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
A74671	The bar, against free admission to the Lords Supper, fixed. Or, An answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder, or, reply. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap, London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1656 (1656)	Wing D2128; Thomason E1593_1; ESTC R208860	271,720	506

seals of the Covenant Page 168. M. H. quarrels with me for denying that a visible historical faith gives a right to the Sacrament if solicary yet in his answer closes with me and acknowledges that the faith which admits a man to the Sacrament must be a faith accepting the true God c. And what is this but faith of adherence without which historical faith is but the faith of Devils and renders a man most unworthy of the Sacrament in an Evangelical sense Dr. D. Then the excommunicated have a right for they have historical faith Mr. H. How vain is this who knows not that the state of the question supposes us within the Church A. Either Church-membership alone or historical faith alone or both together give a right to the Sacrament If the first then Church-members though destitute of historical faith have a right to the Sacrament If the second then one who is not a Church-member may have a right to it which Mr. H. confesses to be absurd If both then the Church upon just ground may enquire after the one as well as after the other since I may be a Church-member and not have historical faith or may have historical faith and not be a Church-member And if the Church may enquire after faith of assent which is secret why not also after faith of adherence I think this is to the purpose though not to M. H. his purpose and will soon overthrow his free admission Besides it s not excommunication simply takes away my right to the Sacrament but a just excommunication otherwise mans wickedness may rob me of my right to Christs Ordinance which is impossible My right to the Sacrament depends more upon my faith than upon my Church-membership nor do I simply forfeit my right because the Church excommunicates me but the Church ought to excommunicate me because I forfeit my right which forfeiture the Church takes by excommunication When therefore visible faith is contradicted by visible profaneness that man hath visibly forfeited his right to the Sacrament and the Church by suspension or excommunication doth but take the forfeiture True he may in some sense have jus ad rem but he hath not jus in re till he make up the breach by visible faith and repentance yea though a man have true justifying faith yet by gross scandai he may visibly contradict his faith and so forfeit his jus in re Withal it will be very hard for M. H. to prove that Simon Magus had onely historical faith The will follows the last dictate of the understanding and so far forth as I assent to Christs sufficiency and willingness to save me there is some propension in the will to rest on him for salvation though in hypocrites usually the assent is but opinionative and the adhesion is but presumptuous Mich. 3. 11. As the assent is common or saving so is the adhesion Onely a Devil or he that is under the power of Despair or that hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost assents to the Gospel without adhesion in which case also though there be an assent about Christs sufficiency yet there is a dissent about his willingness which if partial causes doubting if perfect despair Withal as profession of faith not contradicted by ignorance or scandali gives a right to Baptism so doth it to the Lords Supper And were Baptism to be iterated as the Lords Supper is those persons whom we baptized in their infancy we would not baptize when at age if they were then grosly ignorant or scandalous SECT 4. THe fourth Section is spent about that Objection The Seal is set to a blank if all be admitted In the very entrance Mr. H. is pleased to charge me with confusion and ungrounded confidence and it must be so because ipse dix it Were the suffusion in his eye cured he would see clearer confusion is oftner in the eye than in the object Next page 170. Mr. H. tells us he holds No persons within the Church are visible blanks Ans Are there none in the Church visibly destitute of saving grace which is the writing of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3. 3 There were such in the Primitive times witness the second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude c. I beleeve our Churches will scarce vie with theirs for visible holiness and purity Nay to come closer to Mr. H. are not many of his jure excommunicati visible blanks Mr. H. ib. When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith I mean it still as the thing sealed to wit on Gods part Ans If the grace of faith be not part of the thing sealed then God doth not promise in the Covenant degrees of faith to his people then we cannot pray for degrees of faith the promise being the foundation of prayer then the Sacraments do not confirm and strengthen faith for they confirm nothing but what is promised But all these how absurd The weakness of this his assertion will appear further by his reason annexed The Sacrament is not an appendix to faith but to the Gospel Ans As if faith promised were not a part of the Gospel as well as other graces promised Faith is considerable first as promised and so it s a branch of the Covenant