Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	commandment_n	keep_v	obedience_n	4,378	5	7.6220	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47180	Some of the many fallacies of William Penn detected in a paper called Gospel truths signed by him and three more at Dublin, the 4th of the 3d month, 1698, and in his late book called A defence of Gospel truths, against the exceptions of the B. of Cork's testimony concerning that paper : with some remarks on W.P., his unfair and unjust treatment of him : to which is added a synopsis or short view of W. Penn's deism, collected out of his book called A defense of the general rule of faith, &c. / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1699 (1699)	Wing K214; ESTC R2685	46,816	106

how can this consist with his now saying that we are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation Again in his Sandy Foundation from P. 24 to P. 32. he pretends to bring arguments from both Scripture and Reason to refute the Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness I shall quote a few passages out of many to shew the inconsistency of his late and former Doctrine about Justification from the guilt of Sin P. 25. from Ezek. 18. 20 26 27 28. He draws this Argument That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but the actual performance and keeping of God's Righteous Statutes or Commandments otherwise God should forget to be equal Again in P. 26. he saith Christ is so far from telling them of their being Justified abiding in his Love by virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them that unless they obey his Commandments and obey for themselves they shall be so remote from an acceptance as wholly to be cast out in all which Christ is but our example Where note Reader the words BUT our example Again in the same Page Nor let any fancy saith he that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their acceptance BUT only as their pattern Where note again Reader these words but only as their pattern This is plain Socinianism Again in P. 27. he thus argueth If rejoycing and acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the Works that a Man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of acceptance and ground of rejoycing from the works of another utterly excluded every Man reaping according to what he hath sown and bearing his own Burden Thus Reader thou seest how earnestly he hath contended against all Justification from the Righteousness of Christ wrought in his own Person without us though in this late Paper of Gospel Truths he seems fully to assert it I shall not need to insist at large to shew his fallacious way of stating the question about Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us and of his reasoning against it As if these against whom he argueth did plead for a Justification or Righteousness of Christ actually imputed to Men wholly unsanctified and remaining altogether in a state of disobedience wherein hemost unfairly represents them But whereas he pleads at such a high rate that none are Justified while having the least Sin or impurity so as that none are Justified but who perfectly in all points without the least sinful defect or imperfection obey the Law of God and come up in their Obedience to the outmost demand of the Law as the whole strain of his Arguments run by this rate of arguing either W. P. and all his Brethren are under a state of Condemnation and the Curse of the Law If they have the least impurity or sinful defect and have not attained a sinless perfection which yet can be proved sufficiently they have not attained and some of them have so much ingenuity in them as to confess they have not yet arrived unto And W. P. would do but equally in the case to tell us whether he is such a Sinless Person that answers every demand of Justice and who in his obedience comes up to the highest perfection of Holiness that the most Holy Law of God doth now at this present require of him If he thinks he is he is miserably mistaken while his sinful Imperfections in his asserting such gross Untruths for Truths and some of them against the Conviction of his Conscience are so manifest that he who runs may read them besides a great vein of Pride Levity and Vanity of Mind and Scornful Disdain that appears running through his pretended Answer to the Bishop of Cork his modest Observations and his most uncivil Language and Epithets he hath used in his former Books never to this day repented of so far as we can understand given by him to his Opponents in his several Books of Controversie whereof the Author of The Snake in the Grass hath given a large Catalogue Section 3. His Fallacy in seeming to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation whereas by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ without but the Light within His bold attempt in his Sandy Foundation to throw down three great Fundamentals of Christianity viz. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness His excluding Faith in Christ Crucified from being necessary to Justification and placing it wholly on Repentance and Obedience his agreement with G. W. therein BUT under this seemingly fair acknowledgment of W. P. that we are only justified from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation let us search whither there be not even in this acknowledgment The Snake in the Grass If W. P. remain in his former Perswasion as he affirmeth he doth by his former Books I shall clearly prove that by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ Jesus as he outwardly suffered Death and the shedding of his Blood outwardly for the Remission of our Sins being the great and only Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men and thereby by his most perfect Satisfaction paying to Divine Justice the Debt of our Sins In his Christian Quaker p. 97. he contendeth That the Sacrifices and Lamb in the Passover under the Law were not proper Figures of Christ without but of Christ the promised Seed within One outward thing saith he cannot be the proper Figure of another nor is it the way of Holy Scripture so to teach the outward Lamb shews forth the inward And in Page 145 he saith As the outward Jew had an outward Priest at whose mouth he ought to seek the Law so the Jew inward and Circumcision in Spirit has an inward and Spiritual High Priest the King Ruler Judge Law-giver High Priest Law Rule Temple are all Spiritual i. e. Inward And in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 284. he affirmeth That Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God Again in his Sandy Foundation from p. 16 to p. 24. he disputes against the Satisfaction of Christ giving this Title to his Disputation The vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction being dependent on the second Person of the imagined Trinity refuted from Scripture to p. 20 and from p. 20 refuted from right reason to p. 24 where p. 17. arguing from Jer. 31. 31 33 34. he saith Here is God's meer Grace asserted against the pretended necessity of a Satisfaction to procure his Remission And p. 18. he argueth thus And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Where nothing can be more obvious saith he than that which is forgiven is not paid And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is