Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	affection_n	great_a	love_n	1,392	5	5.1091	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62611	A sermon preached before the Queen at White-Hall, April the 9th, 1693, concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ by John, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1248; ESTC R9501	16,874	41

so plainly that the force of them is not to be avoided without the most shameful wresting and perverting of them This is my commandment says our Saviour that ye love one another as I have loved you How is that he declares in the next words Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend that is that he be contented to die in his stead And to the same purpose St. Paul For when ye were yet Sinners in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly Now the question is whether by this expression of Christ's dying for the ungodly be meant only his dying for the benefit and advantage of Sinners but not his dying in their stead This let the words which immediately follow determine For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to dye But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us And now I appeal to any man of good sense whether it be not plain that the Apostle here speaks of Christ's dying for Sinners in the same sense as one man is said to dye for another that is to save another from death which what is it else but to dye in his stead He that can deny this is perverse to the highest degree and I fear almost beyond the possibility of being convinced And the Argument from these two Texts is so much the stronger because we do not here reason merely from the phrase and expression but from the main Scope of our Saviour's discourse in the one and of St. Paul's in the other For the design of both is to recommend the superlative love of Christ to us above the greatest love that ever any man express'd to another The highest pitch that human affection did ever rise to was for a man to lay down his life for his Friend but the Son of God laid down his life for his Enemies Scarcely says St. Paul would one lay down his life for a righteous man that is for one who is but strictly just and honest and does no body wrong but for a good man that is for-one that is kind and beneficial to all and hath obliged Mankind by great Benefits some one may be found that would lay down his life to save the life of such a Person But the love of Christ hath gone far beyond this He dyed for Sinners for those who were neither good men nor righteous But God commendeth his love to us in that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us Now where doth the force of this Argument lye if not in this that Christ hath done that for us who were Enemies and Sinners which some very few persons in the World have done for their Friend or for some very eminently good man And what is that Why they have laid down their lives in their stead And so Christ hath done for us This seems to be so very plain that I do not see how the force of this Argument is possible to be avoided It is evident then from Scripture that Christ dyed not only for our advantage but in our stead as truly and really as any man ever did or can dye for another who lays down his own life to save another from death For if Christ had not dyed we had perished everlastingly and because he dyed we are saved from eternal Death and misery And though this be no where in Scripture spoken of by the name or term of Satisfaction yet it is said to be the price of our Redemption which surely is the same thing in effect with Satisfaction For as we are Sinners we are liable and as I may say indebted to the Justice of God And the Son of God by his Death and Sufferings in our Nature hath discharged this obligation and paid this debt for us Which discharge since it was obtained for us by the shedding of Christ's Blood and the Scripture tells us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of Sins And since God is graciously pleased to accept of it for the Debt which we owed to his Justice and to declare himself fully pleased and contented with it why it may not properly enough be called payment or satisfaction I confess I am not able to understand Men may eternally wrangle about any thing but what a frivolous contention what a trifling in serious matters what barretrie in Divinity is this Not that God was angry with his Son when he thus laid on him the iniquities of us all No he was always well pleased with him and never better than when he became obedient to the Death even the Death of the Cross and bore our Sins in his own body on the Tree Nor yet that our Saviour suffered the very same that the Sinner should have suffered namely the proper Pains and Torment of the Damned But that his Obedience and Sufferings were of that value and esteem with God and his voluntary Sacrifice of himself so well-pleasing to him that he thereupon entred into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who believe and repent and to make them partakers of eternal life And hence the Blood of Christ which was shed for us upon the Cross is called the Blood of the Covenant as being the Sanction of that New Covenant into which God is entred with Mankind And not only the Sanction and confirmation of that Covenant but the very Foundation of it For which reason the Cup in the Lord's Supper is called the New Testament or as the word should rather be rendred the New Covenant in his Blood which was shed for many for the remission of Sins I proceed now to the II d. Thing propounded which was to shew that the Expiation of our Sins was made by the Sufferings of Christ from the nature and intention of Expiatory Sacrifices both among the Jews and Heathen to which the Death of Christ is in the New Testament so frequently compared and in point of vertue and efficacy to take away Sin infinitely preferr'd to it Now the nature and design of Expiatory Sacrifices was plainly this To substitute one Living Creature to suffer and die instead of another so that what the Sinner deserved to have suffered was supposed to be done to the Sacrifice that is it was slain to make an atonement for the Sinner And though there was no reason to hope for any such effect from the Blood of Bulls or of Goats or of any other Living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice yet that both Jews and Heathen did expect and hope for it is so very evident that it cannot without extreme Ignorance or Obstinacy be deny'd But this expectation how unreasonable soever plainly shews it to have been the common Apprehension of Mankind in all Ages that God would not be appeased nor should Sin be pardoned