1. IT is hereby declared that this is to be a private conference be­twixt the Students of Divinity (so called) of the Colledges of Aberdene, and the People called Quakers, as a fulfilling of any Chal­lenge wherein these Students may be included, within the Theses set forth by Robert Barclay (or may have received from any of that People) but abstract from the Publick Challenge given to the Preachers in general in the end of the English Theses; because it is of­fered with particular condition of having the Publick places to dispute in, before the Auditories, before whom they conceive they have been misre­presented.

2. It is provided that when any of either Party is speaking, if any of their company offer to speak, he that is speaking is to be silent; but if two of a Party speak at once, he that is seen to obtrude himself, shall be judged im­pertinent, [Page 6] and excluded thereby from farther access.

3. That each speaker on any of the sides have full liberty, and time to speak, without interruption of the con­trary Party; and that he that inter­rupts shall be debarred from farther speaking.

4. That each side abstain from School-terms and distinctions (as much as possible) but if any use them, that they may be opened to the People in plain English, so that any of ordina­ry capacity (that are not educated in Colledges) may understand them.

5. As for Retortions they must not be impertinent, and from the purpose; and none shall be so insisted on as to di­vert us from the point, or turn the Op­ponent into the Respondent.

6. The day appointed for the Confer­rence, is the fourteenth of April, in the Year, one thousand six hundred seventy five, (being the day called Wednesday) the place is to be at Alexander Har­pers House or Close (in case the Gray-Fryers Church (so called) cannot be obtained) and that the Conferrence [Page 7] is to continue from two to five a Clock in the After-noon.

7. Both Parties shall endeavour to procure a Praeses to moderate, but not to have any decisive judgement; yet if such a one cannot be procured, the Conference is not to be broken up.

8. And it is hereby declared that both Parties intend this for mutual edification; and therefore intend to abstain from any thing that may ob­struct so good an Event.

9. It is likewise agreed, that none shall have liberty to speak, but those that have, or shall Subscribe before the Dispute begin, these aforesaid Articles.

Here Alex. Skein one of our Friends chosen Praeses for Us (because we could not at that time procure ano­ther) standing up with the other Prae­ses. Studient, It was condescended that no Quaker should be a Praeses. Quaker, We are wronged; for we never condescended to any such thing: and seeing ye have chosen one of your way, how can we be hindered to choose one of ours.

Thomsone their Praeses, There [Page 8] needs no debate in this matter; for we are chosen not to have any decisive judgement, but only for the Moral part, to take notice if the Rules be observed; or whether ye keep to the purpose. Then John Leslie had a long and tedious discourse, concerning what was fit to be done, and how we ought to dispute.

Praeses. I suppose we came not to this place to hear from this Young man a long Logique discourse.

I desire to be heard, we being a People so generally misrepresented, as heretical and erroneous, did con­ceive our selves obliged to give a true and faithful account of our Principles; which I did in a certain Paper now un­der debate, and that our innocency therein might appear, there was a Challenge added to the end of it, of­fering to defend these our Principles, if we might be allowed so to do in these Publick places where we have been so much misrepresented, and against those Persons who had there so often traduced us: To which having recei­ved no Answer, some of the Studients [Page 9] of Divinity come to us; and signified that they looked upon themselves as concerned; because mention is made of such in the beginning of that Paper. To whom we answered, that they were not the Persons challenged by Us; as not being the Publick Preachers that had misrepresented Us: But seeing they were desirous to debate the mat­ter, we were not unwilling to render to any, a reason of the hope that is in us; and therefore should not decline it. And forasmuch as some did object, that we were at a loss, as engaging with them; because there would be little advantage in case we had any victory and a greater reflection, should we appear to be at any loss. To such we had, and have this to say; that as we are not afraid to 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.

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 [Page 10] 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.

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 [Page 11] 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 it may here be ob­served, that afterwards J. L. speaking re­flectingly a­gainst the Quakers, said, it was no railing to speak the truth; which was all we pleaded for. and may perhaps speak that, as believ­ing it to be true, which ye may call railing.

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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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.

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.

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.

Having repeated the Argu­ment I deny the Minor or second Pro­position.

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.

(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 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 [Page 15] sufficient evidence.

It is from both.

What is it then?

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.

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.

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 [Page 16] Scriptures, which we cannot give? yea, and greater from the Spirit, that Hereticks cannot justly lay claim to.

With one voice, We will not have Retortions.

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.