unto which the Sacrament is an appendix Secondly As wrought active and growing in us and so it s the execution or making good of the Covenant Faith promised and sealed or the promise of faith sealed in the Sacrament confirms faith inherent First By way of security as a seal doth the beleef of any Covenant Secondly By way of exhibition or conveyance as an Indenture sealed and delivered doth convey and make over an estate In the Sacrament the promise of degrees of faith is signed and sealed to faith of assent but exhibited and conveyed to faith of adherence the whole Covenant and every branch thereof being signed sealed and delivered in the Sacrament to the worthy receiver Faith of Assent acknowledges the Covenant as true faith of Adherence receives the Covenant as good Page 171. After some distinctions premised about the conditions benefit and tender of the Covenant Mr. H. hath these words God ingages not by the Sacrament to give man faith if he did every Receiver should have it Ans first We thank Mr. H. for this principle which strongly evinces the Sacrament is no converting Ordinance No Ordinance converts unless God ingage to convert by it and if God ingage not to give faith by the Sacrament then God ingages not to convert by the Sacrament The principle is sound and our inference is evident and make much for us and against Mr. H. Secondly Mr. H. his Argument to confirm this principle is very weak and by proportion we might as well argue God ingages not to convert man by the word preached If he did then every hearer should beconverted doth he not know that though an Ordinance be converting yet still God reserves to himself his

exercise common grace in the unregenerate Ergo. Answ 1. It hath formerly been shewed that a step towards repentance may be far enough from repentance 2. If this be warrant enough for receiving because the Sacrament is a means to exercise common grace then why should not persons jure excommunicate be admitted in order to the exercise of common grace and that thereby they may get a step nearer repentance 3. Common grace may be exercised by presence and I am not against free presence but against free receiving For his half or comparative acceptance ibid. I beleeve he sins less in divers cases who performs the matter of a duty than he that prophanely omits both matter and manner yet on the other hand it s as true that better omit the duty altogether than venture upon it in an unwarrantable way witness the sad fate of Nadab Abihu and Vzza Levit. 10. 2. and 2 Chron. 15. 13. and of the unworthy guest Matth. 22. 12 13. Argument 8. M. H. ib. The solemn ingagement of the soul to Christ upon his terms is a means of full and effectual closing with him if Gods Spirit shall be pleased to act with it But actual receiving is such a means c. ergo Answ 1. Then let persons jure excommunicate be thus ingaged 2. An ingagement will binde poorly where it s not understood which is the case of grosly ignorant persons who know neither the nature of the Sacrament nor of such a solemn ingagement 3. He that comes to ingage with no resolution to keep that ingagement yea with a resolution against it which is the case more or less of all natural men will be no more tyed by those ingagements than Sampson was with cords and wit hs or the Legion was with chains and fetters Nor can any expect the Spirits acting out of the way and road of the Spirit A penny earnest would binde no more than a promise were it not for the coactive power of the Law and there is no compulsion of elicite but only of imperate acts Not but that natural men ought to ingage against sin and to duty which ingagement may be also very useful and beneficial but that may be done otherwise and with less danger than by receiving Argument 9. M. H. p. 232. That which can beget more degrees of the same grace can beget the first grace unless these degrees are begotten some other way than that is But all grace first and second is begotten alike by propounding the object by illumination and by a touch upon the will which object is shewed forth in the Sacrament as in the Word c. Answ 1. M. H. answers himself by his own limitation since the first grace is ever begot by supernatural infusion not so alwayes the second but may be got by exercise of the first grace the Holy Ghost concurring to excite and act the principle received but not alwayes insusing new grace as God first powred down fire from heaven which afterward was preserved and increased by the Priests applying fuel c. Lev. 6. 12. This truth is held forth by the Parables of the Talents and Pounds which were at first given by the Lord but improved and increased by the servants industry As moral habits are strengthned by moral acts so spiritual habits are strengthned by spiritual acts Light may be intended by reflection or refraction but cannot at first be generated without a direct beam Such is the first grace darted into the soul by the Holy Ghost but afterwards intended by exercise and multiplied acts as so many reflections and refractions though withall the Holy Ghost may at pleasure dart in fresh beams of grace as the Lord did often-times cause fire to fall from heaven 2. The external propounding of the object either by the Word or Sacrament can no more work saving grace than the setting of an object before a blind man or one that is in the dark can work upon him before the medium and organ be illuminated