that the Discoveries that he sets up for are not the same to all Nations and Persons as can easily be proved Ten thousands would break through the Hedge of his General Rule of binding them to the common Discoveries given to all Mankind as most of the People called Quakers do and would highly pretend to new and special Discoveries given to them by the Light within and to none others and the reason they will alledge that it is not given to others is their Unfaithfulness and especially that like Corah they Rebel against their Spiritual Guides and Leaders Thus we may see the great need of an outward Rule and the great Goodness of God that he hath given us one full and perfectly sufficient to be a Rule of our Faith and Life in all necessary Cases And besides If W. P's Argument have any Truth in it it would infer that Christ or the Spirit abstractly considered from all Revelation both Internal and External should be the Rule because he is the Ruler If the Ruler and the Rule must still be one and the same thing then suppose all Revelation Internal as well as External should cease Christ or the Spirit should be the Rule because the Ruler Who sees not the Fallacy and Sophistry of W. P's Argument here Hath not every common Artificer his Rule of Wood or Brass that is not the Man himself but the Instrument that he hath made and prepared for his use The Prophets Rule by which their Faith was ruled in what they Prophecied was not the Spirit but the internal Revelation of the Spirit the Spirit was their Guide and Ruler but not to speak properly their Rule but the Revelation they had or things revealed that was their Rule and so now the external Revelation of the same Truths is the Rule of our Faith whereby to believe them as the Spirit inwardly by his secret Illumination perswades us of their Truth and certainty not by any new verbal Record but by Sealing to the Record outwardly given Section 12. His falsly alledging that he has the first Reformers Fathers and Martyrs on his side viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith but the Light in every Conscience His Fallacy in this detected in the late Book called The Deism of W. P. and his Brethren c. The Spirits being superior to the Scripture proves not that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith His pretended ground of his pitying the Bishop for his supposed Ignorance Causeless and Fallacious His false Accusation and Charge against the Bishop and Church of England and all Protestant Opponents to the Quakers that they confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times That the Ministers among the Quakers are less acted by the Spirit of God in their Praying and Preaching than the Ministers among their Protestant Opponents evidently proved AND this leads me to detect another Fallacy of his which shall be the last I intend to notice though I could detect many more but these I think will suffice to shew how Fallacious he is Let us therefore hear him once more In his Page 106 and 107 after he has most grosly alledged that he has the concurring Testimony and Assent of the best and first Reformers as well as Martyrs and Fathers to confirm his Fundamental viz. That not the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures without but the Light within is the Rule of Faith and Life and that the Light or Spirit within is something at least co-ordinate if not superior and antecedent to the Scripture Which is more saith he than we said before and consequently is the Rule of Faith and Life superior to the Scripture Having in my late Treatise of W. P's Deism rescued the Fathers and first Reformers from his Perversions I shall only now take notice of his fallacious Inference by this his Argument The Light or Spirit within is something superior and antecedent in way of Excellency to the Scripture therefore it is the superior and antecedent Rule above the Scripture the Proposition is granted and I know none that ever denied it to wit That the Spirit which is God is greater and more excellent than the Scripture But then it followeth not that it is the greater or more excellent Rule because properly speaking it is no Rule at all Right Logicians will tell him if he will go and learn of them which it is to be suspected for all that he was a Student at Oxford he has great need to do that things in a different kind are not to be compared If it were asked of W. P. whither a Knife of Gold or a Knife of Steel were the best Knife he would answer surely though Gold is superior to Steel and more excellent yet it is not fit to be a Knife and Men make not the blades of Knives of Gold So though the Spirit be superior to the Revelation of it whither Internal or External yet not the Spirit but his Revelation is the Rule and Internal Revelation was the Rule to the Prophets whereby they believed their Prophecies and what internal Revelation was to them external Revelation is to us though we have not that internal Revelation that they had which was Prophetical and Extraordinary but the Spirit internally by way of Seal Sealing to us the Truth and Certainty of the external Revelation gives us as sure ground for the certainty of our Faith as they had of theirs But this inward Seal of the Spirit is no Rule either co-ordinate with the Scripture or subordinate to it because it doth not propose to us by it self all the things necessary to be believed by us in verbal