Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	wit_n	word_n	write_v	142	4	5.0105	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47124	The arguments of the Quakers, more particularly, of George Whitehead, William Penn, Robert Barclay, John Gratton, George Fox, Humphry Norton, and my own arguments against baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted also, some clear proofs from Scripture, shewing that they are institutions of Christ under the Gospel : with an appendix containing some observations upon some passages in a book of W. Penn called A caveat against Popery, and on some passages of a book of John Pennington, caled The fig leaf covering discovered / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1698 (1698)	Wing K142; ESTC R7322	106,695	121

Man Christ and because the Fulness is not in us and never was or shall be in any Man but in the Man Christ Jesus alone that was Born of the Virgin therefore he and he only because of the Fulness of Grace and Truth that was and is in him was Ordained and Appointed to be the Great and only and alone Sacrifice for the Sins of the World being the Head of the Body which is his Church it was only proper that the Sufferings that should be in the Head only should be that compleat only and alone Satisfactory and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men As the Arguments above mentioned in my Queries to G. Whitehead and W. Penn do plainly demonstrate And though in Christ when he Suffered for the Sins of the World at his Death his Godhead did not Suffer yet all that was in him the Godhead excepted did Suffer Note again Reader That although I find no cause to give an Answer to the Book of John Pennington above-mentioned called The Fig-Leaf Covering c. Because I had said in my second Narrative p. 33. that very Book being a pretended Answer to my Book of Explications and Retractations is such a plain and evident Discovery of his Unjust and Unfair Proceedings against me whereof the whole second Days Meeting who hath approved his Book is Guilty and of his Ignorance and Perversness of Spirit in Perverting my Words that I see no need to give any other Answer to him or direct to any other Answer either to his Fig-Leaf c. or his Book Keith against Keith or any other his Books but his own very Book and Books compared fairly with my Books Quoted by him and particularly that of my Explications and Retractations yet because I find divers Passages in that Book of his plainly prove him and his Brethren of the second Days Meeting extreamly Erroneous in the great things of the Christian Doctrin some of them being Fundamental therefore I shall take notice of the following Passages partly to give the Reader a tast of his Unfair Dealing towards me and partly to shew his being still Erroneous in some great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith together with his Brethren of the second Days Meeting who have approved his Fig-Leaf In his 19 and 20 Pages he will needs fasten a Contradiction on me That one time by the Flesh of Christ John 6. I mean an inward invisible Substance and the Eating an inward invisible Eating But now in my Retractations I Assert that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us is the Eating of his Flesh as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us And to confirm the Contradiction he Quotes me saying Immed Revel p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is not that which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning Ans First It is no Contradiction to say the Eating of Christ's Flesh John 6. is to believe not by a bare Historical Belief but by a living sincere Faith Wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ that Christ gave his outward Body to be broken for us and also that it is the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us as it is no Contradiction to say Christ is our Intire and compleat Saviour both as he came outwardly in the Flesh Dyed and Rose again c. And as he cometh inwardly by his Spirit into our Hearts and dwelleth in us by Faith And as concerning that Quotation Immed Rev. p. 258. by this Body in that place I did mean that which is only Allegorically called his Body to wit that Middle of Communication above mentioned that is indeed a Spiritual and invisible Substance owned by R.B. as well as by me and many others And I say still this invisible Spiritual Substance in the Saints is not that visible Body of Christ which he assumed when he came in the Flesh outwardly yet this is not to make two Bodies of Christ because the one is called his Body only in a Metaphorical Sense Ans 2. In my Book of Retractations p. 25. I had plainly Retracted and Corrected that Passage in p. 25. Recor. Corr. That by Christ's Flesh and Blood John 6.50 51. He meaneth only Spirit and Life acknowledging that it was at most an Oversight in me but how doth this prove me a Changling in an Article of Faith As he infers very Injurously May not a Man change his Judgment concerning the Sense of a particular place of Scripture without changing an Article of Faith That such a Change may be without a Change in an Article of Faith is acknowledged by all Sober Writers and Expositors of Scripture Yea there are many places of Scripture that some understand one way and others not that way but another and others a third way and yet all have one Faith in point of Doctrin Ans 3. What a Man