Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	according_a	believe_v	church_n	3,281	5	4.5409	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

Passages I have found in any of my former Books I have very freely and willingly Retracted and I thank God who has given me a Heart so to do and I pray God that he may be pleas'd to work the like willingness in the Hearts of all my Adversaries to Confess and Retract their Errors as I have done mine But what of Truth I have writ in any of my former Books either concerning the Light Within or any other Subject I Retain and I hope shall continue so to do to my dying moment And besides my particular Retractation of particular Passages I have in my said Book made a general Retractation of all that is not according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture to which I now add And of all contrary to the 39 Articles of the Church of England all which I do Believe to be perfectly agreeable to the Holy Scriptures Which I hope will satisfie the Moderate and Impartial but for others it is in vain for me to indeavour to satisfie them who will not be satisfied And notwithstanding the Clamour of my Adversaries against me of my Unconstancy and Inconsistency in Principles would they but give me a fair meeting before Impartial Witnesses I could shew much more their Unconstancy and Inconsistency ten fold than what they can shew of mine The Second thing that B. Cool blames me for both in his Preface and Book is for Quoting a Passage in my Synopsis out of W. Pen's Serious Apology p. 146. But that He viz. That Outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was properly the Son of God we utterly deny This B. Cool calls a Juggle See saith B.C. the Jugling of this Man But upon due Examination the Juggle will be found not to be mine but his and that base and sordid But thus it is Their Credit of Infallibility is so great a matter with them like the great Diana of the Ephesians that they will commit the greatest and most sordid Equivocation tho' ever so obvious and apparent rather than own their Error as is evident in the present Case But where is the Juggle Have I Quoted him wrong He doth not pretend that I have for he grants they are W. Pen's words But let us see whether his Gloss on W. Pen's words will excuse him he saith By the outward Person he meant no more than Flesh Blood and Bones abstract not only from the Godhead that dwelt in him but also from the very Soul of Christ as he was Man But that this Gloss is a Juggle will appear from what follows First The Question betwixt W. Pen and his Opponent who was a Presbyterian Minister in Ireland was not whether Flesh Blood and Bones abstract from the Godhead and the Soul of Christ was that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem for it was not a Dead and Lifeless Body that suffered but a Living Body and such a Living Body that was Animated with a Rational Soul the Noblest that ever was and together with the Soul was Personally united to the Godhead And the like Juggle W. Pen himself is guilty of as G. Whitehead quotes him in his Truths Defence p. 72. Thus Defending his Assertion That he meant the Body which suffered was not properly the entire Son of God But none of his Opponents ever so said nor do I know that ever any Man did so Assert and that being no part of the Controversy cannot be the true meaning of W. Pen's assertion Secondly The outward Person doth as necessarily import and signify both the Soul and Godhead of Christ jointly with the Body as B. Cool who is an outward Person imports and signifieth both Soul and Body of B. Cool And if B. Cool should borrow or owe Money can it be said That it was only B. Cool's Flesh Blood and Bones abstractly from his Soul that owes that Money and should pay the Debt Our blessed Lord who was that outward Person that suffered for us and paid the debt of our Sins when he Died for us was not Flesh Blood and Bones without his Soul nor without his Godhead Therefore to make such an Abstraction is a meer Juggle And by the like Evasion if I should say That outward Person B. Cool is not a Man but a Beast doth he think that it would excuse me to say I meant B. Cool abstractly consider'd from his Rational Soul having only a Sensitive Soul in him common to him with the Beasts And he may as well say a piece of Wood abstract from its Length or Breadth or Depth is not a Body Whereas such an Abstraction is a Contradiction for we can conceive no Body without its true Dimensions no more can we conceive a Person without the Parts whereof that person consists But let B. Cool tell us That outward Person that Suffered whose Son was he properly If he was not properly the Son of God Mary was not a Virgin To say he was the Son of Mary as one of B. Cool's Brethren lately answered at Turners-Hall was no proper Answer to the Question but an Evasion the Question being not who was his Mother but who was his Father And as impertinent to the Question was it to Answer That he was the Son of David and Abraham for they were but his remote mediate Fathers But I ask B. Cool Who was his Immediate Father as he was Man If God then as Man that very outward Person was the Son of God as really and properly and more really and properly as that Outward Person called B. Cool was his Fathers Son Yet not so that either our Saviours Soul or Body was any part of the Godhead but because his Soul and Body was Personally United to the Eternal Word Eternally and before all Ages and Creatures begotten of the Father and that as Man he was miraculously Conceived by the Power of the Holy Ghost and Born of the Virgin Mary Thirdly That W. Penn's Vile Error and Heresie and B. Cools Juggle may yet more appear it is Evident from W. Penn's Words in his other Books that he thinks that outward Person that Suffered at Jerusalem was no part of the true Christ But that as he hath affirm'd he was called Christ by a Metonymie of the thing containing getting the Name of the thing contained as a Vessel that holds Wine is called Wine yet this Vessel is no part of the Wine and that the Body of Christ is called the Christ he saith that is Metonymically spoken the thing containing for the thing contained see W. Penns Rejoynder to Jo. Faldo p. 304. Had he said it was a Synecdoche of the part put for the whole he had spoke as a Christian but a Metonimy makes the Body nor yet the Soul not to be any part of the true Christ And in his p. 300 he saith Christ qualified that Body for his Service but that Body did not Constitute Christ he is Invisible and ever was so to the Vngodly World that was not his Body By all which it Evidently appears

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