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 Entitled, Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life, etc. 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, M. A. Rector of Bemerton near Sarum, and late Fellow of All-Souls College in Oxford.  
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Manship at the Black Bull in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, 1692.   

Licenced,  
April. 15. 1692.   

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
Tho' I have not professedly undertaken in the Two following Treatises to give an express and full Account of the Divine Light, but only so far as I have occasion to do it in dealing with my Adversary, yet (if my Judgement may be taken concerning my own Work,) I think that even this Occasional Account that occurs up and down in these Papers, may be so considerable as to give them a fair Right to the Title of Treatises concerning the Divine Light. And though the direct and professed business of the former of these Treatises be only a Private and Personal Engagement between me and my Opposer, yet that it has been the occasion of my delivering many great and considerable things, as well Absolutely as Relatively considered, and such as if read carefully and judiciously, and with a thoroughly Awakened Attention, may contribute very much to the clearing of many useful Truths, and to the Improvement of the Reader in several curious Points of Speculation.   

An Answer to a Letter of a Learned Quaker, which he calls, A just Reprehension to John Norris of Newton St. Lo, for his unjust Reflection on the Quakers, in his Book Entitled, Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life, etc.  By the Author of those Reflections. 
THOUGH I do not think it any great piece of Ignorance or Defect of Learning, not to be rightly acquainted with the Quaker's Principles, which if I knew them never so well, would add but little either to my Knowledge, or to my Opinion of it; yet I am withal so sensible of that Right, which even the meanest Persons and Parties have to Justice and Fair Dealing, that I think I should not be able to justify my misrepresenting those Principles, of which I might be very excusably Ignorant.  
And since this is the thing laid to my Charge, and that with a great deal of Passion and angry Resentment, not to say Rudeness and Incivility, I think I may be allowed to be so far concerned at the Indictment, as to endeavour to acquit myself of it; not so much for the Honour of my Judgement (which I do not conceive at present to lie much at stake) as for the Justification of my Sincerity: Which though I so peculiarly value, that I might be allowed to be a little warm in the Vindication of it, especially coming after such a provoking and affrouting Adversary, yet I hope I shall be able so to temper my Spirit and govern my Pen, that the Defence shall not be near so passionate as the Charge.  
I confess indeed, I did not expect any great Civility of Address from a Man of this sullen Tribe, whose visible Mark and Character is Rusticity, and who are generally at as great Defiance with all Courtliness of Style, as of Behaviour. But yet I thought that the Gentleman and the Scholar (for such it seems is the Quality of my Adversary) might so far balance and overrule the Quaker, as to contain him within the Limits of Ordinary Decency, and keep him on this side Rudeness and Scurrility. To be blunt and downright is one thing, but to be rude and abusive is another. And however I might expect the former from him, and excuse in him as a Quaker, yet of the latter I thought he would not be guilty as a Gentleman. Indeed the least that I could expect from a Person of Mr. Vickris his Education and Quality, was, that he would not be uncivil, especially in his first Onset, and writing to a Person that was a Stranger to him; and who, though he does not look upon himself to be so great as to be above Contradiction, may yet justly think himself considerable enough to expect and deserve fair and civil Language. But in stead of this he falls foul upon me, after such a rude, violent and passionate manner, as is below the Breeding even of a Waterman, and such as a Man of any Temper would be ashamed to be guilty of, even in the sudden Heats of common Discourse Which may tempt some unlucky Fancies to imagine, that he has exchanged his Gold quaking Fit for an Hot one, and that the Light within is turned into a Flame.  
I cannot in Justice deny, but that for a Man of his Way, my Adversary is pretty considerable for his Sense and Learning, (notwithstanding that he endeavours to represent me as a Dunce and Blockhead as well as a Knave) and I believe he would have shown more of each, and with better Advantage, if the Violence of his Passion had not disturbed the Clearness and Order of his Thoughts, and put him often out of his Guard. For Passion is the great Contrariety to Reason, and will draw a Cloud over the brightest Mind. The quiet and sedate Soul is most fit for the Contemplation of Truth, as the calmest Wether is commonly the most serene. If Love be blind, Anger I'm sure is much more so; and there is this remarkable difference between the Wars of the Pen and those of the Sword, that though the Soldier may fight to most Advantage in Hot Blood, the Disputant will reason best in Cold.  
But lest I should appear guilty of a false Charge in this respect, as he says I am in some others, and be thought to misrepresent the Temper and Behaviour of my Adversary, as he says I do his Principles, I think it necessary for my own Security, to give the Reader some Account of the Passion, Rudeness and Abusiveness of this Aggressor, before I proceed to consider the Argument of his Paper.  
And here (to pass by the Roughness and the Magisterial Air of the Title Page, where at first Dash he assumes the Office of a Censor, and undertakes to Reprehend, taxing me with no less than False Representation, Confusion and Self-Contradiction, which I think might be more properly left to the Judgement of the Reader, or bring up the Arrear, than be placed in the Front of the Book) I appeal for the Truth of this Charge to the following Passages.  
When first (says he, pag. 3.) I perused thy Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life, etc. I was, and still am pleased with all that tends to the Propagation of Original and Necessary Truth, but rejoice where I find it spring from an upright Mind, pure Intention, and clean Vessel. What Reason has he to question or prejudge the Uprightness of my Mind, or the Purity of my Intention, or the Cleanness of my Vessel? Either this is very impertinently, or very uncharitably suggested. Either he means nothing by it, or he means ill. And that he does so, he has taken Care to satisfy the Reader, by explaining himself more fully in the very next Words, For whoso (says he) undertakes to reprehend the Intelligible Conduct of Human Life, ought first to purge himself from the Irregularities of his Moral Conduct, which does Cloud and darken his Understanding. What a scurvy malicious Insinuation is this! For though the Words abstractly considered be a Proposition of Universal Truth, and may bear an innocent and inoffensive Sense, yet considered with their Occasion, and with their Application to me, if they signify any thing they must signify ill; there must be either an intolerable Impertinence in them, or a great deal of Malice and Censoriousness. For does he not by this plainly insinuate to the World that I am an ill Man, and that there are such Irregularities in my Moral Conduct as make me unfit to reflect upon the Intellectual Conduct of Human Life? And would not any one that knew nothing of me any otherwise than by this Paper of his, and were to take his Measure of me from hence, be tempted to conclude, that I was a Man of a loose and debauched Conversation? Now if I deserve this Character, I have nothing to complain of; but if I do not, (and I appeal even to Mr. Vickris himself, nay, even to the World, whether I do or no) than this is a very uncharitable and very unchristian Insinuation.  
And yet as bad as it is, he has more of the same; and that notwithstanding what he says of himself in the Paragraph immediately following, that he is far from a Spirit of Detraction. Which Passage I think should either have been left out, or set at a greater distance from the foregoing one, wherein, there seems to be so strong a Savour of that Spirit. As there does in what follows, when (p. 4.) He charges me with despising the Testimony of God through the Meanness of the Instruments: Applying to me that of the Apostle to the Thessalonians, chap. 4. v. 8. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not Man but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit. Which Allegation I shall allow to be pertinent, when he has proved those Instruments he talks of to be equally inspired with the Apostles: But till then he must give me leave to think and call it a Blasphemous piece of Arrogance. For it can be no less to make Despising the Quakers the same with despising God, unless it be proved that the Quakers are Divinely inspired. When I see this done, I shall allow of the Expression: In the mean while I must beg Mr. Vickris not to be angry, if I tell him that it puts me in mind of a Story I have heard of a Quaker in Oxford, who when some of the young Scholars for some Rudenesses and Disturbances he had been guilty of in the College, had brought him to the Pump to pump him, while he was doing his Penance, impudently cried out, Pump on, Pump on, you Pump not me, but the Lord. I will not say Mr. Vickris his Expression is exactly of a piece with this, but there is so much Resemblance between them, that assoon as I read one, I could not choose but think of t'other.  
But he goes on in his Censorious and Uncharitable Reflections; for after he had quoted (Page 6.) that Passage out of the Book of Wisdom, chap. 1. v. 4. Into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter, nor dwell in the Body that is subject to Sin. For the Holy Spirit of Discipline will fly Deceit, and remove from Thoughts that are without Understanding, and will not abide when Unrighteousness cometh in. For Wisdom is a loving Spirit, and will not acquit a Blasphemer of his Words; for God is the Witness of his Reins, and a true Beholder of his Heart, and an Hearer of his Tongue. Therefore he that speaketh unrighteous things can't be hid, neither shall Vengeance when it punishes pass by him. All which in the abundance of his Civility and Charity he has thought fit to apply to me: He proceeds to add, Now seeing these Sayings are true and righteous, and that 'tis possible to profess this Doctrine of the Divine Word, Light, Grace, Spirit of Wisdom and Truth, and the teachings of it, and yet not possess it, nor be learned of it, nor led by it, but whilst preaching of it to others to be a Cast-a-way: I advise thee to consider in what Ground and Nature thou yet standest and livest in, and what Spirit lives and rules in thee. I thank him for his Advice, but not for that spiteful and strangely censorious Insinuation that goes along with it, which amounts to no less, than that I am one of those malicious Souls into which Wisdom will not enter; that I am deceitful, without Understanding, unrighteous, and a Blasphemer: That though I profess the Doctrine of the Divine Light, yet I do not possess it, nor am led by it, but while I preach it to others, am myself a Castaway; which I think is as bad as one Man can well say of another, and yet 'tis what he plainly insinuates, if there be any Connection or Pertinence in what he says.  
But fearing he had not been yet plain enough, and lest the too candid Reader should miss his Meaning, he proceeds, Hath not Unrighteousness entered in through Self-love and Esteem, which blinds the Eye, and causes the Tongue to speak Unrighteous things? Here he charges me with Unrighteousness, Ambition and Self-love; which last he is pleased to beighten to such an extravagant pitch, as to make me an Idolater, and that of the worst sort, as making myself to be my God. For says he, Is not Self exalted to sit in the Temple of God, as God in thee? What a Flight of Censoriousness and Uncharity is this! For besides the Heinousness of the Charge, (it being as bad as can be said of the Devil himself, that he makes Self his God, there being nothing so opposite to Charity which refers all to God, as Self-love, which refers all to its self) I say, besides the Heinousness of the Charge, 'tis also of such a particular Nature, as were I indeed guilty of it, it would be impossible for any Man, much more for Mr. Vickris, who is a mere Stranger to me, without a Divine Revelation ever to know. For Self-love is a Vice of the Heart, and one of the most latent and retired of all the Vices that are lodged there, and consequently obnoxious to his Judgement only who is a Discerner of the Heart, to whom all Hearts be open, all Desires known, and from whom no Secret is hid. God alone can tell how far Self is exalted either in me, or in any Man else: And therefore Mr. Vickris had much better have left me to His Judgement, than to sit in Judgement upon me himself, and pass so severe a Sentence in a Cause that does not, cannot fall within his Cognizance.  
Nor is he satisfied with representing me as an ill Man, but he must also find fault with me for being a Scholar. Art thou not decking thyself with thy corrupt Wisdom, (says he) which is the forbidden Fruit, and will prove Folly in the end? By which I suppose he must mean Philosophy, and the Study of Arts and Sciences, which he will needs have to be corrupt Wisdom, and the Forbidden Fruit. Now though I not only grant, but in a Treatise purposely written upon this Subject, have expressly contended, and if I mistake not, fully demonstrated, that considering the present State of Man, the Study of Learning and Knowledge is no farther allowable, than as 'tis conducive to the moralising of his Life, and that all Prosecution of it beyond or beside this End, is an immoderate and unblamable Curiosity; yet I hope as far as it is apt to serve the Interest of a good Life, there is no reason to disallow or condemn it. Tho it be not to be allowed any farther, yet I think it may and must be allowed so far. And herein I think I state the measure of prosecuting Learning and Knowledge in a due mean, between the Extremes of those over-inquisitive Spirits on the one hand, who set no Limits to their Curiosity, and those narrow and contracted ones on the other who confine it too straight, condemning all Human Learning in gross, under the reproachful Appellations of Carnal Reason, Corrupt Wisdom, Vain Philosophy, and the like; under which Characters I think it ought not to be represented, as far as it is apt to serve and minister to the Interest of Religion and a good Life. And that it may be serviceable to that purpose, I might undertake to show, but that the excellent Mr. boil has saved me the trouble in a late Treatise upon this very Subject, called, The Christian Virtuoso. I cannot therefore but wonder what should make Mr. Vickris (who is himself a Scholar) thus condemn all Human Learning in gross, under the Name of Corrupt Wisdom, and blame me for decking myself with it, especially considering that a little after (Page 10) he supposes the Divine Light to assist the Natural Faculties of the Soul in the Attainment of Arts and Sciences: Why then does he tell me of decking myself with my Corrupt Wisdom? What, does the Divine Light assist the Natural Faculties of the Soul in the Attainment of Corrupt Wisdom, and such as will prove Folly in the end? Can that Wisdom be corrupt, which is taught us by the Assistance of the Divine Light? Or is that Light to be esteemed Divine, whose Instructions are so corrupt? How are these things consistent, unless Mr. Vickris will be understood not of condemning Human Learning in general as Corrupt, but only that which is the Object of my particular Study; as if my Studies were not directed to the ends of a good Life, which would be as great a Gensure, as the other is a Contradiction. So that in short, he is necessarily reduced to this Dilemma, Either he condemns Human Learning in gross, as corrupt, and then he contradicts himself, in making the Divine Light assistant to it; or he condemns the particular matter of my Study as corrupt, and then he Censures me.  
As he does again most unpardonably, (Page 7.) telling me, that I wilfully blast the Fame of God's Name and Work in the Earth, in and by his People, because they agree not with Man's Ways and Conceited wise Notions. Which is a Charge next to that of committing the Sin against the Holy Ghost. For does Mr. Vickris consider what it is wilfully to blast the Fame of God's Name and Work? Or does he consider how intimately acquainted a Man had need be with another Man's Interior, to be able to pronounce what degrees of Wilfulness there are in his Overt Acts? Does he well consider this? The best Apology I can make for him, is to say, that he does not. And yet as if he had said nothing amiss, but were secure of the Truth of his Charge, he wipes his Mouth, and very gravely applies to me two of the most severe Texts of Scripture that he could pick out in all the Bible, namely, the 12th Verse of the 2d of Peter the 2d, and the 10th Verse of the Epistle of St. Judas, which though through a guilty Modesty he would not speak out, I shall. The Words are, But these, as natural Brute Beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own Corruption. And again, But these speak evil of those things which they know not; but what they know naturally as Brute Beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Upon my Word very civilly, and very charitably applied: But there are some Men, who though they revile those they disaffect never so bitterly, so it be done with the Solemnity of a Text, and in Scripture Phrase, think they charge in Armour, and have a Warrant for their most abusive Scurrility. And so having poured out the Dregs of his Venom, he concludes this Reprehension-Part, having (as he words it) discharged himself to me on the aforementioned occasion. I think he might very properly say, He has discharged himself, having thrown up such a deal of Choler and other Filth. Indeed (Poor Man) his Stomach was very Foul, and 'twas high time to have it cleared. And yet 'tis not all up yet; he has not yet so fully discharged himself, but that we find him Reaching again toward the End of the Book. For after he had passed a disingenuos Reflection upon my Reason and Conscience, 
Page 13.  in wishing they were both reformed, (which implies, that at present they are both very corrupt) and after he had charged me with no less than Evil Presumption and Blasphemy against some that 
Page 15.  dwell in Heaven, and Profaneness into the Bargain, in the Extravagance of his Zeal and Passion he cries out, What art thou, O Man, that boastest thyself? Art thou wiser than thy Maker? Threatening me withal in the Style, and with the Authority of a Prophet, that God shall confound my Wisdom, and bring to naught my Understanding wherein it is exalted; for he hath determined to slain the Pride of all Flesh, the Mouth of the Lord hath spoken it: Taking for granted that my Understanding is exalted beyond its due Limits, and that I abound with Pride. Which indeed are all of them fine Censures, considering the illness of the things suggested, and the little Knowledge Mr. Vickris has of me; upon whom he is pleased to bestow one stroke of Civility more at parting, telling me, This is written for the clearing of Truth's Testimony from the Rubbish thou hast cast thereon. What a rude uneducated Pen does this Gentleman write with! Whether it be his Anger, or his ill Nature, or his Persuasion, that so uncivilizes him, I will not stay to examine; but upon the whole matter, I think he has given me no small occasion to suspect that this was written, not so much for the Clearing of Truth, as for the clearing, that is, the discharging himself, and the ridding his Stomach of an uneasy Load, which now he is discharged of, I hope he will sleep in quiet.  
