The reviler rebuked: or, A re-inforcement of the charge against the Quakers, (so called) for their contradictions to the Scriptures of God, and to their own scriblings,: which Richard Farnworth attempted to answer in his pretended Vindication of the Scriptures; but is farther discovered, with his fellow-contradictors and revilers, and their doctrine, to be anti-Scriptural, anti-Christian, and anti-spiritual. By John Stalham, a servant of the great bishop and shepherd of souls, appointed to watch his little flock at Terling in Essex.

Section 15.

WHereas I had reasoned upon James Naylers words, If the least degree of light, manifested in the crea∣ture,

be perfect in its measures and in its self, (as he delivers it for doctrine) then it is every way perfect, and no longer the least degree; and therefore J. Nayler contradicted him∣self; R. F. * 1.1 appeals to the book of Few Words pag. 8. and thither let him and the worst Reader I have, go, and finde out the subtilty he chargeth me with: After one charge he gives another, Thou hast here confessed, that if the light be perfect in its measure, and in its self, it is perfect every way.

Rep. It is neither my confession, nor concession, but I reasoned after that maner, to manifest J. N. his contradicti∣on in adjecto, as we say, or in the very terms; for it is as if he had said, the least degree is the greatest degree, and the lowest degree, is the highest degree; which how absurdly contradictious to it self, let rational men be judges. What hath he further to salve the contradiction? Thy imaginati∣ons cannot finde out the highest degree, that are not subject to the lowest, but acts contrary to it, and so to be condemned by it.

Rep. Here are four fresh charges. For the first, I acknow∣ledge my imagination too shallow to reach unto others at∣tainments; but I deny the highest degree of light to be here attainable, 1 Cor. 13. I know 'tis in heaven to be found. I am content to look through Pauls glass, and the believers Pro∣spective, and to know things here in a Riddle, and in a My∣stery. The Zenith of the Saints light, is not to be seen while* 1.2 we are under the Sun, when that which is perfect is come (which comes not in this life in point of light; and there∣fore not of holines, by the way) then that which is imperfect shall be done away: But this I know that I am more bru∣tish then a man, and have not the knowledge of the Holy. And how little is the portion of the knowledge of God and Christ, that is to be found among all the Saints? were it all put together, it would, haply, amount but to the least de∣gree of that which shall be known, by every of them, here∣after. The knowledge of the love of Christ is the highest piece of knowledge, and that passeth my knowledge, if not R. Farnworths; yet this I know that nothing shall be known in heaven, nor to eternity, but the foundation and subject matter of it, is already laid in the Scripture. Besides Scri∣pture-knowledge

for the matter (I do not say for the ma∣ner) I profess my self to know nothing; and the least de∣gree of that light which shineth in the Scripture, concern∣ing Christ and him crucified, I esteem above the highest de∣gree of the light that every man cometh into the world withal.

A second charge followeth, But thou art not subject to the lowest [degree of light.]

Rep. 1. Will R. F. grant the light which every man hath to be the lowest light? and Gospel-light to be a higher light? and what the Saints have in heaven to be higher then what the Saints have on earth? then I hope the least degree of light is not perfect in its measures as in its self, as his fellow asserted.

2. What if I were perfectly subject to the least and lowest degree of light? will that advance me to light of another kinde? if not, I shall thank free grace for giving light of a higher nature (though I never obeyed natural light as I ought, and as I might; and every man might do more with his natural abilities then he doth.)

A third charge, But thou acts contrary to it.

Rep. This I take to be a third winnowing of Satan. What I have done herein, the Lord hath known, and knows (and not R. F.) And He knows how to pardon it, and hath par∣doned it in Christ. But if I do not advance every mans light into the place of the Saints light, I act not against natural light (though above it) but for the light of Saints. And if I attribute more to true spiritual light, then to natural, and do not call that spiritual, which is not so (in the specifical or proper form and being of it) but call a Spade a Spade, I hope R. F. will bear with me, or blame himself for allow∣ing of that distinction (as above) where he said, the light which discovers corruption is not natural, but spiritual, with∣out explication of himself according to Scripture.