Retracts in one Book or part of a Book he ought to be understood to Retract the same Passage where it can be found in another Part or Book of his nor ought he to be Charged with Contradiction in what he hath Retracted For as I have formerly said in Print they are only Chargable with Contradictions that without Retractation holds Contradictory Assertions simul semel i. e. both together Page 22. He will not permit me to use that Distinction to say I had not my Knowledge from them viz. The Scriptures as being the efficient Cause but I did not deny that I had my Knowledge by them Instrumentally to wit the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith I had of Gospel Truths he Quibbles upon the Word from as if it could not signifie sometimes the efficient Cause and sometimes the Instrumental whereas a School Boy knoweth that it hath these several Significations and more also And seeing what I then Writ in my Book of Immed Rev. was owned by the Quakers it plainly followeth That according to J.P. the Words of Scripture are not a Means so much as Instrumentally to our Knowledge of the Truths of Christian Doctrin But how will he Reconcile this to W. Penn who doth acknowledge that the Scriptures are a Means to know God Christ and our selves See his Rejoynder p. 115. where he expresly saith We never denied the Scriptures to be a means in God's Hand to Convince Instruct or Confirm By we its plain W. P. meant all the Quakers and consequently G. K. being then owned to be one of them Page 39. He will not allow that what I have Quoted out of my Immed Revel p. 243. to p. 247. proves that I did then hold the Man Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith though he grants my Words that I said The Man Christ who Suffered in the Flesh at Jerusalem is the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow into our Souls and that he is to be Prayed unto which he saith none of us

the ●ight within that that would have saved them according to G. Whitehead's Divinity without any other Baptisme outward or inward that the Apostles could Administer unto them SECT II. Next as to his second Argument from that in Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved these words do not prove that this was not Baptisme with Water for its a true Assertion he that believes and is Baptized with Water shall be saved but it will not prove that therefore Baptisme with Water is of absolute necessity to Salvation the most it proveth is that Baptisme with Water when and where it can be duly had is a means of Salvation as outward Hearing and Reading in the Holy Scriptures are means of Salvation yet not of such absolute necessity but that Men may be saved without them even as it may be truly said he that believeth and frequenteth the Meetings of the Faithful shall be saved and yet in divers Cases Men may be saved without frequenting such Meetings as when they are hindred by Sickness or Imprisonment or some other Restraint as when living in a Country where no such Meetings are to be found and that the Baptisme mentioned Mark 16. is not that which is of absolute necessity to Salvation is evident from the following Words where the word Baptized is omitted for Christ did not say he that is not baptized shall be damned but he that believeth not shall be damned the varying of the Expression sufficiently proveth that he did not mean the inward Baptisme but the outward and whereas not G. Whitehead but W. Penn and R. Barclay argue from the Particle in Greek that signifieth in English into that therefore it must be the Baptisme with the Spirit it is indeed very weakly and fallaciously argued for the same Greek Particle is found Acts 8.16 where it is said that these of Samaria who were Baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus had not received the Holy Ghost when so Baptized till for some time after that Peter and John came unto them the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same here and in Matth. 28.19 And any who have but a little skill in Greek know that the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath often the same signification with the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth as well in as into so that their so arguing is built on a Grammatical Quibble that is altogether groundless And for them to argue that it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded to the Apostles Matth. 28.19 because of the words Baptizing into the name c. with as much colour of reason they might argue that when in James 5.14 It is said anointing them with Oyl in the name of the Lord that the anointing there meant was not an outward anointing but an inward and that the Oyl was not outward but inward Again whereas G.W. saith on this second Argument for the Saints were saved by that Baptisme which was not the putting away the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 Therefore it was not Water-Baptisme which Christ commanded in Matth. 