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
TRUTH AND INNOCENCY Defended Being a Sober Reply to some Excesses in a Treatise written by IOHN NORRIS concerning the Divine Light Wherein his Personal Reflections and Misrepresentations of the Quakers about their Principle of the Light are further considered By RICHARD VICKRIS Let not the Wise man glory in his Wisdom c. But let him that glorieth glory in this that he understandeth and knoweth me that I am the Lord which exercise Loving-kindness Iudgment and Righteousness in the Earth for in these things I delight saith the Lord Jer. 9.23 24. LONDON Printed and Sold by T. Sowle at the Crooked-Billet in Holywell-Lane in Shoreditch in the Year 1692 3. The EPISTLE to the READER Friendly Reader THere is nothing so desirable as Peace and Concord I know the very name of Controversie sounds harsh in the Ears of many sober People besides my self and those whose Cause I am vindicating But forasmuch as it is become the subject of the ensuing Treatise I judge it convenient to acquaint thee that whatever Motives my Adversary had in giving the occasion it is not for the sake of Controversie nor any worldly Interest or advantage sought by me but singly for Truth and Innocencies sake that I thus appear in defence of both from gross misrepresentation and a very ill Character wherein my Adversary has exceeded to that degree as if he designed by that means to make his words good viz. That I should have occasion to wish I had never put him upon this undertaking for I seriously profess that laying aside the Abuses and Insults of his Book I see no occasion for such a conjecture If Truth and Righteousness had been his Basis Sobriety and Temperance would have been his Ornament but this being wanting his Argument proves fallacious and his Treatment uncivil and Injurious which excited that degree of aversion in me that I was ready at first to conclude to bear his Reproaches with silence But the consideration of the Truth I profess as being exposed by his gross misrepresentation and calumny oblieged me to this further concern My design herein being to undeceive and give a better and truer information of the Quakers Principle of the Divine Light to the sober minded and honest enquirer then I. N. hath done wherein I have aimed at something more then Controversie viz. such an Illustration of the Principle of Divine Light as may be useful and serviceable to most Capacities as concurring with Scripture-Language and confirmed with its divine Testimony And though I have not given it the Title of such a Treatise I hope it will be found not less deserving it then my Adversaries I shall now apprehending it in some sort necessary acquaint thee with the occasion hereof I. N. writes a Book entituled Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life c. which Title carried the face of something worthy of enquiry and search and to do him Justice there are many excellent expressions and undeniable Truths in it And although divine Experience and enjoyment is of much more value with the Quakers then the finest Speculation or Notion yet many were pleased with the subject especially considering from whence it came because they look upon it as tending to promote the Principle of Divine Light which according to the Quakers is not only perfective of the understanding but is that Grace of God that brings Salvation and hath appeared unto all men teaching to deny Ungodliness and worldly Lusts and to live Godlily Righteously and Soberly in this present evil world whereby the Soul comes to experience Redemption throughly not only to have the understanding enlightned but the will and affections Rectified and purified Thus the Quakers Rejoycing in the Truth was ready and willing to believe I. N. intended the same thing by his Notion of the Light and for the sake thereof would have born his unkind Reflection on them had he stopt there But how it came to pass I know not after he had said positively This is Truth this is that Light within so darkly talkt of by some who have by their Auckward untoward and unprincipled way of representing it discredited one of the noblest Theoryes in the world but the thing in it self rightly understood is true and if any shall yet call it Quakerism or Enthusiasm it is such Quakerism as makes up a good part of St. John 's Gospel and St. Austin 's Works Reflect on the Cond c. pag. 77. After this I. N. puts forth in his second Edition an Aditional Postscript in which whether from an Emulation of the Quakers Claim to the Principle he asserted Jealousie of being esteemed a Proselite shame of his Brethrens Reproaches fear of loss of preferment or affectation of Novelty I dare not determine but sure I am he hath greatly misrepresented the Quakers belief and doctrine of the Light within offering instead of their words and sence the Conjectures and Imaginations of his own Brain for which unfair dealing I was concerned to reprehend him which I did in a little Book entituled A Iust Reprehension to I. N. for his unjust Reflections on the Quakers But my plain dealing therein and manner of address not being attended with the usual Complements was so ill resented by him that he Indited me for Rusticity and Rendred me below the breeding even of a Water-man for want as he pretends of fair and civil Language but in Truth it is for want of Courtlâ—ness of stile and behaviour wherein I perceive he apprehends my Treatment of him was defective That I. N. Master of Arts Late Rector of Newton St. Loe near Bath and newly advanced to Bermerton near Sarum