Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	abide_v	commandment_n	keep_v	7,539	5	7.0952	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54126	The counterfeit Christian detected; and the real Quaker justified Of God and Scripture, reason & antiquity. against the vile forgeries, gross perversions, black slanders, plain contradictions & scurrilous language of T. Hicks an Anabaptist preacher, in his third dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, call'd, The Quaker condemned, &c. By way of an appeal to all sober people, especially those called Anabaptists in and about the City of London. By a lover of truth and peace W. P.	Penn, William, 1644-1718.	1674 (1674)	Wing P1271; ESTC R220484	73,223	125

in D●scourse about the Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker he said The Plagues and Judgments of God would follow T. Hicks and all that had a Hand in that Dialogue or that disperst it J. Gladman Dial. p. 85. But the Meaness of the Shift aggravates the Forgery Did G. W. ever deny that he had said so to J. G. or was that the Question Vain Man or tell us Does J. Gladman certifie that G. W. said so to T. H. at what time he controversially askt him that Question Which is to come close to the Question Or does he say there ever was any such Question askt him Clear 't is G. W. never deny'd that he had spoken those words or to the same Effects to any Body at any time or upon any Occasion Therefore hath J. G. also manifestly wronged him in saying whereas G. W. denies that he said c. this is an Untruth as is evident by G. W's own Answer Appendix p. 13. and as evident it is that the Substance of this Certificate goes no further then to testifie that which was never yet denied Therefore no Certificate to clear the Matter objected against T.H. to wit That he never received by Word or Writing any such Question from T. H. much less did he ever return him any such Answer consequently T. H. a Forger still I will briefly parallel the Case Let us suppose a Dispute between T. Hicks a Pr●destinarian and J. Ives an Vniversalist both Anabaptists about El●ction and Reprobation And J. Ives using his Wits to depaint T. H's Opinion to greatest Disadvantage which T. H. looking upon as Unfair and thinking himself not to have been doctrinally gravely and justly dealt with as by the Law of Sober Disputation should have been falls upon J. Ives with this Rebuke Thou art an Vng●dly Vain and Ca●tious Man the Judgments of God will overtake thee if thou Repent not for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel and unfair Dealing with me J. Ives immediately writes a Dialogue the first Question suppose to be this J. Ives What dost thou say T. H. to those gross and blasphemous Absurdities I charged thy Narrow and Ill-natured Opinion with of damning men unconditionally from all Eternity to glorifie God thereby rendring God more Cruel then M●n and Beasts that naturally take care of their Off-sprin● representing him partial and double-minded as having a reveal●d Will that speaks of his Desire that all should be saved and a secret Will notwithstanding that damns far the great●st part whether they Obey or Rebel with much more of the like cruel and black Aspect I suppose thou hast considered them well hast thou any Reasons to offer in Countenance and Defence of this horrid Opinion What sayest thou T. Hicks is made by J. Ives to answer thus T. H. I say thou art an Vngodly Vain an● Captious Man The Judgments of God will overtake thee if thou Repent not for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel and unfair Dealing with me Now I would ask T. Hicks if he thinks this Reflection by him given upon the supposed disingenuous Carriage of J. Ives to be a proper and suitable Answer for J. Iv●s to give in his Name to a doctrinal Question unto which it was never given as an Answer If not how injuriously has he dealt with G. W Are our Rebukes of T. Hicks's Unrighteous and Prophane Carriage in his Dialogues the only Reasons we are able to render in Defence of our Belief or against his doctrinal Objections Or may a man honestly take another's Answer and give it to his own Question however impertinent and that in the other man's Name with design to render him so If not then certainly T. H. has not acted the Christian but the Counterfeit with us And God will require this Wickedness at the Church's Hand to which he relates if they indulge or connive at it VII His Seventh Forgery and the last which I will now stand to mention is ●●is and I intreat my Readers Attention for He or I must needs be very Guilty In his second