Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	according_a	great_a	write_v	2,348	5	5.0480	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47128	Bristol Quakerism exposed shewing the fallacy, perversion, ignorance, and error of Benjamin Cool, the Quakers chief preacher at Bristol, and of his followers and abettors there, discovered in his and their late book falsely called Sophistry detected, or, An answer to George Keith's Synopsis : wherein also both his deisme and inconsistency with himself and his brethren, with respect to the peculiar principles of Christianity, are plainly demonstrated / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1700 (1700)	Wing K148; ESTC R41035	27,308	34

W. Penn did not allow that Visible Body to be any part of him for a part though it constitutes not the whole altogether yet in part it Constitutes the whole as well as W. Penn's Body Constitutes him in part That the World did not See Christ with their Spiritual Eyes is granted as neither do they see his faithful followers but that they did see him really and as properly as ever B. Cool saw W. Penn with Bodily Eyes is clear from John 6. 36 where Jesus said to the Unbelieving Jews Yee also have seen me and believed not But W. Penn and B. Cool will be Wiser by that Spirit that is in them then the holy Spirit that did dictate the holy Scriptures who calleth him that was Born of the Virgin the Son of God the Christ both God and Man by Personal Vnion and the Holy Scriptures teacheth us no such distinction as that the outward Person was not properly the Son of God but he who dwells in that outward Person for tho' Christ hath two Natures yet he has but one Person it is great Arrogance and Impudence in this B. Cool who is known to be an Ignorant Man in the knowledge of the strict and proper Signification of Words to pretend he knoweth better what the Word Person signifieth than all the Learned Men throughout Christendom and then all the Holy Ancients who ever held that our Blessed Lord even considered as a Person without us because of the Personal Union of the two Natures was properly the Son of God both God and Man as the Scriptures call him which B. Cool with his Arrogant Ignorance would teach to Speak more properly and as if he were both Wiser than the Holy Men that Pen'd the Scriptures that never used any such distinction of Christ within that outward Person being properly the Son of God but that that outward Person in whom the Son Dwelt was improperly the Son of God and also as if Wiser than all the Holy Ancients and all the Learned Men now in Christendom very Magisterially tells us in his p. 12. Nevertheless saith he Since many People understand not the terms of Proper and Improper and are apt to Judge of things according to their Carnal Conceptions for that reason I should have been glad the Expression had never been used Thus we see how hard they still struggle for their Infallibility had W. Penn uttered that saying from the Holy Ghost as G. Fox saith in his Truth Defended p. 104. Our giving forth Papers or Printed Books it is from the Immediate Eternal Spirit of God and in his Great Myst p. 98. And those and you all that Speak and Write and not from God Immediately and Infallibly you are all under the Curse why should B. Cool have been glad that Expression had never been used Should he not be glad of all the Words that come from the Holy Spirit For doubtless all such are very profitable and if B. Cool did not think these Words came from the Holy Spirit by G. Fox's Verdict both W. Penn and B. Cool for all his Lyes and Fallacies uttered in this his Book are under the Curse But W. Penn is not alone in this Vile Heresie that Christs Body is no part of the true Christ for G. Whitehead is as deep in the Mire as W. Pen who in his Christian Quaker p. 139. 140. telleth us very deliberately and as he seem'd to himself very Scholastically I distinguish said he between Consisting and Having Christ Had Flesh and Bones but he did not Consist of them This shews the very heart of their Heresie as a Man hath a Garment but he doth not Consist of it it is no part of him Now to give my Readers an Instance that B. Cool thinks himself and his Brethren Wiser than the Holy Ancients in his and their denying Christ as he was Man or that outward Person to be Properly the Son of God I will briefly give some Account who were the Patrons of W. Penn G. Whitehead and B. Cool or at least their Forerunners in maintaining their Vile Heresie In the time of Justinian the Elder certain Hereticks called Bonosiani from their Master Bonosus denyed that Christ as Man was the Proper Son of God and affirm'd that he was his Adopted Son but were refuted by Justinian a Bishop of the Valensian Church who lived about that time After them about the year 783 Elipandus and Foelix two Spanish Bishops did openly affirm and Preach That although Christ was the true proper and Natural Son of God according to his Divine Nature yet according to his Humane Nature i. e. his Manhood Nature consisting of Soul and Body he was only the Son of God by Adoption and by Grace but not truly and properly Behold