the deep things of God different in its mode and manner of its operation with respect to the different nature of the knowledge and subjects it works upon making use in each of its proper Organ viz. the Spiritual Sences of the Soul which have their root Life and being in a measure of this divine Light for the divine Knowledge of heavenly things and the inferiour faculty of the Soul viz. the rational and intellectual Power for the Knowledge of human and natural things Though I do not hereby deny but God has and may supernaturally convey to some men the certain knowledge of some necessary human Arts and Sciences and such their Knowledge is divine and extraordinary But J. N. takes a great deal of pains to improve this his mistaken Proposition and would needs have the Quakers principle naturally to lead them to it because they conceive and represent this Divine Light to be that very Grace of Christ whereby men are converted and saved quoting R. B. again in the 5th and 6th Propositions pag. 317. where reckoning up the ends and purposes for which this saving and spiritual Light was given by God Makes them consist in making manifest all things that are reprovable in teaching all Repentance Righteousness and Godliness and in general enlightning the hearts of all in order to Salvation I think this is a very good account of the Light But what would J. N. infer from this why he says it seems this Light then is purely in order to Salvation by the word purely I take him to intend onely and consequently he says That it ought to be confined to divine and spiritual Truths in order to the direction of Life and Manners But how can he make this to be the consequence of R. B's Proposition does he not herein as well as in his former quotations manifestly abuse his Ingenious Author prevaricating and straining his sence to a Remote consequence his words do no ways reach But for want of proof he presumes and says At they do thus confine their Light to spiritual things so they ought thus to confine it for what has Grace to do with the things of Nature a fine way of argument to which there needs not be more said then reverting of it viz. As the Quakers do not confine the Divine Light purely or onely to spiritual things so they ought not thus to confine itâ— for Grace has to do with things of Nature The Spirit searcheth all things and is that Wisdom that knoweth and understandeth all things when the Earth was drowned with the Flood who directed the course of the Righteous in a piece of Wood of smal value It may be read at large how Solomon ascribes all Knowledge to this Wisdom Book of Wisdom cap. 7. What though as J. N. expresses himself he does not conceive this internal Light as any thing superadded to the ordinary way of mans understanding nor after the manner of Grace neither as to its Being betwixt God and man inferring that Though the Spirit of Truth be really and truly God that they testifie against themselves and declare contradictions in making the Light to be one and the same with the Spirit of Truth and that then he says 't is no great matter what they testifie and declare To which I answer this is a general Reflection and charge upon his own mistaken consequence concerning Christ the Light as he is a Middle Nature or Being supposing this middle nature or Being to be a distinct or divided Substance from Christ consequently not of the proper substance or nature of God but some created or material substance wherein he injuriously infers in his Appendix that the Quakers Light is a Creature and a Material Creature He may as well say that Christ is so too because the Quakers most firmly believe he is that true Light which Lightneth every Man that cometh into the world Iohn 1.9 I have already shewed that though Christ has a Two-fold Nature united in Substance by taking the Manhood into God whereby he became a middle nature and mediator betwixt God and man His substance is not thereby divided but remains united with the proper substance and essence of God But though Christ be not divided in substance from the Godhead he hath proportioned himself through his heavenly Manhood and hath given to every man a measure of Light and a measure of Grace a measure of the Spirit Ephes. 4.7 which is the Seed of the Kingdom sown in all sorts of Ground of mens Hearts and Christ Jesus is that great and heavenly Seeds-man or sower that went forth to sow Luke 8. Now this measure of Light Grace and Spirit and Seed though proportioned to us and in us is not divided from Christ as Christ is not divided from God And though it be not the very Essence and Substance of the Deity strictly speaking or the Godhead it self precisely taken yet it is a degree consequently a part and portion of him and for that reason of his proper Substance not divided but inseperably united with him and in him as the Beams of the Sun are with the intire Body of the Sun This Divine Light being thus manifested and acknowledged by the Quakers to be Christ measureably conveyed and given to men and of his proper Substance It must needs be one and the same with the Spirit of Truth because Christ is so revealed in Spirit as plainly appears Ioh. 16. consequently no Creature or Material Creature as J. N. represents it but a divine and immaterial Substance wherein he is guilty of a most hainous presumption and defamation of the Quakers Principle of the Divine Light to the great dishonour of God And seeing J. N. confesses the Quakers make their Light to be the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood that came down from Heaven of which all the Saints feed and are nourished up unto Eternal Life quoting these words out of R. B. And seeing he also confesses that there may be such a thing as the Spiritual Body of Christ distinct from the Natural according to the 6th of Iohn which he says favours it not a little Appendix pag. 16 and 17 and farther seeing it is plain by the same Scripture from vers 48 to 63 that the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven and the spiritual Body or Flesh and Blood of Christ is Christ and that it is Spirit and Life surely then it must needs be granted to be an Immaterial or Increated substance hence it is the Quakers make the Light and Spirit of Truth one and the same in Being consequently J. N. in making the Quakers principle of the Light thus considered and by him acknowledged to be held by the Quakers to be a Creature and a material Creature is to make Christ his Spirit and Life so too which is not only a wilful abuse of the Quakers but a gross piece of Blasphemy and this is that monstrous Birth he hath brought forth and recommended
