Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	appear_v	former_a	great_a	179	4	2.1249	3	false

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

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 Discourse of the General Rule of Faith c. By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Benj. Tooke at the Middle-Temple-Gate in Fleet-street 1699. THE PREFACE Christian Reader THE following Treatise is not intended to be any direct or compleat Answer to the Book called A Defence of a Paper entituled Gospel-Truths against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Cork 's Testimony By William Penn. Printed 1698 that Work belonging not to me but to the Bishop of Cork who as I am certainly informed doth intend to give him a meet Answer to his Book In the mean while I hoped it would be acceptable both to the Bishop and to many good Christians thus far to interpose in the Defence of the Common Cause of the Christian Faith especially in the detecting of some of the greatest Fallacies W. P. hath used in his Book under a seeming Disguise and Vizard of Christianity really to undermine and destroy it I being of late Years better acquainted with W. P's Fallacious way of Writing than probably the Bishop of Cork is If this small Treatise comes to the Bishop's Hand before he publish his Answer to W. P. he will find that he hath been more charitable to him than indeed he deserved and that he had in his large Charity judged him more Orthodox than he really is although W. P. has made but an ill use of his Charity and has badly requited him with many uncivil as well as unjust Reflections some of which I thought it was but Justice that I should vindicate the Bishop from and the rather because I suppose the Bishop's Innocency and Station may lead him in great part to neglect them as not being so proper for him to notice as for another that stands by and beholds their mutual Treatment of each other which according to my best understanding and observation as fair as it hath been on the Bishop's part hath been as unfair on the part of W. P. who as he treats him not with the least due respect to his Station so nor indeed as a Christian Some of the many Fallacies of William Penn detected in a Paper called Gospel Truths c. Section 1. W. P 's Fallacy in calling the Illumination of the Holy Ghost which to him is nothing but the common Illumination given to all Mankind together with the Scriptures a double and agreeing Record of true Religion His false Notion of Heaven and Hell denying the Locality of them His abusive Reflection on the Bishop of Cork his keeping the true Hell to himself His Fallacy in pretending to the Bishop that he owned the Holy Trinity where as in his Sandy Foundation he hath expresly denied it and argued against it His denying that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem to be properly the Son of God His denying that the Body of Christ was any part of Christ and his agreement with G. W. and other Quakers in denying the Humanity of Christ to be any part of the true Christ Page 1. HE saith The Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth and the Illumination of the Holy Ghost are the double and agreeing Record of true Religion In this he is very Fallacious in the very entrance this Illumination of the Holy Ghost he will have to be that which is given to be a general Rule to all Mankind see his Discourse concerning the General Rule of Faith and Life Printed by T. Sowle 1699. But how is that together with the Scriptures a double and agreeing Record whereas that general Rule that he contendeth is given to all Mankind to wit that general Illumination as given to Infidel Jews Mahometans and the Heathen World is no Record to any one Article of the Apostles Creed or any one peculiar Doctrine of Christianity but only to some few Precepts of Morality and general Piety towards God Yea W. P. hath confessed see his Page 32 of that Discourse That neither he nor his Brethren have any new superadded Revelation concerning Adam's Fall and Christ's Birth Death and Sufferings c. and saith It is not necessary Therefore the Illumination that he sets up for the General Rule to Quakers and Heathens is not any Record agreeing with the Scriptures in any one particular Article of the Christian Faith or positive Precept of the Gospel peculiar to the Christian Religion as distinct from Deism and Heathenism Page 2. In his first Section the makes the eternal Reward of Happiness to be given to all them that fear God without the least mentioning of any Faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ considered as both God and Man towards the obtaining the eternal Happiness nor is there the least hint of any such Faith being necessary in all his Sections And whereas he saith They that fear him not shall be turned into Hell as the Bishop of Cork did well observe What W. P. means by Hell by that Paper no one knows but elsewhere what he means either by Heaven or Hell he hath sufficiently told us in his Rejoinder to J. Faldo p. 179. viz. To assert the Locality of Heaven and Hell is too Carnal indeed Mahometan Seeing them W. P. doth not own any place without us to be either Heaven or Hell it is easie to understand what Heaven or Hell W. P. is for to wit the Light within that 's his only Heaven and Darkness within his only Hell which is the old Ranters Notion that is destructive to the great Fundamentals of Christianity such as that Christ is bodily ascended into a real Local Heaven without us which Heavens all the Saints shall after the Resurrection in their glorified Bodies he taken up into and the Bodies of the Wicked together with their Souls shall be cast into Hell that is a place of Torment as really as the other is a place of Joy and Felicity It is prodigiously Shameful and Astonishing in W. P. that though he knew in his Conscience he did not mean Hell in the common sense of Christians which without doubt is the Bishop's sense to wit a real place of Torment without us yet that he should so treat the Bishop and so rudely and unchristianly reflect upon him by a consequence as false as it is foul and dirty saying in his Page 40 either one of these is an Article of his belief or else he keeps the true Hell to himself Page 2. In his second Section though he professeth to express his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture Words that there are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the

