grace being ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 'T is impossible this Covenant and Covenant Blessings which is comprehensive of all Grace here and Glory hereafter should referr to a certain Period of time and since he was not thus in Covenant with Abraham's carnal Seed as such 't is evident the Covenant of Circumcision tho' called an Everlasting Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace And so much to this Objection 8. Obj. There was never but one Covenant of Works and that God made with Adam and in him with all his Post●rity therefore the Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain in the Covenant of Works See Mr. Flavel Answ. First Our Controversie lies not so much about the Covenant of Works as given to Adam but about the Nature of Sinai Covenant since Circumcision appears to be of the same Nature with that I do not say in every respect there is no difference between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and that made with the Peop●e of Israel though the● differ not Essentially in Substance 't is all one and the same Covenant viz. Requiring compleat and perfect Righteousness 2. Therefore tho' there is but one Covenant of Works yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident although given upon a different end purpose and design by the Lord. Adam's Covenant I grant had one end and design and the Sinai Covenant of Works had another yet may be both as to the Essence and Substance of them but one and the same Covenant Which doubtless is all Mr. Cary intends 1. Adam's Covenant had Happiness and Justification in it by his perfect Obedience thereto and he being able in the time of his Innocency to keep it he was thereby Justified 2. But the Second Edition or Ministration of the Covenant of Works given to the People of Israel tho' in its Nature and Quality it was a Covenant of Works and one with the former yet it was not given for Life or to Justifie them nor was it able so to do by reason of their Weakness through the Flesh Rom. 8.3 But it was added because of Transgression 1. To restrain Sin or as I said before to regulate their Lives under those external Covenant Transactions of God with them as his People as before expressed 2. To make Sin appear exceeding sinful 3. To discover to them what Righteousness it is God doth require in order to the Justification of the Soul in his Sight 4. To make known to them thereby what a Righteousness Man originally in the First Adam had and lost and 5 thly It did discover their woefull Condition to them and might put ●hem upon seeking Relief and Justification by the promised Seed and so be as a School-Master to bring them to Christ. 6. That in their Conformity to it to their utmost Power to continue ●ll those outward Blessings and Privileges to the House or Church of Israel as God promised to Abraham upon that Account for 't is evident the Promises made to them upon their Obedience were Earthly and Temporal Promises and not Spiritual Hence the Apostle saith the New Covenant is established upon better Promises And Now that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as considered ●n it self notwithstanding the end and design of God therein I find many of our sound Protestant Divines do affirm tho' given with a merciful and gracious intention or in subserviency to the Gospel 1. It commanded or did require perfect or compleat Obedience 2. On these Terms Do and Live 3. It gave no strength nevertheless to perform what its just Demands were Hence the strength of Sin is called the Law it did Condemn but could not Save 4. Nor was there any Pardon or Remission of Sin by that Covenant for any Soul that broke it for He that despised against Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or three witnesses Heb. 10.28 Moreover 5. It cursed all that did not continue in all Things that were contained in the whole Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 6. The Holy Ghost calls it the Old Covenant in contra distinction and direct Opposition to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant The law is not of fait● but the man that doth those things them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 And tho' Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant yet he was but a Typical Mediator and stood between God and them to plead for the Blessings of that Covenant and to prevent the Threatnings of Temporal Judgments for there was never but one Mediator between God and us upon a spiritual Account i. e. To stand between eternal Wrath and us or to make Peace with God for our Souls Take what the Learned Bishop Usher hath said about the Law as a Covenant of Works viz. Quest. How doth this Covenant i. e. The Covenant of Grace differ from that of Works Answ. His Answer is much every way for first in many Points the Law may be conceived by Reason but the Gospel in all Points is far above the reach of Man's Reason Secondly the Law commandeth to do good and giveth no strength the Gospel enableth us to do good the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our Hearts Thirdly The Law promised Life only the Gospel Righteousness also Fourthly The Law required perfect Obedience the Gospel the Righteousness of Faith Fifthly The Law revealeth Sin rebuketh us for Sin and leaves us in it but the Gospel doth reveal unto us Remission of Sins and freeth us from the Punishment belonging thereunto Sixthly The Law is the ministration of Wrath Condemnation and Death the Gospel is a ministry of Grace Justification and Life Seventhly The Law was grounded on Man's own Righteousness requiring of every Man in his own Person perfect Obedience Deut. 27.26 And in default for satisfaction everlasting Punishment Gal. 3.10 12. But the Gospel is grounded on the Righteousness of Christ admitting Payment and Performance in another in behalf of so many as receive it Gal. 3.13.14 Bishop Usher's Summ and Substance of Christian Religion p. 159. A multitude of Protestant Writers I might produce who all assert the same Doctrine And if the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works Why do all our Brethren say as it was a Covenant of Works 't is done away and Why doth the Apostle say Christ is the end of the Law as touching Righteousness It is not abolished or done away as 't is a Rule of Righteousness for as so it abides as a perpetual Rule and Law to us Therefore I wonder at Mr. Flavel's Out-crys against

have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself

