Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	law_n	nature_n	transgression_n	6,060	5	10.0236	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61598	A sermon concerning sins of omission preached before the King and Queen at White-Hall, on March 18th, 1693/4, being Midlent-Sunday / by ... Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1694 (1694)	Wing S5636; ESTC R15343	16,441	37

A SERMON CONCERNING Sins of Omission Preached before the King and Queen AT WHITE-HALL ON March 18 th 1693 4. being Midlent-Sunday By the Right Reverend Father in GOD EDWARD Lord Bishop of Worcester Published by Their Majesties Special Command LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1694. S. JAMES IV. 17. Therefore to him that knoweth to doe good and doth it not to him it is Sin ALthough our Apostle in this Epistle calls the Gospel the Law of Liberty yet to prevent any misconstruction thereof as tho' it allowed a Liberty to sin we no where find more strict and severe passages against it than in this Epistle both with Respect to Sins of Commission and Sins of Omission As to Sins of Commission his Expression seems hardly consistent with the Grace of the Gospel For whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one Point he is guilty of all Hath the Law of Moses any thing more apt to terrifie the Consciences of Men if not to drive them into despair than this It is not If one breaks the whole Law then it had been no wonder if he were guilty of all even under the Gospel which doth not take away the force of the Moral Law But If he keeps the whole Law and yet offend in one Point he is guilty of all How is this agreeable with the Equity of the Gospel to make a Breach of one Part to be a violation of the whole Law Since he cannot keep the Law and break it at the same time and so far as he did keep it he could not be guilty of the breach of it but if he offended but in one Point he must keep all the rest It is not enough to say that the Chain of the whole is broken and the Authority of the Law-giver contemned for there is a great difference between breaking a Chain and breaking it all to pieces there is no such Contempt in the Breach of one Command as of all and he that keeps all the rest seems to shew more regard to his Authority in keeping the other Parts of the Law than Contempt in that wherein he offends What then is the Apostles Meaning It is that the Gospel doth not allow any wilfull Breach of the Law of God in any one kind or sort whatsoever as appears by the following words For he that said Do not commit Adultery said also Do not kill now if thou commit no Adultery yet if thou kill thou art become a Transgressor of the Law What is before said that he is guilty of all is here explained that he is a Transgressor of the Law This cannot therefore be understood of any sudden Act of Passion and Surprise nor of any Failings as to the Manner of our Duties but of a wilfull deliberate Practice of some one known Sin although the Person may be carefull to avoid many others Because this is not consistent with that Integrity of Mind and that sincere Regard to God and his Laws which every good Christian ought to have and so being guilty of the whole Law is to be understood with Respect to the Favour of God which can no more be expected where there is a wilfull persisting in any one known Trangression of the Law than if he were guilty of all As to Sins of Omission the words of the Text taken in their full Extent have a very mortifying consideration in them For it is much easier to know to doe good than to practise it It is hard for Men under the plain Precepts of the Gospel not to know how to doe good but who is there that can say he doth all the good he knows We all know we ought to love God with all our heart and soul and strength and our Neighbour as our selves yet who can pretend to doe it in the utmost latitude and extent of our Duty So that what S. Paul saith of the Law is true of the Text that it concludes all under Sin For as our Apostle saith in many things we offend all And the more we know the more we offend as he tells us in these words To him that knoweth to doe good and doth it not to him it is sin What Advantage then have we by the Gospel since the more we know of our Duty the worse our Condition is if we do not practise it And we know so much more to be our Duty than we can hope to practise that this Expression seems to leave Mankind in a more deplorable Condition under the Light of the Gospel than if we had never heard of it For if the Sin be aggravated by knowing our Duty and not doing it it must proportionably be lessened by having no Opportunities to know it Therefore for the Clearing the Sense of the Apostle in these words and for the right understanding the just Measures of our Duty and the due Aggravation of our Sins it will be necessary to state and clear the Nature and Extent of Sins of Omission Or to shew how far this Rule of the Apostle holds To him that knoweth to doe good and doth it not to him it is Sin To doe good here doth not barely imply something that is Lawfull and Commendable which it is some way in our Power to doe but that to which we are under some Obligation so that it becomes our Duty to doe it For a Sin of Omission must suppose an Obligation since every Sin must be a Transgression of the Law But there are several sorts of things that are good and there are different kinds of Obligation and from hence arises the Difficulty of stating the Nature of Sins of Omission which some are too little sensible of and some too much But it is in it self a Subject of so important a Nature and so seldom spoken to that I shall at this time endeavour to clear it And in order thereto we must enquire I. Into that Good which we are obliged to do II. The Nature of the Obligation we are under to do it I. As to the Good which we are obliged to do that may be considered two ways 1. With Respect to God and so it implies the Duty we Owe on the account of the Relation we stand in to Him 2. With Respect to one another and so it implies not mere Duty but something beneficial and advantageous to others which we are in a Capacity to do 1. Our Duty with Respect to God is either 1. That of our Minds which lie in Internal Acts which we are bound to perform towards Him 2. That which consists in External Acts of Duty and Service to Him 1. The Duty which we Owe to God in our Minds which is not barely to Know him but frequently to Consider and Think of him as our Maker and Benefactor It is a strange Incogitancy in Mankind to live as without God in the World to suffer the Cares and Thoughts and Business of this World