Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ghost_n	holy_a	spirit_n	3,926	5	5.5026	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

alwaies to the end of the world But whether this be sollidly or slightly done I shall leave to the Reader to judge after I have presented it to his view The tenth Argument or Instance was this Inst 10. If Christ be a meer creature then how can he protect and defend and save and direct and rule and govern his Church in all the world in every condition and against all enemies he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church and yet it is said of him that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Heb. 1. 25. and that he is with them to the end of the world And Christ stood by Paul and strengthned him in suffering Acts 23. 11. And Christ saith Rev. 3. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will also keep thee from the hour of Temptation So that it is Christ now in heaven that keeps the saints on earth which being a meer creature he cannot do The Reader may easily observe that the force of this Instance lies in two particulars especially 1. If he be a meer creature how will he be able how can he have power to perform such acts as those are that are mentioned conducing to the safety and welfare of his Church having such enemies to conflict with and such evils to save from 2. How can he do it at such distance How can he do it he being in heaven and they being on earth What vertue is that that is in Christ as meer man that reacheth the Saints in all places and is sufficient to preserve and keep and rule and govern them He may also cast his eye upon the Scriptures which I quote of which Matth. 28. 20. is but one to which he refers me and the rest he passeth over in silence as if they were all of them answered in his answer to Matth. 28. 20. but let his answer to that text be surveyed and it will appear to be otherwise I shall re-mind the Reader of the sum of it These works of instructing comforting strengthning he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his Name for the Spirit which came in Christs name was the instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Doth this answer of his satisfie in reference to that Text in Heb. 7. 2. He is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Is this the meaning of it he is not able by himself to save to the utmost but by the Spirit who is his Instrument he is able If it be then Christ alone is not a sufficient Saviour but Christ and the Spirit together or rather Christ is insufficient but the Spirit is sufficient and yet but a creature and inferiour to Christ and his Instrument But the Apostles designe is to set out not the Spirits sufficiency but Christs sufficiency Much less is satisfaction given by this answer of his to Acts 23. 11. where it is said that the Lord stood by Paul and said be of good cheer Paul for as thou hast testified of me at Jerusalem so must thou bear witness of me at Rome Suppose this were done in a Vision yet the Vision is of Christ not of the Spirit I have not said that the Spirit stood by the Lord and it is the presence of Christ himself and the consolation of Christ himself that Paul in this Vision is instructed of though neither the Father nor the holy Ghost is to be excluded for Father Son and holy Ghost are all of them present with all saints alwaies and do all of them work the same work the order still observed So that when it is said that the Father and the Son do instruct or protect by the Spirit it must not be understood that they are causa adjuvantes causes helping one another for all of them are all-sufficient and all of them do effect the whole work in such an order of working much less that the Spirit is only operative and the Father and Son are inactive in the work and are onely authorative in it and do imploy the Spirit as their instrument as the lord of the house doth act things by his servants whom he imploys as messengers to effect such things or whom he appoints or designs for such undertakings for so would he have us to conceive of Christ that he doth nothing himself but is contained in heaven and is neither present nor acts any thing on earth but sends the Spirit to effect all for him and this Spirit is present and doth all that is done and Christ himself doth nothing For this is confuted in this Vision where the Lord shew himself present and he himself gives out the word of good cheer and effects it also by his own power The next Instance or Argument in order which he gives answer to I shall pass over reserving it to the last place and shall vindicate the Instance that follows as is last in the paper from that unkind dealing which it meets with from him The Argument is this Inst 11. If Christ be a meer creature then Prayer to him being now in heaven is altogether vain and frivolous in as much as persons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance but the Saints have bin wont not onely to pray to God in Christs name but to pray to Christ directly and immediately in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus His answer is By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Christ Jesus you have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but the two Texts you mention If Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Jesus Christ as Lot prayed to the Angel being visible That in Revelation is no prayer but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christ's coming the like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer Repl. Here is a bundle of conclusions and monstrous untruths packed up together 1. He saith By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Jesus Christ which being taken exclusively as he must needs understand it else he speaks at randome and not to the thing viz. that prayer to Christ is against the rule of the Gospel is very false and herein he condems the generation of Gods children and Stephen more especially who prayed to God the Son for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God enjoyns it to the whole Trinity to Father Son and Spirit and not to the Father only because there is no God but he who is one in Essence and three in persons as hath been proved before And let him shew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God viz. the Father excluding the Son and the holy Ghost if he can and if he cannot let him

