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
A47140	An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the month called June, 1696 together with the disputes and speeches there, between G. Keith and other Quakers, differing from him in some religious principles / the whole published and revised by Goerge Keith ; with an appendix containing some new passages to prove his opponents guilty of gross errors and self-contradictions.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.; Penn, William, 1644-1718.; Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing K161; ESTC R14328	86,182	64

the Blood of the Human Nature nor that the Soul of Christ was the Human Nature or was put to death with the Body for the Wicked could not kill the Soul though his Soul was made an Offering for Sin and he poured it out to Death he bore the Sin of many and made intercession for Transgressors but what Death and in what manner was it is a Mystery truly to know for his Soul in his own being was immortal and and the Nature of God is divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of human or earthly nature appears inconsistent and where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Human or Human Nature Neither do we read that the Blood which beareth Record in the Earth and agrees in one with the Spirit and which purgeth the Conscience washeth and cleanseth the Believer in the Light from all Sin was ever called by the Apostles the Blood of the Human Nature Nor do we read that the Saints did eat and drink Flesh and Blood that was of a human nature to receive Divine Life in them thereby for the Water of Life and Blood of Christ which are said to wash sanctifie and justifie which agrees with the Spirit in those Works and Effects We never read that they are called in Scripture by the name of Human Nature for the Spirit that quickens is divine and it is the Spirit that gives Life the Flesh profiteth nothing John 6. Now this unsound Doctrine of G. W. doth so well agree with that in John Humphrey's two Letters abovementioned that John Humphrey seems to have been his Disciple in the Case and it is certain this sort of Doctrine of G. Whitehead hath corrupted the Minds of many We see he will not own either the Flesh or Blood of Christ or Soul of Christ to belong to the human nature Annotat. Before I understood the Mystery of Iniquity and Antichristianism that lay hid under the finding fault with this name or term Human Nature of Christ and his Humanity observing that divers found fault with it I was ready to excuse them thinking that tho' they disowned the term Human yet they owned that signified by it to wit the real Manhood of Christ having a real Soul and Body that is not the Godhead but most gloriously united therewith And accordingly I did in part excuse them as in my Book The True Christ owned pag. 20 and pag. 105 I cited some words of Hilarius Lib. 10. de Trinitate Quid per Naturam Humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu S. caro judicatur i. e. Why is the Flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost judged by the nature of an Human Body But neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the Substance of the Holy Ghost the Particle of in that place denoting the Holy Ghost to be the Efficient Cause of that Conception but not the Material But that my Mind and Sense that Christ had the true Nature of Man of Soul and Body neither of which were the Godhead was sound then as now and the same as now plainly appears from Page 20. of my Book above cited where I say Human Soul may signify the true Soul of Man having all the essential properties of man's Soul and its whole Perfection And if in this sense any will say That Christ hath a Human Soul and call the Manhood of Christ his Humanity there needeth no contention about it For in the Latin Tongue we have not a word so proper as Humanitas to signify the Manhood and if we may say Humanitas in Latin we may say in English Humanity G Whithead his Objection against the word Human as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth And the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the second Adam and certainly the Man Christ had not only that which was Heavenly but had even our Earthly part but without sin his Body being nourished with Earthly Food which Body now glorified is Heavenly But that I differed as much in Doctrine from G. Whithead then as now as concerning the Blood of Christ and the sense of that place of Scripture Acts 20.28 what that Blood of God was wherewith he purchased his Church he affirming it was the Blood not of the Human Nature or Humanity but of the Divine Nature as may be seen above appears in my Book above-mentioned The true Christ owned pag. 94. I expresly say I grant that there is such a figurative speech of the Communication of Names and Properties whereby the Man Christ is called God and also God is called Man and God is said to have shed his Blood although Christ as God hath not Blood to shed but only as Man yet by reason of that most rare and wonderful Union betwixt the Godhead and Manhood the Blood of the Man Christ is called the Blood of God Acts 20.28 This may serve as one great Instance to shew That as I am not changed in this Doctrine from what I was many years ago that Book of mine being printed Anno 1679. so I did then as widely differ from G. W. in that great Article of Faith as I do now But I confess I knew not that any such absurd Doctrine was in his Books till of late that I made a more narrow search occasioned by his defending the same Errors in his Pensilvanian Brethren Again In the same Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis T. D having affirmed that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this life G. Whithead answereth That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression Annot. G. Whithead's Ignorance greatly appeareth in this that he thinks Repentance and Perfection inconsistent but it is a strange Perfection that destroyeth an Evangelical Virtue and a Fruit of the Spirit such as Repentance is and what is Repentance A change of the mind or a transformation of the mind as the Greek word Englished Repentance implieth or more particularly true Evangelical Repentance is a great aversion and perfect hatred of the soul to all sin and a deep humiliation before God with godly sorrow and contrition of soul for sins past which is very consistent with and very becoming the most perfect and holy men that ever lived since all have sinned It seems it is from this great Error that he and many others of his Brethren seldom if ever pray for Forgiveness of sin at least for themselves for if there be no need of Repentance it will follow that there is no need of praying for Forgiveness But all sound Christians of true spiritual experience do know that both Repentance for sin and praying for Forgiveness of sin are well consistent with the greatest degree

