The Quakers Quaking, Postscript
POSTSCRIPT.
READER,
AFter I ſent my book to the Preſs, I had another Conference with James Nayler, on the 22 of June, 1656. at the Bull and Mouth neer Alderſgate; which was as followeth:
The people being met, and James Nayler ſtanding up to ſpeak, I did deſire that James Nayler would prove that which he had ſo often afferted, viz. That every man in the world had the Light within him, ſpoken of in John 1. To this James Nayler replyed, ſaying, That Chriſt did inlighten every man that came into the world, according to Joh. 1. To this I anſwered, That I did not oppoſe the ſaying of that Text, but his ſaying, which was, That every one in the world had the Light within him, Spoke of in that Text. To this James Nayler replies, ſaying, He would have me bring him a man in that place, that would ſay the Light of Chriſt was not in him.
To this I did anſwer, Firſt, that every man in the world was not in that place; and therefore if every one in that place ſhould ſay, This Light was in them, it did not follow, that therefore that Light ſpoken of Joh. 1. was in every one in the world.
But ſecondly, I told him, That if every one in that place would ſay, they had this Light in them; it did … as I fear many of this generation do: I did therefore bid James Nayler to give me a Scripture to prove, that every one had the Light within them, ſpoken of Joh. 1. He anſwers, That it was proved already in every mans Conſcience: but (ſaith he) it is not evidenced; for if it were, there would need no Teaching. To this I replyed, that if it were proved to every mans conſcience, then it was EVIDENCED; for proof and evidence to the conſcience, was one and the ſame: which he denied. I further told him, That the conſcience might be miſguided; and therefore it did not follow, that a thing is therefore true, becauſe a man in conſcience thinks it ſo: I therefore, as before, call'd for a plain Text for proof of what he ſaid. He thereupon brings Eph. 5.13. 2 Cor. 4.6. I told him, Neither of theſe Scriptures did prove, That every man in the world had the Light within him, ſpoken of Joh. 1. and therefore if he had any Scripture that ſaid it, he would do well to produce it; and if not, to forbear preaching any ſuch thing, that he could ſhew no Scripture for. Hereupon James aſſumes an Apoſtolical Authority, and ſaith, That though there were no Scripture that ſaid what he ſaid, yet it might be true: for (ſaith he) the Apoſtles ſaid many things, that THEY had no Scripture for. To this I replyed, That he was no Apoſtle; and therefore, as before, call'd for a proof of this notion (that they preach in moſt places where they come) viz. That everyone hath this Light within him. He hereupon demanded, How Chriſt was the Light that lighteth every one that comes into the world, if this Light was not in every one. To this I did anſwer, (as formerly) That God and Chriſt were uſually ſaid in Scripture-dialect, to do things for the world, when they did uſe a means ſufficient for the doing of it; and ſo Chriſt is ſaid to take away the ſin of the world; and to be the Saviour of the world; and the Saviour of ALL men; though all men ſhall not be ſaved: inaſmuch as he hath by his dying for the world, put all men into a ſalvable capacity: In like manner he lighteth every one that comes into the world, inaſmuch as he uſeth means for the bringing the world to the Light; though all have not this Light WITHIN them. Again, I told James Nayler, That this Light in Joh. 1. was Chriſt, who is the Light of the world; and if every one had this Light in them, then every one had Chriſt in them: But I told him, that could not be, becauſe we reade Eph. 2. of ſome that were WITHOUT Chriſt.
I further told him, That the Scriptures told us of ſome that had NO Light in them, Joh. 11.10. Iſa. 8.20. He anſwered, That poſsibly God had put out their Light, becauſe they did not walk according to it. To this I did reply, That then he did contradict himſelf; for if ſome had no Light in them, becauſe God had put it out, How could he ſay, EVERY ONE HATH this Light IN him? But further, the Text in Joh. 11. ſaith, that If A MAN walks in the dark, he ſtumbles, BECAUSE there is NO Light IN him: Now I told James Nayler, That thoſe that he ſayes he turns from darkneſs, are ſuch as WALK in darkneſs, by their own confeſſion; and if ſo, then whether it be not better to ſay with the Texts There is no light in him; then to ſay contrary to the Text, with the Quakers, that when men walk in darkneſs, The light of Chriſt is in them?
