to mankind he has variously appeared, not by different lights, but different manifeftations only of one and the fame eternal light of life and righteousness.

CHAP. XV.

The second part of the objection, that CHRIST was not anciently called the LIGHT, answered. And the contrary proved from fcripture and reafon.

O the fecond part of the objection, If the light in every man were Chrift, how comes it that the Jews and Greeks never called it fo?' I answer, We do not say that the light, strictly, in every man, is Chrift, but of or from Chrift. He is that fulness from whence all receive a measure of divine light and knowledge; but not that every individual has the whole or complete Chrift in him, fo as to be no-where elfe! Such an abfurdity never fell from us, nor is it confequent of our doctrine, though the malice of our adverfaries hath charged it upon both. But as the external fun darts its light upon the organ of the eye of the body, by which it conveys true difcerning to act about vifible things; fo doth the internal fun of righ teoufnefs fhine upon the eye of the foul, giving it the knowledge of thofe invifible things which properly relate to the nature of the foul. So that we are the lefs obliged to give a reason why others called not the light in man Christ, fince we renounce all share in fuch belief ourselves, ftrictly speaking. Yet thus far I will say, that Chrift was called light before ever he was in the world, though not before he was Chrift." I will "give him for a light to lighten the Gentiles, &c." Now if any will fay that this light was not Chrift, let them tell us fo in plain words: but if it will be allowed, they had beft afk, why the prophet, by the Holy Ghoft, fhould call Chrift" Light," even as foon as, if not before, he was called "Chrift?" And why, in that very state in which he was called "Chrift," he fhould

should also be called Light?" Certain it is, then, that by "him," the light, we are to understand "Chrift;" which is one and the fame thing as if he had faid, I will give CHRIST for a light to enlighten the Gentiles;' or, He who is the Chrift, is the LIGHT; or the light is CHRIST.' So that it will follow, the Gentiles were enlightened by CHRIST; which is the whole of what we understand by our affertion, as to the "Light in man."

.

Again, John exprefsly calls that light, with which every man is enlightened, "the WORD;" and the Word is faid to have "taken flefh." If then he that took flesh was CHRIST, and confequently that body Chrift's body only, (as none, I think, will dare deny, but Muggleton, and his credulous followers) it will follow, That CHRIST, who took, or appeared in, that prepared body, is the LIGHT with which every man is lighted.'

Farther, Chrift himself says, "I am the light of the "world" which is as much as if he had faid, I

have lighted, or fhined forth to, the world' therefore the light which fhines in the hearts of mankind, is CHRIST. Though we do not fay that every particular illumination is the entire Chrift; for fo there would be as many Chrifts as there are men, which were abfurd and blafphemous.

But laftly, the apoftle himself calls him Christ, before his coming in the flesh; fo that Christ was Chrift before his appearance in that holy body at Jerufalem, which clears that point in controversy. For the ftrefs of the objection, as to this particular, lies here: Chrift, as Christ, was not before he took flesh;' therefore though it fhould be granted, that as the WORD-GOD, all are enlightened by him, yet not as he is CHRIST, before that vifible appearance. But if Christ was not before, then the manhood, that was taken in time, muft only be the Chrift: but I would fain know fuch people's reafons for it. The dilemma in fhort is this, That fuch as deny Chrift to have been Christ before that coming, thwart as plain a text as

Cc 2

the

the fcriptures have; and if they fhould allow it, their oppofition to our affertion muft appear unfound and reprovable. Howbeit, fince Chrift, as the WORDGOD, hath lighted all men antecedent to his coming in the flesh, (as most of our objectors confefs) and that the apoftle fays, that "the Word was Chrift," or that Chrift was before he came in the flesh;" in that Chrift was, in the wilderness, " a Rock to Ifrael,'" (unless Chrift and the Word are two diftinct beings, or that there be two diftinct Chrifts) Chrift was "that light which lighted mankind;" and that very light with which mankind was lighted, was the "VERY "CHRIST OF GOD;" and confequently the light has been called, both exprefsly and implicitly, CHRIST, before that vifible appearance at Jerufalem.