And thus having given the World a View of some of the Rudenesses of this Author, (for in mercy to the Reader as well as to my Adversary, I have not set down all) I now dare appeal to the same Judge, whether such foul reflecting Expressions as these become either the Breeding of a Gentleman, or the Charity of a Christian, or the Pretensions of a Quaker. I say, the Pretensions of a Quaker; for though the Quakers do not pretend to the External Civilities either of Language or of Behaviour, but rather seem to distinguish themselves by an opposite Rusticity in each; yet 'tis well known that they make high Pretensions to Charity, particularly to that most Christian part of it that consists in Meekness and Gentleness, in Patience and Long-suffering, in a quiet and passive temper of Spirit. To these (as 'tis well known) their Pretensions run so high, as to offer to turn the other Cheek to the Smiter; nay, even to scruple the Lawfulness of War, which it seems is too rough a thing for such calm inoffensive Creatures as they, all made up of Love and Sweetness.  
But now let any but a Quaker judge how well Mr. Vickris has maintained this Character. Had I been never so gross in misrepresenting the Quakers Principle, I could not have deserved such a Barbarous Treatment from him; or if I had, yet it would not have been consistent with his so highly Christian Pretensions to give it me. No, he should have suffered rather, and have returned Good for Evil. At least he should have had so much regard to their so greatly pretended Principle of Meekness, as not to suffer himself to run into such Intemperances' of Passion and Language, as he appears now to be guilty of. Is this the Charity, is this the Meekness of a Quaker? If it be, then Sat Anima mea, Let my Soul be with the Philosophers, shall I say? Or with the Men of the World; or indeed with any Men, rather than with such a bitter foul-mouthed Sect as this. What the Temper of this Gentleman is in his Conversation I know not, but if he governs his Tongue no better than he does his Pen, (and 'tis strange if he should) I think 'twould be a Blessing both to himself and others, if he were Speechless. For the Language of the latter is so very foul, that I believe the Archangel in his Dispute with the Devil about the Body of Moses, did not only use better to him, (which would be but a small matter) but received better from him. I'm sure he could not well receive worse. And now we are upon Scripture-Allusion, I shall beg leave to offer one Text to Mr. Vickris his Consideration, in requital to those many severe ones he has set before mine. This Gentleman is both by his Principles and by his express Declaration in this Paper, a great Despiser of that Wisdom which is from below (otherwise by him called corrupt Wisdom) and a great Pretender to that Wisdom which is from above; let him hear then and consider what St. James says, The Wisdom that is from above 
Jam. 3. 17.  is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, etc. With which I conclude this part, and so pass on from the Passion to the Argument that is contained in this Paper.  
And here, if there be any Dependence upon that Saying, that Strong Passions produce weak Arguments, I may hence take a Presage of a Successful Issue in the present Engagement. But however for fear of the worst, I think it necessary here in the Entrance to advertise the Reader, that the Question now in Debate between us, is not concerning the Truth of the Quakers Principles, but concerning the Truth of my Representation of them; not whether their Principles are true in themselves, but whether they are truly represented by me. So that if Mr. Vickris should have the Fortune to win the Stake, it would only be a private personal Victory, without any Advantage to the Cause of Quakerism, which is not concerned in the Issue of this Dispute.  
This being premised, I must further acquaint the Reader, that the Book which Mr. Vickris excepts against, as guilty of misreporting their Principles, is my Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life, particularly in the Postscript added to the Second Edition, where I undertake to give some Account of the difference between my Notion of the Divine Light, and the Quakers Light within. And this I do in several Articles distinctly, which because of the frequent recourse that we shall have to them in the Sequel, it will be a Satisfaction to have here set down. They are therefore as follows:  
I. The Quakers usually talk of this Light within as of some Divine Communication or Manifestation only, whereas I make it to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity, which I suppose virtually to contain all things in it, and to be intimately united to our Minds.  
II. The Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration (whence they have the Name of Enthysiasts) whereas I suppose it to be a Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding.  
III. The Quakers (if I mistake not) confine their Light within to some certain Objects, namely, Moral and Spiritual Truths, in order only to the direction of Practice, and accordingly make it a Supplement to Scripture, which they say is not sufficient without it, nor indeed any more than a mere Dead Letter. But now I do not appropriate this Divine Light to Moral or Spiritual things, but extend it as far as all Truth; yea, as far as all that is Intelligible, which I suppose to be perceived and understood in this Divine Light, as I have explained it.  
IV. The Quakers make their Light within a special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, their own Party. Not indeed as to the Possibility, because they suppose all Men to be indifferently capable of this Divine Illumination, as may appear from their contending against Predestination, and for Universal Grace. But though they do not make it a special Privilege as to the Possibility, yet they do as to the Act, making none but those of their own Way to be actually enlightened by it. Whereas according to my Principles this is no special Privilege, but the common and universal Benefit of all Men; yea, of all the Intelligent Creation, who all see and understand in this Light of God, without which there would be neither Truth nor Understanding.  
V. The Quakers by their Light within understand some determinate formed Dictate or Proposition, expressly and positively directing and instructing them to do so or so. Whereas my Light is only the Essential Truth of God, which indeed is always present to my Understanding, as being intimately united with it, but does not formally enlighten or instruct me, but when I attend to it, and consult it, and read what is written in those Divine Ideal Characters.  
VI And Lastly, The Quakers do not offer any rational or intelligible Account of their Light within, neither as to the thing, nor as to the mode of it, but only Gant in some loose general Expressions about the Light, which they confirm with the Authority of St. John's Gospel, though they understand neither one nor tother. Whereas I have offered a Natural, Distinct and Philosophical way of explaining both, namely, by the Omniformity of the Ideal World, or the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who has in himself the Essences and Ideas of all things, and in whom the same are perceived by us and by all Creatures.  
Now this Mr. Vickris is pleased to censure as a Misrepresentation of the Quaker's Principle concerning the Light within. But before I proceed to consider whether it be or no, there are two intermedial Passages of his that expect to be taken notice of. I had said in my Reflections, pag. 77. speaking of the Light within as untowardly represented by the Quakers, that the thing in itself rightly understood is true, and if any such shall yet call it Quakerism or Enthysiasm, that 'tis such Quakerism as makes a good part of St. John's Gospel, and of St. Austin's Works. And so again to the like purpose in my Postscript, that if the Quakers understood their own Notion, and knew how to explain it, and into what Principles to resolve it, it would not much differ from mine: Of which two Passages Mr. Vickris endeavours to make a notable Advantage, and fancies that they mightily befriend the Cause of Quakerism, as implying a sort of Confession 
Page 7.  to their Principle, and that the Difference between us would only be in Terminis. But is the Man in good earnest? Or does he think that he writes to one that understands not what belongs to Consequence, and will be imposed upon by any thing? Does it therefore follow that I confess the Truth of the Quakers Principle of the Light, because I allow the Notion in its self to be true when rightly understood, that is, when taken in a right Sense? What, does the General Truth of any Notion rightly stated infer the Truth of this or that particular way of explaining it? May there not be a false and erroneous Explication of a true Hypothesis? Suppose I should say that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith only is a true Notion rightly understood, do I thereby confess the Truth of the Solifidian way of understanding it, who so explain our being justified by Faith only, as to exclude the concurrence of Obedience? Or, Suppose I should say that the Doctrine of Pleasures being our supreme Good is a true Doctrine rightly understood, do I thereby acknowledge it to be true in that Sense of the Proposition usually attributed to Epicurus? Or (to put these two Instances together) can I justly be supposed to imply that the Solifidian and the Epicurean differ from their respective Adversaries only in Terminis, because I acknowledge that the Notions in themselves rightly understood are true? If Mr. Vickris had but been at the pains to deck himself with a little more of that Corrupt Wisdom, called Logic, he would never have imposed upon himself, nor have offered to impose upon me with such Womanish Consequences as these.  
The other Passage that I must take 
Page 8.  in my way, is his general Complaint against me, for not quoting the Quakers own Words and Authors in representing their Principle. Now to this I answer, that having in my time read several of the most considerable of the Quakers Books, and (as I thought) well enough comprehended them as far as they were intelligible, I thought I might trust my Memory so far, as to venture to represent their Sense as to one (and that the most remarkable) of their Principles, without ransacking their Books, and mustering up Quotations, which at that time I could not very well do neither, having but few of them by me. But neither should I have thought it necessary if I had had never so many. For sure a Man may venture to give an Account of one Notorious Principle belonging to a certain Persuasion, and to show the difference between that and another, upon the Stock of his former Reading, without being obliged to bring an Author to attest to every thing he says. Thus were I to state the general Difference between the Cartesian and the Aristotelean Philosophy, might I not securely place it in this, that the one offers to explain Appearances of Nature by Forms and Qualities, and other such abstruse Being's, which the other chooses to resolve into the more simple and intelligible Principles of Figure and Motion, etc. without appealing presently either to the Text of Aristotle, or to the Principles of Descartes? Or suppose I were asked the Difference between a Socinian and a Mahometan, might I not be allowed to say, that though the Socinian denies the Divinity of Christ as well as the Mahometan, and the Mahometan owns him as a true Prophet as well as the Socinian, yet they differ in this, that whereas the Mahometan allows him to have been only a Temporary Prophet, and that his Religion is now superannuated, as having had its Time; the Socinian acknowledges him to be a Prophet of a perpetual Authority, and that his Religion is ever obliging, as being the last and standing Revelation of God: I say, might I not be allowed to state the difference thus between them without Book, but I must needs be put upon fetching Proofs, Chapter and Verse, out of Socinus and the Alcoran? Mr. Vickris might therefore well have spared this Objection, without any prejudice either to the Beauty, or to the Strength of his Discourse; especially considering, that he himself is not pleased to bring so much as one single Citation out of any one Quakerish Writer, (for that Passage of Barclays (pag. 5.) is quoted upon another occasion) to disprove the Representation of their Principle given by me. Now Mr. Vickris was much more concerned to allege Testimonies out of Authors than I, as undertaking to show that Representation of mine to be false, which I was then contented barely to propose, not to prove. For tho' it was possible for me to give an Account (and that a right one too) of the Quakers Principle, without producing any of their Testimonies, yet it was not possible for Mr. Vickris to prove that Account of mine to be false, without referring to their Books. Because 'tis one thing barely to propose, which was my Undertaking, and another thing to prove, which was his. Since therefore Mr. Vickris thought fit to save himself the Trouble of appealing to Authors when more concerned to do so, he might well forgive it me, the only thing material in this business being, not whether I quote their Books or no, but whether I have given a true Account of 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 choosing 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 'tis to be feared a wilful one too, seeing 'tis 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 (though the Antithesis or counterpart 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 happened 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 though 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, though at the same time what he undertakes be nothing to the purpose. For though 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 determine 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 received Notion, as well as Formally, by being itself 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 allowed 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 determined to a Formal Sense, but may aptly enough be taken Efficiently as well as Formally, than 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; though 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 itself 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 expressly 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 virtue 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 'tis 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, etc. 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 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 'tis 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 'tis the express Doctrine 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 
Way to the City of God, p. 62.  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 fixed upon a right Bottom. And I know that Mr. Barclay in his Apology, lately Printed in Folio with the rest of his Works, says expressly, We understand not this Seed, Light 
Page 334.  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, called the New Creature, the New Man in the Heart.  
But though it be too plain to be denied, that the Quakers make the Light to be a real Substance, yet 'tis also as plain, that they do not make it the very Substance of God. By this Seed, Grace and 
Apology, p. 133.  Word of God and Light, (says Mr. Barclay) wherewith we say every Man is enlightened, 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 nourished 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 entertained upon the reading the 6th Chapter of St. John) I have neither Cause nor Mind at present to dispute. But I think 'tis plain from this Account Mr. Barclay gives of the Light, that though it be a Substance, yet 'tis 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 
Way to the City of God, p. 130.  itself, but a certain middle Nature, Substance or Being, betwixt the Godhead and Mankind, etc. Again, says he, p. 131. This middle Nature I call a Divine Substance or Essence, not as if it were the Godhead itself, 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, etc. Again says he in the next Paragraph, This excellent and intermediate Being may be called 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, than it proves a great deal more, viz. That 'tis 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 'tis not my present Business to consider what the Quakers ought to say, but what they do say. 'Tis plain, that they do not make the Divine Light to be the proper Substance of God, but a certain middle Nature; and 'tis 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 Answered and Confuted as far as concerns this first Particular. But whatever his Judgement 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 learnest 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 learned 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 deny not but such who apply their Minds in Obedience to the teachings of this Light and Heavenly Gift, may be made Partakers of more, viz. Extraordinary Gifts and Graces by the Inspiration of the same Spirit. If for this they have the Name of Enthysiasts given them, as in this Section of thy Postscript, though it be in Derision, they will rejoice in it; for it shall be as an Ornament of Grace to their Head, and Chains about their Neck. Again, in the same Section thou sayest I suppose it, viz. The Light within to be a Man's natural and ordinary way of Understanding. And just before thou madest it to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity, which are thy own express Words: See thy Confusion and Self-contradiction. By these Words, a Man's Natural and Ordinary Way of Understanding I take thee to intend the same thing as in pag. 77. where thou call'st it Reason and Conscience; and yet at the same time call'st it, The Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Region of Truth, in which are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, the great and universal Oracle lodged in every Man's Breast, whereof the ancient Urim and Thummim was an express Type or Emblem. Here thou debasest and confoundest thy Principle, making it to be a part of Man's Nature, whereas the Principle of Divine Light as held by the Quakers, is a distinct thing from Man's Soul, Reason, or Natural Conscience, viz. a more excellent Spirit and Principle. And herein I confess is a material Difference betwixt thy Principle of Light and the Quakers, as thou hast expressed it. Sure I am, it is a great Error to render the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which all things were made, and are upheld, to be no higher a Principle than Man's Reason and Conscience, or natural and ordinary way of Understanding, which Reason is a Property Essential to him as Man. I confess to know the things of a Man, according to that Scripture, 1 Cor. 2. 9, 10, 14. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, etc. By which it manifestly appears, that the true Knowledge of God and Spiritual Things are attained by the Spirit, which is superior to Man's rational Principle or natural Conscience, which may be defiled and corrupted, as 'tis said expressly of the impure, that even their Mind and Conscience is defiled.   