speaks a truth concerning which there is no controversie betwixt him and me He tells me of a righteousnesse of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ and of Gods being the principall Author of this righteousnesse which I grant though not in his sense for he means it of the Father alone but I understand it of Father Son and Spirit this God is the efficient à quo the efficient from whom righteousnesse is for it is he that doth account persons that believe righteous and doth acquit them from sin for the sake of Christ Rom. 8. 33. 34. Ephes 4. 32. But what is this to the purpose is this any Answer to my Argument or to the Scripture I produced I spake of a righteousnesse imputed to believers which is the materiall cause of a believers justification or of his righteousnesse in the sight of God and the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause of Justification and this righteousnesse that is imputed is called the righteousnesse of God Philip. 3. 9. but he tells me of a righteousnesse of God which is from God as the Author or principall Efficient which is only true in this sense as God is he that appointed decreed and instituted the righteousnesse of Christ for the Justification of Beleevers and doth also pronounce them just upon that account But the Apostle Philip. 3. 9. doth not call the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse of God in that sense the words are these That I may be found in him not having on mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith The Apostle in this place speaks of a righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ materially as it is opposite to that righteousnesse which he calls his own righteousnesse and the one viz. his own righteousnesse he calls the righteousnesse which is ex Lege of the Law now this must be understood materially not efficiently God did account persons just while the Covenant of works was afoot in reference to righteousnesse which materially did consist in our obedience of the Law the obedience of the Law was the matter of it therefore it is called the righteousnesse which is of the Law The other viz. that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ that is which is conveyed to us through Faith viz. Christ he calls the righteousnesse which is of God not efficiently but materially for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex Deo not à Deo of God not from God God now accounts persons just this Covenant of Grace being on foot in reference to righteousnesse not ours of the Law but that of God viz. that of the person who is God the active and passive obedience of Christ who is God which Faith in Christ possesseth us of and makes ours instead of that which was ours viz. that of the Law for the Apostle speaks of righteousnesse which he would not be found in and of righteousnesse which he would be found in the former is Lis own of the Law the latter is of God by Faith that is of Christ who is God through faith in Christ The Apostle speaks not here of an Act of Grace in God that imputes the righteousnesse of an other unto Beleevers as theirs and so accepts of it but he speaks of that which is imputed and is become a covering in which he would be found and this he calls the righteousnesse not of the Law but of God viz. the obedience of that person who is God-man viz. Christ Suitable to this is that which we read in 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Here Christ is spoken of as a sinner but it is in the abstract to shew what a great sinner he was and the causes hereof are mentioned 1. God himself viz. the Father Son and Holy Ghost this God made Christ considered as Mediator and surety of the Elect a sinner that is he accounted him so here is the Efficient à quo from whom this was this was God 2. Here is the materiall cause which is our sins put on him and made his for he had none of his own it was for us 3. Here is also the formall cause which is in the imputation of our sins to him it was for us that he was made that is by laying of our iniquities upon him instead of us Isay 53. 6. 4. Here is the finall cause that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him in which there is 1. The efficient cause that we might be made that is by God accounted reckoned by God 2. There is the materiall cause which is the righteousnesse of God viz. of Christ who is called in this place God which is put on us for we have no righteousnesse of our own as Christ had no sinnes of his own 3. There is the formall cause which is Imputation we are made that is by this righteousness of God put on us therefore it is said through him that is through the Imputation of this righteousnesse of his which is called the righteousnesse of God or els through him may be through faith in him He also makes Christ from this text of Rom. 3. 22. to be but an instrumentall Agent in this righteousnesse of a believer I suppose he draws it from these words by the faith of Jesus Christ for he will have this particle by to refer to the instrumentalnesse of the thing to which it doth belong And if it were granted him in this it would but make faith instrumentall and not Christ for it refers to faith and not to Christ It is not said By Iesus Christ but by the faith of Iesus Christ and Christ is mentioned as the object of this faith which the Apostle speaks of as the instrument There is the righteousnesse of Christ which is called the righteousnesse of God which God looks upon and hath respect to and for the sake of which God accounts persons just and righteous and this righteousnesse is therefore reputed the meritorious cause of our justification and faith layes hold of this and is the instrument to convey it to us and to make it ours So that this text serves not his purpose nor doth it at all help him in that assertion of his viz. of Christs instrumentalnesse in agencie in reference to this righteousnesse In the meane time he hath wholly passed over in silence the text that I alledged to prove my Argument by without speaking one word in answer according to the manner in which he hath dealt with me formerly But he undertakes to shew what that is in Christ which is imputed to us for righteousnesse It is saith he his obedience which was both active and passive The opinion now adayes saith he is that the active obedience of Christ whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law and his passive obedience whereby he did perfectly

