Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	holy_a	son_n	6,458	5	6.0598	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain ●hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of

to and obey is the Light of Christ which witnesseth against all sin against all Idolatry and unrighteousness and leads us in the Doctrine of the true God which we receive in the Light and not mens Traditions and corrupt Doctrines and Inventions whereby People have been kept in the dark by such perverse and prejudiced Spirits as thus blasphemously deem the Light within an Idol of our own brains whereas it is the Light and Life of the Eternal Word which enlightens every man that cometh into the World that we testifie unto against all the dark opposers and gain-sayers whose wayes are dark and crooked as thine W. M. is who thus falsely and blasphemously hast represented the Light within like those that put Light for Darkness and Darkness for Light And now let the Reader judge Whether such dark envious Persons as thou herein hast shewed they self are fit to be Judges in these things of Controversie about such high matters touching the Three that bear Record in Heaven viz. The Father The Word and The Spirit when thou in thy earthly sensual wisdom never camest there neither canst thou till thou countest it loss unto thee and com'st to loose it that the Babe's state that enters the Kingdom be known in which the Light and Life of the Son of God is manifest which discovers the hidden things of darkness and reveals the Mysteries of God's Salvation to them that obey it but not to such as count it an Idol and now what may we expect but darkness from such an one as calls the Light within an Idol and they that look into thy following work against us may see the gross darkness thereof yea darkness that may be felt W. M. By their three Persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Three increated Persons are thy own words and terms but the Father Word and Spirit we really own and bear witness to both as mentioned in the Scripture and as knowing the absolute Testimony and Eternal Power thereof manifested where that which may be known of God is manifest even within both in creating begetting and quickening us again to God out of death and darkness And these Three which are One which bear Record in Heaven to wit The Father the Word and the Spirit as I could not own the title of Three distinct and separate Persons to be put upon them as thy Brother Erroniously did being not Scripture-language so it was never my intent nor Principle to compare them to three Apostles or finite Creatures as most falsely and injuriously thou accusest me But to endeavour to make the People understand both the grosseness and falseness of Tho. Danson's and Tho. Vincent's Principles of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity you naming each Person God which renders them Three Gods whilst but One God by shewing the Consequence of this your Principle After I had from Scripture shewed how inseperable the Father and the Son were and the Oneness of the Father Word and the Spirit but if I had simply compared them to three Apostles who were distinct and separate Persons then had I owned your own Terms and Principle and then the Controversie had fallen between us But instead thereof I am accused for opposing your Doctrine of distinct separate Persons and thus you confound your selves in wronging of me for were not the three Apostles Paul Peter and John three distinct separate Persons did I ever deny that they were how like then to finite Creatures doth your own Doctrine render the Eternal God his Word Spirit which to shew was my end in instancing three Apostles for we never believed the Eternal God to be like to corruptible man since we knew any thing of his Divine Power But T. Danson in his Synopsis pag. 12. plainly instanceth three Apostles Peter James and John as also his instance of David and Solomon for their Trinity or three Persons in one nature Was not this an instance of finite Creatures and such an indignity put upon God as I never intended How can such men but blush for charging that on others which so evidently they are guilty of themselves Madox We call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons or Hee 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures Answ. Nay had you stood to Scripture-language there had not been any Controversie between us therein but it would not satisfie you but you must obtrude your Popish unscripture-like terms and distinctions or rather worse in telling not only of distinct but separate Persons which being plainly refuted from Scripture you may remember I several times called to T. D. and T. V. to confess their Error I shewing how inseparable the Father and the Son were reflecting chiefly on the words separate Persons which how you come off about will appear hereafter And as for their being Three Hee 's thou W. M. durst not keep to any Argument from thence or to make that any Cause or Reason why we must own them to be Three Persons though here thou seem'st to make the terms equivolent viz. Three Persons or Hee 's so then it appears that either will serve if the Three that bear Record in Heaven be but own'd under the Name of Three Hee 's it will serve instead of Three distinct Persons but then are all Hee 's or Males Persons and all Shee 's or Females no Persons What strange Logick is implyed here And where doth the Scripture mention three increated Persons thou tell'st of are they three distinct increated Persons If so then mayst thou not as well say they are three distinct Infinites three Eternals and so three Gods Where is now the blasphemy and blasphemer And Christ's speaking of another Comforter which was the Spirit of Truth Joh. 14.16 was not another Person distinct from him for that Spirit was then in him neither doth he use those words for the same Comforter or Spirit was in him and was that divine Life that then spoke in him when he was personally present with them He doth not say he would send them another Person to Comfort them but speaks more spiritually for though they had been Comforted in his outward Presence and Ministry yet his spiritual Presence was that other Comforter for ever to abide with them for in that Joh. 14.17 Christ speaking of the Spirit of Truth or that other Comforter saith he that dwelleth with you shall be in you vers 18. I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you which clearly explains his former words which to say this Comforter was a Person distinct from Christ is all one or as absurd as to say the Spirit or Life that was in him was a distinct Person from him or that he was a Person distinct from himself for I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you or were it not gross to say That Christ in his People is a Person distinct from Christ or