Nor is the allegation of that fcripture against us pertinent to the matter in hand, viz. "Which none "of the princes of this world knew, &c." for that was spoken in reference to the "Wifdom which had "been hid," and not to the mere manhood of Christ. But fuppofe his holy manhood concerned in it, we have this to fay, That fuch as rejected him, and much more those that crucified him, in his outward appearance, had first despised and flain him within:' they were of thofe, as Job faid, who "rebelled

against the light, and loved not the ways thereof." And I affirm, against all oppofers, that it was by the fight this divine light within gave to Simeon, Peter, Nathanael, and all others who believed in him, that they truly came to confefs him, and fuffer for him. Yea, fuch as had not out-finned their day, and finally hardened their hearts, as others by wicked works had done; but, through the light of the Lord had in good measure kept their confciences void of offence, they received and embraced him. The light knew its own: the leffer led to the greater; and the greater light as naturally attracted the leffer, as we may see fire does every day.

I Cor. x. 3, 4,

To

To conclude this particular, led me add, that they were not the princes of this world that put him outwardly to death; for it came by the envious and wicked accufations of the Jews (a broken conquered people) to Pilate, governor of a province only: therefore, fince I believe what the apoftle faith to be true, I have rather reafon to infer that it was meant of Chrift myftically, than of that vifible body. However it be, that part of our adversaries objection about the light's not being called Chrift, antecedent to his coming in the flesh, can be of no weight to the matter under debate, fince we have fo evidently made the contrary appear.

CHA P. XVI.

The third part of the objection; If Chrift was enjoyed under the law, as he was if the light be < Chrift, why was he typified?' is proved of no force. The type and anti-type, in fome refpects, may be at one and the fame time: this is proved by plenty of fcripture. Our adverfaries oppofition and cavil weak and unfuccefsful.

T

HE third part of the objection, and what seems at first fight to carry fomething of moment against us, is this? If the light within be Chrift, and the Jews and Gentiles had it from the beginning of the world, how can Chrift be faid to be typified out, as not come, and prophefied of to come, when by your own principle he hath been always come?' I anfwer; This part of the objection is in fome refpect built upon the fame mistake as was the fecond, namely, that the illumination within is intirely Chrift; concerning which, I have plainly and truly expreffed myfelf before. I will therefore faithfully ftate the queftion for them thus: Well, but ftill you fay, Christ lighted Jews and Gentiles before that ifible coming: if fo, then was he come, by your own princi

Cc 3

ple,

ple, whilft his coming was typified out, and pro< phefied of: doth not this feem a contradiction?" "But to this I fay, that the fuppofed contradiction ariseth from the mistake of the difpenfation; for it takes for granted, that there was no difference in the degree of illumination before, and at, the coming of Christ in that vifible manner into the world; which all muft needs confefs. For as I would be understood, when I call the light before and after Chrift's coming in the flesh, LIGHT, to mean but one and the felf-fame light in nature; fo let none apprehend, as if we made no difference, by the acknowledgment of a more eminent manifeftation of the fame light. What follows then? Why thus much moft clearly, that under the enjoyment of the lesser manifeftation of light, fuited to the then childish ftate of the Jews, God was pleased to allure them after an expectation of higher things, by types and prophecies of that far more excellent and exceeding glorious difpenfation of the light and love of God in after-ages.

The end of God's giving the Ifraelites that outward prophet and leader Mofes, was, to bring to the inward leader, CHRIST JESUS: and though they, through carnality and weakness, were not then fenfible of him, fo as to stay their minds upon him, yet Mofes prophefied of him and indeed all the external dealings of God with men, have been to bring to Chrift, the feed within, which is able to "bruife the ferpent's head," and did fo, in fome measure, through all ages. So that with good reason and truth we may affert, Christ, the light, was the rock that followed Ifrael in the wilderness (who is the rock of ages, and foundation of all generations, and who ever lighted all mankind, the fame yesterday, to-day, and for ever); ❝ yet a greater manifeftation of that divine light might be typically preached forth under the enjoyment of

< the leffer.'

And that we herein are not without the fuffrage of the fcriptures to our defence, I would fain know, if, notwithstanding all thofe outward washings of those