Propositions as the Seal of a Bond though it is a Proof and Evidence to the Truth of the Bond yet it tells us not the Contents of it And now because the Bishop found fault with his calling the Scripture without and the Illumination of the Spirit within the double and agreeing Record of true Religion as indeed well he might so do in W. P's sense though in a qualified and sober sense it may be acknowledged as perceiving the fallacious sense that W. P. had of those words well observed by the Bishop That they will not believe what Scripture saith except the Light within them dictate the same And yet none of them can justly say that the Light within doth dictate to them by it self one Article of that called the Apostles Creed yea W. P. doth not so much as pretend that it doth to him yet most uncivilly he falls upon the Bishop p. 107 telling him It must be his turn now to pity the Bishop And truly saith he I do it with all my Heart And this it seems in retaliation of the Bishop's tender Expression of his Pitty and Compassion towards some well-meaning Persons among them who are mislead by their Teachers But for what must he needs Pity the Bishop Why for his supposed Ignorance that he will not allow the Spirit to be
Propitiation in order to remission of Sins can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion so by good consequence contrariwise whoever believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians to wit as outwardly Crucified Dead and Raised again c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sin c. in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians therefore W. P. hardly believeth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion to wit as peculiar to the same The first proposition is proved by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion as I think he will readily confess the second proposition which is the Assumption is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books never to this day retracted by him And though he reckoneth up the Doctrine of the Trinity viz. of the Father of Christ the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust to be Fundamental Doctrines yea and the main of Christian Doctrine yet from what is above proved out of his Books he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity and of Heaven and Hell and as plainly he hath opposed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in their respective Bodies as I have fully proved in my third Narrative and so have his Brethren G. Whitehead Richard Hubberthorne and others only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books in his Reason against Railing in answer to Tho. Hicks P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resurrection of the Body which Tho. Hicks argued for Is the Joy of the Ancients saith W. P. now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window to be without its beloved Body a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection Again in his answer to J. Faldo called the Invalidity of J. Faldo's Vindication P. 369. It 's sown a Natural Body It 's raised a Spiritual Body and I do utterly deny saith he that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the World Natural but they are raised Spiritual through him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are Sons of the Second Adam Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which now he professeth to own and that as Fundamental but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians for with what certainty can he or they believe them they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things or indeed of any others they have no certainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals from the Rule of Faith set up by them which is the Light within them with respect to its ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned fall within these ordinary Discoveries as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to extraordinary Revelation And if he should affirm they did belong to the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind he cannot prove it What obscure Knowledge any of them called Heathen Philosophers had of any of these great Mysteries W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within but Traditionally either from the Jews and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets or from some among themselves prophetically inspired as it is reported of the Sybils the which report were it true doth not prove that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general Section 5. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective whereas the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P 's Confession which though given in Scripture words yet not in the true Sense of Scripture His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered His Fallacy and Equivocation about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus Christ and the Son of God whereas he hath denied him to be properly so And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head IN his Page 30 he proceeds in his unchristian and uncivil Treatment of the Bishop unjustly charging him as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop and as if he did render the Text it self short which saith W. P. with submission I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station If he believes the 39 Articles But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop and a Shuffling and Cover wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity The Bishop might well enough without charging any defect on the Text as he doth not in the least charge a defect on this Confession of W. P. and his Brethren because though given in one Scripture Text yet he had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture for most that are unsound as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity even Socinians as well as others will profess yea and have professed to give their Faith in the Text yea and all other Texts of the like nature who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess they believe that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God one in Substance and Essence and thus think to clear themselves of Sociniansm yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism acknowledging no distinction betwixt Father Son and Holy Ghost other than Nominal or at most in Manifestation and Operation ad extra and with relation to the Creatures So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy Trinity which he calls the Scripture Trinity but it is not the Scripture Trinity but the Sabellian Trinity is no other than this that as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God one Essence and Being so the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Son and the Son is the Holy Ghost for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation he disputeth not
in a publick Meeting with Blasphemy for asserting it but whither the Body of Christ now since his Ascension is in all things and every where If not every where then but some where and that some-where is a Local Heaven which W. P. hath said is Mahometan E. Burrough charg'd John Bunnion with Wickedness for saying Christ was in Heaven in our Nature And for the same did G. Whitehead blame John Horn as I have shewn in my Narratives And saith G. W. in his Nature of Christianity p. 41. That Christ existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right hand What Scripture hath he viz. his Opponent R. G. for these words W. Bailey will have it That Christ ascended into Heaven in no body but what came down from Heaven All which and much more is proved out of my three Narratives the third especially And whereas he saith Let it be never so true it cannot affect the People if not the act of the People the Church of England has Doctors of very differing Sentiments c. I answer what any one of your Teachers have asserted in Print especially it affects your Second days Meeting that licenseth all your Teachers Books and yet profess to be all one and the same in all that ye believe as God and Truth is the same And if the Church of England hath Teachers of different Sentiments in lesser Matters yet not in Fundamentals so far as she knows and if they had and she should know it and not censure them it would affect her From all which it appears that W. P. and his Brethrens Conciseness in their Gospel Truths was on purpose in general Terms to cover their gross Errors And where Men are sound in the Faith and of known Sincerity what is implied in their words may in Charity and Justice be granted but not if they be Insincere and given to equivocate as is the present Case Section 6. His Fallacy in asserting that his owning future Rewards and Punishments in his Sense doth imply his owning the Resurrection of the Dead which it is proved he hath disowned His unjust Offence at the Bishop's Censure of his unsound Notion of the Light within and his uncivil Treatment of the Bishop on that account as if he were a meer Natural Man a Persecuter a Nicodemus in the Knowledge of Regeneration The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within more sound and intelligible than that of W. P. By W. P 's Definition of Light within and Sight within a Natural Man is capable to understand it though in contradiction to himself W. P 's Ignorance in making the natural rational Faculty to be all the Spiritual Sight even in Regenerated Persons The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within and Spiritual Sight of regenerated Persons as more sound so more sublime than that of W. P. IN Page 43 he proceeds in the like Fallacy and Equivocation alledging That their acknowledging the future state of the Just and Unjust implys the resurrection of the Dead which as it is true in a Scripture sense it is as false in his sense and in the sense of all others of his Heathen Brethren many of whom professed to believe the immortality of Men's Souls both Greek and Latin yet that profession did not imply they believed the resurrection of the Body either of the Just or Unjust for they generally disbelieved it and opposed the Christians for asserting it And that W. P. himself hath opposed the Resurrection of the Body is above sufficiently proved In his Page 51. and 52. W. P. seems not a little moved with the Bishops saying their discourse about the Light within as far as he can see is perfectly such as we usually call Banter that is when Men have a faculty to speak things seemingly profound but in the end neither themselves nor others can make any distinct Sense of what they have said This Modest Censure of the Bishop upon his discourse of the Light within in his 5th 6th and 7th Sections W. P. calls one of the severest