THe Apostle in his Catalogue of the evils of the latter times, 1 Tim. 4.2. reckons up such as speak lyes in hy­pocrisie, having their Consciences seared with a hot iron, to be none of the least, who by a shew of Self­denial in Marriage and Meats, &c. should introduce (by their heeding seducing spirits) Doctrines of Devils; and surely this Prophesie aimed much at the men call'd Quakers; which I shall make appear (God assisting me) by what [Page 2]follows, in answer to their Book, call'd Weakness above Wickedness.

And for the more orderly proceeding herein, I shall first speak to the Title-page of it, where they are pleased to call their book, THE QUAKERS DE­FENCE, &c. Here I do observe one thing, That my book hath made these men own themselves Quakers; for they were ashamed of their Names before, and usually call'd themselves, Such as were NICK-NAMED Quakers; yet now they call their book, The QUA­KERS Defence. So that here they did tell a notori­ous Lye, His first LYE. in saying, The WORLD did Nick-name them Quakers, when they give that Name to themselves.

I now come to the book it self, where he begins, and sayes, pag. 1. That the Apostle well knew what he said, when he desired the Saints prayers, That he might be delivered from men without faith, &c.

Truly, the Devil speaks truth sometimes, and so do you, in saying, The Apostle well knew what he said; but surely, you are no Apostles, that speak things you know not, and are vainly puft up with a fleshly minde, as appears by what I have said in my last, and shall yet further make manifelt in due place.

Thou tellest me, His 2. LYE. That I deny the Faith of God, which is the gift of God in his Saints, &c. This I never did, either by word or writing: And though he ought to have proved, that I denied the Faith, being he char­geth it upon me, yet he brings no proof at all, but his bare assertion. I shall therefore give the Reader some sayings of mine, and leave him to judge, whether they look like the words of a man that did deny the Faith of God, and set up a Faith of his own, as he falsly ac­cuseth me. As first, in my Epistle to the Churches, I [Page 3]call upon them, to take heed that they were not spoiled of their joy and confidence they had in CHRIST JESUS; and, that they would let none of the words of OUR LORD JESUS slip out of their minde; and, that they would have high and honourable thoughts of the SCRIPTURES; and, that they would prize the Ordinances of GOD; and pag. 16. of my book, I do exhort, that men would take heed of turning the Truth of GOD into a Lye: Nay, doth not he tell me, That I did confess, that Christ lighteth every man that comes into the world, in his answer, pag. 5? And do not I all along through my book, profess Christ to be the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, and JUDGE of the World? and is not this the Faith of God? and yet this man sayes, I deny the Faith of God.

In the second page he insists upon some things, which (he saith) I spake at Gerrard Roberts house, which I shall take notice of hereafter; because he is so full of Tautalogies, and speaks very often in his book, of something relating thereto, and therefore it will be lost labour to speak to any thing, till I come to speak to the whole. The rest of the second page hath little besides, but a pack of swelling words of vanity; as Vain Philosophy, Deceitful Craft, Unreasonable blasphemous Doctrines, Cursed Art, charging me with setting up the spirit of the Devil; and, that I had mustered up a heap of Lyes, and a heap of Subtilty, &c. Let me tell thee, James, these words had done well, when thou hadst proved me so; and then they would better have be­come the Conclusion, then the Preface of thy book.

Thou goest on, and sayest, in the latter end of p. 2. that thou wilt not trouble thy self to answer every particular of my vain stories, &c. Truly, I do believe, that thou wouldst be as much troubled to answer to them, [Page 4]and prove them so, as ever thou wast in thy life; and therefore it was cunningly thought on by thee, to ease thy self of the trouble, and call them Lyes, vain stories, and slanders: Here thou hast done like thy self.

Thou goest on, and quarrelst with my Epistle to the Churches, and sayest, If my brethren, with me, have de­nied the Faith of Christ, and set up a Faith of their own, it is like my work will be welcome. To this I have answered already in my Reply to thy first Page: and because I will not call this another Lye, I shall onely say it is the former Lye reiterated the second time.

