Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	body_n	spiritual_a	4,664	5	6.9444	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52440	Two treatises concerning the divine light the first, being an answer to a letter of a learned Quaker, which he is pleased to call, A just reprehension to John Norris for his unjust reflections on the Quakers, in his book entituled, Reflections upon the conduct of human life, &c., the second, being a discourse concerning the grossness of the Quakers notion of the light within, with their confusion and inconsistency in explaining it / by John Norris ...	Norris, John, 1657-1711.; Norris, John, 1657-1711. Grossness of the Quaker's principle.	1692 (1692)	Wing N1276; ESTC R2996	64,661	150

see if he review the place with the least Attention the Opposition between my Notion of the Divine Light and that of the Quakers is not made to consist in this that they make it to be an Accident and I a Substance but in this that they represent it as something only communicated exhibited or manifested by God whether as an Accident or a Substance I was not then concerned to consider whereas in my Account it is the very Essence and Substance of the Deity exhibitive of all Truth and always presential to our Mind And therefore when 't is said that the Quakers usually talk of the Light within as of some Divine Communication or Manifestation only the Term only is not exclusive of Substance in general but of the Divine Substance or Essence of God I know very well and have no temptation to dissemble it that 't is the express Doctrin of the Quakers that the Divine Light is a Substance not an Accident For they make it the Principle of Regeneration which they all say and Mr. Keith has taken a great deal of Pains to prove it is a Substantial Life as much as the Life of Vegetation Sensation or Reason is and as far as I can apprehend the Notion may be sound and true enough in its self and wants only to be fix'd upon a right Bottom And I know that Mr. Barclay in his Apology lately Printed in Folio with the rest of his Works says expresly We understand not this Seed Light or Grace to be an Accident as most Men ignorantly do but a Real Spiritual Substance which the Soul of Man is capable to Feel and Apprehend from which that Real Spiritual Inward Birth in Believers arises call'd the New Creature the New Man in the Heart But tho it be too plain to be denied that the Quakers make the Light to be a real Substance yet 't is also as plain that they do not make it the very Substance of God By this Seed Grace and Word of God and Light says Mr. Barclay wherewith we say every Man is enlightned and hath a measure of it which strives with them in order to save them and which may by the Stubbornness and Wickedness of Man's Will be quench'd bruised wounded pressed down slain and crucified we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken which is not Divisible into Parts and Measures as being a most pure simple Being void of all Composition or Division and therefore can neither be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain by all the Efforts and Strength of Men. But we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells a measure of which Divine and glorious Life is in all men as a Seed which of its own Nature draws invites and inclines to God And this we call Vehiculum Dei or the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourish'd unto eternal Life Whether there be any such thing as this Vehiculum Dei or Spiritual Body of Christ which is a Notion several Learned Men both before and since the appearance of Quakerism have entertain'd upon the reading the 6th Chapter of St. John I have neither Cause nor Mind at present to dispute But I think 't is plain from this Account Mr. Barclay gives of the Light that tho it be a Substance yet 't is not the same with but really distinct from the Substance or Essence of God For it is not Deus but Vehiculum Dei And to the like purpose Mr. Keith another of their most considerable Writers speaking of the Seed of God which is the same with the Light now in Question says that it is not the Godhead it self but a certain middle Nature Substance or Being betwixt the Godhead and Mankind c. Again says he p. 131. This middle Nature I call a Divine Substance or Essence not as if it were the Godhead it self or a Particle or Portion of it but because of its excellency above all other things next unto the Godhead as on such an Account Men do call other things Divine which are very excellent c. Again says he in the next Paragraph This excellent and intermediate Being may be call'd the Divine Being because the Godhead is most immediately manifest therein and dwelleth in it as in the most Holy Place or Holy of Holies More Testimonies I might but I think need not add it being sufficiently clear from these cited out of Mr. Barclay and Mr. Keith that the Quakers do not hold their Light to be the very Substance and Essence of the Deity though at the same time I think they ought and that they are inconsistent with themselves in that they do not For 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 't 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 And indeed what less than that can be a Light to the Soul How can any thing that is not God or that is created be so But 't is not my present Business to consider what the Quakers ought to say but what they do say 'T is plain that they do not make the Divine Light to be the proper Substance of God but a certain middle Nature and 't is as plain that I do which lays a sufficient ground of Difference