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
to Man to be his natural and ordinary way of understanding To be contrary to Scripture Reason common Experience and natural Consequence But let us consider what Argument doth I. N. bring either of Scripture or Reason to enforce or maintain the Credit of his Notion None but makes the two following Queries 1 st What less then that meaning the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking can be a Light to the Soul I answer that wherewith every man is enlightned or that Lighteth every Man and is measurably given to man is the proper Light of the Soul for though in it self or as in Christ it is the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him so the Life of the Word is the fulness in the Word and Christ is that Word and that Word is God But a measure of that Life of Christ in us is our Spiritual Divine Light which measure of Life is not divided from his Life but proportioned to us as the Beams from the Sun which may be intercepted and vailed by the thick Clouds of Darkness and Wickedness that overspreads mens hearts His other Query is either grounded upon an ignorant or wilful Presumption That what is not the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking is not God but Created his query is How can any thing that is not God or that is created be so viz. a Light to the Soul Here he miserably begs the Question upon at best a mistaken Notion viz. That there is no middle Substance betwixt the Godhead and us the contrary thereto I have made appear viz. That there is a middle Substance which is Christ the Heavenly Man the Mediator not created but begotten and this doubtless he very well knew was the Quakers Principle quoting a passage out of the same page wherein it is expressed in G. K's Way to the City of God where reprehending that mistaken Notion sayes he They have supposed that the Spirit or Mind of a Man or an Angelâ— is next unto the Goâ—head which I deny for the Heavenly or Divine Substance or Essence of which the Divine Birth was both conceived in Mary and is inwardly conceived in the Saints is of a Middle Nature This Middle Nature he calls a Divine Substance or Essence not as if it were the Godhead it self or a Particle or Portion of it and so doubtless he held the distinction upon the same reason and ground as is given by R. B. Thus it appears G. K. as well as R. B. makes the Divine Light a Spiritual Divine Substance and that Substance Christ revealed and made manifest in men who is both God and Man or God united with the Manhood as may abundantly appear out of his Writings The Way cast up and The Way to the City of God consequently not made nor created but begotten according to the aforementioned Confession of Faith of the Church of England But J. N. still goes on and says 'T is plain that they do not make the Divine Light the proper Substance of God but a certain Middle Nature which elsewhere viz. in his Treatise of the grosness of the Quakers Principle he makes to be a Creature or a Material Creature in which he is grosly abusive as may be farther manifested in its time and place But here he is out again for this certain Middle Nature he speaks of from that passage out of G. K. before recited Is the begotten of God as his Words plainly intimate and consequently must be his proper Substance as with respect to the Godhead of Christ for it cannot be supposed that the begotten of God can be otherwise This J. N says layes a sufficient ground of Difference I grant him his Difference but not that it stands upon a â—irm Ground because it confounds the distinction between the Godhead it self and the Godhead as united with the Manhood and tends to make void the Office of Christ as our High-Priest and Mediator through his Middle Nature as well as our blessed Light and Saviour In the close of this Section J. N. appeals to me in these words If my Adversary has but the Vnderstanding and Ingenuity of Man I dare appeal to him whether he be not fairly answered and confuted as far as concerns this perticular Whether I have the Understanding or Ingenuity of a Man or no 't is silly in him to appeal to me if he did not think I had and if he did 't was Idle and Impertinent in him to question it But since he has appealed to me leaving the Judicious Reader to think as he please I I must â—â—eds give the Verdict against him And now by all that is said by himâ— and quoted on this subject from R. B. and G. K. how doth it appear that the Quakers are dark Aukward untoward and unprincipled in the way of representing their Principle viz. The Light within Thereby discrediting as he says one of the noblest Theories in the World unless their manner of representing it according to Scripture-Testimony and Language be so in his esteem and account That there is a difference in understanding about the Light is manifest I do not say in Principle but in the Explication thereof at leaâ—â— we agreeâ— 't is a Substance we both profess it to be a Divine Substance J. N. says the Quakers Represent their Light not as God himself but only as a Divine Communication and Manifestation I have already cleared this and opposed to it our Belief of the Light to be Christ a Divine Substance He goes on and says that is A something communicated or exhibited by God The Quakers say this Something as he calls it communicated and exhibited to us by God is his Son Christ Jeâ—us who is the Heavenly Man or Lord from Heaven the Second Adam the quickening Spirit J. N. says he makes the Light