be baptized for no doubt there were many Thousand Families that lived either in Ierusalem Iudea or in the Regions round about that were not Jews broad is the Way to Heaven if this Man's Doctrine be true or into the Church at least The Man's mistake lies here i. e. because great Multitudes went out either to see or hear Iohn Baptist he therefore concludes Iohn baptized them all because 't is said he baptized them not observing the severe Doctrine he Preached and what a holy Sight and Sence of Sin and godly Repentance he enjoyned on all those he admitted to Baptism for they he baptized confessed their Sins i. e. their hearty Sorrow for Sin and were turned to the Lord for that was his Work and the grand Purport of his Ministry and evident it is that there were but a few comparatively baptized by Iohn because Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptized more Disciples than he Ioh. 4.1 and 't is said Christ's Flock was but a little Flock and after Christ's Resurrection the whole Number of his Disciples were about One hundred and Twenty Act. 1.15 tho' may be some few more there might be in some orher places Mr. Baxter tho' a great Asserter of Paedo-Baptism contradicts this Man Iohn Baptist saith he received and judged of the Profession of his Penitents before he did baptize them Baxt. Confirmat Restor p. 68. It was such a Confession that Iohn required of those that he baptized that gave him Ground to believe they had Right to Remission of Sin for he baptized with the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sin Read the late Annotators on Luk. 3.3 The Summ of Iohn's Doctrine say they was the necessity of Repentance and Faith in Christ in order to the Remission of Sin his pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn Matthew Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Baptism was an Evidence of it Iohn did not Preach that Baptism was Repentance or that Remission of Sin was infallibly annexed to it but that the way to obtain the Remission of Sins was by Repentance and Baptism was an External Sign and Symbol of it It was no doubt such a Confession that Philip required of the Eunoch Act. 8.37 See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip answered If thou believest withal thine Heart thou mayest This Man would render Iohn Baptist less Faithful than any ordinary pious Minister I believe saith Gullespy No consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize any who hath manifested infallible Signs of unregenerations Gil's Aaron's Rod. blossom Obj. But saith Mr. Exell to conclude that this Confession mentioned Mat. 3.5 was a Confession with the Mouth or Tongue without considering any thing of the words when there is no such discovery in the Text is somewhat too quick and too bold for what is expressed is expresly asserted of all the Regions and all Judea and Jerusalem and those called Multitudes and these general Expressions contain and comprehend Men Women and Children c. Answ. I must needs say 't is a hard case you dare so boldly affirm all both Men Women and Children were baptized by Iohn whereas 't is positively said that they he baptized confessed their Sins You conclude against the express Words of the Text and assert plain Scripture proof that Iohn Baptist did certainly baptize Infants and yet give neither Scripture nor Reason to demonstrate what you say is true you can draw Consequences to build an Ordinance upon that which naturally rises not from the Texts you refer to nay which is more when the Text is expresly against such a Conclusion 't is said They that gladly receive the Word were baptized You may say that some of them were Infants as well as to affirm some of these Iohn baptized were such for Infants are as capable to receive the Word as to confess their Sins nay when 't is said Acts 20. The Disciples came together to break Bread you may affirm that Infants came then with others together to break Bread or to eat the Lord's Supper for you know how to prove them to be Disciples no doubt on 't if you have not been too quick in asserting what you with boldness have asserted I am greatly mistaken You make Baptism a very insignificant Sign what good can Baptism do that Parson that has no Grace If you can prove what your Brother Rothwell affirms do viz. That Baptism does regenerate Infants or is a Converting Ordinance Certaintly but very few of that great Multitude you suppose Iohn baptized received any Spiritual benefit by their Baptism and I challenge all the World to prove if they can that ever one Infant received any kind of Internals Spiritual or Eternal Advantage by being baptized as you call it or External either by the Word of God He adds an Induction of Twenty particulars to shew what a Confession it was not that those Iohn Baptist baptized made but they need no further Reply being all remote to the Purpose brought for Then he proceeds into ten more to shew it could not be a verbal Confession of Actual Faith and Repentance the most of them follow here Obj. There is nothing of a Command requiring such a Confession neither declared by John nor revealed by any other Messenger of God This contains his two First Answ. Did not Iohn require it when he said bring forth Fruits meet for R●pentance c A Confession is a Fruit of Repentance And did not Philip require it of the Eunuch Is not Faith required and as a Man believes with his Heart so a Confession is required with the Mouth to make known that Faith unto Salvation Obj. If such a Confession was commanded it must be gained by their own personal Obedi●cence and so the Gospel is a Covenant of Works 2. If commanded then it was not voluntary 3. If commanded then it must not be to shew the Gr●ce they had but their Obedience these are three more of them Pag. 44. 1. Answ. I answer if what God commands us to do those Vertues so commanded are gained or merited by our own personal Obedience then all our Evangelical Duties must be meritorious and the Gospel is a Covenant of Works indeed For that the Gospel doth command many Duties is evident Can't God give Grace and then command us by the Assistance of his Spirit to cause those Graces to appear in exercise to the Praise of his own Glory 2. Or cannot that which God commands us to do be done freely and voluntary by us Or doth free Grace destroy the Noble Faculty of the Will because it over-powers its vitious Habits and strongly inclines it to that which is good Do not Saints freely and voluntarily by the help of the Spirit and Grace of Christ will that which is good and well-pleasing to him Or is a Confession of Sin not good or an Evangelical Duty 3. Do we