Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	good_a	sin_n	7,176	5	5.3331	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47145	George Keith's Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall divided into three parts : detecting the Quakers gross errors, vile heresies, and antichristian principles, oppugning the fundamentals of Christianity, by clear and evident proofs (in above two hundred and fifty quotations) faithfully taken out of their books, and read at three several meetings, the 11th, the 18th, and 23d of Jan., 1699 before a great auditory of judicious persons, ministers, and others, more particularly discovering the fallacious and sophistical defences of George Whitehead, Joseph Wyeth, and seven Quakers of Colchester, in their late books on all the several heads contained in the printed advertisement : to which is prefix'd, the attestation of five ministers of the Church of England, to the truth of the said quotations, and a postcript [sic] / by George Keith.; Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1700 (1700)	Wing K167; ESTC R2430	153,412	130

convince him that the reasonable Soul in Men did not sin What is that Soul that the wicked cannot kill Surely by this Query George Fox meant the Soul that the wicked cannot kill was not the Soul that could sin wherein he sheweth his great Ignorance for though the wicked cannot kill the sinful Souls of Men yet as Christ said in the following Words He is to be feared to wit God that can cast both Soul and Body into Hell Fire Now what Soul can be cast into Hell Fire but the Soul that sinneth But lastly By George Fox's Argument That if the sinful Soul be reasonable and the unsinful Soul be reasonable also then they are one in Unity which he would have to be a great Absurdity thus he hath plainly disclosed the Mistery of his profound Doctrine that is a Branch of Ranterism viz. that there are but two Principles one good in Man that never sinneth or doth evil the other bad that sinneth and never doeth good the one is God or a Part of God the other the Devil or a Part of the Devil And his denying that one and the same Soul doth sin at one Time and doth well at another Time clearly proveth that according to him there is not any Soul of Man but what is either a Part of God or of the Devil And he discovereth his great Ignorance in denying that the reasonable Soul is sinful the contrary whereof is true that no Soul but a reasonable Soul is or can be sinful for what is it that makes the Beasts uncapable of sinning but that they are not reasonable And whereas his Opponent had very well argued that the evil Spirits are both sinful and reasonable George Fox answereth This is a Lie for reasonable is not sinful unreasonable is sinful quoting 2 Thess 3. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked Men for all Men have not Faith But this doth nothing favour his Manichean Notion he was so ignorant as not to distinguish betwixt the Faculty of Reason and the Act of Reason when Men that are reasonable and have reasonable Souls act contrary to Reason they are said to be unreasonable to wit in Act but still the Soul that sinneth is reasonable with respect to the rational Faculty nor could evil Spirits sin if they were not reasonable i. e. indued with rational Faculties Besides the Greek Word in 2 Thess 3. 2. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is not so properly translated Unreasonable but as it is on the Margin Absurd i. e. such who though they have Reason yet will not give place to Reason but act contrary to it and George Fox had he had the right Use of his Reason might have seen that it is no more an Argument against the Soul of Man being reasonable that it acts unreasonably than it is an Argument that the Soul is not enlightened by the Light within because it often acts contrary to the Dictates of it Again for a further Confirmation of George Fox's Doctrine That the Soul that sinneth is not the Soul that is to be saved and that therefore the Soul that is saved or is to be saved is only Christ the Seed within Men Hear what George Fox saith Great Mistery page 324. he quotes his Opponent saying That the Seed to whom the Promise of Salvation is made is or hath been Sinners This he opposeth saying The Promise of God is to the Seed which hath been laden as a Cart with Shaves by the Sinner which Seed is the Hope Christ that purifies even as God is pure So this Promise is not to Seeds as many but to one the Seed which is Christ Note In the same Paragraph he saith So here is the Creature come to know its Liberty amongst the Sons of God and the Seed Christ never sinned in the Male nor in the Female Note what he means by the Creature that comes to know its Liberty which hath not sinned and hath the Promise of Salvation seems not intelligible for he denieth that the Seed is a Creature and yet it is that to which the Promise of Salvation is to wit the Seed Christ in the Male and in the Female that never sinned but he grosly perverts that Place in Gal. 3. 