Thou leapest over my Epistle to the Reader, and sayest nothing to it, though therein thou wast more concerned, then in the Epistle to the Churches: and from thence comest to speak a little, to little purpose, in pag. 3. of thy book, and that is, That you shall not contend whether the world call you that which is true, or that which is false, when they call you Quakers. If so, then why hast thou troubled thy self so farre, as to call them Ishmaels Brood, that call you so? Your jugling and lying at this turn, which I charge you with in the second and third pages of my book, thou sayest no­thing to, but that thou wilt not trouble thy self whether the world truly or falsly call you so. Oh shameless wretch! dost thou say thou art Nick-named, when thou art call'd Quaker? And when I have used arguments to prove thee a Lyer, in saying, The world Nick-names thee, because thou namest thy self so; thou shakest all off with this, that thou wilt not contend whether they call'd thee truly or falsly. His 3. LYE. But by the way, if they did call thee truly, then thou art a Lyer, in saying they Nick-named thee.

Thou goest on, and in page 3. of thy book, thou tellest me, that I lyed, in saying you foamed at the mouth in your tremblings, &c. But James, remember, that it is not thy bare saying I lye, that proves it so: and thou doest pretend (that so I may repent) to inform me bet­ter. But am I better informed that you did not foam, because you say I lye, in charging you with foaming? Reade, and judge: and yet this is all you bring to in­form me better. And whereas you say. That though it was cast upon you in the Westmerland Petition, and you did not answer to it; it doth not follow (you say) that the Charge was therefore true. To this I reply, That if you had overlooked those passages in the Charge, then in­deed there might be somewhat in what you say: But you printed those particular passages, how that you were charged with swellings and foamings, and that in young children, and yet say nothing to the untruth of them. And though I have again urged the same things, yet you say nothing to your swelling and roar­ing, though it be charged to be in young children.

And whereas in your Answer you deny foamings, yet you do not deny any other part of my Charge. By this the world may see thy wickedness, that thou wavest the most material things, and saist nothing to them.

And whereas thou sayest, I lyed, and the Petitioners lyed, in saying, you foamed: I demand, why both my self and the Petitioners have not better ground to say thou lyest, in denying it, seeing thou hast waved an­swering to it, both when your selves did print the Charge, and also when I did charge you with it afresh in my book? But I do think, that this was one thing that James was not willing to TROUBLE himself [Page 6]with answering: for I perceive, and so may the Rea­der, if he mindes my book and his Answer, That he could not tell how to deny what I and the Petitioners of Westmerland did charge against them.

You now proceed, and in the latter end of page 3. and page 4. you say, that I can finde nothing of the TRUTH you preach that I dare accuse you of. Well said, James, thou wilt speak Truth sometimes, though it be against thy Father the Devils will: for tou sayest, That I can finde nothing of the TRUTH you preach that I dare to accuse you of. Indeed that's true; for I dare not accuse any for holding Truth: But then it seems, if I have accused you of any thing that you preach, it is of the Lyes you preach. This must needs follow; for if (as thou sayest) I dare not accuse thee of the Truths you preach, and yet do accuse you of many things that you preach, as my book declares at large; then it follows, that all that I accuse you with, is of the Lyes you preach; for you have justified me, that I did not dare to accuse you of the TRUTHS you preach.

But in the 3 and 4 pages of thy book, thou sayest, That I do accuse you of somewhat that you never preached; viz. That you say, Nothing must be called Gods Word, but Christ: This (you say) is none of your Doctrine. His 4. LYE. But I wonder who hath ever heard you (unless it be such as are deeply drenched in hypocrisie, and have learned your art of Equivocation, but will say the same thing that I say of you.)

You say also, That I lye, in saying you deny the Scri­ptures to be the Word of God, His 5. LYE. &c. But have not I pro­ved it from your own writings, pag. 6. of my book? And do you not reprove in many places of your books [Page 7]the People and Priest, for calling the Writings The Word. Oh shameless man! to call me a Lyer, for saying nothing of them, but what I have under their own hands. And where my arguments against thee are of that force, that thou knowest not how to an­swer them; Thou tellest the Reader, That it is false in my sense, to say thou deniest the Scriptures to be the Word of God. James, do not juggle; for I did not say you denied the Scriptures to be the Word of God in my sense, but in your own words, that may be found in the books I have cited, and which are owned by you.

But to proceed: James jumps through the 7 and 8 pages of my book, where I make it appear, That they give those Titles to their own Pamphlets, that they will not give to the Scriptures; and thereupon do de­mand a question: To all which James answers not a word. Reader, remember what James said at first, namely, That he would not trouble himself to answer all; and by this he frees himself very cunningly from answering to the most material things I urge against him.

He comes now to speak to the third Error I charge them with, and that is, That they preach they are infalli­bly sent, and cannot prove it. To this he makes his De­fence, by saying, If he had come in his own name, I would have received him. But how doth this appear true? His 6. LYE. for what though I will not believe a man that comes in Gods name, when God never sent him; doth it there­fore follow, that I must needs believe one that comes in his own name?