The Answer.  
THIS Second Exception, consisting of several things, must be severally considered. First, He demands of me where I learned, that the Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of extraordinary Inspiration? But before I answer his Question, I must settle the Meaning of my own Words, which he is pleased to take in a Sense quite different from what I intended, and what the scope and occasion of the Article requires. When therefore I say, that the Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration, 'tis plain from the Antithesis of the Article that my meaning is, that they represent it as a Supernatural Gift or Grace, meaning by Supernatural not only something beside, above or beyond the Nature of Man; (for so also upon my Principle 'tis acknowledged to be Supernatural, because I expressly make it to be the very Essence of God) but something above or beyond the common Order, State or Condition of Human Nature. Supernatural not only as to the Substance of it, (for that's confessed on both Hands, only more exalted upon my Hypothesis than upon theirs) but also as to its Dispensation and Order, being such an extraordinary superabundant Addition to the Nature of Man, as is not necessary he should always have, and without which he would still continue a rational and intelligent Nature. In opposition to which I said, that 'tis a Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding, that is, that 'tis so far from being such an extraordinary Superaddition to Human Nature, as Man might be without, and yet be a reasonable Creature; that 'tis so much the Natural and Ordinary way of his Understanding, that he could not be able to understand at all without it: That he would not only have less Light should it be taken from him, but be quite in the Dark. In one Word, that 'tis not a thing of Advantage only, but of Necessity, necessary to the very Being, as well as to the well or better Being of a reasonable understanding Spirit as such, who without this Light would not only not see so well, but would be able to see nothing, or not at all. This is the plain obvious Sense of my Words, only drawn out more at length, whereby it appears that my Notion differs considerably from that of the Quakers in this particular also.  
And now if this be the Sense of my Proposition, (as 'tis plain that 'tis, it being not capable of any other) I may easily answer Mr. Vickris his Question, that demands of me, Where I learned that the Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of extraordinary Inspiration? For 'tis very plain that they make this Internal Light to be Grace, that special and peculiar Grace of Christ whereby he restores lapsed Man from the Corruption of his Natural State. For this end, says Mr. Barclay, (that is, 
Apology, p. 330.  for the Restoration of Man) God hath communicated and given unto every man a measure of the Light of his Son, a measure of Grace, or a measure of the Spirit, etc. And again he calls it expressly a Supernatural Gift and Grace of Christ. 
Page 346.  Not that I would be thought to deny the Divine Light to be Grace as to certain Degrees of it. So far from that, that I think it to be the greatest Grace of God, that is, with respect to the Degrees of it, many of which I allow to be such extraordinary Superadditions to the common Order or State of Human Nature, as Man might simply be without, and yet continue in the Rank and Form of a reasonable and intelligent Creature. But not content with this, the Quakers make the Divine Light to be Grace simply and absolutely, as to its whole Nature and Kind, so as to be all over extraordinary. And if so, than they are so far from making it (as I do) necessary to a Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding, that they must make it such a Superabundant Accession to the common Condition of Man's Nature, as without which he would still understand enough to denominate him a Rational Being. For certainly a Man may understand without Grace.  
But that my Adversary may not pretend that I lay the whole stress of this matter upon a Consequence, (though it be a very plain one) I will prove the same by express Testimony, namely, That the Quakers do make their Light to be according to the before-stated Sense of the Word, something extraordinary, something added to the common way of Understanding, so as not to be simply necessary to Understanding in general, but only to the greater Advantage of it. For says Mr. Barclay, That Man, 
Apology, p, 337.  as he is a Rational Creature, hath Reason, as a Natural Faculty of his Soul, by which he can discern things that are rational, we deny not. For this is a Property Natural and Essential to him, by which he can know and learn many Arts and Sciences, beyond what any other Animal can do by the mere Animal Principle. So that here the Light is not simply and ordinarily necessary to the understanding of things, which it seems may be done by Reason alone without the Light. To the same purpose again, says the same Author, Man in his Natural State (that is, in the 
Page 346.  state devoid of this Light, which he had just before called the state of Darkness) can easily comprehend, and doth comprehend, those things that are peculiar and common to him, as such. And though they commonly call the natural state of Man (when without the Sensation of this Light) a state of Darkness, yet 'tis not because they suppose him to be absolutely dark, and to know nothing but only dark as to Spiritual and Saving Truths. So that according to them there may be Knowledge and Understanding without the Divine Light, which therefore they must be supposed to look upon as an extraordinary Accession, and not as an ordinary Requisite to Human Understanding. Which again sets their Principle at a sufficient Distance from mine. Tho I must needs do them so much Justice as to confess, that herein they speak as agreeably to their Principle as I do to mine: For conceiving their Light not as the very Object of Human Understanding, not as that Truth itself which we perceive, (as is plain, because they do not make it the Essence of God, as was noted above) but as something that serves for the clearer Revelation or Discovery of that Object, that is in one Word, conceiving it rather as a more advantageous Medium, than as an Object, they might well be excused from making it simply and absolutely necessary to Understanding: Whereas I conceiving the Divine Light to be the Omniform Essence of God, and accordingly making it to be the very immediate Object of my Understanding, that very Truth which (not that Medium by which) I contemplate, was obliged to suppose it so necessary to the common and natural way of Understanding, that there could be no such thing as Understanding without it; which I am sure a Quaker will not, or at least upon his Principles, can never say.  
And thus far the Difference between us is very clear and plain, and would indeed be on all sides unexceptionable, but that Mr. Vickris has here spied out something, (for which I very much admire the Quickness of his Eyesight) and that is a Contradiction. Before (says he) it was a Divine Communication and Manifestation only, and now an extraordinary Inspiration. Is not Extraordinary more than Common, or Communication and Manifestation only? And this he takes for a Contradiction of what was laid down in the First Article. But methinks Mr. Vickris should not undertake to write Controversy, unless he had known better how to judge of a Contradiction. For does it follow, that because I first say, that the Quakers represent their Light as a Divine Communication or Manifestation only, in opposition to its being the very Essence or Substance of God, and afterwards add (as another Step or Degree of Difference) that they represent it as an Extraordinary one, in opposition to the Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding; I say, Does it hence appear that I contradict myself? What if Extraordinary be more than Common, or Communication or Manifestation only, does it therefore Contradict it? What, is every Addition a Contradiction? It may indeed be so, in case the Degree added in the Second Proposition were denied or excluded in the first. But is this the present Case? Tho Extraordinary Communication be more than bare Communication simply considered, is it therefore denied by it? Is it not plain that this is only an Abstraction, and not any Negation? For if he should take hold of the Term (only), where I suppose his Mistake lay, is it not very plain that the Term (only) in the First Article is not exclusive of Extraordinary, which is added in the Second, but only of the Divine Essence or Substance; this being the Sense of the Proposition, that they represent their Light not as the very Essence of God, but only as something communicated by God? And where then is there any appearance of a Contradiction? But lest Mr. Vickris should not take this, (for he has now given me just occasion to question his Capacity) I will illustrate it by an Instance: Suppose a Cartesian should say first, That Light is only the Endeavour of the Globules of the Second Element to Motion, not the Motion its self; and then afterwards should further say, that 'tis the Endeavour of those Globules to recede from the Centre of the Luminous Body in a Right Line, would one of these Propositions contradict the other? 'Tis more than I can find if they do. But he continues his Exception upon this part, ask me, Have not the Quakers declared the Light to be Universal, as well as Divine, in its Gift and Manifestation to the Sons of Men? Well, what if they have, may they not also notwithstanding that hold it to be an Extraordinary Gift, according to the above-stated Sense of the Word Extraordinary, as it signifies something superadded to the Natural way of Man's Understanding? Does Extraordinary in this Sense import any thing inconsistent with Universal? Suppose Adam had persevered in his Original State, and his whole Posterity had inherited that extraordinary Grace, that Fraenum Justitiae, which (according to some) was superadded to the Essential Perfection of his Human Nature, would it have been the less Extraordinary, that is, the less a Superaddition to the Nature of Man, because Universal? Sure Mr. Vickris must be but little acquainted with the Nature of Opposition, if he thinks there is any between these two things. But suppose there were, he himself is accountable for it, and not I. For I have brought Evidence enough to prove, that they do make their Light to be (as I have explained it) Extraordinary, and if that be inconsistent with their other Notion of its Universality, the Inconsistency lights upon themselves, and I can't help that.  
And thus the Former Part of this Section is sufficiently vindicated; but it seems there is a Flaw in the Latter, which Mr. Vickris endeavours to make great Advantage of, though it be such as is plainly owing to the Captiousness and Uncandidness of his own Construction. Again, (says he) in the same Section thou sayest, I suppose it, viz. The Light within to be a Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding. And just before thou madest it to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity, etc. Did I so? Then this one would think should have been a Key to my Meaning to any one that was not resolved to misunderstand and pervert it, that he might have something to expose and harangue upon. For is it in the least to be imagined, or does Mr. Vickris in his Conscience seriously think that I, who in this very Book, and in these very Articles he reflects upon, as well as in the whole Course of my other Writings upon this occasion, do all along earnestly contend, that this Internal Light is no other than the very Essence and Substance of God, whose Omniformity is exhibitive of all things, and is the immediate Object of our Conception, that very Truth which we conceive: And that I who make this the ground of Difference between my Principle of the Light and that of the Quakers, that they do not make it the Substance of God, but only something communicated by or from him, whereas I expressly do: I say, can it be imagined that after all this, I should so far forget myself, as to make this Divine Light to be the very same thing with Human Understanding, and so confound (as he pretends) the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with Man's Reason and Conscience? Sure I should be fitter to pick Straws in Bedlam, than to write Books, should I be so senseless as to make Truth and Understanding, Object and Faculty, God and Creature all one. But as this is too gross to be my real Meaning, so the Scope and Antithesis of the Article do plainly show that it was not. 'Tis plain from thence (and no candid Reader would have understood me otherwise) that my Meaning, though for Brevity's sake not so explicitly worded, was no other than what has been already suggested, viz. That whereas the Quakers represent their Light as something extraordinarily superadded to the natural way of Understanding, (as supposing two distinct Lights in the Soul) and so not absolutely necessary to Understanding as such, which according to them may be without it: I on the contrary making but one way of Understanding in all, suppose this Light to be so far from being such an Extraordinary Superaddition, that 'tis so requisite to the Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding, that there is no Understanding without it. And so when I say, pag. 77. This is Reason, this is Conscience, 'tis plain enough that I mean no more than that this (namely the Light) is that whereby I perform Acts of Reason and Acts of Conscience; not that it is my very reasoning Faculty, but that whereby I reason and discourse, as furnishing me with Ideas for my Contemplation. And if this be the Natural and Necessary Sense of my Words (as I believe Mr. Vickris must needs be sensible that it is) than his whole following Harangue about my confounding the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Man's Natural Reason and Conscience is quite spoiled, and from a piece of Rhetoric becomes a most trifling Impertinence, (or to borrow a Stroke of Oratory from him) Insignificant, and like an Arrow shot at Random.   