Spirit and these three are really one yet in his former Books particularly in his Sandy Foundation never yet retracted by him he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith thus arguing not only against their being Three Persons but their being Three otherwise than Nominally which was the Sabellian Heresie since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct God's And he bringeth Five Arguments against their being a Holy Three P. 12 13 14. In his Third Section he seemeth to profess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture terms But this his professed Faith is quite inconsistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books here he saith That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and was and is the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son c. who tasted Death for every Man and dyed for Sin that we might dye to Sin But as it hath been above shewed out of his Sandy Foundation he hath argued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head as inferring a plurality of God's and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son dyed for Sin yet in his Serious Apology Page 146 he saith That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny And in his guide mistaken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father c. of being made Man of his Dying Rising and Ascending into Heaven c. he saith of all this that it is confused Babble and by Rote Canting by paths of vain Tradition and Invention results of Factious and corrupted Counsels And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ and for seven leaves together contends against John Faldo That Christ did not Dye nor hang on the Cross but only the Body which he will not have to be any part of him To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of G. Whitehead agree a Man as great or rather much greater among the Quakers as W. P. who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones yet he denys that he consisted of it and saith he distinguisheth betwixt Christ's having a Body and consisting of it And in a Book given forth by the Quakers from their second days Meeting whereof G. W. is supposed the Author called A Testimony for the true Christ and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ as Humanity signifieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body as coming from Humus the Ground but as Humanity signifies Meekness Gentleness Mercifulness as opposite to Cruelty in this last sence they own Christ's Humanity but deny it in the former which yet is the true sense of Scripture and of all true Christians Section 2. His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology and Sandy Foundation and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification wherein he misrepresents his Opponents IN his fourth Section as seemingly Orthodox as he professeth himself to be as fallacious and insincere he is seeing he knoweth in his own Conscience that what he hath here delivered is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books never as yet retracted by him nor doth either he or his Brethren own any change of perswasion from what they had ever since they came under the profession of Quakers but as one of them hath lately said in Print As God is the same and Truth is the same so his People are the same viz. the Quakers I shall first set down his present profession of what he believes concerning Justification as followeth That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin c. But in contradiction to this see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology P. 148. And indeed says W. P. this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Note Reader If according to W. P's former words we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done then it is plainly evident by the same Doctrine that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us for these two manners of Speech are perfectly equivalent viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words as the sequel will make appear a little after But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense the one that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only i. e. Wholly without us from the guilt of Sin and the other that this we deny i. e. that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils c. it is a perfect inconsistency and contradiction And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils without any change of his perswasion as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper This saith he hath all along been the general stream and tendency both of our Ministry and Writings as our books will make appear But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth Again the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argueth P 148. against Christ's imputative Righteousness Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life came by actual Righteousness not imput ative Note Reader If we are not Justified by Christ's imputed which he calls imputative Righteousness as here he asserts