to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity strictly speaking This must needs be understood of the Godhead it self and as opposed to the Quakers Faith viz. That it is Christ the Son distinguished from the Godhead of the Father by his heavenly Manhood united with the Godhead in himself and is in all men in a degree and measure but more especially in his Children and true Believers that they also may be one in God the Father and the Son as they are one Iohn 17. I say J. N's Notion or Explication of the Light as before mentioned seems to be exalted above and exclusive of Christ in his heavenly Manhood who therein is our blessed Light and Saviour and does not this notion plainly confound the distinction and divide his Substance seeing the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking and the Godhead it self are Synonimous Terms and signifie God as head of Christ who as so considered is the Anointer and not the Anointed for it is the Man Christ that is anointed with the Holy Spirit and not the Word or Logos strickly speaking or precisely taken for so he is God himself as is well
and Followers of Christ throughout Ages and perhaps with his own practice too in some respect in putting People upon the examination of themselves whether they are not guilty of such breaches of Gods righteous Law as by Scripture-testimony may be applied to their consideration and oft-times to their very condition of which nature is my sober Expostulation grounded upon manifest error and abuse of a Society of People in that which most nearly concerns them for this cause it is he bespatters me and terms me a provoking and affronting Adversary If this humor should have prevailed in the Apostles dayes what work would it have made with their Epistles not that I compare what I write to their Writings but the tendency being the same made up of Scripture quotations I may justly admire his treatment of me for it would I. N. be pleased with his Auditors if when he takes the like freedom in the Pulpit to expostulate with them about any part of the ill conduct of human Life whereof he believes and in part knows many of them to be guilty and therefore quotes and applies Scripture suitable to their state and condition that any of them should rise up and catch him by the Throat or at least publickly quarrel at his Doctrine pretending he provokes and affronts them because as they apprehend he too closely applies it to them Yet this is the case betwixt me and I. N. whence he takes occasion thus evilly to treat me with such ill Language and Character as he hath done But suppose he may plead the Relation betwixt him and his Hearers differs they being under a civil Sanction I grant that is a bond upon them but the Precepts of Christian Religion is greater and ought to be a bond upon all as well Priests as People who ought to be in such a frame and humility of mind as would render them fit to learn as well as teach I perceive a contrary humor in I. N. which makes me consider what the Reason should be whether a contempt of the Instrument as not learned enough or from a natural aversion to reproof heightned by a Reflection on his own station I will not determine sure I am that the abuse in his former with the aggravation and misgoverned temper he hath shewn in this latter Treatise discovers a want of Rectitude of Will and Affections however his Understanding be And now having so far insisted upon and discovered the subject occasion of this offence and treatment thereon I conceive my sober application of Scripture doctrine to him respecting the Evil of those Snares and Temptations of the Enemy I apprehend him fallen into as well as personal Injuries and Abuses I find him guilty of will vindicate my undertaking and though I should be severe in my Censure provided it be true and well grounded it will no ways lessen or violate my Charity no more then it would his or any bodies else when under the like concern having thus said I think I have removed the stress of his Objection against my treatment of him to his own Door And here it may not be amiss to instance one perticular passage of mine and shew the use he hath made of it by which the rest may be judged upon occasion of his Ignominious Reflection on the Quakers in rendering them dark aukward untoward and unprincipled in the way of representing their Principle viz. the Light within thereby discrediting one of the noblest Theories in the World I apply to him some Scripture-Texts perticularly that of the 18 th of Matthew where our Lord and Saviour Christ exhorts his Disciples to avoid offending one of the little Ones that believed in him charging them Vers. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of the little Ones And from thence I proceed and say I fear thou art guilty in this perticular viz. of despising the Testimony of God in this Age through the meanness of the Instruments consider what is said Thess. 