between us so that my first Distinction is so far from falling to the Ground that it stands upon firmer Ground than ever and if my Adversary has but the Understanding and the Ingenuity of a Man I dare appeal to him whether he be not fairly Answer'd and Confuted as far as concerns this first Particular But whatever his Judgment be I presume the Judicious Reader will be of mine and so give me leave to advance forward to the Exception against the Second Article THY Second is as insignificant and like an Arrow shot at random lights on thy own Head being attended with some contradiction to thy former Thou sayest the Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of extraordinary Inspiration Where learn'st thou this Before it was a Divine Communication and Manifestation only and now an extraordinary Inspiration Thou wouldst have done well to have let the Quakers Principle alone till thou hadst learnt it better and more honestly to represent it Is not Extraordinary more than Common or Communication and Manifestation only Have not the Quakers declared the Light to be Universal as well as Divine in its Gift and Manifestation to the Sons of Men It is certainly true they have and yet I

Spiritual Truths but even to the Natural and Ordinary Acts of Understanding I do not therefore find Fault with the Quakers for holding such a thing as the Light within so far from that that I very much out-do them in the Latitude of the Principle as making it more necessary and more extensive than they I do not as some do disapprove of the Doctrin in general but have a very convincing Assurance of it and a very awful Regard and Veneration for it as a very Noble and Sacred Theory But that which I condemn in the Quakers as to this Point is their particular manner of stating and explaining the general Notion of the Light within which I think to be as Gross and Absurd as the Notion it self in general is fine and rational And that upon this double Account I. Because they make it to be a Creature II. Because they make it a Material Creature Upon which two Grounds I question not but that I shall be able so to demonstrate the Falsehood and Absurdity of this grand Article of Quakerism as to render it utterly uncapable of Defence even tho Mr. Barclay himself were now alive to be my Opposer But because this is to be the Ground and Bottom of the following Discourse and that I may not be thought to contend against a Supposititious Notion or Imaginary Absurdity I must take care in the first place that this which is to be the Foundation of all be well laid by proving plainly and undeniably that the Quakers do represent their Light within after the manner already intimated viz. As a Creature and as a Material Creature before I undertake to expose their Absurdity in so doing In order to which I must give an Account of this Light within and shew what it is according to the Quakers Wherein I believe so little have the Principles of Quakerism been enquired into even by those that nevertheless take the liberty to laugh at them I shall tell a great many even of the Learned World a considerable piece of News And here to reduce the matter to as narrow a Compass as may be there being nothing wherein I admire Brevity more than in Quotations I shall be content to take my Account from two of their most eminent and approved Writers Mr. Barclay and Mr. Keith and to prevent all suspicion of Misrepresentation shall deliver it in their own express Words Thus then Mr. Barclay speaking of the Universal and Saving-Light of Christ By this Seed Grace and Word of God and Light wherewith we say every Man is enlightned and hath a measure of it which strives with them in Order to save them and which may by the Stubbornness and Wickedness of Man's Will be quenched bruised wounded pressed down slain and crucified we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken which is not divisible into Parts and Measures as being a most pure simple Being void of all Composition or Division and therefore can neither be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain by all the Efforts and Strength of Men. But we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells A measure of which Divine and Glorious Life is in all Men as a Seed which of its own Nature draws invites and inclines to God And this we call Vehiculum Dei or the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourish'd unto Eternal Life From which Account of Mr. Barclay it is plain 1. That they do not make their Light within to be God for he says they understand not by it the proper Essence and Nature of God and consequently must make it to be a Creature there being no Medium between God and the Creature 2. That they do also make it to be a Material Creature since he supposes it divisible into Measures and Portions calls it Vehiculum Dei and the Spiritual Body of Christ and that Flesh and Blood of his which came down from Heaven and which is both Food and Nourishment to the Saints None of which Affections can with any tolerable Congruity agree to a Spiritual Substance strictly so call'd Again says Mr. Barclay discoursing of the Communion or Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ The Body then of Christ which Believers partake of is Spiritual and not Carnal and his Blood which they drink of is pure and Heavenly and not Human or Elementary If it be asked what that Body what that Flesh and Blood is I answer it is that Heavenly Seed that Divine Spiritual Celestial Substance of which we spake before in the 5th and 6th Propositions the place just before quoted This is that