and Primitive Fathers who have Condemned them I charitably believe that the Quakers at least the Generality of them do not know nor may be have heard of these Ancient Heresies or that they have so literally lick'd them up But now they do know let them consider and see how they have put Darkness for Light and Light for Darkness 2. But if the Quakers say as of late they have begun to do That they are Mis-represented that they do not hold these Vile Heresies and Errors Charg'd against them nor ever did hold them Let the Reader judge of that by the Quotations which are produc'd out of their most Approved Authors in The Snake and Satan Dis-Rob'd of all which G. Whitehead in what is called his Answer does not deny one But pleads Not Guilty without offering to Disprove the Evidence brought against them However That is not my Business now I am willing they should come off as easily as they can Provided they do come off and mean not this to Deceive us 3. Let it then be suppos'd that the Modern Representations they have given of their Notion of The light within and of other their Doctrines since the oppositions they have lately met with are the True and Genuin sense of what they held from the beginning And when truly explained and understood the same and no more than what the Ch. of England and all sober Christians have always held If so then they must begin again to give a new Account of their Separation and so violent a Separation as they have made not only from the Ch. of England but all the Churches in the World as Edw. Burrough p. 416. of his Works And so all you Churches and Sects by what name soever you are known in the world you are the seed of the great Whore And p. 17. of his Epist to the Reader he tells him Thou mayst fully perceive we differ in Doctrines and Principles and the one thou must justifie and the other thou must condemn as being one clean contrary to the other in our Principles And p. 1. he says We have sufficient cause to cry against them and to deny their Ministry their Church their Worship and their whole Religion What shall we do now Now we Agree in nothing our Whole Religion is Condemned And ther is no Compounding we must Condemn the One and Justifie the other Here is Foul-Play on some side By some Modern Accounts it is hard to distinguish wherein the Doctrines of the Ch. of England and those of the Quakers do differ Particularly in their Fundamental Principle of The Light within on which all the Rest do Depend as it is Explained by Mr. Penn in his late Primitive Christianity and in The Snake Sect. i. and Sect. xxii except the Particular hereafter excepted they are the same and Mr. Penn asks no more upon the Main than what is not only Allowed but Practised and always has been and that Dayly in our Common Prayers by the Ch. of England yes and by our Dissenters too so that now we are very Good Friends again And the Difference betwixt us upon this Point is no ways sufficient to Justifie any Separation And so of the other Points of Doctrine as of late Explained And for the Sacraments G. Whitehead allows them to be Lawful and let such Practice them as so think fit Then ther is no ground for their Separation from us for our Practice of what themselves Allow to be Lawful And for Episcopacy that is a matter of Government not of Worship so that we might join in Worship for all that And the Bishops Exercise no other Power than what is used amongst the Quakers to Disown those who will not walk according to the Rules of the Society And their Power herein is much Curbed by the Laws and Appeals lye from their Sentence to the Secular Courts which are not Allowed in the Quaker-Discipline Now to bring this matter to an Issue in a Friendly manner without Ripping up or Confronting Former Testimonies it is desired That Mr. Penn or any other for him would shew such Differences betwixt his Explanation of the Light within and that in The Snake as are so Material to justifie a Separation and so of the other Points Treated of in his Primitive Christianity And herein let him and them Consider the Grievousness of the Sin of Schism even as Enforced by them against their own Separatists it is a Tearing the Body of Christ in pieces and turning the Heaven of Christianity into a Hell of Confusion Let us Act herein Manfully for we Fight for our own Souls the Vnion and Joy of Christendom the Honour of Religion and the Glory of God who knows our Hearts and will Reward our Sincerity He through whose Holy Inspiration only we think those things that be Rightful Prevent us in all our Doings with His most Gracious Favour Further us with His Continual Help and Pardon all our Infirmities in the Prosecution of these Glorious Ends through Jesus Christ our Lord who for these same Ends Dyed Rose Ascended and will come again in that same Body to Reward and to Judge every Man