4.8 He therefore that despiseth despiseth not Man but God who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit This I N. is pleased to term a Charge that savours strongly of a Spirit of detraction Does it so I think not But can he see a Mote in my Eye and not the Beam in his own What Is his Ignominious Reflection aforesaid on a whole Society of People at once No Detraction But he goes on and calls it a blasphemous piece of Arrogance But why the reason he gives The Quakers are not equally inspired with the Apostles I know no body pretends they are does it therefore follow they are not divinely inspired at all and if they be that it is a blasphemous piece of Arrogance to make the despising of the Quakers the same with despising Christ surely no He confesses himself if that be proved viz. That they are divinely inspired he shall allow of the Expression till then he begs me not to be angry if he tells me it puts him in mind of a Story Now this Blasphemous piece of Arrogance he charges me with is reduced to this Question whether the Quakers are divinely inspired or not It is a wonder to me that a man of his professed Principle should doubt it seeing he says the Divine Logos or Light within is the great and universal Oracle lodged in every mans Breast and that in it are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge And in his Postscript That it is no special priviledge but the common and universal benefit of all men yea of all the Intelligent Creation who all se and understand in this Light of God Again he says I do not appropriate this Divine Light to Moral and Spiritual things but extend it as far as all Truth yea as far as all that is Intelligible which I suppose to be perceived and understood in this Divine Light c. Now I query is not Divine Inspiration included in this Principle in which are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge and is it not intelligible Truth and if Intelligible is it not dispensed and conveyed to Man through his Principle lodged in every mans breast which extends as far as all Truth whereby it is perceived and understood why then may not the Quakers be pertakers of Divine Inspiration as well as others seeing it is necessary for all true Christians to know and experience There is a Spirit in man said Elihu and the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding Job 32.8 And by the Lithurgy of the Church of England all are instructed to pray for it which shews it is attainable as appears by the Collect in these Words Lord from whom all good things do come grant us thy humble Servants that by thy Holy Inspiration we may think those things that be good and by thy Merciful guiding may perform the same through our Lord Iesus Christ. Again Right Judgment in all things by the Holy Spirit prayed for God who at this time
didst teach the Hearts of thy faithful People by sending to them the Light of thy holy Spirit grant us by the same Spirit to have a right Iudgment in all things and evermore to rejoyce in thy holy Comforts c. Again the Holy Spirit prayed for by the Church of England to direct in all things O God for asmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and Rule our Hearts through Iesus Christ our Lord. Again in the Epistle Be not drunk with Wine wherein is Excess but be filled with the Spirit speaking to your selves in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs c. Ephes. 5.15 I have been the more perticular in these Collections to shew that Divine Inspiration and the Guidings of the Spirit is not only attainable but a necessary Christian qualification which some ignorantly imagining the contrary are ready to deride the Quakers for pretending to whilst they pray for it themselves but perhaps my Adversary may be of the mind of one of his Coat who lately told me the Quakers are no Christians because not baptized meaning not being done unto according as the Law requires viz. Sprinkled with a little Water in the Face from off one of their Hands and signed with the Sign of the Cross consequently the despising of them he may think is not to be reckoned as despising of Christ. By his Story of the Oxford Schollar pumping a Quaker I am inclined to believe from what I have heard of the extravagant and notorious Abuses and obsceen carriages and behaviour of many of the said Schollars towards the Quakers at the time of their Religious Exercise in the Worship of God That it is not improbable but this might be on the same account or for some testimony against their Lewdness and Prophaneness and if so consider is it not an encouragement to a Lewd Crew to commit the Like Rudeness as have been practised upon the Quakers when they find it tickles the fancy and affords a pleasant Jest to a fellow of their Colledge Whatever he thinks of his Story I am sure he hath made an ill application of it to me and worse to the Texts of Scripture I quoted him forasmuch as it tends to make void the Doctrine of Christ Jesus implyed in the 25 th of Matthew viz That which is done to his little Ones he takes as done unto himself And dare he say that the Quakers who fears God and work Righteousness though they have not been sprinkled with Water from any of their Hands nor none else are not of the number of Christ's little Ones that believe in him And consequently dare he say that they are not included in that Exhortation before mentioned Matth. 