Vehiculum Dei or Spiritual Body of Christ whereby and wherethrough he communicateth Life to Men and Salvation to as many as believe in him and receive him and whereby also Man comes to have Fellowship and Communion with God Again says he That this Body and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ is to be understood of that Divine and Heavenly Seed before spoken of by us appears both by the Nature and Fruits of it And again That Christ understands the same thing here by his Body Flesh and Blood which is understood John 1. By the Light enlightning every Man appears c. Again As Jesus Christ did by the Eternal Spirit offer up that Body meaning his Carnal Body for a Propitiation for the Remission of Sins so hath he likewise poured forth into the Hearts of all Men a measure of that Divine Light and Seed wherewith he is cloathed c. I shall quote but one Passage more from Mr. Barclay to this purpose and 't is in his last Discourse concerning the Possibility and Necessity of inward Immediate Revelation where having distinguish'd between Natural and Supernatural Ideas he says As the Natural Ideas are stir'd up in us by outward and natural Bodies so those Divine and Supernatural Ideas are stirr'd up in us by a certain Principle which is a Body in Naturals in relation to the Spiritual World and therefore may be call'd a Divine Body Not as if it were a part of God who is a most pure Spirit but the Organ or Instrument of God by which he worketh in us and stirreth up in us these Ideas of Divine things This is that Flesh and Blood of Christ by which the Saints are nourish'd which is a Mystery to all unregenerated and meer natural men c. Here we meet with a Continuation of the same Notion For as in the former Instances he made the Light to be all one with the Spiritual Body of Christ and again reciprocally the Spiritual Body of Christ to be the self-same thing with the Light so now supposing our Spiritual Ideas to be raised by a Divine Body he makes this Divine Body to be no other than that Flesh and Blood of Christ by which

suppose that this latter the Spiritual Body of Christ is that Divine or Celestial Body in the Vital Union of the Soul with which our Spiritual Life or our Life of Grace does consist that this is properly that Seed of God mention'd by St. Peter and St. John which was sown in the Womb of the Virgin and in the Hearts of Mankind that whereby Christ was naturally generated and whereby the Saints are regenerated that this is that Heavenly Manna that Living Bread discours'd of in the Sixth of St. John that Divine Aliment upon which the Saints do feed and whereby they are nourish'd unto everlasting Life 6. And Lastly they do also suppose that this Spiritual Body of Christ wherein his Human Soul existed before his Incarnation a measure whereof is given as a Divine Seed to every Man to Leven Season and Sanctifie his Nature and by closing and uniting with which our Nature becomes actually Sanctified that this I say is that very Divine Light which God has set up as a Monitor Instructer and Teacher in the Hearts of Men to guide and direct them in the way of Salvation That this Spiritual Body of Christ is what they suppose to be the Light of Mankind I need appeal to no other Evidence than the latter part of the first Quotation out of Mr. Barclay where he says that they understand by the Light a Spiritual Heavenly and Invincible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells a measure of which Divine and Glorious Life is in all Men as a Seed which of its own nature draws invites and inclines to God And this we call observe Vehiculum Dei or the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven of which all the Saints do Feed and are thereby nourished unto Eternal Life By which I think it is plain as far as Mens meanings may be gather'd from their Words that they make the Light within to be the Spiritual Body of Christ or a certain measure or Portion of that Body And thus having according to the best of my Understanding and Observation given an Extract of the Quakers Principle concerning the Light within which I have so well consider'd both before and after the framing it that I can with good assurance stand by it and dare appeal to all the Learned of that way whether I have not given a true and just account of their Principle I now hasten to the Second part of my Undertaking to expose the Grossness and Absurdity of it And here in the first place I shall be so free and ingenuous as to declare that I shall not stand with them concerning any of the Five First Propositions which may be all true for ought I know to the contrary Particularly I shall not stand with them concerning the Spiritual Body of Christ as distinct from that Natural Body wherein he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary There may be such a thing for ought I know or am able to shew to the contrary and I know that several among the Antients have been of this Opinion alledging for its Foundation the Sixth Chapter of St. John which to confess the truth seems to favour it not a little And this Hypothesis has been of late to the great surprize and amusement of the stiffer and severer sort of Divines readvanc'd by a Person of singular note and eminence in our Church who makes use of it to salve and maintain the Doctrin of the Real Presence supposing that while the Bodies of the Communicants feed upon the grosser Elements of Bread and Wine their Souls as many of them as are fitly disposed do take in and feed upon this Divine and Spiritual Body of Christ which strengthens and nourishes their Inner Man and