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
A41009	Kātabaptistai kataptüstoi The dippers dipt, or, The anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and eares, at a disputation in Southwark : together with a large and full discourse of their 1. Original. 2. Severall sorts. 3. Peculiar errours. 4. High attempts against the state. 5. Capitall punishments, with an application to these times / by Daniel Featley ...	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1645 (1645)	Wing F586; ESTC R212388	182,961	216

former course of life hath not been corresponding to so holy a Calling but that we blame them for is that they take upon them the honour and office of the Priesthood not being called thereunto as was Aaron that they despise the Churches Ordination by Imposition of hands that they handle the holy Scripture and Sacraments with black foule and unwashed hands that they presume that they have those gifts and graces of the Spirit which indeed they have not that they usurp upon the place and function of the Ministers of the Gospel and too much undervalue the cure of souls which as Saint Gregory rightly defineth it is Ars artium the Art of all arts And S. Paul by the question he propoundeth resolveth as much saying Who is sufficient for these things But now as the practise is and the common estimation of the vulgar we may crosse S. Pauls question with a contrary Interrogatorie Who is not sufficient for these things sith Coach-men Weavers Felt-makers and other base Mechanicks are now by some thought able Ministers and profound Doctors of the Church and Exercise as they tearme it not onely in private Conventicles but also per famam populum in great Churches and publique Assemblies to the great dishonour of God prophanation of his Ordinances and scandall of the Reformed Churches ARTIC 5. Concerning taking an oath especially ex officio ANABAPTIST NO Christian may lawfully take an Oath no not though it be required by a Magistrate especially such an Oath whereby they may hazard their life liberty or estate THE REFUTATION Though this assertion of the Anabaptists as they maintaine it hath a glosse and varnish put upon it of piety prudence and justice of piety in preventing all occasion both of false and vaine oathes of prudence in not insnaring our selves of justice in not concurring actively to our own prejudice or wrong yet upon due examination it will appear to be repugnant to all three to piety by robbing God of a part of his substantiall worship to wit a holy kind of invocation to prudence by unfurnishing our selves sometimes of our best defence which is to cleare our innocency by oath to justice by depriving all Courts of justice of this soveraigne evidence of truth and all humane society both of the surest tye of fidelity and the readiest meanes to end all strife and controversie For the farther manifestation whereof I am to cleare three points 1. That oathes may lawfully be taken by Christians 2. That some oathes may be lawfully exacted of them and imposed upon them 3. That oathes may be lawfully urged and exacted not only in civill but in criminall causes such as are commonly tearmed oathes ex officio when a man is required to answer upon oath concerning some crime or fault objected to him or articled against him Some deny it to be lawfull to take any oath others allow of oathes freely taken but not imposed a third sort dislike not all oathes imposed but only except against oathes ex officio These three questions hang as it were upon one string For if no oath may bee lawfully taken certainly none may be lawfully imposed and if oathes may not be imposed least of all the oath ex officio whereby we hazard and endanger our lives liberties limbes or estate if we confesse but our soules if we deny upon oath what is truly laid to our charge Againe on the contrary if the oath ex officio in some cases may be lawfully imposed then other oathes may be imposed with much lesse difficulty and if oathes may be lawfully imposed certainly they may be lawfully taken Yet must these questions of necessity be handled apart for the satisfaction of scrupulous consciences who first must be perswaded of the lawfulnesse of taking an oath in generall before they will suffer an oath to be imposed upon them and secondly that the Magistrate hath a lawfull power to exact oathes before they will take such and such a kind of oath required of them To lay the foundation therefore firme before wee build any thing thereupon First I prove the lawfulnesse of taking oathes the conditions prescribed by the prophet being observed namely that we sweare in judgement righteousnesse and truth in truth not falsely in judgement not rashly in righteousnesse not wickedly to the prejudice of equity or breach of Christian charity ARGUMENT I. Whatsoever God commandeth is lawfull for Gods command is the rule of good his command maketh that good which otherwise were evill as Abrahams offer to kill his sonne and the Iewes robbing the Egyptians of jewels of gold and silver and in like manner his prohibition makes that evill which otherwise in it selfe were good as working in a mans calling on the Sabbath the sparing the fattest of the cattell for sacrifice by Saul If every sinne be a transgression of the law it cannot be sinne to fulfill it But God commandeth taking of oathes as part of his worship Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serve him and sweare by his name Deut. 10. 20. To the Lord thou shalt cleave and sweare by his name hee is thy praise and he is thy God And Ier. 4. 2. Thou shalt sweare The Lord liveth in truth judgement and justice And to such as sweare in such a holy and religious manner God promiseth a blessing both outward and inward outward Ier. 12. 16. If they will diligently learne the wayes of my people to sweare by my name then shall they bee built in the midst of my people inward Psal. 63. 11. The King shall rejoice in God and every one that sweareth by him shall rejoice or glory in him Ergo to sweare is lawfull for Christians ANABAP ANSVVER It was lawfull to sweare when God commanded it under the law but it is not now lawfull for Christians sith Christ hath forbidden it in the Gospell REPLY 1. The same God is Law-giver both to the Iewes and Christians and the same truth shineth in the law and in the Gospell only with this difference in the law it shined through a tiffany or vaile of rites and ceremonies but in the Gospell as it were with open face The vaile is now taken away whereof religious swearing by the name of God was no part For an oath containeth not a resemblance of Christ but a worship of God It is no type or sign of grace but seale of truth the sense whereof is meer morall the law of it naturall the use perpetuall the worship performed in it to God is essentiall When we call God to witnesse a hidden truth in the sincerity of our intentions wee agnize his Soveraigne greatnesse For every oath is by a greater Heb. 6. 16. we professe his all-seeing wisdome we invocate his revenging justice which are not rituall but substantiall parts of worship In which regard in the texts of the Prophet Ieremy above alleadged swearing is joyned with the feare of God and cleaving to him both duties of the