Salvation I do not remember these to be our words as T. D. lays them down who also begins with a meer falshood against us saying That the word Christ is a meer blind to delude the ignorant for the Quakers denying Christ to be God they cannot own him for the Author of Illumination Answ. This is an apparent Slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity still affirming That in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and that in him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and that was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the World as in John 1.1.4 9. Now to detect us as being in an Error herein T. D. urgeth Ephes. 2.12 that at that time ye were without Christ having no hope c. which is no proof that they had none of Christ's Light in them though they then did not experience him their Hope nor were come to the Covenant being without God in the World in which state they were Strangers and Enemies in their minds the mystery was hid from them the Light was obscured from their understandings it shined in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not but it doth not follow that the Light was not in them because they were without God in the World no more then it follows that God is not in the World because the World knows him not whereas its plain that he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not John 1.10 and seeing Christ as God is acknowledged to be the Author of Illumination his illumination is Divine and Spiritual and therefore saving to them that believe in it and God's Presence filleth Heaven and Earth neither can Darkness it self nor the Deep nor Hell hide or cover man from the Presence of God nor yet obscure him from the reach of his Spirit Whether shall I go from thy Spirit or whether shall I fly from thy Presence if I ascend up into Heaven thou art there if I make my Bed in Hell behold thou art there if I take the wings of the Morning c. Psal. 139. Yet still I grant that there is a state in which all are ignorant of God and in which the Mystery to wit Christ within the hope of Glory hath been hid from Ages and Generations but is shewed revealed and made manifest to the true Believers in his Light who said Believe in the Light that you may be the Children of the Light and Christ said I am come a Light into the World that whosoever believeth in me might not perish but have Eternal Life and this we testifie to against all Opposers of his Light as it is in every man Pag. 59. And where T. D. argues that the Gentiles for a time had no Promises of Christ therefore knew of none and consequently had not a Light or Knowledge sufficient to bring them to Salvation Reply What time was that the Gentiles had no Promise of Christ and how long was it Was not the Promise of God after the Fall that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head of a general extent as well towards Gentiles as Jews For was not Adam and Eve the first Parents of both to whom this Promise was made Secondly The Promise that was made to Abraham whilst in the uncircumcision did not this relate to the Gentiles as well as the Jews see Rom. 4. and Galat. throughout And thirdly Was not Christ's Death for all still a confirmation or evident Testimony to the fore-going Promises and Covenant of God towards both Jews and Gentiles but and if there was some time or Ages in which the Gentiles had no Promises of Christ and therefore not a Light sufficient to Salvation according to T. D. then it follows that none of them in that time or those Ages could be saved and why but because God did not afford them a sufficient Light which assertion and consequence lays the blame upon God but the falsehood thereof who is it that know the Scriptures that cannot see Again where he puts Light for Knowledge herein he doth not reach our Principle for many have a true Light in them that are not come to the true Knowledge for it is the Light that shines in the heart that gives the knowledge of the Glory of God 2 Cor. 4. so the Light is there before the Knowledge is given and in that its able to give that Knowledge it is sufficient to save And where he brings 1 Tim. 3. ver last for proof That the Gentiles neither had nor knew any Promises of Christ for a time where he saith God manifested in the Flesh and as such preach'd unto the Gentiles are made two parts of the Mystery of Godliness which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of men as it s now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit c. Where note first that this manistation of God in the Flesh and preaching unto the Gentiles is no proof that either they had no promises of Christ before or that they had no Light in them sufficient to salvation for if so then all Gentiles in all Ages before that time were condemned for want of saving Light being given to them which were a gross errour to assert 2dly As to the manifestation of the mystery of God and Christ I grant that it was more large and open in the Apostles days then for Ages before as also that was made manifest then which was hid for Ages and Generations yet still it doth not follow that the Gentiles before had not a Light sufficient to save or to manifest the mystery of Godliness in some degree 3dly But yet T. D. his arguing against the Gentiles having a sufficient Light before Christ's coming in the flesh however if we could grant him his plea which we cannot it doth not follow that now the Gentiles or the whole world hath not a Light sufficient given them since Christ is so come manifestly testified as God's Salvation prepared before the face of all People being a Light to the Gentiles and his Testimony so signally confirmed as it hath been also both by his works and sufferings But yet the better to inform our Opposers of the Light let them read John 1. where speaking of the Word that was God that made all things it s said In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men verse 4. and this Light and Life of men which proceeds from the Word though it was before Christ's comming in the Flesh yet it was still the Light and Life of Christ born witness of and more fully manifested through his coming or being sent in the fulness of time Pag. 60. T. D. The Father is said to hide the object because he did not enlighten the subject i. e. to hide the Gospel because he did