18.10 And if they are what means and whereto tends the Language and Character he hath given them before mentioned I might here proceed to examine distinctly every Objection of his and my application of Scripture to his consideration with observation of his Treatment thereon as in the foregoing instance but I design not to give my self nor the Reader that trouble Therefore shall content my self briefly to touch on several perticulars and shew the reason and occasion of my Queries to him wherewith he is so much offended and I question not but my so doing will justifie my design in quoting the Scriptures with which he is so highly provoked and affronted I query hath not Unrighteousness entred in through Self-love and esteem which blinds the Eye and causes the Tongue to speak unrighteous things Is not Self exalted to sit in the Temple of God c. The occasion and reason of these Queries is his manifest abuse of the Quakers both in misrepresenting their Principle and villifying and reproaching them and that not only in the aforementioned Terms of dark aukward and untoward but in rendring them in general grosly ignorant as being neither Rational nor Intelligible in their account of their Light within because they have not reduced it to such a Philosophical Notion as he affects viz. The Omnifoâ—mity of the Ideal World though at the same time he says They confirm it with the Authority of St. John 's Gospel Is not the consequence of this a manifest over-valuing his own Notion and waâ— of explaining the Light within beyond and above the dictates of the Holy Spirit wherewith the holy Evangelist was divinely inspired and instructed and does not this spring from Self-love and esteem and does not that blind the Eye and cause the Tongue to speak unrighteous things and when self love and esteem gets up where does it sit but in the Temple of God might I not hence say art thou not decking thy self with thy corrupt Wisdom which is the forbidden Fruit and will prove folly in the end by corrupt Wisdom I mean not as he wrongly insinuates Human Learning in gross but the querking Wit and unsanctified Reason of man in the mis-use or abuse of it Something like this is his own Phrase on himself viz. his unlucky fancy pag. 4. where he makes a scoff at me about the Light within in these words viz. That he has exchanged his cold Quaking sit for a hot one and that the Light within is turned into a Flameâ— The bare mentioning of which shall suffice being a plain discovery of his frothy Wit and corrupt Wisdom which is farther manifested in his charge against the Quakers in his Postscript where he taxes their making use of those Divine Words and Expressions of Iohn the holy Evangelist in confirmation of their Principle of the Light within as loose and canting and which I say looks too much like Prophanenss and all this joyned with as possitive as uncharitable assertion viz. That they understand neither the Light they profess nor St. John's Gospel was the occasion of some other Queries viz. What art thou O Man that boasâ—eth thy self Art thou wiser then thy Maker whose Wisdom hath brought forth and taught his People those expressions Canst thou by searching find out God or the Almighty â—â—to perfection I tell thee nay and here without pretending to be Prophet I might and did say that God would confound his Wisdom and bring to nought his Understanding wherein it was exalted I pray God he may witness it in mercy to him This general villifying and reproaching Charge against the Quakers I have termed an evil Presumption and what if I had said Blasphemy against â—ome that dwell in Heaven is there not such a thing and may not the Quakers as many of them as truly love and fear God and work Righteousness in the Earth be of the number that dwell in Heaven How dare he then say or how can he say truly of the many thousands he knows not that they neither understand the Light they profess nor St. Iohn's Gospel without blasting their Fame hence it is that I take occasion to say that it is not a light thing to speak evil of things
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
observed by G. K. For the Godhead anoints not the Godhead but it is the Godhead that anoints the Manhood of Christ which Manhood hath been anointed from the beginning c. For so he says that Text Prov. 8.23 should be translated from the Hebrew Word Thus I think I have sufficiently explained the Quakers Principle of Light which considered in its self is Christ the Fulness but with respect to us and in us is the measure of the Stature of his Fullness which to the End the Ephesians might come unto the Apostle tells them Vnto every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ Ephes. 4.7 So we say God hath given unto every man a measure of the Light of his Son a measure of Grace or a measure of his Spirit whereby Christ is in all men Mediately as in a Seed and cannot be seperated from that holy pure Seed and Light of himself which is in all men during the Day of their Visitation I have likewise duly considered J. N's Notion of the Light and conceive as so immediately applyed to manâ— cannot be his proper Light because of his inaccesable and invisible brightness far exceeding mans highest capacity insomuch that it is so far from being his Natural and Ordinary way of understanding that as so applyed to man must of necessity confound him Thus whilst he labours to exalt his Principle he dazels his Eyes by gazing at too great a Light I have been the more large in treating of this subject seeing it to be his Basisâ— and concluding to unhinge him here would save me the trouble of following him through every Viander of his Laberinth of expression about this his repeated Notion I am now come to his answer to my Second Exception viz. That the Quakers Represent this Light within as an extraordinary Inspiration whence they have the name of Enthusiasts He tells me I mistake his meaning I cannot help that but if his meaning may be construed by the Genuine sence of his words not delivered in ambiguous Terms I am sure I no more mistake the one then the other What is more obvious then that extraordinary Inspiration is opposed to common and ordinary or communication and manifestation only in which sence I take it and though by the Antithesis of