Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	scripture_n	testimony_n	4,093	5	8.2532	4	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

ever they will approve his Doctrine but on the contrary if they hold to their former Principles as I am charitable they do they will condemn it and blame his so medling and all them that adhear to him notwithstanding of his Fawning and Flattery whereby he seeketh to have their favour for his professed Subjection to their Determination which if it prove a Contradiction to what he at present thinketh is the dictate of the Infallible Spirit in himself it shall be seen what manner of Person he is and how unfit to teach others that is not truly taught himself in one of the first Principles of the Christian Doctrine And notwithstanding his fawning to have favour with Friends in England he could not do a worse thing to render Friends Odious both in England and every where else to assert it as the Quakers Principle To be a Heresie and Error in a Fundamental Doctrine to say The Light within is not sufficient without something else that something else as confessed by him being the Man Christ Jesus without us and his Death and Sufferings and Intercession for if the generality of Professors in Christendom believe this to be the Quakers Doctrine there cannot be a more mischievous Stumbling block laid in their way to hinder People generally fróm joyning in Society with them Therefore I hope God will put it into the hearts of faithful Friends in England and else-where zealously to withstand this most pernicious Anti-christian Doctrine of J. Delavall and his Associates that say It is a Heresie to assert this sound Christian Doctrine That the Light within is not sufficient to save men without the Man Christ without us for if fo then either there is no Man Christ without us or he is no Saviour to us at all and hath only the bare and empty Title of a Saviour to wit the Man Jesus of Nazareth And tho' J. D. hath again and again asserted That by his so accusing me he doth not exclude the Man Christ Jesus in the Outward from having a part in our Salvation yet who can believe him but he that can believe the greatest Contradiction which no man ever can do that has not lost his common Sense and Reason and is not become a Brute in Understanding Beside if he doth not exclude him from having a part in our Salvation as neither do I but include him then in what part of my Assertion lodgeth the Heresie that he hath charged upon me for saying The Light is not sufficient without something else I confessing that by something else I neither understand Humane Learnning nor the Letter of the Scripture nor outward Preaching as absolutely and universally necessary but the Man Christ Jesus And as great a Contradiction is it in J. D. to blame me for charging him That he holdeth the Measure to be sufficient without the Fullness for if he holds not this he must needs hold That the Light within is not sufficient without the Fullness that is something else than the measure of the Light within or then he must hold two Contradictory Propositions to be false as thus It is false to say The Light is Not sufficient without the Fullness And It is false to say The Light is sufficient without the Fullness Which is an absolute Contradiction to all common Reason of Mankind and I do solemnly say that of all the Adversaries I ever had to do with in Dispute I never met with a more Ignorant or more Unreasonable Adversary And tho in a Letter to me wherein he is concerned with some others he falsly chargeth me as being either Crased c. I appeal to all Impartial Readers of common Reason Whether ever they heard or knew a man that seemeth more Crased than he And to me it seemeth a Judgment of God upon him to be so bewildered and confounded in his common Sense and Reason as a man for daring to oppose so great a Christian Truth asserted by me a poor Servant of the Lord and to call it Heresie he having signally and more than ordinary appeared but of late to joyn with me in the same Testimony as I told him in my former Paper how by his charging me with Heresie he had unministred himself To which he returns not any thing of sollid Answer but instead thereof a silly jest not worth mentioning And thus the Scripture is fullfilled in him Because they received not the Truth in Love God gave them up to strong Delusions to believe Lyes To his saying in his second Paper to me My Answer that things which are inseperable yet are distinct giveth me no Relief I answered him I need no Relief in the Case my Examples were proper and pertinent as that Faith and Repentance are inseperable and yet we are not saved by Faith without Repentance which he in his Ignorance laboureth to render Ridiculous by the Addition of his own words making them a Tautology But he altogether passeth by my Example how Christs Godhead and Manhood are inseperable and yet it is most congruous and proper to say The Man Christ cannot save us without his Godhead which Christ taught himself expresly saying I can do nothing of my self i. e. without my Father Also it doth no more infer that I deny the sufficiency of the Light within because I say it is not sufficient without the Man Christ without us than it inferreth that he that saith John Delavall is not a Man without his Soul denyeth J. D. to be a Man Or J. D. is not sufficiently honest without honest dealing denyeth J. D. to be sufficiently honest Or because Rich. Hubberthorn said Christ is not Christ without God that Christ is not Christ see his Collection pag. 29. As for his other Collections of Testimonies out of mine and other Friends Books in his second Paper added to these in his former as I said before I find none of them inconsistent with my present Doctrine and if he think they do I shall freely consent to it if he please that he may expose them to the World in Print or any other Papers he hath sent me that so Impartial Readers may judge betwixt us To his charging me with Gratifying some ill affected to the Government and my Contentious Behaviour in Church and State I have answered him His Accusation i● grosly false and malitious and I reject it as such I have no way medled with the Government but have born my faithful Testimony to Friends antient Principle against the use of outward Weapons It is no new thing for innocent men to be charged with being Enemies to Government by men of his and their Spirit and Stamp so were Friends charged in old England at their first appearance and particularly G. F. and so were the Protestants in Germany and else-where by the Papists In a third Paper I sent John Delavall in answer to his Letter bearing date the 3d of the 11 Month I did argue with him at great length That if because Christ without and Christ within are inseperably one Christ therefore it may be said according to him that it is sufficient to preach Christ within as he and many of his Brethren argue and that it is a Heresie to say The Light within is not sufficient without something else viz. the Man Christ Jesus By the same Argument It is sufficient to preach Christ without and it is a Herefie to say The Man Christ is not sufficient to Salvation without something else viz. the Light within And therefore by John Delavall and his Brethrens way of Argument all these who have only preached Christ without have been in the right and all Friends who have blamed them for not preaching Christ within are blame-worthy Why Because Christ within and Christ without are inseperably one Christ But to this and many other things in my three Papers I have received no Return And as I have told him I desire not further to Dispute with him thus in private that is to little purpose but am willing to commit to publick View partly what is already past betwixt us or what may further pass reserving some other weighty things I sent him in my former Answer to another occasion as I may have Convenience In the mean time let it be remembred that he hath not brought one place of Scripture in all his Papers whereby to convince me that I am guilty of Heresie in the matter he accuseth me And seeing the matter is come to this plain Issue that they have now publickly charged me and my Friends joyned with me of being Guilty of Heresie which formerly they did rather whisper and mutter in Corners and that it now openly appeareth in the face of the World that they accuse that to be Heresie which is a Fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith received as we can prove by Geo Fox George Whitehead William Penn and the best of Friends as well as by all Christians in the whole World it evidently appeareth and most necessarily followeth that the Heresie is theirs and they are Hereticks and therefore our Seperation from them is just and is a necessary Duty we having oft admonished them before in private Conferences and Meetings the Scripture saying An Heretick after the first and second Admonition Reject And thus having cleared my self of Heresie the Hatred no more than the Heresie he sought to fix on me doth not at all belong to me and therefore I return both upon him as his Due until he Repent which I can truly say I sincerely wish and desire George Keith THE END The Printer's Advertisement THat notwithstanding the various Reports spread concerning my refusing to Print for these that are George Keith's Opposers These are to signifie That I have never refused but often proffe●ed to Print any thing for them and do now again signifie that if John Delavall or any other of his Brethren have any thing to print I am most willing to do it for them not that I want to beg their Work I need it not but to leave them without Excuse that if they be any way wronged or falsly charged by what is published in Print to the World they may have equal priviledge to Vindicate themselves as Publickly though I have little cause to make this Offer to them considering their many Abuses to me W. B.