16. for by the Seed Christ is there meant Christ as he came outwardly according to the Flesh out of Abraham's Loins to whom the Promise was that in him all Nations of the Earth should be blessed but this was not to a Seed within that needed Salvation Like to this is what he saith in Great Mistery p. 15. having quoted his Opponent saying There is nothing in Man to be spoken to but Man To this he thus opposeth How then Ministred the Apostle to the Spirit and Christ spake to the Spirits in Prison and Timothy was to stir up the Gift that was in him and the Spirit of the Father speaks within them and the Light it shines in the Heart Here the Scriptures are for Correction of thee and Reproof of thee who said there is nothing to speak to in Man but Man Again In Great Mystery p. 187 he quotes his Opponent saying It would be good News if the Quakers should go and preach to the Spirits in Hell To this he answers The Quakers have been among the Prisoners that be in Hell and ministred to that and the CORRUPTIONS shall go into the Fire that hath no End and they that do wickedly and forget God shall go into Hell and Death and Hell shall go into the Lake of Fire and there is more in these Words yet than thou canst receive for God is the Salvation of all Men but specially them that believe Note thus we see he is very charitable and the Quakers Ministers are very charitable that they have been among the Prisoners in Hell and preached to that But how is this great Charity consistent with his saying That that which sinneth is not saved unless he mean that Sin is not saved though the Creature is The very same Doctrine concerning the Soul I find asserted by Edward Burrough in his Works Coll. page 27. Thou sayest one of us told thee That that which sinned could not be saved I answer saith Edward Burrough It is out of the Reach of the Wisdom and thy vulturous Eye shall never see it I say as the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die and every Man must die for his own Iniquity If thou hast an Ear thou mayst hear Thus we see the Agreement of these two great Teachers of the Quakers about the Souls that sin that they shall not be saved nor can be saved But how grosly doth Edward Burrough pervert those Scriptures to prove his most corrupt Doctrine that is plain Ranterism Because the Scripture saith The Soul that sinneth must die doth it therefore follow That it cannot afterwards be saved both from Death and Sin that is the Cause of it Indeed Sin hath brought a Spiritual Death

without us is the Allegory of his Blood within so his Blood within is the Allegory of Christ's Blood without this is as great Nonsense as who would say as Hagar and Sarah were an Allegory of the Two Covenants so the Two Covenants are an Allegory of Hagar and Sarah And thus G. W. and his Brethren stand justly charged with Allegorizing away Christ's outward Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement by making them the Allegory of his Birth Sufferings Blood Atonement made within Men tho' they deny not Christ's Birth Death Blood without simply as Historically related yet seeing they deny the Merit and Efficacy of his Death and Blood without and of what he did and suffered without us they are justly charg'd to Allegorize it away that is to make no other account of it than of the History of Hagar and Sarah and other Types Symbols and Allegories of the Old Testament Besides If Men will be wilful denyers of the Historical Truth of Christ's outward Birth Death Burial Resurrection Ascension according to G. W.'s and his Brethren's way and method of expounding Scripture we have no way to convince them of their Error If we bring Isaiah 9. 6. to prove that Isaiah Prophesied of Christ's Birth and that the Child that should be Born should be both God and Man and his Mother should be a Virgin according to Isaiah 7. 14. And if we bring Isaiah 53. to prove that Christ should be wounded for our Sins be killed be buried and make his grave with the wicked or That Christ should suffer without the Camp they may Answer All these and the like places are to be meant not of any Birth Death or Burial of a Christ without us but of Christ Born Slain and Buried in Men and for their Proof vouch G. W.'s Authority and his Brethren's to confirm it who as above-quoted have expounded these places of Christ Born Slain Buried within Men. But if G. W. will say these and other the like places have two meanings one Outward and Literal and the other Inward and Spiritual to this I say First G. W. in his Voice of Wisdom pag 21. hath severely blamed his Opponent T. D. for giving two meanings to one place I agree to the most Judicious and Orthodox Expositors of Scripture that the Scriptures have but one sense or meaning properly and strictly speaking viz. That the thing principally and properly intended is but one and what other senses or meanings may be put upon some places of Scripture besides that is rather an Allusion or Allegory than the real meaning which so far as we have Scripture warrant is allowed as Paul's calling Hagar and Sarah an Allegory but otherwise is dangerous and in the present case is most Heretical as in G. W.'s and his Brethrens making Christ's Birth Sufferings Death Burial without Men the Allegory and his Birth Sufferings Death Burial within the Reality and Substance or thing principally intended in these places of Scripture That the Spirit of God with his sanctifying Gifts and Graces is called Water of Life and Living Waters whereby God doth really Purify and Cleanse the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful and that this Work of Sanctification is Inward and Spiritual in them is no part of the Dispute or Controversie for this is not only granted but earnestly taught and pleaded for against Pelagians and others who deny it or at least the necessity of such an inward and spiritual Operation Therefore G. W. in this as in most of his late Defences doth purposely mistake the true Case to hide his vile Heresie as if the debate betwixt