Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	offer_v	sacrifice_n	sin_n	8,215	5	5.1703	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45406	A continuation of the defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an answer to the review of his annotations whereto is subjoyned a reply to some passages of the reviewer in his late book of schisme, concerning his charge of corruptions in the primitive church, and some other particulars / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1657 (1657)	Wing H529; ESTC R17947	36,523	52

vaticinium Isa. 53. 10. ubi dicitur si Christus vitam suam dedisset {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quod hic rectè {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vertitur fore ut sui cognitione multos justificaret postea ipse peccata multorum tulit Here first the parallel is set by Grotius betwixt the Evangelist and the Prophet Isaiah and to that 53 of that Prophecy is brought this sense of Christ's giving his life a ransome for many i. e. of his satisfaction and yet farther explained by that other phrase of the Prophet there used his bearing the sins of many and the like Heb. 9. 28. his being offer'd to bear the sins of many 14. Secondly The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or ransome here is interpreted by the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or sacrifice for sin there and after more fully by sacrificium piaculare {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an expiatorie propitiatorie sacrifice for sin victima lustralis and the giving his life a ransome the offering it up such a sacrifice for many and this as the ground or condition of his justifying many by the knowledge of him which what is it but the founding of our justification in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death i. e. in the satisfaction wrought by it for us 15. So Mat. 26. 28. Where Christs bloud of the New Testament is said to be shed for many for the remission of sins Here saith he Puto Danielis oraculum respici in quo de Messiâ dictum est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} cum praecessisset {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad expianda peccata Adde quae Rom. 5. 15. it should be 10. sic in Barnabae quae dicitur Epistola {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Adding Simul autem transit Christus à comparatione foederum ad comparationem sacrificiorum piacularium in quibus anima pecudis offerebatur velut succedanea anima hominis qui mortem meruisses unde victima ferre peccata dicebatur in lege Hinc mo●i victima pro homine Here again i. e. the words of Daniel of making reconciliation for iniquity and confirming the covenant with many c. 9. 24. 27. are set as a Prophecy parallel to this Evangelical truth of Christs bloud of the New Testament being shed for the expiating of our sins So likewise Rom. 5. 10. of our being reconciled to God when we were enemies by the death of his Son And all these three illustrated by the plain words of Barnabas's Epistle that Christ offered up himself the vessel of the Spirit a sacrifice for our sins 2. It is here affirmed of his bloud that it was an expiatory sacrifice such as wherein one is offered up in stead of the other which had deserved death and is accordingly said to bear the sin of the other And then what could be more expresse to the doctrine of satisfaction then these three places of Prophet Evangelist and Apostle thus interpreted which being added to the former and now laid before the Reviewer willing to have perswaded the Reader these were none such because I formerly thought it needless to produce them will sure now passe for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} instances as competent as any Quintilian would exact to disprove the Vniversal proposition of the not one text in the whole Scripture which is not wrested to another sense or at least the doctrine concealed and obscured by these Annotations 16. But here on this ocasion the place in his Annotations on Isa. 53. is by the Reviewer resumed as hopeful to yield some colour to infer his charge Where saith he he gives such an exposition of the whole Chapter as is manifestly and universally inconsistent with any such design on the words as that which he intends to prove from them in his Book De satisfact and in particular tels you in his Annotations on the place as also on 1 Pet. 2. 24. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies auferre which with all his strength he had there contended against 17. To this I answer 1. as to his exposition of the whole chapter that I have already told him that Grotius endeavoured to find a first sense of the words of that Prophecy so as to belong peculiarly to the Jews usage of the Prophet Jeremy and that I acknowledge not to be appliable alwayes to their usage of Christ But beside this saith he there is a more principal and sublime sense and that oft the more literal of the two wherein the whole chapter belongs to Christ but this sense being more vulgarly markt by others is onely in general once for all pointed at by him in those short Annotations being also more fully explicated elsewhere in a set discourse on that subject 18. This answer being formerly given by me the Reviewer is now pleased to mistake and to change it into a distinction betwixt the literal and mystical sense of a place and then to undertake that his perverting the first literal sense of the chapter or giving it a completion in any person but Christ is no lesse then blasphemy But to this I reply that my words are misreported by the disputant and agreeably my sense also For I distinguisht not betwixt the literal and mystical sense of the place or if I had I must much have wronged Grotius who resolved the words to belong oft more literally or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Christ than to any other but betwixt the first and literal interpretation which had its immediate completion among the Jews near that time wherein it written and the more remote concerning Christ that indeed mystical because veiled under the first but literal also because that to which the very words belonged as properly oft more properly than to the other As when the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or plain word without any figure belongs to Christ and onely the figurative interpretation of it the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Jeremy Of these two senses Grotius makes frequent mention in his interpretations See the note on Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King shall come which saith he primo maxime obvio sensu in the first and most obvious sense belongs to Zorobabel but sublimiore quodam sensu in a more sublime sense to the Messias And many the like 19. If thus the Reviewer had understood my words which I then thought plain enough till I saw them misapprehended I am in charity to think he would not have deemed it little lesse then blasphemy thus to interpret words of some other in a first but that lesse principal sense which belong to the Son of God in the more principal and sublime sense more remote in time of completion but not in respect of the propriety of the words 20. This the instance