Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	brazen_a	look_v	serpent_n	839	5	9.9901	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47328	A demonstration of the Messias. Part I in which the truth of the Christian religion is proved, especially against the Jews / by Richard Kidder.	Kidder, Richard, 1633-1703.	1684 (1684)	Wing K402; ESTC R19346	212,427	527

he took care of the Levitical Priest-hood also And where he had cleansed the Leper he takes order that the Priest should not lose the profit which in such a case he was wont to receive He wronged no man and though he were poor yet he took care to give every man his due and to reserve something for the poor also His righteousness was so exemplary that the Jews who thirsted after his bloud knew not how to effect his death They had procured false witnesses indeed but their testimony was so incoherent and so lewd that the Jews themselves were forced to use another device since that frequently made use of against his followers viz. to represent him as an Enemy to Caesar And now Pilate to approve himself to the Roman power delivers up Jesus to be crucified But still he pronounced him innocent who gave him up to be crucified He washes his hands and declares himself openly in behalf of Jesus What follows does eminently belong to our Jesus as it was spoken of the Messias Having Salvation The very name Jesus by which he was commonly known and called speaks Salvation And it was given him by the direction of an Angel Mat. 1.21 because he was to save his people from their sins And as he came to save what was lost so we shall find that he fulfilled that design and answered that blessed Name by which he was called he saved some from hunger and thirst some from diseases and possessions some from sickness and others from death and all that believe on him from Hell and the wrath which is to come For what follows in the Prophet that he was to be lowly agrees exactly to our Jesus For whether by lowly be meant poor as that Hebrew word used in the Prophet signifies or meek as it is there rendred by the LXXII Interpreters whose rendring St. Matthew also follows It is certain that our Jesus was both poor and meek in a very eminent degree So poor that he had not what the Foxes did not want where to lay his head And for his meekness and lowliness of mind he was the most eminent and unparrelled example that ever was in the world I shall proceed now to the consideration of the death of Jesus and those particulars which do more immediately relate thereunto And not to insist upon every particular which makes to my present purpose I shall take notice First of the kind of his death and that was the death of the Cross A death it was that Jesus one would have thought should not have died For besides that it was the vilest and most ignominious death a death of slaves and the most profligate villains Besides this it was not like to be the portion of Jesus Sanhedr cap. 7. I. Because it was not a Jewish punishment but a Roman one The Jewish four Capital punishments were stoning burning strangling and killing with the sword II. Because if this had been one of the Jewish punishments yet it could not by the Jewish Law have been the lot of Jesus For whereas the high Priest Pronounced him guilty of Blasphemy and they who were by him judged him thereupon worthy of death Levit. 24.16 we know that stoning was the death appointed in that Case not onely by the after constitution of the Jews but also by the Law of Moses But it was foretold that the Messias should suffer this kind of death And God's decrees and Counsels shall come to pass The Jews had a figure of this in the Wilderness Our Jesus put them in mind of it in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up Joh. 3.14 The story is very well known The people for their sin were bitten with fiery Serpents and many of them died The people beg of Moses in this distress that he would intercede for them that the fiery Serpents might be removed Moses prayed to God in their behalf and by God's direction he makes a Serpent of brass and put it on a pole and they which were bitten looked upon this brazen Serpent and were healed Numb 21. This Serpent that was lifted up in the Wilderness was a type of the death of Christ and of the kind of his death and the effects of the brazen Serpent upon them who looked on it did typifie the virtue received by true believers from the death of Christ To this purpose this of the brazen Serpent is applyed by our Saviour Dominicam crucem intentabat Tertullian adv Judaeos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. pro Christian Apol. II. Moses made that Serpent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. in IV. Reg. Quaest 49. and by the ancient Christian Writers is frequently mentioned as a type of the Cross and passion of our blessed Saviour And that it is rightly applyed by Jesus and his followers I shall shew against the Jews Certain it is that the Jews do allow that this brazen Serpent was a figure of something else Vid. Buxtorf Hist Serpent Aenei c. 5. Just Martyr Dialog cum Tryph. and that it had a spiritual sense and meaning And when Just in Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew insisted upon this as a type of the death of Christ and appealed to the company what reason excluding that could be given of this matter one of them confessed that he was in the right and that himself had enquired for a reason from the Jewish Masters but could meet with none The Authour of the book of Wisedom calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wised 16.6 7. a symbol or sign of Salvation For he that turned himself towards it says he was not saved by the thing that he saw but by thee that art the Saviour of all It was an extraordinary and supernatural thing that the likeness of a Serpent should cure the venomous bite of a living one Abravenel R. Bechai in Num. 21. Philo Jud. de Agricultura Leg. Allegor l. 3. The Jewish Writers confess it to be miraculous and that there was in it a miracle within a Miracle Philo the Jew as I intimated before in the fourteenth page of this discourse does in several places mention the difference between the Serpent of Eve and the Serpent of Moses or this brazen Serpent of which I am now speaking He makes one directly opposite to the other and that which deceived Eve to be a symbol of voluptuousness and in token thereof doomed to goe upon his belly Gen. 3.14 But this of Moses to be a symbol of fortitude and temperance That was the destroyer of mankind this the Saviour of the Israelites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. every one that sees it the brazen Serpent shall live Very true For if the mind bitten with Eve's Serpent which is voluptuousness can spiritually discern the beauty of Temperance i. e. The Serpent of Moses and through it God himself he shall