And whereas he saith in this fourth page of his book, That it is plainly seen of what spirit I am of, because [Page 8]I set it down as an Error, that he preacheth, viz. That they are sent immediately of God: Now here he playes the Serpents part, for he leaves out that which is most material: for I never said it was an Error for men to say they were sent of God, if they could prove it; but, that it was Error and Presumption for one to say it that could not prove it: which words, AND COULD NOT PROVE IT, though that be the scope of the Charge, as any one may see, that reades the Confe­rences contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 pages of my book: For I never denied, but a man that could prove his sending, might say God sent him; but the thing I denied, was, That it was Error and Presumption to say it, when it could not be pro­ved, as I have largely declared in the last fore-cited pages, which James leaps over, and saith nothing to, though therein the two chiefest of our Conferences are published, with the Arguments and Answers, to which he saith nothing.

He now comes to tell us, That the Apostles said they were sent of God, who did not work Miracles in the sight of all they preached to, page. 4. See this mans de­ceit: I challenge him to tell us he did a Miracle at any time for to prove his Ministery, and he answers, That the Apostles did not work Miracles before ALL they preached to. But James, canst thou prove thou hast wrought a Miracle before ANY thou hast preached to? Now I see thou art put to thy shifts: for thou didst say in thy Letter to me, and also in thy Confe­rence at Beech-lane, That there were many sent immediate­ly of God, that did no Miracle. And now my book hath put thee upon saying, that they that were sent im­mediately of God, did not do Miracles at all times, before all [Page 9]they preached to. But how doth this justifie thee, who canst not say thou hast done a Miracle at any time?

Thou goest on still in page 4. and sayest, That I call that an Error, which all the Ministers of Christ did own, p. 4. and thou also sayst, That that which I call Er­ror, thou ownest: and yet but a little before, thou sayest, That I can finde nothing of the Truth you preach, that I dare accuse you of, page 3. Now if I dare not (as you say) accuse you of any Truth you preach; then it must needs follow, that thou art an Heretick con­demned in thy self, and that those are Errors that I charge upon thee; for I dare not (thou sayest) accuse any of the Truth you preach.

You go on, and say, page 4. That you make proof of your Ministery as the Apostles did, in partience, in affliction, His 7. LYE. and necessities, &c. For shame, James, hold thy tongue at this turn, and let some-body else speak: for, where is thy patience, who fil'st thy mouth with great swelling words of vanity against all that oppose thee? when the Saints did not give railing for railing, but (like Christ) they when they were reviled, reviled not a­gain: But I am sure, for railing, thou exceedest any of the Society of Billingsgate, and art fitter to con­verse with Oyster-women, then about the things of God: For Fool, and Sor, and Devil, and Trash, are thy frequent language to any that oppose thee. And though you say, You are persecuted; I do challenge thee to shew me any that have opened their mouths against you in print, that have given you worse language then you have given them; and yet you brag of your pa­tience: for it is no better then bragging, when your persecutors (as you call them) have better words in their mouthes then your selves.

But further, you tell us, That you make proof of your Ministery by afflitions and necessities, &c. I pray what affliction have you suffered, but others, whom you cry down, have shared in, as deep, if not more deep then your selves? But as for your necessities, surely thou lyest at this turn; for thou didst never go so well when thou followedst the Plough (in point of Apparel) as thou doest since: and it is believed (and that upon good ground) that thy necessities were more before thou wast a Quaker, then they have been since.

You go on, and spend the most part of the fifth page, to recite some things that thou sayest I left out at a Meeting at Gerrard Roberts, His 8. LYE. and this thou call'st, A diminishing Truth to cover Lyes. If this be true that thou sayest, then thou art fearfully guilty of dimi­nishing Truth to cover thy Lyes with: For pray con­sider, if I had printed any part of the Conference at Gerrard Roberts, and had left out other part of it, that had made most against me; then he might have had a ground of complaint: but I printed not a word of it. And must a man every time he prints, print eve­ry Conference he hath been at, or else if he leaves out one, and makes no mention of it, be counted a man that diminisheth Truth to cover Lyes? See the wickedness of this man! when himself undertakes to answer my book, he leaves out whole pages, and ma­ny Arguments of great importance, together with many things that passed at our several Conferences, that were of most weight; but this must not be call'd a diminishing of Truth to cover Lyes: but he excu­seth himself (as I have told you) by saying he would not trouble himself with them.