Exception against the Third Article.  
IN thy Third Section thou comest in with a Salvo Errore. If I mistake not, the Quakers confine their Light within to some certain Objects, namely, Moral and Spiritual Truths in Order only to the Direction of Practice. How shouldst thou do otherwise but mistake the Principles of others, seeing thou art so confused about thine own? However, I must tell thee it is no small Fault at such an Uncertainty to expose People's Principles; and 'tis an Abuse to say, that the Quakers confine the Light within. It is Divine, Supernatural, and Uncircumscribable; in it are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge. Where have the Quakers taught otherwise? Have they not testified and declared the Light and the Spirit of Truth are one and the same in being, which will guide into all Truth, John 16. 13. The Quakers believe this Divine Light to be the Quickener of their Understandings to Know, and of their Wills to Love and Practise all Truth, and that it assists the Natural Faculties of the Soul in the Attainment of necessary Arts and Sciences, as well as capacitates it to Know-worth and Practise Moral and Spiritual Truths. Thou may'st read what the Author to the Book of Wisdom says on this Subject, in the 9th and 10th Chapters.  
And whereas thou sayst, the Quakers make the Light within a Supplement to Scripture, which they say is not sufficient without it, nor indeed any more than a mere dead Letter. I answer, These Words Supplement to Scripture are thy own, not ours; and this seems to be a Composition of thy own Notion of the Quakers Faith concerning the Holy Scripture, without any Quotation of their Words or Writings; and as 'tis an Objection is built upon thy mistake in thy former Section, viz. The Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of extraordinary Inspiration. Which hath been already Answered, proving the Universality of the Divine Light in Man; which considered, there is no just Cause for this as an Objection against the Quakers assigning the Scriptures to be insufficient without the Light, because the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures cannot occur to the Understanding without it, and the Formal Reason thereof is its Presence and Manifestation. The Quakers believe that Christ Jesus by his Divine Light within, doth in these Days, as in the Days of his Flesh, expound, fulfil, and open to the True Believers the Holy Scriptures, which according to the Apostles Exhortation to Timothy, Chap. 2. 3, 15. are able to make wise unto Salvation, (Note) through Faith which is in Christ Jesus. The Word Supplement in this Sense, I hope, will be found no Error, but according to thy Construction of the Quakers representing the Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration, Sect. 2. or special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, their own Party, as in Sect. 4. And then making them to say the Scriptures with relation only to the Direction of Practice, (as thy Lines import, Sect. 3.) are not sufficient without it, nor indeed any more than a mere dead Letter, is to render the Quakers not only singular and erroneous in their Principle of the Light (which shall be more duly observed in its place) but also contemptuous of the Holy Scriptures as useless and insufficient to all but themselves, which is a great and heinous Abuse of a Society of People, without Cause and Provocation, and contrary to their Public and Known Assertions both by Word and Writing, who believe according to the same Apostle to Timothy, Cap. 2. 3, 16, 17. that all Scripture, etc. And this shall suffice for an Answer to thy Third Section.   

The Answer.  
IF I delivered myself with more than ordinary Caution and Reservedness in this Article, it was because of my abundant Concern, lest I should injure those whom I was representing by a false Charge; though I think it is too much for Mr. Vickris to condemn me for misrepresenting them, and yet to upbraid me with my Tenderness in doing so at the same Time. But I find upon further Examination that I needed 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 'tis an Abuse to say the Quakers confine the Light within. And I tell him again, that 'tis 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 allowed to understand their Principles. For says he, As God gave two 
Apology, p. 337.  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 entire and unextinguished, though 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. 'Tis 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 herself 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. 'Tis 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 confined to Civility and Good Behaviour, he would have treated me with more Humanity and Courtesy 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 produced 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 
Page 21.  a Scholar; for we make that sort of Learning no part of our Divine Science, etc. Where 'tis 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 Knowledge which is supernaturally communicated to them by the saving Light of Christ, whereof he had discoursed 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 Knowledge which is supernaturally communicated to us by the Light of Christ. And if Human Learning be no part of that Knowledge which comes by the Divine Light, than the Divine Light is not extended to Human Learning, and consequently must be confined to Spiritual Truths, the very Province which Mr. Barclay had assigned 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 conceived 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, 
Page 317.  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 than it seems this Light is purely in order to Salvation, and consequently aught 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, though 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 within. For, says he, It is Divine, Supernatural, and Uncircumscribable, and in it are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge. Alluding, I suppose, to that of the Apostle concerning Christ, Col. 2. 3. But though they do make it to be Divine and Supernatural, yet I do not see how they can make it, or he can call it, Uncircumscribable, since (as has been observed in the preceding Pages) they do not make it to be the proper Essence or Substance of God, but a certain middle. Nature between God and Man: And for the same reason he cuts himself off from all Pretence to that Text concerning the Divine Word, that in him are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, which indeed is very applicable, and carries a very apposite and emphatic Sense upon my Hypothesis, who make the Divine Light within to be the very Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself, the Substantial and Essential Wisdom of God; but must be altogether usurped upon his, who either does, or by the Principles of Quakerism is obliged to make it not the very Essence of the Deity, but something of a middle Nature.  
But says he, Have they not testified and declared the Light and the Spirit of Truth are all one and the same Being, which will guide into all Truth? Joh. 16. 13. And I do not at present well remember whether they have or no, hor shall I give myself the Trouble to inquire, thinking it altogether impertihent. But sure I am, that they have often, testified and declared that the Light is not the proper Essence of God, but a certain middle Being between God and Man; and if they will afterwards testify and declare that 'tis the very same with the Spirit of Truth (which is really and truly God) I think they will evidently testify against themselves, and declare Contradictions, and then 'tis no great matter what thy testify or declare. But besides, suppose they did make the Light to be one and the same with the Spirit of Truth, which according to that of St. John, will guide into all Truth; yet 'tis plain from the foregoing Measures that they must, and from the Context of the place, that they ought to mean it only of Spiritual, Saving and necessary Truths, which may very well confist with their supposed Confinement of the Light.  
But how can this be so confined, when Mr. Vickris testifies again, and declares that the Divine Light does assist the Natural Faculties of the Soul in the Attainment of Arts and Sciences? But 
Page 6, 7.  how is this consistent with what he says in the Beginning of his Book, where he calls this Corrupt Wisdom, and the Forbidden Fruit, and what will prove Folly in the End, and the Wisdom that is Below, and that which God's Wisdom from Above ever did and will confound? See the Inconsistency and Unsincerity of this Writer! When it would serve his turn to disparage and down Human Learning, then 'tis Corrupt Wisdom, Forbidden Fruit, and I know not what. And when he had another turn to serve, (that is, to contradict me) than this Wisdom, as corrupt as it is, is taught us by the Instruction of the Divine Light. But stay, Sir, though this Divine Light be not as you say the very Essence of God, yet is it so far divided against him, as to teach what is contrary to him, and what his Wisdom ever did and will confound? Are the Divine Light and the Divine Wisdom at such Defiance with each other? But 'tis Mr. Vickris that is at Defiance with himself, and I am afraid will not easily be reconciled. For if the Divine Light teaches this sort of Wisdom, then 'tis not Corrupt, which contradicts what he said in the other place; and if this sort of Wisdom be Corrupt, than the Divine Light does not teach it, (as being a Pure and Clean Principle, and such as cannot consent to 
Apology, p. 338.  any Evil or Wickedness) which contradicts what he says here. So that either way Contradiction is his Doom.  
As to what I said concerning the Quakers making the Light within a Supplement to Scripture, etc. it was not intended as a direct and particular Objection against them, of itself, but only to confirm the other, wherein they are charged with confining it to Moral and Spiritual Truths in order to the Direction of Practice. For that being the acknowledged End and Use of Scripture, it seems an high Presumption, that what is made a Supplement to the Scripture, is also intended for the very same End and Use. And therefore Mr. Vickris need not have opposed himself against this as a direct and particular Objection, it being not by me either intended or used as such. For whatever my Thoughts may be concerning the Sufficiency or Insufficiency of the Scripture without the inward Light, I had no occasion then, nor have any Mind at present to engage in a Dispute about that matter. Only I would desire Mr. Vickris and his Brethren by the way to consider, whether they can answer that Argument of Episcopius, whereby he proves the Vanity and Absurdity of the Spiritualists, (as he calls them) in making the Inward Word the Interpreter of Scripture. Either (says he) they will 
Institut. Theolog. Pag. 253.  have that inward Word, as they call it, to have an intelligible Sense in it, or not to have an intelligible Sense. If they will have it to contain an intelligible Sense, than they must grant that that Sense being perceived by the Understanding may be pronounced and expressed by outward Speech. And if so, than it follows that this Sense may also be written, since whatever is pronounced by the Mouth, may also be expressed in writing. But then this written Sense will again be nothing else than an external Word, which being expressed in Letters will according to them be nothing else but an inky Letter or Scripture, which they deny to be sufficient. But if they will have this inward Word to have in it no intelligible Sense, or that may be pronounced, or written, than it will necessarily follow, that this their Word is no Word, or only a vain and foolish Word. For such must that Word be which has no Intelligible Sense. If they say, that this Word is not perceived but by him upon whom it is immediately impressed by God. Then I say again, Either it is impressed without any intelligible Sense, or with it. If without any, than the same Difficulty will return, viz. That 'tis a vain and foolish Word. But if it be imprinted with intelligible Sense, than what hinders but that it may be expressed and written? And then how will it differ from that written Word we have hitherto treated of?  
But he tells me that these Words, Supplement to Scripture, are my own, not theirs. It may be so, I will not stand with Mr. Vickris for a Word, since he is so kind to me as to acknowledge all that I intended by it, namely, That the Light is the Interpreter of Scripture, and that the Scripture is not sufficient without it; without denying that 'tis not any thing more than a mere dead Letter, a Phrase usually applied by the Quakers to the Scripture considered in its self, as unaccompanyed with the Testimony of the Internal Light. For the further clearing of which Notion, when any of them write next, I would desire them to take the Argument of the beforementioned Learned Objector in their way.  
He tells me again that this, as 'tis an Objection, is built upon my Mistake in my former Section, viz. That the Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration, which he says has been answered already in proving the Universality of the Divine Light. But I answer, First, That this was not intended as a particular Objection of its self, but only to second and enforce another. Secondly, That if it be an Objection, it is not built upon what he supposes, which is only a mistake of his own concerning my meaning by the Word Extraordinary, which because by me not opposed to Universal, cannot be said to be any way answered by his proving the Universality of the Divine Light. Then as to what he says afterwards concerning my rendering the Quakers contemptuous of Holy Scripture, as useless to all but themselves, in regard that 'tis held as a dead Letter without the Light, which Light according to my Construction of their Principle, is an Extraordinary Inspiration, and a special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, their own Party. I answer, That indeed the Scripture would be made useless to all but themselves upon this double Supposition. 1. That 'tis a dead Letter without the Light. And, 2. That this Light is their own peculiar Privilege; but then this latter (upon which the Strength of the Objection turns) was not absolutely charged upon them by me. For as for the Term Extraordinary, it has been more than once noted, that it was not used in a Sense opposite to Universal. And as for their making the Light a special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, that this is not to be understood in such a Sense as will lay any Ground for my Adversary's Complaint, will sufficiently appear, when I come to consider his Exception against the Fourth Article, to the Examination of which I now proceed.   

Exception against the Fourth Article.  
THE Fourth is a downright Falsity, viz. The Quakers make their Light within a Special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, their own Party. Not indeed as to the Possibility, yet they do as to the Act, making none but those of their own way to be actually enlightened by it. This is so abundantly confuted by the Writings in general of those People, more particularly in the afore-recited Book of Robert Barclays, which considering thou hast read, I am the more amazed at thy Assertion. They say all are actually enlightened by it, all are called, but all have not obeyed, according to those Scriptures, Micah 6. 8. He hath showed thee, O Man, what is good, etc. 1 John 9 3, 19 1 Cor. 13. 17. Tit. 2. 11. etc. Thy Distinction of a Possibility, and not actually with respect to the Divine Illumination of this Principle is trivial, though not with respect to Salvation by it. The Capacity or Possibility is not, nor can be in Man abstract from the actual illuminating Power and Spirit, no more than seeing, if the Light be not separate from the Eye. The Quakers have, and still do declare, that Christ Jesus, the Light of the World, is the Universal Eree Gift of God, for the Benefit of all Men, in order to their Salvation. And is not this Common, yet Special Privilege, because dearly purchased and freely bestowed on lost Man? That thou may'st not want occasion to traduce the Quakers, thou hast so much overdone it in this Section, as to contradict thyself in the Fifth. As for Instance, Sect. 4. to be actually enlightened according to thy-Principle is no special Privilege, but the common and universal Benefit of all Men, yea, of all the Intelligent Creation, who all see and understand in this Light of God, without which there would be neither Truth nor Understanding. On the contrary, Sect. 5. thou sayest, thy Light does not Formally enlighten or instruct thee, but when thou carefully attends to and consults it, and read what is written in those Divine Ideal Characters. The like Doctrine thou hast, Pag. 71. of thy Book, Sect. 5. and 6. where, treating of thy double Illumination of the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. Fundamentally and Potentially, or else Effectually or Actually; in the former Sense (thou sayest) he enlightens every Man; in the latter, only those who duly consult him and attend to him. See what Contradiction thy strained Notions run thee into? One while to be actually enlightened, is the Common and Universal Benefit of all Men; another while only of those who consult it and attend to it, and all to avoid being thought to Symbolise with the Quakers in thy Notion of the Divine Light. Thy Distinction of Potentially and Actually can have no more in it than the Difference in the Subject, the one Universal Act of the Word or Light enlightening every Man, comprehends both. These are but new invented Terms to express the most ancient, and more Divinely, and better revealed Truths of the Gospel.   