A fourth charge followeth [and so to be condemned by it] A sentence I may call it, as well as a charge; but it is well I shall be condemned by the light, not in the dark as R. F. doth adjudge me, at his pleasure: well, I say, that I shall be tryed and judged in another Court then his captious

judgement; and well for me still, that I have submitted to the sentence of Gods legal Court for abuse of natural light, and yet have made use of my liberty in Christ, to appeal unto a higher Court then Gods own Law (so far as it holds forth a Covenant of works, and sentence of life or death upon my own works) even to the throne of Grace, and to the Gospel-sentence, of Gods free justifying a sinner that believeth in Jesus; there, I am sure, neither R. F. nor the devil himself can lay any thing to my charge, as to my con∣demnation before God. It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? But in way of Reply before men, I must attend R. F. * 1.3 and desire my Reader to observe how he goes on to make good J. Nayler his assertion. For it (the light in its least measure) is perfect, both in respect of its truth, and sincerity, power and authority, and condemns the haters and resisters of it. Thus R. F. To which I Reply,

1. What is this to perfection of degrees? Here is a migh∣ty fall from the highest to the lowest, for this kinde of per∣fection, viz. of truth (which I had granted) is so in the highest degree, that it belongs also to the lowest. The least drop of* 1.4 water is true water, perfectwater in respect of its truth, as all that is in the Ocean: so the least beam of light is true light, and (in that sense) perfect, whether it be Creation-light, or Redemption-light, either is true (for its kinde) in the least degree, and perfect as to the true being; But,

2. The deceit lyeth here, when men will put off that for Redemption-light, which is but old Creation-light. A Bristol stone is a true Bristol stone, but if it be put off for a Diamond-spark, it is counterfeit; there is not truth in it, as to the repute and estimation of it: so, the least degree of old Creation-light, (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which may be* 1.5 known of Gods eternal power, goodness and wisedom, in and by the contemplation of the creature) is true for the kinde, and is called [truth] Rom. 1. 18. which the Gentiles imprisoned in unrighteousness, but this hath not the least spark of Redemption-light, which Adam had not before the fall, and was not manifested after the fall till the first promise, Gen. 3. 15. And if it be commended, and set off for saving light, it proves false light, and darkness it self, (so far is it

from perfection of degrees, that it hath not the least spark of Gospel-sincerity.

3. As for any power and authority, that the least or the greatest degree of old-creation-light hath (as it is given back since the fall) (though it be loved and obeyed) to lead into the life and power of the Saints comprehensions of the re∣deeming love of God in Christ (which R. F. hinteth at) I know none: God hath never blest it, nor promised to bless it, nor ordained it for that end.

4. If they intend it onely of the Saints light or the Spirits light, which R. F. in his Epistle saith is perfect in its least mea∣sure, still that is onely to be understood (as I said in my other piece) in respect of its truth and sincerity, and that hath life and power in it already, and doth not lead into it (as R. F. speaks) but in respect of a further degree of the same kinde: for although the good use of natural light doth not lead into Spiritual light and life, yet the good use of the least true spark of Spiritual saving light, in Christ the Mediator, hath a promise of further increase of light of the same Spiritual nature. There follows another passage in R. F. which I would scan a little, They that love and obey the least degree of light, are in unity, the highest and lowest in their measures and degrees.

Rep. 1. If this be meant of them that have the lowest de∣gree* 1.6 of Creation-light, and of such as have the highest de∣gree of Redemption-light, it confounds the natural and Spiritual man together, the sinner or graceless, and the gracious Saint; yea, the meanest man, as a man, with the most glorious Saint in heaven, as a Saint, but how erroneous is this notion? What unity are they in (that is a saving uni∣ty) some of whom have not the Spirit, Jude v. 19. others have; some have union with Christ a Redeeming, Sancti∣fying Head, others not? Doth R. F. think that such as obey the lowest degree of light manifested in the Creature, are in unity with the Saints, that comprehend something of the height and breadth, length and depth of the love of God, and Christ which passeth knowledge? or that men using their Talent of Nature well (could they do it) shall meet the Saints in heaven, who are enabled to use their Talent of

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Grace in a saving maner? far be any of his or my Readers* 1.7 from such Popish, Jesuitical conceptions.

2. If he meaneth onely, that the Saints of lower or higher forms, and degrees of Redemption-light and grace are in unity, this is granted in some respect, viz. of perfect Justification, sincere Sanctification, and what one-ness the Apostle speaks of, Ephes. 4. 4, 5, 6. But why then doth he and his sect separate from them that have higher or lower de∣grees of light and grace then themselves? and how comes it they are so full of Saint and Self-contradictions?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 27.
• * 1.2

  Saints light not at the highest pitch.
• * 1.3

  Page 27.
• * 1.4

  Every thing is true, and perfect for the kinde, as it is Gods work.
• * 1.5

  Rom 1. 19.
• * 1.6

  Creation-light and Re∣demption-light m••st not be con∣founded.
• * 1.7

  Section 16, 17.