28. c. I answer that doth no wise follow that therefore it was not Water-Baptisme SECT III. AND because I find that Robert Barclay in that Chapter of his Printed Apology reprinted by his Son Robert Barclay at London 1696 doth much insist upon this place in Peter as if it did effectually prove that Water-Baptisme is no Gospel Institution and it is a common Text the Teachers among the Quakers bring to oppose Baptisme with Water therefore I think fit the more fully to examine the Arguments brought by him from this place against it But in the first place I do apologize for my medling to answer or correct any Passages in the Books of R. Barclay whom as I did greatly love and esteem and who I believe was one of the foundest Writers among the People called Quakers so I do truly honour his memory believing that as to the main he was a true Christian though in divers things he was byassed and misled as I also was by the too great esteem that he had and too great credit he gave as I also did of those called his Elders whose gross perversions and misinterpretations of Holy Scripture we both did upon their Authority take for Divine Inspirations and I hope it may be a just Apology to me and defence against the injurious Clamours of some that may and will object it against me as a breach of Friendship to censure or correct any thing of that my deceased Friend That I do no otherwise in this Case than I would be done by for if after my decease as well as before any Friend of mine should censure and correct any Passages in any Books of mine that did justly need such Censure and Correction I and all that love me should take it as a true act of Friendship it being the best way to cover the Faults of our Friends or were it of our Parents to correct them and though Men may be dear to us yet Truth ought to be more dear nor do I thus censuring and correcting what I judge amiss in R.B. on these Heads do any more wrong to him than I do to my self whom I have impartially censured and now again do freely declaring whatever I have said or writ any where against Baptisme with Water and the Outward Supper as being no Gospel Institution was erronious and which therefore I retract and correct And where I have used divers of the same Arguments which G.W. and R.B. hath used which I find R.B. hath been more large upon than I have any where been in any of my Books therefore I shall rather consider these Arguments as brought by him than by me especially for this cause that he is jugded by many of the Quakers to have writ more forcibly against these matters than most have or then I have done R.B. thus argueth from 1 Pet. 3.21 see pag. 16. of his Sons Edition called Baptisme and the Supper substantially asserted The Apostle saith he tells us first negatively what it is not viz. not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh then surely it is not a washing with Water since that is so Answer That the Baptisme there described is not a putting away the filth of the Flesh is granted but it doth not follow that therefore it is not Water-Baptisme for though ordinary washing with Water is a doing away Bodily filthiness yet Baptisme with Water is not not ever was nay not John's Baptisme with Water for John did not say that he baptized his Disciples to wash away the filth of their Bodies but unto Repentance The description of Baptisme here given by Peter is taken from the end as is very common both in Scripture and elsewhere to describe a thing from its end now the end of Water-Baptisme as it was commanded by Christ Matth. 28.19 was not to put away

among the Quakers who have totally Abolished the Bread as well as the Cup His fourth Argument is the Sign is incompleat and the end of that Sacrament or Sign not fully Answered But how is the end of that Sacrament or Sign any wise Answered among the Quakers who have Abolished both Signs His fifth Argument is what God hath put together they have put asunder so that the Falsness and Inscriptural Practice of these Men is very manifest Now to Prosecute and Retort his Argument upon himself If it be a hainous Sin to put a sunder what God hath put together is it not as hainous or rather more to put away or Abolish both things which God hath put together If they do Evil that separate Man and Wife whom God hath joyned or put together do not they worse who kill them both If it be said W. Penn's Arguments are only on Supposition and used against the Papists ad hominem I Answer first This doth not appear by his Words which are Positive Secondly If here he only Argues on Supposition and ad hominem how shall we know when he Argueth Positively and is in good earnest Thirdly His Arguments seem to me and I think they will seem to many others not only Positive but more valid and strong than any Arguments he hath brought against them Again In the same Book p. 20. concerning the Sacrifice of the Altar he saith notwithstanding the Scripture expresly tells us that we have our High Priest that needs not Sacrifice once a year but who hath offered one Sacrifice and that by the will of God we are Sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all and that by one Offering he perfected them that are Sanctified Heb. 10.10 11 14. Yet do they daily Sacrifice him a fresh As if his first were insufficient or their daily Sins required a new one Obs Do not these Arguments of W. Penn against Christ his being daily Offered up a Sacrifice in the Mass prove as effectually W. Penn and G. Whitehead's Doctrin to be false in their Defence of W. Smith who said in p. 64. of his Primmer second Part we believe that Christ in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice unto God for us by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards us This W. Penn Confirms in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 285. saying that Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a Mediating Sacrifice and that Christ is a Mediator and an Attoner in the Consciences of his People at what time they shall fall under any Miscarriage if they unfeignedly Repent according to 1 John 2. 