according to what he has been Vseful or Prejudicial to these Ends. To whom with the Father and the Eternal Spirit be All Power Honour and Glory from All Creatures Converted Sinners especially now and for ever Amen A Friendly Expostulation with Mr. Penn upon Account of his Primitive Christianity lately Published 1. I Have said before how near Mr. Penn has brought the Quaker Principles as he has of late Represented them to the Doctrin of the Ch. of England and the Common Principles of Christianity But I would desire to Expostulate a little with him upon one Part of his Exposition of The Light within p. 29. where he is not satisfied with what we allow viz. that it does Influence and Assist our Natural Light but he will not grant that we have any Natural Light at all or any other than that Divine Light of the Word which is God which he says some mistakenly call Natural Light As G. Fox says in his Great Mistery p. 42. where he opposes this Tenet That no man by that Native Light inherent in him had Power to Believe c. G. F. Answers The Light that doth enlighten every man which is their description of the Light within he calls it Native and Inherent The names he gives of Native and Inherent are his own out of the Truth Here he denys any Natural Light and will have none other but the Divine Light within But to go on with Mr. Penn he says p. 30. and 31. That the Scripture makes no distinction between Natural and Spiritual Light and Provokes any to give so much as one Text to that Purpose he makes it as Absurd as to talk of a Natural and Spiritual Darkness within He says There are not two Lights from God in man that Regard Religion Not that Reproves or Condemns a Man for Sin But how
then does he Answer the Objection which he puts against himself of the many False Religions in the world It was not the True Light which guided men into them And if they have no other Light how came they by them He says it was because they did not follow the True Light But why did they not follow it How could they help following of it if they had nothing else to follow What was it that Resisted It Or What could Resist It if we have no Natural Light or Vnderstanding to Refuse it s Dictates But suppose our No Light or Vnderstanding could shut its eyes and not follow this light then it might lose the True Religion But could no-understanding invent another Religion For that is something Positive and something must Guide and Direct Men to it The Absence of Light is Darkness not a False-light But an Ignis Fatuus or Will i' th Wisp is a Light that leads Men wrong Men that are in Error follow a Light but it is False-light and they think themselves to be in the Right Our Vnderstandings have a Natural which is a Fallible-light and therefore often leads us wrong What else is the meaning of Prov. 3.5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own Vnderstanding It is true that Vnderstanding and the Natural light of it was given us by God And He made it Right and True but Fallible else it could never be mistaken God has plac'd a Natural light as a Candle in our Hearts and His Super-natural light does Influence and Direct it when we seek to Him for it and serve Him according as He has commanded Solomon says Prov. xx 27. The Spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord searching all the Inward Parts You will not call the Spirit of Man the Eternal Light which is GOD. This was the Mistake which drove George Fox to make our Soul a Part of God without Beginning and Infinite in it self c. as shewn in The Snake Sect. ii and to make us even Equal with God as shewn Sect. iii. And Mr. Penn p. 15. of this Book Primit Christian allows no Natural light to the Vnderstanding For says he Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body And thence inferrs that as the Eye has no Light in it self so neither the Vnderstanding He makes our Nature and Minds wholly Dark of themselves only succeptible of Super-natural light when sent into our Understanding And that all the Light we have is thus Super-natural and only called Natural because as he says It is Natural to Man to have a Super-natural light I will not take advantage of the Philosophy of this for I suppose his meaning to be that it is Natural to the Vnderstanding to Receive a Light that is infus'd into it as for the Eye to see by an Extraneous light that is it is an Organ fitted to Receive Light tho' it has none in it self as the Vnderstanding to Apprehend tho' it has no Reason or Light in it self Thus he expresses it p. 50. All Men have Reason says he but all Men are not Reasonable which must be taken with the same grains of Allowance For every Man is a Reasonable Creature that is the Definition of a Man But according to his Hypothesis tho' all men have Reason yet not Natural but super-naturally put into their Vnderstanding And so