becomes to them a Principle of Regeneration and Spiritual Life as you may see more fully deduc'd in his Discourse of the Real Presence particularly in the First and Sixth Chapters of that Treatise I shall not therefore I say contend with them concerning the Spiritual Body of Christ either as to its Existence or as to this its use whether there be such a thing or whether it be the Principle of Regeneration and Spiritual Life to the Saints They may be both true for ought I know I see nothing absurd or so much as improbable in them and as I do not surrender up my full Assent to what I cannot demonstrate to be True so neither do I care to run down and condemn such Principles which I cannot prove to be false But that which I dislike and condemn here is their making this Spiritual Body of Christ to be the Light within that Light which is to teach Man Wisdom and Knowledge and to be his constant Tutor Monitor and Director which notion of the Light within notwithstanding that I highly approve of the thing it self I take to be extreamly gross and absurd and that upon those Two Accounts before touch'd upon 1. Because hereby they make it to be a Creature 2. Because they make it a Material Creature That they do make the Light to be a Creature and a Material Creature is sufficiently shewn already in the account that I have given of their notion concerning it I am now only to lay open the absurdity of this And First 'T is absurd to make the Light within to be a Creature Monsieur Malebranche considering with himself of all the possible ways whereby we may come to have the Ideas of things without us makes this Division or Enumeration of them It is necessary says he that these Ideas should either proceed from the Objects or that our Mind has a power of producing them or that God should produce them either with the Mind when he Creates it or occasionally as often as we think of any Object Or that the Mind should possess in it self all the Perfections which it sees in things Or else lastly that it be united to some Absolutely Perfect Being that includes in himself all the Perfections of Created Beings And these are all the possible ways of Human Understanding that this excellent Theorist could conceive or thought conceivable But this 't is to have a dull Invention and a straitness of Imagination that is not open enough to let in a full view of things We now meet with a sort of Philosophers of a freer Prospect and more inlarged Survey that have found out another mode of furnishing the Mind with Ideas and that is by its being united to some Created Being and that too a Material one Strange that so inquisitive and so working a Head as that of M. Malebranche should be so defective in his Enumeration as not to hit upon this most wonderful Expedient of uniting the Soul to a Creature in order to its Illumination But sure he could not overlook it but rather thought it too inconsiderable to be mention'd 'T was no doubt very easie and obvious for him to have consider'd that the last Member of

the Saints are nourish'd and which he had before made all one with the Light and consequently he makes the Light to be a Divine Body For if the Light be the same with that Flesh and Blood of Christ by which the Saints are nourish'd and if that Flesh and Blood be a Divine Body then 't is plain that the Light is also a Divine Body So much at present for Mr. Barclay Now let Mr. Kieth take his turn who in his Way to the City of God speaking of the Divine Seed which they always make one and the same with the Light says That it is call'd oft in Scripture the Body of Christ and his Flesh and Blood which the Soul feeding upon becomes cloath'd therewith as with a Body and thereby dwelleth in Christ and liveth in him as the Branch in the Vine Again The Saints feel it namely the Divine Seed or Light in them as really to be a Part or Particle of the very Substance of Heaven viz. Of that Spiritual and invisible Heaven where the Saints live as they do feel the Body of their outward Man to be a Part or Particle of the Substance of this outward World Again he says that this Divine Seed or Light is not the Godhead it self but a certain middle Nature Substance or Being betwixt the Godhead and Mankind c. This will be thought the more strange says he by many because they have been commonly taught and have commonly received it that there is no middle Substance betwixt the Godhead and us at least as to the inward For they have supposed that the Spirit or Mind of a Man or an Angel is next unto the Godhead which I deny for the Heavenly or Divine Substance or Essence of which the Divine Birth was both conceiv'd in Mary and is inwardly conceiv'd in the Saints is of a middle Nature And lest by their Calling as they often do this Substance a Divine Substance they should be thought to imply that it was the very Substance of God he takes care to lay in a Caution against any such Construction in the next Paragraph This middle Nature says he I call a Divine Substance or Essence not as if it were the Godhead it self or a Particle or Portion of it but because of its Excellency above all other things next unto the Godhead as on such an Account Men do call other things Divine which are very excellent yea some call Holy Men Divine and some call these who teach the things of God Divines as John who wrote the Revelations is call'd John the Divine Also this excellent and intermediate Being may be call'd the Divine Being because the Godhead is most immediately manifest therein and dwelleth in it as in the most Holy Place or Holy of Holies He further tells us speaking of the Conception of the Virgin Mary that God did really sow a most Divine and Heavenly Seed in the Virgins Womb and that by Vertue of this Christ had a Divine Perfection and Vertue and that Substantial above all other Men. Again he says that his Body hath not only the Perfections of our Body but also much more because of its being generate not only of the Seed of Mary but of a Divine Seed and that this Divine Seed is that Vniversal Balsom or Medicin to cure and restore not only all Mankind but also the whole outward Creation That this is the Little Leaven that shall Leaven the whole Lump of this visible Creation whereby all things shall be made new c. That this is that Stone of the Wise Men which by its Touch shall in due time change not only the Bodies of the Saints but the Body of the whole Creation and purge it from all its Weakness and Impurity For says he what can perfectly cure and restore the Sick and Diseased Body of Nature either in Man or in other things but his incorruptible Body c. All which Expressions do plainly intimate that this Divine Seed whereof Christ was generated and we are regenerated for according to them that which was the Principle of Christ's Natural Birth is the Principle of our Spiritual Birth was really a material corporeal Substance and since the Light is by them supposed to be all one with this Divine Seed it is very evident that they make the Light to be also a material corporeal Principle The short of this matter lies in this Form of Argument The Divine Seed whereof Christ was naturally generated and whereby we are regenerated is a Body But the Light within is one and the same thing with this Divine Seed Therefore the Light within is a Body And thus do these two great Pillars of Quakerism Mr. Barclay and Mr. Keith agree with each other and both of them in this in making the Light within not to be God or a Substance properly Divine but to be a Creature and more than that to be a Material and Corporeal Creature But that the Reader may have yet a more full Account and more clear and exact Comprehension of this matter I will take their Hypothesis from the very Ground and Bottom of it and resolve it into certain distinct Principles or Suppositions which as far as I am able to gather from the forecited and other like Passages that occur up and down in their Writings are such as these 1. They suppose that the Spiritual Life or the Life of Holiness and Grace is a Substantial Life even as the Life of Vegetation the Life of Sensation and the Life of Reason are all Substantial 2. They suppose that this Substantial Life is by the Vital Union of the Soul with some Body or other 3. They suppose that this Body in the Vital Union of the Soul with which Spiritual Life does consist is a certain Divine or Celestial Body even as the Natural Life does consist in the Vital Union of the Soul with a Natural or Terrestrial Body of the common Elementary consistence 4. They suppose that Christ had Two Bodies of a distinct Original and of a different contexture a Carnal Body and a Spiritual Body a Body which he took from the Virgin Mary and a Body in which his Soul existed long before he took Flesh of the Virgin They are the very Words of Mr. Barclay which because they are of particular concernment I will set down at large To the Question of his Adversary Had Christ Two Bodies He answers Yes and let him deny it if he dare without contradicting the Scripture Joh. 6. 58. Christ speaks of his Flesh which came down from Heaven but this was not the Flesh he took from the Virgin Mary for that came not down from Heaven but he had a Spiritual Body in which his Soul existed long before he took Flesh of the Virgin Which I think is an express Declaration for a Twofold Body of Christ the Body wherein he was Incarnate and a Body antecedent to his Incarnation 5. They

their Principle which is the thing that now comes to be examined And here that Mr. Vickris may not have the least Ground to suspect pretend that I contrive things to my own Advantage by picking and chusing what I can best Answer or that I misrepresent his Arguments by reporting them in my own Words or that I omit or conceal any part of their Strength I will deal so fairly and squarely with him as to set down at large his Exceptions against every one of the foremention'd Articles applying to them their respective Answers distinctly Exception against the First Article 1. THou sayst the Quakers usually talk of this Light within as of some Divine Communication and Manifestation only How does this appear to be true Thou quotest no Author for it I apprehend thou intendest hereby or else thy Assertion has little weight or matter in it viz. That the Quakers own the Light within to be an Accident and not a substantial inherent Principle of Divine Excellency which is a great Mistake and 't is to be fear'd a wilful one too seeing 't is generally known and thou confessest it too that they quote the Testimony of John the Evangelist for their Principle as thou hast done for thine they believing according thereunto Chap. 1. v 4. In him was Life and the Life was the Light of Men And if the Life of the Word be the Light of Men then surely the Quakers cannot be supposed to believe in any thing less than a real Spiritual Substance which the Soul of Man is capable to feel and apprehend For all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. Thus thy first Distinction falls to the ground The Answer SUppose for the present that the Sense intended in the Assertion were what Mr. Vickris apprehends it tho the Antithesis or counter-part of the Article plainly