1 2. and G. Whitehead is very large in the Defence and Confirmation of it in his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 44. And Quotes at least seven several places of Scripture to prove it viz. That Christ in them doth offer up himself a Sacrifice unto God for them by which the Wrath and Justice of God is appeased towards them All which Scriptures and many more respecting the Sacrifice of Christ without us and his Blood outwardly Shed they have most grosly Perverted and Misapplyed to a supposed Daily Offering of Christ by way of Sacrifice in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God Now let W. Penn Answer to his own Arguments which he had used against the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass for any that are not wilfully blind may see they are of equal force against his supposed and invented Sacrifice of Christ daily offered in every Quaker when they Sin to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God And here I think fit to repeat some Questions I Proposed to W. Penn by way of Argument against this false Notion of his and of G. Whitehead which they Originally received from G. Fox and he it is very probable from Familists and Ranters who had the same Notion as I can easily prove that Christ offers up himself in them to Appease the Wrath and Justice of God in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice Note Reader these Words bespeak their Sense to be a Sacrifice really and strictly so taken yea the Sacrifice within to be the only real and strict Sacrifice for the other without of Christ's Body and Blood without the Gates of Jerusalem was the Type the History The Lamb without shews forth the Lamb within said W. Penn one outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another outward thing These Questions are in my Book called Gross Error and Hypocrisie Detected in G. Whitehead and some of his Brethren p. 20. And I have just cause to propose them again to his and his Brethrens Consideration because I have not to this Day received any Answer to them either from W. Penn or George Whitehead nor from Tho. Elwood who hath Writ a pretended Answer to this very Book called Gross Error c. who hath passed by not only these Queries containing so many Arguments as there are Queries but the other chief things in that Book and yet he and his Brethren Glory how they have Answered all my Books when in effect they have Answered none of them to purpose and some of them not at all as my second Narrative of the Proceedings of the Meeting at Turner's Hall that has been above a Year in Print as no more have they Answered to Satan Disrob'd done by the Author of the Snake in the Grass being a Reply to Tho. Elwood's pretended Answer to my first Narrative which saved me the Labour of Replying to it And indeed the Book called Gross Error c. has been in Print near three Years and yet no Answer has been given to these Queries which are as follow 1. If Satisfaction be totally Excluded as W. Penn hath Argued against the Satisfaction of the Man Christ Jesus without us and by his Death and Sufferings on the Cross Reason against Railing p. 91. because a Sin or Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven what need is there of a Mediating Sacrifice of Christ within Men more than without them 2. Seeing it is the Nature of all Sacrifices for Sin that they be Slain and their Blood Shed how is Christ Slain in his Children and when For we Read in Scripture that Christ lived in the Faithful as he did in Paul but not that he is Slain in them 3. If any Slay the Life of Christ in them by their Sins doth not that hinder the Life to be a Sacrifice by G. Whitehead's Argument that the Killing of Christ outwardly being the Act of Wicked Men could be no Meritorious Act 4. Where doth the Scripture say Christ offers himself up in his Children a Sacrifice for Sin 5. Is not this to make many Sacrifices or at least to say that Christ offers himself often yea Millions of times contrary to Scripture that saith Christ offered up himself once 6. Why could no Beast under the Law that had a Blemish be offered but to signifie

the Woman that was Born of the Virgin Mary and what that Power effected and wrought in the Faithful in the Ages before Christ came into the Flesh it was with Respect to his coming in the Flesh and to what he was to do and suffer in his Body of Flesh for their Sins And what I said as Quoted by him page 35. out of my Book Way to the City of God page 125. Even from the beginning yea upon Man's Fall God was in Christ Reconciling the World to himself and Christ was manifest in the Holy Seed inwardly and stood in the way to ward off the Wrath of God from the Sinners and Unholy that it might not come upon them to the uttermost during the Day of their Visitation All this or what ever else of that sort I have said in any of my Books hath a safe and sound Sense rightly understood though this Prejudiced Adversary seeks by his own Perversion to turn them to the contrary The Word Reconciling Redeeming hath a two-fold Signification the one is to satisfie Divine Justice and pay the Debt of our Sins this was only done by Christ as he Suffered for us in the Flesh the other is to Operate and Work