Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	answer_v	word_n	write_v	1,797	5	5.2534	4	false

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

Common Illumination without the superadded Law of Christianity forbids Poligamy but the Law of Christianity forbids it And many other things the Christian Religion both Commands and Forbids which the common Illumination doth neither command nor forbid tho in the Substance of the Ten Commandments commonly called the Moral Law both the Rules agree Again this Super added Law of the Holy Scriptures B. Cool will not allow it to be any other than Secondary compared with the common illumination as the Copy is to the Original which is the Primary and as the Copy has nothing but what the original hath and is better and more Authentick in the Original than in the Copy and the Original has no dependence on the Copy but the Copy has on the Original from all which it is very plain whatever the Scriptures Teach or Dictate that the common Illumination in the Conscience doth not first and originally dictate is of no further Obligation upon any Men for the Secondary binds only by the force and Authority of the Primary and hath all its certainly and Evidence therefrom as W. Penn doth argue in his Discourse of the general Rule of Faith and Practice where he preferrs the inward Illumination common to all Mankind to the Scriptures affirming the first to be the Rule for it's Perfection certainty Evidence Plainness Antiquity Universality and many other Reasons and for all which Reasons he Rejects the Scriptures from being the Primary Rule yet is so kind to allow them to be the Secondary in diverse things viz. So far as the common Illumination is Commensurate to the Scriptures which is only but in a small part and for the rest of them the common illumination hath nothing about them as whether True or False further than the Ten Precepts of the Decalogue But that W. Pen and B. Cool also confesseth that the Quakers have no Extraordinary Revelation i. e. Special and Peculiar Concerning Christs Incarnation Birth Death Resurrection c. See B. Cool his page 20. B. Cool and W. Penn's Citation of Calvin is a meer Juggle of both and a notorious perversion of Calvin's Words as I have shown in my Book called W. Pen's Deism for that Calvin asserteth the necessity of the inward Motion or Influence of the holy Spirit to perswade us that the Scriptures are true is no Argument that Calvin thought the Spirit or Light Within to be the Rule as I have shewed in that Book of Deisme To the quotations of W. Pen's saying in his Address to Protestants What is Christ but Meekness Justice and Mercy Patience Charity and Virtue in Perfection He objects p. 32. That I purposely left out the last Word viz. In Perfection and for this uncharitable supposition he charges me to be a Sophister guilty of Envy and Malice as if I did represent W. Pen to have dwindled away Christ to nothing but a Habit. But I answer I did not omit purposely the word in Perfection as he doth uncharitably charge me for that half Sheet of mine called the Synopsis of W. Penn's Deisme being but an Index of my Book of Deisme and some other quotations I had extracted out of W. Penn's Printed Books I had no need to put down his words at large for I put down all that was necessary to show his Deisme and the words in Perfection I have put them in my 3d. Narrative for which see page 8. of my 3d. Narrative which was printed a year before my Synopsis Nor doth the Word in Perfection when added help W. Pen or B. Cool out of the Mire of Deisme for who can doubt but the Habits of Vertue in perfect Men who are come to a sinless Perfection are perfect as B. Cool and his Bretheren's Principle obliges them to believe But supposing that by Meekness Mercy Justice Patience Charity in Perfection W. Pen did mean not any Habits of Virtue however perfect in Men but the Essential Perfections of Christs Godhead which may be said to be Justice Goodness Mercy Charity in Infinite Perfection yet the Consequence that W. Penn draws from this as it is weak and false to prove that a Meek or meer just Man is a Christian so it is strong enough to prove W. Pen a meer Deist for though Christs Godhead is Infinite Goodness Justice Charity as St. John describes God to be Love yet Christ is not only God but Man also and that Faith that denominates a Man to be a true Christian must be a Faith in Christ not as God only but as both God and Man Which Faith must be a living Faith that hath good Works but against this Faith W. Penn argues as not necessary to make a Man a true Christian and by a false Consequence doth Inferr that he who believes in God believes in Christ because Christ is God as if Christ were God only and not Man also Thus Reader I have made good my three Charges against W. Penn and B. Cool and the Truth of my Synopsis which he calls the three Pillars of my whole Fabrick and supposing it were so seeing they are firm the Fabrick must be firm also I shall not further enlarge in Answer to his Book at present judging it needless but refer to my other Books especially my 4 Narratives my book called the Deisme of W. Penn which B. Cool ought to Answer throughout if he thinks to clear W. Penn of Deisme where his and his Brethrens Deisme and Antichristian Principles are sufficiently discovered and whereof the Synopsis was but as an Index And that other called the Fallacies of W. Pen and his Brethren in their Answer to the Bishop of Cork As to the Airy Flouts and Scoffs throughout his Book and Preface more Ishmael-like than a Sober Heathen and some base Insinuations against me in p. 11. and 12. of his Preface being as False as Foolish I think not worth Noticing But I dare him to make good his charge against me in any of these particulars which if he offers to do I doubt not but I shall thereby the more discover his Falshood and Folly As for the Bristol Quakers Reasons why they met me not to Answer to my Charges against their Antichristian Principles then Read and Proved against them out of the Books of their most approved Authors at the Baptists Meeting-House the 24th of July 1699. They being in effect no other than what the Quakers of London gave why they refused to meet me at Turners-Hall the 11th of January 1699. I refer to the Postscript of my 4th Narrative Printed 1700 where they are sufficiently answered But the only effectual Reason they both have omitted which was that of a Guilty Conscience knowing in themselves that they are really chargeable with those things But whereas they say I was not ashamed Hypocritically to profess my self a Quaker as I had done ever since I came to the City is a Notorious Untruth When by Violence they kept me out at their Meeting-House-Door some of them ask'd me If I was a Quaker I said I was a Friend of Truth but did not say I was a Quaker If to gain some of the Quakers from their Heathenism and Antichristianity as God hath been pleased to make me Instrumental to gain some I was for some time in some outward Behaviour like them as St. Paul said to the Jews he was as a Jew and to the Gentiles as a Gentile this will not prove me a Hypocrite as it proveth not that St. Paul was such FINIS