The Answer.  
THIS Exception seems to have in it the most of Subtlety and Artifice, and to be the most fair and plausible of any: But I make no great Question but that it will have as fair and clear an Answer as any of the rest. And because a Question well stated, and put in a good Light, is half resolved, I shall first of all define the Sense and Meaning of my own Words in this Fourth Article, that so it may appear what it is that I there affirm, and what he does or should deny, and wherein the Point of the Question between us lies. Now when I say that the Quakers make their Light within a special Privilege of a certain Order of Men, 'tis plain, First, in general, from the Article its self, that I do not mean as to the Capacity or Possibility, but as to the Act. For I grant as to the Possibility, that they suppose all Men to be indifferently capable of the Divine Illumination, as appears from their contending against the Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation, and for Universal Grace. I do not therefore make them to confine the Light as to the Possibility, but only as to the Act. And then as to the Act (in which respect alone I say they confine it) it is also very plain, that I mean not the Act of Having or Possessing the Light (for I know very well that 'tis one of their Fundamental Tenets, that God has Communicated and given unto every Man a Measure of the Light of his Son, a Measure of Grace, or a Measure of the Spirit, as Mr. Barclay 
Apology, P. 330.  expresses it) but the Act of being enlightened by it. And that this is my Meaning, the Tenor of my Words do sufficiently show, because I there say, Tho they do not make it a special Privilege as to the Possibility, yet they do as to the Act, making none but those of their own way to be actually enlightened by it. Where by Act it is plain that I mean not the Act of Possession, but the Act of Illumination. For Mr. Vickris is to consider, that 'tis one thing to have or to possess the Light, and another thing to be actually enlightened by it. And they who very zealously contend for the Universality of the former, may at the same time, and that without any Inconsistency, confine the Latter. Which is the thing that I affirm the Quakers do, viz. That though they do not confine the Light either as to the Possibility of being enlightened by it, or as to the Act of having or possessing it, yet they do confine it as to the Act of Illumination. That they do thus confine it, I will first show, and then consider what he alleges to the contrary, which I think is a fair and distinct way of Proceeding.  
That the Quakers do confine the Light as to the Act of Illumination to certain Men, or to Men of a certain Order, I think will be readily granted me, if I can show that they do thus confine it to the Regenerate. And that they do so, I believe I can not only render exceeding Probable, but even Demonstrate; which I undertake to do in this Form of Argument:  
They that do exclude all Men that are in their Natural and Corrupt Estate from the actual Illumination of the Divine Light, do confine the Divine Light as to the Act of Illumination to the Regenerate.  
But the Quakers do exclude all Men that are in their Natural and Corrupt Estate from the Actual Illumination of the Divine Light.  
Therefore the Quakers do confine the Divine Light as to the Act of Illumination to the Regenerate.  
The first of these Propositions is most evident. The Second I prove thus:  
They that do exclude all Men that are in their Natural and Corrupt Estate from any Sensation or Feeling of the Divine Light, they do exclude all Men that are in their Natural Corrupt Estate from the Actual Illumination of the Divine Light.  
But the Quakers do exclude all Men that are in their Natural and Corrupt Estate from any Sensation or Feeling of the Divine Light.  
Therefore the Quakers do exclude all Men that are in their Natural Corrupt Estate from the Actual Illumination of the Divine Light.  
The First of these Propositions is again most evident. And for the Proof of the Second, which alone requires it, I appeal to the Testimony of their most Authentic Writer Mr. Barclay, who in his Fourth Proposition speaking concerning the Natural Condition of Man, gives this express Account of it, that he is not only fallen, degenerated and dead, but deprived of the Sensation or Feeling of this Inward Testimony, or Seed 
Apology, p. 310.  of God; And is subject to the Power, Nature and Seed of the Serpent, which he sows in Men's Hearts, while they abide in this Natural and Corrupted Estate. From whence it comes, that not only their Words and Deeds, but all their Imaginations are Evil perpetually in the fight of God, as proceeding from this depraved and wicked Seed. Man therefore as he is in this state can know nothing aright; yea, his Thoughts and Conceptions concerning God and Things Spiritual (until he be disjoined from this evil. Seed, and united to the Divine Light) are unprofitable both to himself and others. Thus Mr. Barclay. Now how far Man in his Natural and Corrupt Estate may be capable of conceiving rightly, either of God, or of Divine things, 'tis not my present Business to inquire or dispute. But what I observe from these Words of Mr. Barclay is this, That Natural Men, or Men in their Natural and Corrupt Estate, however they may have the Divine Light in them Seminally or Radically, yet they have not (while in that state) any Sensation or any Feeling of it. They are his own express Words. And if they have not any Sensation or Feeling of the Light, than they are not actually enlightened by it, which agrees with the Distinction before laid down, that though they have the Light as to the Act of Possession, yet they have it not as to the Act of Illumination. And if all Natural Men are excluded from the actual Illumination of the Divine Light, then 'tis plain that the Divine Light as to the Act of Illumination, (though not as to the Act of Possession) is confined to the Regenerate. Which was the Proposition I undertook to prove.  
And that all Natural and Unregenerate Men, though they have the Divine Light lodged in them, are yet supposed to be deprived of all actual Illumination by it, may be fairly collected from another remarkable place in Mr. Barclay, where he uses this as an Argument to prove, that the Light is a Substance not an Accident, because it may be in the Heart of wicked Men without denominating them, that is, as appears by the Tenor of his Discourse, without affecting them, or deriving any Influence or Virtue upon them. His Words are these, We know 
Apology, p. 334.  it to be a Substance, because it subsists in the Hearts of Wicked Men, even while they are in their Wickedness. Now no Accident can be in a Subject, without it gives the Subject its own Denomination; as where Whiteness is in a Subject, there the Subject is called White. So we distinguish betwixt Holiness, as 'tis an Accident, which denominates Man so, as the Seed receives a place in him; and betwixt this Holy Substantial Seed, which many times lies in Man's Heart as a naked Grain in a Stony Ground. So also, as we may distinguish betwixt Health and Medicine. Health cannot be in the Body, without the Body be called Healthful. Because Health is an Accident. But Medicine may be in a Body that is most unhealthful, for that it is a Substance. In which Words Mr. Barclay does, as far as I can judge, plainly imply, that wicked Men, though they have the Light really and truly in them, as well as those that are good, yet they are not actually enlightened by it. It is indeed in their Hearts, but it lies dormant there like hot Embers covered up under the Ashes, without affecting, or denominating, or enlightening them. For it seems, it lies in them as a naked Grain in a Stony Ground, and as Physic in a Body that is not at all wrought upon by it; that is, it lies there, and that's all. Which amounts to as much as if he had said in the Words of the beforementioned Distinction, that they have it indeed as to the Act of Possession, but not as to the Act of Illumination. Which must therefore be confined to good Men only, or to the Regenerate.  
To this purpose I might cite many other Passages which occur up and down in the Writings of Mr. Barclay, as when he says (as he does frequently) that the Divine Light or Seed lies in wicked Men, hurt, bruised, wounded, slain, yea, and buried. And when 
Apology, p. 354.  he says that in this Seed in the Hearts of all Men is the Kingdom of God, as in Capacity to be produced, or rather exhibited, according as it receives Depth, is nourished and not choked. And when he says that this Seed was in the 
Ibid.  Pharisees, as a Seed lying in a Barren Ground, which springs not forth, etc. But I forbear more Quotations, having I think already produced enough to make it plain and out of Question that they do exclude all wicked Men from the actual Illumination, though not from the actual Possession of the Divine Light, or which is all one, that they confine the Divine Light to good Men, to the Regenerate, as to the Act of Illumination, though not as to the Act of Possession. In short, All have it, but the regenerate only are actually enlightened by it.  
I may urge this also as another Argument to prove that they do confine the Light as to the Act of Illumination to a certain number of Men, because (as every body knows that has had the least Conversation either with them or their Writings) they do confine it only to those that turn their Soul and Mind ininwards unto it, (for till then, as the Prefacer to Mr. Barclay's Works says, Man is Darkness) 
Page 3.  at the same time supposing that not all, but a very few do so convert themselves unto it. Upon which double Supposition are grounded their so often repeated Admonitions and Exhortations to those they address their Writings or Discourses to, that they would turn their Souls inwards unto the Light, that they would mind, heed, follow it, and wait upon it in quietness and silence, etc. All which would be extremely ridiculous and impertinent, if either Men might be enlightened without converting themselves to the Light, or if it were certain and necessary that all Men should so convert themselves to it. Since therefore they do confine the Light as to the Act of Illumination to those that convert or introvert themselves to it, and at the same time do not make all Men to do so, it appears plainly that they do confine it to a certain number of Men.  
And since again (as is well known) they look upon themselves as the only Professors and Embracers of the Truth of God, and the only Followers of the Light, and the only Converters of themselves to it, (which it seems is so much the proper Characteristic of a Quaker, that when any one is Proselyted to their way, 'tis ordinary for them, to say, Such an one is turned to the Light) I think I had very good reason to say that they confined the Light to their own Party, meaning, (as plainly appears, and as I have often suggested) not as to the Capacity or Possibility, nor as to the Act of Possession, but only as to the Act of Illumination. That though other Men as well as themselves, yea, all Men have the same Light in them, yet they only see by it, and have actual Illumination from it, because they only turn themselves unto it, and (to express it in their more peculiar Phrase) are Inward with it. Wherein I think they differ again sufficiently from me, who am so far from confining the Divine Light in the least respect or degree, that I extend it as a common Benefit to all Men without Exception, yea, to all the Intelligent part of the Creation (which by the way I do not find they do, nor do I see how upon their Principle they can, since making it the Grace of Christ they must confine it to Man) and that not only as to the Act of Possession, but as to the Act of Illumination too, because I expressly say, that they all see and understand in this Light of God, without which there would be neither Truth nor Understanding.  
Now to consider what Mr. Vickris alleges to the contrary: He says First of all, that it is a downright Falsity that the Quakers do thus confine the Light. But let him prove this to be a Falsity as well as say it. He says again, that 'tis abundantly confuted by the Writings of the Quakers in general, particularly those of Robert Barclay. But I have made the contrary appear from those very Writings. But he says again, that they say all are actually enlightened by it, etc. To which I return, That then they say Contradictions, and are inconsistent with themselves. But he says again, that the Quakers have, and still do declare, that Christ Jesus the Light of the World is the Universal Free Gift of God, for the Benefit of all Men, in order to their Salvation. But by Mr. Vickris his leave this does not reach the Point in question, as proving the Universality of the Light only as to the Capacity of being enlightened by it, or as to the Act of Possession only, which I never supposed them to deny. But the Question is concerning the Universality of the Light as to the Act of Illumination, which is not at all proved by saying, that Christ Jesus the Light of the World is the Universal Free Gift of God, for the Benefit of all Men in order to their Salvation. But he further says, that my Distinction of a Possibility, and not Actually with respect to the Divine Illumination of this Principle, is trivial. But why so? May there not be a Capacity of being enlightened where there is no actual Illumination? Are not these distinct Ideas? And may not therefore one be without the other? But he says, the Capacity or Possibility is not, nor can be in Man abstract from the actual illuminating Power and Spirit, no more than seeing, if Light be not separate from the Eye. No? Why then do they so often divide the one from the other, in making all to be capable of Illumination by the Divine Light, when yet according to them all are not actually enlightened by it, nor any at all times? Of the Former, That all are not actually enlightened by it, I have already given an Account out of Mr. Barclay: And as to the Latter, That none are actually enlightened by it at all times, the same Author is so kind as to furnish me with an Account in another place, where he gives this as a Reason why the Light is no Power or Natural Faculty of a Man's Mind, because he cannot be actually enlightened by it at pleasure, but must wait for the Irradiations of it. For, says he, This Light, Seed, etc. appears to be no Power or Natural 
Apology, p. 338.  Faculty of Man's Mind, because a Man that is in Health can, when he pleases, stir up, move and exercise the Faculties of his Soul. He is absolute Master of them. But this Light and Seed of God in Man he cannot move and stir up when he pleases, but it moves, blows and strives with Man as the Lord seeth meet. For though there be a Possibility of Salvation to every man during the Day of his Visitation, yet cannot a man at any time when he pleases stir up that Light and Grace, but he must wait for it, etc. Bringing in the Comparison the Lake of Bethesda, and the Angel at certain times moving upon the Waters. From which Words of Mr. Barclay it plainly appears, that no Man, though never so close a Follower of the Light, is under the actual Illumination of it at all times; and yet the same Author does not deny, but every where earnestly contend, that the Light is always in Man as well as in every Man; and if this be not to abstract the Capacity or Possibility from the Act of Illumination by the Light, I despair ever to know what is. And why may not the Capacity of Illumination be abstracted from the Act, since they are not only in themselves distinct, but proceed from different Causes, and between which there is (according to them) no necessary Connection. The former depending upon the in-being only of the Divine Light, and the latter upon the Soul's Introversion of itself to it, without which she will not be enlightened by that Light which she bears. According to what Mr. Barclay says upon that Text, Rom. 3. 11. There is none that 
Truth cleared of Columnieses, p. 8.  understandeth: Why understand they not, but because they are not turned to the Light that can give them Understanding?  
As to his Comparison taken from seeing, which he will not have possible to be abstracted, if Light be not separated from the Eye. I answer, First, That if there be any Force in it, 'tis against themselves, as convincing them of Absurdity in Abstracting or Dividing what is not to be divided. For the Signification of it must be this, That as the Act of Seeing is not to be abstracted from the Capacity when Light is not separated from the Eye, so the Act of Illumination is not to be abstracted from the Capacity of it, when the Divine Light is not separated from the Soul. And why then do they abstract the Act of Illumination from the Possibility, when they suppose the Divine Light to be present in the Soul; as 'tis plain they do when they reach, that 'tis not in the power of Man to be enlightened when he please, though the Light be really in him? If the actual Illumination of the Soul must necessarily follow upon the Presence or Being of the Divine Light in it, then why do they abstract it from it, by supposing that Man has it not always in his Power to move and stir up the Light, as was before noted? But indeed, whatever Connexion there may be between the Presence of the Divine Light and the actual Illumination of the Soul, it does not follow that there is any from the Similitude he here uses, in which there is no Force at all, the ground of it rightly conceived not being true. For Seeing may be either taken in a Material Sense, for that Physical Impression made upon the Retina by the Rays of Light that pass in various Refractions through the several Humours of the Eye; or else in a Formal Sense, for that Sensation of the Soul which ordinarily accompanies that Impression, and whereby she is conscious of it. If Seeing be taken in the former Sense, than indeed it will hardly be possible to abstract the Act of Seeing from the Capacity of it, if the Light be not separated from the Eye. But if Seeing be taken in the latter way, for the Sensation of the Soul, whereby she is conscious of that Physical Impression made upon the Organs of Sight, (which is the most proper acceptation of the Word Seeing) than the Act of Seeing may very well, and is often abstracted from the Capacity of it; and that notwithstanding the Light be not separated from the Eye: There being nothing more common than for Men, whose Minds are deeply fixed upon some engaging Objects that call off and divert their Attention another way, not to observe what stands just before their Eyes, and what Physically and Materially speaking they cannot choose but see. So that this Comparison as prettily as it looks, will not serve the purpose for which it is used. But I forget myself; 'tis pity a good Similitude should be spoiled by being too nicely examined.  
And now as to the Contradiction which he pretends to find between the Fourth Article, where all Men are supposed to be actually enlightened, and the Fifth, where the Light is supposed not Formally to enlighten me, but when I attend to it and consult it: Tho he has so lately spoiled his Credit with me in this point, that I shall not be very forward to take his Word for a Contradiction again, yet I shall not scruple to confess, that there is at first View some Appearance of Opposition between these two, but I think no more than what any Fair and Candid Reader may easily accommodate, only by considering and collating together the two different occasions upon which these two seemingly opposite Passages were delivered. For in the Fourth Section, being to oppose my Notion against the Quakers as to the Confinement of the Light to certain Men, as to the Act of Illumination, there I lay down this Assertion, That all Men are actually enlightened. And in the Fifth Section, being to oppose myself against another Notion of the Quakers, in making the Light to be some determinate formed Dictate or Proposition, expressly and positively directive and instructive; there I say, that it does not formally enlighten me but when I attend to it and consult it, as being no Formed Proposition, but only the Essential Truth of God. Wherein 'tis plain that I do not deny the actual Illumination of all, (the thing asserted in the former Section) but only determine the manner of it, that it is not done by any Proposition ready formed and held forth to the Soul, but by the Soul's consulting the Divine Ideas, or Essential Truth of God. For when I say it enlightens Men only when they attend to it and consult it, I do not suppose that there are any that are not actually enlightened, but that those who are enlightened are enlightened by attending, supposing at the same time that all Men do in some measure attend to, and consult the Divine Light, so far at least, as is necessary to their common and ordinary way of Understanding, and to render them rational and intelligent Being's. 'Tis true indeed, the Quakers do also make the Light to enlighten none but those that convert themselves to it: But then there is this material Difference between us, that they representing the Light as an extraordinary Accession to the Order of Human Understanding, and as a Saving Grace in the whole Kind of it, do not suppose it necessary that all should turn themselves to it: Whereas I not looking upon it as an Extraordinary Grace as to the whole kind, but as an ordinary Requisite to Human Understanding, do suppose it necessary for all to turn to it, or consult it so far, as to render them thinking and understanding Being's. And so long as I make all Men in some measure to consult it, though I do withal say, that they are enlightened by it only when they consult it, I do not thereby deny that all are actually enenlightned by it. For this does not deny the Universality of Actual Illumination, but only determins and specifies the way and manner of it. So that here is no Contradiction, but all things are Uniform and Confistent.   