blessed Name viz. Christ Iesus signifying the anointed Saviour having relation to his Heavenly Manhood which he took upon is distinguished from the Word or Logos as 't is God himself in the abstract or as precisely taken yet we do not thereby divide him from his intire Immediate Union and Being as God in himself blessed for ever more Phil. 2.6 7. No more then the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11.3 And the Head of every man is Christ and the Head of Christ is God Paul in this place must needs intend the Man Christ and this agrees with what Christ said of himself My Father is greater then I John 14.28 And this also agrees with the Confession of the Christian Faith set forth in the Lithurgy of the Church of England viz. The right Faith is that we believe and confess that the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood who although he be God and Man yet he is not two but one Christ one not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but taking of the Manhood into God c. I have been the more perticular in reciting this Confession foreseeing I may have occasion to make use of it before I finish this Reply Having made this digression and thus truly stated our Faith and perswasion concerning this Divine Principle of the Light within what it is I shall consider I. N's objections against it grounded upon the aforementioned quotation out of R. B's Apol. 133. By these words of R. B's Position viz. By the Seed Grace Word of God and Light we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken and he gives the Reasons which I need not repeatâ— but we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells That which Iohn Norris infers from hence is that R. B. makes the Light though a Substance not the same with but really distinct from the Substance or Essence of God This Consequence as so laid down I deny as being injurious to R. B's sence for though he says the Light c. wherewith every man is enlightned and hath a measure of it c. is not the proper Essence and Nature of God Precisely taken as in its own intire fulness It is manifest by his following words he understands or intends the Deity or Godhead it self in the abstract as he was and is everlastingly in himself a most pure simple Being void of all Composition or Division as he well observes I may add incomprehensible dwelling in the Light which no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen or can see 1 Tim. 6.16 And again No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father he hath declared him John 1.18 and 6.46 And God it said to be in the Light 1 John 1.7 And therefore God as so considered and precisely taken in his proper Essence Nature and Fulness dwelling in himself cannot be properly said to be mans Light otherwise than in and through the Mediator he being so inapproachable as before For the same Divine Being which covereth himself with Light as with a Garment Psal. 104.2 dwells in the Light dwells in his Son our blessed Lord Christ Jesus who is in the Father and the Father in him whom the Father hath sent and who in Gods divine Light is come a Light into the World that whosoever believeth on him should not abide in Darkness John 12.46 Here God is in Christ reconciling the World unto himself 2 Cor. 5.19 And Christ is Light Approachable and Communicable in measure to the Children of men To him God hath not given the Spirit or Light thereof by measure John 3.33 But unto every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the Gift of Christ Ephes. 4.7 Thus God in Christ as with relation to his manifestation to us and in us is distinguished but not divided from the proper Essence and Nature of God himself precisely taken But R. B's supposing the measure of the Light or Seed of God as in man not the Essence of God precisely taken implies it may be in some sence taken to be the Essence and Nature of God And this is doubtless what R. B. intended and is all that can be fairly deduced from his Words and not what I. N. infers that he makes the Light not the same but a distinct Substance from the Substance or Essence of God and this is manifest in R. B's explanation of this Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells that he understands Christ the Heavenly Man by Vehiculum Dei and the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven which is all one thing and represent Christ of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourished unto Eternal Life as may be read at large in the 6 th of Iohn the Evangelist where Christ perceiving his Disciples to murmur at this as a hard saying which they understood not he explains what he meant by his Flesh and Blood viz. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life John 6.63 From whence it follows that R. B. makes the Spiritual and Heavenly Principle to be Christ Who was and is that true Light which lighteth every one that cometh into the World Iohn 1.9 Again I am the Light of the World he that followeth me shall not abide in Darkness but have the Light of Life Joh. 8.12 Now if this Light be Christ and if Christ be both God and Man and as such that true Light as is most certainly true it inevitably follows that he has a two-fold Nature yet but one Christ and one Light one undivided divine Substance according to the aforementioned Confession of Faith One not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God This is plain Now by taking the Manhood into God Christ hath not made void his Union in Substance with the Father nor is he a divided Substance from the Substance of the Father and Essence of God nor do R. B's words infer such a thing But that by means of his Heavenly Manhood he appears as in a middle Nature subject as with respect to Man to the Condescention of a Mediator and therefore may be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain as to man and in man as in a Seed by the Stubbornness and Wickedness of man's will though as God dwelling in himself he is not nor cannot be subject to any of these things But Christ our High-Priest was and is and such a High-Priest became us For we have not a High-Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities But was in all points tempted like as we are
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
