Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	condemn_v	flesh_n	likeness_n	3,708	5	10.8945	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55108	A plea for the late accurate and excellent Mr. Baxter and those that speak of the sufferings of Christ as he does. In answer to Mr. Lobb's insinuated charge of Socinianism against 'em, in his late appeal to the Bishop of Worcester, and Dr. Edwards. With a preface directed to persons of all persuasions, to call 'em from frivolous and over-eager contentions about words, on all sides.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1699 (1699)	Wing P2521; ESTC R217330	67,965	145

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Sin but a Sin-offering then said they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what shall be the sin-offering which you find afterwards specified in that Verse So for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how promiscuously is it us'd in that one Chapter Lev. 4. If any one of the common People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there it is commit a sin verse 27. And so again ver 28. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his sin which he hath sinned come to his knowledge then he shall bring his offering a kid c. for his sin which he hath sinn'd there you have the same Word again Yet in the very next Verse the Sense of the Word is chang'd and that very Kid which is offer'd is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So verse 29. And he shall lay his hand upon the head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is not now to be read of the sin but of the sin-offering and slay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin-offering The very Word that but the Verse before signify'd Sin it self The same Word you have again twice for a sin-offering ver 33. And again the Priest shall take of the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sin-offering ver 34. It wou'd be endless to refer you to the many other places of Scripture where the same Observation would occur I 'll therefore only mention one Text more which may help to evince the Usefulness hereof in interpreting several difficult Texts of Scripture and that is Hos 4. 8. They eat up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin of my People so we read it but it were scarce possible to devise any tolerable Sense that the Words cou'd be capable of according to that reading yet what we have observ'd renders 'em exceeding easie and plain all the Difficulty dis-appears when you read They eat up the sin-offering of my people And by this Reading of the Words the latter part of the Verse may be also most satisfactorily accounted for they set their heart on their Iniquity i. e. they rejoicé at or are pleas'd with it Thus does the very ingenious and Reverend Bishop of Salisbury Comment upon the Words That corrupt Race of Priests says he attended still upon the Temple and offer'd up the sin-offering and Feasted upon their Portion And because of the Advantage this brought 'em they were glad at the abounding of Sin c. Discourse of the Pastoral Care p. 23. A Tract so very valuable and useful that having mention'd it I cou'd not forbear to recommend it though I cou'd wish what is said of Praying by the Spirit p. 199 200. were re-view'd by the very Reverend Author and some-what more distinctly Explain'd that he might not seem to reflect upon Praying by the Spirit it self when I suppose he only intends to animadvert upon some Persons mistaken Apprehensions of it The same I cou'd also wish in reference to one or two Passages in that Book which I may not now stay to mention Now the words that the LXX use in those places are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we shall only take notice of the second of those Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes indeed by a reduplicated Article or by a Preposition they plainly refer to some or other Word that is understood So we read in that 4th Chap. of Leviticus sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chap. 6. ver 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Word immediately fore-going is most probably referr'd to i. e. in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the she-goat in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the be-goat and in the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the burnt-offering sometimes the Phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin where the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice is plainly enough intimated though not express'd yet sometimes again there is nothing more than the bare Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sin express'd where yet a Sin-offering must needs be meant for instance Lev. 4. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not a Sin but a Sin-offering for the Congregation And Lev. 6. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Law surely not that they should Sin by but that they should Sacrifice according to the Law of the Sin-offering So also in that mention'd Hos 4. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they eat not the Sins for how cou'd that be done but the Sin-offering of the People And the New Testament Stile is generally conform'd to the Septuagint thus you read here also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10. 6. in burnt-offerings and for Sin i. e. and in Sacrifices for Sin as we render it Thou hast had no pleasure And Rom. 8. 3. we are told That God condemn'd Sin in the flesh of Christ but how which way by sending Him in our likeness to die a Sacrifice for Sin And since the Word will as well signifie a Sacrifice for Sin as Sin it self it should surely be readily agreed to intend only a Sacrifice for Sin in that 2 Cor. 5. 20. He made Him to be a Sin-offering for us c. Nor does any thing in the Context discountenance this Reading He that knew no Sin was not a Sinner what should hinder but He might be nay for that very reason was He the fitter to be made a sin-offering for us I cou'd not therefore read Mr. Cross's Objection without a Smile when he alledges against our thus Interpreting Sin for a Sin-offering that then Sin wou'd be us'd Equivocally in differing Senses and suppose it be what would the ill Consequence be Why he tells you The Apostle then would bring a Sophism instead of an Argument He knew no Sin properly ergo He was made Sin Cross 's Two Sermons on Justification and Imputed Righteousness p. 32. Now what if this Text be a naked Assertion and not design'd for an Argument what Sophistry would there be in it if the Apostle barely tell us He that was no Sinner Himself was yet made a Sacrifice for our Sin But if he will have no Argument of it 't will be as weak and impertinent though the Words should be Interpreted according to his Mind He knew no sin properly ergo He was made Sin I see no Consequence in it whether the Phrase bare his Sense or ours As to what he next alledges p. 33. from its Opposition to Righteousness it signifies as little for that the Apostle is not here there is no appearing proof that he is Critically Contradistinguishing Christ's being made Sin and our being made Righteousness nay the contrary is plain for that he uses differing Words in reference to Christ and us to intimate that he did not intend Christ was made sin in the same way or sense that we are made Righteousness nor can he for that Alteration be justly charg'd again as Sophisticating whilst he only designs to acquaint us That our being made Righteousness take it in one Sense or other did pre-require and derive from Christ's having been made a Sacrifice for us As to his Third Allegation against us I cann't guess what he produc'd it for And for his Fourth that the Word made is sometimes us'd for Imputed if that shou'd be granted him yet still it must be added That 't is where other Words are found in the Greek Text for I remember not nor do I think our Opposer can produce one single Instance where the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is made use of in the Text does carry that Sense it does most plainly intimate the work of an Effective Agent and therefore does strongly argue for our Sense of the Text That He was made a Sacrifice for Sin made sin in such a Sense as that GOD might be the Author and Efficient without being chargeable as the Author of Sin And for his Fifth and last Objection That Criticks distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and say the latter is us'd for a Sacrifice not the former I think we have already made the contrary sufficiently appear from the LXX to whom he refers us So that I see not what further can be pleaded against this Interpretation of the Text. In Notis ad Justini Instit Tit. 30. p. mihi 494. De Satisf p. 123 126 P. 13. Ib. p. 124. Discourse of the sufferings of Christ P. 17. Interest of Reason in Religion p. 536. Grotius de Satisfact Cap. 6. P. mihi 123 P. 126. Discourse of the sufferings of Christ P. 15. Ib. p. 123. Ib. p. 133. Ib. p. 16. Baxt. of Universal Redempt p. 79. Crell Resp ad Grot. Cap. 1. §. 78. p. mihi 98. C. 2. §. 29. p. 198. De Satisf cap. 1. p. 9 10. Discourse of Christ's Suff. p. 69. Discour of the Suff. of Christ P. 59. Ib. p. 73. Meth. The. P. III. c. 1. determ 5. P. 38. Pufendorf Element Jurisp Univers Lib. 1. def 21. §. 7. p. 237. Baxt. Two Disputat of Original Sin p. 156.