Exception against the Fifth Article.  
THE Fifth I take in the First Part of it to be the same in Substance with thy First, differing in Form of Expressions, viz. The Quakers by their Light within understand some Determinate Form Dictate or Proposition expressly or positively directing or instructing them to do so or so, as in thy first thou called'st it some Divine Communication or Manifestation only. Where didst thou learn this Definition of the Quakers Faith and Doctrine of the Light within? The Quakers believe the Light of Christ within to be God's Divine Oracle of Wisdom in the Soul, the Former, Dictator and Determiner of Heavenly Propositions, them directing and instructing what to choose, and what to refuse, as the Original Cause of the Knowledge and Love of Truth, which are its proper Effects. Now wherein is the Quakers Light, as thou termest it, inferior to that of thine, except in the differing Character thou givest it? They own the Real and Substantial Truth of God, the Life of the Word, the Light of Men, as Christ said of himself, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That this Divine Light, which is the Light of Men, is always in some Degree and Measure present in the Soul, by which it is upheld either in God's Love or Anger, the Quakers believe; and that in him we live, move, and have our Being, though with respect to Operation after a different manner and measure, and passing the Understanding of Man. And whereas thou sayest, Thy Light is only the Essential Truth of God; This is an high Presumption, about which I have already showed thy Confusion in other places, call it Reason and Conscience, and a Man's Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding. Consider Mat. 6. 22, 23. The Light of the Body, etc. If therefore the Light that is in thee be Darkness, etc. So may I say, if that Doctrine and Principle thou recommendest to the World for Truth and Excellency be erroneous and faulty, how great is that Error and Fault? Again, thou sayest, Thy Light is always present to thy Understanding, and intimately united with it still, Sect. 5. which in thy Sense of the Light is to say, thy Soul is never without thy Reason and Conscience. I wish they were both reformed, that thou may'st be no more guilty of these and such like false Aspersions; That the Light, supposing it to be what really it is, a distinct Principle from the Soul, is always present to the Understanding, which implies its Operation upon the Natural Capacity or Organ, the ordinary means of knowing, I conceive is more than can be safely or experimentally said, because the Organ may be hurt, and the Understanding in that Sense interrupted, and consequently no fit Medium or Receptacle either for the Soul or its Light. Besides, the Soul may be absent from the Natural Understanding by the Interposition of Spiritual, as well as Natural Causes, and yet present with the Light in its Spiritual way of Understanding. But to say as thou dost, that Thy Light is only the Essential Truth of God, and that it is always present to thy Understanding, and intimately united with it, and yet that it does not formally enlighten or instruct it, but when carefully attended to and consulted, seems to discover a Contradiction in its self, and to the Formal Reason of its Being, and Presence, and Sufficiency in the one Act of the same Principle, as well as to the State and Nature of Intimate Union. For how can any thing be intimately united to its Principle, and not partake of its Nature and Influences, which is the Reason and Manner of its Union? And how can this be, and not carefully attended to and consulted? Is not this manifest Confusion? That the Presence of the Light does enlighten and instruct all in some Sense and Degree, is sufficiently proved by Scripture. By thy Word Formally Enlighten I apprehend thou intendest the Operative Exercise, as in Pag. 17. and as here applied to Light, signifies no more than actually to enlighten, ex parte Objecti. I grant such as do not carefully attend to and consult this Divine Light, do not witness the Increases of it unto the Redemption and Salvation of their Souls.  
It is the Path of the Just that is as the shining Light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect Day. If the Light, as thou assertest, doth not formally enlighten or instruct, but when carefully attended to and consulted, how then should it quicken and raise the Soul from Death to Life, according to the multiplied experience of Holy David? And how doth God speak once, yea twice, yet Man perceiveth it not, Job 33. 14, 15, 16, 17. and Isa. 65. How frequently doth the Lord complain by his Prophets of his calling to his People to return and repent, but they would not answer? Note, the Call of God is not without Instruction, read Mic. 6. 8, and Prov. 1, from 20, to the end. And see what Wisdom does also in Nehemiah, how they rebelled against God, notwithstanding he gave his good Spirit to instruct them. The Testimony of John the Evangelist, the 5th and 21th, Ephes 2. 1, 4, 5. 2 Cor. 4. 6, 7. These and many other Texts, abundantly prove that God quickens and enlightens Man, before Man can turn unto him.   

The Answer.  
I Have given myself the trouble to set down this Exception at large, not because I intent to answer it all, but that it may appear to the Discerning Reader, that there is a great deal of it which I need not answer, as being either answered already, or so very impertinent and remote from the business, that it deserves no consideration. But in the first place, I cannot but admire at the singular Happiness of his Fancy, in imagining the former part of the Fifth Article to be the same in substance with the First, and to differ only in form of Expression. In the First it is said, that the Quakers usually talk of the Light within, as of some Divine Communication or Manifestation only; that is, as it has been explained, that they represent their Light, not as God himself, but only as a divine Communication, or as something communicated or exhibited by God. In the Fifth, it is said, That the Quakers by their Light within (that is as Directive,) understand some determinate formed Dictate or Proposition, expressly and positively directing and instructing them to do so or so: That is, that they make the Direction of the Light, or the Light as Directive, to consist in Dictates or Propositions ready formed and presented to the view of the Soul, whereby she is formally taught and instructed. Now are these Two the same? If they are, so are a Square and a Circle, Mr. Vickris and myself, Quakerism and Primitive Christianity. But he demands of me where I learned this Account of the Quakers Faith and Doctrine of the Light within, viz. That they represent its direction by a determinate formed Dictate or Proposition? I answer, from one that may be presumed to have dived into the bottom of Quakerism, and to have comprehended the whole Mystery of it, as well as any Man of that Profession, and that is Mr. Barclay, who speaking of that Letter of our Master that is writ in our Hearts, says, Our 
Truth cleared of Calumnies. p. 13.  Master is always with us, and he requires us to do all our Works by his immediate Counsel, Direction, etc. And again to the same effect, speaking of the Jews rejecting Christ, notwithstanding that they had the Scriptures, he resolves it into this, because they harkened not 
Ibid. p. 16. P. 17.  unto the inward Voice and Testimony of the Father concerning him. Again, he speaks of a Word in the Heart, and of the inward Testimony of the Spirit. Again, He writes them a living Copy in their Hearts. Again, he talks 
P. 18.  of immediate Teaching of the Spirit, and of Preaching that comes immediately from the Spirit. He says further, that this saving Spiritual 
P. 28.  Light, is the Gospel Preached in every Creature under Heaven. And that though the 
Apology, p. 349.  outward Declaration of the Gospel be taken sometimes for the Gospel, yet it is but figuratively, and by a Metonymy. For to speak properly, (says he,) the Gospel is this inward Power and Life, which Preaches glad Tidings in the Hearts of all Men, etc. More expressly 
Possibility and necessity of inward immediate Revelation, p. 896. Way to the City of God, p. 163. P. 170.  yet, Mr. Barclay calls the Revelation of the Light, the Voice of God inwardly speaking to the Mind of Man; and in this he makes the very form of Revelation to consist. And Mr. Keith makes the Divine Light to be all one with the Divine Voice and Call; and to this he applies that of the Twenty Ninth Psalms, The Voice of the Lord is a Glorious Voice. And to this purpose 'tis usual with them to apply that of the Prophet Habakkuk, I will stand upon my Watch, and set me upon the Tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, Hab. 2. 1. And that of the Psalmist, I will hear what God the Lord will Speak, Psal. 85. 8. All which Passages do plainly enough imply, that they represent the Direction of the Light after the manner of a determinate formed Dictate or Proposition formally and expressly tutouring and instructing them. And Mr. Vickris himself acknowledges as much in the Words immediately following his Question, when he says that the Quakers believe the Light of Christ within to be God's Divine Oracle of Wisdom in the Soul, the Former, Dictator and Determiner of Heavenly Propositions, them directing and instructing what to choose, and what to refuse. Which how it differs from my Account, that they make it a determinate formed Dictate or Proposition expressly directing and instructing them to do so or so, I confess my Eyesight too weak to distinguish. But if Mr. Vickris be as good at finding out Differences, as he is at finding out Likenesses, perhaps he may be able to distinguish them.  
As to what he says concerning the Light's not always actually operating upon the Understanding, because the Organ of Perception may be sometimes indisposed, he does not therein at all contradict me, who though I make the Light to be common to all Men, even as to the act of Illumination in some degree or other, (enough to render and denominate them Rational Creatures,) yet am far enough from supposing with Descartes, that the Soul does at all times actually think. His Principle indeed obliges him so to suppose, because he makes actual Cogitation to be of the very Essence of the Soul, as much as Extension is of the Essence of Matter. But my Principle does not any way oblige me to the like supposition; nor do I suppose that the Soul is in every instant actually inllghtened, or (in other words) that she does always actually think. 'Tis plain she does not, as in the case of Infants in the Womb, and of Maturer Persons when in a deep Sleep. Herein therefore Mr. Vickris does not at all contradict me, who agree with him as to this Point, that the Soul is not always in actual Illumination. But though in this he does not contradict me, yet he very foully and grossly contradicts himself, in making at the same time the Presence of the Light to the Understanding, to imply its Operation upon it, when according to his Principles he must acknowledge the Light to be ever present with the Soul. And if always present, then according to him it must always operate, since the Presence implies the Operation, wherein he plainly contradicts himself. As he does again afterwards, when he taxes me of Contradiction and Inconsistency, in supposing the Light always present to my Understanding, and intimately united with it; and yet that it does not formally enlighten it, but when attended to and consulted. This he says, discovers a Contradiction in itself, and to the formal reason of its Being and Presence, and Sufficiency in the one act of the same Principle, as well as to the state and nature of Intimate Union. For how can any thing, says he, be intimately united to its Principle, and not partake of its Nature and Influences, which is the reason and manner of its Union? In all which, he still proceeds upon his former Supposition, that the Presence and Union of the Divine Light with the Soul, does necessarily imply and infer its operation upon it. And since upon the Principles of Quakerism 'tis acknowledged, and by Mr. Vickris himself in this very exception openly confessed, that the Light is always present; (for says he expressly, that this Divine Light is always in some degree and measure present in the Soul, the Quakers believe;) this plainly contradicts what he had laid down before, that the Light does not always operate upon the Understanding, and that to say that it does, is more than can safely be said. Why more than can safely be said, if the Divine Light be always present to the Soul; and if the Presence of the Light does necessarily infer its actual Operation? I may ask here of him in his own Words, Is not this manifest Confusion? Nay, is it not withal manifest Contradiction, and downright Inconsistency? If not, I will never pretend to judge of a Contradiction again.  
As to the Contradiction, he would said fasten upon me, because I suppose the Light always present, and yet not actually to enlighten but when attended, 'tis evident that it is of no force, unless I had held the same Principle with him, that the bare Presence of the Light does infer its actual Operation on the Soul; and then indeed I had been guilty of Contradiction, as he plainly is. But I do not acknowledge the truth of that Principle, that the bare Presence of the Light does of itself infer its actual Operation, and that for the same reason he himself has provided ready to my Hands, viz. because the Organ of Perception may be indisposed. There must concur the Disposition of the Organ as well as the presence of the Light. Among which Dispositions, the most immediate is Attention, which I therefore make necessary to actual Illumination, not intending thereby to deny the Universality of actual Illumination but only to specify and determine the manner of it, supposing at the same time, that all Men do attend in some measure or other, though not at all times, or in every instant of their Lives.  
Now as to those Texts of Scripture he insists upon to prove that our Illumination is not by Attention, because the Grace of God prevents Man's turning to him; which I think is the short of what he deduces in many Words. To this I return this double Answer, 1. That if there be any force in this Argument it falls as heavy upon themselves as upon me, because (as 'tis well known) they also make turning to the Light, which is the very same with my Attention, to be a necessary requisite to actual Illumination. 2. That there is no force in the Argument; for the word Turning here is Equivocal, and may signify either the Moral Conversion of the Will to Holiness and Righteousness, which is the fruit of true Illumination, or that Simple Conversion of the Understanding to the Light of God, which is the cause of it. If the former, than I grant that the grace of God does enlighten Man, before Man can turn to him; that is, a Man is first Enlightened before he is Converted. But if the latter, I deny that God does Enlightened Man, before Man turns to him; nor do the Texts cited by him prove it. Man must first Convert himself to the Divine Light, and attend it, before he can be enlightened by it: For 'tis by Man's Attention to the Light, that the Light has any actual Influence upon his Mind. Nor is this any derogation to the Grace of God, to say that Attention is on Man's part a prerequisite Condition to Illumination, because 'tis by the Grace of God that he is first moved and enabled to attend. For the work of Divine Grace does not (as Mr. Vickris seems to fancy) consist in this, in Enlightening Man without his Attending, but in engaging and inciting him to Attend, which since I acknowledge, I may without any derogation to the Grace of God say, that Man must Attend, before he can be Enlightened; or that without Attention, there is no Illumination. As suppose I should say, (what is commonly presumed as true in Moral Discourses,) that Consideration is the Principle of Repentance, I do not thereby either exclude or prejudice the Grace of God, because 'tis by the Motions of that, that the Man is brought to consider. And now I think I have answered all that is Material in this Fifth Exception.   