Late fellow of All Souls Colledge in Oxford a man of Refined Notions one that has undertaken to Reflect on the Conduct of those of his own Order as being able to discover such profitable Truths as they after all their studdy were Ignorant of should be Reprehended by a Quaker A Man of that sullen tribe whose visible Mark and Character is Rusticity as he says pag. 2. Is with him such an Intollerable piece of Rudeness as cannot be born without rendring him an affronting and provoking Adversary Therefore to purge himself from disingenuity Misrepresentation and ill Character of the Quakers and their Principle as also contradiction and error as signed against him He writes another Book called Two Treatises concerning the Divine Light The first being an Answer as he saith to a Letter of a Learned Quaker c. And contains an Explanation of his former Misrepresentation of the Quakers principle of the Light within with divers quotations out of some of their Authors with design to make good his Charges but instead thereof he hath made his matter much worse than before for being short and wanting of proof he hath laid the whole stress of his Charges both new and old upon most unjust and partial Inferrences and unfair and undue Consequences contrary to the very express words and sence of the Authors he quotes which has
yet without Sin Heb. 4.15 Having thus cleared the quotation of R. B. from I. N's Mis-implication and Consequence what I have said may serve for an Answer to that passage of his Pag 39. viz. That the Quakers do not hold their Light to be the very Substance and Essence of the Deity though at the same time he says I think they ought and that they are inconsistent with themselves in that they do not I shall leave him to think as he pleases concerning my self in having subverted his Notion But I. N. goes on and gives this as his Reason for his foregoing Position For sayes he that Text of St. John In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men which they quote to prove the Light to be a Substantial Principle does not prove so much as that unless the Proposition be understood formally and if it be then it proves a great deal more viz. That it is not only a Substance which is all they infer from it but also a Divine Substance strictly speaking even the very Essence of the Deity Answ. I readily grant there is a difference at least in the explanation of our Notion which I may further consider in its place but first I would examine how he fastens his inconsistency upon us from that Text out of Iohn I already perceive where the matter pincheth and can as easily untie his Knot The stress of his Argument is this Though the Life of the Word be the Light of men it will not therefore follow that admitting the Life to be a Substantial Principle that the Light is so too because the â—â—tâ—er may be only an effect and not the proper Agent and so equivalenâ— with the Terms He would have fixed on us of Communication and Mâ—nifestation only but if he examine the Text a little further he may find his mistake for I am sure it is plain enough that this Light is Christ and consequently must be not only a Substance which he falsly says in these Words Is all they infer from it But also a Divine Substance read Iohn 1.6 7 8 9. There was a Man sent from God whose Name was John the same came for a Witness to bear witness of the Light that all men through him might believe Who is this him but the Light Christ If he read R. B. throughly he would have told him that this Him is to be referred to the Light and not to Iohn that all may believe through him which could not be through Iohn as not hearing him Vers. 8. He was not that Light but was sent to bear Witness of that Light Vers. 9. That was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the World Is not this plain and possitive what can be added to illustrate it Is not J. N. hereby fairly convicted that the aforementioned Text proves what he says it does not viz that the Light is a Divine Substance and consequently the Inconsistency his and not the Quakers But allowing his Proposition to be understood formally which I know no Quaker denys viz. That the Light Christ is the formal object of our Faith Knowledge and Worship What does he mean by saying It proves a great deal more More then what then the Divine Substance which is Christ Jesus for so the Quakers do and have declared their Faith in him Oh! but I perceive he is for advancing his Notion of his Light to be the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking which are his express words Oh! the great Presumption and Folly of man while I am writing of this I have an awful Reverence upon my mind of that great incomprehensible Being of all Beings compared with our love and best estate the habitable parts of his Earth magnifying him that in his wonderful Counsel and divine Wisdom hath found out a way in commiseration to our lost estate and in condescention to our mean capacity to convey his Love and Life to us through such a Divine medium as renders us capable of enjoying him viz. through Jesus Christ his beloved Son our Lord whom he sent forth out of his own Bosom from the beginning to take upon him our Nature and not the Nature of Angels to suffer throughout all Ages and be as a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World that he might be a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World and a Mediator and Intercessor to God to restore lost man to him and in the fulness of time to take upon him our Flesh who gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified of in due time by whom God hath in these last Dayes spoken unto us viz. by his Son whom he hath appointed Heir of all things by whom also he made the Worlds who being the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance and upholding all things by the Word of his Power when he had by himself purged our Sins sate down at the Right hand of the Majesty on high Heb. 1. â— 3. But to return to the matter Why is it Presumption and Folly because the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking is the Godhead it self in the Abstract distinguished from Christ Jesus our Lord who is both God and Man as is before observed equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood and yet the Godhead and Manhood united in him Now the very Essence of the Deity strickly speaking or the Godhead it self in the Abstract or precisely taken is a Substance incomprehensible and so considered is a brightness incommunicable to our weak Capacities and not otherwise to be come unto seen felt and enjoyed but through a Medium which Medium iâ— Christ Jesus Well then is it not Presumption and Folly to pretend to a Light inaccessable as a means of knowledge which according to I. N's notion of the Light as is above stated must needs be such because the very Essence necessarily implies the Fulness and the Fulness immediately applyed is Light unapproachable 1 Tim. 6.16 Iohn 14.16 Iesus saith unto him I am the Way the Truth and the Life no man cometh to the Father bâ—â— by me believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me Though God the Father be in Christ immediately yet in us not so immediately as in Christ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father No seeing or knowing the Father but in him who is the Brightness of Gods â—lory and the express Image of his Substance And this is a comfortable Doctrine that our Light is proportioned to our understanding otherwise we should be confounded were not the Sun so placed in the Firmament as to convey a measure or proportion of its light and heat to us by its Beams through the vast Medium of the Air we should be burnt up does not this Doctrine plainly infer his Notion of the Light being the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking and yet as so applyed
Understanding by and not of our Supernatural Light of Redemption and Restoration by Christ Jesus the second Adam the Lord from Heaven the quickening Spirit which indeed is such an extraordinary superaddition to Human Nature as may be rightly termed Grace and which man as considered in his fallen and degenerate estate might be and is without receiving and enjoying it by Faith and yet be and does remain a reasonable and understanding Spirit or a Rational and Intelligent Nature which is expresly contrary to his notion of the Light as he has stated it But to proceed J. N. takes another Turn for it to prove the Quakers Represent this Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration He says 'T is plain that they make this Internal Light to be Grace that special and peculiar Grace of Christ whereby he restores laps'd man from the Corruption of his Natural State for this end he quotes out of R. B's Apol pag. 330. God hath communicated and given to every man a measure of the Light of his Son a measure of Grace or a measure of his Spirit and again out of R. B. pag. 346. where he calls it a Supernatural Gift and Grace of Christ. What does J. N. infer from all this Not that he would be thought to deny the Divine Light to be Grace as to certain degrees of it What then Is it Grace in one degree and not in another What stuff is here he should have settled and distinguished his Degrees that we might have known how to judge of them surely one might think this Man would make the knowledge of the Gospel Truths if not the way to Heaven it self such a Laberinth as is fit only for such as be of notional complexion or have their Heads cast in a Metaphisical Mould as he expresses himself on another occasion to find out or who can be tamely given up to follow his Clue whether they see it or no. But he goes on and says That he is so far from that viz. denying the Divene Light to be Grace as to certain degrees of it That he thinks it to be the greatest Grace of God that is he says with respect to the degrees of it Many of which I allow to be such Extraordinary superadditions to the common order or state of Human Nature as man might simply be without and yet continue in the rank and form of a Reasonable and Intelligent Creature Here J. N. still leaves us in the dark what sort of Grace his Light is and in what degrees and measures it is so he hath a little before opposed it to that Grace the Quakers make their Principle of Internal Light to be viz. That special and peculiar Grace of Christ whereby he restores Laps'd man from the Corruption of his Natural state consequently we may justly infer he intends not that and therefore whatever else he intends does not signifie much but if his Preaching be no better then such his Writing 't were better he held his peace for any good such Doctrine will do But he says further The Quakers not content with this make the Divine Light to be Grace simply and absolutely as to its whole Nature and Kind so as to be all over Extraordinary Do they so And is that their fault and the sum of all reduced to this I profess I think they do well to make it so in this sence of the word Extraordinary viz. Superaddition to the state of Human Nature in the Fall for in so doing they give the honour of all to Christ Jesus who is this Divine Light and Grace in the account and esteem of the Quakers Though I cannot perceive it to be so in his account upon the foot of his Notion as he hath explained it for that Christ in his whole Nature and Kind if I may so express my self is the Grace of God to man and all over Extraordinary full of Grace and full of Truth here the word Extraordinary hath still relation to the quallity of the Light Gift and Grace and not as opposed to common or universal in its manifestation as I have observed before so that it proves nothing of his Assertion wherein I Charge him of misrepresenting the Quakers Principle Here we may see what a mean and narrow shift J. N. is driven to to exalt his Principle of the Light and to debase and expose the Quakers that when all is done he makes his Light to be the Grace of God but as to certain degrees of it undiscovered and that not the special and peculiar Grace of Christ neither and the Quakers make it to be so viz. the peculiar Grace of Christ in its whole Nature and Kind J. N. proceeds on the same Argument viz. That the Quakers do make the Light something Extraordinary that is something added to the common way of Vnderstanding so as not to be simply necessary to Vnderstanding in general but only to the greater advantage of it by which he says their Principle is set at a sufficient distance from his I perceive he is fond of his Distance now and is very exact in keeping it he need not be afraid the Quakers will not run away with his new Notion of the Light he may keep it for any excellency they see in it I have already granted him his Difference and owned this Distinction and answered it so that what he quotes out of R B's Apol. serves only to support his distance and requires no farther notice then a bare recital of it being unquestionably sound and true and was opposed to a common Calumny viz That the Quakers preached up a Natural Light or the Light of mans Natural Conscience It is as followeth That man as he is a Rational Creature hath reason as a natural faculty of his Soul by which he discerns things that are Rational we deny not for this is a property Natural and Essential to him by which he can know and learn many Arts and Sciences beyond what any other Animal can do by the meer Animal Principle Neither do we deny but by this Rational Principle man may apprehend in his Brain and in the notion a knowledge of God and Spiritual things yet that not being the right Organ as in the second Proposition hath more at length been signified it cannot profit him towards Salvation but rather hindereth and indeed the great cause of the Apostacy hath been that man hath sought to fathom the things of God in and by this Natural and Rational Principle and to build up a Religion in it neglecting and over-looking this Principle and Seed of God in the Heart so that herein in the most universal and catholick sence hath Antichrist in every man set up himself and sitteth in the Temple of God as God and above every thing that is called God for Men being the Temple of the Holy Ghost as saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.16 When the Rational Principle sets it self up there above the Seed of God to reign and
vizâ— the Serpent's spirit and wisdom and so I have answered that part of his Inferrence as being not deducible from his quotation But to prove the Quakers confine the Light within c. He argues these two Lights can no more interfer with one anothers order then the Sun can usurp the Government of the Night or the Moon assume to her self the conduct of the Day and if this be not to confine the Divine Light to some certain objects namely Moral and Spiritual Truths I know not what it is Here lest the Reader should think this construction to be R. B's sence or deducable from his foregoing words what doubtless J. N. designedly avoided I shall do viz. repeat his following words which are these And even as the Moon borrows her Light from the Sun so ought men if they would be rightly and comfortably ordered in Natural things to have their Reason Enlightned by this Divine and pure Light Thus J. N. abuses his Ingenious Author not only concealing but perverting his sence but to consider the matter a little further will his Conclusion hold is his Consequence upon the first part of his quotation fairly and equally applyed doubtless he knows the contrary though he catches at any thing to serve his purpose Will he not consider the disparity of the subjects their disproportion with respect to their primitive station and order because men usually illustrate matters by comparing visible to Invisible or created to Divine things will he thence infer a necessity that if it be allowable in a comparison it must hold good in all its relations as in a case where there is no inequallity in the subjects Because the Quakers say there are two Lights in the Soul compared to the Sun and Moon which are created and limitted beeings and have their distinct and limitted offices that therefore the Quakers by such their comparison confine the Light within which is supernatural and divine to some certain objects namely Moral and Spiritual Truths What a far-fetched and unlearned Consequence this man makes and in the end 't will not serve his turn God made man upright created him in his Image breathed into him the breath of Life and so he became a living Soul in a Divine Rational or Intellectual and Animal life to his divine Life he dyed and was seperated from it by transgression which divine Life was to him as the Light of the Sun to the Day this