The spirit of truth vindicated, against that of error & envy unseasonably manifested : in a late malicious libel, intituled, The spirit of the Quakers tryed, &c. / by a friend to righteousness and peace, W.P.

I shall now briefly touch upon the Opinion of some approved Men of Learning in this Point.

Erasmus gives this paraphtastical account upon the place,* 1.1

Non erat Johannes lumen illud de quo loquor, nam lumen hoc, de quo loquor, erat lumen verum quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum.

Making the Evangelist thus to speak, John was not that true Light, of which I speak; for this Light I speak of, was the true Light, which enlightens every man that comes into this World. And answering the same Objection (as our Adversary maketh) Ambiguitatem sustulisset additus articulus

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, The Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not being in the Greek, ren∣ders the sense too ambiguous.

Beza is peremptory in the matter, for making the objection our Adversary doth, he answereth;

Venientem in mundum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, nascentem, ut explicat Chri∣stus ipse hoc dicendi genus infra. 18. 37. Et additum est istud partim emphatico Pleonasmo, partim ut tollatur Judaeorum et Gentium discrimen. Act. 10. 35. Rom. 11. 25. & Gal. 13. 26. Quod autem nonnulli Participium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 putant posse ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 referri, ut ita convertas; Haec erat illa Lux vera, quae, veniens in mundum, illuminat omnem hominem: id, in∣quam, videtur violentum & tractationem hujus argumenti, id est, manifestationes Christi confundere; Malo igitur signi∣ficari, nullum hominem nasci hujus Lucis expertem. Coming into the World, that is, being born, as Christ himself explains this manner of speaking below in the 18th cap. 37. vers. And that is added partly by an emphatical redundancy, partly to remove that distinction which was between Jews and Gentiles. Acts 10. 35. Rom. 11. 25. & Gal. 3. 26. But because some think the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be transposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be construed thus; This is the true Light, which coming in∣to the world, enlightens every man: but with me it seems to confound the handling of this Argument (that is of Christ's manifestation) as unnatural and extorted. I had much rather it should signifie, that no man is born void of this Light.

Maldonatus, whom Crellius often cites with great respect,* 1.2 sayes;

Quem sensum Cyrillus et alij quidam secuti sunt, est{que} non falsus, non absurdus, sed mea sententia non proprius. Nam ut alia non esset ratio, nomen hominis proxime adhaerens jure sibi hoc parti∣cipium vendicaret. Et Christus non solum in hunc mundum ve∣niens, sed et postquam venit, et antequam veniret, erat Lux vera quae illuminabat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mun∣dum. Et alij Auctores omnes ita intellexerunt, ut non Christus veniens, sed Christus omnem hominem venientem in hunc mun∣dum dicatur illuminasse, August. Chrysost. Beda, Theophylact.

Euthym.

That is to say: Which opinion Cyrillus and some others followed, and it is neither false nor absurd, but in my Judgment not proper: For, though there should be no other reason, Man, being the next Noun, should of right challenge this Parti∣ciple to himself. And Christ was, not only when he came into this World, but before and after he came, the true Light, that enlightneth everyman that cometh into the World, And all other Authors, as Augustin, Chrysostom, Beda, Theophylact, and Euthymius &c. un∣derst ••od it thus▪ It can not be said, that Christ coming into the World enlightens all men, but that Christ enlightens all men coming into the World.

And of this mind also is Drusius, upon the text,

omnem hominem venientem in mundum;* 1.3 Satis erat omnes venientes in mundum. Sed homo dicitur antequ••m in mundum venit: in mundum venit cum nascitur. Igitur homo veniens in mundum, non est homo simpliciter, sed homo natus, aut quinascitur. Ebraei tamen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vo∣cant omnes homines. Lib. Musar. c. 5. Si congregarentur omnes venlentes in mundum, ad creationem pulicis et ad infun∣dendam animam, nou possent. In ••uacre novo (Liber est eju•• nomini••) videbune omnes venientes mundi, i. e. in mundum, 78. 2. & alibi saepe. Phesictha 2. 1. Testimonio sunt omnibus venientibus in mundum, quod inter ••os 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Divinitas.

That is to say:

Every man coming into the World, sayes he, All co∣ming into the World, had been sufficient. But he may he called Man before he comes into the World: he comes into the World when he is born; Therefore Man coming into the World is not simply a man, but a man born. But the Hebrew call all men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, coming or being both into the World. Lib. Musar. c. 5. If all that come into the World, should meet to make a Fles, and to infuse a Soul, they could not do it. In Munere novo (a Book so called) All coming of the World, that is, into the World shall see, 78. 2. and often else∣where. Phesictha 2. 1. All coming into the World have a testi∣mony, that there is a Deity among them.

Thus much concer∣ning the sense of Learned men upon the place controverted, which if it doth no good, will I hope do no hurt, though a man

would think that so many able to teach him Greek, might con∣clude him, unless he has more to tell us, then in his late Libel.

Overlooking then some other Authors, I shall, as I am able, give my own reasons, why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more properly belongs to man then Light.

First, I•• Christ be that true Light by way of eminency, which not only the Scriptures most plainly character him to be, but all Criticks and Interpreters agree to be the import of the place, then will it necessarily follow upon their ••••tion, who generally make coming the participle of Light rather then Man, that true Light ne∣ver saw the World, or rather the World true Light, till the Messiah's vi∣sible coming, and that consequently all Antecedent Livers to his exter∣nal appearance, however good and holy men, were destitute of the true or saving Light, as having never rose upon them, nor they been illumina∣ted or refresht with the Divine Light and Heat thereof; which, as it is a most irreverent thought of God, and uncharitable towards many deceased Generations, so it is forever to be exploded fo•• false, and inconsistant with the impressions incident to every man, as well as the testimonies of the Scripture. For who living ••an believe, that before the M••ssiah's coming there was not a suf∣ficient Light given to those holy Patriarchs and Prophets, which if true, Christ as that true Light: by way of eminency, must have been before such manifestation. We shall easily grant, that in reference to the transcendency of its appearance, as to what had been it might be said more eminently to come at that time, but to exclude all lesser degrees of Illumination by the same saving Light, ant••cedent to its brighter Discoveries in that day, we can never do; but do and shall maintain the contrary, knowing, that it is not a distinct, or other Light that saves now, then formerly did; but a more large Discovery of the same.

To which agrees that of Christ himself, Joh. 8. 56, 58. be∣fore Abraham was I am; Abraham saw my Day, and was glad; And that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 4. for they dran•• of the Spiri∣tual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. The Way of the Just is a shining Light.

2. Besides, what shall we say upon their Transposition of the

words, as to the time then present? I mean when the Light after their sense, was coming into the World; for that the Scriptures will be most false, methinks they themselves should see; since it is notorious, that neither whilst he was coming, nor come, one quarter of Mankind was any whit extraordinarily enlightned, much less savingly by him; but they remained Infidels as before.

3. Nor is this all, for at this rate, We, since his Departure, are left as destitute as they before his coming, and as they who heard not of him, when he was come, were wholly ignorant; for how is it possible, upon their Interpretation, that we should have any saving Light? Christ, in whom was the excellent Light and Power, is gone; Say they, the Scriptures in many points are left dubious, as Peter testifies of Paul's Epistles; Say I, neither is there any unerring Interpreter or Guide to be obtained at this time a day (Say they again.) Certainly then, there can be but little true Knowledge, sound Faith, or well-grounded Comfort in so ill-foun∣ded a Religion, whose Belief is a kind of Fiction, and their Hope but a better sort of Despair. To conclude.

4. We therefore think it a wrong done to the Text, be∣cause of the Participles unsuitableness to Light, and its natu∣ral agreement to Man; for men are continually coming into the World, and at such enlightned, which can not be said of Light in their sense. The Messiah don't visibly appear as formerly; That Light is ecclipst, as he himself said it was convenient to be, or the Comforter would not come; but that Divine intellectual Light, which was most excellent, he promised should endure with his to the End; by a degree of which also the holy Patriarchs of old saw the Glory of his Day, and Evangelical Dispensation, though as to the then State of the World, it was altogether unfit for it; wherefore it is said, that they desired to see his Day and saw it not; How? Did they not see it as to themselves? By no means; for many of them saw it, but they never saw it break forth as Gods Dis∣pensation to the World (though they much desired it) because of the Worlds incapacity to receive it.

What shall I further say? If coming cannot so properly be said of Light in their sense, as of Man in ours, (since so every

man in all ages comes to have the benefit of that Light offer'd un∣to him, which in the other sense must be lost to thousands, or they loose the advantage of it (being not then born in that Age, in which that Sun (though for a little season) was pleased to visit the World) then let it not be Light coming, but Man coming into the World. In short, take it in their sense, and one Age is hardly be∣nefitted, take it in ours, and all mankind is illuminated.

As to the drift of our Adversary in his Transposition of the Participle, viz. the Divestigating Christ of all Right to Eternal Di∣vinity, (which is the Snake in the Grass) I shall anon sufficiently I hope, vindicate that great Truth, though I cannot but won∣der, since we without dammage can allow him, that the Words may be true both wayes, as I have already, and may yet further demonstrate, that he would desire only to receive them in one, as if on purpose he had a mind to dethrone him from the Seat of his Eternal Majesty; For what if John had chiefly intended a De∣scription of the Heavenly Structure of the New World, and Christ to have been the Enlightner of all that come into it; and further, that the Messiahs then coming was Author of that most excellent Creation; must it needs therefore follow, that he was not antecedent to that work, that he never enlightned the Fathers and holy men of old, with a sufficient measure of that same Divine Light, which without mea∣sure appeared in him, and far greater then before to the Sons of men? I appeal to any modest intelligent man, if this be not Ingratitude, nay Sacriledge in the highest degree. Certainly therefore it can be no Injury to the Scripture, if we say, That He, who enlightned the Patriarchs and Prophets of old, hath in a more excellent manner, and suitable to the Spirituality of his own Divine Nature, revealed himself in this Gospel administration, the which may aptly be compared to a well-built Temple, which has been of old begun, but left to these latter daies of Christ's more eminent manifestation to su∣perstruct, compleat, adorn and sit for him the eternal Light of Life and Righteousness to be worshipped in; so that there is a great Difference, as Grotius in other words doth well observe, between the Beginning of an administration, and of the Author of it. That might be the Beginning of those large Discoveries, but not the Light that gave them; and consequently, notwithstanding

John should have intended a Divine Creation, yet it will not ne∣cessarily follow, that the Light, which is that Creator, was not in beeing antecedently to that Divine Creation; and so God both by pre-existence and omnipotency. But I shall say no more of this, I mean the transposition of the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, till our Adver∣sary sayes more to the contrary, if we may then think it worth our notice.