Again, the things which himself said at that Meet­ing, he hath left out, and spake not a word to the chief thing in controversie, and upon which the Meeting was occasioned, to wit, about Water-bap­tism; and yet this man saith, That I leave out Truth to cover Lyes, when he hath left out the whole busi­ness of that Conference, and pick'd up somewhat that he thinks makes against me, and chargeth me with other things that I never said, as shall appear in due place.

He goes on in this 5 page of his book, and repeats some things which (he saith) I said at that Meeting. About this he spends a great part of this page; and yet for all that (as though he thought he could not re­peat his Lyes fast enough) he spends three pages more to repeat the same things, which he saith he sent in a Letter to me; as any one may see, that shall compare the 5 page with the 6 and 7 of his book. And though in his Letter, he saith something about Water-bap­tism; yet that Letter was not the Conference, but a Letter sent after the Conference; and that appears, be­cause he mentions not one Argument brought by me at that time in favour to it, but in stead thereof char­ges me with something that I never said: Whereas if that Letter were the sum of the Conference, as possibly he may make some believe, why then did not he write the Arguments I brought for the proof of what I then said, and his Answers to them, which the Letter speaks nothing of?

And as touching the particulars charged in his Letter, and so often repeated by him, as though he wanted matter; I shall first speak to the first, and that is, That I said a man might understand the Scriptures [Page 12]without the Spirit of God. To this I answer, and that as I then told him, That though all the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God and Christ could not be under­stood without Gods Spirit, which the Scripture saith shall lead into all truth; yet much of the Scripture might be understood by men that had not the Spirit; as, Thou shalt not kill; and, Thou shalt not steal, and the like: and the Scribes and Priests, Mat. 2.4. under­stood by the Scripture, that Christ should be born in Bethlehem, as it was written by the Prophet, though they had not the Spirit: and surely they understood that Scripture right; for accordingly he was born in the same place. This I did answer at that time, though he hath left it out; and yet omission of any thing that he saith, is counted an evil.

The next thing is, that I said, The Faith by which a man is saved, is not the gift of God. To this I did an­swer then, and so I do now, That it is not so the gift of God, as you imagine by your Enthusiastical dota­ges; as, That men should meet together, and neither say nor do towards the work of Faith, till they are immediately inspired with your quaking dotages: in this sense I do still deny Faith to be Gods gift; yet in the sense that all those Scriptures say Faith is the gift of God, I do freely own it, as my book doth de­clare, page 37. wherein I have these words, That men have nothing but what they have received, especially any light or knowledge of Jesus Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4.7.

The next is, that I said, The obedience of Believers was not the gift of God. To this I answer, as before, That we being at that time discoursing about the point of Baptism, and I then asserting, That God [Page 13]was to be obeyed in that, as well as others of his Commands: Thou didst answer, That they must wait till obedience was given them. To which I did reply, That God did not give obedience to his people, in the way that thou didst expect it, as to sit still and do nothing, till men were immediately inspired to it: And in this sense I do still deny, That obedience is the gift of God; though I do believe (and am generally known to teach) that to him that hath improved his talent, God will give more; and that he that doth his will, shall know of his Doctrine. And in this sense I do believe obedience to be the gift of God, according to those Scriptures by you alledged; and yet I say, None of those Scriptures prove your obedient actions (which you so call) to be Gods gift.

You go on, and say that I said, Whosoever speaks that which men understand not, is a Fool, and a Barbarian. His 9. LYE. These were not the words, James: but indeed, when thou hadst spoke a great while to us, and then at last, when I made some Reply upon thy words, thou didst answer, That thou spakest in a language that I could not understand; and so thou saidst upon the like occasion, at our Meeting in Beech-lane, before many witnesses, as I have shewed in page 10. of my book, call'd Quakers quaking: Hereupon I did answer, ac­cording to that of the Apostle, That he that speaks in an unknown tongue, is a Barbarian; and if I said a Fool, I think I might [...] prove it: Not but that I did then, and do still believe, That Christ spake many things, and so did his Apostles, that the world could not understand, because of their hardness of heart.

You charge me further with saying, That none was baptized with the holy Ghost, but they wrought Miracles. I said not so, but that none were baptized with the holy Ghost [Page 14]but they COULD work Miracles; His 10. LYE. and so I do say still, till thou canst prove it: for not one Text by thee alledged proves the contrary.

