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
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
General Rule of Faith and Practice and also out of my Book of Deisme against W. Pen of which Book my Synopsis was but a sort of Index do not sufficiently prove W. Pen's Undervaluing the Authority of the Scriptures for their want of Certainty unless upon the ground of Inward Extraordinary Revelation as I did particularly express it both in my Book of Deism and Synopsis And it could be nothing but a wilful omission in B. Cool not to take notice of those Passages above cited For suppose he had not known of my Book of Deisme against W. Pen yet he could not be Ignorant that there was such a Book as W. Pen's Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice out of which I had taken my abovesaid Quotations But for a further Evidence that W. Pen in his said Discourse did Argue against the Certainty of the Matter contain'd in the Scriptures with respect to the chief peculiar Doctrines of Christianity as the Orthodox Faith of the Holy Trinity against the Arians and Socinians and the Orthodox Faith of all sound Protestants against the Papists about Transubstantiation I Quote him at large in my Book of Deisme Arguing in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practise thus pag 41 42. Is there any place in Scripture tells us saith W. Pen without Interpretation whether the Socinian or Trinitarian be in the right in their differing apprehensions of the Three that bear record c. Also the Homousian and Arian about Christ's Divinity or the Papists and Protestants about Transubstantiation If then things are left Vndefin'd and Vndetermin'd I mean Literally and Expressly in the Scripture and that the Question arises about the Sense of Words doth the Scripture determine which of these Interpreters hit the mark Thus far W. Pen. From all which he concludes That not the Scripture but the Interpretation must decide the matter in Controversie and that Interpretation must be given not by the Scripture so much as Instrumentally but from the Spirit of God by Extraordinary Revelation to be a True and Infallible Interpretation and yet that extraordinary Revelation is not necessary to be given to any of the Quakers as W. Pen confesseth nor is given to them as will after appear from what follows to be Quoted out of him Judge Reader doth not W. Pen here make the Matter of the Scripture Uncertain with respect to these great matters of Christianity the Orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the denyal of Transubstantiation without inward extraordinary Revelation and yet B. Cool is so shameless to blame me for saying The Quakers deny the Certainty of the Matter contained in the Scripture than which he saith nothing is more untrue Now if B. Cool thinks he or his Brerhren have any particular extraordinary Revelation to determine the Truth of the Matter concerning these great Articks of the Trinity and denyal of Transubstantiation let him Assert it and next let him Prove it otherwise we have no reason to believe him or them but their asserting it is sufficient argument to prove my Charge against them and particularly against W. Pen That the Matter of Scripture with respect to the chief and principal Doctrines of Christianity is uncertain to Men without extraordinary inward Revelation whereby he means such as the Prophets and Apostles had without Scripture But for a further Confirmation that B. Cool is a false Accuser of me in this very particular and that I am unjustly charged by him I have in my Book called The Deisme of W. Pen brought Fourteen of W. Pen's Arguments out of his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practise to all and every one of which I have particularly Answered Whereby W. Pen Essayeth to prove That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith and Practise to Christians One of which is from their Imperfection another from their Uncertainty a third from their Obscurity And in his 10th Page he Argues against the Scriptures being the Rule That a Rule ought to be Plain Proper and Intelligible which he pleads the Scriptures are not Now I say W. Pen and his Brethren yea and B. Cool with them disown the Authority of the Scriptures because they deny them to be the Rule of Faith and Practise to wit the primary Rule of Faith and Practise with respect to all things Commanded us to be Believ'd or Practis'd For as concerning the Heathens who have not the Scripture I know none who Asserts that the Scripture is a Rule to them But that not only W. Pen but B. Cool is guilty in asserting the Scriptures not to be so much as the Rule in part to Christians who have the Scriptures we have his plain Confession page 4 of his Preface where he concludes but by a false Syllogism That there is but one General Rule both to them who have the Scriptures i. e. profess'd Christians and to them who have them not viz. the Heathens The word But in that place is Exclusive of the Scriptures being the Rule any more to profess'd Christians than to Heathens seeing by his Argument both have but one Rule which he would have to follow from some of my words he quotes but he inferrs his Conclusion by a false Syllogisme which is this If saith B. Cool the Scripture cannot be savingly Believed and Vnderstood but by the Revelation and Inward Illumination of the Spirit then the Spirit is the primary Rule even for Believing the Scriptures themselves but the first is true therefore the last The Consequence of his first Proposition is false the falshood of which can be Demonstrated by the like false and fallacious Argument following If a Bricklayer Joyner or Carpenter cannot see to work their Trades without Light therefore the Light is the Rule whereby they Work either Primary or Secondary But the falsity of this is apparent for none ever thought that the Light either of Sun Moon or Candle is the Rule either Primary or Secondary whereby Tradesmen as Bricklayers Joyners or Carpenters do Work for the Rule or Rules whereby they Work are one thing and the Light which lets them See how to use their Rule is another thing Or as if B. Cool should Argue the Grindstone makes the Knife or Razor sharp therefore the Grindstone is more sharp than both or is Primarily sharp and the Knife or Razor sharp but Secondarily This Example I only use to shew the falshood of that Maxim applied in the Case That for which a thing is such that thing is the more such But to Argue That the Spirit is the Rule because the Spirit enlightens and inables true Christians to understand the Scriptures is as Weak and Sophistical as to argue because a Bricklayer teacheth a Man that is his Apprentice to lay the Bricks upon a Wall that therefore the Bricklayer is the Rule whereas the Bricklayer is not the Rule to the Apprentice but his Rule and Master And to Affirm That the Spirit is the Rule is to