implies the contrary that the Quakers represent their Light within after the nature and manner of an Accident and not as a Substantial Principle I say as a Substantial Principle for as for a Substantial Inherent Principle I know not what to make of it it being the first time that I ever heard that Inherency was an Attribute belonging to Substance Leaving out therefore by Mr. Vickris his Leave this ill-suited Term which I fancy happen'd to slip in while he was taking a Nod over his Paper suppose I say my Meaning were that the Quakers represent their Light not as a Substantial Being but rather as an Accident how does he make out the contrary Why he tells me this is a great Mistake But may I not reply to him in his own Language How does this appear to be true Thou quotest no Author for it But tho he produces no Authority yet he offers at an Argument the Sum of which is this The Quakers building upon the Authority of St. John make the Life of the Word to be the Light of Men and therefore must be supposed to make it a Substance the Life of the Word being confessedly so But if this be all Mr. Vickris has to say for his Point he is very short of proving what he undertakes tho at the same time what he undertakes be nothing to the purpose For tho it be true that both the Word and the Life of the Word are real Substances yet this Proposition The Life of the Word is the Light of Men considered simply in its self without depending upon some proper and peculiar Hypothesis that shall limit and determin its signification does not at all infer that the Light here is a Substance For the Word may be said to be the Light unless a contrary Hypothesis oblige us to understand otherwise Efficiently as it causes our Illumination as it enlightens and instructs by assisting the Understanding according to the common receiv'd Notion as well as Formally by being it self the Formal and Immediate Object of our Conception And so when Christ says of himself I am the Light of the World there is no necessity I mean from the Words themselves of understanding them in a Formal way of Predication but the Sense may very well be what it is generally presumed to be that he is the Author or Efficient Cause of our Illumination Which is allow'd to be sometimes the certain and necessary Acceptation of the Particle is whereof we have a remarkable Example Ephes 2. 14. He is our Peace that is the Author or Procurer of our Peace And if these Propositions are not of themselves determin'd to a Formal Sense but may aptly enough be taken Efficiently as well as Formally then their grounding their Principle of the Light upon these or such like Expressions does not infer that they hold it to be a Substantial Being And it does not of necessity neither tho we should suppose them to understand that Proposition of St. John in a Formal Sense Indeed in case the Word be Formally the Light of Men it will truly follow that the Light is a Substance because the Word it self is so And if the Quakers do construe the Proposition in such a Sense that is Formally it will also follow that they ought if they will be consistent with themselves to make the Light to be a real Substance But it will not follow that they actually and expresly do so unless it were necessary that Men should always so strictly attend to the Consequences of what they lay down as never to say any thing inconsistent with their Principles which is an Happiness that Men of more Logical Heads than the Quakers are generally presumed to be would give a great deal to be secure of So that whether the Proposition be taken Efficiently or Formally it does by no means follow from their bare quoting those Words from St. John in the behalf of their Principle which yet is the only Argument Mr. Vickris is pleased to insist upon that the Quakers do profess their Light to be a Substantial Being I do not say they do not but only that had that been the Sense of my Assertion Mr. Vickris is far from proving the contrary by vertue of the Argument he has used But why must that needs be the Sense of my Assertion Why because otherwise as he conceits there will not be much weight or matter in it No Suppose this should be the Sense of it as 't is plain from the Antithesis that it is That the Quakers represent their Light not as God himself but only as a Divine Communication that is as something communicated or exhibited by God whereas I make the Light to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity c. Will he say there is little Weight in this Assertion Is not the Difference very material if true And that this is the natural nay the necessary Sense of the Article is so evident from the Antithesis that I wonder how a Man of Mr. Vickris his Apprehension could miss of it For as he will quickly

