their Principle or not which is the chief thing to be considered and my present business to examine J. N. asserts The Quakers usually talk of this Light within as of some Divine Communication and Manifestation only By this assertion I conclude he represents the Quakers to own the Light within to be an accident and not a substantial inherent Principle of divine excellenâ—y I shall gently pass by his discant upon the word Inherent which though it be not used as an attribute strictly belonging to this Substance yet Omnipresence is and this word Inherent bearing a relative sence of the nearness or presence of that Substance to our minds is not such an ill suited Term as he would make it This construction of his words Communication and Manifestation only to be an accident he endeavours to evade by lessening the weight of my Argument from the first of Iohn the Evangelist but before I consider that I shall pursue my conclusion viz. that he makes the Quakers Light to be an accident It is obvious his words Communication and Manifestation only is opposed to the Divine Substance it self as the formal and immediate object of our Faith and Knowledge in which sence the Quakers profess and own the Light but Communication and Manifestation only is a created effect and consequently neither the formal object in the sence aforesaid nor indeed the efficient cause of our illumination but the illumination it self which being the product of some previous Agent can amount to no more then an accident which differs from a Substance as the effect from the cause Having thus distinguished upon the Proposition I see no reason I. N. has to fault either my Conclusion or Argument from the first of Iohn that the Life of the Word is the Light of men and my inferring from thence that it is a Substance considering he confesses the Word and the Life of the Word to be real Substances and that it must be granted the Life is the Light I am the Light of the World said Christ Jesus he that followeth me shall not walk in Darkness but have the Light of Life John 8.12 These viz. Light and Darkness are of contrary Powers really and not fantastically exprest consequently this Light must be a Divine Substance in opposition to an Accident As to I. N's distinction between Efficiently and Formally as applied to the Light I think it over-nice because he makes the Light in both respects the cause of our Illumination the one as the enlightner of our Understanding the other as the object of our Conception and what 's the difference more then in the Mode or Form of expression seeing in both senses he must needs be understood to infer the Light to be a Real Substance And forasmuch as he hath at length granted me the Quakers make the Light to be so too viz. a real Substance let him not henceforth say they talk of it as a divine communication and manifestation only which term Only whatever he thinks of it or however subtilly he seeks to evite it is exclusive of substance in general upon the explication and reason I have given and consequently a misrepresentation of their Principleâ— like as if he should say the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation were only a Declaration of good things would not this be exclusive of the Power which is the Substance I. N. says Though it be too plain to be denyed that the Quakers make the Light to be a Real Substance yet 't is also as plain that they do not make it the very Substance of God for which he quotes the following passage out of R. B's Apol. pag. 133. By this Seed Grace and Word of God and Light wherewith we say every man is enlightned and hath a measure of it which strives with them in order to save them and which may by the stubbornness and wickedness of man's Will be quenched bruised wounded pressed down slain and crucified we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken which is not divisable into Parts and Measures as being a most pure simple Beeing void of all composition and division and therefore can neither be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain by all the efforts and strength of men But we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells and this we call Vehiculum Dei or the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourished into Eternal Life I observe that R. B's Position is so clear and well applied with Arguments that what he asserts he doth at the same time in effect prove by evident Reason and Invincible Consequence which I perceive I. N. in his own words had neither cause nor mind to dispute Now the Question is not whether the Quakers believe the Light to be a Real and Spiritual Substance but what they believe this Substance is and here if he expects I should follow him in his Philosophical Notions and explanation of this Principle he will find himself mistaken for that 's besides my Province nor have I so learned Christ but according to the Testimony of Holy Writ and Language of the Holy Ghost therein revealed I may treat something of itâ— believing it is a great Presumption and unjustifiable Curiosity in any man to dive farther into this Mystery then what God hath or doth please to reveal And yet it is a greater Presumption and I can hardly forbear calling it Prophane to deride and vilifie those