Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	suffer_v	suffering_n	2,047	5	9.4271	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94360	A sermon concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ. preached before the Queen at Whitehall, April 9., 1693.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1221B; ESTC R203830	18,336	63

d. Thirdly It is yet further objected That this seems to be more unreasonable than the sacrificing of Beasts among the Jews nay than the sacrificing of Men among the Heathen and even of their own Sons and Daughters Because this is the offering up of the Son of God the most innocent and the most excellent Person that ever was To which I answer that if we consider the manner and the design of it the thing will appear to be quite otherwise As to the manner of it God did not command his Son to be sacrificed but his Providence permitted the wickedness and violence of men to put him to death And then his Goodness and Wisdom did over-rule this worst of Actions to the best of Ends. And if we consider the matter aright how is this any more a reflection upon the Holy Providence of God than any Enormities and Cuelties which by his permission are daily committed in the World And then if we consider the End and Design of this permission of Christ's Death and the application of it to the purpose of a general Expiation we cannot but acknowledge and even adore the gracious and mercifull Design of it For by this means God did at once put an end to that unreasonable and bloody way of Worship which had been so long practiced in the World And after this one Sacrifice which was so infinitely dear to God the benefit of Expiation was not to be expected in any other way all other Sacrifices being worthless and vain in comparison of this And it hath ever since obtained this effect of making all other Sacrifices to cease in all Parts of the World where Christianity hath prevailed Obj. 4 th Fourthly The last Objection is the Injustice and Cruelty of an innocent Person 's suffering instead of the Offender To this I answer That they who make so great a noise with this Objection do seem to me to give a full and clear Answer to it themselves by acknowledging as they constantly and expresly do that our Saviour suffered all this for our benefit and advantage though not in our place and stead For this to my apprehension is plainly to give up the Cause unless they can shew a good reason why there is not as much Injustice and Cruelty in an innocent Person 's suffering for the benefit and advantage of a Malefactor as in his suffering in his stead So little do Men in the heat of dispute and opposition who are resolved to hold fast an Opinion in despite of Reason and good sense consider that they do many times in effect and by necessary consequence grant the very thing which in express terms they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny The truth of the matter is this there is nothing of Injustice or Cruelty in either Case neither in an Innocent Person 's suffering for the benefit of an Offender nor in his stead supposing the Suffering to be voluntary But they have equally the same appearance of Injustice and Cruelty Nor can I possibly discern any reason why Injustice and Cruelty should be objected in the one Case more than in the other there being every whit as little reason why an Innocent Person should suffer for the benefit of a Criminal as why he should suffer in his stead So that I hope this Objection which above all the rest hath been so loudly and so invidiously urged hath received a just Answer And I believe if the matter were searched to the bottom all this perverse contention about our Saviour's suffering for our benefit but not in our stead will signify just nothing For if Christ dyed for our benefit so as some way or other by vertue of his Death and Sufferings to save us from the wrath of God and to procure our escape from eternal Death this for ought I know is all that any body means by his dying in our stead For he that dies with an intention to do that benefit to another as to save him from Death doth certainly to all intents and purposes dye in his placea nd stead And if they will grant this to be their meaning the Controversie is at an end and both sides are agreed in they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side except only by the Socinians who yet are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the absurdity of it with great advantage But I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a one as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation First There is not equal reason for the belief of these Two Doctrines This Objection if it be of any force must suppose that there is equal evidence and proof from Scripture for these two Doctrines But this we utterly deny and with great reason because it is no more evident from the words of Scripture that the Sacramental Bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural Body by virtue of those words This is my Body than it is that Christ is substantially changed into a natural Vine by virtue of those words I am the true Vine or than that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was substantially changed into the Person of Christ because it is expresly said That Rock was Christ or than that the Christian Church is substantially changed into the natural Body of Christ because it is in express terms said of the Church That it is his Body But besides this several of their own most learned Writers have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this that if I am bound to believe what I am sure God says tho I cannot comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it And if this be their meaning though we understand not Transubstantiation yet we very well understand what they would have but cannot grant it because there is not equal reason to believe two things for one of which there is good proof and for the other no proof at all Secondly neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these two Doctrines This the Objection supposes which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these two grounds Either because these two Doctrines are equally incomprehensible or because they are equally loaded