Persecutions This to me saith he is one of the severest Persecutions because Spiritual things are only to be Spiritually discern'd and understood I would fain know saith he how a regenerate Man can possibly make a Carnal Man understand the new Birth yea he chargeth it to look Antichristian as well as unreasonable and he quotes diverse places of Scripture which he at least implicitly levels at the Bishop as if the Bishop were the Unregenerate and Natural Man that because he is so he cannot understand W. P's profound Doctrine of the Light within And the Bishop is he that is born after the Flesh who persecutes W. P. that 's born after the Spirit and his Brethren with Tongue and Pen when he and others such as he can no longer commit violence upon their Persons and Estates and as if the Bishop were a very Nicodemus in the Doctrine of the new Birth All which it plainly appears and much more W. P. indirectly and implicitly levels at the Bishop otherwise why quotes he such places of Scriptures with such large discourses on them if not to point to him and that his want of the new Birth and being but a Natural Man tho' not wanting Academical Learning made him uncapable of understanding W. P's Spiritual Doctrine about the Light within and after his instance of the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees and the High-Priest of the Jews in not discerning the Messiah when he came he infers let the Bishop also have a care and he further tells the Bishop he should be glad to see the Bishop's evidence for the knowledge of God by the Revelation of the Son of God in his own Soul To give my sense freely so far as I am able to understand the Bishop hath given a better account and evidence of his knowledge in the Mystery of God and of Christ by his Christian Scriptural and sound expressions than W. P. and I suppose in his manner of Life is nothing inferior to him And what evidence of his true knowledge by Internall Illumination or Revelation can W. P. give or has given that the Bishop cannot give yea hath not given in this very case Is it enough for W. P. to say he has it and the Bishop has it not Or wherein do W. P's fruits of a holy Life give more evidence of his knowledge and experience of the new Birth than these of the Bishop I shall first take notice of the Bishop's sound words in giving his sense how the Conscience of Man is enlightned to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation Conscience saith the Bishop opened by the holy Spirit under the Ministry of the word Acts 16. 14. does and must take in its Light from holy Scripture quoting Psal 19. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal 119. 105. Isaiah 8. 20. Now these things saith he are intelligible this Rule is fixt and certain nothing of which can be said of your Light within
This short discourse of the Bishop gives a more true and intelligible account of the Light within as it is in every true Christian which the Bishop has contained within three lines than W. P's ramble in his Ten pages of his Book and in the many hundred pages of his other Books that he hath scribbled about it to render it intelligible even to natural and unconverted Men for to such he did write as well as unto others and yet now he affirms it is not intelligible to natural Men such as he thinks the Bishop is for want of experience of the new Birth And positively asserts P. 49. that our Natural Rational Faculty is our sight but not our Light that by which we discern and Judge what the Divine Light shews us And in P. 50. he saith The Bishop's Natural Conscience must only mean a Capacity that Man has by Nature that is in his Creation of making a Judgment of himself his Duty and Actions according to the Judgment of God manifested to him by the Light of Christ within Now since W. P. must needs grant that the Bishop suppose but a natural Man as W. P. most uncharitably will needs have him to be has a Natural Conscience and the Natural Rational faculty of the Soul which is the Sight or Eye by which he can discern and Judge what the Divine Light shews him and also that W. P. strongly asserts that all Men have the Divine Light in them and consequently the Bishop must have it also what hinders but that the Bishop should understand W. P's Doctrine about the Light within were it really intelligible seeing by W. P's confession the Bishop has not only the Light within him the same that W. P. hath but the same Sight within him also that is as W. P. defines it the same Natural Rational Faculty and the same Natural Conscience which is the Capacity whereby to see or discern what the divine Light shews Besides it were all to no purpose for W. P. and all the Teachers among the Quakers to preach so frequently to Natural and Wicked Men exhorting them to mind the Light within obey it and give up to its Leadings if they were not capable to understand it as W. P. here saith they are not though in contradiction to his and his Brethrens daily Practise But according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture the Spiritual or inward Eye of the Mind of regenerate Persons whereby they discern Spiritual and Divine Objects is not the Natural Rational Faculty or Natural Conscience which all Men though vicious generally have but some more excellent Spiritual Faculty in the Soul superior to the Natural Rational Faculty as the Natural Rational Faculty is superior to the imaginative Faculty the which superior Spiritual Faculty of the Soul above the Natural Rational faculty is shut up or as it were extinct in meer Natural Men until it be opened and awakened in them by the Spiritual Regeneration and new Birth according to Eph. 1. 