tho' they have Reason yet are they not Reasonable because that Reason is none of their own only as Gifted that is Accidental but not Natural to them and so they can no more be called Rational than a Bagg can be called Rich that has Money in it For he says p. 15. That God is the Light of our Nature of our minds and understandings If it were meant as an Assistant Guide or Director to the Light of our Vnderstanding ther were no difference betwixt us But quite to put out the Natural light of our understandings and make it but only Passive that is succesptible of another light that is the point on which I would Reason now with Mr. Penn. It is said 1 Cor. 1.21 That the World by Wisdom knew not God What Wisdom was this it could not be a Divine light and if Man have no Natural light it must be the Quaker third sort of light that is No light at all But if by Wisdom here you mean Mens Natural light or Reason the Text is Plain and Easie It is Written 1 Joh. 3.20 If our Heart Condemn us God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things Now by Heart here must be meant the Natural light because if it means the Light which is God God is not Greater than Himself And it is supposed here that the Heart does not Know all Things Therefore this must be meant of our Natural Conscience and not of God And now here is a Natural light which does Reprove of Evil which Mr. Penn supposes cannot be shewn p. 30. Our Saviour says Luk. xii 57. Yea and why even of your selves judge not what is Right But why of your selves if we have no Light at all of our selves whereby to Judge I find a great Light of the Quakers Edw. Burrough owning these Two Lights within in his Warning to Vnderbarrow 1654. p. 16. and 17. of his Works Re-printed 1672 where speaking of some of the Worlds People whose Light says he is only Natural and Carnal and doth only make manifest Carnal Transgressions and who Judge by the Natural light c. This being Objected by John Stalham in his Reviler Rebuked p. 282. as a Contradiction to what other Quakers had said of the Light Richard Hubberthorn a Quaker of the First Rank undertakes the Defence of Burrough which you find in his Works Re-printed 1663. p. 144. where he says that Burrough was Mis-represented in that Stalham would have had him say that the Light of Christ was Natural and Carnal which he says Burrough did not mean but the Light of Man says he by which Carnal Men do judge of Carnal Transgressions is Natural And Mans light by which Carnal men do Judge of any thing is one thing and the light of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual mens Guide is another thing Here are Two Lights within most plainly which Mr. Penn does so positively Oppose But which of these Lights guided Mr. Penn and which Hubberthorn and Burrough For it could not be the same Light that guided to Two Lights and not to Two And now it will be time to ask from Mr. Penn a Solution of the Difficulty which he Proposes p. 29. that is To assign us some certain Medium or Way whereby we may truly discern and distinguish between the Manifestations and Reproofs of the Natural Light within from those of the Divine Light within He proposed this as a Difficulty upon the Opinion of Two Lights within a Natural and a Divine And presses it against those who held that the Natural Light could Reprove of
in which we are at Present engag'd Yet for the satisfaction of the Quakers who may not know this I will set down two Canons of the Council of Carthage which was held in the year of our Lord 419. Can. 113. Whoever says That the grace of God by which a man is Justify'd through Jesus Christ our Lord avails only for the Remission of sins that are already past but does not also give strength to resist sin for the future Let him be Anathema For the grace of God does not only give us the knowledge of what we ought to do but also inspires us with love whereby we may be enabled to Perform those things which we know to be our duty Likewise whosoever shall say that this grace of God which is thro' Jesus Christ our Lord does help us to avoid sin only as the knowledge of sin is made manifest to us by it whereby we know what we ought to seek after what to avoid but that strength is not given us by it that what we know we ought to do we may also love it and be enabled to perform it Let him be Anathema Can. 114. Whosoever shall say that the grace of Justification was therefore given unto us that what we could perform by our own free-will we may do the more easily by grace insomuch that tho' grace had not been given we might tho' with difficulty perform the divine Commandments without it Let him be Anathema For concerning the fruits of the Commandments The Lord did not say that without me ye shall do them with difficulty but He said without me ye can do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Constant