Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	authority_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	5,020	5	9.3936	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63393	The Quakers rounds, or, A Faithful account of a large discourse between a party of them called Quakers viz. William Fisher and Edward Burroughs, &c with Mr. Philip Taverner, Mr. Richard Goodgroom, and Mr. M. Hall, ministers of the Gospel ... / published by William Taverner, preacher of the Word.	W. F. (William Fisher); Burrough, Edward, 1634-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing T248; ESTC R31011	28,134	41

The Quakers Rounds OR A faithful Account of a large Discourse between a Party of them called Quakers Viz. William Fisher and Edward Burroughs c. with Mr. Philip Taverner Mr. Richard Goodgroom and Mr. M. Hall Ministers of the Gospel at the Publick Meeting-Place of West-Drayton in the County of Middlesex at which time and place the Quakers maintained I. That the Scriptures were not the Word of God because the Devil spake something and Pharaoh spake something that is there written II. That no Man is Iustified further than he is Sanctified III. That evil Motions not consented to are not sin IV. That Perfection is Attainable in this Life V. That the Scriptures were given to the World not to the Saints Published by William Taverner Preacher of the Word LONDON Printed by G. Dawson for Lodowick Lloyd and are to be sold at his Shop at the Castle in Cornwel 1658. To the READER Friendly Reader THou hast here as orderly a Relation of a confused Discourse as the disorder in it would admit the multitude of words which this dayes work was filled up with I do not undertake to set down they were legions and far exceeding the largest memory but the sum and substance of what was spoken on both sides is truly related and here and there some few words inserted for a further proof and clearing of things spoken to The Controversie lay cheifly between Mr. Richard Goodgroom the Objector and Edward Burroughs the Defendant to whom William Fisher was an Assistant which two were the chief Speakers on that side The Particulars objected against E. B. which he had formerly delivered in a private Meeting were as followeth VIZ. I. That the Scriptures were not the Word of God because the Devil spake something and Pharaoh something which is there written II. That no Man is Justified further than he is Sanctified III. That evil motions not consented to are not sin IV. That Perfection is attainable in this Life V. That the Scriptures were given to the World not to the Saints These E. B. would not at first own to be his as coming from the mouth of the Objector and yet owned every of them in his Discourse unless the last which he endeavoured to skin over with that Text John 5.29 but to no purpose his own doubtless they were else why would he undertake to maintain them his Zeal in contending for them makes it evident beyond all Controversie that he is the true father of the child There were some things in the managing of this Dispute if it deserves such a name just matter of reproof 1. A disorderly and confused speaking of many at sometimes together both Parties must confess guilty in this thing 2. A great prejudice in each Party against other which appeared in this neither Party was willing to own what the other said though for substance they held the same thing so that what with passion and prejudice meeting together there seemed rather a contending for Victory than for Truth I fear there is neither Party can plead innocent in this matter But I will no longer detain the Reader in an Epistle onely he may please to take notice That E. B. and W. F. were the chief Speakers on that side called Quakers R. G. was the Man engaged in the Controversie who heard those things delivered in a private Meeting by the person formerly named P. T. and Mr. Hall came as Hearears not as Parties engaged further than other of the Company being free to own Truth wheresoever they found it and being present did sometimes speak when they found Truth engaging them thereto Now that God would heal the breaches of Sion and turn to his People a pure lip that they might all call upon the Name of the Lord to serve him with one shoulder Zeph. 3.9 is the hearty desire and prayer of him Who owns all Saints in the bond of Love under what distinction of Form soever PHIL. TAVERNER A true Relation of a giddy confused Discourse between a Party of them called QUAKERS and some others in the Publick Meeting-place at West-drayton in the County of Middlesex Ian. 18. 