You tell me that I said, His 11. LYE. All good was not of God. This is another of thy Lyes, and I leave it to thee to prove: Though it may be I might say, That All the good you glory in, is not of God; and so I say still: For you are of the Generation that call good evil, and evil good; but otherwise, I believe with all my heart, that God is the Fountain of all good, according to the Scri­ptures.

You go on, and tell me that I said, Christ was not a Minister of Circumcision: And so I say still, till thou canst prove it. And though in thy Letter thou char­gest this for an Error; yet thou dost not bring one Text, to prove he was a Minister of Circumcision. See thy deceit!

Again, thou chargest me with Error in thy Letter, in saying, The Law was not given by Christ: and yet dost not give me one Text, to prove that it was given by Christ: for the Scripture saith, The Law was given by Moses; but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ, Joh. 1.17. and yet thou hast the face to call this one of my blasphemous Doctrines.

Thou tell'st me in thy Letter, His 12. LYE. that I said, The wilder­ness where John preached, was in Jerusalem. James, this is like thee and thy Father: for what man in his right wits ever said, a Wilderness was in [...], unless there be one at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate, which is the likest one, of any place in a City that ever I heard of?

He further saith, His 13. LYE. That I said the River Jordan was in Jerusalem. This is false: for I know that Text well in Mat. 3. that saith Ierusalem went OUT to be baptized of John [Page 15]in Jordan; therefore I could not think Jordan was in Jerusalem. But however, it is as reasonable to think that Jordan should be in Jerusalem, as it is for you to teach, That Jerusalem is IN YOU.

You go on, and tell me that I said, His 14. LYE. I could foretell things to come, without the Spirit: This (thou sayest) is Witchery. To this I answer, That this is another of thy Lyes, to say, that this is Witchery: for the Pha­risees did foretel things to come, and had not the Spi­rit, when they said, Matth. 16.2. Luk. 12.54, 55. They knew when it would be heat and rain, before it came to pass; and Christ bare them witness that this was true: and the Priests & Scribes by the Scriptures did know, that Christ should be born in Bethlehem, though they had not the Spirit: Was not this to foretel a thing to come? and yet this is not Witchcraft, though thou art plea­sed to call it so. The rest of your Letter consists of Baptism: For answer thereto, I shall refer the Rea­der to my book, call'd Quakers quaking, pag. 25, 26, and 38.

Thus much as touching thy Letter, and thy Charge going before it, which is the same with the Letter, ex­cept some things which thou chargest me for omit­ting, which were spoken at our Conference at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate; and them thou sayest are, First, His 15. LYE. That (I should say) Christ lighteth every one that comes into the world, and yet deny, that this Light was within every one that comes into the world. This thou sayest I have omitted, to cover Lyes: But let me tell thee, James, That if this Light spoken of in Joh. 1. had been in thee, thou wouldst have been ashamed to tell thy Reader, That I did diminish this from the Discourse, to [Page 16]make my self a cover with a Lye, when these very words are once and again repeated, as page 49. of my book, call'd Quakers quaking, and page 51. in page 49. I have these words, viz. That I did not oppose the saying of Joh. 1. (which is) that Christ inlightens every one that comes into the world, but your saying (which is) that e­very one in the world hath the Light within him, spoken of in that Text. Again, in page 51. I have these words, In like manner he (viz.) Christ 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. James, I have put it into Capital Letters, that thou mayest (without a Pair of Spectacles) see thy self a Capital Lyer: for thou art so impudent, as to tell me, If I had been honest, I would have published the whole Truth; and this fore-mentioned passage, is one of the sayings thou lyingly tell'st thy Reader that I did diminish, to make a cover for a Lye, when I printed it word for word. See his An­swer to my book, page 5.

The next Lye he tells his Reader, is, That I omitted to print another passage that I spake in the Conference; His 16. LYE. which was, That the Heathen had a Light that convinced them of sin, but this Light was not within them. James, surely thou canst not forbear lying: for do not I say, page 52. that they might have a Light among them, that might not be within them? What is this less, then what thou sayest I omitted? and is this false Doctrine? may not God use means, and send his Light among people to con­vince them of sin, that they may reject, and not re­ceive into their hearts? Was not the great Light, Je­sus Christ, among many, who did not receive him within them by believing? And yet thou art so igno­rant [Page 17]and shameless, as to call this a deceit, and false Doctrine.