But it may be fit to observe, that the man shows a wave••ing in his own Judgment, which is not only manifest from his saying, It may as well be referred to Light as Man, but in a man••script to a Friend of ours, he affirmed it to be unreasonable, to refer coming to Man, and not to the true Light; All we can say is this, that though it show him to be unsettled in his own thoughts, yet he was willing to be a little more modest in print then in his manuscript.

For his Distinction between Lighteth, and Enlightneth, I con∣fess my self troubled, not at his great Skill, but ••olly; It shows, he would say something, if he could tell what, and to use a familiar Proverb, The poor man will be playing at small game, rather then stand out. Then, let's to the Word, since he would be thought a Critick. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we read in Greek, in the Latin illuminat, and should in the English enlightneth; the defect is not in the Original, nor Latin versions, but our English only. I perceive, whether it be Original, or Translation, which makes most for him, that is the Infallible Text, till it happens to contradict him, and then, if in the Original the Word is foisted in, or thus to be transposed, or rendred; if in any of the versions, then it is not so in the Original, it is lamely rendred, and the like. But this Callenge I make to the man, that if he can find one version in three (and three to one that's odds) which re••∣dres it different from what we understand by it, I shall acknow∣ledge him a Critick, and our selves ignorant in words. All the Greek Coppies and Latin Translations, I ever saw or heard of, import no other thing then Illumination, or Enlightning. All that I have hitherto mentioned, so give it us, quae illuminat omnem ho∣minem, &c.

That this is the constant use of the Word throughout both the Old and New Testament (so called) is evident: It is

said of Jonathan,* 1.4 that after he had tasted a little of that honey, into which he put his rod, his eyes were enlightned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia illuminati sunt oculi mei. See, saith Jonathan, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightned. The Chaldee version hath it, illuxerunt oculi mei, how my eyes shined; The Syriack thus, my eyes have received light: The Arabick thus, quomodo illustrata est acies mea, how is my Eye∣sight clear'd; but the Septuagint expresseth it thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, behold how my eyes have seen; which in a mystical sense is the same now, for that eternal Light, or Word of Life, is that Honey out of that true Rock, and Milk that the Pro∣phet exhorted the Jews to buy without money, and without price; And who taste of that in faith, receive that blessed effect, namely, true illumination. Thus Job, To bring his Soul from the pit, that is, from darkness, death and sin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad lucendum in luce viventium to be enlightned with the light of the living. The Chaldee has it after this manner, that my Soul may shine by the Light of the Living: The Syriack and Arabick, that is may see the Light of Life, Job 33. 30. and upon v. 28. which speaks to the same purpose, sayes Vatablus, De luce illa coele•••••• intelligit, fruetur Dei conspectu. Which is, He means by that heaven•••• Light, he shall enjoy the pre∣sence of God. Likewise David most emphatically useth the same Verb, and that to our purpose unde••••••bly.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Quoniam tu illuminabis lucernam meam, Deus meu•• illuminabit tenebrositatem meam: For thou wilt light.* 1.5 my Candle; the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness. The Chaldee has it thus, because thou wilt enlighten the Candle of Israel, which was put out in the captivity, for thou art the Author of the Light of Israel: The Lord my God will bring me out of Darkness into Light. A notable addition, at least explanation of the place, yet this is in the Chaldee version. The Syriack, Aethiopick and Septuagi••t are the same; the Arabick differs only in tenses, thou dost enlighten, for wilt enlighten, and he hath enlightned my darkness, for he will enlighten my darkness. And if the spirit of man be the Candle of the Lord, and that God only can light it, then certainly, since man's spirit is within

him, it is not more unsound, nor any more violating of Scripture sence, to say, that God enlightens, then that he lightens every man within, by communicating of his own Light to man's Spirit, which receiving it, becomes lighted by it, to all right Know∣ledge and good Works. Further, if David's darkness was within him, in his Soul and understanding, as certainly he meant it so, when he spake of it, then must that Light which was to shine there, shine in David's Soul and understanding. And what false Doctrine or English it is, or perversion of Scripture, to say that man is then enlightned, let sober people judge.

It is thus exprest in the Greek Copies of the New Testament also, and the Latin Versions of them, witness the Apo∣stle Paul to the Ephesians,* 1.6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. illuminatos oculos cordis vestri. Beza has it in his Copy and version, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. illuminatis oculis mentis vestrae.* 1.7 The Syriack has it, that the eyes of your hearts may be enlightned; The Arabick thus, enlightning the eyes of your hearts: The Aethiopick thus, and may enlighten the eyes of your heart; all agreeing in the Word illuminating, or enlightning, only one sayes of the heart, and the other of the mind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, mens, or the mind of man, which indeed are but so many words to the same purpose; Certainly then this word enlighten is not of so dangerous consequence, nor inconsonant to Scripture Language, as this idle and ignorant Person would render it.

The like we find in the Epistle to the Hebrews; for it is impossible for those being once 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, illustratos,* 1.8 or inshined: But, sayes Beza, illuminati, enlightned, if they fall away to renew them again, &c. they change in their cases and words, but not sense; for to shine in the understan∣ding, or lighten the understanding, or enlighten it, with me are the same, that love time better and my own reputation, then to loose both by vain conceited distinctions, that only show the em∣tiness of the head from whence they come.

The like we may read in the tenth Chapter of the same Epistle,* 1.9 But call to remembrance the former dayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in quibus illuminati, in which ye were enlightned, sayes Montanus; quibus post∣quam

illustrati fuissetis, by which ye were shined into, sayes Beza, that is, enlightned say I. To which agree most of the versions made use of in this Discourse, whether Oriental, or any other; Also Zegerus, Drusius, Grotius and others are wont to give this Interpretation upon it, both in their places before mentioned, and else-where, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports as much, as to enlighten the eyes of mens understandings unto the Knowledge of Christ, also to in∣doctrinate or baptize them into the Knowledge of Evangelical Truths.

Crellius shall conclude the matter,* 1.10 who in his Comment upon that place of the Hebrews saith;

Illuminati: Luce nimirum Evangelica, per quam, ut Apostolus loquitur, Vitam et Incorruptibili∣tatem Christus illuminavit, per quam omnes er∣rores, omnem mentis caliginem, caecitatem expulit.

The English Construction is; Enlightned, that is to say, with the Gospel-Light, by which (as saith the Apostle) Christ brought Life and Immortality to Light, and by which he expelled all Error and all Dark∣ness and Blindness of Mind. Certainly, he was for Illumination, and such too as is infallible (a stumbling block to our Erroneus Ad∣versary, and his Brawling associate, T. F.)

By which it evidently appears, that not only the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text controverted, whether as Verb, Adjective, or Parti∣ciple, signifies, and is used to express what We understand by Illumination or Enlightning, and so rendred by Translators and Commentators; but also the Holy Penmen have employed it to that very purpose, in most of those places throughout the New Testament (so called) wherein they have treated of Divine En∣lightnings, Inspirings or Illuminations. But after what hath been urged in defence of our use of the Word, and for which he im∣pertinently reflects upon G. F. What, if I should grant him his two empty Exceptions (that are like Wasps without stings) viz. Coming to refer to Light, and that Lighteth and Enlightneth are different Tearms. First as for Coming its referring to Light, it would amount to no more then this, that being to give an account of the Evangelical Testament, and Gospel administra∣tion, he might tell us, that the breaking forth, Appearance or co∣ming

thereof gave Light to, or illuminated all men; or, God was now fulfilling his Promise by his Son; namely, that he would pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh, that is, every one should be enlightned with that blessed Son of Righteousness, who then rose in a more extraordinary manner then before. Now, this being the best use that could be made of referring Coming to Light, and not to Man; what great matter should We loose by it. O, say these followers of Biddle, and mungrel Socinians, but We should get by it; for We should thereby be in hopes of shutting Christ out of all pretences to an eternal Divinity, by restraining his beginning to Christ's being born of the Virgin. By being with God, We should have it, that he was bodily taken up into the highest Heavens, and there personally taught by God, upon solemn Conference betwixt them, what He should do on Earth, where He received his Verbal Commssion, and descended.

And by the Words, being God, that upon his doing what was commanded him, here in the World (for his Faithfulness) he was godded, that is, not a God by Nature, but by Office, by Favour, and Acquisition. O strange Imagination! Be these the men that are not for Meanings, Allegories, and strained Glosses, but the Punctual, Litteral, Rational Scripturists, whose Maxim is, No•• cre∣dimus quia non legimus, We don't believe because we don't read it. If G. F. or any Quaker in England had undertaken to have im∣posed such an Interpretation upon the World, in favour of his Belief, how inflamed would our Adversaries have been against us? and that this Fancy should be the first Corner and Foundation Stone of their Building, is very unhappy: And I heartily pitty some of the first Inventers of this Notion (indeed a very Fiction) that being so very rational in some other Principles, especially against Infidels, Jews, Papists, and Atheists, they should notwithstanding draw a Cloud over the Brightness of their other Labours, by the un∣justifiable Scandal, this one Conceit brings upon them, which I veri∣ly believe to be boyed up in the Opinions of several, by the Repu∣tation that may be due to some other more scriptural and truly rational Doctrines.

