Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	faith_n	impute_v	righteousness_n	2,775	5	8.3326	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47759	Satan dis-rob'd from his disguise of light, or, The Quakers last shift to cover their monstrous heresies, laid fully open in a reply to Thomas Ellwood's answer (published the end of last month) to George Keith's Narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, June 11, 1696, which also may serve for a reply (as to the main points of doctrine) to Geo. Whitehead's Answer to The snake in the grass, to be published the end of next month, if this prevent it not / by the author of The snake in the grass.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1697 (1697)	Wing L1149A; ESTC R2123	80,446	76

the notion of Inward Blood of the Light within they knew no more than Bruit Beasts Therefore Repent says he for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith i. e. in the outward Blood and your Imputative Righteousness too for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which He did at Jerusalem and without the Gates the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian Independants and Baptists shall fare all alike and shall sit down in Sorrow short of the Eternal Rest But the true Imputative Righteouss of Christ we own but it is Hid from you All Till the Lord do open an Eye within you i. e. To see the Righteousness of The Light within which is Imputed that is as some Learned Quakers have Expounded it before those I can name In-putted Putted within them Now here by Sol. Eccles's Words the Quakers have a Notion of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which none in the World have but themselves Others mean by it The Merits of and Satisfaction made by the OVTWARD Obedience and Sufferings of the OVTWARD Jesus which are Imputed that is Apply'd to us by our INWARD Faith in Him and Obedience to His Laws So that here is both Outward and Inward The Object of our Faith and Meritorious Procuring Cause of our Redemption wholly outward or without us i. e. The Man who is also God Christ Jesus The Inward is the Application or Imputation of His Righteousness or Full and Compleat Obedience to the Law of God and Undergoing the Curse of it as the Satisfaction Requir'd for our Transgressions of it Apprehended and fully Believed on in our Hearts Now the Quakers opposing this by setting up the Inward shews that they wholly throw off the outward Else they do not oppose this But T. E. would fain have it to pass That they only speak against those who wholly throw off the Inward which none ever did He says p. 121. That they oppose those only who Deny Him Christ to be with Respect to these Offices At all within and shut Him Wholly out making the Work of Mediation Sanctification Justification and Salvation to be Only and Altogether outward Who ever made the Work of Sanctification c. to be WHOLLY outward This is the Impudent and Impious Fiction I have so oft taken Notice of of Imposing the most gross and Notoriously False Principles upon others that in such a Dust as they have Raised their own Vile Heresies may Pass Undiscover'd The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and the Shedding of His Blood as above Explain'd is the Common Belief of Christendom Now T. E. is Desired to tell us in his next what that Blood of Christ was and what the Imputation which Sol. Eccles said that the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian c. knew no more of than Bruit Beasts What other it could be than the Imaginary Blood and Sufferings of their Light within If it was any thing else they will please to tell us V. W. Burnet G. W's Antagonist seeing how they Endeavour'd to depreciate the Outward or Material Blood of Christ and turn all the Merit of the Redemption of Man to the Inward or Mystical Blood shed within them argues thus All things under the Law in the Type was Purged with Blood and this Blood was Material Blood and not Mystical and that Blood which Christ shed in Order to the Effecting the Salvation of Man must needs be Visible and Material Blood To this G. W. Replys as quoted by T. E. p. 118. To say that Material Blood was the Type of that which was Material is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Type or like as if one should say one Type was the Type of another By this G. W. makes Christ's Outward or Material Blood not to be the Substance or Anti-Type whereof the Legal Sacrifices were a Type But that it self is a Type i●e of the Mystical Blood or Light within And his Proof is That no Material thing can be the Anti-Type and therefore that Christ's Material Blood could be no more than a Type and therefore that i● it was Typify'd by the Legal Sacrifices one Type was the Type of another which he makes the Absurdity And T. E. Retorts thus upon W. ●u●●● p. 122. This