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 lay claim to. The one is the inward evidence of the Spi­rit of God, by its own immediate Te­stimony in our hearts. The other is the Testimony of the Scriptures, which I affirm in the Name of the People called Quakers, is the best external and out­ward evidence, and rule that can be given: And my reason why we have the Testimony of the Scriptures, as an evidence that we have the Inspiration of the Spirit, is this. All Men have a [Page 17] measure of the Inspiration of the Spirit of God according to the Scriptures testi­mony, That Christ the true Light inligh­teneth every man that cometh into the world; and that a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal: But this universal Illuminati­on or minifestation is inspired; and if all men be in measure inspired, then consequently we who are men are in­spired.

I prove yee have not the testi­mony of the Scriptures for a sufficient evidence. That which is fallacious is not a sufficient evidence. But the Scrip­tures testimony according to the Qua­kers, without the indwelling of the Spi­rit is fallacious: Therefore the Scrip­tures testimony is not a sufficient evi­dence.

(Having repeated the Argu­ment) I deny the second Proposition.

The Argument is wrong in its Structure, and vitious as consisting of four Terms, which no right Syllogism should have.

It is not informal, for it hath not four Terms.

It hath four Terms, and this I offer to prove before either your Ma­sters, or any other judicious Logicians in any University of this Nation. I say it hath four Terms, because it subsumes that in the second Proposition which was not in the first Proposition.

At this the Students fell a laughing, and so provoked the people to lightness.

I appeal to all Logicians, if when any thing is subsu­med in a Syl­logism, which is neither in the first Pro­position nor in the Conclu­sion, whether that Syllogism hath not four Terms. I am sorry to see those who profess to study▪ Divinity behave themselves so lightly, and so far from seriousness in such weighty matters as concern the Truths of God.

I am ready still to prove that the Syllogism hath four Terms: but this being not so proper here for this Audi­tory, proceed ye to prove the second Proposition, which R. B. hath deni­ed.

I prove the second Proposition, [Page 19] That which may beguile a man is falla­cious: But according to the Quakers, the Scriptures may beguile a man, with­out the indwelling of the Spirit: There fore according to the Quakers, the Scrip­tures are fallacious.

This Argument is also wrong in the Structure, having four Terms.

But waving that I deny thy second Proposition: For the Scripture cannot beguile any man, although men may or have beguiled themselves by a wrong use of it.

Take notice, People, The Quakers say, the Scriptures cannot be­guile you.

Speak lowder yet; for we do and have constantly affirmed it. And we hope it will help to clear us of those misrepresentations, as if we despised or spake evil of the Scriptures.

I would my words could reach from the one end of the world to the other, when I say the Scriptures cannot beguile any man, for the Scrip­ture is innocent, and a true testimony in it self; but men do beguile them­selves oft by making perverse Glosses [Page 20] upon the Scriptures; the Scripture can­not be fallacious, because according to you, it is your principal rule of Faith; & if we can prove from your own prin­cipal Rule that we are inspired, then the Scriptures testimony is not fallacious; else your Principal Rule would be fal­lacious.

But that is not according to vour Principle.

But it is an Argument ad ho­minem, which ye know is lawful; and besides, though we do not acknowledge them to be the principal Rule of our Faith; yet we affirm, that they are a a true testimony, and the best outward testimony and Rule in the world. And besides, there is a manifestation of the Spirit in many, where there is not an in-dwelling of the Spirit, and by this manifestation of the Spirit, all men may understand the Scriptures as they do improve it.

We will go to another Argu­ment.

People take notice, this Ar­gument is left upon this Point, that ac­cording to the Quakers Principle these [Page 21] young men say, the Scriptures may be­guil People, which we utterly deny as proved, or that can be proved.

I argue against the la­ter part of the second Thesis, where ye affirm, That inward, immediate Re­velations are necessary to the building up of true faith. We confess that sub­jective Revelation is necessary, but we deny that objective Revelation is necessary, which ye affirm.

Explain what ye mean by subjective and objective Revelation, that the people may understand accor­ding to the Articles.

I explain it from this Scrip­ture, Luke 24.17. And beginning at Mo­ses and all the Prophets, he expounded un­to them in all the Scriptures the things con­cerning himself. Here is the objective Revelation to wit the Scriptures, so that they needed not any new objective Revelation, but only that which was before; but needed a subjective Reve­lation, or Divine Illumination to make them understand the objective Revela­tion, to wit, the Scriptures.