1657. THE first thing delivered by E. B. and objected against by R. G. Viz. I. That the Scriptures were not the Word of God because the Devil spake something and Pharaoh something which is there written A strange kind of Assertion as if nothing of the mind will and counsel of God were declared in the Scriptures because something which the Devil spake and something which Pharaoh and other wicked men spake is there related so much seems to be implyed in the reason as brought to prove the Assertion yet do I not beleeve that the person asserting this doth so think or judge of the Scriptures for his acknowledgements were more honest in many things granted by him if his heart and tongue were agreed in the things which in words he sometimes seemed to own but whitherto can be the tendency of such giddy Doctrins then to a weakening the authority of the Scriptures and begetting in their hearers slighting and undervaluing thoughts concerning the written Word if this were not the intention of the speaker it is well but that the thing spoken hath such a tendency in it who but may easily see Yea and it is much to be feared that such a rash and inconsiderate kind of speaking hath brought forth in many an effect of its own likenes viz. a sitting loose from lightly esteeming the holy Scriptures as a low weak and useless ministration To this first thing Edward Burroughs made reply after this manner E. B. You lay it not down in my words and also mistake my meaning R. G. Whatsoever was your meaning these were your words and I have not wronged you a tittle P. T. The question then is to which of you two most credit is to be given R. G. I have not added nor diminshed a tittle concerning his words and there are others who can beare witness that these were his words his very words E. B. I sayed then and so I say still that the Scripture is not the Word of God but a declaration of the Word the Scriptures testifie of Christ who is the Word but are not the Word themselves P. T. We destinguish between the Essential and Declarative word of God we own Christ the former and the Scriptures the latter E. B. I say the Scriptures are a Declaration of but are not the very Word of God P. T. You do deny them to be the Declarative word of truth an answer may be easily given yea or nay which we wait to hear E. B. I pray all take notice I say the Scriptures are a Declaration but not the Word of God and they are a Declaration of Truth and falsehood there is that which is false Declared in them as well as truth and therefore cannot be the Word of God For there is something Declared in them which the Devill spake and something which Pharaoh and other

holy Scripture was written chiefly though not onely for the sake and benefit of the Saints to the Worlds end for their learning in chief was the Scripture given Rom. 15.4 and therefore that giddy Assertion which is affirmed to have dropped from E. Burroughs mouth viz. That the Scriptures are given to the World not to the Saints hath no footing to bear up it self upon E. B. I grant the Epistles were given to the Saints P. T. It is well you grant it though I do not see how you should deny it and not onely the Epistles but all other the holy Scriptures as the Apostle cals them 2 Tim. 3.15 were given to the Saints No more was spoken to this for the night grew on and I think hardly any but were sufficiently wearied with a confused and unprofitable Discourse The company beginning to break up E. B. pretended a charge against R. G. concerning something which he had preached either a year or years agone in Bedfordshire but the people not caring to hear him any longer he forbore to speak farther as to that and turned his discourse to his own Proselytes How far E. B. owns the authority of the Scriptures of the New-Testament doth not clearly appear and whether he denies the Scriptures of the Old-Testament as being of no use to the Saints I am not able to say but if this should be in his or in the heart of any of his followers let that of the Apostle be consulted with if the Scriptures which himself in so many words owned to be given to the Saints may be for satisfaction Rom. 15.4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning c. Things written aforetime relate to the Scriptures of the Old-Testament to those things written in the Books of Moses the Prophets and the Psalms c. and of these the Apostle affirms they were written for our learning which relates not to the World but to the Saints for the Apostle puts himself in the number of those for whose sake in chief these things were written The Apostle indeed tels us 1 Cor. 24.22 wherefore Tongues are for a sign not to them that beleeve but to them that beleeve not but the same Apostle affirms the Scripture to be given chiefly for the sake of the Saints and such who do beleeve in the text formerly mentioned There were some of the Company jealous of these men lest they might be Jesuites but I speak freely my thoughts I do not beleeve any such thing concerning either of them W. F. though a man of subtilty enough to make him one of that Fraternity which he discovered abundantly more in a former meeting as I was informed from some there present then in this yet was known to some of the Company from whence he came and how he hath turned from one thing to another till he came at last to this Sect of Quakers And for E. B. I do not apprehend him to be a man of such parts and of that measure of subtilty which is ordinarily