Secondly, What if it should contrary to the current of almost all Versions, be allowed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Lighteth, and not En∣lightned? For my part, I see no other loss in it, then that it is

not so forceably exprest; For man being composed of Soul and Body, the Soul is the Interior, the Body is the Exterior part of man; So that when the Body is lighted by the Sun, or any other Fire, we may say the External part is lighted about its bu∣siness or occasions; and when the Internal part, the Soul, is lighted, We may in reference to the whole man say, He is inlightned or lightned within, because the Soul may properly be said to be internal or within, or the most hidden and Spiritual part of man. Behold then the redoubtableness of this Adversary, his Will is good, I mean bad, as the Apostle saith in a more serious Case, To will mischief to us was present with the man, but how to perform he knew not; yet this pedling Controversist will be doing, though as little to purpose as need be: Witness one material part of his Observation against G. F. if it hath any matter at all in it, viz. that he changed the Phrase, and Tense or Time. Alas poor man! and what then? Ergo, saith he, G. F. is a False Pro∣phet, a Lyar, and an Impostor: boldly said; but prove it who can, or wil for him. But what then wil become of the man that would have the Text controverted thus rendred, Haec est Lux illa vera quae veni∣entem in mundum illuminat omnem hominem: this were as ingrammati∣cal altogether, but we spare him, though we must remember him; for we cannot esteem it Doctrinal Error for a man to miss a Tense, and would have him & all men know, that our Religion stands not in Grammatical Tenses, but the Fear of God, and Faith in Christ Jesus, whose Blood cleanseth from all Sin such as walk in his Light. Nor did the Prophets and Apostles stand upon Tenses, especially Jeremiah and John, whose Hebrew and Greek don't much exceed the Quakers English. G. F. was not sent to preach up Propriety of Speech, the World is but too Curious and Proud in such Human Science and acquisition; But like a Faithful Minister of God, by his Eternal Spirit and Power to turn People from Darkness to the Light (in which the Ransomed walk, with Everlasting Joy upon their Heads) and from the Power and Kingdom of Satan, which stand in the Lust of the Eye, Lust of the Flesh, and Pride of Life, unto God, and his Holy Kingdom, which stands in Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. And as such it is that G. F. is owned and respected with other publick Labourers amongst us, who seek not Honour from men, as our Adversary and most of the rest

of men do;* 1.11 but that which is from God; and his Wisdom, which is first pnre, then Peaceable, Gentle, and easie to be entrea∣ted; which is not of this World, but by the Children there∣of esteemed Foolishness and meer Enthusiasm, and that in a way of Derision: and we know that we are of God, and the Generality of the World lies in Wickedness, either of Flesh or Spirit.

Having, I hope, sufficiently proved, that the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Venientem, or Coming, is to be referred to Men, and not to Light; and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly rendered Illuminat, and that Enlighten: Nay, in case they were not so, that it would prove little prejudicial to our sense (as the difference hath been already explained) I am now willing to make appear, That the Light, of which we have been so treating, is no natural nor created Light; but, a Supernatural and Eternal Light; which done, the Controversie, at least on this Subject, we shall conclude.

1. If man be enlightened by that Word,* 1.12 which was with God, and was God, and that before the World was; then man is enlightened by a supernatural and eternal Light: but the Scripture in the first, second, and third verses of John's first chapter, proves man to be so enlightened, and that Light to be such, as beforesaid; therefore man is Illumina∣ted by a Supernatural Eternal Light.

If he object another sence of these Verses, then the words simply and nakedly seem to import; for instance, that the be∣ginning there mentioned•• relates not to the World, and visible elementary Creation, but the invisible Creation, as I know is their common refuge. I Reply,

2. If all things were made by him, and without him no∣thing made that was made;* 1.13 then, either John spake equi∣vocatingly, not meaning what he said; or else, plain∣ly, and properly, and consequently all Things (of which the World is the greatest part) were made by him; and therefore He must needs have been before all created things.

3. If he were that true Light, by way of exemption to all others (as the Socinians are wont to interpret God to be true God,* 1.14 John 17. 3. and there is no reason to the contra∣ry) then was he Light in himself; and consequently, did not illuminate by a received or borrowed Light, from another; but ex••se, out of himself, and from himself only, and therefore God; as saith John in his first Epistle, This then is the Message which we have heard from him, That God is Light, &c. The first Proposition is Scriptural,* 1.15 and needs no Proof; and the second I prove thus,

4. If the Divine Life of this creating Word be that True Light by way of excellency and exclusion of all others,* 1.16 with which he enlightens every man coming into this World, then must he be Light in Himself, and from Himself; unless he can be Himself without that Divine Life which is in Him; which because he cannot, it will follow, that he is such a true Light as hath been asserted; and consequently, must be God, inasmuch as he, who is the Fountain of true Life, is God. Which I further prove thus,

5. If he, who is eminently that true Light, by whom only all Mankind is enlightened, neither is, nor can be that Light, as any part of Mankind, however immaculate (since so he would be a Light unto Himself, which is both absurd and impossible) then that Creating Word, which is that Divine Life, which is evidently that true Light, by which all men are enlightened, neither is nor could be a Mortal Man, however Holy; and properly therefore it was not Christ, as Man, but as God, that he was and is eminently the Light of Men. Which I further prove.

6. If that Light, in which all men ought indispensibly to believe for Salvation,* 1.17 be the Light, with which men are enlightened; then are all Men savingly and supernatu∣rally enlightened: But the Scripture here quoted proves the Light in which all should believe, and which illuminates

all to be the same; and consequently, the Light, wherewith men are enlightened, is Saving and Supernatural.

7. If that World was made by him, in which he was, and which knew him not;* 1.18 then, because this elementary World was the World in which he was, and Mankind then in it, those that knew him not, it follows, that this visible elementary World, and Mankind in it, were made by him; and if made by him, then necessarily he must have been before them: and since this Word is that Light, by which men are enlightened, it followeth, that they are Illuminated by a Supernatural and Eternal Light.

8. If to as many as receive him (the true Light en∣lighting all) to them he gives Power to become the Sons of God;* 1.19 then the way to be a Son of God is, to obey the Light, or to receive and obey the Light is the way to be a Child of God; not born of Blood, nor of the Will of the Flesh, nor of the Will of Man, but of God; but the Scripture plainly testifies that to be the way: therefore the Light is Saving and Supernatural.

Thus much in short from Scripture: I have a few Arguments to offer from Reason.

It is, I think, granted on all hands, That God has enlighten∣ed Mankind with some Light or other; the Question then will be this, What Nature, this Light is of, Saving or Insufficient, Na∣tural or Supernatural? I prove it to be Supernatural and Sa∣ving thus.

1. If the Light, with which God hath enlightened Men, were natural, then could it inform men only in and about na∣tural Affairs; but we see that men do thereby in measure know and discern things that are Supernatural; therefore this Light is not Natural, but is Supernatural, and consequently Saving.

2. That it gives men some Knowledge of Divine Things,

I suppose all believe; however, I thus prove it: God gave it for some End, or no End; for no End we cannot, we dare not suppose; if for some End, then not in reference to Natural Things, because they are knowable by the spirit of Man as such; consequently it must be in and about things relating to Man's Duty to God and his Neighbour, in which consists the Salvation of his own Soul: if so, then I prove its sufficiently thus,

3. Whatever God gives to any Man for any end, is suffici∣ent for that End for which he gives it him: but God has given his Light unto men, in order to their Duty to Him and their Neighbour, in which consists the Salvation of their Souls; and consequently that Light is sufficient to that End.

That what God gives to any End is sufficient to compass it, I thus prove;

4. God requires all Men strictly to serve and obey him, and to work out their Salvation with Fear and Trembling; or else, their End shall be Destruction: but this the Almighty (with Reverence I say it) could not justly do, unless the Light with which he enlightens men were sufficient and saving: there∣fore, unless our Adversary will impeach him of manifest Injustice, or deny that he thus requires men to fear him, and work out their own Salvation, he must grant, that not only God hath illuminated all men, but that the Light, wherewith he hath illuminated them to that great End, is Saving and Supernatural.

Object. I know the Objection that is on these Oc∣casions frequently started, viz. How cometh it then that all Men have not a clearer View of this Light whereof you speak?

But Men must have a care of concluding the Light ever the less Divine in it self, because of that dim and imperfect sight their own infirmities cause them to have of it; perhaps some are as incapable to behold the Light as it is, as an Infant to make

a true Prospect by the natural Day: Others are grievously in∣fested with Rumes, Bloodsheds, and many other Distempers; whilst not a few either wilfully close their Eyes, are blinded with Motes and Beams, run into obscure Places, or by their continued obstinacy in Wickedness, come at last wholy to lose both the Light, and their Capacity of seeing it. Such are those on whom the Night comes, in which none can work; and this was impenitent Jerusalem's Case, which is too too fre∣quently and lamentably paralelled in our dayes. Men must not think to see all at once; and because their inquisitive, impatient and wondring Mind is not answered by whole heaps of glittering Discoveries; therefore, in a brittle unsubject Nature, sling off all regard to the Light of God, and vainly think to compass Salvation in their own unwarrantable strivings.

Let men consider seriously their own dark state, how song the Light hath shined there uncomprehended; and since it has pleased the Eternal God to visit them with such a Ministry and Testimony as turns them unto that blessed unchangeable Light, diligently to adhere to it, and be humbly contented to practice what they know (for, to that only End and Purpose does God cause it to shine in their Hearts) before they look after other Discoveries, from that grasping, ravenous, comprehen∣ding spirit in man, which would know the End before it practiseth the beginning, which is cursed of God, and is for eternal Judgment; this lost Adam his Paradice, and obstructs Thousand, from entring in∣to the Way of God at this very day.

Wherefore Blessed are they, who knowing their own Weak∣ness, wait diligently upon the Lord for such daily Daw∣nings of his own saving Light, as suit their own states, as to their daily Temptation, Preservation and Increase in the experimental Knowledge of the Way of God: Such are not wise above what's written in their Hearts by the Finger of God; and speak and declare of God, and his Unchangeable Way, according as they have felt and handled; I mean, as He hath revealed Himself both in Judgment and in Mercy, through the in-shining Light of his Son.

And this I publish to the whole World, That I never knew God truly and heartily to be of purer Eyes then to behold Iniquity, I was

never conscientiously convinced of any Evil, I never was brought into true Repentance, I never experienced real Attonement, I never had right Faith in Christ, nor did I ever inwardly come to feel a cleansing from any sin, and a being justified by his Blood, by which to know him my Mediator, Saviour and Redeemer, but by the Reproofs of that Light wherewith Christ has enlightened me, and by turning to it, and walking in it with all Godly Fear and Subjection, according to its bles∣sed Discoveries and Requirings. Wherefore I boldly call it, A Sufficient, Saving and Supernatural Light: And according to the truth of this, so let my Soul find Mercy with my God by Jesus Christ.

I shall sum up my Sence briefly thus.

All Mankind have been Benighted, All Men have Degenerated; In that state, all are Ignorant; In that state, all are Corrupted; And in that state, all are damned: And this Certainly:

God would have all men be saved; But they can never be Saved, Till they be Regenerated: To be that, they must be Washed; To be Washed, they must Believe; And to Believe, they must Repent; And to Repent, they must see why; And to do this, they must have Light: And all this Certainly.

This Light must give true and right fight; This Light must be sufficient; Then this Light is infallible; Then this Light must needs be Saving: And all this is True.

This by their own Principle cannot be denyed, as well as that it is true in it self.

I conclude therefore, That all men of themselves want Light; that God, since he would have all be saved, has given all Light; that this Light must give a certain Discerning; and that such as are guided by it are consequently certainly led. In short, The Light is both Universal, Supernatural, and In∣fallible.

That this is not our Judgment only, I shall mention a few of many, that assert it to be a Saving Light.