That is not a sufficient expla­nation [Page 22] of objective and subjective Re­velation; therefore I desire to be heard, that I may open it more sufficiently, ac­cording as is provided in the Articles of Agreement.

Objective Revelation, or the object of our faith is twofold, to wit, first, the material object; secondly the formal object.

Do the people understand this.

I shall explain it to them, for it is necessary to the matter in hand. The material object is that which is to be believed; the formal object is that for which principally we are to believe, or the principal motive of credibility. Now to apply, I say, the Scriptures are the material object, or a part of the ma [...]erial object of our faith; but not the formal object of our faith.

I prosecute my Argument against such objective Revelations as being necessary to faith.

We confess the Scriptures are sufficient to move us to an Historical faith, and that to a more excellent de­gree of Historical faith, than any other Histories in the world; because it hath [Page 23] more excellent outward motives of cre­dibility, as the consent of all ages since they were written, and of all Christi­ans, however differing among them­selves, &c. but they are not sufficient to beget in us a saving faith, without inward objective Revelation.

I prove such inward ob­jective Revelations are not necessary to beget saving faith, by this Argument: If there be no such Seed in man as the Quakers maintain, then there are no such Revelations as the Quakers main­tain; But there is no such Seed in men as the Quakers maintain: Therefore there are no such Revelations, &c.

(After he had repeated the Ar­gument) I deny that second Propositi­on.

I prove it. If there be no such Seed in men, as a substantial, li­ving Principle, distinct from the Soul, that can be heard, seen, savoured, ta­sted, aad felt, then there is no such Seed in men as the Quakers maintain: But the first is true, therefore the last. And then the said Alexander Shirreffe read a passage at length out of G. K. his Book [Page 24] of immediate Revelation, page 6, 7. that the Seed was such a living, substantial Principle, and that in the Seed these Re­velations were only received.

This is a digression from the matter, and a passing from the Theses, which should have been the subject of this days debate, to G. K. his Book of immediate Revelation.

I must now appear to defend my Book, and Apologize to R. B. be­cause I am necessitated to put my hand in anothers harvest; Therefore I di­stinguish upon the word such in the first Proposition. If by such, thou meanest a substantial Principle, &c. I say, that is altogether extrinsick to the subject of the debate; and besides it will engage us into the greatest nicities and obscuri­ties of Philosophy and School divinity, that is not proper for this Auditory. But if by such thou meanest, An Uni­versal Principle of Gods saving Grace in men, whereby they are capacitated both to know and do the will of God; I affirm and am ready to maintain there is such a Principle in all men.

But I prove that that Seed [Page 25] in men is not of a substance, or substan­tial Principle.

I am ready to defend, that it is a substantial Principle. But that be­longing to the second Proposition, we ought not to come to it before the di­stinction of the first Proposition be discussed. Here the Students made a great noise. And G. K. appealed to the Praeses And. Thomson, who answered dis­creetly, that G. K. did not refuse to defend that the Seed of God was a sub­stantial Principle; but this was not its proper place, until the distinction of the former Proposition be discussed.

I shall wave the word sub­stantial, &c. and I offer to prove, that there is not a Seed of God in men, as the Quakers affirm, if there be such a Seed, it is either created, or uncreated: But it is neither created, nor uncreated, chuse you whether.

After he repeated the Argu­ment: I distinguish the word Seed, as being either a Concrete Term, or an Abstract Term.

Doth the people understand this Distinction?

I hope ye understand it, and I shall explain it to them, who under­stand it not. A Concrete Term com­prehendeth two things; the one in recto (as they say) the other in obliquo, that is to say, the one hath the other belong­ing to it, as merciful is a Concrete Term, which is as much as to say, one that hath mercifulness in him, and so mercifulness is the Abstract, which sig­nifieth that one thing belonging to the Concrete. Now to apply: If we un­derstand Seed as the Concrete, it is both uncreated and created; for it is God himself discovering himself to the Crea­tures capacity, in his work of manife­station, which work is created; but he who doth manifest himself in that ma­nifestation is uncreated. And because he manifests himself at first in a low and small degree unto the Soul; there­fore he in that manifestation is compar'd unto a Seed; even as Clemens Alexan­drinus saith, that Christ compared him­self to a grain of Mustard-seed in his inward appearance in mens hearts.

The Seed is not a substan­tial Principle, because it is the manifesta­tion [Page 27] of God; but the manifestation of God is not a substantial Principle, but accidental.

