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
A47755	A religious conference between a minister and parishioner: concerning the practice of our orthodox Church of England in baptizing infants, and pouring water on their faces, or sprinkling them; and in confirming them by the bishop when they come of age to give an account of their faith. Proving all three lawful by the authority of the Holy Scriptures.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1696 (1696)	Wing L1145; ESTC R213965	23,437	34

Remission of Sins and Gift of the Holy Ghost belongs to the Believing Gentiles and their Children as well as to the Jews and theirs and that they both and their Children stood upon equal Terms in respect of the Covenant of Grace P. But may not this Promise be understood with reference to that Curse the Jews imprecated on their Childrens head when they Crucified Christ His Blood be on us and our Children Mat. 27.25 that they and their Children should be freed from that Curse in case they did live to repent and be Baptised M. No The Text cannot be so Interpreted because if the Curse was imprecated and fell on their Children according to the Jews imprecation why should not this Promise if it were a freedom from that Curse exempt their Children from it altho they might not live actually to repent of it And since a great many of them in all probability did not live so long 't was but poor comfort to tell the Jews their Children should be pardoned and saved on condition they repented which was impossible for them to perform and for this Reason and because it was made to the Gentiles too who are not charg'd by St. Peter to be guilty of Christ's Blood as the Jews were Acts 2.23 this Promise ver 39. cannot be particular to the Jews for their Sin of Blood-guiltiness but must be general and extend to all theirs and the Gentiles Actual Sins and the Original Sin of both their Children and if this Promise belong to both their Children there is no other ordinary means for them to receive the benefit of it but by Baptism P. But does not the Clause in the conclusion limit the Promise to grown Believers even as many as the Lord our God shall call M. No That is only another Phrase to express the Gentiles by and a further Explication of the former All that are afar off and the purport of both is that the Promise is the same to the converted Gentiles as to the converted Jews and since the Children of the Jews are expressed to have a Right in this Promise the Children of the Gentiles must be imply'd to have the same Right in it P. Have they not some other Answers to these Five Texts of Scripture M. Yes But they are evasive ones and I have considered them and reply'd to them in a set Discourse of which this is but an Abridgment P. I should be glad to see this but in the mean time must observe that they will tell you all your five Scripture Proofs come short of Proving your Point because none of them expresly require us to Baptize our Children M. I thought they would allow of a good consequence from these or any other Texts of Scripture for Infant Baptism if they do not what have they to say for admitting Women to the Lords Supper there being no express Command for it P. Here I confess they are hard put to it and after all their turnings and windings are not able to produce one such Precept or so much as one Example for this practice but are forced to fly to deductions and consequencs to prove it M. This shews these Men to be partial they can easily espy the lawfulness of Womens receiving the Lords Supper in Scripture but they cannot or rather will not see the lawfulness of Childrens Receiving Baptism which is as visible there as the other P. But they produce three or four passages out of the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's Epistles to prove that Women believed and were Baptized and that they that were Baptized Assembled together and brake bread M. But how do they prove that this breaking of Bread must be the Lords Supper and not the First Christians ordinary Meals since in the same Chapter 't is call'd a breaking of Bread from House to House How do they likewise prove that those that were Baptiz'd and brake Bread must needs be all the Believers that were then in the World and if all were not present as it is highly improbable so many Thousands shou'd receive the Lord's Supper together in one House why might not those that were absent be the Women Alas they cannot infer a right to the Ordinance from what grounds they please they must produce some plain Command or Example for Womens Communicating or they say nothing This is certain my former Texts of Scripture as plainly prove Infant Baptism as any Text they can bring does that Women ought to receive the Lord's Supper and I wish they would let the Controversie rest here and I will undertake to prove as clearly the one as they are able to do the other P. But are you against Womens receiving the Lord's Supper M. No God forbid you know I have formerly Preach'd the contrary and pressed and persuaded Women as well as Men to partake of that great Ordinance and I am still and hope shall ever be of the same Mind But I urge this to prove that we have not better Grounds from Scripture to admit Women to the Lord's Table than we have to admit Believers Children to Baptism P. I apprehend you Sir that there is good Grounds from Scripture for both but if there is no express Command or Example for the Baptism of Infants it must be unlawful for that nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God but what has one or the other to Warrant it M. But how do they prove this P. They produce Jer. 7.31 And they have built the high Places of Tophet which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the fire which I Commanded them not neither came it into my Heart And several other places M. But this and the like Scriptures mention such things only as God had expresly forbidden and the Phrase I commanded them not imports as much and 't is all one as if the Prophet had said I forbade them to do this But what is the Idolatry here spoken of viz. the Jews Sacrificing their Sons and their Daughters to Devils What is this to Infant Baptism which is an Offering our Sons and our Daughters to Christ Is the one as Unlawful and great a Wickedness as the other Let them prove this and the Controversie is at an end but let them not think to fetch their Arguments from the Old-Testament to overthrow a New-Testament Ordinance if they do to speak in their own Language is not this a meer a trifling Vanity and nought but a piece of foolery and deceit to darken Counsel with words without knowledge Job 38.2 I think this to be a more true and safe Rule than theirs that as nothing is our Duty but what God has expresly or by good consequence Commanded so nothing is a Sin but what God has expresly or by good consequence forbidden according to that plain passage in Joh. 3.4 Sin is the transgression of the Law and St. Paul's inference from it Where there is no Law there is no transgression