Holy Words and Expressions in the mouthes of his People which God hath been pleased to make use of to reveal himself by and prefer others which his Spirit hath not taught if my Adversary shall still think it adviseable to continue this practice of rendering such Scripture-Language loose and canting I shall leave him to the Reproof and Judgment of that Spirit which in time will be found too wise and strong for him We believe that this Divine Light is Christ Jesus the Son of Gods love to lost man the ingrafted Word the same that became Flesh and that dwelleth in the Saints Iohn 1.14 The Word became Flesh and pitched his Tent in us who is from Everlasting the Second Adam or Lord from Heaven the quickening Spirit 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the first Born of every Creature by whom all things were created and for him 1 Col. 1.15 16. And therefore he is in all things though with respect to operation as I observed formerly after a diâ—ferent manner and measure We believe him to be the Propitiation and Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World the Mediator and Intercessor betwixt God and man even the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5 Then which there is no other Name under Heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved Acts 4.12 That though this
this quotation which made expresly against his 1 st Position viz. that according to the Quakers all are not actually enlightned wherefore though I made use of it before not considering this renew'd occasion I thought fit to insert that part of it again that it might be seen how unsincerely and designedly ill J. N. hath managed himself towards his ingenious Author and therein towards the Quakers making him and them by mis-implication and consequence to contradict themselves and invalidate a Doctrine so essentially necessary to the Salvation of men and so constantly and possitively asserted by them But now as to J. N's latter Position viz. that none are actually enlightned by it at all times to which end he makes his last quotation which though it proves not what he says and is off from the point in question viz. that all are actually enlightned by it at some times I have considered this matter and apprehend it may be resolved into this distinction viz. The different estates or attainments of such as are illuminated and converted some whereof may arrive to such a degree of habitual union and inhabitation in the Light as to go no more forth but continue and abide in their heavenly capacity the divine Influence secretly and hiddenly attending their Souls in the necessary concerns of this Life as in eating drinking plowing sowing or the like these cannot be said at any time not to be actually enlightned because of their spiritual habit though they may be and are oft-times without the renewed opperations and fresh visitations of this divine Light and Seed of God upon their Souls which man cannot move nor stir up when he please but it moves blows and strives with man as the Lord seeth meet and man must wait for it This is true as applyed to a state of weakness and sence of misery as well as growth in the first of which states R. B. doth here make use of it bringing in the comparison of the Lake of Bethesda and the Angel at certain times moving upon the Waters whence J. N. infers this conclusion viz. because R. B. says that man though he hath some sence of his misery cannot when he please stir up that Light and Grace by which he must be saved but must wait for it therefore no man though never so a close a follower of the Light is under the Illumination of it at all times I think this Inference is very wide and far from a direct and natural consequence of R. B's words and sence because by the Instance he makes use of viz. a Man that hath some sence of his misery He implys some previous degree of actual Illumination in that subject by which he attained to that sence and much more is it implyed in a state of waiting for how is it possible for any man to attain to a sence of his misery that was dead in Sins and Trespasses much more to a condition of waiting for deliverance without he should first be quickened and be made to experience some degree of the actual Illumination of the Divine Light by which it is manifest that R. B. here was not treating of a subject altogether destitute of actual Illumination consequently that Light and Grace which he says man cannot stir up when he pleases but must wait for by which he must be saved He intends not barely that degree of actual Illumination which was and is necessary to give man a sight and sence of his misery but an increase thereof by a fresh visitation of the Divine Light Seed and Grace whereby his Heart may be tendered and deliverance witnessed But J. N. still queries Why may not the capacity of Illumination be abstracted from the act since they are not only in themselves distinct but proceed from different Causes and between which there is according to them no necessary connexion Answer Because man cannot have the capacity but in and by the Act which Act is as the Light to the Eye the capacity as the Eye to the Light how should a dark man see the Sun unless the Sun by the powerful act of its light first procure him