That may be substantial or a substance, which in another respect is accidental, as Gold is a substance, so Silver, Houses, Lands are substances; but they are accidental to me, because I may want them.

He saith, his Seed is a sub­stance or substantial Principle.

This is an abuse, I speak not of my Seed, or the Seed of man, but of the Seed of God in men.

I prove that manifestation is not a substance.

That brings us again into a Phi­losophical debate which is here to be a­voided.

I prove that manifestation is not created. Whatsoever is of God, is God: But this manifestation is of God, Therefore it is God.

Take notice of this young mans blasphemy; for if whatsoever is of God be God, then all the Creatures are God, as stones, Horses, &c. for the Scripture sayes, of him, and through [Page 28] him, and to him are all things. Here the Students made a noise, and fell a laughing to cover this: some of them speaking irreverently of God.

I beseech you, yea, I charge you all in Gods fear, that when you speak of that Holy and Dreadful Be­ing, ye do it with fear and reverence.

Ye say then, this Seed is God in a manifestation: I prove it is not. That is not God which can be measured in measures, and can grow from a lesser measure to a greater, can be formed and grow up in men. But God cannot be measured in measures, nor grow, &c. Therefore this Seed is not God in a manifestation.

After he had repeated the Ar­gument, I answer, God as in himself, or as in his own Being cannot be mea­sured or grow up, it is true. But as in respect of his▪ manifestatione quoad nos (or as to us) that is to say, as he comes forth as to us, discovering himself, he or his Spirit may be said to have measures. And this I shew from Scripture: As where it is said in John concerning Christ, God gave not the Spirit by [Page 29] measure unto him; implying he gave it forth in measures unto others; and where Elisha said unto Elijah, Let a dou­ble portion of thy Spirit in upon me.

He saith God cometh forth in­to the Creatures: I prove he cannot come forth into the Creatures, because he is in himself.

He doth come forth into the Creatures, and yet is still in himself; for he is not limited as Creatures are, who go from one place to another; but he is in all Creatures, and in himself al­so; but this young man, as I perceived by him the other day, is a nullibist in his Opinion, as they term them; so that according to his Principle, the Soul of John Lesly is as much in France, even now as in his body, or in this place, that is to say, neither here nor there; but herein I speak according to Scripture-words, which saith, God boweth the Heavens and cometh down; yet not that he leaveth his own Being; but it is spoken after the manner of men, who is every where in all his Creatures; but manifesteth himself in several measures unto them.

There is nothing in the Seed but God; therefore God in his own Being is measured forth according to the Quakers Doctrine; for the Seed [...] nothing but God and his Manifesta­tion.

The Manifestation is in it self and not out of it self. Can Al. Shir. be out of himself; or can any thing be out of it self?

If some of them be not with­out themselves, it is like they are be­side themselves.

In a moral way of speaking, when a man is as a Mad-man, or be­side his purpose, he is beside himself. Upon this the Students fell to debate a­mong themselves, whether they should prosecute the Argument or not; some being for it, and some against it, and those who were for it boasting of their advantage.

I see no strength in your rea­soning to glory in, it hath not the strength of a cobweb; but if you think it hath, produce it, and if any more water remain in your Bottle, bring it out.

Yea, we have water e­nough yet in our Bottle to quench your Spirit.

Come on with it then.

We will go from this to the eleventh Thesis, which R. B. read out, and is as followeth.

All true and acceptable worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving and drwaing of his own spirit, which is neither limited to places, times, or persons; for, though we be to worship him always, in that we are to fear before him; yet as to the outward signification thereof in Prayer, Praises or Preachings, we ought not to do it where and when we will▪ but where, and when we are moved thereunto by the secret Inspirations of his Spirit in our hearts, which God heareth & accepteth of, and is never wanting to move us there­unto, when need is, of which he himself is the alone proper Judge. All other worship then, both Praises, Prayers, and Preach­ings which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment, which he can both begin and end at his pleasure, do or leave undone as himself sees meet, whe­ther they be a prescribed Form, as a Lytur­gy, [Page 32] or Prayers conceived ex tempore, by the natural strength and faculty of the mind▪ they are all but Superstition, will-worship, and abominable Idolatry in the sight of God, which are to be denied re­jected, and separated from in this day of his spiritual arising. However it might have pleased him who winked at the times of ignorance, with a respect to the simpli­city and integrity of some, and his own innocent Seed, which lay as it were buri­ed in the hearts of men, under that mass of superstition to blow upon the dead and dry bones, and to raise some breathings, and answer them, and that until the day should more clearly dawn and break forth.