1. Thus believed Origen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.20

He is truly called the Light of Nations, or the Gentiles, by Isaiah; I have given thee for a Light, to lighten the Gentiles, and for my Salva∣tion to the uttermost parts of the Earth

—But truly, our Saviour is the great Light of the intelligible World, enlightening those in the most excellent parts of their Souls, who are capa∣ble of Reason, that the Mind may discern and perceive to it self those things that are most proper and worthy of mens pur∣suit after.

2. Chrysostom positively declared his Judgment in the Matter, as we have observed before.

3. Erasmus, upon the same place tells us,

That its import,* 1.21 so far as concerned the nature of the Light, lies here; Illa Lux, erat Fons Luminis, unde ipsi quo{que} Johanni suum fluxit Lumen:

That Light was the Fountain of Light, from whence John himself received that Light he had. If so, then a supernatural and

saving Light, then God, and consequently more then a Man; be∣cause as such, John was before Him, and could not be enligh∣tened by him.

4. Beza, though he restraineth that Light to a particular Number,* 1.22 which is not the Point in Controversie, yet he confesseth it to be a Saving Light, at least, to as many as God hath destinated it:

Quasi de regenerationis gratia hic agatur, quae Filijs Dei peculiariter est destinata.

5. Tollet speaks very notably on this occasion,

Sunt vero tres illius lucis proprietates: antiqui∣tas,* 1.23 veritas, & communitas, quae cum Johanni non insint, recte concluditur illum lucem illam non esse—quae illuminant omnem hominem venien∣tem in Mundum, non in Iudaeos solum, sed et in omnes gentes Lumen suum diffundit—Dicitur autem Lux illa omnem hominem illuminare, sicut & Sol, qui sufficiens lumen expandit, & omnes illuminat & omnibus propositus est, ut videant: quod si qui non vident defectus Solis non est; sic Christus in hoc Mundo, omnibus quidem hominibus, quantum est in se, et ex efficacia Lucis suae lucet.

That is, There be three Properties which are peculiar to the Light; Antiquity, which (sayes he else-where) is Eternity; Truth, by way of Ex∣cellency; and Community, in that all men who are born in∣to the World partake of it, or are enlightened by it.—But that Light, like unto the Sun, is said to enlighten all men; who streams forth Light sufficient, that it may give Light to all; and he is set before all, that all may see. Thus doth Christ on his part illu∣minate all men with his Efficatious Light.

6. Maldonatus,* 1.24 to the same purpose thus,

Non-nulli hoc de naturali rationis lumine intel∣lexerunt. Sed minime dubium est de spirituali lu∣mine intelligendum, de doctrina, de fide, de gratia, de vita illa de qua di••••erat; & vita erat Lux ho∣minum, Cypri. lib. 1. & Christ us non solum in hunc

Mundum veniens, sed & postquam & antequam veniret erat Lux vera quae illuminabat omnem hominem venientem in hunc Mundum.

Which is to say, Some have understood this place as treating of the Light of Nature or Reason; but, sayes he, there is little doubt, but it is to be understood of a Spiritual Light, of Do∣ctrine, of Faith, of Grace, and of that Life, concerning which he (viz John) had said, and that Life was the Light of men, as sayes Cyprian lib. 1.—And not only as Christ's coming, but both before and after he came, he was the true Light, which enlightens every man coming into the World.

7. Vatablus has it in the same sense with Eras∣mus,* 1.25 He was the Fountain of Light it self,

Unde etiam Johannes quicquid habebat Lucis.

From whence John received what Light be had.

Zegerus, though not on these very words, yet to the context,* 1.26 In him was Life, &c. speaks thus,

Et Vita erat Lux hominum, & Lux in tenebris lucet; illa inquit, vita per quam condita sunt omnia, il∣la vita quae est Verbum, imo quae Deus omnis Vitae Fons, ipsa semper fuit, & est Lux omnium hominum, quae om∣nibus impertit naturalis luminis & gratiae beneficium: & haec Lux in tenebris animarum nostrarum lucet, quas animas ob∣scurarat Princeps iste tenebrarum Diabolus.

And that Life was the Light of Men, and the Light shines in Darkness, &c. that Life, sayes be, by which all things were made, that Life which is the Word, yea, which is God, the Fountain of all Life; that very Life ever was and is the Light of Men, which furnisheth all both with the advantage of na∣tural (or worldly) Light, and the Light of God's Grace: And this Light shineth in the Clouds, or dark places of our Hearts, which the Devil, that Prince of Darkness hath vailed.

Cameron also is not forreign in his Exposition, but seems to conceive the same thing;* 1.27

Etsi verum est om∣nem humanae mentis Lucem esse ab illo Sole, attamen intelligendum est praecipue de illa Luce quae est ad sa∣lutem, & qua fit ut tenebris peccati & mortis liberemur.

And though it be true, that what Light man hath it proceeds from that Sun, yet it is chiefly to be understood of that Light which leads to Salvation, and by which we may be freed from the Darkness or Grave of Sin and Death.

Thus much as to the Judgment of these Grandees (in the World's account) as to their concurrent Exposition of this place, by which it may be seen, that Men famous for accute Lear∣ning, have had that sense of the truth of the letter of the Scripture, which we have been reputed Hereticks, indeed what not, for maintaining as an Article of Christian Faith: It is to be hoped, that People will accept of Truth from them, if their Prejudice will not admit them to embrace it from us: but since it is not our Praise we seek, but the Glory of Him that made us, and the Salvation of others, we shall not be displeased if they receive the Truth at any hand, so they receive it as it in Jesus.

Here I would fain break off, but that I feel my self some∣what prest with a few Passages, which refer to the Light, to∣wards the Conclusion of the Libel, that may not improperly be considered under this Head.

Certainly it would be thought very strange, and that I have spent my time as unprofitably as the Emperor that would be all day a killing of Flies, if at last I should make this man speak the Language of the Light, nay, to be a Defender of it too, against whom I have been all this while defending it; but who can help it, if men will self-contradict, and put Wea∣pons into their Opposers Hands, to Disarm and Conquer themselves?

Though in one page he tauntingly sayes, He is perswaded that some of us have such an Opinion of the Light, our great Funda∣mental, that though an Angel from Heaven should preach any other Doctrine, then that which G. F. hath preached, they could not give ear to it (which Saying one would think abusive enough of the Light) yet he makes amends in the next, where he thus addresseth himself to us,* 1.28 Or rather that so much re∣proached Light; I appeal to the Light in every one of you, whe∣ther he is not guilty Himself in a much higher degree of such

things as he condemns in others. Monstrum horrendum! What man of tollerable sense would thus write his own Reproof, and in less then two Pages give himself the Lye? But it is just with God that such men should be strongly infatuated. Is it not strange that he should mock at our desiring to be informed by the Light at the bottom of one Page, and make his own Appeal unto it at the top of the very next? Is it fit to direct us in and about what he writes, and not concerning the Writings of other men? or, Is it a true and approved Light when it concurs with him, and but a weak, delusive, and what not Light when it leads us to oppose him? But out of his own mouth let him be judged. I shall therefore contract the benefit I make of his own Appeal into these two Arguments.

1. That unto which he makes an Appeal must be capable of giving an Infallible Judgment, and so a true Judge, or else he appeals foolishly: But the Light within is that unto which he makes his Appeal, and we would not think him to do it to a thing not fit to give a certain Judgment; therefore the Light is an Infallible Judge by his own Appeal.

2. If it be appealed to by him as a competent Judge; nay, that by which we should satisfie our own Consciences, touch∣ing the things he layes to G. F's. charge, namely, Impostor, &c. and since those things are of the highest nature in Religion, or against it, then will it follow, that the Light is to be the Judge of George Fox, and not only of him, but concerning those weighty Points of Religion wherein he is abusively charged by the Libeller: And if so, I would both tell him, That G. F. is pronounced not guilty by the Verdict of that Light, from which there is no Appeal: and Him∣self first guilty of charging him with what he has not proved; and secondly, of Abusing, Degrading, and Contemning the Light; and then, contradictorily to himself, of making his solemn Re∣ference and Appeal to the Light, as the most Impartial and Vnerring Judge.

Tell me now, what could we have said more in praise of the Light, so far as meer words go? and what could he have said against himself?

He further adds, That 'tis the Protestant Principle, as well as ours, that it is evident by their dissent from the Church of Rome, who preten∣ding to be the Infallible Guide in Religion; No, sayes the Protestant, Everyman is Judge for Himself. Further, That God h••s for that End endued every man with such a Light of Common and Certain Principles, written in every man's Heart, that if a Prophet should come and give them a Sign or a Wonder, to draw them away from the obser∣vance of that Light, and those Principles, they ought not to adhere to that Prophet (see Deut. 12. 1, 2, 3.) Moreover, God, they say, has promised his holy Spirit to those that humbly implore it in the Obedience of that Light. Further, That we have entertained it under new Names; that the Contention between us and our Adversaries is about words; Natural Light, say they, quoting than in the Romans, For when the Gentiles, that have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law; they having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves: Divine Light, say you, John 1. 9. Is not the Difference betwixt you and others about Names; for whether God hath given it Men by Nature or not, it is of God, in respect of its proceeding from Him, and tendring to Him. Thus an eminent Prea∣cher in a great Assembly of late upon the Text,

And so far the Qua∣kers are in the Right, That every man hath the Motions of Good and Evil within him; which, in plain Cases of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, will tell him, what he ought to do, and what he ought to avoid, by which he ought to be directed; and that his Conscience will acquit and excuse if he do the One, and accuse and condemn him if he do the Other.

Thus far our Adversary and his eminent Preacher.

To the first I shall say, that taking it for granted, he is as Ortho∣dox as a Protestant, whose Cause he would seem to vindicate, yet he grosly contradicts himself, compared with his several lesse∣ning Expressions of the Light: But I hope, now he has told us that both the Protestants and himself receive and assert the Light to be the right Judge and Guide, that both will never more be angry with the poor Quakers for being of that mind; And that our Adver∣sary will particularly retract his Manuscript to G. W. in Defence of the Scriptures being the Judge, Rule, and Guide, or to that Effect.