Denial says Jo. Faldo Here is Jo. Faldo's Commentary on Is Pennington's words Now see how W. Penn explains Is Pennington's words pag. 149. Is he so impiously Vnjust that because we do deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to perform that inward work which they themselves dare not nay do not hold therefore Isaac Pennington denies any Efficacy to be in that outward Offering and Blood towards Justification as it respects meer Remission of former Sins and Iniquities So in short I take it thus W. Penn Answers That Is Pennington's words are to be understood with reference to Sanctification but not Justification Says he Outward Blood cannot be brought into the Conscience to perform that work But the way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the application of a living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me and that Blood is not a Physical but a Moral once of our cleansing 1 Christ Jesus by his Obedience and Suffering procured the Pardon of my Sins as well as he sealed it by his Blood And 2. He procured the Spirit to Sanctifie me Therefore I agree with all true Christians herein I find none say there must be a material application of that Blood but a Spiritual and Moral and we can give Instances that Moral Causes are many times more effectual Causes than Physical are As the Money wherewithal we buy the Medicine that cures the Body is not the Physical cause of Health but a Moral and the Money that we buy Bread with is not the Physical cause of our Nourishment and Refreshment but a Moral and yet it is so great a cause that without Money neither Bread nor Medicine can be readily obtained and not at all without somewhat equivalent Now I have done with the two first Heads shall I go on to prove the other two or shall we adjourn to another day Auditors If half an hour will do go on G. Keith I know not but it will but that they oft interrupt us with Digressions The Third Head to be prove i● That the Body that dieth riseth not again First from W. Penn's holding the Resurrection immediately after Death in his Rejoynder pag. 138. I think this will be enough for W. Penn if I give no more T. Hi●ks Argues thus for the Resurrection of the Body That if there be no Resurrection of the Body the Joys of Heaven should else be imperfect Now here is VV. Penn's Answer to it I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory imperfect Or are they in Heaven but by halves If it be so unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joys Coelestial is it not in measure unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widow and so in a state of Mourning and Disconsolateness to be without its beloved Body Which state is but a better sort of Purgatory G. VVhitehead Argues the same way If the deceased Saints in Heaven or their Souls have not all that they expect to all Eternity all the Resurrection they look for then they must be in Purgatory for the time But if the latter be not then not the former But this contradicts many Scriptures that especially in Acts 26. That Christ should suffer and should be the first that should rise from the dead Now according to this Doctrine of VV. Penn and G. VVhitehead Christ's Resurrection was later than that of many Millions Now if you will hear a Proof from G. VVhitehead you may Auditors Yes let us hear it G. Keith Here is the place pag. 353. G. Whitehead 's Christian Quaker Says T. Danson The Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body its dear and beloved Companion the Soul having a strong desire and inclination to a re-union to the Body as the Schools not without ground determine Vide Calv. And here is G. VVhitehead's Answer pag. 353. Both Calvin T. Danson the the Schools and divers Anabaptists are mistaken in this very matter and see not with the Eye of true Faith either that the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the Body or that the Soul hath a strong desire to a re-union to the Body while they intend the Terrestrial Elementary Bodies for this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed resumption of the Body You see I hope here is Proof enough that G. VV. holds that the deceased Saints look for no Resurrection of the Body Quaker Elementary Body G. VVhitehead saith Quaker H. Goldney He reads that word faintly G. Keith What other Body could it be The Matter is there is the same Argument of G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn. A little Philosophy I hope will not offend you I hope if they make use of false Philosophy to defend their false Faith I may make use of true Philosophy to defend the true Faith And the Objection they make is the same against Christ's Body Pray was not Christ's Body Elementary Did he not eat and drink And was it not the same as we eat and drink And if we eat and drink of what are Elementary then his Body did receive the same Elements and they were converted into his Body And G. VVhitehead owns in his later Writings that Christ's Body that rose is the same with his Body that suffered but his Pride will not suffer him to own his former Error either in that or in other things And seeing VV. Penn thinks it absurd that a Body can be transformed from an Earthly and Animal Body to an Heavenly Body as he Argueth Reas against Rail p. 134. He makes it not only as gross as Transubstantiation but worse But this is his gross Ignorance in true Philosophy and his false Philosophy destroys his Faith It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the Faeces or drossy part of it behind But if he say Christ hath not the same substance of Body that he had on the Earth this is plain Transubstantiation For have not many that Understanding that a gross body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so Subtil Volatile and Spiritual without any Transubstantiation or change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine it or hold it Now VV. Penn holds that grossness is so Essential to a Body that a Body must cease to be a bodily Substance if it put off Grossness or Carniety and that Carniety is Essential to a Carnal Body But see how contrary this is to common Sense and Understanding There is no Woman that sets a Hen to breed Chickens