Magnifie For saith G. Fox in his Great Mystery Page 350. Ye tell People of an outward ordinary Means by which Christ communicates the benefits of Redemption Note By the outward and ordinary Means they mean the written Word and Sacraments The means of Salvation saith he is not ordinary nor outward but Christ is the Salvation who is Eternal Again Great Myst p. 133. His Opponent T. Moor having said The Scriptures is the absolute Rule and Medium of Faith In p. 134. G. Fox Answereth The Scriptures is not the Author nor the Means of it nor the Rule but Christ who gave it and he increaseth it And in p. 243. Great Myst he saith And the things of the Gospel and of the Spirit are not attained by an External Means Note Here he doth Exclude the Scripture not only from being the External Means but from being an External Means of their Knowledge and Faith Again p. 320. His Opponents having said God works Faith in us Inwardly by the Spirit and Outwardly by his Word meaning the written Word He Answers Here thou goest about to make the Word and the Spirit not one Is not the Word Spiritual and Christ called the Word Again p. 168. Them that never heard the Scripture Outwardly the Light that every Man hath that cometh into the World being turned to it with that they will see Christ with that they will know Scripture with that they will be led out of all Delusion come into Covenant with God with which they will come to Worship God in the Spirit and Serve him See all these and many more such Quotations in my 4th Narative Here we see the Scripture is Excluded from being so much as either the Means or a Means of the Spirits working Faith or Knowledge in them and consequently what Knowledge or Faith the Quakers have of God or Christ it must be by inward immediate extraordinary Revelation and Discoveries the same in kind that the Prophets and Apostles had as such which was without all outward means Thus we see the Harmony of W. Pen and B. Cool and his Brethren with their great Apostle G. Fox But let us again view their Disharmony and Contradiction both with themselves and one with another Benjamin Cool in his 9th pag saith That the Prophets and Apostles had an extraordinary Sight and Sense of Adam ' s Fall and Christ ' s Birth c. I readily own but that such an extraordinary Discovery as they had is absolutely necessary to every Mans Salvation I deny But if he will adhere to his former Assertion That the Light Within is the Primary Rule of every Mans Faith and Knowledge and to G. Fox's Doctrine above mentioned every Man that has the true Knowledge and Faith of Christ must have such an extraordinary Discovery as the Prophets and Apostles had in kind if not in degree For seeing the Quakers plead That the true Knowledge and Faith of God and Christ must be by the Spirit only without the outward and ordinary Means as G. Fox their great Apostle has Taught them then it must be the same in kind at least if not in degree And if all the Faithful are not come to the same degree of the Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles had Yet if B. Cool will believe their great Apostle some of the Quakers at least are come not only to the same degree that the Prophets and Apostles had who gave forth the Scriptures but above any degree For thus he saith expresly Great Myst p. 318. For who comes to the Spirit and to Christ comes to that which is Perfect who comes to the Kingdom of Heaven in them comes to be Perfect yea to a Perfect Man and that is above any Degree But B. Cool in his following Quotation as I can understand him and let the Reader see if he can understand him otherwise disowns all Extraordinary Discovery such as the Prophets and Apostles had in Kind as well as in Degree and wholly takes to the common and ordinary Discoveries of the Light Within Universally given to all Mankind for thus he saith expresly But that the common and ordinary Discoveries of the Light Within Vniversally given to Mankind as all Mankind Adheres thereto and Obeys the same is that Vniversal or General Rule of Faith and Life we shall I hope never deny Now this Universal and General Rule given to all Mankind B. Cool if he will accord with his Brethren and particularly with G. Whitehead and others in their Book call'd The Glory of Christ's Light Within must hold it to be a full and compleat Rule that needs no addition yea not only needs no Addition but admits of none for if it admit of any Addition then all Mankind have not one and the same Rule of Faith and Practise contrary to the very scope and design of W. Pen's Book called A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practise But again If that Addition be but only a Secondary Rule it presupposeth the Primary Rule to wit the Light Within them as Pre-existant and from which all the Certainty of the Secondary Rule dependeth and their Primary Rule first giving them the said Discovery makes the Secondary wholly superfluous If it be said that by the Secondary Men may be led to the Primary as by the Copy to the Original or as by the Stream to the Fountain But what service can the Secondary have to lead them to the Primary as from the more known to the more unknown Seeing the Secondary Rule which they call the Scripture has no Certainty but what it receives from the Light Within as it is an Universal Principle common to all Mankind But common Experience teacheth That the Light Within i.e. the common Discovery or Illumination given to all Mankind that teacheth them some things concerning God as a Creator and some general Moral Duties to him as such yet doth not teach them the Knowledge or Faith of God as he gave his Son to be Incarnate for the Redemption of the World for that never was known but by special Revelation immediately given to the Prophets and by their means convey'd to others B. Cool proceeds to tell us page 9. what special Veneration he and his Brethren express for the Holy Scriptures after he hath set up the common and ordinary Discoveries of the Light Within Universally given to all Mankind to be the Primary Rule of all Faith and Knowledge Yet at the same time we saith he express our Veneration for the Verity and Authority of the Holy Scriptures since we know them to be as they are an Additional and Vnspeakable Benefit for a Rule both of Faith and Life and such a Rule too that whatever is Repugnant thereunto ought not to be of any Authority with us But judge Reader whether this be not another Judas Kiss or as they that Mock'd our Lord with a Hail Master They have a great veneration for the Scriptures as a Secondary and Additional Rule but they have