18. above quoted by the Bishop and Acts 26. 18. and Eph. 5. 8. And how much more agreeable is it to the Holy Scripture to say that true Divine Faith is the Sight of regenerated Persons whereby they look to Christ the great object and Author of it Heb. 12. 2. than that the Natural Rational Faculty is it as W. P. saith it is But by W. P's discourse both here and elsewhere he seems to be as ignorant of the Spiritual Sight of the regenerated Soul as of the Spiritual and Divine Light whereby it is enlightned and the Bishop has given a far more true account of both in three lines than W. P. has done either in this or all his other Books in which succinct and comcomprehensive definition of the Bishop these two things are worthily to be observed the first is that that which makes the Conscience of Man capable to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation is that the Conscience be opened by the Holy Spirit for which he citeth Acts 16. 14. How the Lord opened the Heart of Lydia that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul And as by opening of the Heart in Acts 16. 14. is understood a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost by the Lord Jesus Christ given to Lydia whose Heart the Lord thus opened which she had not before notwithstanding of the common Illumination which she had before so no doubt the Bishop hath the same sence of it in agreement with the Doctrine of the 39 Articles of the Church of England that asserteth the necessity of a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost above and beyond the common Illumination given to Mankind in general to give the saving Knowledge and Faith of Christian Doctrine to any who have it But this special Illumination given to Believers only in Christ Crucified W. P. doth not acknowledge he thinks the common Illumination given to Infidel Jews Mahometans and Heathens is sufficient without any thing else or without any superadded Illumination in special for to grant any such superadded special Illumination being necessary to the Faithful would quite overturn W. P's Fabrick of the General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind And by this it appears that the Bishop's Doctrine about the Internal Illumination or Manifestation of Christ by the Holy Ghost as it is much more true than that of W. P's so it is much more excellent and sublime plainly distinguishing Christianity from Deism whereas W. P's Doctrine about the inward Illumination doth confound them and make them one and the same thing The second thing that is worthy to be noticed in this succinct and comprehensive Definition given by the Bishop is that the Conscience is thus opened i. e. illuminated and inspired by the Holy Spirit under the Ministry of the Word and so does and must take in its Light from Holy Scripture to wit the Light of the Christian Doctrine which the Conscience receives from the Scriptures instrumentally the Holy Scripture being the Instrument of the Spirit and of his preparing whereby he doth enlighten the Hearts of true Christians both to believe the Truth and understand the depth of the Christian Doctrine Section 7. A further account of W. P 's unsound Notion of the Light within and of the Bishop's sound Notion of it in all the Faithful the Spirits Light within and the Scripture Light without both necessary and well consistent in God's ordinary way of working to beget true saving Knowledge and Faith in Men. W. P. his various and equivocous Sence of the Light within Christ considered as the word God is in and to himself Life and Light essentially but to Men even the best of Men he is Light effectively by his Operations and is so called by a Metonimy We have no immediate Knowledge of the Essence of any Creature nor of the Creator but by his various Operations and Illuminations BUT this manner of receiving Light by means
Opponents as guilty of Blasphemy for denying the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation without any thing else Seeing that Light within is Christ for it is as much as to say Christ is not sufficient to Salvation And thus some of them have charged me in particular to whom I have answered that seeing Christ is truly Christ without us as well as within us and much more gloriously manifested in the Flesh without us If it is no blasphemy to say Christ without us cannot save us without his being in us as they will readily grant so nor is it Blasphemy to say Christ within us cannot save us without Christ without us And with respect to Christ's inward Teaching and Illumination they grosly and fallaciously prevaricate in stating the question as whither the Light within to wit the Word God is a Light sufficient to Teach or Guide every Man the way to Eternal Salvation Thus they think to have their Opponents every way at a disadvantage and to catch them in their Dilemma if they say Yea the Quakers have gained the point as they imagine If they say Nay they are guilty of Blasphemy against Christ the word God within them as not being sufficient But this Sophistical Dilemma is easily discovered and answered for by the sufficiency of the Light within every Man to guide