your Ancestors W. Pen B. Cool and G. Whitehead against whom Charles the Great called a Synod at Franckford consisting of three Hundred Bishops about the year 794 where that Heresie was condemned as J. Forbesius in his Instructions Hist Theol. Lib. 6. Chap. 1. N. 1. c. Gives a full and plain Account and these Hereticks as the said Author gives an Account did make their great Argument against the Flesh of Christ to wit his Body of visible Flesh which the Quakers will not have to be any part of him but a certain invisible Body for thus they did Argue The Flesh or Humanity of Christ was not Begotten of the Substance of God therefore the Man Christ is not in his Nature the true and proper Son of God the which Argument Paulus the Aquilensian Bishop answereth and retorteth his Argument against Foelix himself That the Soul of Foelix was not begotten of his Fathers Seed and yet the whole Foelix was the true and proper Son of his Father And the like Retortion may be made against those Quakers unless they will say that the Men whom the World called their Fathers were not their Fathers because they did not beget their Souls but only their Flesh yet this B. Cool thinks himself Wiser than these three Hundred famous Bishops who condemned this infamous Heresie above eight Hundred years ago The Third thing whereof B. Cool Accuseth me both in his Preface and Book as wronging W. Pen and the Quakers is That I have charged him and them that the History of Christs incarnation was not necessary to our Salvation or as he explains it himself p. 5. of his Preface That Faith in Christ as he Dyed for us was unnecessary viz. To our Salvation which he saith is so very Fallacious and Wicked that it deserveth no reply But wherein doth he discover it to be so I find not that he bringeth one single Instance in all his Books effectually proving that W. Pen doth hold that Faith in Christ as he Died for us is necessary to our Salvation and indeed it is contrary to the general Drift of all his Books and especially his whole Disconrse of the General Rule of Faith and Life which he will have to be both

confound the Agent with the Instrument by which he works and is as great nonsense as to make the Bricklayer to be the wooden Rule and Line and Plummet by which he works And the like Fallacy have all his other Arguments whereby he would infer from some of my words he quotes out of my former Books That I held there was but one General Rule both to profess'd Christians and Heathens and Consequently that if this proves William Pen guilty of Deisme it equally as B. Cool infers proves G. Keith guilty of the same But I deny his Consequence for I do not remember that ever I so Asserted or Argued as W. Pen hath done or as B. Cool now doth That professed Christians and Heathens have but one General Rule But whereas in some of my former Writings I had dropt some Unwary and Unsound Expressions in calling the Spirit with respect to the peculiar Principle of Christianity The Principal Rule yet I deny that this proves me guilty of Deisme seeing to the best of my knowledge and remembrance I never made the Professed Christians and the Heathens to have but one General Rule of Faith and Practise for I always distinguished betwixt the common Illumination of the Spirit given to Heathens and all Mankind and the special given to true Christians in the use of the Written Word which being two differing things tho' both coming from one Author sufficiently clears me that I was never a Deist whatever lesser Errors or Mistakes I had when amongst the Quakers But hath B. Cool forgot the Proverb That two Blacks makes not one White suppose G. K. dropt some unwary Expressions that contrary to his intentions did favour Deisme will that excuse W. Pen of his Deisme or B. Cool and the Quakers of their Deisme which can be prov'd not barely from a few indeliberate Expressions dropt from their Pens but from whole Books and Volumes they have filled with meer Deist Notions striking at all the Foundations of Christianity special and peculiar thereunto And I have this Advantage of W. Pen and all others of his Brethren That not only in my Book of Retractations I have Retracted and Corrected many things both in Particular and in General whatever I have Said or Writ contrary to the Holy Scripture but none of Them have done any such thing in the least but also in Particular in my Book called The Deisme of W. Pen and his Brethren page 4. I have Corrected my Mistake and Error in calling in some of my former Books The Spirits Inward Evidence sealing to the truth of the peculiar Doctrines of Christianity contained in the Scripture the Principal Rule of Faith Which I thus did correct That the Spirits Inward Evidence was not the Rule of Faith at all to us Christians but the principal objective Medium or Motive of Credibility And I having thus Retracted my Errors and Corrected the same before I either Publish'd or Writ my Synopsis and consequently long before B. Cool writ his pretended Answer to it he has dealt most Unfairly and Disingenuously with me to Charge me with what I have Ingenuously and Fairly Retracted And the same Answer