Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	particular_a	universal_a	3,369	5	9.3348	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47151	The heresie and hatred which was falsly charged upon the innocent justly returned upon the guilty giving some brief and impartial account of the most material passages of a late dispute in writing that hath passed at Philadelphia betwixt John Delavall and George Keith : with some intermixt remarks and observations on the whole.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Delavall, John, d. 1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing K174; ESTC R14236	18,275	24

consent of his Brethren And on a First Day some time after I pressing J. D. to perform his Promise Thomas Lloyd said He would not permit a publick Dispute lest it should occasion a Tumult But let the impartial Reader judge whether this was not a meer Evasion seeing they so constantly on a first day made Interruptions and Oppositions to me and my Testimony which caused greater Confusion than ever was like to happen at a Dispute Therefore seeing that they declined a Dispute to prove their Charge I writ a few lines to J. Delavall That whereas he had charged me to be guilty of Heresie and Hatred desired him to make good his Charge against me In answer to which he writes a Letter dated the 16 of 10 Month 1692. in which he doth acknowledge but very mineingly that he had charged me with Heresie and Hatred and doth positively say This being a Difference in a Fundamental Doctrine withal promising to send in writing what he had to say on the first head viz. That the Light within as not sufficient without something else which he calls Heresie And in another Letter of his bearing date the 3d of 11 Month referring to his Paper he sent me the 24th of 10 Month he saith Wherein I have fully proved thee to differ in a Fundamental Doctrine from thy former and other Friends Writings And further to prove me guilty of Heresie in the said Letter he giveth his sence of the word Heresie as intended by him when mentioned in the publick Meeting It is the same saith he as the Fathers so called defined it Heresie is a mis-belief of some points of Faith contrary to the Doctrine universally received in the Church To this his Definition of Heresie out of the Fathers so called as he alledged I replyed to him in a Letter bearing date the 2d of 12th Month That his Definition of Heresie seemeth rather to be taken out of some Popish Writer than any approved antient Fathers so called further adding That the best way to know what Heresie is is to examine it by the Spirit of Truth within and the Testimony of the Scripture without and to lay most weight on these two But what hath been the universal Testimony of the Church in all Ages or what it is at present is far more hard and difficult in many things to determine and too tedious to enquire into But however I doubt not but I have more the Consent of the Universal Church for me than against me in this particular And in his said Paper bearing date 24 of 10 Mo. 92. wherein he alledgeth That he hath fully proved me to differ in a Fundamental Doctrine from my former and other Friends Writings he spendeth most of his Paper containing about a Sheet and a half in Writing citing particular Testimonies out of mine and other Friends printed Books and Particularly my Book of Universal Grace pag. 7 3 4 18 56 83 94. and G. ● 's Book called The Mystery of the great Whore Epist to the Reader by E. B. p. 19 20 21. and W. Penn in his part of the Christian Quaker p. 36 85 86. and G. Whitehead in his part of the Cor. Quaker pag. 13 31. and Rob. Barclay in his English Apology printed 1678 pag. 101 112 115 p. 96 97. To this I replyed in two Sheets of Writing in a very Friendly way in complyance with J. D's expectation having said in his Paper That he expected my Friendly Reply wherein I tell him that I have diligently read over again and again all these Testimonies collected by him out of mine and other Friends Books and have diligently weighbd and considered them and find not the least inconsistency with them and my late or present Doctrine either in print or by word of mouth nor with the Assertions he draweth from them rightly understood As 1st That this Light wherewithal every man is enlightened with is Christ Jesus 2dly That it is the very Grace of the Gospel and Object of the Faith thereof viz. chiefly as with respect to the second Ministration thereof the which lyeth hid within the first 3dly That by Belief in the Light and Obedience thereunto Salvation is obtained And I further said As I can freely appeal to such of them as are alive in the Body whether their sense of their words bear J. D's Construction so I can sincerely say it is a gross mistake of his the Construction he puts upon my words cited by him out of my said Book of Universal Grace And for a Proof that John Delavall had put a wrong Construction upon my words as if my present Assertion viz. That the Light within is not sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus and his Death and Sufferings and Mediation c. which is that something else as J. D. hath confessed is understood by me did contradict the Doctrine in that Book I did refer for my Vindication to my said Book of Univers Grace 1st part stating the Controversie N. 3 4 6. and ans 10 25 Obj. To which J. D. hath not given any Reply And because the said places to which I have referred for my Vindication are so plain and evident I earnestly recommend them to the Reader to weigh and consider at their full length and only shall give a hint of things therein contained at present for brevity's sake In the 3d perticular of the first part I treat largely of the Two inward Ministrations of the Light within viz Law and Gospel and that both in Jews and Gentiles universally and how the Gospel lay hid within the Law as within a Vail even as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was within the outward Court But this Distinction given by me of the Two inward Ministrations of the Light as laid down in my said Book that hath been in print about 22 Years past J. D. accuseth as a Novelty as also my other Distinction of Salvation begun and perfected according to the first and succeeding measures of more Light and Grace further to be given sufficiently hinted at N. 6. 1 part of said Book And in the answer to Obje 25. of said Book I am so far from asserting the sufficiency of the Light within so as to exclude the Man Christ and the benefit of his outward Coming Obedience Death and Sufferings from having a part in our Salvation together with the Light within that I do expresly joyn them together plainly affirming That they are both sufficient and useful and necessary in their own kind and way consummating and being consummated in one another It can hardly be construed to be inadvertency in J. D. but rather a winfull deliberate Omission in him thus to pass by what made so clearly to vidicate me in my said Book that so he might seem to have some Colour to pervert my words to a contrary sence from what was ever intended by me And whereas J. D. hath said in his Paper That he doth friendly intreat me not to