The next thing thou chargest me with, is, That I did omit the printing of that saying, which, thou sayest, His 17. LYE. I spake at the Bull and Mouth, viz. That Christ pardon­eth the sins of every one that comes into the world. Now James, thou hast fearfully diminished the Truth, to make thee a cover for thy Lye: for thou leavest out these words that I said, namely, That Christ was said to be the Light of the world, or to lighten every one that came into it, as he was said to take away the sin of the world, inasmuch as he did graciously afford meanes for the pardoning the sins of the world, though every man should not have his sins pardoned. This indeed I said, and to this purpose I spake in page 51. of my book; which is just contrary to what thou chargest: for I say, He doth not pardon the sins of every one; thou sayest that I said, Christ did pardon the sins of every one.

He now proceeds in his 10 page, to attempt an an­swer to the fourth Error I charge upon them, and saith, His 18. LYE. I count it an Error that they bear Testimony to the Light of Christ, which lighteth every one that comes into the world; and, That I count it an Error in them, for hold­ing, That the Spiritual Light of Christ is sufficient to teach in all the wayes of God, &c. and, That their Error is, for saying the light of Christ is Spiritual, and within. To all this I answer, 1. That the Reader may see that in thy fore-going Letter thou hast laid to my charge things that I never said: for thou that wilt adde to, and diminish from my words that are published in print, wilt not stick to do the like unto words that were spo­ken more privately: For where do I charge any of [Page 18]the fore mentioned things upon you for Error? I challenge thee to shew it me in any page of my book; or else confess thy wickedness before God and men: and that thy sin may appear at this turn, I shall desire the Reader to peruse the fourth Error I charge upon you, in page 18. of my book, where I do not charge it as Error, That you testifie to the Light of Christ that is spoken of Joh. 1. but the words are, that (you say) Every man hath a Light within him, that will teach him to worship God rightly: And thereupon it is, that I do ground my twelve Quaeres, page 19, 20, 21. of my book; and not whether it be an Error to testifie to the Light of Christ, as thou falsly suggestest: for though it be a Truth, as I often declare in my book, That Christ is the Light of the world; yet it is an Error, and an unwritten Conceit, to say, That EVE­RY MAN hath a Light within him, that will teach him to worship God aright, without any other means vouch­safed.

And in what page of my book do I count it an Error in you, for saying, The Spiritual Light of Christ is sufficient to teach in all the wayes of God, as thou falsly saith I have? His 19. LYE. Nay, do not I say (and doest not thou confess in page 10. of thy book, that I say) It is suf­ficient? &c. And where canst thou shew me, that I charge it upon you as Error, for saying, The Light of Christ is sufficient, as thou falsly hast declared?

Again, where do I charge it upon you as Error, for saying, His 20. LYE. The Light of Christ is spiritual, and within, as you say I do? Do I say any such thing in my whole book? No, no, I have not so learned Christ; and yet this you say is the Error I charge upon you. For shame, James, leave off lying, and speak truth from [Page 19]thy heart; for my charge is not, That you say the Light of Christ is Spiritual and within, but that you say it is WITHIN EVERY MAN that comes into the world; that's the Error I charge: and in stead of an­swering that which I object, thou answerest that which I never objected, as my book at large will ma­nifest.

You proceed in page 11. to answer my Quaeres, and therein thou answerest to that I never asked: For 1. I ask, What need there is of the Scripture to declare the minde of God, if it may be known without it e­very whit as well: And you say I ask, His 22. LYE. What need there is of the Scriptures to declare the minde of God; importing to the Reader, (as all may perceive) both in the Que­stion and Answer, That I was a man that judged them needless. But might he not as well have accused Paul for saying, Preaching was vain, when he he saith, If there be no Resurrection, THEN is our preaching vain; as tell his Reader, that I ask what need there is of Scripture, when I said, What need is there of Scri­pture to declare the minde of God, if it may be known without it every whit as well, as they pretend? So that this fills up the measure of his Lyes.

