Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	faith_n	scripture_n	word_n	10,157	5	4.8947	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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