Now the Holy Ghost is that light which illuminates the faculty savingly and that he conveyes the first illumination by actual receiving is the question to be proved M. H. ib. It is a mistake to think that the second grace is exhibited by way of obsignation but it is wrought I say through the Spirit of God by the way of moral operation onely as the first and second grace both are begotten in reading and hearing c. Answ 1. We beleeve that separation tender obsignation and exhibition are distinct acts in the Sacrament nor do we think that that Sacramental action which doth the one doth formally perform the other which yet it may do virtually and why grace received should not be confirmed by the sealing virtue of the Sacrament which is really though not formally the exhibition of the second grace as well as by Gods oath and promise laid hold on by faith I see no solid reason 2. That the first grace is wrought by way of moral operation only as M. H. seems more than to hint in 〈◊〉 ●aragraph is a Pelagian and a dangerous 〈◊〉 nor did Pelagius himself deny the grace or concourse of the Spirit but what that grace of his was is too well known namely natural reason common illumination propounding the object moral swasion c. I will not here charge M. H. in the same kinde but wish he had explained himself that the world might know his meaning whether he really think that the first grace is infused or whether it be wrought as moral habits are by moral swasion by strong and iterated acts which are both the seed and fruit of moral habits Argument 10. M. H. p. 232. The sad Consequence of this Tenet that the Sacrament belongs onely to the effectually converted is sorely against it and that both for the giver and receiver For the Receiver this will cut off every poor doubtful Christian from the Sacrament For 1. If I am bound to receive when I am regenerate and bound to forbear if I am unregenerate then I must be perswaded in my Conscience that I am regenerate or else I cannot eat in faith and he that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat I desire this may be tonderly weighed Answ In general This Argument hath more accidentall than natural strengt●…●…d is more plausible than powerful as pretending much respect to tender consciences and charging our principles with the contrary I shall therefore endeavor to weigh it tenderly in the ballance of the Sanctuary that thereby I may satisfie tender consciences and if it may be my Antagonist also Instance in the opposite tenets about the time of Easter which so merly vexed the church c. 1. Therefore I lay this down as a foundation That a sad Consequent is no solid Argument against any Tenet unless first it be a proper and natural effect of such a Tenet And 2. Unless it be a moral evil Or 3. That Tenet be so trivial that the least

but remote It followes not that because pardon is by the seal applyed to some Traitors therefore it is offered to all Traitors No more is it true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that because grace is sealed by particular application to some persons in the Sacrament therefore it is offered unto all The consequent indeed is true not so the consequence In the last clause Mr. Humphrey is ambiguous If by every single person he means every man woman and child in the world then undoubtedly conviction of the generall offer flowes properly and immediately from such application But there never was nor will be such an application If by every single person he means some single persons of all sorts neither is there such an application at the Sacrament even in Mr. Humphrey his own judgment who excludes not only Ideots but also Heathen and excommunicated persons If by every single person he mean only every person admitted to receive here his every person notes but some persons in the World nor will it follow that because the Covenant is applyed to some persons by actuall Receiving therefore it is offered unto all My assertion then holds thus far true That conviction of the generall offer of the Covenant comes by signification and generall obsignation not by personall and particular obsignation and application which was the thing I drove at and which Mr. Humphrey must evince if he will speak to purpose nor is the distinction between offering and applying so nice as he would make it Mr. Humphrey 3 ly Conviction that Christ is mine in particular as to faith of particular evidence comes not at all by the Sacrament 1. Because the Sacrament seales nothing but the Word which speaks not particularly I believe 2 ly What is common to the hypocrite with the true believer cannot bring any evidence to me c. Ans 1. Let the Reader mark it Mr. Humphrey denies that faith of evidence comes either by the Word or Sacrament 2 ly He denies it upon a Popish ground because the Word speaks not particularly 3 ly We grant the Word saies not particularly Thou John Humphrey shalt be saved no more doth it say Thou John Humphrey shalt rise from the dead or Thou John Humphrey shalt have no other Gods but Jehovah Cannot Mr. Humphrey therefore attain to a faith of evidence that he in particular shall rise and that its his duty in particular to have Jehovah only for his God 4 ly We grant the Sacrament seales nothing but the Word but doth not the Sacrament by sealing ratifie the Word And then if the Word conduce to faith of evidence doth not the Sacrament also Take for instance the syllogisme of Assurance He that believes shall be saved I believe therefore I shall be saved The Conclusion I shall be saved is faith of evidence This Conclusion depends necessarily upon both Propositions The Major is Scripture in terms Mark 16. 