in us in order to slay the Hatred and Enmity that is in us while Unconverted that being Converted we may enjoy that inward Peace of Christ that he hath Purchased for us by his Death and Sufferings Now that the Light Word and Spirit gently Operates and Works in Men to turn and incline them to Love God to Fear him and Obey him to Believe and Trust in him that is to Reconcile Men to God and to ward or keep off the Wrath of God from them And thus God was in Christ Reconciling the World to him in all Ages But this is not by way of Satisfaction to Divine Justice for Men's Sins but by way of Application and Operation inwardly Inviting Persuading and as it were Intreating Men to be Reconciled unto God that so the Wrath of God that hangs over their Heads may not fall upon them for while God by Christ thus inwardly visits the Souls of Men inviting and persuading them to turn and live saying why will ye Dye the Wrath is suspended and delayed to be Executed upon them yet it is not removed but abides upon them until they Repent and Believe as the Scripture testifieth he that believeth not the Wrath of God abideth on him And though this inward Appearance and Operation in Christ in Men's Hearts stayeth the Execution of Divine Wrath and Justice yet that inward Appearance is not the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of Men's Reconciliation with God but the Means whereby what Christ by his Death and Sufferings hath Purchased is applyed for though Christ made Peace for us by his Blood outwardly Shed yet that Peace cannot be nor is obtained or received by any but as the Soul is inwardly Changed and Converted and so Reconciled unto God III. And the like twofold Signification hath the Word to Attone for as it signifieth to Attone or Reconcile God and us that wholly is procured by Christ's Obedience unto Death and Sacrifice that he offered up for Men on the Cross but as it signifieth the effectual Application of that great Attonement made by Christ for Men at his Death that is wrought by his Spirit and inward Appearance in their Hearts And I might well say at Man's Fall the Seed of the Woman was given not only to bruise the Serpent's Head but also to be a Lamb or Sacrifice to Attone and Pacify the Wrath of God towards Men as he Quotes me in my Book Way to the City p. 125. For taking Attoning in the first Sense the Virtue Merit and Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross did as really extend to the Faithful for Remission of Sin and bringing into Reconciliation and Peace with God from Adam's Fall as it now doth which this Prejudiced Author seems wholly ignorant of as well as his Brethren Again taking it in the second Sense for the effectual Application of the Attonment made by Christ's Death through his Meek and Lamb-like Appearance by his Spirit and Life in Men's Hearts it has a Truth in it And Christ may be said to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sins of the World both by his outward Appearance in the Flesh as he Dyed for us to Procure and Purchase the Pardon of our Sins and our Justification before God and also by his inward Appearance to Renew and Sanctifie us for as by our Justification the Guilt of Sin is taken away so by our Sanctification is the Filth of it removed Both which is the Work of Christ the Lamb of God respecting both his outward and inward Appearance in his outward being a Sin-offering for us and a Sacrifice in a strict Sense in his inward Appearance of his Divine Life in us being as a Peace-offering and Sacrifice of sweet smelling Incense before God not to Reconcile God and us as is above said but to apply effectually to us the Reconciliation made for us by his Death on the Cross IV. And that I said as he again Quotes me the Seed hath been the same in all Ages and hath had its Sufferings under by and for the Sins of Men in them all for the Removing and Abolishing them This I still hold that there is a tender Suffering Seed or Principle in Men that suffers by Men's Sins and by its gentle Strivings prevails and gains the Victory at last in all the Heirs of Salvation But this suffering Seed or Principle I never held it to be God nor was I ever of that Mind that God did really and properly Suffer by Men's Sins although I have known divers to hold such an absurd Opinion as G. Whitehead hath plainly declared to be his Opinion in his Divinity of Christ p. 56. which is as really Repugnant both to Scripture and sound Reason as to hold that God hath Bodily Parts and Members because the Scripture in many places in condescension to our human Capacities speaks of God's Suffering Repentance being grieved as it doth of his Face Eyes Ears Hands and Feet all which ought not to be properly but Allegorically understood And though I hold that this tender Seed suffers in Men by their Sins that so by its gentle Strivings with them it may overcome them and Slay and Crucifie the Body of Sin in them Yet I hold not that Suffering to be the Procuring and Meritorious Cause of our Justification and Pardon of Sins before God nor do I remember any where that I have so said or writ if any shall shew me where I shall readily Correct and Retract it or any thing in any of my Books that looks that way And if any Query whether I hold that Seed to be Christ that doth so suffer in Men by their Sins I Answer It is not the Fulness of Christ but a Measure proceeding from the Fulness that was and is lodged in the