his Article he would repel it yet it is plain even from thence it must bare that signification because he there opposes it to his notion of the Light to be a mans natural and ordinary way of understanding which terms Natural and Ordinary are opposed to Extraordinary so that however different his Notion is from the Quakers Principle with respect to the Light its self This representation of it in the name of the Quakers as a singular and extraordinary Inspiration is a manifest abuse and makes good my Charge which if he will take to himself and simply own his Mistake will have an end But he goes on to explain his meaning which is says he That they represent it as a Supernatural Gift or Grace meaning by Supernatural something above or beyond the common Order State or Condition of Human Nature I answer there is no question of it and I most readily grant it otherwise how should man be restored from his Laps'd estate he is in by nature But what relation has this to Extraordinary seeing it may be and is Common and Universal as well as Supernatural and the Quakers have and do declare it so of which I need seek no proof because he knows it well But here I observe how he transfers the subject from Extraordinary to Supernatural doubling to alter the Sence and quibling to confound the Argument and shifting upon the word Extraordinary Again J. N. says The Quakers makes this Supernatural Gift or Grace as to its dispensation and order to be such an extraordinary super aboundant addition to the Nature of Man as it is not necessary he should always have and without which he would still continue a Rational and intelligent Nature I answer that it is an Extraordinary and Aboundant Addition to the Nature of Man the Quakers believe But that it is not necessary he should always have it as it relates to Mans spiritual estate and well-being they deny But that he may in a sence continue a Reasonable and Intelligible Nature without the knowledge of it they believe viz. as it is the Light of Redemption and Salvation But here again the words Extraordinary and Superaboundant as opposed to the Natural state of man represents the quallity of the Light Gift and Grace but respects not the Mode or Manner of its operation as Common and Universal and so carries a differing signification from the subject treated of It is too much to trace him in all his Twistings and turnings to avoid the Charge But to consider his Position a little further I observe he reduces his notion of the Light to the dispensation of God as Creator which to Answer I must distinguish from the Light of Christ as Redeemer in the former sence I take these his following words where to explain himself he says That 't is so much the Natural and Ordinary way of his understanding that he could not be able to understand at all without it that he would not only have less Light should it be taken from him but be quite in the dark With divers reiterated Expressions to the same purpose all which argues no more then that his Light is that which some call The remaining Light of Creation or the Light of Nature necessary to the very being of a reasonable and understanding Spirit as such I do not say J. N. intends no more by it but that it implies no more I confess in the purity and nobility of his Creation Adam was constituted a living Soul but when he fell from the state of Innocency he dyed and was deprived of his divine Life and Light in a great measure and of the Purity of his reasonable and understanding Spirit by which he had access to conversed with and enjoyed his God Howbeit he was not totally deprived of his Reason and Understanding but remained an Intelligent Being though much lessened and weakened or narrowed therein yet by the power of that Word by which he was at first created he was upheld in a degree of his rational Life and Powers suitable to his laps'd estate and condition of Human Life so that he could not be said to be altogether without the Light of his Creation in which sence I understand J. N's notion of his Light to be true viz. That without it we should not only not see so well but be able to see nothing or not at allâ— that is to say we should not only cease to be reasonable Creatures but cease to be at all But how does he thereby exalt his Light seeing as thus stated and considered in its natural consequences It must needs have Relation to the Remains of our Natural
too in some degrees of it and the greatest Grace of God too with respect to the degrees of it which are his own words what does the Quakers by making their divine Light to be the Grace of Christ destroy the universallity of its actul Illumination and so confine it and does J. N. making it to be the greatest Grace of God with respect to its degrees extend and enlarge it what is not Christ the greatest Grace of God and is it not manifest the Quakers believe him so or is J. N's notion of the Light more universal and extensive in those degrees he apprehends it is not Grace then in those degrees he apprehends it is Grace what confused and incoherent Notions does this man bring forth if his Light be Grace it is Christ if not Christ it is not Grace but if Christ he is universal all things are in and by him and he in and through all things and what can he make more of his Light But perhaps he would be a Novist and set up for a new speculative Notion to tickle and please the fancy of such of his Learned World whose Religion stands in the Conceptions and Imaginations of their own Brain and not in the Divine sence of Gods pure