not enlighten their minds with the saving knowledge of it Answ. This his Because is grounded upon his former Error for the cause of hiding the mysteries of God's Salvation and Kingdom is mens opposing and resisting his Light and Spirit in them so the cause is not originally in God though he gives men up to their darkness and unbelief when they have rejected his Light but it is the god of the World that hath blinded their minds from ●●eing the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ 2 Cor. 4. and the natural man 's not receiving the things of the Spirit 1 Cor. 2.14 doth not prove that he hath no Light of the Spirit given to him or in him though he as such cannot know the things of the Spirit his knowledge and discerning being but natural yet that a man in that state may be changed in his mind and understanding by that which is Spiritual is evident for if he were not convertable what would preaching to him signifie and what is it in him that can answer to and receive the Spiritual Testimony of Truth and Salvation Pag. 61. To Jo● 1.9 That was the true Light which lighteth every man c. T. D. answers Christ being spoken of before as the Messias we must therefore understand the place I think not of natural Light but supernatural not of the Light of Reason but of the Light of the Gospel c. Reply This is enough he has confessed sufficient to break the neck of his own Cause and his Brethrens who have affirmed the Light in every man to be insufficient as but the Light of Nature of Reason of Natural Conscience c. but now he thinks it is not Natural but Supernatural the Light of the Gospel c. which must needs be saving It s well that at length after his dark oppositions against the Light both at the Dispute we had with him about ten years ago at Sandwich as also in his silly confused Pamphlet stiled The Quakers Folly but it were well if he would retain those better thoughts of the Light in every man its being Supernatural the Light of the Gospel c. and then he will not oppose the Quakers 〈◊〉 he hath done but that whilst he follows his thoughts and doth not come to be directed by this Light in him he proves wavering and uncertain in his thoughts for in his following distinction between being Lighted and Inlightened he renders Inlightning as to the Eyes of the Vnderstanding from Eph. 1.18 but Lighted as when Candle is carried before us as a Blind man P. 62. which Comparison is impertinently and very improperly brought in this matter for he was not speaking before of an outward Light as that of a Candle before a Blind man for it is absurd amongst men to offer a Blind man a Candle to light him or shew him his way into a Room when he is out of all capacity of seeing or receiving any benefit by it but thus T. D. renders Christ's lightning men when before he granted it to be Supernatural the Light of the Gospel wherewith the Mesias enlightens men which as it is not outward and natural so it is only seen and known inwardly and spiritually But then T. D. to come off saith The meaning can be no more then this that whosoever are enlightened are enlightned by him What a silly shuffle and evasion is this from his former granting that it was every man that cometh into the World that he enlightens when now but in the very next page it is whosoever are enlightned are enlightned and a little before that many that are lighted are not inlightned but are like a Blind man so lighted that sees never the better when a Candle is carried before him so by this he makes God's offering men Light neither to be of any effect to them nor yet like to be if they can have no more benefit by it then a Blind man hath by the Light of a Candle What then can be God's end in lightning them what doth it signifie to them if they be so wholy uncapable of seeing ever the better Doth he then bid them look bid them walk aright in the strait Path and doth he condemn them for not walking therein when they are altogether uncapable of it as from Sight or Light sufficient as his Comparison before implies Alas alas what a cruel unjust and unequal Master would this render God and how unlike to himself doth it represent him whose Wayes are equal Love universal and Grace free who first gives Light within and opens the Eye within before man can walk aright however his Light within be gainsayed by such Blind Guides as T. D. who are but in their thoughts vain imaginations and notions knowing what they know naturally and preach for Doctrine mens Traditions Pag. 62. Rom. 2.15 T. D. saith touching those Gentiles that shewed the Work of the Law writ in their hearts That it cannot be understood of a Saving Knowledge and it is not the Law in their hearts c. but yet a little after confesseth that the Law may be said to be in their hearts in their understandings c. Reply How then were they excused according to the Gospel and how then did the Apostle bring them as a Proof of Justification verse 13 14. Could they be Justified without a Saving Knowledge But of T. D's ignorance in this much have been manifested both by S. Fisher and some others And how saith he in page 63. That the Gentiles in this sence had not the Law in their hearts viz. a sutable disposition to the Law as his words are what nature was it by which they did those things contained in it how was it unsutable to the Law or how could that do those things contained in the Law without a sutable disposition to it Surely a mean understanding may perceive T. D's ignorance and Error in this particular as well as in the rest for the Law of God in their hearts was Spiritual and so was its effects in them and that nature by which they obeyed it was not opposite to it but in unity with it which nature was contrary to that in the Jews which led them to break and violate the Law of God But as for those Gentiles that liked not to retain God in their Knowledge Rom. 1.26 and those that said to God Depart from us we desire not the knowledge of thy Wayes Job 21.14 These Instances do not at all prove that those Gentiles which obeyed the Law of God wanted a surable disposition to it for this was in the rebellious state that they said depart from us and liked not to retain God in their knowledg howbeit this proves against our Opposet first that some knowledge of God was afforded even them that liked not to retain it And secondly that God was nigh them that said to him depart from us and that also he would have afforded them the knowledge of his Wayes and also it is