Exception against the Sixth Article.  
THy Sixth and last Section, I take to be an extravagant Noise and Bluster against the Quakers, to supply the want of real matter of Objection. What means else so great and general Reflections, without offering any proof, or reducing it to a particular Charge? To say the Quakers do not offer any rational or intelligible account of their Light within, proves nothing. To tell the World as thou dost, they Cant in some loose and general Expressions about the Light, does little else but impose upon trust, which is to beg Credit, whilst thou mentionest not what those loose and general Expressions are. But to say they confirm them by the Authority of St. John's Gospel, is in some sort to contradict thy Assertion; for so to confirm them, argues they agree to what is there taught, etc.   

The Answer.  
IN the Sixth and Last Article against which he now excepts, I had charged the Quakers with not offering any rational or intelligible account of their Light within, neither as to the Thing, nor as to the Mode, which I then thought, and do still, to be altogether unprincipled and unphilosophical. Now this he is pleased to call Noise and Bluster, and complains of it as a general Charge without any Proof. 'Tis true, I did not prove it then, not because I disinherited my ability to do so, but because it would have engaged me upon a Subject too large for my undertaking at that time, which was only to point out in short those principal Heads of Difference which distinguished my notion of the Divine Light within, from that of the Quakers. But since he is pleased to call upon me for a Proof of this now, I will be so civil as to give it him, though I believe he will find occasion by that time I have done, to wish he had never put me upon this Undertaking. For I doubt not but that I am able to make my Words good, by showing the Quakers Notion of the Light to be indeed unprincipled and unphilosophical. But because this is a general Charge, and such as concerns the entire Body of their Hypothesis concerning the Light, I shall not do it here, but shall rather refer it to a particular Treatise by itself, which I intent as an Appendix to this, under the Title of The Grossness of the Quakers Notion of the Light within, with their Confusion and Inconsistency in explaining it; which I suppose will be a full Answer to this last Exception. In which therefore I shall only further take notice for the present, of a pleasant fancy of our Author, in supposing that I make their Expressions about the Light, agreeable to what is taught in St. John's Gospel, because I say that they confirm them by that Authority. Whereas it is plain that I mean no more than that they allege the authority of St. John's Gospel for their Confirmation, which is the common sense of the Word Confirm, as it is used by the best Latin and English Authors. If Mr. Vickris does not know this, he is very Ignorant; if he does, he is very light and trifling.    


THE GROSSNESS OF THE Quaker's Principle OF THE Light within, WITH THEIR Inconsistency in Explaining it. DISCOURSED In a Letter to a Friend.  
By JOHN NORRIS, M. A. Rector of Bemerton near Sarum, and late Fellow of All-Souls College in Oxford.  
If the Light that is in thee be Darkness, how great is that Darkness!  Matth. 6. 23. 
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Manship at the Black Bull in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, 1692.   

SIR,  
WHAT you observe to me concerning the general Exultation and Triumph that is among the Quakers upon the late Publication of Mr. Barclay's Works in Folio, is what I can easily believe, and know not well how to blame. For I know of no Church or Society of Christians that is already so rich in Reputation for Great Men, but might well be proud of the Accession of so considerable a Writer, much more they who have hitherto been so barren in Productions of this kind, that in stead of having many Intelligent Writers, they have had but few that are so much as Intelligible. We may therefore well allow the Quakers to swell and plume a little, when they have at once so Rare and so Great an Occasion for it. For really, Sir, Mr. Barclay is a very great Man, and were it not for that common Prejudice that lies against him, as being a Quaker, would be as sure not to fail of that Character in the World, as any of the finest Wits this Age has produced.  
But to qualify and allay their Joy, that they may not be overset with it, you suggest to me that it would be convenient if they were now a little taken down and humbled, to which I assent as a very proper and seasonable Undertaking, and withal as now worthy of the greatest of our Learned Pens. For I cannot forbear thinking Quakerism to be now considerable enough to deserve an Opposition, and that if any of the Learned would with Credit and Reputation attempt the Confutation of it, now is their Time, now their loose and scattered Notions are reduced to Order and Method, and appear under the Form of a Regular and Artificial System, with all the Advantages that can be given them from a Scholastical Head, and a well-ordered Education. Now therefore there would be some Adventure in the Engagement, and Honour in the Conquest.  
And thus far, Sir, I agree with you, thinking an Undertaking of this kind to be as proper and seasonable as any that the Juncture of the present Age can afford; I only descent from you in the Choice of the Undertaker, who I doubt is not so well qualified for such a Work as you who are not so well acquainted with him as I, seem to imagine. However, since you are pleased to impose your Commands upon him, he is loath wholly to decline them even while he knows himself unable to perform them, but does so far prefer his Duty to his Reputation as to be willing to lead the way, and to flourish a little upon the Strings, in hopes that his awkward and inartificial touching of them may provoke some more Masterly Hand to take up the Instrument.  
By this, Sir, you may perceive that 'tis nor my Design to examine the whole Body of Quakerism, which indeed would require more leisure and opportunity than the ordinary Busmesses and particular Engagements of my Life will conveniently allow. I shall choose rather to single out one of their most Capital and Fundamental Principles, and to expose the Grossness and Absurdity of it, and that is, their Famous Doctrine of the Light within, which you know, Sir, to be the very Heart of their Cause, that Cardinal Point upon which the whole Weight of their System turns, the very Life and Soul of Quakerism.  
I know very well, nor can you, I suppose, be ignorant, that this Principle of theirs, since its first appearance in the World, has been all along entertained with Laughter and Contempt; and though by themselves the most regarded of any, (for there is no Point of theirs upon which they lay so much Stress as upon this) has yet by others been most of all Vilified and ridiculed, and has contributed the most of any one thing to that great and general Contempt they lie under, next to the particular Oddness of their Habit and Air, and the Uncourtliness of their Language and Behaviour.  
Nor is there any thing either strange or amiss thus far. For certainly this Notion of the Light within, according as the Quakers explain and represent it, is really ridiculous enough to make the Patrons of it so, and well deserves all the Scorn and Contempt that is cast upon it. But that which I particularly observe as blamable in this matter, is this, that me generality of those who deride the Doctrine of the Light within, know not upon what Grounds they do it; nay, for the most part, they do it upon no other Grounds, than barely to indulge the humersom Inclinations of a certain light and wanton Spirit that loves to disparage and run down all novel and singular Opinions, especially if they carry in them an Air of Seriousness or Religion. And of those few that proceed by more certain Grounds and Measures of Judgement, the greatest part proceed by false and undue ones, condemning the Doctrine of the Light within not as 'tis held and represented by the Quakers, (for to my Knowledge very few even of the Learned have given themselves the Curiosity to know how they hold it) but in Gross, and in General. They condemn the Doctrine not as so or so stated, but in common, and as such, in its most direct and immediate Sense, thinking it absurd to suppose that there is any other Principle of Light in Man besides his Rational Soul, which they will have to be a Light to itself, at least as far as concerns Natural and Moral Truths.  
Now herein I confess I am so far from agreeing with these Gentlemen of the Second Order (for the former are of no account) that I think they do very ill in deriding and ridiculing this Doctrine of the Light within in general and as such, and are guilty of more Impiety and Profaneness than they are aware of. For upon the deepest Consideration of all the possible ways of Human Understanding I am thoroughly persuaded, (and have partly shown the Grounds of this my Persuasion elsewhere) that Man cannot be his own Light, or a Light to himself in the acquirement of Knowledge, and therefore that there must of necessity be some other Principle of Light in him distinct from his own Rational Nature; which you know I make to be the Divine Ideas, the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Substantial Word and Wisdom of God, in whom I suppose Man to perceive all that he perceives. I am therefore so far from disallowing or condemning the Doctrine of the Light within, that I very earnestly stand and contend for it, as for a very true, solid and necessary Notion, without which there can be no intelligible Account given of the Mode of Understanding. I am therefore so far from taxing the Quakers for the general Supposition they go upon, that I heartily join with them in it, supposing, as they do, that Man cannot be a Light to himself; only I adhere more closely to this Supposition than they do. For when they make Man uncapable of being a Light to himself, they mean, not as to Natural things, (which according to them may be discerned by a Natural Light) but only as to Spiritual things, which cannot be discerned but by an Higher Principle. Whereas I acknowledge the Supposition in a greater Latitude, supposing Man uncapable of being a Light to himself, not only with respect to Spiritual Truths, but even as to Natural things, all which are discerned by that one common Light of Man, the Divine Light, which I make to be necessary not only to the Discernment of Divine and 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 outdo 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 Doctrine 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 itself 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 though 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 show 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, 
Apology, P. 333.  Grace and Word of God, and Light wherewith we say every Man is enlightened, 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 nourished 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 called. 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 
Apology, p. 494.  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 spoke 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, 
Page 495.  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, 
Ibid.  That Christ understands the same thing here by his Body, Flesh and Blood which is understood, John 1. By the Light enlightening every Man, appears, etc. 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 clothed, etc. I shall quote but one Passage more from Mr. Barclay to this purpose, and 'tis in his last Discourse concerning the Possibility and Necessity of inward Immediate Revelation, where having distinguished between Natural and Supernatural Ideas, he says, As the Natural Ideas are stirred up in us by outward and natural Bodies, so those Divine and Supernatural Ideas are stirred up in us by a certain Principle, which is a Body in Naturals, in relation to the Spiritual World, and therefore may be called 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 nourished, which is a Mystery to all unregenerated and mere natural men, etc. 
Page 901.   
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 selfsame 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 the Saints are nourished, 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 nourished; and if that Flesh and Blood be a Divine Body, then 'tis 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 
Page 64.  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 called oft in Scripture the Body of Christ, and his Flesh and Blood, which the Soul feeding upon becomes clothed 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 
Ibid.  (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 
Page 130.  (or Light) is not the Godhead itself, but a certain middle Nature, Substance or Being, betwixt the Godhead and Mankind, etc. 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 conceived in Mary, and is inwardly conceived 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 
Ibid.  a Divine Substance or Essence, not as if it were the Godhead itself, 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 called John the Divine. Also this excellent and intermediate Being may be called 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 
Page 129.  the Virgin's Womb, and that by Virtue of this Christ had a Divine Perfection and Virtue, and 
Page 132.  that Substantial, above all other Men. Again, he says, that his Body hath not only the Perfections 
Page 133.  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 Universal Balsam or Medicine to cure and 
Ibid.  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 
Page 134.  Creation, whereby all things shall be made new, etc. That this is that Stone of the Wise Men, 
Ibid.  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 
Ibid.  of Nature either in Man, or in other things, but his incorruptible Body? etc. 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, 
Apology Vindicated, p. 861.  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 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 mentioned 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 discoursed of in the Sixth of St. John, that Divine Aliment upon which the Saints do feed, and whereby they are nourished 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 Sanctify 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, Instructor 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 men's meanings may be gathered 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 considered 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 aught 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 aught I know, or am able to show to the contrary, and I know that several among the Ancients have been of this Opinion, alleging 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 surprise and amusement of the stiffer and severer sort of Divines, readvanced by a Person of singular note and eminence in our Church, who makes use of it to salve and maintain the Doctrine 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 deduced 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 aught 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 itself) I take to be extremely gross and absurd, and that upon those Two Accounts before touched 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 shown 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, 'Tis absurd to make the Light 
De inquirend. Veritat. p. 198.  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 itself 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 Being's. And these are all the possible ways of Human Understanding that this excellent Theorist could conceive, or thought conceivable. But this 'tis 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 enlarged 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 mentioned. 'Twas no doubt very easy and obvious for him to have considered, that the last Member of his Distribution might have been divided into Two, only by making his Supposition run first in general, that the Mind be united to some Being or other, and then by distinguishing that general into Created or Increated. This I say he might easily have done, and in point of exact order and Method, perhaps should have done; but not dreaming that any would ever be so extravagantly gross, as to resolve the Illumination of the Mind into its union with any Creature, and not in the least questioning but that if Men were once come so far into the right path, as to make the Illumination of the Mind to depend upon its Union with some Being or other, they would have no further scruple upon them whether this Being were God or no, he chose rather to pass over all union with the Creature in Silence, and to make this his last and only further supposable way of enlightening the Mind, that it be united to some absolutely perfect Being that includes in himself all the Perfections of Created Being's. Which no doubt is the only Basis upon which an Intelligible Hypothesis of Human Understanding can ever be raised. And I cannot but greatly wonder that those who come up so very near it, should yet upon a sudden turn off, and pass it by.  
The Quakers seem with M. Malebranche to disclaim and renounce the Four First of the ways proposed, and they agree with him so far in the Fifth and last, as to resolve the Illumination of the Soul into its Union with some Being or other. But herein they divide and take several ways, in that M. Malebranche, makes this Being to be God, who is absolutely Perfect and all-comprehensive, eminently and virtually all, and the Quakers will needs have it to be a Created Being. Which Hypothesis I think to be very Absurd.  