to Salvation is not meant what Christ the Word God can reveal to and in every Man for who questions that that he can do it abundantly but the true state of the question is What he doth reveal to and in every Man that is or may be a sufficient discovery to him for his eternal Salvation W. P. and his Brethren hold the affirmative the Bishop and all true Christians Yea all but meer Deists hold the Negative viz. That Christ considered as the word God doth not reveal to and in every Man As for example not to any of the Quakers or any others here here in England all that is sufficient to their Salvation by the common Illumination without special superadded Illuminations of Christ by the Holy Spirit that is more excellent than the common in the use of the outward means to wit the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures outwardly Preached or at leastwise read to us or by us If they say it doth then let them not only tell us but prove to us intelligibly to convince our Natural Rational Faculty which W. P. calleth the Eye or Sight whereby the Soul of every Man is capable to discern what the Light within sheweth that the Light in them by its common Illumination without all outward means of Instruction from or by the Holy Scriptures hath taught them one or more of the Twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed according to the true sense of Scripture and generally received by all true Christians If they confess it hath not taugh them any one of them it evidently follows that they think not any one of them is necessary to their Faith or Christianity i. e. their Deism for Salvation And yet it is strange that W. P. should be so fallacious as as to affirm that the Doctrines of God of Christ of the Holy Ghost of remission of Sin and Justification from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation the Resurrection of the Dead are Fundamentals of the Christian Religion none of which the Light within them without Scripture hath taught him to believe as I think he hath plainly confessed and yet it hath taught him all that is necessary to his Salvation without Scripture he having denyed that the Scripture is the Rule of his or their Faith as touching any of these matters and consequently not so much as the Instrument whereby the Holy Spirit has wrought that Faith in him therefore what Faith he or they have of these things is but Historical and Uncertain and as the old Heavens that must pass away and which hath already passed away from them seeing they pretend they are come to the new Heavens already And yet he is so fallacious to say P. 97. It is generally thought that we do not hold the common Doctrines of Christianity but have introduced new and erroneous ones in lieu thereof This I have sufficiently proved to be true here and elsewhere and so have others done the same But what followeth Whereas saith he we plainly and entirely believe the Truths contained in that called the Apostles Creed Yes say I just so as he may say they plainly and entirely believe the Truths in the Turks Alcoran which may be supposed to have some Truths though many more falsities This saying of his seems to have a mental Reservation as if there were some things in that Creed that were not Truths W. P. would do well to tell us plainly what they are Section 9. Several places of Scripture rescued from his Perversions None are saved by the common discoveries of the Light within without special Revelation and Illumination which yet renders not Salvation impossible to virtuous Gentiles His Ignorance and Error about the Nature of the Light within considered as the Word God In his shewing what the Light within teacheth every Man he leaves out the chief matter that was necessary to his Argument to prove it sufficient without any thing else AND as for the places of Scripture which W. P. hath brought to prove the sufficiency of the Light within with respect to the common Illumination for every Man's Salvation without any super-added special Illumination and all external Light of the Holy Scripture which are these following John 8. 12. John 1. 9 14. Titus 2. 11 12. Eph. 5. 13. John 16. 7. Prov. 1. 20 to 24. John 8. 24. they are all one or two at most excepted that may be understood of the common Illumination as John 1. 9. to be understood of the Special Illumination given to Men under a Gospel-Ministry as is evident by the due consideration of them as for John 1. 9. allowing it to be meant of the common Illumination and diverse other places of Scripture that might be brought to prove that there is such a common Illumination from the word God in all Men as a preparatory Ministration this doth not prove that that common Illumination is sufficient without the special that is given to the Faithful And whereas he saith in his 6th Article or Section of his Gospel Truths They that turn not at the reproofs thereof to wit the Light within with respect to its common Illumination and will not repent and live and walk according to it shall dye in their Sins and where Christ is gone they shall never come Tho' there be a Truth in the words he has here set down yet he quite misapplies that place of Scripture John 8. 24. and fallaciously leaves out the foregoing words which are these For if ye believe not that I am he ye shall dye in your Sins and as it is in v 21. And whither I go ye cannot come by which words it is plainly evident