By this Thesis ye affirm, that no man ought to go about any duty without a particular impulse of the Spi­rit.

Impulse is not a word used by me, but an obscure word; therefore say, Inspiration, or Influence.

Either this Inspiration ye have it in all things, or in some things, chuse you whether.

We have it in these things re­lating [Page 33] to our duties of worship towards God.

This contradicts G. K. who in his Book of immediate Revelation, saith, That in all things whatsomever, we ought to have an inspiration of the Spirit for the doing of the same; other­wise we cannot do in faith.

This is another digression and going from the purpose; for the Que­stion is not how far I contradict ano­ther, but what in Reason ye can say against what I have here affirmed: for when I shew you before how ye con­tradicted your Master, viz. John Men­zies in another matter, ye would not admit it as relevant, though the Case be alike, alledging it was a Retortion, ye undertook to dispute against the Theses; but it seems you find not room enough there, but ye must ran to G. K. his Book for further matter.

I see it is more against G. K. than R. B. his Theses that you set your selves. And therefore G. K. must defend G. K. But I say, in this there is no contradiction between R. B. and me, for there is a two-fold sort of [Page 34] Inspirations or in­fluences, N [...]te, divers of the Au­ditors were displeased with their going from the Theses. the one General, the other Special. The Ge­neral Influences are given in general, or common for the doing of all common or ordinary Actions, and by the special influences of the Spirit we are enabled to go a­bout those special duties, as of Pray­er, Thanksgiving, &c. Now of these special inspirations or influences R. B. in his Theses is to be understood; and thus there is no contradiction betwixt him and me.

To which I have this to add, there is a difference betwixt the influ­ences of the Spirit, as we are particu­larly acted by them in singular and par­ticular Acts of Worship, and as we are generally influenced by the Spirit, in so far as we come habitually to live and walk in the Spirit, for in that respect we may be said to do every thing in the Spirit, as we grow up into that state, though there be more particular influ­ences requisit in matters of wor­ship.

I say further, particular Influ­ences or inspirations of the Spirit are of several sorts, which are analogous or proportional to the several▪ sorts of du­ties, as Preaching, and Praying are se­veral sorts of duties. Now the parti­cular influence to Pray, is not to Preach, and so on the contrary. Also the influ­ences which serve to duties only in­ward, as to wait, fear, and love God, do not serve without a superadded in­fluence to the performance of outward duties. Therefore every influence is to respect the duty that it is given un­to.

I prove that such particu­lar influences are not needful to acts of worship; thus: If such particu­lar influences of the Spirit were need­ful unto outward acts of Worship, then they were also needful unto inward du­ties, as to waiting, desiring, loving, and feeling God: but the last is absurd, therefore the first.

Having repeated the Argu­ment, I deny that the last is absurd.

Come on with that Argument: I confess, it hath some Acumen or [Page 36] sharpness in it; but ex tua pharetra nun­quam venit illa sagitta, this Arrow hath not come out of thy Quiver, but out of thy Masters, who hath formerly used this Argument against us.

I prove the last is ab­surd: If the inspirations of the Spirit be necessary to inward duties, as to wait, desire, &c. then we must not wait with­out them; but this is absurd, therefore is the other.

Having repeated the Argu­ment; I deny that this is absurd; for we cannot suppose, that ever at any time an influence or inspiration can be wanting to wait upon God, to desire, and fear, and love him; and the parti­cular influences to particular duties, such as Praying, Preaching, Thanksgiving is not wanting, whenever the season com­eth to go about them.

If ye have these particular influences, why do ye not make use of them? Why do ye not say the Grace?

It will not follow that we do not pray, nor make use of those particu­lar influences, because at sometimes we [Page 37] do not take off our Hats, or speak words, which are not essential to true Prayer.

I prove that that 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.

Having repeated the Argu­ment; I deny the second Proposition.

I prove it, for a Heretick may pretend he hath not those particular in­fluences for a whole year.

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 [Page 38] 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.

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.

Th. Master Keith, ye know we say, nondatur medium.

There is no midst betwixt contradictory Propositions.

But these Propositions are not contradictory; for there is a midst be­twixt commanding and forbidding.

Either he doth command or not command; there is no midst here, chuse you whether.

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.

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.

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. See 1 Cor. 7.6. & compared with 40. verse. See Acts 16.7. And again, where he said, I assayed to go to such a place, but the Spirit permitted not.