Doctrin of the Church the Quaker Infallibility did not know that she had ever held and therefore set it up as a New discovery of their own and broke with the Church for it And to Advance Divine Grace they would extinguish Human Reason which is a Divine Grace it self and the Subject given unto us by God whereupon His B. Spirit should work And to Divest us of it is to make us cease to be Men instead of being Saints It makes God the sole Author of all our Sin for if we have no Natural-Light we can have no Free-will are only Passive in God's Hands acted by Him but do nothing of our selves and therefore are not answerable for any thing that we do more than a Sword or a Pen are Blame-worthy for whatever use is made of them This Arraigns the Wisdom of God in all the Institutions and Ordinances that ever He gave to Men. For what need of such Helps to the Divine Light and Mr. Penn says we have no other Why then does he Preach To whom doth he Preach To the Divine Light in Men as G. Fox and the Primitive Quakers us'd to speak Can he Teach that Cannot that guide Men without his Preaching If he says that he only Preaches to perswade Men to follow that Light But cannot the Light Teach even that too Or has it Forgot it Does it need Help in that Then why not in other things then is it not self-sufficient without something else Nay by this Principle ther was no need of Christ's coming into the World at least of His dying for us For Men had the Divine Light before And what could the Man Jesus add to that Was it not sufficient without Him If not then you want something else besides your Light within But if it was sufficient without Him then could not His Coming be Necessary I desire to know what you differ herein from the Deists They hold a Divine Light Planted by God in the Heart of Man which they call Reason And that this is sufficient without any thing else to Teach a Man all that he ought to Know or Do. This Divine Light you call the Light within So that you Differ from them but in Words Both of you Reject the Necessity of any Outward Revelation that is of a Christ without And so are the same with all the Pagan or Gentile World For they too and the latter Mahometans allow Jesus to have been a Good Man and to have had this Divine Light which you call Christ within Him as all other Men have But this does not make Him Properly the Son of God which you also utterly deny Him to be as said before p. 3. This is Literally that Anti-Christianism which is Reprehended 1 Joh. 2.22 of Denying Jesus to be the Christ For having of the Light in me does not make me to be the Light But Jesus not only had the Light in Him but He was the Light or Christ which it is Blasphemy to say of any other And yet if Man have no other Light in him but the Divine and that be made Part of his Nature it must follow that he is God For whoever does Properly partake of the Divine Nature is so 2. But now whatever Mr. Penn thinks of my Reasoning which by his own Principle must be the Immediate Dictate of the Holy Ghost if I have no Natural Light which taught it me yet he can have no Reason to break Communion with us upon this Account more than with Hubberthorn Burrough or other Quakers who held the same as James Naylor and others I cou'd shew if that were worth the while And though James Naylor was Censur'd by the Quakers for other things yet never for this and he was Receiv'd again into Favour and Liv'd and Dy'd in their Communion 3. This hinders not by Mr. Penn's own Acknowledgment they and we being all of one Religion For he says p. 62. I know not how properly they may be call'd of divers Religions that assert the True God for the Object of Worship The Lord Jesus Christ for the only Saviour and the Light or Spirit of Christ for the Great Agent and Means of Mans Conversion and Eternal Felicity Now all this Mr. Penn the Church of England does most sincerely and heartily Believe and ever have Profess'd it And therefore if we be not of divers Religions why of divers Communions 4. Again your Exposition of Justification p. 79. That you acknowledge Justification only for the sake of the Death and Sufferings of Christ and nothing we can do say you though by the Operation of the Holy Spirit being able to Cancel old Debts or wipe out old Scores It is the Power and Efficacy of that Propitiatory offering upon Faith and Repentance that Justifies us from the sins that are past and it is the Power of Christ 's Spirit in our hearts that Purifies and makes us Acceptable before God All this is most Sound and Orthodox And your whole Ninth Chapter concerning the Inward and Spiritual Appearance of Christ in the Soul I not only Approve but do very much Congratulate with you that you have so Christianly and Pathetically Press'd it I know you will not suspect me of Flattery For where ther is occasion I speak Plain enough