his arms and blessed them to shew that he was the Saviour as well of young as old REPLY First Barber deserveth to be trimmed himself for thus reproaching his mother the church of England who if she be a whore what must he needs be but a bastard who cannot deny himself to be born of her If she and other reformed churches who have excluded the papacie and banished the great whore out of their precincts be no better then whores what true spouse hath Christ in the world or what had he for 1500. yeares during which time all churches through the Christian world baptized infan●s even those who were the forerunners of these Anabaptists and bare also the●r name because they practized rebaptizing as these do yet they condemned not simply the baptisme of infants as I noted before Secondly though it be said that these children came to Christ in a large sense that is had accesse to him yet they came not to him upon their own leggs for S. Luke saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they brought unto him babes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were no other then such as we tearm sucklings or infants and though it be true that Christ christened them not for he christened none himself but his Disciples only as S. Iohn teacheth us yet his receiving them and blessing them and commending humility to all by their example saying that of such and none but such is the kingdome of God is a sufficient ground and warrant for us to christen them for why should not we receive them into the bosom of the church whom Christ took into his armes Why should we not signe them on whom he layd his hands Why should we not baptize and pray for them whom he blessed If he be the Saviour of young as well as old and to perswade us of this truth expressed such love to infants why should we exclude them from baptisme an outward means of salvation whom Christ as they confesse excludes not from salvation it self See more below in the answer to A. R. ARGUMENT VIII All they who are partakerrs of the grace both signified and exhibited to us in baptisme may and ought to receive the signe and sacrament thereof this is the basis and foundation upon which S. Peter himself builds Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we And it may be further confirmed both by an argument drawn à majore ad minus after this manner if God bestow upon children that which is greater the inward grace why should we denie them the lesser the outward element Or by an argument drawn à relatis they to whom the land is given ought not to be denyed the sight and keeping of the deeds and evidences thereof neither ought we to sever those things which God hath joyned to wit the signs and the things signified they divide the signe from the thing signified who denie them to have grace ordinarily modo non ponant obicem who receive the outward sign and they again sever the thing signified from the sign who allow unto children the grace of remission of sinnes and regeneration and yet denie them the sign and seal thereof to wit baptisme But children receive the grace signified and exhibited in baptisme for the Apostle teacheth us they are not unclean but holy and therefore have both remission of sins and sanctification Ergo children ought to receive the sign and sacrament thereof to wit baptisme ANABAP ANSWER The Apostles ●eaning is that the children of beleevens are not uncleane that is bastards but holy that is born in holy wedlack REPLY First this answer is no way pertinent to the scope of the Apostle which is to perswade the Christian husband not to forsake his unbeleeving wife nor the Christian wife to depart from her unbelieving husband because the unbeliever is sanctified by the beleever where by sanctification the Apostle cannot understand legitimation For faith in the husband doth not legitimate the wife that is make her no bastard if she were so born but sanctifieth her to himself and maketh her a part and member of a holy familie dedicated to God Secondly neither is sanctification here nor in any other place of Scripture taken otherwayes then for separating some way from prophane as persons times and places are said to be sanctified Neither doth holy necessarily implie no bastard For some holy men have been base-born nor doth not bastard implie holy for both the children of damned hereticks yea and infidells too if they be begotten in wed-look are no bastards yet in the state and condition they are in are far from holy See more hereof infra in the answer to A. R. ARGUMENT IX All Apostolicall traditions which are truely such ought to be had in reverent esteem and retained in the church For what the Apostles delivered they received from Christ himself either by word of mouth or the infallible inspiration of his spirit such things are part of that sacrum depositum which Timothie is charged so deeply O Timothie keep that which is committed unto thee and the Thessalonians to keep stand fast and keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word for word the traditions which you have been taught either by word or by our Epistle But the baptisme of children is an Apostolicall tradition truely so called Ergo it ought to be had in high esteem and retained in the church ANABAP ANSWER Though it hath been an ancient custome in many churches to christen children yet it is no Apostolicall tradition but a humane ordinance which had its originall from the Pope the man of sin REPLY First there was christening of children in the church before there was any Pope in the sense they take the word for oecumenicall bishop chalenging unto himself and usurping authoritie over the whole church for not only S. Augustine and Prosper and and Ierome make mention of this custome and good use of it to condemn the Pelagian heresy which denieth original sin but also the councell of Carthage in the dayes of S. Cyprian who flourished in the year 250 determined not only that children might and ought to be baptized but also even before the eighth day upon which some in those dayes stood strickly but erroneously and conformably hereunto we find a canon in the Milevitan councell in which the synod decreed that whosoever shall deny baptisme to children even as soon as they come out of their mothers womb in case the children be weak and in apparent danger of death let him be accursed and before either the synod of Carthage or this Mile●tan Irenaeus in his second book against heresies chap. 39. speaks of infants children young and old saved by their new birth in Christ namely by water and the spirit Joh. 3. 5. Secondly S. Origen and S. Austine affirm in expresse tearmes that the baptisme of children is