is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Ty●e when the Substance or Anti-Type is Denyed to be Mystical and made Only Material because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical Ans 1st W. Burnet never said that Christ was ONLY Material as if there had been no Mystery in His Incarnation Passion c. no Christian ever said this This is the Quakers never failing Artifice of Imposing Manifest Lyes upon their Adversaries that they may Consute them But W B. Disputed only against those who would not Allow Christ's outward Material Body and Blood but only their own Light within to be that which was Typified by the Sacrifices under the Law and even by the Sacrifice of Christ Himself 2dly T. E's Consequence is not good for supposing that Christ was only Material it will not follow that His Body had no Preheminence above that of a Bullock such as was Sacrificed under the Law And none who had any Reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ Durst have made such a Blasphem●us Comparison 3dly None say that the Legal Sacrifices were only Material and n●t Mystical for they were Types of Christ and so Mystical So that T. E's Premises are all False and his Inference not Conclusive Next he comes to Excuse that Aph●rism of G. W's That one Type cannot be the Type of another And he says that G. W. in Words following those above cited applies this to Circumcision What then Let him apply it to what ●● he will But do's he not apply it in this place to Christ Let any one that can Read English judge VI. G. Keith objects G. Ws Explanation of Acts xx 28. The Church of God which He Purchased with His own Blood viz. Now the Blood of God says G. W. or that Blood that Relates to God must needs be Spiritual He being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it This Excludes the outward blood of Christ from being the Blood of the New Covenant And from so much as Relating to God unless G. W. holds with the Anthropomorphits and Muggleton That God is Material and has a Body For he says That the Blood of a Spirit can only be Spiritual To this says T. E. p. 131. Will G. Keith say That the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in Any Sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous Conception of the Body c. No. G. Keith nor any body else will say so except such as T. E. G. W. c. And this is nothing at all in Excuse of G. W. But exposes him and his Stickler much more For suppose Christ's Blood had some Spirituality in it and in some Sense might be called

He was the Seed of the Woman Promised Gen. 3. before He was Made of a Woman and even before any Woman in the World was Made This is New Divinity These Men Dance in the Clouds They have not a Mind to be understood which is a Demonstration that they Mean not as we do and that their Meaning is not Good SECT 2. Of Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed 1. WE come now to the Second Head of G. Keith's Charge which T. E begins to Answer p. 103. which is That the Quakers do Deny Justification and Sanctification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed And the first Proof is W. Penn who Totally Excludes the Satisfaction of Christ His Argument is from that Petition in the Lord's Prover Forgive no our Debts as we forgive our Debtors From whence W.P. infers That if it is our Duty to forgive without a satisfaction received and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction Totally Excluded But though the Debtor makes no satisfaction yet God has promised to do it in Full Measure Pressed down shaken together and Running over to those who Forgive any thing for His sake So that here is Satisfaction not Totally Excluded But Filled up every to the Brim But how do's T. E. Answer this He says p. 104 105. That W.P. meant only to Exclude a PLENARY or FVLL or RIGID which is the same Satisfaction 1st Every true Satisfaction must be PLENARY else it is no Satisfaction Paying part of a Debt is not a Satisfying of the Debt But 2dly W. P. neither made any such Distinction nor could Intend it For his Argument runs against All Satisfaction He did not mean that we were Commanded to Forgive our Debtors only in part else God was to Forgive us but in part since as he says God is to forgive us as we Forgive them And thence concludes That A Satisfaction i. e. Any Satisfaction is not only Excluded but to shew his Vehemence TOTALLY Excluded T. E. was no Friend to W. P. in mentioning his Sandy Foundation upon this occasion which is wholly Socinian Disputing Expresly against the Holy Trinity and the Satisfaction of Christ Particularly and I Charitably believe that he wishes it had never been wrote and that it may be now Forgotten Therefore I Forbear to Rip it up II. The next Quotation is out of George Whitehead which T E. comes to p. 109. and Repeating the Charge That G. W. blames W. Burnet his Opponent for