26. The Minor we say depends partly upon Scripture in respect of the signes of true faith laid down therein According to Mr. Humphrey here with whom we also agree the Minor depends upon the testimony of my own Conscience and the Spirit The Conclusion flowes necessarily from both If so then Assurance depends in part upon Scripture and particularly the Promise this Promise is ratified by the Sacrament as by a Seal and how then can Mr. Humphrey his Assertion hold Water That faith of evidence comes not at all by the Sacrament If my evidence for a Possession depend upon a Deed and that Deed be ratified by a Seal is it not clear my Evidence depends much upon the Seal Is not a Deed cancelled by pulling off the Seales and doth it not then depend much upon the Seales True Gods Word considering his infallibility is as good as his Bond yet to strengthen our weak faith he is pleased to annex Seales c. that by strong assurance we might have strong consolation Heb. 6. 17 18. His second Argument as it makes further discovery of Mr. Humphrey his judgment so it shamefully laies open his weaknesse It discovers his judgment that he believes no outward Ordinance can bring any evidence it discovers his weaknesse in asserting That nothing common to hypocrites with believers can bring evidence to any which though true in some sense is false in his sense and he may as well say Nothing common to hypocrites with believers can convert and thereby deny the power of Conversion to the Word preached Can the Word convert and can it not evidence conversion Can it convince me to be in the state of Nature and can it not as well convince me to be in the state of Grace Can it do the greater and can it not do the lesser True nothing common to hypocrites with believers can be a formall cause of evidence but divers things common to both may be efficient causes of evidence I mean as instruments to wit Prayer by impetration the Word by conviction the Sacraments by obsignation and conscience by reflection all back't by the Spirit as the Principle who by the Word c. convinces of righteousnesse and judgment as well as of sin John 16. 8. For his Reply to my Answer of his fourth Consideration Pag. 79. illustrated by the Magitian and his Friend it may indeed take the Reader with its pleasantnesse but is altogether impertinent unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove that Suspension is not only the occasion but also the proper cause of Church-division I wonder Mr. Humphrey doth not cry out of all Church-censures and excommunication it selfe upon the same account See my Answer to his fourth Consideration page 49 and 50. of my Bar which Mr. Humphrey only plaies with in his Reply as well knowing it will bear jeast better than earnest Sect. VII Pag. 80. In defence of his second Reason he makes the Sacraments essentiall notes of the visible Church Ans I grant the Sacraments rightly administred are infallible notes of the Church visible but I question whether they be essentiall notes because such notes hold both negatively and affirmatively An essentiall note of a man proves the subject where it is to be a man and the subject where it is not to be no man Upon which account I dare not say the Sacraments are essentiall notes of the Church visible since a Church may be truly visible though it have them not for a long time Such was the Church of those Israelites who were not Circumcised in the Wildernesse Josh 5. ve s 5 7. which answers our Baptisme Nor do I doubt but Constantine the Great was a true member of the visible Church even before he was Baptized The like may be said of Abraham's family before Circumcision was instituted and likewise of the Catechumeni who were members though incompleat of the Church-visible yet were admitted to neither of the Sacraments which however necessary necessitate praecepti yet are not necessary absolutely necessitate medit so their absence proceed not from contempt The

this nature being but Gods Ape How did Jordan cure the Leper 2 King 5. 14. How did Peters shadow cure the sick Acts 5. 15. How did Pauls handkerchiefs both cure diseases and cast out Devils Acts 19. 12. All these were but signs and seals of Gods miraculous presence And why may not God when he pleases concur supernaturally with Baptism in order to Regeneration as he concurred with Jordan a Shadow or Handkerchief in order to cure or dis-possession I believe Divine concourse is much after this nature in every Ordinance when savingly effectual And Baptism applyed to an Infant or to a man is but as Pauls handkerchief was to an Infant or to a man The man might understand this handkerchief came from Pauls body and would be effectual to heal him this the Infant could not understand yet the effect of healing followed alike in both Nor was the handkerchief more powerful to heal the man because he was intelligent but possibly his intelligence might prove a bar he being thereby capable of an act of unbelief which might hinder the cure Matth. 13. 58. and 17. 19 20. Mark 6. 6. and 9. 23 24. Acts 14. 