sight what capacity of seeing has a blind man surely none can that then be properly said to be distinct which is not in being And how can that be said to proceed from different Causes where the cause is but one and the other but an effect when created But why does J. N. say That according to the Quakers there is not a necessary connexion between the capacity of Illumination and the Act seeing I make it as necessary as Light to the Eye in order to seeing where I say that the Capacity or possibility is not nor can be in man abstract or divided from the actual illuminating Power and Spirit no more then seeing if Light be seperate from the Eye But J. N. alters my sence by adding to my words both in my Exception and his Answer by adding the word Not So that he makes me to say if the Light be not seperate from the Eye and thence it is I suppose he concludes expresly contrary to my assertion viz. that according to the Quakers there is no necessary connexion which is unfair and unjust But J. N. apprehending no necessary connexion makes the former viz. The capacity of Illumination to depend upon the inbeing onely of the divine Light and the latter viz. the Act upon the Souls introversion of its self to it without which she will not be enlightned by that Light which she bears which are his express words To which I Reply first to his making the capacity to depend upon the inbeing only c. That as it is opposed to Act it is exclusive of the operation of the Light suitable to the subject and end Christ who is this divine Light is so viz. operative in all things and shall he not be so in man God forbid what Doctrine is this that excludes lost man from the means of Salvation will not the Vision of the Prophet Ezekiel concerning the dry Bones in the open Valley confute him Ezek. 37.5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these dry Bones behold I will cause Breath to emer into you and ye shall live Was it not impossible for these dry Bones to have come together but by the operation of the Word of the Lord or how could these dry have lived if God had not caused Breath to have entred into them As to the latter viz. That the Act of Illumination depends upon the Soul's introversion of its self c. This is to make the Act of Seeing to prevent the Light by which it does and only can see and the Act of Motion previous to the Act of Life for the Act of Illumination is considered as causing Breath to enter into the Soul and introversion the Souls motion as an effect of some degree of Life in order to obtain more Life The contrary to this is to make void the end and divide the
Light to be no special priviledge but the common and universal benefit of all men yea of all the intelligent Creation according to his 4 th Article I plainly shew he makes this universal benefit to be in his own words a mans Natural and Ordinary way of understanding and what is that but the exercise of the Rational Faculty of his Soul or in a word his Natural Reason so that in the conclusion it amounts to no more then as is before observed viz. That according to him it is universal as to the Act of its Illumination in this sence only viz. of Reason and not Grace whence it is he supposes all men do in some measure attend to and consult the Divine Light as necessary to render them rational and intelligent Beings as though Men ceased to be any longer Rational and Intelligent Beings then whilst they consulted and attended the Divine Light which I deny for then Adam with all his Posterity in the fall would have ceased to be Men seeing nothing differs Man in that state from the Beast but his rational property and it cannot be supposed that when Adam had consulted with the Serpent's Spirit that had entred Eve and was subdued by it under Sin and Transgression and so dyed as to his Spiritual Life that notwithstanding while in that estate He did or could consult with and attend to the Divine Light with respect to his Rational Life but the contrary viz. That he was therein also enslaved and captivated by the Serpent's power and wisdom Thus J. N. supposes what is not at all to be supposed viz. that all men does in some measure attend to and consult the divine Light would to God they did but it is most certain they do not witnessed by the Apostle Paul Rom. 3.10 11 12. describing the condition of Man in the Fall There is none Righteous no not one There is none that understandeth there is none that seeketh after God They are all gone out of the way they are altogether become unprofitable there is none that doth good no not one Surely then it must be confessed that in this state none does attend to and consult the divine Light The Imagination of the thoughts of mans heart being only Evil and that continually I think now we are at the bottom of J. N's Notion of the Light being a mans Natural and Ordinary way of understanding and see what it amounts to and that he might not be understood by his 5 th Article to deny or contradict what he asserted in his 4 th viz. That all are actually enlightned He is content to have his Light understood in a restricted sence viz. not as an extraordinary accession to the Natural Light pag. 60. but Natural Light or that by which man is rendred a Rational and Intelligent Beingâ— not as saving