may serve to all the other Quotations he brings out of my Books to set me as deep in the Mire of Deisme as W. Pen or himself which had I been as guilty as they is no vindication to them And but that it would be an improper Digression and too much divert the Reader I could easily shew that none of all his Quotations out of my former Books prove me guilty of Deisme But seeing I have Retracted both in Particular and General what did seem tho' but remotely and indirectly to favour any unsound Notions about the Rule of the Christian Faith and have in my Catechisme both Larger and Lesser Asserted The Holy Scriptures to be the only Rule of Faith and Practise to all Christians with respect to all the peculiar Articles of the Christian Faith and to all the positive Precepts peculiarly belonging to the Christian Religion Therefore I appeal to all Impartial Readers whether B. Cool and his Bristol Brethren who approve of his Book are not highly Injurious to me Even as much as if some Romanist should charge all the Popish Errors upon Luther after he had Renounced them or suppose upon some Quaker that had formerly been a Papist as I suppose B. Cool knoweth some of the Quakers to have been But the distinction of Primary and Secondary Rule used by W. Pen and B. Cool will not do to defend them from Deisme as I have shewed in my Book of Deisme page 56. W. Pen is so seemingly kind to the Scriptures that he grants them to be a Subordinate Secondary and Declaratory Rule in his Discourse of the General Rule page 25. Such a Subordinate Secondary and Declaratory Rule saith he we never said several parts were not Observe Reader he will not allow all the parts of Scripture but only some parts of it to be so much as a Subordinate Secondary and Declaratory Rule Though even the Ceremonial Precepts he has as great reason to believe them to be the Word of God and consequently a Rule of Faith tho' not of Practise to us as truly as any other parts of Scripture That the Scriptures are not a Subordinate and Secondary Rule as both W. Pen and B. Cool have affirmed them to be but the Primary and Only Rule with respect to all the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion I have clearly and fully prov'd in my Book of Deisme page 56 57. The substance of what I have there said I shall here transcribe as followeth Seeing every Subordinate and Secondary Rule presupposeth a Primary Rule which hath no dependency on the Secondary tho' the Secondary is wholly from the Primary as the Transcript is wholly from the Original but the Original is intirely compleat and perfect without the Copy or Transcript It is evident that according to him viz. W. Pen he hath all what he thinketh to be a Divine Knowledge and Faith wholly from his Primary Rule and nothing from the Scriptures which he calls the Secondary for the excellency of the Primary Rule is that it teacheth all that is to be Divinely Known or Believ'd without the need or help of any Secondary Rule otherwise it should not be Primary nor should the Scriptures in that case be a Subordinate Rule but Co-ordinate and of equal Dignity Necessity and Vse with what he calls the Primary For whatever is a primary full adequate and perfect Rule such as he will have only the Light Within or by whatever other Name he defines it it must propose to him all the Credenda and Agenda i.e. all things he ought to Believe and Practise without any other Rule whatsoever Surely as he who hath the Original has no need of the Copy nor great use of it for himself so if W. Pen hath such a perfect compleat primary Rule that teacheth him without Scripture all that

he ought to Know Believe or Practise I cannot understand of what great use the Scripture can be unto him or at least it is of no necessity to him this primary Rule The Light Within hath taught him all before hand otherwise it is not primary This Argument I have produc'd against W. Pen is of equal force against B. Cool and his Bristol Brethren and the Quakers in general who affirm they have this Primary Rule and are come to be Taught by it whatever is to be known of God as W. Pen in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practise p. 21. affirmeth and giveth for his proof that place in Rom. 1. 19. which he grossly Perverteth by wresting and corrupting the Text making it say what it saith not for thus he Quotes it WHATEVER might be known of God was manifest within for God who is Light hath shewn it unto them But the word Whatever is neither in the English Translation nor is there any word in the Greek that can be so Translated St. Paul in that above quoted place is not treating of the knowledge of God given to Christians by special Illumination in the use of the Scriptures discovering the great Love of God by the Redemption of the World through Jesus Christ as he gave himself to Dye for us c. but of the knowledge of his Eternal Power and Godhead given to the Heathen by the works of Creation and the common Illumination given to all Mankind What B. Cool Quotes out of W. Pen's Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life in his seeming praise of the Scriptures in his 6th