As for his refusing us the Reputation of having shown them the Way to such Belief, saying, It was alwayes theirs; We are contented to sit down without the Glory of being so much as Instrumental to such Convictions. In short, If the Light within be a more certain Ground then very Signs and Wonders; Nay, that excellent Gift, with which God has endu'd Man in order to the safe Conduct of his Life, as our Adversary hath plentifully confest, then have we obtained our Post (viz. that the Light is an Infal∣lible Guide) and need no more contend about what is so ex∣pressly yielded to us, and the accord confirmed by the Concessions of an Eminent Preacher too, whom I wish as Eminent a Practitioner and not less sound in his Life then Pulpit. But alas! such is our mans's Uncertainty to himself as well as others, that it seems Impossible with him, to write two Pages, and they not quarrel with each other, and both mutiny against their Author; for after his Elogies bestowed upon the Light, he is once more come to unbespeak them, like the Sullen Cow, that spills the Milk she gives.

And that which is more to be wondr'd at, this miserable man begins to except against the Sufficiency of the Light, from those very Reasons, for which he seems to have asserted it at an high rate, thus; And this helpes me to shew in the third place, that you extend the Doctrine of the Light in every man further then you ought;* 1.29 for it is not to be extended to all Cases whatever, as if every man that attends to the Light in him, did certainly know, what is good, what is Evil, Right or Wrong in every Case.

I heartily pitty the man, and am really afraid he has over∣charged the Strength of his Brain, for with me such manifest Contradiction is but a smaler degree of Distraction; I would fain have a rational Answer from him, if he be yet capable of one. How can the Light be a Judge of good and evil, and yet not be so, and all within the space of ten lines? If the Light, as by him acknowledged, be a Judge of Good from Evil, and the contrary, then in all Cases, where Good and Evil, Right and Wrong make up the Question, the Light cannot be secluded as wanting in true Judgment, because Good and Evil are part of the Queston, in the gran∣ted Proposition; Deny that the Light is sufficient in any case of Right and Wrong, and deny all. But to me it seems very

strange, that the very same Light, which was at t'other side of the leaf the great Judge of Doctrinal Truth, and with which God had endu'd men to their singular benefit, should at last be denied the Ability of giving Right Judgment in matters that strictly belong to Good and Evil. What is this but to say, it is a Judge of Good and Evil, But 〈…〉〈…〉 Judge of Good and Evil God's Gift, to guide us, yet in many thi••gs it may 〈◊〉〈◊〉? Well, but what are all these things of moment into which this Light is unable to wade? O! many Difficulti•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 men differ in their Judgments about them, so we see among the Saints 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rome, to whom Paul wrot, One (saith he) believes that he may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all things, another who is weak eats Hearbs, One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alike, Rom. 14. 2, 5. O stupendious Folly! This way of Reasoning well becomes him; for what is it but to say, This Light of which I speak, hath sufficiency in it to dis∣cover the nature of things of greatest concernment, but not these minute and trivial matters, she can judge of Doctrines, but not of Ceremonies, and can try Spirits but not Infirmities, whether they be such or not. But I hope that men in their Wits, and I write to no other, will never abandon their Reason so far, as to think those Persons not being as yet so clearly disentangled from the Jewish Ceremonies and needless Observations of that exterior Worship, shall be interpreted a defect in the Light about difficult matters; for neither are such things difficult, but discerned to be sometimes the needless Scruples of Weakness, sometimes the dotage of Superstition, many times Will-Worship: nor can any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be cast more upon the Light, or the Light justly suffer the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Deficiency, then the Eternal Sun, because some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have such ••ore Eyes as they cannot strongly behold the Light.

'Tis true, perhaps Abstinence may be both best, and of••••n en∣joyned some Persons, either by way of Testimony against Excess in others, or having been too apt to give themselves an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Liberty, and on all, that they may eat and drink in fear, as saith the Apostle; I keep under my Body, and bring it into Subjection, least having preacht to others, I my self should become a Cast-away. But what then? Must the Light be no whit concerned there in because of the great Difficulty in the Point? By no means, the Light dictates and requires these things in their times and seasons; for

whatever our Adversary does, no sober man can believe that the Light is sufficient to the most weighty things that concern man's Salvation, and yet be unable to judge of those Differences mentioned by the Apostle, which were such Weaknesses as needed Christian Charity to bear with them.

Nay, it was by the Light that their Weakness was seen, neither could it have been born, or they ever have grown stronger then to place dissents in those trivial things, but by walking up to the Light, which was alone able to give them Right Discerning in the Case. I conclude therefore that in the Instance made by our Adversary, there could be no Difficulty too great for the Light, nay that the Instance is so trivial in comparison of the excellent Knowledge, and Judgment which are received by the Light, that it makes but the more for us to the disparagement of him that hath alledged it.

And thus much (though a Knock to himself, even whilst he thinks us under his blow) when he sayes, And where is the In∣fallibility you speak of in particular Persons, in all Cases? I am per∣swaded if you consider this well, you will perceive that the Light in every man (especially in those whose Judgments have been prepossess'd into false Notions, as many of you have been before you were Quakers) doth not teach him all things whatsoever, but all things that are neces∣sary for him to know in order to a Holy Trust in God, and sincere Obe∣dience in the general Course of his Life. Well! before I would undertake Controversies, and thus give away my Cause, nay so wofully, yet frequently contradict my self, I would never write while I live. But to make my advantage of this too.

Infallibility of Persons any further then as they are joyned, and conformed to the Light of God. We never affirmed: and Fallibility of the Light because of the fallibility of Persons We ne∣ver owned, and now deny as a most Ridiculous and False Con∣sequence

He tells us of Contrary Judgments in our Assemblies of Busi∣ness, and from thence queries, Where is the Infallibility of Persons? What then, in case that were true, as we disclaim it? Why I am perswaded the Light in every man doth not teach him all things. This New Way of Demonstration I am a Stranger to;

What is it but to say? You sometimes differ, therefore the Light is fallible: or thus, Every man that sins is enlightned, therefore the Light in every man sins; If this be Absurd and Wicked, let our Adversary purge himself as he can.

Well, but Infallibility in all Cases doth suppose, that though not in all, yet in many, at least in some Cases men may be infal∣lible; If so, I ask, in what? Surely in those wherein they walk conformably to the Light: If so, then what's the Consequence but this; When men live up in all things to the Light, they are Infallible, but when they go from it, they are not. Surely then the man has but hitherto beat the air.

And why may We not make the most of what he sayes for us, and infer, If that before We were Quakers, and come to live under the holy Conduct of this Light, we were possess'd with false Notions, he means (or at least the Expression will bear it) that since we were Quakers we came to be possess'd with true ones. Well, but the extent of the Light is not to all things, yet, (sayes he) what is it to say I? why only to all that is necessary for him to know, in order to a Holy Trust in God, and sincere Obedience in the general Course of his Life. Very well, I would now fain understand the Difference, of knowing all, or Right or Wrong, in all Cases wherein a man is concerned; and knowing all things necessary for him to know, unless he will confess, when he said the Light was not sufficient to determine the Right and Wrong of all Cases, that he meant of Cases that did not concern men to know; and then we will with him conclude so too. But if the Light be sufficient to discover unto man all that is fit for him to know, in refe∣rence to God, and his own Soul, and yet in some Cases it cannot determine the Right from the Wrong, in which man's Good is concerned, it is manifest to all the World, that this will be the direct Con∣sequence, the Light is not sufficient to give men the Knowledge of all that is fit for them to know, but the Light is sufficient to discover unto them all that which is necessary for them to know.

But he is wonderful Jealous that We neglect the means the Light doth dictate unto us the great need and use of; namely, the Scriptures, and other diligent study, and here he falls down right upon us: Must God be bound with his Divine Light and In∣spiration to supply the defects of our Idleness and Pride? for when other

men count it great Mercy in God,* 1.30 that he is pleased through the vilest means that may be, and through their earnest Study and Diligence, to grant them the Knowledge of his Will, En∣lightening their Mind by his Holy Spirit; You must have it like the Angels that alwayes behold his Face by immediate Revelation, and without Labour and Industry.

Methinks he is both Angry, Uncivil, and Irreverent. An∣gry, that others should enjoy through their unfeigned Repentance, and humble constant walking with that Holy Light, which con∣vinced them those daily Discoveries from the Lord of their duty towards him, and all men, with renewed Refreshment and Con∣solation, which he by all his poring, beating of his Brains, and daily striving can never obtain; But the Scriptures are herein fulfilled, the Holy Way the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eye did never see. Some would have the Kingdom of God by Violence, and many strove to enter, but could not; And that same Ravenous Spirit after Knowledge our Adversary must come to know judged, and cast out of himself, as what rob'd man of Pa∣radice at first, and keeps Thousands out at this day, and see himself to be Low, and Empty, and Poor, and Naked, before he be exalted as Full, Rich, and wanting nothing.

Vncivil, that he should in that rough and reflecting manner upon us (who neither knows us to be idle, or Proud, and least of all in any thing which concerns him) but if our diligent wai∣ting to receive from God Strength, Knowledge and Comfort (and not running in our Own Wills) be Idleness, in that Sense We evermore desire to be Idle. It is by the same ••gure that we are Proud, namely, We rejoyce with Boldness in the God of our Salvation, declaring to the World what God hath done for us not flinching in times of Tempest, neither suffering such Creeping Spirits as his to be owned by us, as men walking in the Light, and ransomed from this Vngodly World by the pretious Blood of the Lamb of God that takes away the Sin thereof.

Irreverent, in that he makes God to convey the Knowledge of himself through the Vilest Means, Vile had been more then enough, he might have kept Vilest to himself. I have not read in all the Scriptures of Truth any such Expression; 'Tis true, Da∣vid in answer to those who counted his serving of God a Vile Thing, said then, He would ••e Vile still: but that is no Warrant.

And God's Judgment pronounced upon Eli's House,* 1.31 much less, because his Sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not; therefore have I sworn to the House of Eli, that the Iniquity of Eli's House sha•••• not be purged with Sacrifice nor O••••ering soever.* 1.32 And the A∣postle Paul useth thesame word in thesame sense, For this Cause God gave them up to vile Affections, &c. Now for any man to expect that God by vilest wayes should make himself known is an unscriptural and irreverent Saying: but this may show how dark and vile the man is in the use of such unsuitable and unsavory Expressions.

However, He once more hopes to m••ke amends, and if his last Will and Testament may stand; I mean his last Account of his wavering Belief of the Light, then the Light is what we have said it to be, viz. Supernatural and Saving. Hear him:

So now my Friends, I deny not that there is a Light in every man,* 1.33 which he is oblieged, under Pain of the displea∣sure of the Almighty, diligently to eye and follow; that so do∣ing, it will lead him by degrees into all necessary Truth, and at length to eternal Life.