Christ to every Man so by W. P's Confession it hath not revealed these things to him or his Brethren for he grants they belong to extraordinary Revelation and fall not within the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind and are none of the absolute Necessaries of Religion and that such Revelation is not necessary and yet without such internal extraordinary Revelation of these things they cannot have the certain Faith of them as he confesseth Section 4. His Fallacy in pretending to own the Doctrine of Justification by Christ the Propitiation the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead to be Fundamentals of Christianity whereas he doth not in truth own any one of them His ill use of the Bishop's Charity by his own Argument retorted on himself it is proved he hath denied all the Fundamental Articles of Christianity The chief reason why W. P. and his Brethren believe not the Fundamentals of Christianity is That they deny the Holy Scripure to be the Rule of their Faith and set up the Light within to be the Rule which yet they confess doth not reveal to them any of those Fundamentals BY all which it plainly appeareth how disingenuous and fallacious W. P. hath been not only in the Paper called Gospel Truths published by him and his three Brethren but in his Answer to the Bishop of Cork on that Head yea and on all the other Heads it were easie to shew his Shuffling and Equivocation as well as his unfair and uncivil Treatment of him To detect which a little further let us consider W. P's words in answer to the Bishop of Cork p. 25 and 26. I am of opinion saith W. P. If he viz. the Bishop had well considered the Force and Comprehensiveness of our Belief concerning Christ That pleaseth him so well he might have saved himself the trouble of what he has published to the World upon the rest of them for whoever believes in Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins and Justification of Sinners can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion Since every such Person must necessarily believe in God because it is with him alone Man is to be justified To be sure he must believe in Christ for that is the very Proposition he must also believe in the Holy Ghost because he is the Author of his Conviction Repentance and Belief he must believe Heaven and Hell Rewards and Punishments and consequently the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust For why should he be concerned about the being freed from the Guilt of his Sin if he were unaccountable in another World So that acknowledging the necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to the Remission of Sin comprehends the main Doctrine of the Christian Religion And as so many Lines drawn from the Circumference to the Center they all meet and center in Christ And indeed it is as the Navel of Christianity and Characteristick of that Religion Were this confession of W. P. as sincere as it is seemingly fair it would prove that his Doctrine were indeed Christian and no doubt might and ought to give to the Bishop or any other that were doubtful in the case good Satisfaction of the Christianity of his Doctrine But that all this is meer paint and equivocation what I have above quoted out of his Books fairly and fully doth sufficiently prove That the profession W. P. made of his belief in his Gospel Truths pleased the Bishop so well whereof W. P. takes such particular and great notice and thereby takes occasion to blame his disingenuity as well as his troubling himself with publishing what he hath done to the World Yea W. P. makes it next to impossible that it was the first time the Bishop hath heard of that Doctrine among them viz. the acknowledging the necessity of Christ as a propitiation in order to the remission of Sins and Justifying them as Sinners from Guilt I say that this his profession pleased the Bishop so well did proceed from the Bishops great Charity and Moderation Charitably believing that W. P's Heart and Pen did go along together but as W. P. hath made an ill use of the Bishop's Charity and Judgment thus impertinently to reflect on him so it is fit the Bishop should be better acquainted with W. P's equivocations and double dealings with him which he may easily find out by an indifferent search into his former Books W. P. in his above mentioned confession professeth his belief in Christ as a propitiation and this he would seem to make the Navel of Christianity and Characteristick of that Religion But what doth W. P. mean by Christ the Propitiation and Faith in him as such doth he mean the same that the Bishop meaneth and all sincere Christians Nay nothing less Christ within as he is the Light and Life as he offers up himself within his Children in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice the Lamb within but not the Lamb without the High-Priest within is the Propitiation and his blood as shed within which is the Life and the Life is the Light within as he hath both printed and preached is that Propitiation And certainly did he mean that Faith in the Man Christ without us as he outwardly was crucified was necessary to Christianity and the Characteristick of that Religion and that the acknowledgment of Christ as such was necessary to constitute a Christian he would not plead that a meer Just Man who has no Faith in Christ as the Word Incarnate is a Christian and that he who believes in God believes in Christ because Christ is God as he has argued in his address to Protestants And did he really think that to believe and acknowledge Christ to wit as outwardly crucified and raised again to be the Propitiation was the Navel of Christianity and the Characteristick of that Religion he would not have excluded that Faith from the absolute necessaries of Religion as he hath plainly done in his discourse concerning the general Rule of Faith and Life Nor would he have set up the Light within every Man with respect to its ordinary discoveries of Moral Piety and Justice without any Revelation of Christ as he came outwardly in the Flesh to be the general Rule of Faith to all Christians as well as to all Heathens which is making Deism and Christianity but one and the same thing tho' now he seems to distinguish them by calling Christianity that Religion whereof the Faith and acknowledgment of Christ the Propitiation is the Navel and Characteristick But seeing W. P. doth so Grosly prevaricate and equivocate about Christ the Propitiation and Faith in him as such and that it hath been proved he hath not the true Faith of Christ the Propitiation nor so much as a true notion of it 't is fit to apply W. P's words against himself and to Argue from his words by the Rule of contraries As whoever believes in Christ as a