9. which actual unbelief Infants are not capable of Thus the word preached hath a natural aptitude to illuminate the minde with common knowledge of Christ but never of it self can work a saving understanding or regeneration this being wholly in Gods power We must therefore extend the notion of a moral instrument further than M. H. doth that being truly a moral instrument not onely which works by way of signification to my understanding but that also upon which being used an effect of another kinde follows by way of compact or otherwise whether I understand it or not Thus a Witch is the moral cause of a childes death but the Devil is the physical cause thereof he applying his natural power by Gods permission upon the Witches using of his ceremonies for that purpose to kill the childe And thus the Minister and Ordinances are the moral instruments of conversion but God is the physical or rather hyperphysical cause thereof Nor do we by this doctrine deviate to the Popish opus operatum but honor Gods Liberty Soveraignty and Grace who when he pleaseth concurs with his Ordinances supernaturally in order to Conversion and Regeneration wrought then infallibly and not otherwise And certainly if Baptism be a converting Ordinance why may not Infants thus be converted by it as well as elder persons especially when at the hour of Baptism faith and devotion are upon the wing in the Parents Friends Gods people and the Minister assembled to wrestle with God that he would please to wash the childe in the Laver of Regeneration c. whence publike Baptisms are more eligible than private Baptisms And thus upon the supposition it may also be effectual to the intelligent person baptized yet not simply because he is intelligent but because of Gods supernatural concourse in him as well as in the Infant the work of Conversion being supernatural in every subject 2. Whereas M. H. says ib. John first baptized the people and then exhorted them to repentance If his meaning be exclusive that John did not exhort to repentance before but onely after Baptism I believe he will finde little favor from the Text for such an opinion It s evident Mat. 3. 11. that John leads them from his Baptism to Christ for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as a future thing withal that he preached to them before he baptized to me seems more than probable by comparing vers 2 5 6 7. of Mat. 3. Besides supposing the exhortation were after Baptism and that some were converted upon the place the great question will be which shews the weakness of M. H. his inference whether they were converted by Johns Baptism or by his following exhortation For his instance in the Converts Acts 2. it is more than M. H. can prove that their faith was onely historical Likely it might be so in some of them but what is this to prove that their Baptism did convert them any more than it did Simon Magus who might afterwards be converted by some of those Sermons which they heard every day or hold out in a form of Godliness to their dying day as Ananias and Saphira did The Text says they were all baptized Acts 2. 41. but it doth not say that any of them were converted by Baptism M. D. Can any man make the Seal a cause of the writing M. H. p. 212. Here is the mans error still the seal of the inward writing in mens hearts is not the Sacrament but the Spirit and that seal I hope is the cause of the writing c. Answ 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of the inward writing though not the sole or principal seal hath formerly been proved which therefore I pass 2. That one and the same thing may be both a seal and a cause as well as a sign and a cause I deny not but I hope it is not a cause as it is a seal The Spirit first works then evidences grace wrought in that it acts as a cause in this as a seal When therefore I say the seal is not the cause of the writing my meaning is that as a seal it is not a cause of the writing but under an other notion M. H. interprets it simpliciter which I propound secundum quid and so abuses both me and the Reader Page 213. M. H. would fain court me from my yielding to universal presence to yield to universal receiving But I must intreat him to excuse me since I finde none in Scripture forbid to be present but I finde divers in Scripture forbid to receive as hath formerly been proved And I hope that upon second thoughts he will be more charitable than to judge me upon this account as trifling with this holy Ordinance and with the Consciences of people His argument drawn from the seeing to the tasting of Christ Sacramental will not hold till he can prove that a sight of Christ Sacramental is effectual to convert and withal that the precept Take eat doth immediately take in all intelligent Church-members and if so then let his jure excommunicate receive also His instance of Thomas feeling and believing proves onely that feeling may draw out an act of faith from a principle of faith inherent But what is that to the producing of a principle of faith where there is no faith at all Lastly M. H. should consider not barely the application but the end of application in the Lords Supper which is evidently nutrition but no where as I know Conversion Mr. D. Taking and Eating call for acts of faith but presuppose the habit c. M. H. p. 214. When Christ and his Disciples preached Believe and Repent the command did call for faith and repentance but I hope it did not presuppose the habit in those who were to be converted so when Christ says here Take c. There