Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	david_n	lord_n	saul_n	9,635	5	10.3237	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30019	Discourses and essays on several subjects, relating chiefly to the controversies of these times, especially with the Socinians, deists, enthusiasts, and scepticks by Ja. Buerdsell ...; Selections. 1700	Buerdsell, James, 1669 or 70-1700.	1700 (1700)	Wing B5363; ESTC R7240	90,520	247

an innocent Person underwent a most barbarous poinant as well as shameful Death that One in whose Mouth was found no Guile was opprest was afflicted as well as despis'd and rejected of Men or else because he endur'd all this for our Sins But there is no Injustice in the former because it is plain from Scripture and Socinus himself owns That our Saviour after a Life of the most spotless Innocence had it taken away by the most cruel and ignominious Death a Death of Slaves and Malefactors And this not only by the Permission but even by the Ordinance and immediate Act of God for He was stricken smitten of God and afflicted and Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right Far be it from God that he should do Wickedness and that the Almighty should pervert Judgment So that the Enquiry will be this Whether it is consistent with Equity that the Holy JESVS the true and uniform Pattern of all Virtue should be thus severely punish'd as the Propitiator for us Sinners And that he should be so is neither irreconcilable with that positive Justice or Equity which God has reveal'd in his Word nor with that Natural Justice which may be drawn from the Reason of Mankind and the Practice and Usage of Nations and which Socinus so much insists on The derivation of Punishment from the Transgressor to the Innocent is not irreconcilable with the Divine Word For it is not irreconcilable with the Divine Word either that an Innocent should be punish'd for the Sins of the Guilty or that he should be in such manner punish'd that the Guilty may be freed from the Penalty due to Guilt First 'T is not irreconcilable with Scripture that the Innocent should be punish'd for the Sins of the Guilty For is not Canaan sentenc'd to be a Servant of Servants for the Unnaturalness of his Father Ham Are not seven Men of Saul's Sons hanged up to the Lord for his Treachery Are not seventy Thousand cut off for the Sin of David Which forc'd from him that Pathetical Exclamation worthy such a Prince Lo I have sinned and I have done wickedly but these Sheep what have they done Let thy hand I pray thee be against me and against my Father's house And in general tho' it is the Character of the Lord that He i● Merciful and Gracious Long-suffering and abundant in Goodness and Truth yet do not the very next words inform us that He visits the Iniquities of the Father 's upon the Children and upon the Childrens Children unto the third and fourth Generation And does not the Prophet in the Lamentation personating Sion complain Our Fathers have sinned and are not and we have born their Iniquities Farther It is not irreconcilable with Scripture Justice that the Guilty may be freed from the Penalty which the Innocent have undergone or which is the same are to undergo To prove this I shall only produce one Instance that of Ahab who for his short and transient Repentance and which past away like the morning dew had the Judgment denounc'd against him executed on his Posterity Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself because he humbleth himself before me I will not bring the evil in his days in his Sons days will I bring the evil on his house As Punishment by deputation is thus reconcilable with the sentiments God's Word gives us of Justice so is it equally so with the Practice or Usage of Nations First it is agreeable to th●se That one Man should lay down his Life for another's Crimes and next That the Guilty should gain Impunity by something which has been suffer'd for him First it is consistent with the Usage of Nations that one Man should lay down his Life for another's Crimes In the Affair of Pledges in War receiv'd by all Countries are not these sacrific'd to the Fury of their Enemies for the Perfidiousness of their Fellow-Citizens Do they not die for Violations of Faith which sometimes they could not so much as contrive or design as being Children never eexcute as being Prisoners Did the most human and compassionate of Princes ever think it any reflection on his Justice to take the Forfeiture Or could Justice be preserv'd in the World without such Examples When one Prince is notoriously injur'd by another did the injur'd ever esteem it unjust or barbarous to revenge himself on his Enemy's innocent Subjects to bu●n ravage and destroy Cottages for the Affronts and Villanies of the Palace to kill or enslave the Peasant for the wicked Counsel of the Statesman When the Law of War i● broke between two Generals is not ho without regard to any antecedent Demerit always the most guilty who is first caught In the Decimation of mutinous Souldiers may not the fatal ●●o● fall on the peaceable and harmless as well as on the stubborn and rebellious● Or is there some secret Oracle in the Chances which infallibly guides them to the Offenders Or is it Injustice to punish the unfortunate Condemn'd how guiltless soever As it is thus consistent with the Use of Nations That one should suffer for another's Crimes so is it not less so That the Guilty should gain Impunity by something which has been suffer'd for him Thus in the instance of Sacrifices receiv'd into the Religion of all Nations whatsoever the matter of them was whether it was Thousand of Rams or whether they brought their first-born and offer'd the fruit of their Bodies for the sin of their Souls yet the intention of them both was to procure Impunity to the Sinner by laying the Punishment somewhere else And how useless soever the former might be or how cruel the latter yet both prove That it was the Sentiments of Mankind that freedom from Penalty might be purchas'd by a vicarious Infliction There was nothing therefore in our Saviour's Suffering which is inconsistent with the constant sence of Mankind in regard to the Expiation of Guilt Nor is there any thing in it unjust whether we examine it by the Rules of Justice display'd in the Word of God or by the Usage of Nations Nor farther is there any thing in it unreasonable which is now to be made out For it was reasonable that Christ should die for our Sins because first It is reasonable that God should release the Punishment due to our Sins and next That he should remit it by the method of punishing Christ in our stead That God should release our Punishment is reasonable whether we consider the Nature of God whose Goodness must strongly plead before the Throne of Grace for faln Man's Remission even before there was any other Advocate or whether we consider the Nature of that Service which God exacts from Man For God never obliges to Duty where he has put himself out of a possibility of requiting it But while Man's Sins were unforgiven while his obligation to Punishment remain'd it was not in the power of God to reward his Piety Since undistinguishing Misery was to be his