This was not a permission, but a hindering, or not a permitting him.

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 [Page 40] 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.

Examples are not Demonstrations.

But they may be used to illu­strate.

But the Master saith to the Scholar, exi, go forth, which is in the Imperative, and that signifieth to com­mand.

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.

This is rather like a debate about Grammaticati­ons of Imperative Moods, As in the third person in the Im­perative, exeat, Let him go, is permissive. than about the matter intended, there­fore come to the purpose.

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.

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 [Page 42] refer our selves to the judgment of dis­cretion in all sober persons here present.

I have an Argument to propose for Water-baptism.

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.

What hast thou against this Thesis, is it not the express words of Scripture?

It is true, and therein we agree, but I oppose your meaning of it.

Note, that while this young man was prosecuting his Argument, J. L. did insolent­ly intrude himself and interrupted him, and they spoke of them three at some­times.We make no meaning in the Case, for the Scripture de­clareth our meaning.

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.

We will not meddle with that at this time.

Either you mean by this The­sis, that Water-Baptism is ceased or not ceased.

Come on, we mean it is cea­sed.

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.

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.

He means by for ever, to the end of the world.

Having repeated the Argu­ment, I deny the sequel of the first Pro­position.

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.

I grant the whole: but the Question is, if that Baptism be by Wa­ter, which I deny.

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.

(having repeated the Argu­ment) I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

John Baptist was not an Apo­stle, [Page 46] 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.

It must be water-Baptism, because the baptizing of the Holy Ghost is ceased now.

People, take notice, he saith the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased now.

It is ceased to be given by men, for do ye give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Say Peter not Paul.

Peter I say not Paul.

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 [Page 48] was there any argument farther urged.

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.

When we set out Theses then ye shall have one opportunity to im­pugn them.

Your Theses are set out already, for your confession of Faith is your Theses, which I offer to impugn.

Our Faith is established by the Law of God and of the Nation, and therefore ought not to be called in que­stion,

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.

We will come to your meet­ings and debate further with you.

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.

We will not.

It seems ye need a longer time to prepare you, for your present strength is all exhausted.

We will come to your Meet­ing, and wait till it be done, and then oppose you.

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.

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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 account, as may be further proved in case it be called in que­stion) will we hope serve to appease these empty clamours which the Stu­dents vain ostentation, and the igno­rance and prejudice of others might have raised, some of whom did so little or at least will needs appear so little to understand the matter, as to affirm the Quakers were all routed, for they could prove nothing, whereas we were by mu­tual agreement to be meer Defendents, & not to be admitted at all to prove, but only to answer, and whether we answer­ed not all was urged, will by this ac­count appear, where none of the ar­guments are omitted, nor any whit of the strength of them concealed; as for what was or may be accounted reflecti­ons, we have not put them in the body of the dispute, because we remember not [Page 68] particularly at what time they were spo­ken. But that we may not seem design­edly to conceal any as tending to our disadvantage, so far as we remember they were as followeth. That G.K. said to I. L. he spoke more with his fingers than his tongue, after, what need he make such a work with his finger, and affect a canting tone like his Master I. M. that his head was too full of Mer­cury, and his heart in his tongue, where­as a wise mans tongue is in his heart. Now whether I. L.'s. extravagant be­haviour did not deserve such checks while he oftentimes would be speaking when his companions were, and put them by with both his elbows, that he alone might be heard, to which add his forwardness in his blasphemous asserti­on above observed, let the discreet and judicious hearers judge. A. Shir. said he would overturn Quakerisme and he hoped in so doing to have his end. I. L. that he might not miss to hit as he thought. G. K. said it seemed, he was an Aberdeens man and would take his word again, which was noted by G. K. as being a reflection upon the City [Page 53] where I. L. himself was born, which G. K. was not, also A. Shir▪ laughing and raising lightness called upon G. K. speaking some words if there was a No­tar that he might take Instrument.

To which R. B. answered, that he de­sired the Notar might take Instrument, how Divinity Students and Masters of Arts that were preparing themselves for the Ministry were so light and unserious in Religious matters, &c. But however if they have gotten such a Victory as they boast of, how is that consistent with what we are informed of, and is noised up and down in the City, that Jo. Menzies their Master went within a day or two to desire the Bishop to com­plain to the Primate and Kings Council, and procure us to be punished for hol­ding the Dispute; &an Order that none such further be admitted; and indeed if the Scholars have proved so good Dis­putants, we think the Masters cannot in reason refuse this following offer.