7.22 23. Isai 1.11 13. ch 66.3 God did indeed not onely allow but in certain cases command Sacrifices But God required obedience to his covenant antecedently to Sacrifices This was his first intention and not Sacrifice for that he required onely consequently and as a remedy when the sin was committed Sacrifice like repentance was but tabula post ●aufragium It was the way of reconciling Sinners when they had offended Sacrifices were enjoyned after the law which was the rule of life was given And not onely the moral law was given before Sacrifices were commanded but the political law was delivered before the particular laws about the kinds and rites of Sacrifices were given out God would have them obey and rather not need then bring a Sacrifice For a Sacrifice was but a Substitute upon the failure of obedience it was the Sinners refuge Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and Sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord behold to obey is better than Sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of Rams And Solomon adviseth us to be more ready to hear i. e. to obey than to give the Sacrifice of fools 1 Sam. 15.22 Eccl. 5.1 And this is no more than what the Jews themselves are forced to confess More Nevohim p. 111. c. 32. Maimon does confess that God put a great difference between that part of his worship which consisted in oblations and that which consisted in Prayer and Supplication That Oblations and Sacrifices were but the second intention of God and that Prayers and Supplications were agreeable to his first He adds to my present purpose That though oblations and Sacrifices were offered up to the honour of God yet the Jews had not the liberty in that matter which the Ancients enjoyed For the Jews might not offer them up in any place or at any time They might not build a Temple where they pleased nor offer what they list nor by the hands of any men indifferently but they were determined to a certain place and to certain persons who were the Family of Priests which are diminutions of that kind of Divine worship Whereas Prayer and Supplication were allowed in every place and to every person Now this is an argument that Sacrifices were not of their own nature things acceptable and pleasing to God Vid. Bechai in Legem fol. 135. col 2. 137. col 4. Abravenel Praefat. in Levit. c. 4. M. Ben Israel Concillat p. 181. for if they had they would not have been required of the Jews with such restraint as we find them attended with 'T was obedience that God required and Sacrifices in the second place and not for their own sakes This the Jews themselves will allow God did not accept an expiatory Sacrifice for the sake of the oblation It was then onely welcome when it was a Testimony of the repentance and the devotion of the offerer There was no Sacrifice that was in its own nature good and separately considered accepted with God If the Sacrifice were piacular then it was the contrition of the offerer which gave it a sweet savour If it were Eucharistical it was accepted onely as it was a pledge or token of the gratefull resentment of God's mercies in him that brought it or an argument of homage in him who presented it Sacrifice was a federal oblation it was never welcome alone It was at best but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the aliment of the fire The Sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. And the unrighteous man who kills an oxe is as if he slew a man God looks at the offerer Cain who hated his Brother was unwelcome to God's Altar our Saviour would have the uncharitable man reconciled to his Brother before he offer his gift The contrite and thankfull the penetent and humble will not be rejected Holy dispositions and tempers are always pleasing Haec cedo ut admoveam Templis farre litabo If an evil and unjust man offer says Philo his victims go for nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. Jud. de Vita Mosis l. 3. and his Sacrifices are prophane his vows are infamous and very destructive These do not destroy sin but rather bring it to remembrance But if the offerer be holy and righteous the Sacrifice remains when the flesh is consumed yea though there be no oblation offered up For nothing is more truly a Sacrifice than the piety of a Soul who is a lover of God Thirdly that where Sacrifices were offered by God's command and according to his direction in all respects and where an expiation or atonement was effected and obtained yet in that case the expiation did not proceed from the worth and value of the oblation And things were so ordained that the Jews might be sensible that the Sacrifices did not of their own force or upon the score of their own value procure the offerers pardon And to that purpose I shall annex an observation of Maimon More Nevoch p. 3. c. 46. Abravenel in Legem fol. 251. col 3. He tells that by how mu●h a sin was the greater by so much the oblation was of the less value And he gives several instances to this purpose where under the law of Moses the greater crimes were expiated with the cheaper Sacrifices Nor is this the single opinion of Maimon onely Abravenel assents unto it If this be so there cannot be a more evident proof than this for the purpose for which I make use of it viz. to prove that the Sacrifices did not procure the offerers pardon upon the score of their intrinsick value For if they had the greater offences would have required the most costly Sacrifices It is also otherwise very evident that the Sacrifices and Purifications under the law did not reconcile the offerer and the unclean upon the score of their own vertue and intrinsick worth no more than the brazen Serpent cured the Israelites by its own inherent vertue The Scape-goat that did bear upon him all the iniquities of the Congregation did not remove the sins of the people by any inherent vertue or Sanctity Nay it was so far from it that the man who let him go was defiled by him and might not till he had w●shed his cloths and bathed his flesh in water come into the Camp Levit. 16.26 The water of Purification was of a very extensive use for the purifying those who were legally unclean the ashes of a red Heifer was of principal moment as an ingredient in that water but those ashes did not purifie from any vertue of their own The Priest who ministred in that preparation was obliged to bathe his Flesh and wash his Clothes and so was he who burnt the Heifer And whereas a man that was legally clean was to gather up those ashes which were the principal ingredient in the water of purification yet that very man who was clean before he gathered the ashes was by gathering of them rendred