Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	remission_n	sacrifice_n	sin_n	8,484	5	5.4732	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25220	A vindication of the faithful rebuke to a false report against the rude cavils of the pretended defence	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.	1698 (1698)	Wing A2923; ESTC R8101	96,389	154

it All that our Saviour saith to this purpose is That he came to give his Life a Ransom for many Matth. 20. 28. And that his Blood was shed for many for the Remission of Sins Matth. 26. 28. What other Change of Persons is here implied but that of a Ransom a S●crifice of Propitiation He that knew best sor what ends he suffered saith not one word of his taking upon himself the Person of Sinners in any other sense than as he suffered in their stead and for their Advantage There is yet an odd Farthing on the Score which I must account for This Phrase of acting in the person of another or sustaining the Person of another has ordinarily a sense not very creditable and commonly signifies to personate or represent the Person of another or take on the Disguise Mask or Vizor of another Thus Tully in that place so celebrated so mistaken by our Author Ego unus tres sustineo personas I act three parts So those Counterfeit Persons in the Roman Comedies were called Dramatis Personae and those other which only appear'd but spoke nothing were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mutae Personae Dumb Persons Now this minded me of the Counter-scuffle between Salmasius and Milton where the latter picks a Quarrel with the former for this very expression in Persona De parricidio apud Anglos in Persona Regis Admisso Now there is no doubt but Salmasius intended it of a Parricide committed upon the Person of that King but because he used that Phrase Milton falls on him with his usual briskness Quid quaeso est parricidium in Persona Regis admittere Quid in Persona Regis Quae latinitas unquam sic locuta est But our Author to vindicate this expression gives this Answer p. 27. The Reason why Milton was so severe upon Salmasius was not so much because Salmasius used the word Persona as because he mistook the Ablative for the Accusative Case and wrote in Persona when it should have been in Personam Regis Risum teneatis Was ever any thing spoken more Ridiculously I am satisfied Salmasius designed to write as he actually wrote in Persona and Milton had no Quarrel with him about the Case but exagitates the Phrase as improper and unbecoming so great a Grammarian as Salmasius had then the Vogue for in the Learned World And so the Answerer to Milton whether Father or Son p. 26. Ubi ille multiplex Barbarismus non simplex Fortasse an quod non dixerit Salmasius in Personam Regis sed in Persona O Barde Where the Answerer rejects this supposal with Scorn and Indignation that he should be thought to have mistaken the Ablative for the Accusative Case In a word Milton was a Person whose excellent Latin terse and smooth has recommended his Style to all that understand the Language The Merits of the Cause between him and his Antagonist I am not concern'd in but this has been taken for granted by many that his sharp and pungent Repartees pierced that great Critick's Heart nor could he long out-live that stinging Phrase with which he was persecuted by Milton 'T is highly improbable to me that the Old Man under this discomposure of Spirit could dress up a formal Answer to his Enemy in that short time of Hurry that he lived His Son might possibly out of his loose Papers stitch up that Cento which in a Postumus Piece appear'd under his Name which saw the Light when King Charles II. was Restored but whether it turn'd to account from his Patron or Client I am no more concern'd than I am what becomes of all our Phrase-Divinity and this is particular which our Author has so verbosely and operosely managed The Defender pretends highly to more than a smattering in the Civil Law and accordingly makes a huge chattering with the Terms of it The Socinians and our Author presume they have great advantage by ' em My Opinion is this that when they fall into judicious Hands good use may be made of them against the Socinians Our Gentleman has put 'em to the worst use that ever they were put to by any Protestant he gives us many Instances of Persons representing others managing and transacting the Cause of others which may illustrate Christ's undertaking for his Church upon a Throne of Grace for he has promis'd he will be their faithful Guardian John 14. 18. And not leave them Orphans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tho this Civil-Law tells us of Embassadors that act by Commission and Instruction of Tutors and Pupils c. yet they do not furnish us with any Instance of any that laid down his Life in the stead of those they were intrusted by Nor indeed can we reasonably expect that the Body of the Civil-Law which out of two thousand Manuscripts or Fragments of MSS. was compiled into one in Iustinian's Time should have its Terms and Phrases adapted and suited to those sublime Mysteries or that the Inspired Penmen of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament should accommodate their Writings to that Body of Laws which they had never seen nor could have any Regard to But Sir I beg your pardon for this Digression and will hardly give you the like Offence However I am Sir Yours c. LETTER IX MISCELLANIES SIR There are a few Parcels scatter'd up and down our Author's Discourse which either I could not conveniently reduce to any Head or possibly thought 'em not worthy my notice or yours which upon second Thoughts I have comprised in this Letter § 1. The Report p. 8. has charg'd Mr. W. that he denied a Change of Persons between Christ and the Elect and that this Denial is so express that he leaves no room for a Distinction Limitation or Restriction or for owning it in any sense To this the Rebuke answer'd p. 38. That Mr. W. has left room enough for all the Distinctions that are proper to the matter in hand That Mr. W. denied nothing but what Dr. Crisp had affirm'd of this Change that there is no Contradiction between affirming a Change and denying a Change unless they be both ad Idem That he did not deny a Change simply and absolutely but only in a certain respect and restrictively That these things are obvious and plain to an ordinary Understanding Nor is there a more a futilous or foolish fallacy than to conclude a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Now this Argument the Bishop of Worcester in his late Letter has abundantly cleared How can any Persons in common Ingenuity understand this otherwise than that he denied such a Change of Persons as Dr. C. affirmed Why then should such a sense be charg'd upon him which he disowns at the same time There must be something farther in th●● matter than appears to an indifferent and Impartial Reader And so there is something farther something that lies deeper something that presses harder than appears to every one But still the Defence insists