page can be judged no other but like Judas's Kiss when he betray'd his Master and a palpable Contradiction and Inconsistency both to himself and Brethren for which they are accountable but is no argument of my Insincerity as B. Cool doth most falsly and unjustly accuse me For while he argueth against the Scriptures being the great and only Rule of Faith and Practise to Christians with respect to all the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of Christianity and gives that Office to the Light Within as common to all Mankind Jews Turks Heathens Infidels and yet as it were with the same Breath extols the Scriptures calling them The Blessed Scriptures of Truth and that the Quakers most heartily believe them to have been given forth from the same Holy Spirit and are a declaration of the mind and will of God and as such are obliging upon all that have and can have them both in reference to Faith and Practise And we utterly disclaim and renounce all Doctrines and Practises repugnant to them He seemes like some Rebelious Subject who being accus'd that he denies the Kings Laws falls out in high Praises of them but all this while doth not own them to be the Kings but sets up other Laws in their place But seeing B. Cool thinks that W. Pen hath said enough in commendation of the Scriptures to prove G. Keith disingenuous for blaming him for Disputing against their being the Rule from their Uncertainty either as to their Original or Copies or Translations all which he hath laboured as the Papists do to set up their Tradition to render uncertain and that they do not determine without extraordinary Revelation whether the Papists or Protestants are right about Transubstantiation or the Socinians and sound Protestants are right about the Trinity I freely leave it to the Impartial Reader whether B. Cool has not most unjustly blam'd me for Disingenuity and whether B. Cool himself be not sordidly disingenuous and fallacious in this very matter as well as in other matters hereafter to be treated of But further to discover B. Cool ' s gross Ignorance in his way of Arguing against the Scriptures being the only Rule exclusive of the Spirit to wit from being the Rule for that he saith were to prefer the Effect before the Cause since the Light Christ was before the Scripture was and by him were they given forth through Holy Men for our Profit and Edification Answer O rare Logician As if to distinguish between the Workman and the Rule Square or Instrument by which he worketh were to prefer the Effect to wit the Rule to the Cause to wit to him that useth it and hath made it for his use But tho' the Spirit gave forth the Scriptures and did first reveal the great Truths delivered in them concerning the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ unto certain Holy Men peculiarly chosen for that work yet the Spirit was not the Rule even to them but what the Spirit Reveal'd to them was the Rule of their Faith before the Scripture was writ and what the Spirit thus inwardly Reveal'd to them as to Abraham Moses c. I grant was the Rule to them and their primary and only Rule but that it follows that that inward Revelation which they had was or is the primary and only Rule to us is a most false Consequence unless on the supposition that we and all the Christians as well as Quakers have the same inward Revelation in kind that the Prophets had and if B. Cool will say they have it the same in kind then they have it without Scripture as Abraham and Moses so had it But if they have it not without Scripture but that their Knowledge and Faith of these great Truths particularly that one great Truth That the Son of God was Incarnate for the Salvation of Men doth necessarily depend upon the Written Word as the instrument by which the Spirit doth Illuminate or Inspire them to Believe and Understand the Written Word or Truths declared in Scripture this is no proof that the Scriptures is not the Rule to wit The great and only Rule but is indeed a sufficient and clear proof that the Scripture is the Rule and the Spirit is the Ruler or he that by the Rule as his Instrument Rules and Leads our Minds both to Believe the Scripture and Understand it and also rightly to Apply it for our Edification The Doctrine which W. Pen and B. Cool with their Brethren do set up of making the Spirits Internal Revelation the Universal and Primary Rule of their Faith and Practise doth necessarily oblige them to hold also That all what they Know or Believe of God and of Christ is from the same Internal Extraordinary Revelation and Discovery in kind that the Prophets and Apostles had For according to the Argument I have used above and recited out of my Book of Deisme against W. Pen if the Internal Revelation that the Quakers have be the Primary Rule of all the Faith and Knowledge they have of God and Christ it hath no dependance on the Scriptures or Written word so much as an Outward or External Means as the Original depends not on the Copy but the Copy depends on the Original and this indeed is perfectly agreeing with the Quakers great Apostle George Fox whom W. Pen and B. Cool also so highly