Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	nature_n	part_n	3,516	5	4.5867	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37649	A vindication, or, Further confirmation of some other Scriptures, produced to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ, distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr. John Knowles together with a probation or demonstration of the destructiveness and damnableness of the contrary doctrine maintained by the aforesaid Mr. Knowles : also the doctrine of Christs satisfaction and of reconciliation on Gods part to the creature, cleared up form Scripture, which of late hath been much impugned : and a discourse concerning the springing and spreading of error, and of the means of cure, and of the preservatives and against it / by Samuel Eaton, teacher of the church of Jesus Christ, commonly stiled the church at Duckenfield.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1651 (1651)	Wing E126; ESTC R30965	214,536	435

to concurre with it that he may gain credit to such a reading Alas he knows very well the following words will not quadrare they will not correspond nor suit with such a reading By the word mystery there are who follow this reading that understand the Gospell which is called a mystery but was the Gospell manifested in the flesh c. and received up into glory certainly it must be meant of some person that was in flesh and was received up to glory therefore if it be the mystery that was manifested in the flesh and received up into glory it was not the Gospell for the Gospell is the glad tydings of good things in Christ and was the glad tydings of good things in Christ manifest in the flesh and were glad tydings received up into glory it is absurd to be asserted If he understand any thing else by Mystery which was manifested in the flesh then the Gospell it must be the soul of Christ which he saith was created before the rest of the creatures and which in time took flesh and was manifested in the flesh but was it so great a Mystery for the soul to come into the body after the body is formed in the womb is it not that which is done every hour in the formation of man doth not the soul unite with the body in the generation of all that are born in the world And indeed though he grant our reading yet he brings all to this for his words are It is not denied but that Christ was a God and the Text saith but this a God was manifested in the flesh that is saith he appeared visible amongst men when he took unto him a body Rep. If Christ was a God before he took flesh then he was ever a God from the first that he was and that was by his own concession before there was any creature created and consequently before any actuall Soveraignty was bestowed upon him for that could not be before the world had an actuall existence over which he was to have his actuall Soveraignty and then it will follow that he was God by nature from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghost but this I have discussed before that which I shall add is this look what a God Christ was such a God he was in flesh but Jehovah he was the mighty God he was the great God he was the true God he was the everlasting God he was God over all blessed for ever he was subsisting in the form or nature of God he was and equall with God such a God he was as is abundantly testified in Scripture therefore such a God he was manifested in flesh As for Hincmarus his conceipt that this word God was put into the Text by the Nestorians I have him not by me and I much heed it not because the very Text it self gives witnesse to it self that the word is not added by mans device or fraud for if it be left out the rest of the words are made nonsense thereby The third and last Scripture that I made use of to prove Christ as Mediator not to be a meer creature and nothing else was this It is said in Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made Flesh His Answer is The creature that was immediatly made by God took unto it a body I find no place saith he where the flesh of Christ signifies any thing more then his body according to which he died and is no where taken for the humane nature Rep. This conceipt of a creature immediatly made by God which took unto it a body hath been at large spoken to and confuted in my former Treatise It hath also been the word that the word Flesh is taken Synechdochically for humane nature a part being put for the whole I find no cause to add any thing either to the one or other but shall consider of the Reasons which he leaves me to pause upon by which he would prove Christ the Mediator to be a meer creature Let me oppose saith he your Proposition with two or three Reasons Rea. 1. Because whole Christ is a creature if so then either a meer creature is Mediator or Christ is not a Mediator Rep. The greater part of my former Treatise is spent in the confuting of this assertion I therefore think it needlesse to spend more time or strength about it especially seeing he refe●res to what he said before and brings no new strength to it Rea. 2. Because a Mediator is not of one Gal. 3. 20. Now if Christ be God then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and there is but one God Rep. It is true as the Apostle saith that a Mediator is not of one that is not of one Party for a Mediators work is to make peace now it is to be alwaies supposed that no one is at variance with himself therefore a Mediator is not of one but of two Parties that dissent the one from the other which Parties are God and Man But his deduction which he fetcheth from this saying is faulty which is this If Christ be God then is he a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and God is but one if this were a sound consequence Christ would be Mediator to none at all and the reason is this There are but two Parties disagreeing God and man Now all the Elect in all the world they are reckoned in this account but as one man Now if Christ be man took their seed then he is of this Party then he is Mediator to himself and the words may be retorted A Mediator is not of one but if Christ be man then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be Mediator to himself for all men are but as one come under one consideration and he is among them if he be a man being of their nature and true man of their seed Therefore there must be a distinction made concerning Christ Christ may be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in his nature person as he is the second in the Trinity and the essentiall Son of God or in reference to his Office as he is God in flesh and King Priest and Prophet to the Church and appointed Daysman and if this latter acception he is not Mediator to himself though he be God for he is God-man and so differs from himself considered nudè as God or the second person in the Divine Trinity that which was asserted before concerning this man also considered Rea. 3. His third reason is the same for substance with the second Because saith he Christ is a Mediator betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2. 5. Now if he were God he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and men for he could not be a Mediator to himself This hath been considered in the former reason only there is thus much new in it which deserves consideration Timothy saith he