our stead 2. That the Socinians have wretchedly perverted the true Intendment of these Texts by glossing and diluting their true Intendment thus he died for us gave himself for us That is say they for our Good indeed but not properly in our stead 3. That they may give some colour to their Subterfuges they assign some certain Benefits to the Death of Christ as to give us an Heroick Example of Suffering whatever Persecutions for the Profession of the Christian Religion and to confirm the Truth of his Doctrine by sealing it with his Blood and some few others 4. In return to which we say 1. That it was a far greater Good that Christ by his Death procured for us Dan. 9. 24. To finish Transgression to make an end of Sins to make reconciliation for Iniquity to bring in everlasting Righteousness In order to which p. 26. The Messiah must be cut off but not for himself And Heb. 9. 26. Now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself 2. We say that these and other ends of his Death and Sufferings could never have been procured had not Christ according to the Father's Ordination and his own consent suffer'd in our stead and made himself an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice And 3. We say that all the Ends which the Socinians have assigned to the Death of Christ might have been attained without the Death of Christ the Doctrine was confirmed by Miracles and the encouragement to suffer the utmost for the Christian Religion was from the Promises of present assistance under them and the Recompence of Reward to them 5. That the satisfying Divine Justice in our stead and procuring thereby our good are by no means to be considered as opposite but subordinate For as I would answer an Antinomian let him give us one Instance in which Christ suffered in our stead which did not Terminate in our Good So would I say to a Socinian let him shew me an Instance of any Spiritual Good which he could possibly procure or purchase without suffering in our stead And here is the great Demonstration of the Divine Goodness that he has not separated his own Glory from the Spiritual and Eternal Good of the Elect and thus has our Blessed Redeemer secured both the Demands of Justice and at the same time the Salvation of the Elect. To draw to a Conclusion of this Discourse You observe that our Author 's singular Gift and Talent is Misrepresentation and this great Gift wherever he had it or how he came by it I know not he exercises through his whole Defence to revile me as a Soc inian an English Unitarian this he brings in by Head and Shoulders Vapours with it Triumphs in it over looking that thro the whole Rebuke this Calumny had been abundantly obviated of which I will now give you over-abundant evidence Reb. p. 6. That Christ was made Sin a Sacrifice for sin that he bore the Curse due for sin is so express the Language of the Scripture that he who denies the former must disbelieve the latter Reb. p. 8. Certainly when Christ our only and ever Blessed Mediator stood in our place and stead when he made his Soul an Offering for sin when the Lord laid on him the Iniquities of us All There was a Change of Christ's Person for Sinners He was substituted in their room and stead Again ibid. There is a Change all own it there was so under the Law Iustice allowed that the Offender should live the Sacrifice die There is so under the Gospel that Christ suffered the believing sinner is discharged just as Abraham sacrificed the Ram by God's own appointment for that is in the stead of Isaac In a word As I have always uniformly asserted that Christ suffered and satisfied in our stead so shall I always Assert that Christ suffered and satisfied for our good and tho I never affirmed that Christ died or suffered only for our good which is the falshood the Author would impose upon the Reader and my self so I did Assert That it was impossible he should die for more than our good seeing he was pleased to make the Salvation and eternal good of those whom the Father had given him whom he had in his Eye and upon his Heart the great Commanding End unto which he referred all his Obedience Active and Passive so that Christ had nothing more nothing farther nothing beyond that in his Eye But of these things thus far Sir I am yours as you know c LETTER III. Of Christ's being our Surety SIR You come a little too quick upon me other and better Work engaged my Thoughts and Time that I lost the last Post and 't was with some Difficulty that I saved this I will not dispute with you why you caused me to break the Thread of my Discourse about Commutation of Persons c. and are now urgent to give you my Opinion about Christ's Suretiship however I will comply I had but little concern with the Reporter in this Matter only I offered my humble Advice Reb. p. 46. Not to insist so strictly upon the Terms of Debt and Debtor because if he supposed sin to be only a Pecuniary Debt and the sinner to stand obnoxious only as such a Debtor to God as the Creditor he has betray'd the Cause he seems so Zealous to defend to the Socinians And because I thought he might give some Deference to the Learning and Authority of the Bishop of Worcester I seconded my Advice with a Caution from him The true state of the Controversie says he has been rendered more obscure by the Mistakes of some who have managed it with more Zeal than Iudgment That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the Sins of Men under the Notion of a Debt This was the Caution the Bishop gave and that was the Counsel which I gave to both which the Defender was too proud to hearken But the same Learned Person has in a late Letter to Mr. D. W. superadded weighty Reasons to his Caution p. 60. This Christ's putting on the Person and standing in the place of a Debtor I have shewed long since to be a very wrong Notion of Christ's Satisfaction which in effect gives up the Cause to the Socinians For if Sins be considered as Debts God may freely forgive them without disparagement of his Wisdom and Iustice without Satisfaction And the Right of Punishment then depends on God's absolute Dominion and satisfaction must be by way of Compensation but I cannot but wonder at the Author of the M. S. that he doth at the same time assert our Sins considered as Debts and yet the Necessity of Vindicative Iustice for what Vindicative Iustice belongs to a Creditor May not a Creditor part with his own Right and forgive what and whom he pleases without any violation of Iustice I can hardly think that those who write so rudely and inconsistently ever penetrated into