Light being extinguished as to him he fell into Darkness and an evitable Night came over him The remaining Light of his Creation viz. his intellectual and rational principle whereby Man is distinguished from other Animals was not hereby totally Extinguished though greatly vailed darkened and corrupted by the Serpent's power and spirit that entred it But under this degeneracy remained as a conduct through his Animal Life thus poor undone man not only lost the Light of his glorious Sun but had his Moon eclipsed what follows and how comes man that was in honour and abode not but became like the Beast that perisheth to be restored again but by the superaddition of this divine Light to his miserable estate which was the promised Seed which though extinguished and as a Lamb slain by mans transgression remained nevertheless in the purity of its own Life living to God and him it pleased God in the riches of his Love and infinite compassion to the works of his own Hands to send forth again out of his own Bosom to effect the work of the new Creation viz. the Redemption and Restoration of lost man again to God Thus he came to be quickned and made alive to have his spiritual Sences restored again and not only so but to have his rational powers rectified or his Moon-Light renewed and delivered from under the power of the Serpent's spirit and wisdom which had corrupted it Now the question upon this Article is whether Robert Barclay hath by his aforementioned comparison limitted or confined the Divine Light to some certain objects Namely Moral or Spiritual Truths or that he confines the Light as much to such objects as the Sun is confined to the Day which is I. N's positive assertion because the divine Light is the principle of our spiritual Sences and divine Knowledge and therefore compared to the Sun that rules the Day will it thence follow because the Sun cannot interfer with the office of the Moon or the Moon of the Sun both keeping their proper station and order that the Moon does not receive Light from the Sun or that the Son of Righteousness is equally conâ—ined and have nothing to do with the natural and created Light of mans corrupted Reason to help purifie and renew it surely this is as ill and unsound in Doctrine as it is unlearned and unfair in consequence J. N. might here have spared his Reflection on me on this occasion having sufficiently exposed himself in reproaching me and largely manifested his defect of Civillity and good Behaviour in the fore part of his Treatise But he goes on having pickt up one passage more out of the Preface to R. B's Works pag. 21. which he thinks may serve his turn The words are speaking of his Apol. for the true Christian Divinity The method and stile of the Book may be somewhat singular and like a Schollar for we make that sort of Learning no part of our divine Science Which J. N. says comes to as much as if he had said we make Human Learning or those Arts and Sciences which are the common objects of Accademical learning no part of that knowledge which is supernaturally communicated to us by the Light of Christ Jesus Thus far J. N. is right and I allow of his stating the Position but he errs in framing his Argument on the consequence which he does thus If Human Learning be no part of that Knowledge which comes by the divine Light then the divine Light is not extended to Human Learning and consequently must be confined to Spiritual Truths I deny the second Position as being differently stated upon his first sumption To say that Human Learning in the Prefacer's words is no part of our divine Science or in J. N's words to the same effect That it is not supernaturally communicated to us by the Light of Christ is one thing and to say that Human Learning is no part of that Knowledge which comes by the divine Light is another thing the diffetence lies in the manner of communication and Organ of Receptionâ— Though the Quakers pretend not to the ordinary Knowledge of necessary Arts and Sciences by the supernatural communication of the divine Light yet they do not say they come not by the divine Light by whom are all things and in whom are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge but the Quakers distinguish and confess the Divine Light is extensive to universal Truth according to that Text of the Apostle to the Corinthians The Spirit searcheth all things yea
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
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
Light from its Act of shining which cannot be how can the inbeing only of the Divine Light in this sence reach to the Soul without the Act of its Illumination and how can the Soul before she experiences this be in any measure enlightned and if she be not in some measure enlightned how should she attain to the capacity of introverting her self to the Divine Light what I have here said shall suffice for a Answer to his two following Pages wherein he pursues his Argument upon his former mistaken Consequence and then descends into a Physical discourse of the Act of Seeing with which I think not my self concerned further then as having made use of it as a Similitude The next thing J. N. takes notice of is the Contradiction I assign upon him which I have done in the following Words that thou mayst not want occasion to traduce the Quakers thou hast so much over-done it in this Section as to contradict thy self in the 5 th as for instance To be actually enlightned according to thy Principle is no special priviledge but the common and universal benefit of all men yea of all