That 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 Thus J. N. abuses my Words and Sence where I say this divine Light is always in some degree and measure present in the Soul he says it contradicts what I laid down before viz. That the Light â—oes not always operate upon the Understanding c. I never said before it did I only opposed his Notion as not safe viz. That the Light was always present with his Understanding and intimately united with it objecting that this necessarily implyed its actual operation upon the understanding which to say as I do the Light is always in some degree and measure present in the Soul does not so imply nor necessarily infer its actual operation therein at all times Therefore his Consequence on me vanishes and his own Assertion viz. That his Light is always present to his Vnderstanding and intimately united with it and yet that it does not formally enlighten or instruct it but when attended to and consulted carries a Contradiction in it self besides I shew how he mistakes the nature of intimate Union which he places in the Understanding whilst it is in the dark and void of actual Illumination or attending to and consulting the divine Light consequently without partaking of its Nature and Influences which as I said is the Reason and manner of its union whence I conclude in opposition to his Notion of intimate Union That if the Understanding be not enlightned and instructed but when it attends to and consults the divine Light then surely it cannot be intimately united unto the Divine Light until it has so done for till then according to him the understanding must be altogether in darkness and what fellowship or union hath Light with Darkness or Christ with Belial The next thing J. N. objects to is That those Texts of Scripture which he says I insist upon to prove our Illumination is not by attention because the Grace of God prevents mans turning to him is short of what I deduce in many words Answer I no where say that we are in no wise Illuminated by attention neither does it follow from the Grace of God preventing or coming before mans turning to him that man is not more illuminated by his turning and attention all that I say is that these and many other Texts abundantly prove that God quickens and enlightens man before man can turn unto him Iohn 5.21 and Ephes. 2.1 4 5. You hath be quickened who were dead in Trespasses and Sins But God who is rich in Mercy for his great Love wherewith he hath loved us even when we were dead hath quickned us together in Christ by Grace ye are saved 2 Cor. 4.6 God who commanded Light to shine out of Darkness hath shined in our Hearts to give us the Light of the knowledge of of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ Pet. 4.6 For this cause was the Gospel preached also to them that are dead that theâ— might be Iudged according to men in the Flesh bâ—t live according to God in the Spirit J. N. objects That there is no force in the Argument for that the word Turning is equiâ—ocal may signifie either the Moral conversion of the will to Holiness and Righteousness which is the Fruit of true Illumâ—nation or that simple conversion of the understanding to the Light of God which is the cause of it If the former then I grant that the Grace of God does enlighten before man can turn to him that is a man is first enlightned before he is converted But if the latter I deny that God does enlighten man before man turns to him Nor does the Text cited by him prove it Thus. far J. N. This last Conclusion is possitive and plainly denotes the difference betwixt us from whence he makes this Doctrine to Result viz. Man must first convert himself to the Divine Light and attend to it before he can be enlightned by it To which I answer Man as considered in the fallen state of the first Adan is degenerated blind and dead in that estate unable of himself to do any thing acceptable to God neither can he enter into the way of Holiness or convert himself unto the divine Light and attend to it till he be first quickened and have the Eyes of his Understanding some way opened by the Light and Spirit of Truth and feel some secret touches of divine Influence Virtue from the Light to enable him to convert and turn his mind unto it for how can a Man enter into a Way while he is blind and knows nothing thereof so that the Soul 's converting it self is through the Lord's converting it by quickening and enlightening it in some measure to see and feel him in his divine and gracious visits and touches of the Soul whereby it suffers it self to be turned to the Lord according to these words in the Scripture Ier. 31.18 Turn thou me and I shall be turned And this J. N. does in effect grant me where he says on this wiseâ— Nor is it any derogation to the Grace of God to sâ—y that Attention is a praerequisite condition to farther Illumination because it is by the Grace of God Man is first moved and enabled to attend So that attention being the application of the Eye of the Mind It is plain that the Eye must be first opened before it can be applied in order to a further Illumination So that if J. N. makes it the Light of Attention it is all one I shall not differ with him about Terms since we agree that it is necessary to attend to the Divine Light in order as I said before to experience more of its Illumination and that the Divine Light doth first engage and encite man to this attention whether he will allow this ability of attention to proceed from any degree of actual Illumination or not I shall not much concern my self being satisfied in the Reason Nature and order of things it must be so Lastly I charge him in his 6 th Article with great and general Reflections on the Quakers without offering any Proof or Reducing them to a perticular Charge in saying They do not offer any Rational or Intelligable account of their Light within neither as to the Thing nor as to Mode which is not true This villifies the Quakers but proves nothing against themâ— his own quotations out of their Writings laying aside his unjust Inferences disproves him in this perticular Again he says They Cant about some loose and general Expressions about the Light Here he derides the Holy Ghost's Stile and Language in the Quakers mouthesâ— which savours of Prophaneness which he says they confirm with the Authority of S. Iohn's Gospel I say if they so confirm them it argues they argee to what is there taught it is thereâ—ore so much the