him and his Opponents were only about the inward Operations of the Spirit of God for the cleansing and sanctifying the Hearts of the Faithful but this is his ordinary Fallacy The true state of the Question then is this Whether there is any Inward Blood or Water that Christ Crucified in Men lets out or is pressed out of him crucified within them that is the Blood of Atonement is the Price and Ransom and Meritorious Cause of the Remission of our Sins is the satisfactory and propitiatory Offering for Sin either in whole or in part Also whether any such supposed Blood or Water or Spirit thus flowing from Christ as Crucified and Wounded within Men is the meritorious and procuring Cause either of Men's Justification before God or of the saving and sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit and whether the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to Believers with the sanctifying Graces thereof proceeds from Christ Crucified within having made the Atonement and Satisfaction by his Blood shed within Risen and Ascended within Sitting at the Right Hand of God within Men making Intercession for them or from Christ as he was crucified without us having made the Atonement and Satisfaction without us by his Blood shed without us Risen and Ascended and sat down at the Right Hand of God without us and there Interceding for us This is the true state of the Controversie all true Christians say that all this is from Christ without us as outwardly Born Crucified Risen Ascended from him thus only considered as without us all Believers have the free gift of the Remission of Sins free Justification freely by God's Grace being the real effect of Christ's Purchase and of the Merit of his Precious Blood and also the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof inwardly to renew and sanctifie them So that the Work of Christ or of the Spirit in Believers is not at all either in whole or in part to suffer for our Sins or to procure by way of Merit the pardon of our Sins and our Peace and Reconcliation with God for that 's wholly and only done by Christ without us but to work the sincere Faith of all that he hath done and suffer'd for us without us and give us the Spiritual Knowledge and Comfort of it in our Hearts and Souls The Plaister and healing Medicine of Christ's Body and Blood was prepared for us when he gave his Precious Body to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us this was once done and is no more to be doue again Christ having once dyed dyeth no more by the one Offering of himself once only offered without us his Soul Body and Blood he hath intirely and completely prepared the wholsom Medicine and Food of Life for us But now the work of Christ and his Spirit in us is to apply it effectually to us that is to enable us effectually to apply it to our selves for our Eternal Health and Salvation to give us a Spiritual discovery and sight of that living Food a Hunger and Appetite after it and to teach us spiritually by Faith to receive it and feed upon it to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood not by the bodily Mouth but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith a true and living Faith wrought in us by the powerful Operation of Christ in us or his Spirit

Works are meritorious of Condemnation therefore good Works wrought by us in the Spirit are a meritorious cause of our Justification But T. Danson doth effectually Answer the Argument by denying the Consequence and that it can have no force unless the good Works we work even by the help of the Spirit Voice of Wisdom p. 36. were in all respects Perfect and Sinless and that we had always perfectly fulfilled the Law from first to last which no Man ever did but Christ And he gives another good reason why he denyeth the Consequence Because the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other effects his sense is obvious No Righteousness can Merit our Justification before God but that which is of an Infinite value and therefore the Righteousness of a meer Man had it been Perfect and Sinless from the first moment of his Life to his Death could not be of Merit for the Justification of others and indeed strictly speaking not of Merit for his own Justification he could only have been justified by his own good Works assisted to do them by the Spirit by fulfilling the terms of the Law or Covenant of Works but because Christ was not meer Man but both God and Man therefore his Righteousness and Obedience is of that Infinite Value and Merit that is sufficient for all that lay hold on it for Justification by a true and lively Faith Now to both these good and solid Reasons G. W. Answers most Ignorantly First in asserting That the good Works which we work by the Spirit or which the Spirit works in us are Perfect and are the fulfilling of the Law and therefore deserving Justification but to this I have answered above and discovered his Ignorance see the First Part p. 13. To his 2d Reason G. W. Answers The Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finite but Infinite Voice of Wisdom p. 36. for Christ is God's Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. 4. 