Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	defend_v	eternal_a	great_a	29	3	2.0646	3	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

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

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

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

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