Bristol Quakerism Expos'd 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 LONDON Printed for John Gwillim over-against Crossby-Square in Bishopsgate-Street 1700. Bristol Quakerism Expos'd c. PASSING by Benjamin Cool's False and Unchristian Accusations against me for which he gives no Proof of my Envy Malice Pride c. I shall first of all briefly take notice of his Threefold Charge against me in his Preface Pag 3. c. First That the Design of my Synopsis which he faith is the substance of all my late Writings against them Contracted is to render the Quakers such as disown the Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly That the promised Messiah there Testified of who was Born of the Virgin was not the Son of God He should have added Properly Thirdly That the History of Christs Incarnation c. is not necessary to our Salvation These saith he are the three grand Pillars on which his whole Fabrick stands c. And these he saith are so many palpable Vntruths Answer That these three are the Substance of all my late Writings against them is a false Assertion for I have Proved many other things against them in my late Writings that are as Substantial as any of those Three but that I may not Digress I shall wave that part at present and shall allow my Adversary that these three mentioned by him are very great and considerable which I Charge all the Quakers to be Guilty of who own the Books of the Quakers Teachers and Authors Quoted by me to give a true account of their Faith and Perswasions And particularly I charge William Pen as well as George Whitehead to be guilty of all the Three and Benjamin Cool as much as any of them Now let us see how Benjamin Cool defends William Pen from being guilty of my Charge with respect to these three things My First Charge against William Pen and his Brethren is That he disowns the Authority of the Holy Scriptures The Reasons of this Charge I gave in my Synopsis particularly in Art 1. where I bring in William Pen arguing against the Scriptures being the General Rule of Faith and Life Because all Men have not the Scripture and because of their Vncertainty unless upon the ground of Inward Extraordinary Revelation and for their Imperfection and many other Reasons given by him in the following Pages viz. of his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life to the number of about Fourteen all which 14 Reasons 1 Printed in my Late Book called The Deism of William Pen and his Brethren Printed in the Year 1699. And gave Answers particularly to every one of them to which I refer my Reader Such as desire to have the said Book may Buy it at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill London Where I do not blame William Pen for asserting That the Scriptures are not the General Rule to all Mankind of Faith and Practice for I know none who ever said they were but I blame him for Asserting That all Mankind have one General Rule of Faith and Practice to wit of equal Extent and Latitude to Heathens and Christians And in Page 28 of that Book called The Deism of William Pen c. I shew That he ought to have distinguished between the General Law or Rule of Justice given to all Mankind and the super added Law and Rule of Christian Faith and Practice given in general to Christians Now that I charge William Pen with holding the Scriptures to be Uncertain unless upon the ground of Inward Extraordinary Revelation What saith B. Cool in his Defence Because saith he Page 4. W. Pen saith the Scriptures are Vncertain as to Number since many Writings are lost c. He would render us denyers of the Certainty of the Matter therein contained than which nothing is more untrue Note Reader The falshood and dull Sophistry of B. Cool as if my Charge against W. Pen were mainly grounded upon his saying The Scriptures were Vncertain as to the Number since many Writings are Lost c. whereas I do not make use of that Argument against him as my Only or Chiefest either in my Synopsis or my Book called Deisme for having diligently searched both cannot find it in the Synopsis at all and but very transiently in my Book of Deisme If B. Cool thinks to help himself from being guilty of Falshood and false Quotation by Concealing the principal part of the Truth by his addition of c. that will but the more discover his disingenuity I shall therefore for the Readers Satisfaction to clear my Innocency and detect both W. Pen's Guilt in his most Unchristian way of Arguing against the Scriptures Authority and their being the Rule of Faith and Practise to Christians and also B. Cool ' s sordid and decitful way of defending him Quote some places out of W. Pen's general Discourse of the Rule of Faith and Practice and which I have very fully Quoted in my Book of Deisme In his 13th Page of his Discourse aforesaid W. Pen thus Argueth against the Scriptures being the Rule so much as to Christians They are not in the Original because that is not extant nor in the Copies because there are Thirty and above in number and 't is Vndetermin'd and for ought we see saith he Vndeterminable And the variety of Readings amongst those Copies amount to several Thousands and if the Copies cannot how can the Translations be the Rule And then Argueth against their being the Rule from divers of the Books of Scripture because Rejected by some and Received by others Concerning which way of W. Pen ' s Arguing against the Scriptures being the Rule I say in my Book of Deisme Pag 70. All which Pleas both of Deists and Papists have been abundantly Answered by Protestant Writers See Dr. Tillotson's Book called The Rule of Faith in Answer to J. S. a Papist whose Arguments against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith are so much of the same sort with these here of W. Pen's as if he had taken them from him Again in his Page 26 he thus proceeds The Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Life because they cannot be the Rule in their Translations Supposing the Ancient Copies were Exact it cannot be the Rule to far the greatest part of Mankind Indeed saith he to none but Learned Men which neither answers the Promise relating to Gospel times which is Vniversal nor the Necessity of all Mankind for a Rule of Faith and Life I leave it to Impartial Readers whether the Quotations above given recited faithfully by me out of W. Pen's Discourse of the

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

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