Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	ancient_a	church_n	scripture_n	1,852	5	5.7319	4	false

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