not to proceed with such Suspense in this matmatter being so fully assured of my being in the right here as well as in the other parts of my Account that had I the Liberty to New-Cast this Article again it should be in the very same Mould Mr. Vickris indeed tells me that 't is an Abuse to say the Quakers confine the Light within And I tell him again that 't is an abuse in him to say that this is my Charge I never said absolutely and simply that they confine the Light within which would imply a Confinement to Persons but that they confine it to some certain Objects namely Moral and Spiritual Truths in order only to the Direction of Practice And that they do thus confine the Light is as plain and certain as that they hold it if Mr. Barclay may be allow'd to understand their Principles For says he As God gave two great Lights to rule the outward World the Sun and Moon the greater Light to Rule the Day and the lesser Light to rule the Night So hath he given Man the Light of his Son a Spiritual Divine Light to rule him in the things Spiritaal and the Light of Reason to rule him in things Natural Here it is very plain First That he supposes two distinct Lights in the Soul the Divine Light and the Light of Reason or the Natural Light which by the way sufficiently confirms what was said in the last Section concerning their making the Divine Light an Extraordinary Communication that is Superaccessory to the Natural Light or Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding which might remain intire and unextinguisht tho separated from the Divine Light as being a Principle wholly distinct from it and that stands upon another Bottom Contrary to what I contend for namely That there is but one Light in the Soul of Man which is the Divine Light wherein we see and perceive all things and by which we naturally and ordinarily understand 'T is also very plain in the 2d place That as he supposes two distinct Lights in the Soul the Divine and the Natural so he assigns them two distinct Offices no less distinct than Day and Night the Divine Light being to direct in things Spiritual as the Sun rules the Day and the Natural Light being to direct in things Natural as the Moon governs the Night Each it seems has its proper Orb and Province and they can no more interfere with one another's Order than 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 to Moral and Spiritual Truths I know not what is 'T is confined as much to such Objects as the Sun is confined to the Day and I desire no more thinking that to be Confinement eenough If Mr. Vickris had been but half so much confin'd to Civility and Good Behaviour he would have treated me with more Humanity and Courtesie than he has done in some parts of his Book I might be more liberal of Quotations upon this occasion if I thought there were any need but since that already produc'd is so express to the purpose I shall only take notice of a remarkable Passage in the Preface to Mr. Barclay's Works lately Printed in Folio where the Ingenious Author giving an Account of his Apology for the true Christian Divinity makes one himself for the Scholastic manner and way of its Composition which it seems was in Tenderness to Scholars and in Condescension to their Education His Words are The Method and Style of the Book may be somewhat Singular and like a Scholar for we make that sort of Learning no part of our Divine Science c. Where 't is plain that by that sort of Learning he means Human Learning those Arts and Sciences which are the common Objects of our Academical Studies And that by our Divine Science he means that Knowledg which is supernaturally communicated to them by the saving Light of Christ whereof he had discours'd before So that when he says we make that sort of Learning no part of our Divine Science it comes to as much as if he had said We make Human Learning or those Arts and Sciences which are the common Objects of Academical Study to be no part of that Knowledg which is supernaturally communicated to us by the Light of Christ And if Human Learning be no part of that Knowledg which comes by the Divine Light then the Divine Light is not extended to Human Learning and consequently must be confined to Spiritual Truths the very Province which Mr. Barclay had assign'd it before And to this Supposition the Thread of their former Principle naturally leads them For supposing the Divine Light to be an Extraordinary Communication of God that is something superadded to the Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding there is all the reason in the World that they should assign to it Divine and Spiritual Objects as its proper Sphere and Province since Natural things were before sufficiently discernible by a Natural Light and Principle Especially considering that this Divine Light is also conceiv'd and represented by them as that very Grace of Christ whereby Men are Converted and Saved and which was given to them by God for that very purpose For so Mr. Barclay in his 5th and 6th Propositions reckoning up the Ends and Purposes for which the saving and spiritual Light as he calls it was given by God makes them to consist in making manifest all things that are reprovable in teaching all Temperance Righteousness and Godliness and in general in Lightning the Hearts of all in order to Salvation So then it seems this Light is purely in order to Salvation and consequently ought to be confined to the things that concern it that is to Divine and Spiritual Truths in order to the Direction of Life and Manners Herein therefore they are consonant to their Principles As 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 And as they follow their Principle so I follow mine For not conceiving this Internal Light as any thing superadded to the ordinary way of Man's Understanding but as that whereby he naturally and ordinarily Understands and not conceiving it after the manner of Grace neither I mean as to its simple Kind tho I allow it may have that Estimation in some of its Degrees but rather as according to the Natural Order of Human Understanding I had no reason to confine it as the Quakers do to Divine and Spiritual Truths but to extend it to all Truth without Exception which I suppose to be equally perceivable in this Divine Light which as being the very Essence of God must be equally exhibitive of all But Mr. Vickris will still have it an Abuse to say that the Quakers confine the Light