saying The Blood shed upon the Cross sprinkles the Conscience Sanctifies Justifies Redeems us says That G. W. only Blames him for saying thus as an Absurdity following upon what W. Burnet had said That that Blood was not now in Being Why Do's G. W. believe that that Blood is any otherwise in Being than as W. Burnet did believe He Dare not say so And if not their there was no Contest betwixt Burnet and him upon that Head So that this is Plainly giving us the Go by and all the Consequences which G. W. draws or pretends to draw from that saying of Burnet's are fully Chargeable upon Himself But 2dly I desire the Reader here to take Notice of the Grossest piece of Deceit that perhaps ever he met with For that saying of Burnet's p. 40. of his Book is only his Repetition of it as being the Quakers own Objection against the Efficacy of that Blood which was shed upon the Cross to us now viz. That it was not now in Being and therefore that we could not now be Justified by that which was not in Being To which W. Burnet Answers That though that Blood shed be not in Being that is Supposing but not Granting it yet the Efficacy of that Blood is still in Being and it still speaks in God's Ears and crys aloud for Mercy If Abel 's Blood did cry against the Murderer for Vengeance How much more louder doth the Blood of the Lamb slain cry for Mercy c. Here Burnet only gives way to this Supposition of the Quakers viz. That that Blood was not in Being by way of Concession not as his own Opinion to shew that no Consequence could be drawn from it to favour the Quaker Heresie of Denying Justification by that Blood And yet T. E. concealing of this would put it upon Us That G. W. in Answer to this Place of Burnet did oppose him only for that Supposition and that agreeing Perfectly with him in Justification by that Blood he only shew'd the Ill Consequences of that Supposition which was his own and which he will not no nor T. E. or any other of their Quakers Dare Deny at this Day viz. That that Blood shed upon the Cross is not now in Being This is Turning the Tables upon W. Burnet in such an Impudent Manner that if I had not seen his Book I could not have believed it But 3dly If that Supposition had been W. Burnet's and not the Quakers own it would not Rescue G. W. because he plainly makes the Conclusion his own by Denying Justification by that Blood However justly it is drawn from that supposed Supposition 4thly The Agonies and Passion of Christ upon the Cross are not now in being And this Argument of G. W's will Dissolve all the Merits of His Death to our Justification thereby as well as by His Blood for indeed they are the same But 5thly All these little Cavillings about the Blood of Christ which was shed either before or after His Death are only to Amuse For they Deny any Justification by the outward Christ upon any account In A Serious Apology written by George Whitehead and William Penn printed 1671. p. 148. Repeating a Charge against them in these words That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us wholly without us and therefore Deny the Lord who Bought us To which W. Penn answers in these words And indeed this we Deny and Bodly affirm it in the Name of the Lord To be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now Deluge the Whole World If they think to come off by that saying wholly without us I answer that the Meritorious and only Procuring cause of our Justification is wholly without us i. e. By the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in His own Person for us and the Satisfaction which He hath made by His Death and Passion for our Sins But the Application of this to Particular Persons must be Inward by the Operation of His blessed Spirit in our Hearts And this hinders not but rather supposes that the Meritorious Cause is wholly without us i. e. All the Merit is to be Attributed to what Christ hath done and suffer'd for us for we can Merit nothing from God of our selves And not only to Deny this but to call it a Doctrine of Devils c. And that In the Name af the Lord As it shews these Men to be

being both his Prosecutors and Judges And since he came to England he has been Persecuted with the strife of Tongues Excommunicated and Ruin'd as much as in their Power who before did highly Honour and Support him Nor has he put himself in any other way that might Ballance these Losses So that he has visibly gone against his Worldly Interest And what other Motive cou'd he have but Conscience to Enable him in a single War against so Many and such Potent Adversaries But he Fought for the great Fundamentals of the Christian Religion which the Quakers had vilely cast away And than Spirit which Inspir'd them has Arm'd all their Rage against him But the Truths which he contends for has Prevail'd so far against them as to force them to at least a Feigned Complyance with the