he that none can forgive sinnes in any sense but God only may passe for an errour for it is the duty of all men to forgive sinnes which others commit against them Mat. 6. 14. And it is the priviledge of some men to forgive all sins in reference to the curse of the Law John 20. 23. Rep. He conceives me to be a very Novice in the knowledge of the Scripture else he would not have presented such poor objections or he hath a mind to cavill at expressions and to contradict if all be not punctually expressed though it be never so easie to be understood Doth he think me to be so simple ignorant of the truth as that I should understand that position None can forgive sinnes but God in the greatest latitude so as to exclude that act of love and charity and mercy and compassion which is due from one man to another in reference to such personall trespasses and offences which are committed mutually by men that converse with one another or to exclude ministeriall Acts of remission of sinnes which some men which have received an office from Christ and in such office Authority and Commission from him to remit sinnes have power to passe I should in so doing have robbed poor saint weak and feeble Christians of a great part of that so lace and comfort which Christ hath left them here upon earth He might therefore have known that I understood the Proposition in a limited sense None hath power in himself to forgive sinne but God none in his own Name can do it but God yea did I not expresse my meaning in the words following It is evident that Christ took Authority of forgiving sin I do not say that Christ had Authority derived to him but he took it as that which did properly belong to him he might therefore have suffered the major Proposition to have p●ssed and have fallen upon the minor which at last he doth His words are these Now for your Minor that Christ did forgiue sin 'T is true saith he that Christ did forgive sin and that he the Son of Man had on earth power to do it as he himself speaks Mark 2. 10. But what will this help to bring in the conclusion that Christ is God Doubtlesse no because meer creatures as above in some sense have power to forgive sinne if it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving somewhat may be done Rep. If it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving is only something done is not the whole done I suppose there needs no more to be done I shall therefore attempt the proof of that from the very Scripture he conceipts I alluded to which he mentions which is Mar. 2. 10. 1. It is evident from the contest betwixt Christ and the Scribes they did not charge Christ no not in their hearts with blasphemy as conceiving that Christ did not forgive sins ministerially by the authority which he derived from another for in that sense they would not have said Who can forgive sins but God They would not have made it proper to God to forgive sins for they knew that the Priests ministerially did forgive the sins of the people that brought their sacrifices and the Prophets also in the name of God did it as Nathan did Davids nay in this sense they could not attribute it to God at al for God cannot be the Minister of any to pardon sin in anothers name therefore they looked upon Christ as forgiving sin in his own name and by his own proper power and therefore conceiving him onely to be a man they accused him of blasphemy Now if Christ had been onley a man and had forgiven sin ministerially in the name and by the authority of the Father and not in his own name nor by his own power why doth he not declare so much to them and tell them that the thing was even so as they apprehended that no man nor creature hath hath any absolute independent power in himself to forgive sins but it is the royall prerogative of God as they conceived but their error lay in this they were mistaken in him they conceived of him that he forgave sins in his own name and by his own proper power and he did it not but it was done by a derived power and in a ministeriall way why was not his way of doing it cleared up to the Scribes by him when he knew they were right in their thoughts of the thing onely mistook his acting conceiving that he acted what he did not act But it is apparent that Christ doth contest with them upon another point and undertook to prove that he the Son of man though they looked upon him as a meer man and nothing more was yet such an one that without blasphemie he might take upon himself as a thing suitable to him and very proper to forgive sins in that very sense as they called blasphemie that is in his own name and by his own power and authority without any dependence upon any other to whom it more properly belonged as they conceived in which contest with them he asserted himself to be the God to whom it belongs to pardon sin Therefore Christ charged them with evill thoughts of him as it is expressed by Matthew in his relating of the story Matth. 9. 4. not because they imagined that he exercised that power which he did not viz. an absolute independent power from himself when as he onely exercised a delegated power which was derived to him this was not the cause why Christ challenged them for thinking evill in their hearts but because they denied him to have that power which he had and said he blasphemed because he assumed it and did so appropriate it to God whom they conceived a spirit in heaven that they denied it to him in flesh as he was the Son of man upon earth in a state of exinanition emptied of his glory Therefore in Mat. 9. 6. and so in Mar. 2. 10. there is a concurrence of the Evangelists that Christ to convince them of their error in restraining and straightning him in his power which they would grant to God but not to him speaks these words But that you may know that the Son of man on earth hath power to forgive sins I say unto thee arise c. If that had not been the Scribes and Pharisees errors that they granted that to God which they denied to him he should rather have used other words then those words that he did and have said rather that you may know I do not assume that power which you think I do assume for such words as these would have suited the Tenent of my Antagonist better and the error of the Scribes had that been their error But Christ contests with them about power and will make them know that he had a power which they would not grant him but called it blasphemie even the very power of God though he

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