ye see how the citations they bring in their Paper clear me and shew T. Ellwood his injustice against me You see there is the Light within not the Light without in the Citations they have brought to clear me and to blame T. Ellwood And here is another thing they find fault with as to T. Ellwood's wronging me as if I had made a meer Verbal Confession a sufficient qualification to a Member of the Church of Christ See here they cite my Book Reasons and Causes p. 22. Take notice how they notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my words T. Ellwood says I make a meer Verbal Confession a Qualification for being a Member of the Church But I say not so as if a Verbal Confession were enough but as well a Conversation such as becomes the Gospel is necessary to qualifie a Member So my Book is Such a Conversation as becomes the Gospel p. 36. Reasons and Causes c. I appeal to you is not this more than a Verbal Confession T. Ellwood charges me to say That a meer Verbal Confession is enough to make a man a Member of the Church of Christ Now p. 103 T. Ellwood accuseth me unjustly as his own Brethren do observe for giving a false Quotation out of R. Barclay's Book called the Anarchy c. but they clea● me and declare it to be true as it is T. Ellwood quibbles about Substance finding fault with my Saying Somewhere it agrees in Substance with R. B. as elsewhere in express words Now these men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that liberty to himself he will not allow to me They observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Another thing T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith as they observe in their Censure that he blames them for going too much from the outward to the inward But these are not my words nor sence And they censure T. Ellwood for making a strained Consequence on my words for tho' I blamed them for not rightly preaching Christ withou● yet not for going to the inward Light for if they did go rightly to God's Light and Gift in their Hearts they would not hold such gross Errors But he says I blame them for going from the outward to the inward which is not so See p. 22. Again they censure him in his blaming me for not naming the Day Month or Year wherein that Yearly meeting at Philadelphia was held which he makes the ground of his perversion and would excuse it You see he argues like a rare Logician He says I do not name the Year nor Day nor is it in p. 14 nor p. 18. But what then I do it in another page This is rare Logick Now I say you have both in p. 3. quoted from The Plea of the Innocent Which p. 3. T. Ellwood has quoted for another purpose but could not see it for that And all this Proof is that I did not tell it in p. 14 nor p. 18 but I did it in p. 3. His Argument is a Sophism and is faulty in not making a sufficient enumeration Again they censure him for charging me with Nonsence Pray may not a meeting held six months after contradict a meeting going before Very well But he has given out that I am so weak a man that I cannot write sence This morning one came to me with Henry Goldney and said People would hoot at me in the Meeting but it is fulfilled on themselves thinking me craz'd And so here is a Paper against me that I cannot speak sence And why Because he feigns that I said a meeting six months before contradicts a meeting held six months after it when there is no such thing but that a meeting six months after contradicts a meeting six months before When Tho. Ellwood could not prove that I began the Separation at Philadelphia by any Evidence of Matter of Fact he essays to do it by false Logick arguing That the Cause must be before the Effect Therefore because I say Th. Loid and they that were Magistrates went away this was the beginning of the Separation and a cause of it And so when he cannot bring a reason in Matter of Fact he will go to false Logick for it So I answer'd his Argument saying All learned men that write of causes and effects acknowledge that a priority of time is not necessary to the cause but it is enough that there be a priority of nature the first moment the Sun was created there was light And then besides the cause cannot be the effect says he if their going away from that meeting were the cause of the separation it was not the effect But I said to him formal and material causes may be both cause and effect As for example The formal and material causes of a man are his Soul and Body and they are the man The material and formal causes of this House are the Stones the Bricks the Timber and the Fashion Now here these causes are the effect Now Th. Loid's going away was a cause of the Separation and yet was a beginning of the Separation And is it not shameful They accuse me of Separation but they run to a perversion of Philosophy to prove it by that the cause is before the effect when they have no other Arguments against me but false Logick and vain Philosophy and Deceit and his own Brethren here in this Paper do censure him for his arguing unfairly by Logical nicety Here is another Observation of these honest men they censure him for saying he did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died c. being necessary to our Salvation was reputed a Doctrine in Controversie betwixt us Whereas the principal Doctrine in Controversie between them and me was about the Faith of Christ as he died c. whether necessary to our Salvation Here is something also to take notice of that he blames me as not fair for not putting my Name to my Book nor the Name of the Printer Now the Quakers have done so in England in Suffering Times and yet the Printer in America was prosecuted by an Act of Parliament for not printing his Name to some of my Books and they took away his Letters and Frame But I find that which is Persecution in England is esteem'd good Justice in Philadelphia Quaker N. Marks I have something to propose to you if you please We are all in general very apt and too apt to have a good Opinion of ourselves it is very near to Mankind to do so You have very well answer'd the Design of this meeting in this you have heard him with a great deal of temper I desire you further to consider that all considerate men when they hear one part hear but with one Ear. So far as G. Keith thinks fit to make this publick you may expect an Answer and I hope you will reserve one Ear to hear that