Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	3,214	5	9.7060	5	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

Propitiation in order to remission of Sins can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion so by good consequence contrariwise whoever believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians to wit as outwardly Crucified Dead and Raised again c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sin c. in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians therefore W. P. hardly believeth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion to wit as peculiar to the same The first proposition is proved by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion as I think he will readily confess the second proposition which is the Assumption is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books never to this day retracted by him And though he reckoneth up the Doctrine of the Trinity viz. of the Father of Christ the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust to be Fundamental Doctrines yea and the main of Christian Doctrine yet from what is above proved out of his Books he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity and of Heaven and Hell and as plainly he hath opposed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in their respective Bodies as I have fully proved in my third Narrative and so have his Brethren G. Whitehead Richard Hubberthorne and others only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books in his Reason against Railing in answer to Tho. Hicks P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resurrection of the Body which Tho. Hicks argued for Is the Joy of the Ancients saith W. P. now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window to be without its beloved Body a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection Again in his answer to J. Faldo called the Invalidity of J. Faldo's Vindication P. 369. It 's sown a Natural Body It 's raised a Spiritual Body and I do utterly deny saith he that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the World Natural but they are raised Spiritual through him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are Sons of the Second Adam Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which now he professeth to own and that as Fundamental but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians for with what certainty can he or they believe them they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things or indeed of any others they have no certainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals from the Rule of Faith set up by them which is the Light within them with respect to its ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned fall within these ordinary Discoveries as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to extraordinary Revelation And if he should affirm they did belong to the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind he cannot prove it What obscure Knowledge any of them called Heathen Philosophers had of any of these great Mysteries W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within but Traditionally either from the Jews and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets or from some among themselves prophetically inspired as it is reported of the Sybils the which report were it true doth not prove that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general Section 5. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective whereas the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P 's Confession which though given in Scripture words yet not in the true Sense of Scripture His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered His Fallacy and Equivocation about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus Christ and the Son of God whereas he hath denied him to be properly so And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head IN his Page 30 he proceeds in his unchristian and uncivil Treatment of the Bishop unjustly charging him as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop and as if he did render the Text it self short which saith W. P. with submission I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station If he believes the 39 Articles But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop and a Shuffling and Cover wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity The Bishop might well enough without charging any defect on the Text as he doth not in the least charge a defect on this Confession of W. P. and his Brethren because though given in one Scripture Text yet he had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture for most that are unsound as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity even Socinians as well as others will profess yea and have professed to give their Faith in the Text yea and all other Texts of the like nature who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess they believe that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God one in Substance and Essence and thus think to clear themselves of Sociniansm yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism acknowledging no distinction betwixt Father Son and Holy Ghost other than Nominal or at most in Manifestation and Operation ad extra and with relation to the Creatures So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy Trinity which he calls the Scripture Trinity but it is not the Scripture Trinity but the Sabellian Trinity is no other than this that as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God one Essence and Being so the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Son and the Son is the Holy Ghost for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation he disputeth not

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