Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	woman_n	word_n	world_n	127	4	4.2368	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30899	Quakerism confirmed, or, A vindication of the chief doctrines and principles of the people called Qvakers from the arguments and objections of the students of divinity (so called) of Aberdeen in their book entituled Quakerism convassed [sic] by Robert Barclay and George Keith.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1676 (1676)	Wing B733; ESTC R37061	83,121	93

it or that the Students are too much addicted to sin since they plead for the continuance of it for term of life They are little lesse then inraged that G. K should have alledged the testimony of Augustine and Bernard interpreting this place of the flesh and therefore they labour like men in a sweat for a whole page against this to no purpose the only reason of G. Ks. citing them being because some of their preachers cryed out against this allegory as a horrid abusive thing in some Q. to shew them it is none of the Q. coining but already used by men by themselves applauded and commended upon this they ask have not some of our Antagonists been observed to make a Welshmans hose of the first chapter of Genesis if they mean us let them prove we have so done as we have already proved they have used the Apostle James with their three faced interpretatian and again they ask have not some Q. been bold to aver that there was never any such reall tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evill if they have let them instance and prove by whom it was spoken and writ and then they shall have an answer As they proceed they give an egregious specimen of their folly alledging that if it did hold as G. K. affirms that women are not allowed to speak by permission then à fortiori it is unlawfull for them to speak by commandement Who but the Students would talk at this rate as if a commandment might not authorize a man to do that which a bare permission will not G. Ks. arguments drawn from their own allowing whores to speak and women to sing they call quibles because they can not answer which they reply to only by questions do they allow whores authoritative preaching affirming women may sing Very well whether it be authoritative or not whatsoever way they speak they keep not silence and so the Apostls words are not taken strictly and literally which gaines us the cause and shewes our doctrin is no more directly against the Apostls words then their own besides from this it followeth by the Students confession that women may as lawfully speak in the Church as the licentiat Students whom the Presbytery permits to speak in the Church before they are ordained they passe our chief objection very overly drawne from 1 Cor. 11. 5. where the Apostle gives direct rules how women should behave themselves in their publick praying and preaching alledging there are rules given in Scripture concerning things that were never lawfull but only permitted c. as of polygamie under the law but they should have remembred that these are rules given by the Apostle to the Christian Church of Corinth and seing the Students suppose that the Apostle gave directions to the Church of Corinth not only of things that belong not to them now but which are not lawfull for them a doctrine we question if their Masters will approve of or of the consequence of which themselves are aware it remains for them to prove that these two rules forbidding womens speaking belongs to us or is not of the number of these uselesse rules more then that other concerning the manner of their preaching So we hope this solution is impugned and desire they may be sure not to forget to bring us this reason when they write next SECTION FOURTH Concerning the necessity of immediat Revelations to the building up of true faith containing an answer to the Students second Section from pag. 78. to pag. 92. IN their stating the controversy they say these inward revelations are not subjective revelations or divine illuminations This is false for as we have above shewed one and the same illumination that is effective or subjective is also objective and the objective is effective Again they say the question is not if immediat objective revelations be possible or be sometimes made to some de facto This concession will overthrow much of all their own work for if they admitt that any person in our time hath immediate objective revelations admitt Peter or John their former argument will as much militate against this reall immediat objective revelation granted by them as against those which they do not grant seing pag. 7. at the letter A they say suppose that the spirit reveall the objects of faith immediatly none will deny that he is a rule or rather ruler to them who have him so A good concession but which quite undoes their own cause for now let us apply their former argument against this reall objective revelation granted by them as thus we ought not to believe that as the rule of faith of which there can be no evidence given but there can be no evidence in the world given of the Spirit that is in Peter and Iohn therefore c. Again if Peter John say they can give an evidence of the Spirit of God in them to wit their own declaration in life and power as also the immediat testimony of the Spirit or the Scriptures testimony let us apply in the last place their argument used against us and see if it will not be as good against Peter and John whom they grant de facto according to their hypothesis to have immediat objective revelation The argument is this that which as really agrees to Enthusiast Hereticks as to them can be no evidence but that evidence to wit their own declaration and saying that both they and their adversaries have the immediat testimony of the Spirit witnessing to the truth of it would as really agree to Enthusiast Hereticks therefore c. Yea not only might they thus argue against any mens haveing immediat objective revelation in our dayes but against the Prophets and Apostles having it seing the argument might every way be as strong against their having it as against our having it especially at such times as they wrought no outward miracles in the sight of the people to whom they were sent as oft they did not When the Lord sent Jonas to preach to the Ninivites he wrought no miracle in their sight Now let us put the Students in the Ninivites place and we shall find they could argue as stoutly and hardily against Jonas as now they can do against any Quaker they could tell him he could give no evidence of the Spirit of God in him giving any such message as for his declaration it would not suffice because his saying he had the Spirit would be as good a ground for any other Enthusiast Heretick But further these stout and hardy warriours could have used these same arguments against the Prophets when they wrought miracles for they could have alledged the miracles were not true miracles but false and such as may be done by the power of the devil and so if any could produce miracles now as there have been they would no more be believed then the unbelieving Jewes believed the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles For they