the intelligent Creation who all see and understand in this Light without which there would be neither Truth nor Vnderstanding On the contrary thou sayst Thy Light does not formally enlighten or instruct thee but when thou attends to and consults it and read what was written in those divine Ideal Characters See what contradictions thy strained Notions runs thee into one while to be actually enlightned is the common and universal benefit of all men another while only of those who consult it and attend to it Upon this J. N. tells me I have so lately spoiled my Credit with him in this point that he shall not be very forward to take my Word for a Contradiction again A pretty turn off if it would do but suspecting it he hath used a great deal of artifice to cover hide this Contradiction and all to no purpose so long as the two old pieces remain it will be seen where the Crack was and there is no way to prevent that but by new moulding the Lump but that is too much Self-denyal I doubt for my Adversary to comply with for then he shall be taken pro confesso wherefore we must examine it a little further That it is a contradiction in Terminis I think no body that has common sence will deny And that it may appear to be no mistake of his sence And to shew that his urging the consideration and colating together the two different occasions upon which these two seemingly opposite passages as he terms them were delivered is only to triffle and shuffle with his Reader I shall make use of one or two quotations more out of his Reflect c. pag. 71. Sect. 5th and 6th where he says The Divine Logos enlightens in a double respect either Fundamentally or Potentially by putting us into a capacity of Illumination by his intimate union and presence with us or else effectually or actually when we attend to this Divine Light which is always present to us though we are not so to it in the former sence he enlightens every man in the latter only those who duly consult him and attend to him Again Sect. 6. That the Divine Logos is an enlightner in the same proportion He is a Redeemer How is it that he tells us he Redeems us either by putting us in a salvable or Reconcileable state which is a Redemption universal or Inconditionate and anticedent or by actually reconciling or saving us which depends upon and is consequent to certain conditions and is conferred only upon those who are quallified accordingly By these two last quotations it is very manifest that J N's Doctrine teaches that none are effectually and actually enlightned but such who quallifie themselves by duly consulting the Light no more then they are effectually and actually Redeemed without performing the conditions antecedent by which they are actually reconciled and saved where by the way it is to be noted effectually and actually is to be understood in the same formal sence as fundamentally and potentially are viz. ex parte objecti This is plain and must be granted to be J. N's sence without relation to the occasion of his Postcript or opposition to the Quakers belief of the Light within which for ought I know has been the very cause of his confusion and contradiction of himself so extreamly as he has about it in the first of those two quotations he says The Divine Light is always present to us though we are not so to it and yet makes this presence to be an inbeing only exclusive of actual Illumination which inbeing according to him is like hot Embers covered under Ashes without affecting the subject and so all may be said to be present to the divine Light for in him we live move and have our being And though he pretends an evasion from the Contradiction assigned between his 4 th and 5 th Articles and Propositions with respect to the different occasion I answer no difference in the occasion can or ought to oblige to a contradiction of his own Thesis or Principle unless by means of a defect in its self and then it is better honestly to confess and mend it then seek to hide and cover it here he may very well resume the plea to himself which he made for the Quakers that is to be always so strictly attentive of the Consequence of what one lays down as never to say any thing inconsistant with ones Principle is a happiness that men of more Logical Heads then the Quakers are generally presumed to be would give a great deal to be sure of He has verified this saying in himself and I am willing he should have the advantage of his plea only 't is fit he should know the want of it otherwise 't will do him little good Will his pretention of occasion for opposing his Notion to what he had formed to be the Quakers as to the confinement of the Light to certain men justifie his assertion in his 4 th Article that to be actually enlightned is no special priviledge but the common and universal benefit of all men yea of all the intelligent Creation and at the same time in his 5 th Article having the like occasion to oppose himself against another pretended Notion of the Quakers making the Light to be some determinated formed dictate or proposition c. will it I say justifie him in a direct contradictory assertion viz. That his Light does not formally enlighten him but when he attends to it and consults it and read what is written in those divine Ideal Characters This is a sort of Legerdemain in arguing or writing I think most unallowable but in which sence shall we take his Notion I conclude it must be in the latter from the two collateral quotations which are very possitively exprest well then I
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.