found among the men of that Brotherhood unless he had more than an ordinary art of hiding himself under a garbe of pretended simplicity so that for my part I do not judge or beleeve any such thing concerning either of them though I fear too many such Deceivers are crept in among us shrouding themselves under several Forms where they can find most shelter and of these more who are Jesuites in Principles than Jesuites in Orders I apply it not to these I hope better things of them The second thing which was concerning Justification I passed over in its proper place but shall now give a brief hint of it in the close of this relation It was very large with multiplicity of words on their part called Quakers but as confused and unprofitable a discourse as ever I heard The thing delivered for Doctrine by E. B. and objected against by R. G. was II. That no man is further Justified than he is Sanctified E. B. Thou hast mistaken my words as laid down by me R. G. These were the very words you expressed and no alteration E. B. I said that Sanctification was an evidence of Justification and that no man could any further know himself to be justified than as he was sanctified R. G. You spake nothing of an Evidence or of a mans knowing his Justification by his Sanctification but confounded both together throughout your Discourse and having first laid it down as your Assertion That no man is Justified further than he is Sanctified you had also not long after these words viz. no man is justified further than he is restored E. B. I say that whosoever is justified is restored from a state of ignorance and death into a state of light and life and sanctified in the whole man that he may live to God P. T. Justification and Sanctification are never separate as to the subject Justified but whom God justifies the same he sanctifies yet are these two distinguished in their nature E. B. I grant that these are never divided but he that is justified is sanctified and he who is sanctified is justified R. G. Though not divided or separate when we speak of the person justified but the same who is justified is also sanctified yet are they distinguished in their proper natures and we may not confound them together but let us know what you own the cause of Justification E. B. The Free-Grace of God R. G. That is the primary efficient but I querie concerning the Meritorious cause or whether we are justified by that righteousness which Christ wrought out for us in his own person or by the work of righteousness which he works in us by his Spirit E. B. Justification is onely by Jesus Christ Upon this an ancient man of the company whose name I knew not desired to hear from E. B. what he beleeved concerning Christ for I have saith he read somewhat in a Book of yours concerning what you believe but that not giving full satisfaction as to what and how far you own Christ the Mediator between God and Man I would willingly be further satisfied at this time from your own mouth and this happily might give some further light concerning what you own in this point E. B. I beleeve that Christ was born of a Virgin and that both in his birth and life he was without sin that he was crucified at Jerusalem and rose again from the dead c. He fully acknowledged the History of Christs life and death but concerning the end of Christs dying he spake little if any thing at all I do not remember that his long confession had any thing of that acknowledgement in it Who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our Justification Rom. 4.25 and yet probable he may own it I believe he doth R. G. This is nothing to the purpose you have not yet granted Christs Righteousness a cause of Justification E. B. I say that we are

the Spirit unto those who were the Penmen of the Scriptures and remaines unto us unto this day a rule in the letter concerning things to be beleeved and practiced by us E. B. I say the Scriptures Declare the Word of God and therefore are not the Word for that which declares and that which is Declared are not one and the same thing but two P. T. You have heard the distinction which is a full answer to this but do you not grant that that heavenly Doctrin which is there Declared is truth E. B. Yea I grant it P. T. And that those holy men of God who writ the Scriptures did both speak and write as they were moved by the holy Spirit E. B. Yea I say so also P. T. And that those things there declared and given forth in writing are things to be beleeved and practiced by us in these our dayes as well as by those in whose generation they were written E. B. I grant all this P. T. Then you say in effect the same and no other then what we do viz. that the Scriptures are the Declarative Word of God and consequently the wide difference as it seems betweene us concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is rather in words and expressions then in matter and substance R. G. What they grant doth not yet satisfie us for they acknowledge the Scriptures onely a Declaration and deny