heavenly Life Light and Power in their own Souls to purifie and renew them and make them fit Temples for his holy Spirit to dwell in In the foregoing Charge J. N. hath not offered at any proof for doubtless he knew of none and therefore delivered it upon presumption the matter must be referred then to Doctrine for a determination of the Truth or falshood of this general Charge upon the Quakers The question then will be whether the Quakers because they profess Salvation by Christ Jesus under the denomination of the Light as it was prophesied concerning him that he should be given a Light unto the Gentiles and God's Salvation to the ends of the Earth Isa. 49.6 That this Light is come and hath appeared and manifested its self in the hearts of all men and is the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the World Iohn 1.9 To give Light to them that sit in Darkness and in the shadow of Death to guide our Feet in the Way of Peace Luke 1.79 acording to the holy Scriptures by which Quakers have been and are distinguished from the professed Christians of other Societies though they have not nor do not confine or limit their holy Profession to that denomination only but extend it as far as all the divine attributes that is given him viz. Christ the Light by the holy Ghost Whether this Doctrine of the Quakers infers a necessity for them to believe and say as J. N. charges them or whether they do or have have at any time in their publick exercise of Preaching or Writing or otherwise generally speaking taught exhibited or declared that therefore or because of such their distinct Profession or for any other cause they are the only professors and embracers of the Truth of God and the only followers of the Light and the only converters of themselves to it which are the words of J. N's charge as likewise when any one is proselited to the Quakers way that 't is ordinary for them to say such a one is turned to the Light from whence he says he thinks he had very good reason to say that the Quakers confined the Light to their own party as to the Act of Illumination Note by the way the Quakers understand better it is one thing to profess the Light and it is another thing to turn to it Until this Charge be proved on which this undue consequence is grounded which I am well satisfied never can because I am well assured it is inconsistant with the Christian Principle and Charity of the Quakers so to believe and say whatever J. N's pretentions are to good Reason I must return it back upon him as a notorious Slander of their Christian Profession he might as well and truly have said in plain terms that the Quakers allows none to profess Salvation nor to obtain Salvation by Christ Jesus but themselves because he alone is the Truth of God and the Divine Light and if none but the Quakers profess and embrace him viz. the Truth of God follow the Light and convert themselves to it It inevitably follows from the words of his Charge That the Quakers look upon themselves as the only People which can or shall be saved Behold the fruits and effects of J. N's Charity the want of which as he apprehends in me is the stress of his complaint and ground of that Ignominious character he bestows upon me viz. for censuring him from matter of Scandalous fact he had published against the Quakers for which together with this gross Addition the Lord rebuke him and make him sensible of his Wickedness and grant him true Repentance And now seeing he hath made so many quotations out of R. B's Apoll. to an ill use and purpose misapplying and perverting his sence contrary to his manifest and declared Judgment plainly and possitively exprest in the said Book I think fit to give him one instance out of it in opposition to his Charge and in vindication of the Quakers Profession and Charity Where R. B. pag. 357 358 359. treating of the universal and saving Light of â—hâ—ist upon that Text of Rom. 5.18 Therefore as by the Offence of one Iudgment came upon all men to Condemnation so by the Righteousness of one the free Gift came upon all men to the Iustification of Liâ—e having before shewed how that Christ dyed for all men here he shews that as all have received a loss from Adam which leads to Condemnation so all have received a Gift from Christ which leads to Justification and consequently that all are enlightned by Christ and have a measure of saving Light and Grace by the operation of which some have been and may yet be saved to whom the Gospel is not outwardly preached nor the History of Christ outwardly known but by its being preached in every Creature Many are comprehended that have not the outward knowledge therefore of those many some may be saved to prove that all men have a measure of saving Grace he quotes that excellent saying of the Apostle Paul to Titus cap. 2.11 The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all men c. joyned with Rom. 5.18 From which he shews it naturally follows that all men even the Heathens may be saved for Christ was given a Light to enlighten the Gentiles and so he comes to answer the great Objection viz. That there is no Name under Heaven by which Salvation is known but by the Name of Jesus and further says Though they know it not outwardly yet if they know it inwardly by feeling the vertue and power of it to free them from Sin and Iniquity in their Hearts they are saved by it He confesses there is no other Name given to be
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
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