1. As needless.  
2. As impossible.   
1. It is a needless Hypothesis: For if the Soul of Man be not sufficient to be a Light to itself, but its Illumination must be resolved into its union with some other Being (which these Men implicitly grant when they resolve it into its Union with a Created Being,) than what Being so fit and proper for this purpose as God, who by reason of the Immensity and Spirituality of his Nature, must needs be intimately present to all Minds, and by reason of the Infinity of his Essential Perfection, must needs have in himself after an eminent and intelligible manner, all the Degrees of Being, and consequently the Ideas of all things? If there be a Being so qualined, certainly our Illumination must be resolved into our Union with that Being: And if there be a God, then there must be a Being so qualified. And therefore it must be from our Union with him that all our Light and Knowledge is derived, who would of himself sufficiently enlighten Man, not only without the Conjunction, but even without the Coexistence of any other Creature.  
For I would demand of these Men that contend for a Created Light, an Answer to this one Question: Suppose God should annihilate all the whole Creation except one Intelligent Spirit, so that there should be nothing in being but that single Spirit and Himself, would this Spirit upon the removal of all his Fellow Creatures out of being, cease to understand or no? I know upon their Principle they must say that he would, as supposing his capacity of Knowledge to depend upon his Union with a certain Created Being, viz. the Spiritual Body of Christ: But setting aside their Principle, (which is the thing under Question, and therefore must not be used as a Medium to prove another thing by,) I see no reason in the nature of the thing itself, why they should say that such a Spirit would in such a Supposition cease to understand; and I think there is all the reason in the World to suppose he would not, as being still notwithstanding this great and Universal Emptiness, united most intimately to a Being of Absolute and Infinite Perfection, and that contains in himself the Ideas of all things. Certainly this great and Universal Representative would be a sufficient Light to that Solitary Spirit, who would not want Thoughts or Ideas, though he might want a Companion to Communicate them to. And therefore though the Notion were otherwise never so possible and consistent, yet it is altogether needless to seek out for Union with any Creature, in order to that Illumination, which considering the Omnipresence and All-perfection of God, must needs be supposed, though there were no other Creature besides one Intelligent Spirit in being. But as this is needless, so  
2. It is also an impossible Hypothesis: It is absolutely impossible, that a Creature should be a Light to Man, or that one Creature should be a Light to another. God is the great Luminary of the whole Intellectual World, and 'tis he only that can be a Light either to the Soul of Man, or to any other Intelligent Being. No Creature, though never so glorious and excellent, not even the Human Soul of Jesus Christ, (much less his Spiritual Body,) can ever be a Light to the Mind of Man. For to be a Light to the Mind, is to be to it the Principle of Understanding, to furnish it with Ideas, and to be the formal and immediate Object of its Conception. And for this there are Two Conditions necessarily required, First, That it be intimately present and united to the Mind. Secondly, That it have the whole Perfection of Being, so as to have the Ideas of all things, and to be an Universal Representative. Which Conditions, (especially the last,) no Creature either has, or can possibly have: And therefore no Creature is able to be a Light to the Soul of Man.  
Were a Creature never so excellent, yet it would be of a finite Perfection, and consequently of such a certain determinate order, rank, kind or species; that is, it would be such a particular degree of Being. It would not be all Being, or Being at large, (for then it would be God,) but only such a definite and determinate degree of it. And consequently were it never so intimately united to my Mind, it could be able to represent only itself, and such degrees of being as were in itself. That is, it might represent itself and all that is of the same kind with itself, but it could not represent any thing else, for it could not represent more degrees of Being than it had. It could not therefore represent any Creature of another Order from itself, as a Sun suppose could not represent a Tree, nor a Triangle a Circle, since each of these have degrees of Being that are not in the other, and consequently cannot be represented by the other. For this is a most undoubted Principle, that nothing can represent any more degrees of Being than it has. Suppose your Creature therefore of never so raised and excellent an Order, it would be able to represent only itself, and those of the same Species. And what a poor account would this turn to! What a dim Wooing Light would this be for a Rational Soul to see by!  
And as such a Created Light would represent but little of the Creation, so it would not be able to represent God at all, whom we are chiefly concerned to know, if 'twere only that we might be ascertained of the Truth of other things, the certainty of which (as Descartes has well observed and proved, depends upon our knowledge of God. But now it is impossible that God should be represented to our Minds by a Created Light; for as there must be at least as much Reality in the Object, either formally or eminently, as there is of Objective Reality in the Idea, (which is one of the Principles upon which M. Descartes grounds the existence of God,) So 'tis as true on the other Hand, that there must be as much Reality in the Idea, as there is formally or eminently in the Object, or else that Idea will never be able to represent that Object, and that by virtue of the Principle before laid down, That nothing can represent any more degrees of Being than it has. But now God does infinitely surpass the whole Order of the Creatures, exceeding the highest degrees of them by a whole Infinity, and therefore cannot possibly be represented by any or all of them. God indeed may represent a Creature to my Mind, as having all the degrees of Being in that Creature, and infinitely more, but a Creature can never represent God, as having no manner of Proportion to his Excellency. For if (as it has been shown,) one Creature cannot represent another, that has but one degree of Being beyond it, or which the other has not, as a Triangle cannot represent a Quadrangle, as having one Angle more than itself, much less can a Creature be a Representative of God, of whom it falls short by no less a measure than a whole Infinity. Take an Extract of all Created Perfection, and you will never be able to raise an Idea of God out of it; for to add Creature to Creature, is but to add finite to finite; and as that will never make, so neither will it be ever able to represent an Infinite. So much impossibility is there in the notion of a Created Light, which can represent but little of the Creature, and God not at all. And so very Absurd are those that stand for it, since the end for which they mainly design it, and suppose it to be afforded to Man, is to conduct him to God, of whom it seems it cannot give him so much as an Idea.  
And now if it be so Absurd to make the Light within to be a Creature, then how much more Absurd is it to suppose it a Material Creature? Aquinas I remember proposes 
Prim. Part. Quaest. 106. Art. 1.  it as a Question, Whether one Angel may not Illuminate another: But among the many trifling and frivolous Questions which he puts, I think he never thought it worth his while to inquire, whether a Clod of Earth, or a Sunbeam (if you please) could illuminate an Angel? He that thought an Inferior Angel 
Ibid. Art. 3.  could not illuminate an Angel of a Superior Order, to be sure did not imagine that it could ever enter into any considering Head, that Matter should be able to illuminate Spirit. And I cannot but stand amazed at the Extravagancy of their Imagination who think it can. Sure the wild disorders of a Fever, can hardly produce a more odd fantastical conceit than this. It has been thought a strange adventure in Speculation, to suppose, that Matter by the advantage of a finer Mechanism, should be made capable of Thought, and be able to reason and understand; and the truth is, I would give a great deal to see the Mould in which those men's Heads were cast, who could entertain such a Notion. But alas, what is this in comparison of making Matter the Principle of Illumination! 'Tis gross enough of any sense to suppose Matter capable of thinking itself, but to suppose it to be an Intellectual Light, to be a Principle of thinking, to make it a Master and Instructor, a Furnisher of Thoughts and Ideas, what an Extravagance must this be! What, Matter illuminate Spirit! How harshly it sounds! How it grates upon a Philosophical Ear! For besides that such a Supposition as this would invert and confound the whole Order of things, by exalting Matter above Spirit (which according to this must depend upon Matter for the noblest of its Operations, that very Operation whereby it is distinguished from 〈◊〉, and supposed to be placed above it,) I say besides this, how is it possible that Matter should be a Principle of Illumination to the Soul? For in the first place, how shall we suppose it capable of being intimately united and present to it? Or if we could conceive this to be possible, yet what would it be able to represent? It would be able to represent nothing but what is Material, and but a little of that neither, even no more than those few degrees of Material Perfection itself is supposed to have; it could represent nothing Immaterial or Intellectual. For its Ideas could be no other than certain Material Images or Figurations; and a Material Idea can never represent an Immaterial Object. A Principle so very clear and certain, that even those who derive our Ideas from Sensible Objects, supposing them to be Corporeal Emanations, do yet find it necessary to look out for an Expedient, whereby they may be refined and Spiritualised after their admission into the common Sensory, namely by the help of what they call Intellectus Agens, whose Office they say is to purify and refine these Material Phantasms, and to render them Immaterial, that so they may become Intelligible. A very hard Task task for poor Intellectus Agens, and were he not a Creature of their own Brain, it would move any one's Pity to think what a piece of Drudgery he is Condemned to. But that puts an end to our concern; for so he that reads the many severe toils and hardships of a poor Romantic Adventurer, feels a secret warmth about his Heart, and is apt ever now and then out of a tenderness of Spirit, to dissolve into a passion for the Noble Sufferer, till as he is just about to drop a Tear, he remembers that 'tis but a Romance, and then all is well again. But by the way, this is a most miserable Device, and such as sufficiently betrays the absurdity and nullity of their Hypothesis. For hereby they plainly acknowledge the truth of this Principle, that a Material Idea cannot represent an Immaterial Object, (for otherwise, what necessity of having it Spiritualised,) and if so, then since their Ideas are Material, the whole weight of their Hypothesis rests upon this single Bottom, The Transmutability of Material into Immaterial Ideas, which if found to be impossible, their Hypothesis can no longer stand. Now I must needs confess it does as much surpass my Understanding, how a Material Idea can be transformed into an Immaterial one, as how a Material Idea can represent an Immaterial Object. They are alike Mysteries to me, and I doubt not but that they are both alike Absurdities in themselves.  
Well then, the Sum of the matter in hand will come to this: If the Ideas of a Material Principle must be also Material, and if a material Idea cannot represent an Immaterial Object, than 'twill follow, that a Material Light will not be able to give the Soul a Representation of any thing that is Immaterial or Intellectual. And if so, what little stead will it serve us in! The greatest part of our Notions are Intellectual. We cannot speak or write three or four Words, but some of them will stand for Ideas that represent Intellectual Objects. There is no thinking nor conversing, though never so little, without this. And what shall we do then with a Light that is not able to furnish us with Ideas for a quarter of the things we are concerned both to think and to discourse of? So utterly unserviceable and insufficient is a Material Light for the purposes of Human Understanding, and so senseless and absurd is the Notion that Asserts it. The Sum of what has been hitherto discoursed turns all within the Compass of this Syllogism.  
That Notion which makes the Light within to be a Creature, and a material Creature, is Absurd.  
But the Notion of the Quakers concerning the Light within makes it to be so.  
Therefore the Notion of the Quakers concerning the Light within is Absurd.  
The First of these Propositions is what we have been proving now last of all. The Second was proved in the Account given of the Quakers Principle of the Light. The Conclusion therefore follows, That the Quakers Principle of the Light within is Absurd. Which was the Proposition I undertook to prove, and I am very much mistaken in my Accounts if it be not well proved.  
And thus having represented the Grossness of the Quakers Principle of the Light, I will now in the Conclusion add a Word or two concerning their Inconsistency in explaining it. That Person may well be esteemed Inconsistent with himself, who so explains his Hypothesis in the Particulars of it, as to contradict that general Ground upon which it is built. But now this I take to be the Fault of the Quakers in relation to the Point in Hand. The general Ground upon which they build their Hypothesis of the Light within is this, That Man cannot be a Light to himself, (for if he could, what need there be another Principle of Light within him) and does therefore require some other Principle of Illumination for his Conduct and Direction. This is the Principle they go upon, and so far I think they are right enough. But now when they come to give a particular Account of their Hypothesis, they so order the matter as to contradict and give up again that General Principle. For if that Light within, which is to be the Principle of Human Understanding be a Creature, than Man might as well have been his own Light, or a Light to himself, that is, he might arrive to the knowledge of things, by consulting the Perfections of his own Nature, the only Reason why Man cannot be a Light to himself being this, because no Creature can be so. But if a Creature may be a Light, and the Light within be a Creature, then why may not Man himself be that Creature; and then what need of any such thing as a Light within distinct from the Rational Nature of Man, which would be to renounce their general Principle, and to fall in with the Vulgar Hypothesis of Human Understanding. So that this is a Notion altogether inconsistent with itself, as well as disagreeable to Truth.  
I have now finished what I undertook, and, if I mistake not, fully answered the Title of this Treatise. If any should think it strange that I would be so far diverted from better Studies, as to spend time and pains in disproving the Principles of so inconsiderable a Persuasion suasion as that of the Quakers, I must in answer to this take the Liberty to tell them,  
1. That (as to better Studies) I know nothing that does better deserve the Consideration of a Rational Creature, than the Mode and Way of Human Understanding.  
2. That (as to the Inconsiderableness of the Persuasion) I cannot think Quakerism to be so, as the Principles of it are laid down and managed by Mr. Barclay. That Great and General Contempt they lie under, does not hinder me from thinking the Sect of the Quakers to be by far the most considerable of any that divide from us, in case the Quakerism that is generally held be the same with that which Mr. Barclay has delivered to the World for such; whom I take to be so great a Man, that I profess to you freely, I had rather engage against an Hundred Beauties, Hardings, or Stapyltons, than with one Barclay.  
However, as great a Man as he is, I think I have given his Principle of the Light a clear and thorough Confutation, and have likewise therein sufficiently answered my particular Adversary, who perhaps by this time may have reason to repent that ever he set me to work. I know, Sir, very well, that 'tis one thing to answer the Book, and another thing to answer the Man: For some Men will never be answered, though their Books are. But I am not ambitious of the last Word, because I know wise Men do not use to judge of the issue of a Dispute by that Measure. Mr. Vickris therefore may have that if he please, and the rather, because I think it will be all he is like to get by his Engagement with  
SIR, Your Humble Servant, J. N.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SIR,  
THERE is one very material Consideration relating to the Impossibility of the Hypothesis of a Created Light, which happened to escape my Thoughts till I was past the place where it ought naturally to have come in, and therefore I must set it down here by itself. You know, Sir, a very great Part of our Study and Thinking, as well as of our Familiar Discourse and Conversation, is employed about Necessary and Eternal Truths. And most of our Arts and Sciences are Conversant about them, as being indeed the Principal Object of Human Knowledge. And therefore it is necessary, that that which is to serve us as an Intellectual Light should be able to represent these things to our Minds, whatever else be left unrepresented. But now this is what a Created Light will never be able to do, there being nothing in a Created Light that is able to answer or bear any Correspondence to that which is Necessary and Eternal. For a Creature is a Contingent Being, all the Reality that is in it is wholly Contingent; and as Contingency can never represent Necessity or Eternity, so neither can that which is Contingent represent what is Necessary or Eternal. This I confess is a very Metaphysical Argument, and such as will require a great deal of Abstraction and Attention in him that will be Master of it. But if attentively weighed and considered, I believe it will be found to amount to no less than a Demonstration.  
FINIS.    

Books Printed for, and Sold by Sam. Manship at the Black Bull in Cornhill.  
A Collection of Miscellanies, consisting of Poems, Essays, Discourses and Letters. The Second Edition, with Amendments. Price Bound 4 s.  
Theory and Regulation of Love, a Moral Essay, in Two Parts. To which are added, Letters Philosophical and Moral, between the Author and Dr. More. In 8o. Price 2 s.  
Reason and Religion, or the Grounds and Measures of Devotion, considered from the Nature of God and the Nature of Man, in several Contemplations; with Exercises of Devotions applied to every Contemplation. In 8o. Price 2 s.  
Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life, with Reference to the Study of Learning and Knowledge. In a Letter to the Excellent Lady the Lady Masham. To which is annexed a Visitation Sermon, by the same Author. The Second Edition with large Additions. Price Bound 1 s. 6 d.  
Christian Blessedness, or Discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Second Edition. In large 8o. Price Bound 3 s.  
The charge of Schism continued, being a Justification of the Author of the Christian Blessedness, for his charging the Separatists with Schism, notwithstanding the Toleration. In a Letter to a City Friend. In 12o. Price 1 s.  
Practical Discourses upon several Divine Subjects. In large 8o. Price 3 s. All these Seven Written by the Reverend Mr. John Norris, M. A.