Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	deny_v	live_v	ungodliness_n	2,303	5	11.2667	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63382	A true and faithful accompt of the most material passages of a dispute betwixt some students of divinity (so called) of the University of Aberdene, and the people called Quakers held in Aberdene in Scotland, In Alexander Harper his close (or yard) before some hundreds of witnesses, upon the fourteenth day of the second month called April, 1675. There being opponents John Lesly. Alexander Shirreff. Paul Gellie. Mast. of Art. And defendants upon the Quakers part. Robert Barclay and George Keith. Præses for moderating the meeting, chosen by them, Andrew Thomsone advocate: and by the Quakers. Alexander Skein, sometime a magistrate of the City. Published for preventing misreports, by Alexander Skein, John Skein, Alexander Harper, Thomas Merser, and John Cowie. To which is added, Robert Barclay's offer to the preachers of Aberdene, renewed and re-inforced.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Skene, Alexander.	1675 (1675)	Wing T2467BA; ESTC R222395	25,300	72

meet with the greatest and ablest of the Preachers themselves so the Truth leads us not to despise any As R. B. was going on he was interrupted Alex. Shirreff If it were pertinent I could easily disprove much of what is said but to be short R. B. having given Theses provoking all the Scholars of Europe and Great Brittain though R. B. pretends in his Preface to be against School-Divinity yet his Theses are full of it and there are many other contradictions which I will not now take notice of The Preachers and Ministers of the Word not finding themselves concerned we Young-men and but Students have offered to dispute in the Articles the Quakers have been very unreasonable and particularly G. K. did refuse any Article should be put in against railing because he said that might be railing in me which was not in him because he to wit G. K. was immediately led by the Spirit We have concluded that being Young men in case the Quakers should have any advantage it will not be of great consequence and if we have advantage we hope it may be useful because these are the great Prophets and Preachers of the Quakers G. K. I could take notice of many things not true in that Young-mans long discourse as particularly that R. B. hath provoked all Europe but I pass them by because I 'me here exceedingiy abused and therefore desire to be heard for I declare in God's ●●ar and in singleness of my heart I never said any such thing as is by that Young-man alledged upon me as I can appeal to the Auditors who were there present but what I said was this I cannot bind my self not to rail because I 'me bound already that I should not rail by the righteous Law of God in my Conscience and may perhaps speak that as believing it to be true which ye may call railing A. Shir. I being chiefly concerned and having mostly occasioned this Debate am employed by the rest to speak first and therefore I will impugne the second thesis which R. B. read and is as followeth Seeing no Man knoweth the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son revealeth him Mat. 11.27 And seeing the revelation of the Son is in and by the Spirit therefore the Testimony of the Spirit is that alone by which the true knowledge of God hath been is and ca● be only revealed who as by the moving of his own Spirit converted the Chaos of this World into that wonderful order wherein it was in the beginning and Created Man a living Soul to rule and govern it so by the revelation of the same spirit he hath made manifest himself all along unto the Sons of Men both Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles which Revelations of God by the spirit whether by outward voices and appearances Dreams or inward objective manifestations in the heart was of old the formal Object of their Faith and remaineth yet so to be since the Object of the Saints Faith is the same in all Ages though set forth under divers Administrations moreover these Divine inward Revelations which we make absolutely necessary for the building up true Faith neither do nor can ever contradict the outward Testimony of the Scriptures or right and seund reason yet from hence it will not follow that the Divine Revelations are to be subjected to the examination either of the outward testimony of the Scriptures or of the natural reason of Man as to a ●ore noble or certain Rule and Touchstone for this Divine Revelation and inward Illumination is that which is evident and clear of it self forcing by its own evidence and clearness the well disposed understanding to assent irresistably moving the same thereunto even as the common Principles of natural truths move and incline the mind to a natural assent R. B. People this is that which we affirm and which these Young-men are about to dispute against as false notwithstanding that A. Shir. had thus offered himself first to dispute yet I. L. intruding himself put him to silence Beginning as followeth I. L. That which is not to be believed as the Rule of Faith is not to be the Rule of Faith but the Spirit is not to be believed as the Rule of Faith therefore