of CAARI as a Lyon the latter Jews have snatched at lest they should be forced to confess that this Prophecie They pierced my hands and my feet was fulfilled in none other but in Jesus Christ alone because neither David who compiled this Psalm nor any other had their hands and their feet pierced But Joannes Isaacus hath most learnedly shewed in his defence of the Hebrew verity against Lindanus that nothing is more absurd and foolish then such a Lection or Reading 1. Because it is pointed contrary to the Rules of Grammer if the signification should be as a Lyon 2. Because the expression would be maimed and defective and without sense for what reason is in these words as a Lyon my hands and my feet 3. He produceth the Authority both of Massoreth the great and the less In Massoreth the less two CAARI are found and onely two in a diverse signification the one in Isa 38. 13. which is right interpreted as a Lyon the other in this Psalm viz. 22. which he quotes which must necessarily have an other interpretation because of some peculiarity that is in it In Massoreth the great he saith that Rabbi Jacob found written in the Text CARU and in the margent CAARI 4. He speaks his own knowledge I Johannes Isaac can testifie in truth and with a good conscience the same thing for I saw a Psalter of my Grand-fathers in which in the Text it was written CARU and I doubt not but all exemplars had it also And Rivet adds this that in all the Hebrew Copies or Exemplars there is both CAARI and CARU the one in margent and the other in the Text Not that CAARI whether in the margent or in the Text is to be read as a Lyon but it is vox animala a word beside rule and is the third person of the preterperfect tense CARA by some interposition and change of letters as is somtimes found in the Hebrew And he giveth instances of the like As for the other Text in Rom. 12. 11. I shall refer the Learned to that which Beza saith of it and only exsert somwhat for the satisfaction of others In all the most approved Authors saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he shews how it is probable the corruption came in and how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that short way of writing saith he there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he saith he hath seen it so written in Pasil and some that writ out declared this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insteed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this might easily be done through ignorance of that short hand that was in use But it may be observed how ready he is to give advantage to the pertinacious Jews in siding with them in the rendring of the word CAARI as a Lyon without any warrantable cause for the upholding of his own opinion And he also takes part with the Papists who from the various lection do take occasion of detracting from the truth of the Hebrew and Greek Text as that which is corrupted by the Jews and others and would bring all to the interpretation of the Church But he goes on and not onely makes it possible but probable that there is such a mistake for saith he Gretius observes many Copies have Lord and the Syriack hath Christ not God Repl. Some Copies have Lord and God and Beza makes a conjecture how it came about but there is no Copie that hath Lord without God God is not left out in any Greek Copie and consequently it makes nothing for his purpose but remains as strong against him as before for if the words be read thus To feed the Church of the Lord and God which he hath purchased with his own bloud the word which refers to both of them as Antecedents and the meaning is which Lord and which God hath purchased with his own bloud and Christ is still set forth as God and the bloud of Christ is still the bloud of God But yet his fraud appears for he saith Many Copies have Lord seperatim divisim for so he would be understood as if they had had Lord and not God or Lord insteed of God when as in truth they have them conjunctim both Lord and God conjoyned as Titles of one and the same person who shed his bloud to purchase his Church As for the word Christ insteed of God it is not to be found in any Greek Copie in which language the New Testament was written and if in any other it makes nothing to his purpose Lastly he saith It is easie to mistake taking one for the other from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repl. The mistake of a letter though it may be easie yet it may be gross enough and may utterly overthrow the sense of the place and it is as easily discovered when it is surveyed by him that compiled it Would it not be gross in our English if Word should be written insteed of Lord If Moon should be written insteed of Noon and it is but the mistake of a Letter and it is easily done and as easily seen being done and corrected therefore this Argument is without force also To make this conceit of his of a mistake to pass the better he saith the Churches of Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16. 16. Repl. And what is this to the purpose they are called the Churches of God also 1 Cor. 11. 16. And they are never a whit the less the Churches of God because they be the Churches of Christ yea because they be the Churches of Christ they be therefore the Churches of God and this Text proves it For Christ is the person that is here spoken of because the person that shed his bloud for the purchase of the Church is spoken of which is Christ and he is called God and as God the Church is his as the words declare which he hath not yet overthrown But he attempts it by an other consideration which he offers to view 2. If it proves that there is no mistake in the Text saith he there may be a defect in the words for the last clause some Greek Copies have it thus which he hath purchased with the bloud of his Own and so the Word SON is to be understood with the bloud of his own Son Repl. It is said of some persons who are loth to work that they live by their shifts or by their wits so this man who is loth to be convinced of the Truth will maintain and keep alive an errour if he can by his wits or by his shifts which are more than one and when one fails him he flies to an other