Dialogue pag. 5. he thus brings me in Anab. Be free and plain with me how and in what respect is Christ said to fulfil the Law and to DYE for Sinners Quak. He fulfil'd the Law Onely as our Pattern or Example Christ is so far from telling us of ●uch a Way of being Justified as that he informs us the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love was his Obedience He is so far from telling us of being Justified by Virtue of his Obedience imputed that unless we keep his Commands and obey for our selves in all which Christ is but our Example Pen. Sand. Found shak pag. 26. To this Reader I return'd two Pages of Answer in Defence of my Book and to detect his Forgery some of which he hath ventured to give but with his wonted Disingenuity perverted Let us hear him patiently Anab. But for as much as thou seemest to grant that Christs Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice how will this a●ree with what thou hast formerly asserted viz. That Christ fulfill'd the Law Onely as our Pattern or Example Dial 3. pag. 74. Qu●k In this Quotation thou hast done exactly like thy self for if thou canst find the word Onely there or such an Answer to such a Question thou hast not wronged me But sure I am there is no such Question and as sure the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on and very certain the word Onely was not there Therefore thou art a Forg●r That which I said with the Scripture on which it was grounded was this If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my Love c. Reas against Rail pag. 78. Sand. Fou●d p. 26. Anab. H●re it is hard to say whether thy Dishonesty or Impudenc● be the greater for in this Answer thou are guilty of no l●ss then three notorious Vntru●hs First thou insinuatest as if the Text above named were the only Text from which thou didst argue in thy Sand. Found pag. 26. 2 dly Thou art sure the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there 3 dly Thou art very certain the word Only is not there Thus hast thou aggravat●d thy Wickedness in adding Lye unto Lye and all this knowingly Dial. 3. p. 74 75. 'T is now Time for me to speak and I beseech thee Reader hear me for it is of great moment to determine who is the Forger who is the Lyar T. H. or W. P. First he suggests by this Question Is Christ's Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice as thou sayest how will this agree with thy former Assertion That Christ fulfill'd the Law only as our Pattern as if the Death and Suff●rings of Christ as a Propitiation to declare God's Righteousness for the Forgiveness of Sins that are past upon Repentance had been part of that Doctrine in that part of my Book unto which those W●●●s relate viz. Christ fu●fi●●●d the Law as

our Pattern ●●ich really was no part of that Doctrine as may be seen pag. 24 26. For because we assert him to have been our Example in Fulfilling the Righteousness of the moral Law T. H. would conclude from my words That he was only our Example in ending Types Shadows Sacrifices Propitiations c. of the Law Therefore great Forgery in him to make me answer two Questions the one in pag. 52. of his second Dialogue the other in in pag. 74 of his last Dialogue which take in the Death Sufferings of Christ that wholely related to but some part of the personal Obedience of his Life I cannot forbear one Instance more of his foul Miscarriage in this particular viz. Anab. Are we no further concern'd in the Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord Jesus without us then only as our Example or Patttern Quack What more wouldst thou have I have told thee that Christ fulfilled the Law but Only as our Example Where there is nothing clearer then that he thrusts the Sufferings of Christ into the Question which was no part of the Question making me to deny the Benefit thereof because I assert him to be only our Example in that which is our daily Duty unto Acceptance with God not in being a Sacrifice for Sin Is this not to be Guilty of Fiction Or is this to describe a real Quaker and act the part of a true Christian Oh hateful Injuries But 2 dly In his Quotation of my Answer he hath omitted two Pass●ges for when I said If he can find such an Answer to such a Question he has not wronged me I placed the●e words between which he dropped viz. or the M●●ter strictly contained in that Question which I knew he could never compass because his Question was in what R●spect Christ dyed for Sinners and the Answer he made me give truly related to the fulfilling filling of the Righteousness of the Law in our selves Oh Injurious Man Is this the Christian