19. and so that Righteousness which God works in us by his Spirit is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made partakers of the Divine Nature Thus we see how he magnifies the Righteousness wrought by the Spirit in Men not only to be Perfect with a Sinless Perfection but DEIPIES it so as to make it equal to God himself arguing that the Righteousness which God works in us is of the same Nature with that which worketh it surely whatever is of the same Nature with God is equal to God yea is God for because Christ as he is the Eternal Word is of the same Nature with God therefore he is equal with God and is God But observe a prodigious Fallacy in G. W. to defend his Blasphemy In his Truth and Innoc. p. 60. in defence of that passage above-quoted out of his Voice of Wisdom he saith My meaning simply of the word Infinite was that God's Righteousness which he effects in us is Everlasting and without end Psal 119. 142. And Christ is said to be of God made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption 1 Cor. 1. 30. I hope saith he none will deny him to be Infinite or his work of Righteousness and the effect thereof to be quietness and assurance for ever And thus he would heal himself by giving us his sense of the word Infinite that he meant simply that it was Everlasting and without end But to detect this prodigiously dull Sophistry I call it not prodigious for the Wit of it but the Dulness of it the nature of G. W.'s Argument did not only carry the sense of the word Infinite to be endless but to be every way Infinite his Argument being grounded on this That that Righteousness which God worketh in us is of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it Now the Nature of God is not only endless but Infinite every way his Righteousness and Holiness not only extendeth beyond all Times and Ages but beyond all Degrees and Measures of Created Perfection But whatever sense the word Infinite may be allowed in other cases to have as to say a Nation is Infinitely Rich as Nahum 3. 9. yet in this case of the Controversie betwixt T. Danson and G. W. the word Infinite can have no such limited or strained sense neither did T. Danson understand it in that sense as only to signifie Endless And G. W. did he know the true Law of Disputants should know That when he answereth to his Opponent's Argument he should take the word of his Opponent in the sense of his Opponent because the force of the Argument lies upon that sense For T. Danson's Argument had not this sense That because the Righteousness that God works in Men is not Endless therefore it is not Meritorious of Justification for granting it to be Endless that is Infinite in G. W.'s sense as the Apostle Paul saith of Charity it never faileth every degree of it is Endless but it will not therefore follow that it is meritorious of Justification because it hath no end of duration for so the Soul it self should be meritorious of Justification because it is Endless yea the Souls of bad Men and Devils are Endless and Infinite in G. W.'s sense do they therefore merit Justification But the force of T. Danson's Argument lyeth in this That Righteousness alone can be meritorious of our Justification before God that is Infinite in Value and Worth that is equivalent and infinitely more than equivalent to the Righteousness not only of all the most holy Angels that never sinned but of all the Men that ever lived or shall live had they by Supposition lived as holily and righteously as the holy Law of God required them to live from first to last yet such a Righteousness as this of all such holy Angels and Men being but a Finite Righteousness with respect to its intrinsick worth and value could not be sufficiently meritorious for the Justification of one Man that has sinned tho' suppose but once all his Life time But because the Righteousness of Christ to wit his most holy and perfect Obedience which he performed without us was not the Righteousness of a meer Man but of him who was both God and Man therefore it is an Infinite Righteousness i. e. of Infinite value before God by way of merit to obtain the Justification of true Penitents and Believers and when sound Christian-Teachers say The Righteousness of Christ which he performed without us for our Justification is an Infinite Righteousness they mean not that it was Physically Infinite but Morally i. e. of Infinite value before God by reason of the Hypostatical Union of the Humane Nature of Christ with the Essential and Eternal Word But G. W. thought to excuse S. F. and himself from the imputation of Popery on the Point of Justification and that very handsomly why because the Quakers say It 's only the works that they

And tho' the Blood of Christ that both justifieth and sanctifieth is without us yet the application by Faith is within both for our Justification and Sanctification Note again That as G. W. doth fallaciously state the Question concerning Men's being Cleansed i. e. Justified and Sanctified by the Blood of Christ as is above-shewed so he argueth most fallaciously for his false Notion of a Blood of Christ within Men to be the Atonement by the merit whereof they are Cleansed from Sin as because the Operation of the Spirit of God is within Men whereby he applieth to them the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Blood which application by a Metaphorical Speech is call'd in Scripture A sprinkling the Conscience that therefore the Blood of Christ is Inward which is the like Sophistical and Nonsensical Argument with that of G. F. The Saints eat the Flesh of Christ therefore they have it in them Thus they both argue from a Metaphorical Eating and Sprinkling or Cleansing to a Literal or Material as because what Men eat of Material Food they receive it into them so because they eat Christs Flesh they have it in them and because the Blood of Christ Sprinkles the Hearts and Consciences of the Faithful therefore that Blood is in them not considering the application here both with respect to Eating and Sprinkling is not Material but Spiritual by Faith as Christ hath plainly explained it that to eat Christ is to believe in him to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is sincerely to believe with the Heart that Christ gave his Body of Flesh to be broken for us and his Blood to be shed for us for the Remission of our Sins and both for our Justification and Sanctification and eternal Salvation Joh. 6. 