be able to our-reason them or to present as they judge some unanswerable things to them such an one becomes prevalent and draws away such after him 14. Many conceive that they are fallen into times of great discoveries and that mysteries that have been hid from ages are now revealed to the Saints Whence it comes to passe that if any strange doctrine be broached how horrid an errour soever it be provided that plausible grounds be laid down for it it is presently sucked in and received with apprehensions that a doctrine that hath layn in darknesse many generations is now manifested to the Saints when as in truth and deed the foundation is truly laid already and hath been truly built upon else both we our selves Christians of former ages were very wretched and miserable and that which Saints shall be heightned in is this they shall know more perfectly what they knew more darkly and that which the Saints have doubted of and have been divided about they shall understand 15. The esteem of Saints is now very low among many unlesse they be able to bring some doctrine which former ages have not known or to produce some new notion and discourse of some high point which neither themselves nor others do well understand and unlesse they be able to speak in a language which the Christians of former ages have not understood plain Scriptural language will not now satisfie unlesse there be high strains which sober Christians have not been much acquainted with This lays a temptation upon many precious souls to affect and to seek after novelties and so they come to be darkned with new errours that arise and are turned after fables The second thing that I propounded to discusse is the causes of the growth of errours and how they come to spread It is a certain truth that that which begets them doth also nourish them and increase them and so there must be a looking back to the causes of the springing of them and the self-same things will be found the causes of the spreading of them and of the prospering of them Ignorance and pride and affectation of glory praise and a corrupt conscience and unsanctified parts and gifts and formal implantations into Christ without reality and power and forsaking the assembling of our selves together and aspiring unduly to prophecying without a calling thereto and many others that have been mentioned these have given life to errours and these have given strength to them also But there are some special causes of the growth of errours divers from such which have been already presented as the rise of them 1. The censures of the Church are not duly exercised to represse that inordinate lusting after strange doctrine and that pride vain gloriousnesse vanity of spirit and wantonnesse of mind with which many Saints are too much carried and are sick of Not that I would have Saints cast out of the Church for every difference in judgement from their brethren or dissenting in opinion those that have known me have known that I have been evermore a stranger to such rigidnesse I would not have so much as the peace of such disturbed in the least kind by any but if any opinion strike at the foundation threatning the overturning of it and be very destructive to the faith and holinesse of Saints I think there is warrant enough and I hope I shall be able to make it out from Scripture to proceed to the questioning and censuring of such persons who by other means cannot be reclaimed And the neglecting of this ordinance of Christ is of evil consequence unto the furthering and ripening of errour for however it may be thought and spoken by some that Church-censures bring no light to men with them nor can be effectual for the conviction of persons judgements which hath truth in it yet the distemper of spirit from which errour when it is grosse doth as commonly arise as from weaknesse of judgement and unsobernesse of heart is healed and cured by Church censures 2. Communion and fellowship with those who are corrupt and unsound in their opinions is not forborn but there is the same liberty used of conversing with such and the same intimacy and familiarity shewed as with any others how sound soever when yet the Apostle saith Avoid them Rom. 16. 17. The Psalmist saith They were mingled among the Heathen and learned their works The latter followed upon the former the Apostle saith A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is when it is put to the whole lump and is with it but purge it out and it cannot therefore his councel is To purge out the old leaven which though it be spoken of the leaven of ungodlinesse in persons is yet applicable to the leaven of heresie and errour which is more infectious and spreading then the other Obj. But such persons are Saints why should their Communion be declined Sol. Why doth God himself withdraw from Saints and hide his face from them is it not to humble them and make them ashamed and bring them to repentance And may not yea ought not we to withdraw from unsound and corrupt persons though they should be Saints for the same reasons especially seeing our own preservation is in it Obj. But it will make divisions among Saints to forbear the fellowship of such and it will rejoyce the common adversarie therefore for the scandal that is in it such withdrawing must not be allowed Sol. A holding of Communion with such will at last cause division and not a withdrawing from them for such who bring any other doctrine by conversing with Saints do get a Party and so make division The Apostle declares whence division proceeds Rom. 16. 17. not from those who shun Communion with leavened persons but from such who are corrupt and leavened Mark those saith he who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine that ye have received Such persons who bring unscriptural doctrine cause the divisions for by their crafty insinuations they deceive the simple and draw away disciples and this ingenders a rent for the rest must oppose and resist unlesse they also will become disciples and if they do appear for the truth against the errour the rest are carried away with then there will be division following upon it As for the glorying of the common adversary there is more occasion given him to glory at that union that is betwixt hereticks and erroneous persons and such who professe to be Saints and the scandal is greater because the Adversary will give it out they are all corrupt they are unsound they are all hereticks all erroneous corrupt persons for they mix together and at least there is an allowance this is justly more scandalous then the other nay the other is not scandalous at all but it is the glory of the Saints in the presence of their enemies to keep themselves from all corrupt things and persons what profession soever they make 3. There is a tampering with