A large Confession to the Light, and as large a Contradicti∣on to pag. 38., 40, 41. which because we have already observed and improved to the benefit of our own Belief; let this suffice, that at last we have obtained what we have sought for, viz. That the Light is a Saving Light: I shall conclude this Subject with this friendly Caution, That they will ever hereafter do exceeding∣ly well to remain constant to their own Grants, and not through any disgust at the use we have made thereof, in re∣handling the same Controversie, like Children, first give, and then take away again.

And now let none be displeased that I have been so particular in handling this Point of the Controversie, which concerns the Light, since I confess it to be the most eminent Article of our Faith, Christ the true Light enlightening every man that comes into the World with saving Light, and therefore deserves of such as so believe, to be defended with all the Circumspection and Advantage they are capable of; and I am not conscious to my self of any neglect in the cas••. For what

concerns the remainder, though I esteem it less worthy, yet not wholy unworthy our notice, and therefore shall briefly consider it, I hope to satisfaction.

His second Doctrinal Cavil, or that part of our Faith which he seems to single out for Combat is, Not Swearing, and that upon occasion of G. F's Complaint of the Translators in those words.* 1.34 G. F. saith, 1 Cor. 15. 31. I Protest by your Rejoy∣cing, &c. now I Protest is added, for there is nothing for it in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: To which, that I may pass by his Reflections upon G. F's Greek, or rather the Over∣sight of some Transcribers, to be sure no Doctrinal Error, and therefore might have escaped so much insulting Reproof: He thus answereth, My Greek Grammar saith, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ne, are Adverbs of Swearing, & Sc••pula's Lexicon saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Par∣ticle of Granting and Affirming, and with an Oath. The Grammar gives for Example, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so it is by Jupiter; neither may any one excuse him by saying, that ••e signifies by, and not I protest; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a Particle that imports Swearing; and by is sometimes used when there is no Swearing, it seems to have been necessary for the Translators to put in I protest, or some other word equivalent. How very trivial this Objection is, and with what Weakness and Deceit he mannageth it, I hope very Evidently to make appear.

'Tis granted to him what his Grammar tells him, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both are Adverbs of Swearing, or have been frequently used among the Greeks in their Oaths; though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had been enough for him to instance, unless he would have us think him learned in Adverbs, at least, such as concern Right Swearing; also, Sca∣pula intimates as much; but what then? because by is often used to express an Oath, must it necessarily follow, that where∣ever by is used it is to import an Oath, or Swearing is imply∣ed? And herein he dealt unfairly with us; for, though out of his own words we might well infer as much, viz. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Particle of Granting or Affirming, and with an Oath; yet that is, both beside and with, not alwayes with an Oath; he should have told what Scapula said a little lower, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 particu∣la

est, interdum indirecte ponitur, nulla praecedente interogatione, pro∣utique, equidem, profecto: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sayes Scapula, is a Particle, and is sometimes placed indirectly, with never an Interrogation be∣fore, for verily, indeed, truly, &c. I will not insist upon the suitableness of such a signification in this place; but shall tell the Man, that allowing it to be anciently in the best Copies (which Chrysostom, if not Theophylact, does more then doubt) yet it can have no other force or use in this place then to render the Verse thus (viz) Vpon the account of your Joy, or for the sake of your encrease in Christ, which is the Ground of our Joy, I dye daily, or rather, I am daily ready to be offered up: And indeed unless men by Zeal or Prejudice have vailed their own Under∣standings, the place it self, and context plainly intimates so much. For first, It is absurd to suppose, that the Apostle should Swear by what is not a real ens or existence; and should we grant, that all Swearing was not by Christ prohibited, (as we never can) yet our Adversaries conclude, That all Swea∣ring by any other thing then God Himself is prohibited: now the Corinthians Rejoycing was not Almighty God, by whom alone they say men should Swear. Besides, let the Context be weighed, and it has reference to the Glorious Kingdom, which all men, who are Partakers of the first Resurrection, come to inherit; of which sayes Pa••l, If there were any doubt, why are any baptized for the Dead, and why stand we in Jeopardy every Moment? But as if ••e should have said, So far am I from doubting or fearing, that upon the account of your further sufficiency or increase (in Christ the Ground of Rejoycing) I dye, or am ready to dye daily; that is, I am ready to seal it with my Blood: an ••••arty Encouragement to the Corinthians to go on, and not that they should think there was no Reward for all their Faith an•• Tribulation ••et this be well weighed with our common English Version,* 1.35 and I perswade my self, that not only this will ••em very consonant, but the vulgar very abrupt and in∣••••herent; and however improper, the man is plea∣sed to be himself▪ I caution him hereafter of rendring the A∣postle so.

Now for the Right Sense of the Greek Copy, with the Confirmation of some other Versions, and Judg∣ment of both Ancient Fathers and Modern Criticks.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is vulgarly rendred thus, Per diem morior, Per vestram gloriationem quam habeo in Christo Jesu Domino nostro.	That is. I dye every day, through (or upon the account of) your Joy, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.
In the Latine Interpretation of the Arabick Version it is thus render'd. Et ego quidem singulis diebus morior per realitatem Gloriae ve∣strae, quam habeo in Jesu Christo Domino nostro.	In English thus. And I indeed dye every day, through (or by means of) the reallity or truth of your Joy, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The Aethiopick Version thus La∣tined; wherein I dye daily is omitted. Et quare igitur nos laboramus, omni hora & trucidamur? et pro∣pter gloriationem nostram, Fratres nostri quae in Domino nostro Jesu Christo est.	In English thus. And wherefore do we labour, and are slain every hour? (even our Brethren) for our Rejoyce∣ing, which is in our Lord Jesus Christ.

This last seems to carry with it something of difference from the Greek Copy, and other Versions; yet if the sense I have given of the place be received, the alteration will be

only, the omission of I dye daily, and our for your Rejoycing, which is not much to purpose, it being truly the Joy of both: for, whether your Rejoycing relates to the preceding Queries, or I dye daily, it still remains firm, that all those Jeopardies, Sufferings and Deaths were on the account of that Truth, Hope, Rejoycing and Glory mentioned or implyed in the Text; where let it be observed, that slain, and dye daily, which strictly would sig∣nifie a time past, as well as present, are to be accepted in this sense, that they were daily in hazard of their lives through grievous Sufferings; and were freely and daily given up for their Testimony, unto Death it self.

I forbear to instance in many of the present used Langua∣ges, designing to be short; and shall therefore hasten to give the sense of some of the Ancient and Modern Writers in the Point.

Jerom,* 1.36 who lived about the year 383. thus rendreth the words in Controversie, Propter vestram salutem; not through your Rejoycing, but for your Salvation; which is yet more emphatical then I have rendered it, though to the same purpose.

Chrysostom observes upon this Passage to the Corinthi∣ans,* 1.37

Profectum ideo dici gloriam, ne videretur expro∣brare quod tam aspera passus esset ob Evangelium, cum ob haec non solum non doleret, sed duplici nomine gau∣deret, & quod ea passus esset ••h Evangelium Christi, & quod ca quae passus erat cesserant in profectum Corinthiorum;

That is, Chrysostom believes profit therefore to be called re∣joycing, that they might not seem to upbraid him for so hard things as he suffered for the Gospel, who was not only not troubled, but in a double sense rejoyced, both that he had suffered those things for the Gospel of Christ, and that those things which he did suffer, tur∣ned to the profit or spiritual benefit of the Corinthians. He therefore accounts, Per vestram Gloriam mendose scriptam, not so expressed in the ancient Copy, but corruptly written.

Ambrose, also took it in that same sense with Chryso∣stom,* 1.38 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, per, or by; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, propter, or for the sake of your Joy.

Theophylact is more peremtory and clear in the mat∣ter,* 1.39 that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Propter vestram Gloriam; or rather thus, Vestri pofectus gratia; for the cause of your profitting, or on the account of your encrease in the Knowledge of the Truth, which admi∣nisters true Joy.

Zegerus is of this Mind upon the Place,* 1.40 and takes not a little pains to confute the other Notion.

Grotius, although he does not altogether seem to acquiesce in that which I have already urged,* 1.41 yet is he very remote from the common Transla∣tion, and so near to it, that it may not be amiss to offer him;

Quam vere (sayes he in the Person of the Apostle) ego gaudeo de vestro profectu in Chri∣sto, ita verum est me quotidie paratum mori.

As I truly re∣joyce at your profitting in Christ, so true it is that I am daily ready to dye (for it is wanting, but may be understood) To this of Grotius, a considerable, but nameless English Annotator does agree.

And let me further add, that the Various Lecti∣ons have it by way of Correction,* 1.42 propter, not per; for, and not by.

And now it may be time for me to tell our Adversary in ge∣neral, and mine in particular, that though I don't blush to read his Impertinencies (perhaps I am not ingenious enough (for such he sayes will) he ought at least to be ashamed of writing them: and I am truly in pain for him, that he should both afflict him∣self

(for the poor man has an irksome way of telling his Tale, and is fain to churm long before any thing comes) and also disturb others with any thing so meanly inviting, and little profitting the People.

To Conclude, If any would in short know the plain and honest Reason of our refusing to Swear (to omit the many Ar∣guments that might be urged (what Glosses might be given, or Authorities produced) 'tis this, That as Christ Jesus is the Author of so perfect a Religion, that the least Affirmative or Ne∣gative, be it but Yea or Nay, is compleatly and unquestionably true; so it is below his Evangelical Righteousness, and such as are gathered not only to the belief, but possession of it, to so much as admit of an Oath, as being fitter to be enjoyned equivocating Pharisees, then Honest-Hearted Disciples, with whom it is the same thing to Lye as to Forswear: for, an Oath having been made from the Distrust of Honesty in Him that was to take it, where the Cause is removed (Lyes, Equivocations, mental Reserves, &c.) the Effects, or that extraordinary & scrupulous way of Evidence should cease. And if any object the Law of the Land, or the Ignorance of Magistrates of our Truth and Innocency: I An∣swer, The Law is either answered by Truth being spoken, or satisfied by an infliction of the same Penalty upon the Lyar that is incurred by a perjured Person; we need no Fines, Racks, nor heavy Impre∣cations, to scare us into Truth-speaking, who Believe in, Fear and Worship the God of all Truth, and that in Spirit and Truth.

The next abuse of us, so far as concerns our Belief, belongs to respecting of Persons; he calls it, our great Doctrine in a way of Reproach,* 1.43 and often cavilling, not without his wonted Folly, at G. F's Wo unto them that are called of Men Master (in which he only sayes what is certainly imply'd in Christ's Prohibition (which he should have first confuted) he undertakes the Refu∣tation of it thus,

True indeed, sayes Christ, Be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are Brethren, &c. Now I will take the Liberty to argue a little, because the Text seems to be so

plain on your side; first, you do restrain it from extinding all Men from being called Master, whilst you allow your Servants to call you our Masters, because you are their Masters (which Exception is not in the Text) why may not another call you Masters, because you have Servants, and are Masters?