the Spirit is not to be the Rule of Faith R. B. Having repeated the Argument I deny the Minor or second Proposition I. L. I prove it that which hath not a sufficient evidence to evidence it self to be a Rule is not to be a Rule but the Spirit in the Quakers hath not a sufficient evidence whereby to evidence it self to be a Rule therefore the Spirit in the Quakers is not to be our Rule R. B. Having repeated the Argument I distinguish that second Proposition If thou meanest any Spirit in the Quakers which they peculiarly assume to themselves as Quakers or say they have as a part of themselves or of Mans Nature we concede that such have no evidence neither do we say that any such Spirit is to be our Rule but if thou meanest that Universal Spirit of God a manifestation whereof is given to every one to profit withall we affirm it hath a sufficient evidence in us and in all Men. I. L. I urge that distinction If the Spirit hath a sufficient evidence either this evidence is from your own declaration or some other but it is neither from your own declaration nor from some other therefore it hath not a sufficient evidence R. B. It is from both J. L. What is it then R. B. That it teacheth us to deny ungodliness and worldly Lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World this is an evidence to all Men. J. L. I prove that is not a sufficient evidence thus That is not a sufficient evidence which Hereticks may pretend unto as a sufficient ground for their heresie but Hereticks may pretend this as a sufficient ground for their herisie therefore it is not a sufficient evidence R. B. I answer this first by a Retortion this is the same Argument upon the matter which the Jesuit Dempster used against your Master viz. John Menzies for the Jesuite pressing him to assign a ground for the Protestant Religion which Hereticks could not pretend unto J. M. named the Scripture and the Jesuite further urged that Hereticks could and did pretend unto the Scriptures Now what evidence can ye give from the Scriptures which we cannot give yea and greater from the Spirit that Hereticks cannot justly lay claim to Stud. With one voice We will not have Retortions R. B. Praeses read the Articles which contain a particular provision for Retortions as being lawful if not insisted too much on so the fifth Article above-mentioned was read G. K. I offer to answer directly to his Argument without Retortion though I pass not from the Retortion for it stands over your heads which ye will never get over Then I say we have a two-fold evidence which no Heretick can justly

distinction concerning general and particular influences is not sufficient That which may be a ground for a Heretick to forbear Prayer for a whole year is not a sufficient distinction but this may be a ground for a Heretick to forbear Prayer for a whole year Therefore it is not a sufficient distinction G. K. Having repeated the Argument I deny the second Proposition J. L. I prove it for a Heretick may pretend he hath not those particular influences for a whole year G. K. Though an Heretick may pretend yet he has no ground from our Principle to pretend to any such thing because these particular influences cannot be wanting neither for one year nor for any time that the particular duties ought to be gone about and if any did pretend the want of particular influences to pray c. they are to be judged as guilty and deceitful as giving that for an excuse which is not sufficient although all have not the utterance of Prayer so as to pray in words nor can any pray truly in words but by a particular Influence A. Sh. This Influence or Inspiration is either commanding or forbidding so G. K. understood it but because of the great confusion or noise he cannot certainly say and upon this understanding G. K. answered it is not a sufficient enumeration for there is a midst Praeses A. Th. Master Keith ye know we say nondatur medium Students There is no midst betwixt contradictory Propositions G. K. But these Propositions are not contradictory for there is a midst betwixt commanding and forbidding A. Shir. Either he doth command or not command there is no midst here chuse you whether G. K. He doth not command us in all things in which we are inspired for some Inspirations are Mandatory and commanding some Permissory or permitting and some forbidding so betwixt commanding and forbidding the midst is permitting J. L. But a Permission cannot be an Inspiration otherwise ye might say a stone doth inspire you as much as God because a stone doth permit or not hinder you G. K. I deny the Consequence for I offer to shew from Scripture that Paul when he did a thing by permission was inspired as when he said I speak this by permission and not by Commandment Here he was writing Scripture by inspiration in the very time And again where he said I assayed to go to such a place but the Spirit permitted not A. Shir. This was not a permission but a hindering or not a permitting him G. K. But I gather out of these words by the Rules of Contraries that if the Spirit did not permit Paul at sometimes it did permit him at other times and this permission was by Inspiration and I hope it is lawful for me to make this observation or