Doctrine that he Teaches which they Pretend always to have held as he now does And thereby Condemn their Excommunication of him ● unjust since they have Publickly at ●urners-Hall Declar'd that they had no objection against him as to his Morals 7. T. E. often calls upon G. K. for a Reply to his Truth Defended which he wrote in Answer to a Book of G. Keiths called A List of Vile and Gross Error c. But T. E. shou'd first have given a Full Answer to that Book and to another Book of G. K's called Gross Error and Hypocrisie Detected which T. E. pretends to Answer in this present Answer to the Naratin● Particularly p. 20 21. Where G. K disputes against this the very Fundamental Error of Quakerising which is Transferring the Merit and Satisfaction of the outward Sufferings and Sacrifice of the outward Christ to their Fancy'd Sacrifice and Sufferings of the Inward Christ or Light within G. K. there produces their own words as justify'd by W. Penn G. Whitehead c. Viz. Christ in us offereth himself a Living Sacrifice to God for us by which the wrath of God is appeased to us And again Christ offers himself In his Children in the Nature of a mediating Sacrifice To this says G. K. I will set down his words because they are short and Material ● satisfaction be totally Excluded which are W. P's words before Quoted because a Sin or Debt cometh both Paid and Forgiven what ●●d is 〈◊〉 is there of a Mediating Sacrifice of Christ within Men more that without them Secondly seeing it is the Nature of all Sacrifices for Sin that they be sl●●n and their Blood shed how is Christ sla●● in his Children and when For we Read in Scripture that Christ ●●●th in the Faithful as he did in Paul but not that he is slain in them Thirdly If any sla● the 〈◊〉 of Christ in them by their S●ns doth not that hinder the Life to be a Sacrifice by G. Whitehead's Argument That the Killing of a Christ outwardly being the Act of Wicked Man cou'd be no ●eritorious Act Fourthly Where doth the Scripture say Christ offers 〈◊〉 self In h●s Children a Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 Fifthly Is not this to make more ●acrifices or at least to say that Christ offer himself often yea Millions of ti●●s contrary to Scripture that saith Christ offered himself once Sixthly Why cou'd no Beast under the Law that had a Blemish be offered but to signify that Christ was to offer up himself in no other Body but that which was without Sin Seventhly Why was it Prophesied of Christ A Body hast thou Prepared me why not Bodies many if he offer up himself in the Bodys of all the Saints Eightly Is not this to make th● Sacrifice of Christ in his own Body of less value and Efficacy than his Sacrifice in W. Penn's Body Because the sacrifice in that Body which was offered at Jerusalem was a Type but this in W. Penn's Body the Anti-Type That the History This the Mystery As he calls i● in his Answer to John Faldo p. 336. 337. Ninthly Doth not this strengththen the Papists in their false Faith That Christ is daily offered in the Mass and Vn-bloody Sacrifice Now T. E. in his Truth Defended p. 148. Falls upon defending W. P. for calling Christ but the History and the Light within the Mistery after his usual manner of making the matter still worse But very civilly slips all the rest above Quoted which is the Jugulum Causae the very Heart of our Controversy with the Quakers And yet calls his Book an Answer to G. K. and Insults because he has not got a Replication But he must first amend his Long-short Answer Or let him put in an Additional Answer as to the Nine Reasons above nam'd against their Inward Sacrifice And then we will come with him when he pleases upon the Merits of the Cause III. 1. I have before taken notice of the great Moderation and stay'd Judgment of the Quakers in not Rashly passing Judgment upon any without duely and seriously weighing the Consequence of the Charge and the Defence of the Accused and the utmost Good meaning that cou'd be put upon words Of which T. E. shews a Remarkable instance p. 124. of his Answer Where in Return to G. K. who wou'd have had them to have Censur'd as Blasphemous that Doctrine of a Prophet of their own Sol. Eccles. Viz. That the Blood of Christ was no more than the Blood of another Saint T. E. Answers That if G. Whitehead to whom G. K. spoke had been as Hot Headed as G. K. perhaps he might But that Blasphemy is an High Charge and they that understand it aright are not so Forward as G. K. it seems wou'd be to Brand Persons with it for every unsound expression When I Quoted this above I laid before these Moderate Men how freely they had Branded all the Christian World for they have greater Tenderness towards the Heathen whom they make the next True Christians to themselves as Apostates Blasphemers Devils Conjurers c. For making the outward Christ an object of their Faith I will now shew you what