Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	condemn_v	flesh_n	likeness_n	3,708	5	10.8945	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47737	The charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered in examination of some sermons he has lately published on purpose to clear himself from that imputation, by way of a dialogue betwixt F. a friend of Dr. T's and C. a Catholick Christian : to which is added some reflections upon the second of Dr. Burnet's four discourses, concerning the divinity and death of Christ, printed 1694 : to which is likewise annexed, A supplement upon occasion of A history of religion, lately published, supposed to be wrote by Sir R-- H--d [Robert Howard] : wherein likewise Charles Blount's Great Diana is considered, and both compar'd with Dr. Tillotson's sermons / by a true son of the Church.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1695 (1695)	Wing L1124; ESTC R19586	72,850	37

rather God's acceptance of sin and abhorring of Innocence Were it not more reasonable what Solomon says Prov. 21.18 That the Wicked should be a Ransom for the Righteous and the Transgressors for the Vpright Or as he otherwise words it Ch. 11.8 The Righteous is delivered out of trouble and the Wicked cometh in his stead Is not this more Justice than that the Righteous should be punished in the stead of the Wicked It cannot stand with Justice any other way than upon the Doctrine of Satisfaction nor can the Death of Christ be otherwise rationally accounted for In short the Socinians can find no Reason for it that has the least Pretence And therefore they settle here as I have shew'n above That God made a Covenant with Christ tho for what Reason they do not know to Remit the Sins of the Penitent if he would suffer himself to be murdered by those whose sins were to be Remitted by virtue of that Murder They say there was no need for any such Covenant for that God might have Remitted sins without it or without any Covenant or upon any sort of Covenant For as Dr. B. Says p. 151. It is the Appointment and the Acceptation that makes the Satisfaction But then if the Appointment and Acceptation of the Sacrifice of a Bullock could have made Satisfaction what need was there for Christ being Sacrificed Why no need at all say our Dr's that we can tell But we find in Scripture oft Mention of Gods Covenant in Christ and we suppose this to be it But the Siripture gives a quite different account of it viz. That in order to Remission there was a necessity for Christ's Suffering Luke 24.46 That it behoved Him to Suffer Because it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins Heb. 10.4 c. 7.13 That there was a disanulling of the Legal Commandments and Institution not for want of Appointment for they were Appointed but for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof Here respect is had to the Nature of the means and not only to the Appointment Rom. 8.3 For what the Law cannot do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemns sin in the Flesh Gal. 3.21 For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law For if Righteousness came by the Law then Christ is dead in vain c. 2.21 And in vain did He die for all the account these Men give of it or can give upon these Socinian Poinciples which they maintain And they bewray their Erros to that degree that sometime they fall foul upon God's Justice for suffering Christ an Innocent Person to die Thus Dr. B. p. 148. says that Christ had nothing to fear from a Just and Good God Why because he was conscious to him self of no sin And therefore he says he cannot apprehend what could have rais'd such amazing sorrows in so pure and unspotted a Soul that was conscious to it self of no sin and so could fear nothing from a Just and Good God and therefore says he we must not pretend to explain what we cannot understand But if he could have understood Christ then laying under the weight of all the sins of the World which he had undertaken as our Surety to answer for and satisfie the utmost demand of God's Justice for them he would have found the reason of that unexpressible Agony of Christ our Redeemer who had an Adequat Notion of the Infinite demerit of Sin and what was due to it and had taken it all upon himself and was to present to God a Sense and a Sorrow for it fully propotrionable to the whole Offence which all the Damned in Hell can never do No nor all Creatures for they are not all able to comprehend the full Heinousness and Obliquity of an Offence against an Infinit Being And when we conceive such an Infinit Sorrow lodg'd in the Soul of Christ and so strong a sense of the hatefulness of Sin and its Monstrous Deformity and of the full Wrath of God which lay upon that Accursed or Devoted Head who was to answer for it Gal. 3.13 such a Sense I say and a Sorrow which is always proportionable to the Sense we have of the sin as all the Capacities of all Creatures to Eternity were not large enough to contain when we perceive Christ our Saviour under such a Sorrow and Apprehersion as this we cannot wonder at his so terrible an Agony But indeed without this consideration of Christ's satisfying the Justice of God for our Sins there can be no account given of his Agony It is altogether unintelligible as Dr. B. says For he had no sin of his own to answer for and unless we suppose that he took our sin upon himself he had nothing according to Dr. B. to fear from a Just God And Dr. B. denying the necessity of any Satisfaction to be made to Justice and consequently thinking that Christ did not make any satisfaction or that our Sins were laid upon him consequently must think that as Christ had nothing to fear from a Just God so that God was not Just in inflicting Death upon Christ elso Christ had something to fear from a Just God Dr. T. likewise runs into the same strain in his Sermon before spoke of concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ wondering at the great Severity shewed to Christ he says p. 34. That God seemed in that to have gone almost further than Goodness and Justice could well admit to afflict Innocency it self to save the Guilty And that it looked almost like hatred of INNOCENCY and bis onely Son Now to almost ordoubt of God's JUSTICE or GOODNESS is next door if not the same as denying it Because God is a Necessary Being if this Being or if any Attribute he had were doubtful he could not be God therefore to doubt of God or of any of his Attributes is almost and altogether not to believe a God To such straits are these Men driven who would give an Account of the Sacrifice and Death of Christ without the Doctrine of Satisfaction I will end this Discourse with shewing that the Doctrine of Satisfaction as I have set it down is strictly pursuant to the Doctrine of the Church of England and consequently That these Doctors T. and B. have Apostatized from that Church and from that very Doctrine which they once professed Therefore my Proof shall be out of the Common-Prayer-Book and the Homilies And first for the Common-Prayer-Book in the Prayer of Consecration of the Elements of the Lord's Supper it is said that Christ made upon the Cross a Full Perfect and Sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World And in the first Homily for Good-Friday it is expresly said That without Payment of our Debt by Sin God the Father could never be at one with