I Answer, First then, he has broke his word with us, which in plainer English is, he has told us a Lye, in assuring us at the beginning, He would deal with us neither from Scripture nor Reason, and yet undertakes both: Certainly he is ill able to maintain Right Swearing, that is wanting in True Speaking, or writing at least. We may well suppose his Evidence, so much boasted of, has left him now, that he betakes himself to Scrip∣ture and Reason for defence; but considering how little they will prove friendly to his Cause, he is no otherwise to be com∣plained of for Breach of Word, then that the Will may be accepted for the Deed.

But next, The Text also must be blamed; Why? may an ho∣nest-hearted man say, Because upon our Adversaries Principles it seems to be against mens being called Rabbi, and yet is not: Strange ••rreverence to Holy Writ! What? make it say one thing in most express termes, as much as, Thou shalt not Steal, and yet mean the quite contrary: Who makes it their Rule now, We, or our Adversary? But let's examine his Meaning; and he is so absurd, that I am confident I have heard a better Argument out of Bedlam; however, let us once more repeat it, If you call men Masters, that are really your Masters, why may you not call your very Servants Masters, if they have Servants? which is as much as to say, If you call men Masters that are really your Masters, why should not you call other men Masters, though they are not really your Masters? O I but they are other men's Masters; are they? Then let other men call them so: For there is no more Reason that we should call other Men Masters, that are not our Masters, be∣cause they are really some bodies Masters, then that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should call other men Fathers, and Servants, and other Women W••••es, that are not our Fathers, Servants nor Wives, because they are really Fa∣thers, Servants and Wives to other Persons.

We can call Him Master, Father, Servant, or Her Wife, who really is so to us; but in doing it otherwise, we believe we

should Err. A Master and Father of old I confess to have sig∣nified a Religious as well as Civil Honour (I mean, Sect-Ma∣sters among the Jews; but since both are as well repugnant to common Truth, as the Christian Religion, we renounce the Title; and are the rather so to do, because of that great Thirst, which this Age as well as that in which our Lord so severely reproved it, has after that very Vanity, Deceit and Wickedness; and this simple honest Practice, and Zeal for it, we are not ashamed to have weighed in the Ballance of God's Sanctuary, against all the flattering, cringing Customs of Personal Respect, whether by Word or Gesture, now practiced in the VVorld.

VVell, But he is of the mind, that the Scripture is not a little for him, since the Apostle, both in his Epistle to the Ephe∣sians, and in that to the Collossians, exhorts Fathers not to provoke their Children, and Masters to give what was equal to their Servants: in which the poor man is as much besides himself, at least the matter, as in all the rest; for, he might as well argue against what he takes for granted (viz.) That we refuse not to call such Masters, as really are our Masters; as to suppose we deny, that an Apostle or Minister of Christ might not exhort the Fathers of Chil∣dren to be tender to them, and Masters of Servants to be just to them. Certainly none can be so stupid as to imagine, that the Apo∣stle called them Fathers and Masters in a way of Title, or upon sin∣gular Respect: We may as well suppose, that because he doth reciprocally exhort Children and Servants, that therefore he stiled them so in a way of singular Respect. Either let our Adversary deny that particular Homage and Respect are intended by the vulgar Titles of Master, Lord &c. or else prove, That the Apostle had the same Intention with these of our Times, in their Titles of Respect to one another, when He wrote to Fathers, Children, Masters, and Servants.

But let it suffice, that he was laying down a general Rule for both, as in reference to such relations, without having any particular Persons or Titles in his Eye; and unless he had known and mentioned all the Names of those that then were, and hereafter should be Fathers and Children, Masters and Servants, he could not otherwise have expressed his Mind.

But why should I farther contend with so much Weakness▪ yet he seems to have a little Greek for his Ignorance; let's hear what it sayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are all rendered Master: But that which is used by Christ in this Text, Mat. 23. 10. is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Katheegeetees, which sig∣nifies (as the Learned tells us) a Leader of the Way, or Guide; but as for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Kyrios, which the Apostle Paul useth to the Ephesians and Collossians, and is translated sometimes Master, and sometimes Sir, most often Lord; we find that the Apostles both singu∣larly and plurally suffered themseles to be called by it, as the Greeks called Philip,* 1.44 Sir, we would see Jesus, John 12. 21. and the Jaylor came Trembling, and fell down be∣fore Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, or Masters, what must I do to be saved? I Answer,

This makes nothing for the Business, though it makes Busi∣ness; for none questions the use of several words upon seve∣ral Occasions in Scriptures, as the Apostle to the Ephesians and Collossians doth, Father, Master, &c. which I have already ex∣plained, and proved nothing to the matter in hand. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie a Lord or Master thus, because it properly imports Au∣thority, or One having Power, a Governour, or the like; But this makes for us; such as are our Governours we do distinguish by Titles that plainly express their Authority, though not with all those gaudy Flatteries, that men in Deceitfulness invent, and use to grati∣fie the Proud Part in any Man. But what is this to calling Men Master; since we deny not the use of Master, Father, Son, Ser∣vant, &c. where they are significantly, and not improperly and Sycophantly used? And for the Greeks, that desired to see Jesus; and the Jaylor, that tremblingly cryed out, Sirs, what shall I do to be saved? they are no Instances of Advantage to him; unless we should be so very ridiculous as to think, that because any Man customarily calls me Master, therefore I must call him or other Men Master, and that I thought it well done in him to call me so; or, because any man commits an Evil, and our Adversary does not immedi∣ately reprove him, therefore it is no Evil in it self, and he com∣mits the like: So, what if Philip, Paul and Sil•••• were called Sirs (not either to Tempt, Jeer or Flatter them, but in a custo∣mary

manner, in which many scarce think what they say) must it follow, that the Practice was not after the Proud Fashions of the Gentile Nations; or that they were guilty of the same Pra∣ctice, because they did not just then reprove it, when the poor Greeks lookt for a Saviour; and God's heavy Judgments had taken hold on the Jaylor, causing him to possess the Sins of his Youth, which made him a Quaker indeed (for he came fearing and trembling unto them) No, no, the matter was then of grea∣ter moment, the Salvation of Souls: had they talked to them of the Title Master, or Masters, that would have been no Answer to their weighty Question, nor any allay to that earnest Enqui∣ry and deep Agony the Queriers were under, Shew us the Sa∣viour; O! what must I do to be saved? So that how Reprovable soever that had been in it self, or at another time, yet it did not seem then to the Holy Ghost to be the time; the Matter in hand was how to bring them to the Light and Knowledge of that Jesus which was given for a Saviour; and when they had found him, and he had Discipled them, to call no man Master, nor to look for it, because One was their Master, would all naturally follow, as relative to that Evangelical Religion?

Well, but sayes he, Mary Magdalene called Jesus Sir (supposing he had been the Gardener) and you will not say that Jesus suffered her to sin in his presence without repro∣ving her (which I abhor to think) Yet this won't serve his turn;* 1.45 for first, that Sir was not of that force and Emphasis, which Master was (the Title mostly insisted on) the next Verse tells us, where Jesus said unto her Mary, and she turned her self, and said unto him Rabboni, which is to say Master, as if she had first recalled her self, and then styl'd him by a more Reverent Title then that she gave him as the supposed Gardener. Next, we know that till the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (which was to bring all things to their Remembrance, that Jesus had at times said unto them, and to lead them into all Truth) the Disciples, among whom she was not the least, were in the practice of more Customs then that, which after they grew up in a more mature Knowledge of Christ and his invisible King∣dom, they declined and finally rejected. Nor doth it follow that she therefore did well, because she was not reproved of

Jesus (where the Stress seems to lie) or did that which in the true State of Christianity was so much as allowable: for Christ ••ever particularly chek•• Peter for denying him, that we read of, and I suppose all grant Peter did amiss; yet by our Adversary's inconsequent way of arguing, he either would make Peter not to have done ill in denying his Lord, or Jesus so, in not reproving him for doing it, which let me tell him, we also abhor to think.

But now he doubtless pleas'd himself with the Con∣ceit of having irrecoverably caught us in that passage of Stephen's,* 1.46 where he saith, That He, a man full of Faith and Power, said to the Council of the Jews, Men, Brothren and Fa∣thers, The•• were not his Fathers, but they were Fathers. In which his good will is seen, but how to effect what he would have, is as diffi∣cult as before; for the Jews being a People peculiarly separa∣ted from all other Nations in comparison of others, might not unfitly be called a great Family, as being lineally descended of twelve Brethren, so that it was frequent among them, instead of Ancestors, to say, our Fathers did so and so; And this Way of Speach Christ himself used, when he said, Your Fathers eat Manna in the Wilderness; wherefore what Stephen said, might be both al∣lowable and true. They were Men, that is not disputed; They were Brethren, as being of the same Blood, and Fathers, as El∣ders of the Tribes under that particular Constitution. Besides, both his own and (if Married) his Wifes Fathers and Grand-Fathers might be then living, and either of the Council, or con∣curring with it.

In short, We therefore refuse the style of Master, and are very cautious of being in the least lavish in Titles of Worldly Honour, because We with Lamentation behold, through the Illumination of God's blessed Light, the Spoil, Cruelty and ma∣nifold Evils that Proud, Flattering, Honour-seeking and Honour-giving Spirit has made amongst the Sons of men, who to compass un∣just Dominion, hath sacrific'd the Blood, Wealth, and Peace of Nations to its ambitious aims, and esteem'd it no small accession to the Magnifi∣c••nce of its exploits, that almost in all Ages she hath led the Rights, Properties, and Persons too of Millions as Captives in Triumph after her, and through the Gulf of Rapine and Blood lane••t into the vast Ocean of unlimited Power, What Impiety is there in the World that

may not in some sence be resolved into that of Pride or Cove∣tousness after Honour as its proper Center; Mens over-value of themselves, and their Displeasure against such as have not the like thoughts of them, beget Revenge, which taking its opportunity breaks forth into Blood and Murder; O! let men learn to dread the Living God, and fear all their dayes before him, and that will sweep the mind of these vain thoughts, and bring it from such exalted conceits, and its insatiable Thirst after Honour, and will establish it in the Humility and Lovely Plainness of a Meek and Quiet Spirit, which is of great Price in the Sight of the Almighty God; which because the World is not adorned with, but doth both seek and give wordly Honour, and Personal Respect, whilst perhaps such entertain deadly Hatred against each other, and resolve one anothers Ruin for outward Ends, we are con∣strained by the Meek and Lowly Spirit of Christ Jesus our Lord to te∣stifie against the World's Vain Honours, and to hold forth an Example to them, what they must all expect to come to, before they can receive that Honour which is from God. And this is that Honest Reason, why We of this Age, do with Elihu say, We know not (how) to give flattering Titles, for in so doing our Maker would soon take us away. Thus much in Answer to his Cavills, whose Emptiness might have been enough to sound out their own indesert of any: but for the sake of the Honest-Hearted I have said some thing, enough for the place and occasion; If any desire further Satis∣faction, they may please to peruse a Book entituled No Cross, No Crown, and the Serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers, pag. 139, 140, 141, 142. which with several others, sufficiently vindicate both our Principle and Practice in this particular, as also others of the same Na∣ture and tendency.