me a second Paper by way of Reply containing many bitter Expressions unfriendly Reflections and false Accusations too tedious here to relate but which will sufficiently appear if the Paper happen to be printed most grosly mis-applying that place of Scripture to me Ezek. 18. 24. as if I were turned a wicked man And why Because of my zealously opposing his and their Anti-christian Doctrine and detecting their Hypocrisie Ignorance and Errors even as Friends in England were called wicked men for their opposing and detecting the Ignorance Errors and Hypocrisie of their Opposers To my former Reply that I said The Light viz. within is not the Only Object of Faith J. D. doth answer in his second Paper That little less is affirmed by me pag. 6. where I blame our Adversaries that they do not hold it viz. the divine Illumination of Christ within to be the immediate Object of the Christian Faith To this I answered in my 2d Paper That to say the Light within is the immediate Object of the Christian Faith is not to say it is the Only Object of the Christian Faith excluding the Man Christ Jesus and his Death and Sufferings Resurrection Ascention and Mediation for us in Heaven which are owned generally by Friends yea and by J. D. though in Contradiction to himself to be also the Objects of our Christian Faith seeing he expresly granteth That he and his Brethren do believe in the Man Christ Jesus and citeth R. Barclay saying It is damnable Unbelief not to believe these things where declared ☞ Note R. B. in his printed Letter to H. Paets a Dutch-man doth distinguish betwixt the material and formal Object of Faith granting that Christs Death and Sufferings Resurrection Ascention and Intercession c. with other parts of Christs Doctrine are the material Object of Faith but affirming that the divine Revelation of the Light within is the formal Object thereof And therefore if J. D. were not blinded with Prejudice he would see there is not the least Inconsistency here And tho' the word Object is not a Scripture word yet it is used not only by R. Barclay but by J. Burnet see his Collection printed 1691. in his Answer to Ja. Barry pag. 212. where he says expresly Therefore we expect he should inform in what Gospel he hath to preach to them Christ dyed not for and what Object of Faith he hath to lay down for them to believe in for Faith must have an Object Or whether they do not press it as a Duty upon all to believe and then let us know their Method of Distinction who preach not the Gospel to every one for sure there can be no Gospel of Glad Tidings to them Christ dyed not for Thus John Burnyeat Where it is plain that he understandeth Christs dying for all to be the Object of our Faith and a Doctrine of the Gospel as well as that he doth inwardly enlighten all as it was of that Gospel which Paul preached as it doth plainly appear from 1 Cor. 15. 1 23. Rom. 10. 8 9. 1 Cor. 1. 23 24 25. and many other places And I put J. D. in mind how at the School-house Meeting about 12 Months past he brought the fore-cited place Rom. 10. 9 8. in opposition to T. Lloyd his Father-in-Law to prove that it was not sufficient to Salvation to believe only in the Light within but to believe also that Christ dyed rose again And to this as to other things I expect his particular Answer And I say still that Christs inwardly enlightening all is a Doctrine of the Gospel and the Object of our Faith as well as that Christ dyed for all But I was so far from denying Christs coming the Flesh and his Death and Sufferings to be any part of the Object of the Christian Faith in that Treatise of Universal Grace cited by J. D. that pag. 92. I particularly mention Christs Coming in the Flesh his Miraculous Birth his Doctrine Miracles Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascention c. as being things of the Christian Faith and Religion which the Light within brings us to own and the same upon the matter is confessed by J. D. in both his Papers How then am I guilty of Heresie for saying the same that J. D. saith To my saying that J. D. his blaming my Assertion as being Heresie viz. That the Light within is not sufficient without something else doth oblige him to hold the Antithesis or Contradictory Assertion That the Light within is sufficient without any thing else J. D. Replyeth That is but my Consequence and none of his words To which I replyed That some affirm they heard him say so in so many words but suppose he did not say it yet seeing he hath accused me of the former the necessary unavoidable Consequence of his words makes it to be his and to deny this is to be guilty of the greatest Trifflig and Non-sence that ever I knew in any pretending to common Reason His scurrilous Reflection upon me as abusing my School-Craft as he calls it I pass over not valuing it being conscious of my sincerity and which I freely leave to the Impartial to judge For a Proof that W. Penn layeth not our whole Salvation upon the Light within only as sufficient without the Man Christ Jesus I did cite W. P. in answer to J. Faldo part 1. pag. 243. J. Faldo charging it upon the Quakers That they expect to be saved by the Light within only W. P. answers in behalf of the Quakers This is a wicked Suggestion against us see also his following words And as I said to J. D. in my 2d Paper Now let the Impartial Reader judge who hath any thing of common Reason Whether by these words W. Penn doth not plainly declare his Mind That we are not saved by the Light within without something else For as the word Only is exclusive so are the words Without something else And here let it be noted that John Delavall finding that he could not make good his Charge against me viz. his accusing me of Heresie for saying The Light within is not sufficient without something else he goeth about most sillily to change the state of the Question for whereas the state of the Question was Whether the Light within was sufficient to Salvation without something else viz. without the Man Christ Jesus and his Death and Sufferings and present Intercession for us in Heaven he goeth about not so slyly as sillily quite to alter and change it to another Question altogether different from the former as Whether any can be perfectly saved made perfectly happy without all knowledge and faith of the Man Christ Jesus without us and of his Death and Sufferings c To which I have answered him in my second Paper That these two are quite differing Questions for if this last should be granted yet it still remaineth that the Light within only without the Man Christ Jesus doth not save any for even