Hereupon James Nayler asked, If the heathen had not a Light? I told him, firſt, that they might have a light among them, that they might not receive within them. And ſecondly, that though they had a Light in them, yet this did not prove, that the Light which they had, was the Light ſpoken of Joh. 1. which Light is Chriſt Jeſus; which is the thing they affirm. I therefore did intreat him, to reconcile their Doctrine with Joh. 11.10. Their Doctrine is, that Every one hath the Light of Chriſt within him: John ſaith, If a man walk in the dark, he ſtumbleth, becauſe there is NO Light IN him. To this James Nayler replyed, that there were two ſeeds in man; and there was an old man and a new man; and a man born after the fleſh, and a man born after the Spirit. ſo that (ſaith he) he that is the old man, and born after the fleſh, he hath no Light in him. I then asked him, How every one that comes into the world, hath the light of Chriſt in him, if he that is born after the fleſh have not the Light within him? for (as I then told him) no man comes into the world, but he is born after the fleſh. He anſwers, that I ſpake like a Sot, in ſaying, that very man that came into the world was born after the fleſh: for (ſaith he) Chriſt was not born after the fleſh. To this I did reply, ſaying, that I had heard it reported, that the Quakers ſhould deny Chriſt to be born according to the fleſh, but I never heard it from any of their mouths before: which ſaying, I told Ja: Nayler, was contary to theſe expreſs Scriptures, Rom. 1.3. where it is ſaid, that Chriſt was made of the ſeed of David, according to the FLESH: and Rom. 9.5. Of whom as concerning the FLESH Chriſt came, who is over all, God bleſſed for over: and Gal. 4.4. Chriſt was MADE of a woman, &c. and Acts 2.30. James Nayler ſeeing this was a broadfac'd piece of Hereſie, was willing to cover it with the Fig-leaf of this diſtinction, viz. That it was one thing for Chriſt to be born after the fleſh, and another thing to be born according to the fleſh. To this I replyed, that the Scriptures made no ſuch diſtinction: for when Moſes did all things ACCORDING to the patern ſhewed him in the Mount, Heb. 8.5. do but compare it with the command in Exod. 5.40. and you will finde, That God bids Moſes look that he made things AFTER the faſhion ſhewed him in the Mount: Now may not a man as well ſay, that Moſes did not do things after the patern, becauſe the Scriptures ſaith, He did it according to the patern; as this man may ſay, Chriſt was not born after the fleſh, becauſe the Scriptures ſaith, He was born according to the fleſh? Therefore let me ask one queſtion, Whether a man may not as well ſay, That Moſes did not all things after the patern, becauſe the Scriptures ſay, He did all things according to the patern; as ſay, That Chriſt was not born after the fleſh, becauſe the Scriptures ſaith, He was born according to the fleſh? But further, That you may ſee that there is no place for this diſtinction about the caſe in hand, do but take notice, That Beza renders the Text in Gal. 4.29. where it is ſaid, That Abraham had a ſon born AFTER the fleſh, &c. Sed quemadmodum tunc is qui SECUNDUM CARNEM, word for word with Rom. 1.3. I mean by word for word, ſo far as concerns the caſe in hand, viz. That it is all one to deny Chriſt to be born after the fleſh, as it is to deny him to be born according to the fleſh: And therefore where it is ſaid, That Chriſt was born according to the fleſh, in that place of the Romans before-cited; Beza likewiſe renders it, De filio ſuo facto ex ſemine Davidis SECUNDUM CARNEM: So that theſe men you ſee are forced to take Sanctuary at any vain diſtinction, that may keep the world from ſeeing into the bottome of their Deſignes; which is indeed to deny Chriſt to be made fleſh, or to be come in the fleſh: For is it not the ſame to ſay, That he was not born after the fleſh?
This was the ſum of the laſt Conference, with ſome additional Anſwers, that I had not then liberty (by reaſon of the confuſion that was among them) to give in at that time. And leſt any ſhould think that theſe words are ſuch as might fall from him in haſte, or unadviſedly, about his denying Chriſts being born after the fleſh, and therefore I ought not to inſiſt ſo much upon them: Let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, that for more ſurety, when I was going away, I did ask the queſtion again, Whether he did believe Chriſt was born after the fleſh? or, Whether he did deny it? He anſwered, That he did deny Chriſt was ever born after the fleſh; and ſo did another of their Proſelytes the ſame day in the afternoon, before hundreds of people, at a private Meeting in Beech-lane; who when the Sermon was ended, ſtood up, and oppoſed what was then and there delivered; and withall did ſay, That he did deny that Chriſt was born after the fleſh. Now what is this leſs, then to deny Chriſt come in the fleſh? which is an Antichriſtian Doctrine, 1 Joh. 4.3. And the ſame John ſaith, that Whoſoever ſhall deny Chriſt come in the fleſh, is a deceiver, 2 Joh. 7. For many deceivers are entred into this world, which confeſs not that Jeſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh: He is a Deceiver, and an Antichriſt; and if theſe men are not ſuch Deceivers, I know not what deceit is: Therefore let every one in the fear of God try the Spirits of theſe men, and ſee if this which hath fallen from their mouthes, doth not prove them to be what I have ſaid of them; and the Lord give you underſtanding in all things.
Vale.
FINIS.
End of the text · Jeremiah Ives, The Quakers Quaking (1656)