note upon this Scripture seeing your Masters will make half a dozen not so much to the purpose But for the further opening of this matter I distinguish of permission thus There is a negative permission and a positive permission A negative permission is a simple forbearance or not medling in any case and such a negative permission is no sufficient warrant to us to do any thing The positive permission is when God by some inward evidence or signification of his Spirit by words or otherwise maketh us know that he alloweth us to do such a thing although he command it not As for Example if a Scholar should go forth out of the School without getting of his Masters leave this is a negative permission and is not a sufficient ground for the Scholar to go forth but when the Scholar cometh and saith Let me go forth and the Master answereth thou mayest go this is a positive permission and not a command Praeses Andr. Th. Examples are not Demonstrations G. K. But they may be used to illustrate Praeses A. Th. But the Master saith to the Scholar exi go forth which is in the Imperative and that signifieth to command G. K. That is but a Grammaticism for the Imperative Mood doth not always signifie to command but sometimes to command and sometimes to permit which I refer to the judgment of School-Masters who teach the Grammar A. Th. Praeses This is rather like a debate about Grammatications of Imperative Moods than about the matter intended therefore come to the purpose A. Shir. In the prosecution of this Argument against this Thesis alledged on G. K he will not pay his debt because he may pretend he wants an Inspiration to do it G. K. I hope none can blame me for refusing to pay my debt and I pay my debt as well as any of you nor can any be supposed that men can want an inspiration to do any such thing and we refer our selves to the judgment of discretion in all sober persons here present Paul Gelly I have an Argument to propose for Water-baptism R. B. Then let me read the Thesis which was read and is as followeth As there is one Lord and one faith so there is one Baptism Ephes 4.5 which is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience before God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and this Baptism is a holy and spiritual thing to wit the Baptism of the Spirit and fire by which we are buried with him Col. 2.12 that being washed and purged from our sins we may walk in newness of life Rom. 6.4 of which the Baptism of John was a figure which was commanded for a time and not to continue for ever As to the Baptism of Infants is a meer humane Tradition for which neither precept nor practice is to be found in all the Scripture R. B. What hast thou against this Thesis is it not the express words of Scripture P. G. It is true and therein we agree but I oppose your meaning of it R. B. We make no meaning in the Case for the Scripture declareth our meaning G. K. Ye have a large field to Dispute in in the last part of the Thesis if you please where he positively affirms that sprinkling of Infants is a meer humane Tradition Students We will not meddle with that at this time P. G. Either you mean by this Thesis that Water-Baptism is ceased or not ceased R. B. Come on we mean it is ceased P. G. I prove it is not ceased thus If the presence of Christ is to continue with his Church for ever then Water-baptism is to continue for ever But the first is true Therefore the second G. K. People take notice he saith Water-baptism is to continue for ever if so then we must be baptized in Heaven after this life with Water-baptism Stud. He means by for ever to the end of the world R. B. Having repeated the Argument I deny the sequel of the first Proposition P. G. I prove it from Matth. 28. Go teach and baptize all Nations c. Here Christ commanding them to baptize sheweth he will be

with them to the end of the world therefore as long as he was to be with them that Baptism was to continue R. B. I grant the whole but the Question is if that Baptism be by Water which I deny P. G. I prove it was by water If the Apostles baptized with water then they were commanded to baptize with water but the Apostles baptized with water Therefore they were commanded to baptize with water R. B. having repeated the Argument I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition P. G. I prove it thus Either the Apostles did baptize with water by the Command of Christ Matth. 28. or they were ignorant of the meaning of that Command chuse you whether G. K. It is not a sufficient enumeration for they might have known the meaning of the Command and yet baptized with water not from that command but in condescention to the weaknesses of the Jews P. G. If they condescended to baptize with water for the weakness of the Jews though without a Command then ye ought to baptize now with water to condescend to peoples weakness now seeing ye confess that there are who are weak both among us and your selves G. K. That will not follow more than in the Case of Circumcision for the Apostle Paul did Circumcise without a Command in condescention to the Jews yet it followeth not that any now should Circumcise to condescend to the people who should require it Stud. The parity is not alike because Baptism with water was Commanded to the Apostles so not Circumcision for John Baptist was sent to baptize with water R. B. John Baptist was not an Apostle and so not concerned in that Commission Matth. 