concurr'd no otherwise to his Death than by such a bare Permission as he suffers an honest Man to be murder'd by Thieves But 2. This cannot be called bare Permission It was a Method of God's own finding out and Ordering which exceeded the Inventions of Men and Angels It is said Acts 4.28 That God did determine it before to be done But tho God permits evil You will not say That he does determine or Order it to be done And God sent his Son for this very end and purpose This was more than only permitting it F. The Dr. Explains it p. 32. by this Comparison Suppose says he A Malefactor condemn'd and the King's Sin to save him is contented to submit to great Disgrace and Sufferings C. But suppose the King's Son prays and begs of his Father with Tears That he would excuse him from such Suffering as Christ pray'd to his Father Mat. 26.39 That that Cup might pass from him F. You would seem to imply as if Christ's Suffering were not voluntary C. No not all But that it was not only his Father 's bare Permission but his express will and pleasure that his Son should Suffer Therefore Christ said Not mine but thy will be done And therefore because it was his Father's Will that he should Suffer he did voluntarily and resignedly submit to it But I hope you will make this something more than his Father 's bare permitting of it It is said Isaiah 53.10 That it pleas'd the Lord to bruise him Christ and to put him to Grief and he made Christ's Soul an Offering for Sin This exceeds a bare Permssion such as that by which God permits the Enormities and Cruelties committed in the World which is all this Author would have meant by it F. His second Answer is p. 29. That by this means God did at once put an End to that unreasonable and bloody way of Worship which has been so long practised in the World 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 C. This is only repeating the Objection instead of answering it as if the Sacrifice of Christ upon this Author's Scheme were not more unreasonable and bloody than any other Sacrifices used before And this being all the Dr. says to the Objection we must suppose that he still thinks it to be so unreasonable And it is the more and not the less so that it was as he says p. 22. to comply with an unreasonable Expectation Men had of being sav'd by the Vicari●us Suffering of some other in their stead and that it was to gratifie this unreasonable Expectation of theirs That Christ did suffer for if it was unreasonable for them to expect it it was unreasonable in Christ to suffer it F. Repeat the Dr's own Words C. We are now upon vindicating Gods Providence for the permission of Evil. that is starting another question to divert us from this we are upon which is The reason of Gods sending his Son to Expiate the Sins of Men. C. 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 without Suffering But yet so that Men generally conceiv'd good hopes that upon the Repentance of Sinners God would accept of a Vicarious Punishment that is of the Suffering of some other in their stead And very probably as I said before in Compliance with this apprehension of Mankind and in Condescension to it as well as for other weighty Reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom God was pleased to find out such a Sacrifice F. The Dr. says here That it is only probable that was the Reason C. Is it probable that God would Sacrifice his Son in Compliance with an Expectation How unreasonable soever But the Dr. in what I have quoted out of him before does not make any doubt or perhaps of it but sets it down as a plain Case As Serm. 4. p. 192. And indeed says he in a positive Asseveration A great Part of the Jewish Religion was a PLAIN Condescension to the general Apprehensions of Men concerning this way of appeasing God by Sacrifice And therefore he does not scruple Impiously to Blaspheme that Religion which God gave to the Jews and therein to arraign God its Author He says as above Quoted Serm. 4. p. 184. That the Religion and Laws which God gave them was far from being the B●st Nay plainly that they were not good by applying to them that Text. Ezek. 20.25 or at least approving others Application of it that way to which end he produces it F. These Laws were not Good that is says the Dr. they were very imperfect in Comparison of what he could have given them C. So you may say of the Christian Laws they are Imperfect in respect to those of Heaven At this rate nothing can be good but God Yet God said of his works that they were very good And said so of his Laws which he gave to the Jews out of his own mouth And sure it is a most presumptuous Blasphemy for any Man to say that they were not good They were the same with the Christian Laws as much as could be before Christ came They were all Types and Forerunners of his coming and therefore they are call'd (a) Rom. 7.14 Spiritual their meaning was all Spiritual They are called (b) Heb. ●● 2.16 the Gospel and it is said that the Gospel was first preacht to the Jews and that (c) Acts 15.11 they were sav'd by the Gospel as well as we The preaching of Christ is the Gospel and he was preached and exhibited in the whole Jewish Aeconomy as the Seed promised Gen. 3.15 which things the Angels desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To stoop down with Reverence and admire 1 Pet. 1.12 They exceeded all Created understandings ever to comprehend the full Glory and Goodness and Wisdom which is contain'd in them they far excel the whole material Creation and the least (*) Mat. Tittle of the Law is preferr'd before Heaven and Earth 5.18 Luke 16.17 and shall out-last them And was this Law far from being the best Could this wise Dr. have found out better Were these Statutes which were not good and Judgments whereby Men should not live Was this the meaning of these words Ezek. 20.25 Whereas the Reason given in the very same Sentence v. 24 for God's threatning to give them Statutes which were not good was as a just Judgment upon them for despising those good Statutes which he had given them Such Statutes says God v. 11. which if a Man do he shall even live in them Yet this Author would have these to be the Statutes whereby men should not live This is an Excellent Interpretation And for the word give which I suppose must have misled this Author viz. That God is said to give them