His fourth Fling at us is about Womens S••aking in the Church,* 1.47 in which point he would seem to Triumph not a little over G. F. Let your Women keep Silence in the Chur∣ches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; bnt they are comman∣ded to be under Obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home; for it is a shame for Women to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. Here if

the Apostle (sayes he) doth not command Silence to Women by Sex, in those cases, wherein he allows men by Sex to speak, I understand nothing that is written; But G. F. pag. 380. sayes,—Now the

Woman here hath an Husband to ask, and not usurp Autho∣rity over the Man; but Christ in the Male, as in the Female, who redeems from under the Law, and makes free from the Law, that man may speak, &c.

Now if we may take Liberty to expound the Scripture thus, it will be a Nose of wax, that may be turned which way we please: Besides, it seems to be built upon a mis∣reading of Husband for Husbands, because Christ, who is but One, is made the Husbands that must be asked at home. So one of your Authors saith,

But what Husbands have Widdows to learn of but Christ? And was not Christ the Husband of Philip's four Daughters? and may not they that learn of their Husbands speak then?

But before I go any further it may be observed, how very slight his return is to G. F's Sense of the place: and especially, that though he quotes another Friends Query on the matter, he never offers to give it any Answer, and I am really perswaded, he was confounded by it.

However, why is it so abusive of the Scripture, to say that which the Scripture saith it self? Are not the Spirits of Belie∣vers properly the Lambs Bride, as being the ••••ue Church, to which he is a Bridegroom, and ••f which he is the Head? Me∣thinks he must never have read, or at least have forgot what he read in the Scriptures of Truth, who denies this: If so then, why is it Improper or Abusive as he calls it, to say, that when Mens Spirits of themselves, especially in the unlearned State, speak, it is that Woman, which is forbidden to speak of her self, since the Context saith, that though they may all speak one by one, yet it is if any thing be revealed to them, which because that cannot be without Christ reveal it, whom the Father hath or∣dained to be his eternal Word, by which to declare to man the invisible things of his Kingdom; it follows, that it is Christ the Bridegroom and Husband of his People, who by his Power speaks through his People, to the Edification of his Body? And as the Wo∣man is the Weaker Vessel, so is Man in comparison of Christ; and therefore may not unfitly be accounted a Woman, from

his comparative imbecillity: So that as Christ Presides or Governs in the Assemblies of his People, it may be rather said, the Man, th•••• is, the Bridegroom and Husband of his People speaks in them, and by them, then they themselves, who without him, are but as the Strength of a Woman, and it being her place to yield to the Soveraignity of her Lord and Husband, to whom is ordained the Rule, she ought to receive the Law from his mouth, who is the everlasting High-Priest, and Prophet of his People.

But now suppose I should yield it to him that the Apostle chiefly intended the Words in a Literal Sense, and not so mysti∣cally, as we have already discours'd, will it therefore be un∣true mystically? by no means; it is frequent to find both a mystical and literal Sense in the same passage, as when the Evange∣list alludes to Isaiah's Prophecy Chap. 5. 3.* 1.48 proving it to be fulfilled by Christ's bodily Cures; which is true in that Sense, yet hath one more inward and mystical. But to be short, I utterly deny from the Literal Text, that Women are prohibited to preach, singly as Women, or of that Sex, and for no other Reason, and consequently that some Women may preach, which I prove thus.

If the Apostle had Companions and Fellow-Labourers in the Gospel that were Women, then we ought to believe, that all Women, as Women only, were not by him denyed to speak in the Church: But the Apostles had Female Fellow-Labourers in the Gospel; therefore not all Women, but some Women only, are excluded. That he had such Companions, he him∣self is Witness;* 1.49 I commend unto you (Romans) Ph••be our Sister, which is a Servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea. Great Priscilla and Aquila, my Helpers in Christ Jesus. Again, Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord: Salute the Beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord: who were all Women, Aquila excepted.

Next, If the Prophecy of Joel refer to the Times of the Gospel,* 1.50 in which God promised, To pour out of his Spirit on all Flesh; and your Sons and your Daugh∣ters shall Prophecy, &c. as is remembred, and so apply∣ed by Peter, when the holy Ghost was poured forth at Jerusalem;

then Women were not exempted, as Women, from the Gift of the Holy••Ghost, and Prophesie thereby: But it was never yet questioned by any that I know; and therefore Women, as Women, are so far from being excluded, that they are to partake of the Promise as well as Men.

Again, If Anna preached to the People in the Temple at Jerusalem, the Glorious Day of Israel's Redemption; as may be read in Luke:* 1.51 and if Philip's four Daugh∣ters were Prophetesses: and if Priscilla expounded to Apollo, as well as her Husband, the Way of God more perfectly, even at that time, when he was a Preacher among the People, as may be read at large in the Acts; then say I, with good Reason, Women, as Women, are not denyed by the Apostle to Teach and Instruct in the Wayes of God. But the Scripture evidently proveth, That such Women there have been; and consequently, Women, as Women, are not prohi∣bited.

And methinks the Place, urged by him against it, clearly intimates as much; For, the Apostle is not treating in that Chapter, who, or what Sex shall Prophesie, and what not; but of that Order and Decency which such as Prophesie ought to ob∣serve: For when he said, You may all Prophesie one by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if it had been asked, Who, Men or Women? doubtless he would have answered, All, or every one, provided any thing be revealed to you: So that then this Prohibition of the Apostle, extends on∣ly to their Disorder in the Church, occasioned by their Ignorance, which put them upon the proposing of their Doubts and Scruples un∣seasonably; that is, such of them as were Vnlearned; and not an Anna, a Priscilla, a Tryphena, a Tryphosa, or a Beloved Persis; who Preached Israel's Redemption, and Expounded the Way of the Lord, and were Fellow-Labourers in the Work and Gospel of Christ. So then the words are to be read thus, I permit not an Vn∣learned, or Ignorant Woman, to speak in the Church; and if she will learn any thing, let it be at Home of her Husband, for 'tis a Shame that such a Person should be suffered to trouble the Church with her Vnseasonable and Vnlearned Questions.

And to this sense Grotius himself does more then encline, as

may be read in his Annotations upon this very place; sayes he, Intelligendum vero cum exceptione afflatus Prophetici diximus supra: It is alwayes to be understood with an Exception to Pro∣phetick Motions or Inspirations, as we said before; which implies a plain Contradiction to the Opinion of our Adversary, who vainly supposeth, That Women, as Women, are exempted, Again, he tels us, That such Women are the Subjects of the Apostle's Discourse, who being Ignorant, and not well understanding what may have been spoken by the Teacher in the Congregation, was not to interrupt the Speakers: Ne interrumpant loquentes, sed Mares Domus suae interro∣gent, qui aut respondebunt exse, aut consulent peritiores: but ask their Husbands at Home, who will either answer themselves, or con∣sult those who may be more experienced.

Thus much on this Particular, and I believe enough to recon∣cile all sober minds to the serious Exhortations and Reproofs, as well of Good and Holy Women, as Men; who are also Wit∣nesses of his Resurrection, who was Dead, but is Alive, and lives forever.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Erasm. in John.
• * 1.2

  Mald. in Joan. cap. 1.
• * 1.3

  Drus. in Jo. ••. 1.
• * 1.4

  1 Sam. 14. 22.
• * 1.5

  Psal. 18. 28. 29.
• * 1.6

  Ep. 1. 18.
• * 1.7

  Bez. in not. foed.
• * 1.8

  Heb. 6. 4.
• * 1.9

  Heb. 10. 32.
• * 1.10

  Crell. in Epist. ad Heb. c. 10. vers. 32. comm.
• * 1.11

  John 5. 44. Isa. 3. 17.
• * 1.12

  John 1. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.13

  Vers. 3.
• * 1.14

  Vers. 9.
• * 1.15

  1 Jo. 1.
• * 1.16

  Vers. 4.
• * 1.17

  Vers. 7.
• * 1.18

  Vers. 10,
• * 1.19

  Vers. 12.
• * 1.20

  Orig. in Joan. c. 1. v. 9.
• * 1.21

  Erasm. in prim. cap. Joan. comm.
• * 1.22

  Bez. in nov. faed.
• * 1.23

  Toll in prim. cap. Joan. com. pag. 39.
• * 1.24

  Maldon. in prim. Joan. cap. comm. pag. 411, 412.
• * 1.25

  Vat. in prim. cap. Joan. com.
• * 1.26

  Zeg. in prim. cap. Joan. com.
• * 1.27

  Cam. in Joan. cap. 1. comm.
• * 1.28

  Pag. 39.
• * 1.29

  pag. 40.
• * 1.30

  pag. 42.
• * 1.31

  1 Sam. 3. 13, 14.
• * 1.32

  Rom. 1. 26.
• * 1.33

  Page 42. 43.
• * 1.34

  Pag. 34.
• * 1.35

  See Orig. in Matt. pag. 487.
• * 1.36

  Jerom on the place.
• * 1.37

  Chrys. ••n the place.
• * 1.38

  Amb. on the place.
• * 1.39

  Theophy. on the place.
• * 1.40

  Zeg. in 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 31. Ann.
• * 1.41

  Grot. in prim. Epist. ad Cor. c. 15. Ann.
• * 1.42

  Var. Lect.
• * 1.43

  Page 31. Mat. 23.
• * 1.44

  Pag. 31.
• * 1.45

  Pag. 33. Joh. 20. 13, 14, 15, 16.
• * 1.46

  Page 31. Acts 7. 2.
• * 1.47

  pag. 30.
• * 1.48

  Matth. 8. 17.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 16. 1, 3.
• * 1.50

  Joel 2. 28.
• * 1.51

  Luke 2. 36 Act. 18. 26. cap. 21.