35. He that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believeth in me shall never thirst and verse 40. This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day Again Whereas they say in that Printed Paper above-quoted signed by G. W. and Thirty more We do highly value his Death Sufferings Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind That all this is extremely Fallacious doth largely appear from what is above-quoted Do they highly value his Death and Sufferings when some among them have Printed as above-quoted That when they come to the Operation of the Spirit or Light Within them they will cease remembring Christs Death at Jerusalem Do they value Christ's Sufferings and Death c. who deny it to be the Gospel that Christ impowered the Apostles to Preach for which hear what they say in their Book above-quoted call'd A Testimony for the true Christ c. p. 16. Their Opponent they quote saying p. 16. Christ impowered the Apostles to go forth to Preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth which Gospel was his Sufferings Death and Resurrection Baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost c. To this they Answer The Gospel which they Preached was Everlasting it was the Power of God to Salvation to as many as Believed both of Jews and Gentiles But were his Sufferings Death c. Everlasting Is this good Doctrine say they So that according to them it is not good Doctrine but bad to Preach Christ's Sufferings Death c. to be the Gospel either in whole or in part for their reason is of equal force against that Doctrine either in whole or in part The Gospel is Everlasting but Christ's Death and Sufferings c. Note the c. which both the Opponent and they add is not Everlasting for that they say was Temporal therefore Christ's Death and Sufferings is not the Gospel and by this their profound Logick or rather beggarly Sophistry nothing is the Gospel but that which is Everlasting i. e. was from Eternity to Eternity and thus according to them nothing is the Gospel but the Light Within because that is Everlasting the Power the Spirit the Light is Everlasting and therefore that only is the Gospel But tho' the Spirit and Power and Light was and is Everlasting yet it was not within them from Everlasting because they were not from Everlasting and therefore by their Logick as the Light or Spirit is in them and as t●● Gift of God to them it is no more the Gospel than Christ's Death and Sufferings c. because they had it not within them from Everlasting if they will acknowledge themselves to be Creatures Created and Made by the Great Creator in Time But they quibble Sophistically upon the word Everlasting for tho' Christ's Suffering and Death were not Everlasting yet both the Merit Virtue and Efficacy of them both for procuring Remission of Sin and the Holy Spirit with the sanctifying Gifts and Graces thereof was from the beginning of the World and will continue to the end of the World yea and to all Eternity and the Doctrine of it in some measure was Preached from the beginning as God revealed it first to our first Parents and then successively to others of his Holy Prophets and was held forth both by Prophecy Promise and Sacrifices to the Faithful Again They are grosly Fallacious when they say in that Printed Paper We do highly value and esteem his Sufferings Death Precious Blood and whole Sacrifice for Sinners Works Offices and Merits for the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind But what do they mean by Christ's Merits Do they mean the Merits of what Christ hath done for them without them suffered without them his Righteonsness without them his Blood shed without them so as thereby to be justified Nay The following Quotations will sufficiently evidence the contrary viz. That not the Righteousness or Merits or Blood of Christ shed without us but the Merits of Christ within them his Righteousness wrought in them his Blood shed within them the Blood of his Divinity or Godhead but not of his Humanity or Humane Blood by which they are justified for further proof of which hear what G. W. saith in his Voice of Wisdom p. 48. where he blames T. Danson and chargeth it on him to be false Doctrine held by him That there were two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without the Saints to justifie them and the other within the Saints that did sanctifie them And in p. 26. he chargeth T. Danson with Ignorance for his asserting two Righteousnesses of Christ the one without us for Justification the other within us for Sanctification And in p. 35. He argueth against Justification by a Righteousness of Christ without us thus If it be the same Christ that justifies and Janctifies then it 's but one and the same Righteousness which effecteth both these in and for the Saints And in p. 19. he expresly defends that Popish Argument used by S. Fisher the very same Argument is used by Bellarmin De Justif That because evil