His next Omission is this part of my Answer which followed from my Argument by him cited for Proof of his Charge upon John 15.10 If you keep my Commandments c. Now ●aid I that this concern'd not the whole Law Christ came to fulfill the whole Law he fulfil'd the plac● of Scripture quoted the Nature and Mat●er of the Argument clearly prove Again He was our Example in Holiness ●hough not in his Ending of Types Shadows Reas against Rail pag. 79. Which Passages R●ader plainly evidence that if ever those words were spoken by me they never extended to Christ's being but our Example in the Fulfilling of the whole Law which T. Hicks by his Sophistry would insinuate For Answer to his Three notorious Vntruths he chargeth on me take what follows 1. He sayes I insinuate as if John 15.10 were the only Text from whence I argued in my Sand. Found pag. 26. which Reader is so far from Truth that I only charg'd him with having argued from that Text in which no such word or matter was to be found which he denies 2 dly He says That I am sure the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there and that I know therein I have spoken falsly But sure I am he hath told two Tales in charging one upon me For first How could the Law as he understands it to wit the Whole Law that Christ came to fulfil be intended when the very Text Argument upon it shew that it was the Keeping of Christ's Comman●ments that they might abide in his Love and without which they could not be accepted that was insisted on 2 dly He tells an Vntruth in charging me with th● Knowledge of that which was not But as he declined ●his Scripture so the Arguments by which I proved the Impossibility of Christ's keeping his own Commandements in our stead with which I made good my Conclusion viz. The Necessity of Keeping his Commandments as he kept his Father's in order to Acceptance with him 3 dly He sayes I am certain the Word Only is not there and so add Lye unto Lye knowingly which Reader makes other Two Vntruths on my Adversary's part For first there is no such Word in all that Argument and Paragraph out of which he made his Citation as may appear Sand. Found Shak. pag. 26. Argum. 5. Dial. 2. pag. 52. Reas against Rail pag. 79. 2 dly His saying I should know of a thing that never was makes up his other Falshood But to the end he may acquaint all men with my Folly and Madness as he is pleased to term his own horrible Fiction he tells me that he referred in his Citation not to John 15.10 but Rom. 2.13 Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God but the Doers of the Law shall be justifi●d But do men use to refer to Places they never cite either as to Words Chapter or Verse for they are not mentioned in his former Dialogues How then did he refer to them If he sayes It was to my Argument I make the same Demand Do men refer to Argumen●s they never mention If to those they do mention then I can easily prove it was not this Scripture or Argument upon it that T. Hicks referred to Reader peruse Sand Found p. 26. Arg. 5. Dial 2. p. 52. Reas against Rail p. 78 79. and thou shalt see his palpable Untruth But becau●e he builds here upon this Argument l●t's bear it Unless we be Doers of the Law which Chri●t came not to destroy but as our Example to fulfill we can never be just before God Let not any fancy that Christ hath SO fulfill'd it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance but Onely as their Pattern Here Only is mentioned But first this was not the Place cited but another that had it not as before exprest Therefore I no Lyar but T. Hicks a Forger 2 dly This Law mention'd Rom. 2.13 was the Moral Eternal Law of God not that Shadowy Law containing Ceremonies Sacrifices Propitiatories Meats Drinks and d●vers Washings c. which Christ by his Life Death and Sufferings fulfill'd and ended in which T. H. would make me say That Christ was Onely our Example That it was not the whole Jewish Law the two next verses prove For when the Gentiles which have not the Law do the Things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves which shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts Therefore not the whole Jewish Law for that they had not consequently I do not contradict or make void the Benefit of Christ's Death and Sufferings by saying He was only our Example in keeping that Law which the best Jews and Gentiles were to keep and kept and the Righteousness of which is to be fulfill'd in us Thus hath he unworthily added diminished mis-rendred transposed c. from time to time Certainly the People call'd Anabaptists are deeply co●cern'd to reckon with