Grace in the whole kind of it pag. 91. but as an ordinary requisite to human understanding that is to qualifie Man to be a reasonable Creature This is a just and true account of his sence and expressions let it go as far as it will But if this be all he intends by his Light It is manifest that whilst he professes it to be the Divine Logos He debases and not exalts it for as so it is Christ Jesus who is full of Grace and full of Truth otherwise I see no reason to call it Grace at all for Grace is distinguished from Nature and the understanding men have by nature meaning human nature is not the same they have by Grace for a man may have the one and not the other In the conclusion J. N. says So long as I make all men in some measure to consult it though I do withal say that they are enlightned by it only when they do consult it I do not thereby deny that all are actually enlightned by it I have shewed already why this will not cover him for I have not only denyed that all men do in some measure consult the Divine Light but have proved it out â—â— Rom. 3. from the state of man in the degeneracy therefore if none are aâ—â—â—ally enlightned by it but when they consult it then be sure all are not actually enlightned by it according to his Principle because there are many that do not attend to it and consult it But according to the Quakers Principle of the Light which they believe to be Grace and Truth come by Christ Jesus universally extended to all mankind the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the World in the Day and time of his Visitation wherein he may be saved It is manifest they believe all are in some measure actually enlightned by it insomuch that considering man in his fallen and degerate and dead estate it was impossible for him to live and return to God till first quickened and enlightned by him I hope by this I have sufficiently manifested J. N's contradiction and that all things are not uniform and consistant as he would have them thought to be The next thing I have to take notice of is J. N's answer to my objection upon his 5 th Article He tells me he cannot but admire at the singular happiness of my Fancy in making his fifth Article to be the same in substance with the first But I have more cause to admire his dis-ingenuity in stating it a new with additional words no where exprest in the said 5 th Article to which he assigns it which having obtruded he makes use of them not only to Invalidate my Charge but to subject me under an opposition to sound and approved Doctrine delivered by R. B. and G. K. as likewise to a contradiction of my self as by what follows may appear But first let it be considered why he admires my Fancy it is this in his first Article he represents the Quakers to make the Light within a divine communication and manifestation only This I have shewed elsewhere to be the effect of some cause and not the cause or principle the Light its self therefore not the Quakers Faith but J. N's presumption In his 5 th Article he makes them to understand by this Light within some determinate formid dictate or proposition expresly and possitively directing and instructing them to do so or so Now this determinate formid dictate or proposition c. is not the Light it self but the effect of the Light whether it be outwardly written as are the holy Scriptures or inwardly written in the Mind or Understanding both which may and do remain when the Divine Light the blessed Author thereof is clouded as to man and obscured this is generally experienced more especially in the Hearts of the Wicked and Rebellious And so it differs from being only a divine communication and manifestation Thus the Quakers distinguish concerning the Divine Light That it is the Author of their divine knowledge and not the knowledge it self strictly speaking Upon which reason and consideration I have opposed the
Quakers belief of the Light to his definition of it viz. I say that it is God's divine Oracle of Wisdom in the Soul the former dictator and determiner of heavenly Propositions there as the Original cause of the Knowledge and love of Truth which are its proper effects Next that I may shew how unfairly J. N. deals in obtruding additional words to his 5 th Article to render me as before in opposition to my Friends and contradictory to my self let it be considered that he asserts that in this 5 th Article it is said That the Quakers by their Light within that is a directive understands some determinate formid dictate or proposition expresly and positively directing and instructing them to do so or so Now these words That is a directive is not in his said Article nor in any other of his Articles by the help of which words he varies from the point in question and transfers the subject from making the Light it self to be some determinate formid dictate or proposition c. to make the direction of the Light or the Light as directive which is all one to consist in dictates or propositions ready formed and presented to the view of the Soul whereby she is formally taught and instructed by which it is manifest he hath subtilly changed and altered the subject therefore he injuriously applys his Consequence in these following words But now says J. N. are these two the same if