circumcision becaus both are long agoe buried and what is buried is deadly to be raised up again as Augustin taught Their third reason is built on a mistake that the God head of Christ or names of Father Son and holy ghost were a stumbling block to the believeing Iewes for of these only we are to be understood also that the Apostles used the words Father Son and holy ghost when they baptized can not be proved farre lesse used they the word Trinity which was not invented long after the Apostles dayes Their second argument that the baptisme commanded in Matth. 28 16. is with water resolves at last into this that it is God only and not man who baptises with the holy ghost becaus he is only the proper immediat efficient cause of baptism with the holy ghost but wee deny the consequence as weak and false for ther is nothing more usuall then to ascribe the effect unto the instrumentall cause as truly as unto the principall Paul was sent to turne or convert the Gentiles from darknesse to light and to open their eyes and yet God only was the proper and immediat efficient cause of this Many more examples could be given yea the same reason of the Students would militate against teaching for even outward teaching which is by the motion of the holy ghost hath a power and vertue in it wherof the men who teach are but the instrumentall conveyers that is only from God as the immediat efficient cause Another reason they give to make all sure as they say is that it is only Christ as he is God and mightier then Iohn who baptised with the holy ghost Matth. 3 11. where baptism with the holy ghost is peculiarly attributed to Christ. But this makes their matter nothing more sure for although that baptism with the holy ghost be peculiarly attributed to Christ as the principall cause yet it hindereth not that men are the instrumentall even as Christ said it is not ye that speak and yet they also spake as instruments It is true that John did not baptize with the holy ghost as the Apostles did or rather Christ through them becaus John had not so powerfull a ministry given him as the Apostles of whom Christ said that they should not only doe as great works as he but greater to wit by his power Again They argue that giveing and not granting that baptism with the holy Ghost could be administred by men yet it is not commanded here for the words then would be full of needlesse tautologies To this we answer that this doth not follow for suppose that by teaching and baptizing were meant one thing how usuall is it in Scripture to expresse one thing under divers names without any tautologie However we believe that by teaching and baptizing are meant two severall things both which require the speciall operation of the holy Spirit for a man through teaching by the concurrence of the holy ghost is first of all convinced of the truth and hath a ground laid in him to believe and then he is baptized with the holy ghost upon his believing and obeying in what he is convinced of nor is this to confound the command with the promise for the sense of it is this goe ye and baptize with the holy ghost instrumentally and I shall be with yow as the Principall cause to concurre and assist yow and thus there is no tautologie the command and the promise being in diverso genere id est in a different kind Their next argument to prove that Water-baptism is to continue to the end of the world is that God sent Iohn to baptize with water and Christ caused Iohn baptize him and commanded or caused his Apostles baptize with water and these commands were never formally repealed nor ceased of their owne nature Therfor But to this the Answer is easie for Iohns baptism was no part of the Gospel dispensation as serving onely to prepare the way to Christ and he was sent only to baptise the Jewes that Christ might be manifest to Israel Joh. 1 31. and it is called Iohns baptism in distinction from that of Christ for some were baptized with it who had not received the holy ghost and that Christ was baptized with water proveth not its continuance no more then that he was circumcised proveth the continuance of Circumcision that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize with water we find not and though it were it is but as at that time being under Johns dispensation but unlesse they can prove that Christ commanded to baptise all nations with water and that to the end of the world they gain nothing for what was commanded only as toward the Iewes doth not reach us gentiles and so we need seek no repeal there not having been any such command In their answering our retortion as touching washing the feet anointing the Sick with oil and abstaining from blood and things strangled They say 1. This retortion hath a damnable tendency for enthusiasts may arise and plead the same way against the most necessary truths c. We answer They have no ground from our retortion so to doe becaus these things above mentioned are but figures and such as have no inward or intrinsecall goodnesse or righteousnes in them as the other things have which are most necessarie 2. Wheras they say If these things had been commanded and never repealed it were better to admitt and observe them then to reject Baptism c. We answer if by repeal they mean a formall repeal we deny that it were better for all being but figurative things and such as the inward Law of God writt in our hearts which is the new covenant dispensation doth not require of us they cease of their owne nature and carry a virtuall repeal in their bosome although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture as to every particular for all the things of the ceremoniall Law are not one by one particularly repealed in the new Testament but together in one body for the Law it selfe being changed the things required by it if they have no other Law to require them doe cease 3. They say That Christ in washing his disciples feet did 2 things 1. To seal up to his disciples their part in him 2. He intended to leave them one example of humility and it is onely this second thing which he commanded to his disciples to wit that they should performe acts of humility one to another But wee misse their proofe there altogether that he only commanded this and not the washing one anothers feet in particular yea this glosse expressly gives the lye to Christ his owne words Joh. 13 14. ye also ought to wash one anothers feet where not only an act of humility is signified but an act of love and also by the outward washing of the outward feet is signified how we ought to contribute to wash one anothers feet in a spirituall sense that is to say by seasonable