Again, I ask, Whether by the Light which is in EVERY man, ALL men may come to know a Vir­gin had a Son, &c. And you say I quaere, Whether THAT Light will shew a Virgin had a Son: which was not my quaere; for I know that THAT Light (which is Christ) will shew this and all other Truths: But what's this to the question I ask, viz. Whether this Light be in every man, &c. Which term, EVERY MAN, ALL NATIONS, and THE WHOLE WORLD, thou deceifully leavest out of most of [Page 20]my quaeres, and so makes them speak another thing, and then goest about to answer them, as any one may see that reades my book, and compares thy Answer to it; and therefore let these instances suffice for the rest, wherein the Reader may see thy deceit, and also what-snuffling answers thou givest to the Twelve Quaeres, viz. That all those things I quaere (thou sayest) and much more, were made known by the Light within, &c. This is the substance of thy Answer. But James, how doth this answer the Quaeres, which asketh thee, Whe­ther EVERY MAN hath a Light WITHIN him, that will bring him to know that a Virgin had a Son, and that Christ rose from the dead in three days, &c? We believe, That by a Light within, these things were revealed to some men, but that's not our que­stion; but this, viz. Whether there be in EVERY MAN a Light, that will shew him these things pro­posed in the Quaeres, page 19. And when I ask you, What need there is of your preaching and writing to inform the world, if the Light within the world can do it without you? You answer in page 11. That there is need of preaching, to direct people to the Light. Oh miserable darkness! what can the Light within, without any other means, direct people to the whole will of God, and cannot this Light direct people to it self without you? Is not this just as if a man should say, That the light of the Sun will shew men every thing but it self?

You answer the fifth Error I charge, which was, That one John Lawson said, The Day of Judge­ment was past already: saying, It may be seen whe­ther he own it or no, by them that reade the book: And so it may, if they reade but the 35 page of Sauls Errand [Page 21]to Damascus, which is the book I cited for that pur­pose.

To the 6 and 7 Errors I charge, which is against one George Fox, for saying, That he was the Eternal Judge of the World, and the VVay, the Truth, and Life: You answer, That I prove this like the rest, viz. as I did foamings at your Meetings, because you did not deny it: See page 12. of your answer. To this I reply, (and that as I have said, viz. That if any shall print to the world, that they are charged with swellings, foam­ings, quakings, and roarings; and also that these things are found among them in little children; and when they come to answer it, shall onely deny to be guilty of one of these, and say nothing to the rest; may not a man rationally conclude these men guilty of all the rest, especially considering it is testified by many witnesses, who are better to be believed then themselves? In like manner I still say, That the Pe­titioners of Lancaster did witness this against Fox, and he did not deny it; viz. That he said he was the Eternal Judge of the VVorld, and the VVay, Truth and Life. Now what clearer proof can be made of any thing among men, then to witness what is char­ged, and the person charged deny it not? and yet James says this is no proof. I pray if this must not go for proof, how will you prove any thing to be true, that one doth not see?

The eighth Error I charge, is, That George Fox said, He that took a place of Scripture, and made a Ser­mon of it or from it, is a Conjurer. This thou wouldst excuse, by saying, These were not Georges words, but the Accusers. Indeed this is like the rest: But how dost thou know they were not Georges words? Canst [Page 22]thou have the face to say, that they are NOT his words, when he, though he prints the Charge, and An­swer to it, doth not deny it himself. Here thou ex­ceedest Fox himself for impudency: Nay, doth not Fox answer in page 7. of Sauls Errand to Damascus, that he that raiseth the Spirit out of the Letter, is a Con­jurer? And how far doth this differ from the charge? But however, is it not more reasonable to believe the men that witness this against him, seeing he denies it not, then thee, who wilt deny that for George, which he denies not for himself?

The tenth Error I charge, is upon George Fox, for saying, The Scriptures are carnal; and thou tell'st me, That this is a Lye. But James, how darest thou say it is a Lye, when George himself, in his printed an­swer to it, would not tell the Petitioners that charged him with it, They lyed; but in stead thereof, evades the charge, by saying, The Letter of the Scripture is car­nall?

The eleventh Error I charge, is upon one Leonard Fell, which through the PRINTERS mistake, is printed Hill: and that was, That he said Christ had no Body but his Church. To this thou repliedst, That thou doest not know that name, and therefore thou makest no answer to the charge. Herein thou wast glad to be ignorant, else thou mightest have looked into the book and page I cited for the proof of it, and easily have found it was the Printers mistake.

The eleventh Error I charge, is against one John Lawson, who said, He had been in Hell, but was now in Heaven: Thou sayest, It is plain, the Saints have witnessed being in Hell and Heaven also. VVhat jugling is here! I charge him with saying HE had been [Page 23]in Hell, but was now in Heaven; and you tell us of the Saints of old, that some of them had been in Heaven and Hell, as Jonah was in Hell, when he was in the belly of the Whale, and Paul was in the third Heaven, 2 Cor. 12.2, 4. Is not this thy Logick, James? viz. Jonah was in the Whales belly, and Paul was in the third Heaven; Ergo, John Lawson was in Hell, but is now in Heaven. And you say, This was not an Error in them that witnessed this, nor in Lawson, IF HE SAID TRUE. Now see if this answers the charge: For how hast thou proved he said true, when he said so?