it to be the Word but I say further and will prove it that the Scriptures are the Word of God W. F. The letter of the Scriptures R. G. Yea the Letter W. F. Mark that Collonel speaking to Collonel Bisco who was there present he sayes he will prove the letter to be the Word R. G. I say the Letter by a Figure Before the argument was laid down one of them called Quakers whose name I know not produced that text of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3.6 calling out to the People to hearken to the form of wholesome words who also hath made us able Ministers of the new Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life W. F. The Apostle was a Minister of the word and Gospel of Christ and he sayes not of the Letter but of the Spirit but thou sayest the Letter is the Word of God and wilt undertake to prove it wilt thou then contradict the Apostle and prove him a Minister of the Letter when himself sayes not of the Letter but of the Spirit R. G. You wrest the Apostles words who doth not there speak of or meane the Letter of the Scriptures but the difference between the legall and Gospel Ministration W. F. But thou saidst that thou wouldest prove the Letter of the Scriptures to be the Word of God R. G. I said I would prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God which I am ready to do but ye are so full of words that ye will hear none but your selves nor give me leave to speak W. F. Well we will hear thee R. G. I lay it down in this argument That which Christ and his Apostles owned to be the word of God is indeed and in-truth the Word of God and ought to be so owned by us But Christ and his Apostles owned the Scriptures to be the Word of God Ergo The assumption or minor Proposition R. G. proved by two texts of Scripture the first concerning Christs owning the Scriptures to be the Word of God I doe not well remember but in stead of that take another Mark 7.13 Making the word of God of none authority by your tradition which ye have ordained c. The Lord Christ in the former part of the Chap reproves the hypocrisie of the Pharisees and tels them vers 8. For ye lay aside the Commands of God and observe the traditions of men The 10th verse makes it evident that by the Commands of God which they rejected Christ means the law given from God to the people of Israel by the hand of Moses which was a written Law and the same which he calls the Commands of God ver 8 9. he calls the word of God vers 13. making the word of God of none effect or of none authority by your traditions c. it relates to the Law given by Moses and more particularly to the fifth Commandement Honour thy Father and thy Mother c. which was one of the ten and written by the same hand as the rest were whence clearly appears that Christ owned and called the written Law the Word of God R. G. And that the Apostles owned the Scriptures to be the Word of God will appear by comparing that text 1 Thess 2.13 with some others For this cause also we thank God without ceasing that when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us ye received it not as the Word of man but as it is indeed the Word of God You see in this text that what the Apostle preached and these Thessalonians received was indeed the word of God Now that which the Apostle preached was no other than what had been long before spoken and written by Moses and the Prophets For proof of this ye may consult Act. 26.22 and 28.23 whence appears that what was written by Moses and the Prophets was owned by the Apostle as the Word of God W. F. Thou speakest now of that which is written but didst undertake and saidst thou wouldest prove the Letter of the Scriptures to be the Word of God P. T. He said by a Figure W. F. Thou saidst the Letter R. G. You cannot conceive since I speak of a Figure that my meaning was the meer writing but by Letter and Scripture I meant the thing conteining for the thing conteined the writing for the thing written E. B. Well I will answer thee The Apostle preached the Gospell and this we grant is the word and power of God to salvation unto every one that beleeveth the Gospell is the word and power of God but not the Scriptures and it is the Gospel which the Apostle preached and which the Thessalonians received not as the word of man but as it was indeed the word of God the Gospel is the Word of God the Scriptures are not P. T. There is a twofold coming of the Gospel viz. in word and secondly in power 1 Thes 1.5 and it is the same the very same Gospel of Christ in the hand of both Ministrations the same Gospel of Christ when it comes in word and Letter as when it comes in Spirit and Power Again the Apostle writ the same which he preached he did not preach one thing and write another but the same Gospel and word of truth which he preached the same he writ if that therefore which he preached was not the word of man but indeed the word of God then that which he writ was also not the word of man but truly indeed the word of God Let us here ad another text though not then