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
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
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
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
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
a far greater for the Common Discovery given to all Mankind by the Light Within being the primary Rule Tho' this primary universal Rule tells them nothing of Christ as he was outwardly Born of a Virgin c. Nor any one of the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of Christianity yet for all that the common Discovery that Heathens Jews Turks and Infidels have as well as the Quakers is the more Excellent and Venerable The Secondary is but the Servant or Lackey to the Primary The great Truths of the Gospel discover'd by the Holy Scriptures through the special operation and illumination of the Spirit not given to Heathens but only to faithful Christians must vail and yeild subjection to the common Dictates of the Light Within of Moral Justice and Temperance that Heathens have Readers what think you of this sort of Divinity and deceitful way of shewing his and their Veneration to the Holy Scripture But possibly he will say Must not Christ or the Spirit or God himself who is within all Men be preferred to the Scriptures And it is Christ they hold to be the primary Rule But this Objection comes from great Ignorance for neither God nor Christ nor the Spirit can be properly said to be a Rule or the Rule in any Man more than a Workman can be said to be the Tool or Instrument that he works by God is certainly Greater and more Excellent than the Scripture and so is Christ and the Holy Spirit so much as the Creator is greater than the Creature But the Comparison is not stated betwixt God or Christ or the Spirit and the Scripture but betwixt the common Illumination given to all Mankind which is neither God nor Christ nor the Spirit but their Effect and Operation and the Scripture which certainly gives a discovery of all the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Religion and Precepts thereof and there is no need of any other discovery by way of material Object but only that the Spirit of God give a Spiritual sight and sense of the Truths of the Gospel already discover'd to us in the Scriptures But Lastly How doth this great pretended Veneration that B. Cool seems to have for the Scriptures agree with the Vile and Contemptible Names that G. Fox the Quakers great Apostle has given them who together with Richard Hubberthorn in the Book called Truths Defence did call the Scriptures page 14 102. Earthly and Carnal Death Ink and Paper Dust and Serpents Meat And their Gospel is Dust Matthew Mark Luke and John which is the Letter And in Truth 's Def. p. 102. The Cursed Serpent is in the Letter See abundance more of the Quakers Contemptible and Vile Names given to the Scriptures in my 4th Nar. And not only W. Pen but Joseph Wyeth their late Defender in his Switch chargeth the Scripture with Uncertainty p. 46. But why saith B. Cool to me in his p. 9. George should we by thee be rendered so Hetrodox for Vindicating the Light Within both with respect to its Vniversality and Authority when thou thy self hast Writ and Printed the same Truths over and over and to this day are not to be found amongst thy Retractations Answer I never held the Gross and Absurd Notions of the Light Within asserted by G. Whitehead W. Pen and the generality of the Teachers of the Quakers viz. That the Light Within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else i. e. Not only without the Scriptures but without the Man Christ and his Death and Sufferings and precious Blood outwardly shed for us and his Mediation for us without us now in Heaven all which are some thing else than the Light Within Now that this is the great Offence that the Quakers took against me That I held That the Light Within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else is fairly confessed by G. Whitehead in his Antidote p. 28. And yet he confesseth that by that somewhat else I meant the Man Christ Jesus as he outwardly Died for us Far less did I ever hold that most Absurd and Nonsensical Notion of G. Fox That the Quakers have whole Christ in them God and Man Flesh and Spirit Blood and Bones And that they have His Flesh in them because they Eat it as I have prov'd out of his Great Myst in my 4th Narative p. 107. Nor did I ever confound the Common Illumination given to Heathens with the Special Illumination given to Christians as the Quakers generally do and as I find B. Cool as well as W. Pen doth So that I can say with a good Conscience I never was guilty of their Deisme and Paganisme For I always held in my former Writings when among the Quakers That Faith in Christ God and Man without us yet one Christ is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity and so much plainly appeareth from that very Book that B. Cool hath quoted called the * Note Reader That Book called The Fundamental Truths of Christianity was not Publish'd by me nor was ever intended by me to be publish'd in that Imperfect manner but being found in a Manuscript unfinish'd was Publish'd by another as the Book it self sheweth without my consent or knowledge I being then in America See the Preface Fundamental Truths of Christianity which tho' he quotes as making against me as my present perswasion is and for him and his Brethren yet it makes for me and against them for he confesseth that I said in that Book And I deliver it as one of the Fundamental Truths of Christianity That Christ is come outwardly as Man for all Now seeing he grants that I deliver'd this as one of the Fundamental Truths of Christianity it necessarily follows That he who believes not that Truth wants a Fundamental of Christianity and is no Christian But this is quite contrary to G. Whitehead W. Pen and B. Cool also who think Men may be true Christians without this Faith if they be Moral Men Just Meek and Merciful c. That there is a Principle of Light given to all Men and is in them I still hold and that it is given them for that end that they may become the Children of God to wit as by a preparatory operation as Repentance is preparatory to the Gospel Faith and Dispensation and also by way of Concomitancy and Subordination to a higher Ministration of Light that is given under the Christian Dispensation that is special only to Believers in Christ who have Faith in him either express or implicit I mean in Christ consider'd as God Man without us which I have fully and sufficiently clear'd to any Impartial Reader in my Book of Retractations p. 13 19. And therefore B. Cool is the more Unjust to me in this as in other things as well as Fallacious in seeking to deceive his Readers by making them believe I was of the same Mind with them in all their Notions and Doctrines of the Light Within In my Book of Retractations what Unwary or Unfound
