Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	death_n	sin_n	sin_v	3,442	5	9.4313	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82528	A friendly debate on a weighty subject: or, a conference by writing betwixt Mr Samuel Eaton and Mr John Knowles concerning the divinity of Iesus Christ: for the beating out, and further clearing up of truth.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Knowles, John, fl. 1646-1668.	1650 (1650)	Wing E121; Thomason E609_16; ESTC R205964	49,997	66

proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an Infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with the sacrifice finite in value is unconceivable and against the tenure of the Scripture Answ Considering the words of this Instance with its scope we may draw up this Argument That Doctrine which takes away the value of Christs offering and destroys the satisfaction which he gave to Divine Iustice brings in as it were another Gospel c. But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth so Therefore I shall grant the Major but how prove you the Minor You would confirm your Doctrine by asking two Queries 1. If Christ was say you a meer creature then who could he satisfie for the sins of many transgressours c Sir if it please you to consider Rom. 5.12 and so forward you may answer your own Query or see as good Reason of this which I shall now propound If Adam were a meer creature how could his sin make many transgressours If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many Rom. 5.15 Christ as well as Adam was a common person and therefore the Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all and he bearing the curse of the Law his Members are delivered from both the sin and the curse Your Second Query is this How is it conceivable that an Infinite Iustice offended should be satisfied by a Sacrifice finite in value What matters it Sir if it be unconceivable must it therefore be uncredible Doubtless in all Controversall doctrines you will not hold this for an Orthodoxall tenent In the Doctrine of the Trinity credit must be given to things unconceivable but the like liberty it seems will not be allowed in Christs Mediatorship Eut Sir the foundation you build upon is not a little questionable you take that for granted and so infer from it which you are to confirm Sure I am that not a few errours may lie under your Non-Scripturall-Language Ye tell us of an Infinite Sacrifice but what you mean by it and where Scripture tells us I am yet for to learn The Scripture tells us that Christ was made sin or a sin offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the curse But how this Sacrifice was infinite remains to me unconceivable If the suffering of Christ had been Infinite there had been no end of it If the curse had been Infinite man could not have born it being uncapable of any thing Infinite in the Infinity of it It is enough for me to believe that my Lord Jesus suffered for me whatever I deserved to suffer and that was the curse of the Law be that what it will There is a Scripture which I finde in your Instance and that is Acts 20.28 and I knew no fitteer place then the close of my Answer for it Sir I shall offer these few things to your consideration 1. That there may be some mistake in the Text. God may be put for Lord or Christ which if granted the words are thus to be read Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the slock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud The Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16.16 This conceit of a mistake may receive countenance from the possibility probability and facility thereof It is possible that the Scribe through carelesness or something worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the Old Testament another in the New which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or something worse The first is Psal 22.16 where Caari signifying as a Lion is put for Caru they pierced The other is Rom. 12.11 we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord Also it is probable that here is a mistake for as Grotius observes many Copies have Lord and the Syriack Christ not God Lastly it was easie to mistake taking one for the other from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. But in the next place if it be proved that there is no mistake in the Text yet there may be a defect in the words For the last clause some Greek copies thus have it which he hath purchased with the blood of his own and so the word Son is to be understood with the blood of his own Son 3. Last of all if both these may bee removed yet the words may have another meaning then what you and many others allot to them Christs blood may be said to be Gods own blood in way of eminency it being more excellent by farre then the blood of the Legall Sacrifices In the old Testament tall trees are called Cedars of God the like Phrases are frequently there to be found And the New Testament is not wholly a stranger to the like Phrases In this sence Christ is called the Lamb of God Joh. 1.36 because he was far more excellent then either the Paschall Lamb or any other Lamb which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice under the Leviticall Priesthood The Divine Authour to the Hebrewes speaking both of the blood of legall sacrifices and of Christ Jesus preferres the blood of Christ far before all other blood that was shed for the expiation of sinne Heb. 9.13.14 Now I hasten to your ninth substance which is this Instance 1 If Christ be a meere creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown for Christ if meere man being in heaven cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth therefore cannot intercede for it Answ Sir the reducing of this your Instance into an Argument will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weaknesse Thus it may be formed without the least injury to your meaning if your mind agree with the import of your words That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel c. But the Doctrine which makes Christ to be a meere creature utterly overthrows the intercesson of Christ Therefore Sir to your major I yield the fullest concession being so much a friend to Christs Incercession Your minor brings in an high accusation but pray Sir how is it attended with probation you onely say that if Christ were a meere creature being in heaven he could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore if he were but a meere creature he could not intercede What must we again take your word for a proffer I wish a better for there is no goodnesse in that We have already been too long troubled with the word I say in