28. And his Baptism was to decrease that the Baptism of Christ by the Holy Ghost might encrease Al. Shir. It must be water-Baptism because the baptizing of the Holy Ghost is ceased now G. K. People take notice he saith the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased now A. Shir. It is ceased to be given by men for do ye give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands G. K. The Holy Ghost may be given without the laying on of hands and holy men now are Instruments in conveighing the gifts of the Holy Ghost to others R. B. Did not Paul say Rom. 1.11 that he longed to see them to communicate some spiritual Gift And besides as to the matter of condescendence abstaining from blood and things strangled though particularly commanded by the Apostles yet is not now to be practised by any condescention as your selves confess G. K. Hear what Augustine saith in the Case of Circumcision observing of meals drinks washing sacrifices c. They are to be considered in a threefold respect viz. First as living under the Law Secondly as dead after the death of Christ Thirdly as deadly as being once buried and being once buried they are not to be again raised up out of their Grave out of Condescention to any so I say the same as of Water Baptism it being once dead and buried is not again to be raised up now after the Apostacy P. G. I prove that Water-Baptism was thought needful even to those that were Baptized with the Holy Ghost Can any man forbid Water c. as Paul said Acts 10. G. K. Say Peter not Paul P. G. Peter I say not Paul R. B. That proves not all that it was done by necessity but to condescend to their weakness About this time the praeses And. Th. going forth said it was now five a clock the time appointed for the continuance of the dispute and so went away nor was there any argument farther urged G. K. Praeses AL. Skeine I see there is like to be no more here but confusion seeing the other praeses is gone I shall only propose this just and reasonable desire to these Students that since we have given them a fair opportunity to impugn and oppose our principles they also will promise us another day to impugn and oppose theirs Stud. When we set out Theses then ye shall have one opportunity to impugn them G. K. Your Theses are set out already for your confession of Faith is your Theses which I offer to impugn Stud. Our Faith is established by the Law of God and of the Nation and therefore ought not to be called in question R. B. That it is established by the Law of God is the thing under debate and as for the Law of the Nation so is the Popish Faith in Italy and Spain and Mahometanisme in the Turks dominions will it therefore follow that Popery and Mahometanisme are not to be called in question or oppugned Stud. We will come to your meetings and debate further with you R. B. Our Meetings are not for debate but to wait upon God and Worship Him but if ye please to meet us here again to morrow we are satisfied Stud. We will not R. B. It seems ye need a longer time to prepare you for your present strength is all exhausted Stud. We will come to your Meeting and wait till it be done and then oppose you R. B. I have told you before that is not proper but on this condition I will admit it that when I see meet I may have the like opportunity to come to your meetings and when your Preachers have done that I be allowed to oppose and impugne your principles Stud. No no. The confusion and tumult encreasing thorough the removing of the Praeses A.Th. and divers of the soberest people and the Students vainly boasting of their victory laughing clamouring and making a noise and telling they would cause publish in Print their imaginary Victory occasioned such lightness and rudeness in a rabble of the grossest sort that were without the bar that laying hold on a heap of Turffs they threw many of them against us without offering the least violence to our opposers on the other side so that having beat divers with hard Turfes Peates and also with stones R. B. with divers other friends received several knocks in his head and was wounded in his hand with a stone while as the Students the Masters of Art and their Companions who had been disputing in matters of Religion instead of interposing themselves to prevent stood divers of them laughing hollowing and clamouring thereat and so the meeting broke up G. K. said to others more sober that were present these are your Church-members This true and impartial account which was offered to be read to their Praeses And. Thomson but he declined it alledging the matters treated of were so Extrinsick from his employment and these things that took up his head and he so apt to forget such things that though the matter might be true he could not attest it neither for us nor our opposers it was also read in writing to some judicious and unprejudicate persons that were present and are not of our way and acknowledged by them to be according to their best memory a full and ingenious