worse in I. N. to account them loose and canting Though he says the Quakers understand neither one nor the other which I tell him is an evil Presumption concerning many thousands he knows not But what does I. N. say to all this He tells me â—e doubts not but he shall be able to make his Words good by shewing the Quakers notion of the Light to be indeed Vnprincipled and Vnphilosophical Unprincipled I am sure he never can If he means by Unphilosophical that they deliver their Faith and Doctrine of the Light in Scripture Terms and confirm them according to the Authority of St. Iohn's Gospel and not according to his new way of explaining his Notion viz. Omniformity of the Ideal worldâ— or the like I must tell him plainly whatever esteem he has for them we affect the good Apostolical Terms and Language taught us in the Holy Scriptures and given forth by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost much better And though I. N. is pleased to make a pleasant Fancy about the Word Confirm as though I claimed more by it then what he thinks fit to allow us Let him intend more or less what he will that he makes use of the Word in the same sence I have taken it is manifest pag. 60. and I am sure the Quakers Expressions about the Light are agreeable to what is taught in Iohn's Gospel His general Charge of the Quaâ—ers Notion of the Light as Unprincipled and Unphilosophical being as I. N. says such as concerns the intire Body of their Hypothesis concerning the Light And so I shall content my self at present in having thus largely treated of the Quakers Principle of the Divine Light within and shewed it to be Christ Jesus the heavenly Man or Lord from Heaven the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and full of Truth in opposition to any Created or Material Substance whatsoever most Injuriously charged upon the Quakers as deduceable from their Writings which is an old Scotch Presbyterian Calumny newly taken up by I. N. whose gross treatment of the Quakers in perverting and misapplying their Words and Sence is herein largely discovered whereby my Charge against him in my Just Reprehension is not only vindicated but the like Abuses in his Appendix being exactly of a piece with this which I have now answered may be the easier seen through and discerned to which end I recommend what I have written to the Consciences of the sober Readers and Conclude with desire that like Noble Bereaâ—s they may search and try whether things are so or no. THE END Pag. 45. and 46. Pag. 7. Pag. 8. Pag. 105. Coll. 5th Sunday after Easter Coll. Mund. in the Whitsun-week Coll. 19 Sund. after Trinity Epist. 20 Sund. after Trinity Pag. 13. A Man of this sullen Tribe whose visible Mark and Character is Rusticity Below the Breeding even of a Waterman That he has exchanged his cold Quaking Fit for a hot one That the Light within is turned into a Flame A Bitter foul mouthed Sect speaking of the Quakers A Blasphemous piece of Arrogance Malicious spightful abusive Scurrility Barbarous Treatment dregs of his Venom Cholar Filth ridding his foul Stomach With more to the same effect Pag. 19. Pag. 25. Pag. 26. Pag. 27. â— pag. 29. pag. 110. Postsc 184. pag 32. pag. 36. pag. 37. Pag. 40. Pag. 40. Pag. 130 131. Pag. 35. Page 40. Way cast up Pag. 97. pag. 43. pag. 45. Pag. 46. Pag. 47 48. Apoll. pag. 337. Apoll. pag. 346. Pag. 48. pag. 49. pag. 50. pag. 53 pag. 59. pag. 61. pag. 63. pag. 64. Apol. pag. 393. pag. 67. pag. 68. pag. 69. pag. 72. pag. 78.79 pag. 80. pag. 82. pag. 82. pag. 83. pag. 84. pag. 84. pag. 84. pag. 85. pag. 46. pag. 86. pag. 86. pag. 87. pag. 87. pag. 88. pag. 90. Postâ— Sect. 4. Postâ— Sect. 5. pag. 91. pag. 47. pag. 23. pag. 91. pag. 96. pag. 96. pag. 97.98 pag. 100. pag. 100 101. pag. 101. pag. 102.