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
Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation is a deadly Poyson for the bare Conviction of the Truth of the History and assent to it which is that Historical Faith he professeth to mean where no real Sanctification is wrought is so far from being a deadly Poyson that it hath a real Service remotely at least to prepare the Soul for Sanctification and if many so Convinced are not Sanctified as B. Cool confesseth in his 16 p. That Faith will be an Aggravation of their Guilt and Misery which is therefore no deadly Poyson but of great Vse even as Unsanctified Men's having a Conviction of the Light within and some Sense of it and that is more than a bare Historical Faith of it will be an Aggravation of their Guilt but will B. Cool allow Men therefore to call it a deadly Poyson that infects Hundreds of the Quakers so called who are no more Sanctified than many others who have but the Historical Faith of Christ without and if all England and all Christendom beside had but a bare Historical Faith of the Light within without the inward work of Sanctification that Faith would not Save them yet it followeth not according to B. C. that the Light within or a Historical Faith in it is a deadly Poyson I cannot but think B. Cool would think it a great Blessing to all Christendome and a great Introduction to the Quakers Religion if they all had a real Conviction or Historical Faith of the Quakers Notion of the Light within though all were not Sanctified by it yet that that Conviction or Faith is a deadly Poyson I see not how he can Grant The Quakers commonly distinguish betwixt Conviction and Conversion they call that Conviction or Convincement when a Man assents to their Great and Foundamental Principle the Light within which they reckon a Step or Introduction to Conversion and if Conversion do not follow yet the Conviction is good as Paul said of the Law tho' many did not obey it it was good And what B. Cool would say in the Case of a general Convincement of the Light within according to his and his Brethrens Notion of it I would say much more of a general Convincement all over the World and all Heathen Nations that the History of Christ's Birth Life Miracles Death Resurrection and Ascension c. is true that it would be so far from being a deadly Poyson that it would be a great good and a great Advantage and Introduction to spread the Christian Religion over the Heathen Nations All Christendome and in a sort all the World hath a real Notion and Faith of the Light within as it is an Assent of their Consciences to the work of the Law Writ in their Hearts and this Faith or Assent is certainly a good thing and of great Concern to the good of Mankind being the Foundation of all the good Laws and Governments that are to be found in Heathen Nations tho' thousands who have it yet are not Sanctified by it nor can they be Sanctified by it without Faith in Christ Crucified and without a special superadded Illumination and Operation of the Holy Spirit that doth usually Accompany the Written Word according to Gods Ordinary way of working and the methods of Divine Providence towards the Race of Mankind But the Quakers general Notion of the Light Within being sufficient to Salvation without any else and confirmed so to be by G. Whitehad in his late Antidote p. 28. and by W. Penn in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Practice justified all along by B. Cool and his own saying as above noted That there is but one General Rule of Faith and Practice to all Mankind is such a plain Proof of his Deism in opposition to the Christian Faith that greater cannot be given notwithstanding of what he talks in contradiction and Inconsistency to himself and W. Penn and his other Brethren p. 27. That God in his Mercy and Goodness hath super-added the Holy Scriptures for a Rule to us to walk by and according to Yet saith he we are not therefore to neglect the inward Law and Rule and Eternal Precepts in our Hearts because we have an outward one to walk by Thus he still leaves the true State of the Controversy on purpose to divert and deceive his Weak Reader by his juggling None saith that we ought to neglect the inward Law or Light in the Conscience of all Mankind because we have the outward Rule of the holy Scriptures for true Christians highly Esteeem of both and Labour to conform their Lives to both but as to all the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of Christianity as distinct from Deism or Gentile Religion however refined they hold the Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion with respect to its peculiar Doctrines and Precepts to be such a Rule as the Heathens have not and it may be acknowledged to be a Superadded Rule as much as Christian Religion is a superadded Religion to any thing that was or is True in Gentile Religion But for B. Cool and his Brethren who own but one general Rule and Practice to all Mankind And say the Light within every Man is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else Let him deny this if he dares to talk of a superadded Rule is a Contradiction and Inconsistence for if they allow a Rule superadded to the common Illumination obliging Christians to believe and practice any more things than what the Heathens are obliged to they make two Rules one common to Christian and Heathens viz. The Light Within the other peculiar to the Christian which is of a far greater Perfection and hath a far greater Number of things both to be believed and practised and of a higher Nature many or most of them than what the common Illumination in the Consciences of Mankind generally Teacheth And as Concerning what B. Cool Grants of Gods Superadding the Holy Scriptures for a Rule to us to walk by I ask him Was that Superadded Rule absolutely necessary to be added to our Christianity through our Faith and Obedience to it If he say it was and is then he contradicts their Fundamental Notion of the sufficiency of the Light Within all Mankind to Salvation and all Mens having but one general Rule his own Words If it be not absolutely necessary what need of it's being superadded seeing the common illumination hath a sufficiency in it abundantly according to the Quakers not only to inform the Understanding of all things necessary to Salvation without any super-added Rule but of Grace to enable all Mankind perfectly to obey all Gods Commands and to attain to a Sinless Perfection and that in a much nearer way and with fewer means as having fewer and easier Precepts for who can deny but the Laws and dictates of the Common Illuminations given to all Mankind are much fewer and easier to be obey'd than what the Christian Religion Superadds for it cannot be proved that the
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