they are so are a Square and a Circle Mr. Vickris and my self Quakerism and Primitive Christianity This is a sort of Arguing to be allowed in one that would be thought a Philosopher pursuant to this J. N. again alters the words and sence of my Query designedly no doubt to render me as he hath done inconsistant with my self and my Friends His words are these But he demands of me where I learnt this Account of the Quakers Faith and Doctrine of the Light within viz. That they represent its direction by a determinate formid dictate or proposition These last words or last sentance is none of mine but his own And obtruded upon me nor do they at all explain my question but contain new and different matter my question relates to his making the Quakers to understand their Light within in its self to be some determinate formid dictate or proposition and not the direction of the Light in which latter sence he states the question in my Name and then makes his answer quoting divers passages out of R. B's Apollogy and G. K's Way to the City of God and at last my own words to to no other purpose but to fence against what he wrongfully says I query and not what I really query my self And so I having discovered his foundation herein to be presumptive and false his whole superstracture falls to the ground and makes nothing against me but discovers his own weakness and unfairness If after all this he sees not a difference betwixt making the Divine Light within the Oracle of divine Wisdom in the Soul the former dictator and determiner of heavenly propositions there and the dictates and propositions themselves when so formed I may safely say he is not fit to be esteemed a Philosopher but I presume he does and therefore think the worse of him for his dis-ingenious treatment upon the point In his 5 th Article I observe that J. N. says That my Light is only the essential Truth of God which indeed is always present to my Vnderstanding and intimately united wiâ—hiâ— but does not formally enlighten or instruct me but when I attend to it and consult it and read what is written in those Ideal Characters To which I answer To say that the Light supposing it to be what really it is viz. a distinct Principle from the Soul is always present to the understanding which implys its operation upon the natural capacity or organ the ordinary means of knowing I conceive is more then can be safely or experimentally said because the Organ may be hurt and the understanding in that sence interrupted and consequently no fit Medium either for the Soul or its Light besides the Soul may be absent from the natural Understanding by the interposition of Spiritual as well as Natural Causes yet present with the Light in its spiritual way of understanding This he says has no force against him but I presume it has and he gives this Reason That tho' he supposes the Light always present to the understanding the bare presence of the Light does not infer its actual operation on the Soul which he apprehends is the Quakers Principle but denys it to be his but to illustrate this matter and to make this mistake appear we must distinguish betwixt the Soul and the natural Understanding I grant if J. N. had said my Light is always present to my Soul it would not thence infer its actual operation always on his understanding but forasmuch as he says my Light is always present to my Vnderstanding and intimately united with it it does necessarily imply its operation always on his Soul because the Understanding is not capable of its reception and presence but as it is manifested by the Soul through the operation of the Light in it and through it as in a glass consequently the Divine Light cannot be always present to the Understanding and intimately united with it but it must first excite its self and operate in the Soul Thus I have proved his assertion in his 5 th Article plainly and necessarily to imply what he disowns since viz. That the presence of the divine Light in the Understanding does infer its actual operation on the Soul and if it be as he says always present in the understanding then 't is always actual in the Soul which brings him confessedly guilty of Contradiction and I profess I see not how he can escape it But now as to the Contradiction Confusion and Inconsistancy he would fasten upon me in which he is so confident that if it be not he will never pretend to judge of a Contradiction again He grounds it upon my saying that this divine Light is always in some degree and measure present in the Soul the Quakers believe This he says plainly contradicts what I said before that the Light does not always operate upon the Understanding Now though I say the Light is always present c. in the Soul I do not say neither does it follow that the presence does necessarily infer its operation upon the understanding at all times Neither is that the Quakers Principle Nor do I say any where as my Adversary does it is always present to the understanding for that would be equally untrue and unsound with himself consequently I say not that it always operates therein as Iohn Norris does represent me to contradict my self seeing in my Objections to him I make it unsafe so to say for the Reasons I have therein given but assert the contrary viz.