other weighty Causes they have Decreed to be Blasphemy Viz. Any opposition whatsoever made to Them or their Diana the Light within In a Renowned Book of theirs Intituled The West Answering to the North. Printed 1657. Containing some of the Travels and Labours of their Fox Apostle and other of his Cubs there is 〈◊〉 down p. 1. A Blasphemous Bantering Paper of his turning the Christ to the Light within which will bring you says he off all the Worlds Teachers and Ways and Doctrines i. e. Off all the Doctrines and Teachers in the World All that Preach an outward Christ Which Paper being justly call'd Sinful and Wicked Than which says the said Book p. 12. What Higher Blasphemy is there greater Abomination or more Horrible Wickedness Take another Instance One William Rogers a Quaker of Bristol happen'd to differ with the other Quakers about their Womens Meetings Concerning Leaving Friends at Liberty to Pay Tythes if their Light so directed and some such other things And he wrote a Book upon

a Punctilio of Church-Discipline in submitting to the Jurisdictions of the Womens Meetings and other Instances of G. Fox's Authority and their now Ruling Elders But as to matters of Faith they are perfectly one And as to all and every one of the Points which we have discussed For which Reason G. Keith has left Harp-Lane as well as Grace-Church-street And those of Harp-Lane are as violent opposers of him and the Christian Doctrine which he teaches as the Quakers of Grace-Church-street Therefore as to matters of Faith which we are now upon Thom. Curtis and all those of Harp-Lane who joyn with him are as Proper Instances as if they had been all Pick'd out of Grace-Church-street Answ 3. If this be not True let Grace-Church-street Disown Harp-Lane as not holding the same Faith with them or for any thing else but their Breach of Vnion for the causes before told But there is nothing else so much as Pretended betwixt them They differ but as the Dominicans and Franciscans in the Church of Rome all one in the Faith onely some disputes about their Orders VII And this Division of the Quakers concerning their Church Authority tho it be not of so great Consequence as the Fundamentals of Faith which we have debated Yet it Involves them in as great Absurdities and Contradictions as the other Their Original Pretence was the Sufficiency and Independency of the Light within every Particular Person as has been said against all Impositions or Restrictions whatever from any outward Authority Which made W. Pen in his Address to Protestants p. 152. 2d Edit Interpret that Text Math. XVIII 17. Tell it unto the Church to Relate onely to Private Injuries 'twixt Man and Man and not at all to matters of Faith This was when that Text was urg'd against the Quakers in General for their Defection from the Church But in his Book call'd Judas and the Jews which he wrote against the separate Quakers there p. 13. He brings this same Text full against them and Argues from thence That if in Case of Private offences betwixt Brethren the Church is made Absolute Judge from whom there is no Appeal in this World how much more in any the least Case that concerns the Nature Being Faith and Worship of the Church her self T. E. Endeavours to solve this Contradiction p. 218 of his Answer It having been objected by G. Keith in his Narrative He wou'd put it off thus That in Judas and the Jews W. P. onely meant to give the Church Power to Try and Reject Spirits And that in his Address to Protestants he onely deny'd Power to the Church to Define and Impose upon all People under Temporal and Eternal Punishment Articles of Faith c. And this he says is no Contradiction But W. P. in his Judas c. Makes the Church ABSOLVTE JVDGE from whom there is no Appeal in this World of matters of FAITH as well as others And what does this differ from all those Big words which T. E. brings together to Frighten us and Divert the Question For an Absolute Judge from whom there is no Appeal may Define Impose upon all People c. And if his Power reaches to matters of Faith as Mr. Pen says the Power of the Church doe● then if matters of Faith do Reach to Temporal and Eternal Punishment the Power of such Absolute Judge must Reach to those Cases Likewise And to make the Church such an Absolute Judge by vertue of that Text Math. XVIII 17. As Mr. Pen in his Judas c. And yet to say as he does in his Address c. That this Text gives no Power at all to the Church in matters of Faith but that it Relates onely to Private Injuries is full as great a Contradiction as before T. E. meddl'd with the Defence of it But having had occasion to consider this Passage of Mr. Penn's more fully in my Discourse Proving the Divine Institution of Water-Baptism Sect. X. Num. V. p. 42. I will Insist no further upon it in this Place And tell the Reader the Good News That I have done Oct. 26. 1696. FINIS