There are besides two substantive formations from the verb; 2 Cor. 4: 4, 6. or rather one that occurs twice, and which it may be well to examine. How does "the bright shining of a candle give us light?"

4. There is no necessity of any sort that we should so interpret the passage, as Friends, in their rapid à priori presumptions or inspiration-way, are wont with singular audacity to affirm its meaning: this however is their way; a perfectly homogeneous one; like their first error and whole system.

(1) It may be differently rendered, without any outrage to the laws of language, to read thus; "which coming into the world, lighteth every man ;" where the participle coming is construed to agree with light and not with man. This version has had the sanction of many respectable names, and especially of Dr. Campbell, that prince of philological learning.

(2) It may simply refer to the catholic largeness of the new dispensation, whose jurisdiction is properly "all the world," and whose formal object is

.66

every creature;" without all distinction of nation, sect, or party; it thus "enlightens" or shines upon or toward "every man that cometh into the world.”

(3) It may signify merely that every one that ever was truly enlightened obtained from "the word " all his light; which is plainly true. This appears probable when we reflect on the obvious scope of the passage. The design of John, in the sublime introduction of his gospel, is evidently to describe and signalize THE ETERNAL WORD. He tells us one thing and then another, all tending to evince

his divine eminence and the consequent inferiority of all other lights as dependent on him. On this hypothesis, it may be thus paraphrased; "never a man entered the world, who was truly informed in the things of God, but as the result of light communicated by Jesus Christ." This view makes the sentence elliptical, and requires us to understand after it, "who ever was truly enlightened." It also accords with the known style of John. He abounds with ellipses and bold expressions; and his style ought to be studied and understood, before a detached passage is hastily interpreted against the general scope of all his and all the other sacred writings. Take one instance. "All that ever came before me, are thieves and robbers." John, 10: 8. This is a plain and a bold ellipsis. Supply the words, "professing to be the Messiah," after the first clause; and you have the meaning. These words the writer expects the reader to supply. Otherwise, Moses, David, and Elijah, to speak of no others, were "thieves and robbers." Friends sometimes literalize extravagantly.

That one, or possibly all (for they are related) of these three renderings are the truth, I am confident. The style is dense; the meaning manifestly general and comprehensive. With respect to the first version, it may be remarked that our translation (that cometh) is unauthorized by the original. Instead of the relative and the verb there ought to have appeared simply the participle active of the verb come; thus, "every man coming into the world." Then, if coming agrees with man instead

of light, it proves too much—it proves that the man is enlightened in the act or moment of entering the world! If this be admitted, it may be inquired what possible good can it do him? and also, what becomes of him afterward? Is he enlightened just then, once for all? Is it a natal inserted light! But if coming agrees with light, (and grammatical law does in no way reclaim at the supposition,) then the first rendering seems valid. Also, the next verse favors the view. There the light becomes personal, changing the neuter to the masculine; thus, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

5. If the interpretation of Friends be correct, then it was antecedently the design of the Apostle and of the Holy Ghost to express their view; but, supposing such design, is not the text an evident failure? or at best a very imperfect expression? I think it might be materially improved, especially by Barclay, who, when he wishes to express the same thing, uses such language as the following; "the saving and spiritual light, wherewith every man is enlightened-there is an evangelical and saving light and grace in all-the universality of the love and mercy of God toward mankind (both in the death of his beloved son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the manifestation of the light in the heart) is established and confirmed against all the objections of such as deny it." I think, if I had been about to express the doctrine of Friends just there, that I should have used language, on such an immensely important article, l.ke to this: Every hu

man being since the fall, that enters the world, has an internal seed or principle of divinity in his heart, by attending to whose "OBJECTIVE MANIFESTATIONS" he comes to the saving knowledge of God; either with or without the assistance of outward means. This is surely their doctrine. It is also very different from that taught in the text. I consider it a "damnable heresy." 2 Pet. 2:1.

This remark may be extended to the whole scriptures. Why were they written at all, since a paramount rule, a superior light, pre-existed universally? why was so MUCH written, when ten sentences or none might have sufficed to put men upon their internal resources? and why was SUCH A BOOK written, when the only possible use of any book could be to inform men of a superior light, which they could not see by its own beams, nor feel by its own fire? Those best acquainted with the sober contents of the whole Bible, are best qualified to answer these questions-especially if (which is a rare thing) they happen also to understand Quakerism.

6. But suppose it proves the reality of a universal inward light, shining constantly and yet near to suffocation, somewhere above or below the diaphragm not to be too nice on questions that tend to researches topical and physiological, I discern another difficulty. I could not descend into their mine, without a better safety-lamp than Sir Humphrey Davy could invent, against the detonation of subterranean gases! I have no "faith in the effectual operation" of the non-descript glimmer within.

Why? Plainly, because an old man might believe in the existence of "a reed shaken with the wind," without making a walking-cane of it. Even if the light within exists, and if this text proves it, the very same connection proves that-it is not a rule at all or a totally insufficient one, and in either case disproves the doctrine of Friends. For (1) it is not discernible by its own light. "The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Hence the ministry is necessary, by the word of God to teach men; as John "was sent to bear witness of that light," else undiscoverable. But (2). John did not point out that light; the idea of such a splendor or spark within, seems never to have entered his mind. He testifies of Jesus Christ, points to "the Lamb of God," and tells the people to "behold" him. v. 15-36. Hence (3) the word of God is the rule, and this light, whatever else it is, is plainly no rule at all; but that word is, led by which, we see the light and walk in it. I am here not explaining the text, so much as confuting their view of it. (4) The light, construed by admission as that of Friends, is plainly inefficacious. Not one in fifty millions of its subjects ever knew of any such thing in them, or even thought they did. Hence it is insufficient and ineffectual. It is not "able to make us wise unto salvation," without being 'outwardly' taught by Friends what to do with it! Hence it cannot be so superior to the "holy scriptures" as to take precedency of them and reduce them to the rank of "a secondary rule." (5) Soberly, we allege that there exists no supernatural