The twelfth Error I charge, is, That you say you are perfect, and sin not. This you tell me is a Lye: and yet in the next words you say, You own perfection; and you say, Perfection is not that that you never had, as (you say) I falsly accuse you. But James, if thou hast perfection, what Lye is it to say thou art perfect, any more then it is a Lye to say one is rich, when he saith he hath Riches?

The thirteenth Error that I charge, is, That James Nayler said, None could come to God or Christ, but they that come to perfection. By this (he saith) it seems I deny perfection to be in God or Christ; but (saith he) if that be granted, then they that come to them, come to perfection. To this I answer, That it is one thing for men to come to perfection, and another thing for them to come before a God that is perfect: for Paul was not come to persection, when he himself saith, Not as though I had ALREADY ATTAINED: Now he had attained to come to God and Christ, as I plainly shew in page 33. of my book; and therefore this cunning evasion will not serve thy turn: for who is there so sottish, as to think, that when they come to God [Page 24]or Christ, that they come to a God or Christ that is imperfect? and therefore if that should be thy mean­ing, then thou wast but beating the air, and fighting and contending where none opposed thee. But by this the world may see, how Janus-fac'd thy Oracles are, that look two wayes at once: Nay, and doth not the latter end of thy answer to this particular, in page 14. of thy book, plainly shew, that thou didst intend perfection in men, rather then God or Christ, inas­much as thou sayest, The children of God never pleaded for sin dwelling in them? and so say I too.

The fourteenth Error I charge, is, that James Nay­ler said, That whensoever they did eat or drink, they could have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in eating and drinking, though it were at the Gentiles Table. This he denies not, but saith, It must needs be counted an Error with the Belly-gods of this world, &c. But what is this to prove, That God doth any­where require you to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord, though it were at the GEN­TILES Table? And if he do not require it, how darest thou say thou canst do it? and how darest thou blame me for calling this an Error, when thou hast not brought one Text to prove it is a Truth?

And whereas thou sayest, Thou CANST have commu­nion with the Body and Blood of Christ at the Gentiles Table: Doth not the Scripture say, That the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, it is to Devils? And doth it not also say, That we CANNOT partake of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils? and yet this man saith, He can have communion with the Body and Blood of Christ, at the Gentiles Table.

The fifteenth Error I charge, is, That James Parnel [Page 25]did deny all Baptism, but of the holy Ghost. To this thou repliest, That to own the Baptism of Christ, and to deny all else, is counted an Error by me; and if so, then the Apostles did erre also. How doth this follow? when they did assert pluralities of Baptisms, and did no­where deny (as you do) all Baptisms but that of the Spirit.

James now proceeds to tell me, page 14. That I go about to prove Water-baptism by Questions and crooked Consequences; and (he saith) that I cannot finde a Com­mand for it, after Christs sufferings; and, That we cannot finde a plain Scripture for that which we worship, &c. And he further saith, That Moses in all his house did leave his Ordinances not to be proved after this manner; and there­fore (he infers) we are not to think that Christ will leave his Ordinances with such kinde of proof.

To all which I answer, First, that I have asserted proof for Water-baptism, in the questions propound­ed by me upon that occasion: See my book, page 25, 26. which thou canst not answer.

But secondly, how canst thou reject Consequences and Questions, when none have more Questions and conceited Consequences, to prove what they hold, then your selves?

As for instance (to give the Reader a few among many:)

1 Quest. Where have you a plain Text, without a consequence, that saith, That the Light spoken of in Joh. 1. is IN every man that comes into the world? which you confidently affirm.

2. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, Christ was the Minister of Circumcision? which, thou saidst, was one of my blasphemous Doctrines to deny, pag. 5. of thy book.

3. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, The Law was given by Christ? the denyal of which, thou sayest, is another of my blasphemous Doctrines, page 5.

4. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, God sent some immediately, that could not work Miracles, or to whose Ministery he did not witness from hea­ven, since you boldly affirm, that you are so sent, though you can work none?

5. Where hast thou a Text, that saith, One may have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord at the Gentiles Table, as you affirm?

6. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, He that raifeth Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer?

7. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, The Scriptures may not be call'd, The Word of God?

8. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, There is no Baptism but of the Spirit; which you also affirm?

9. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, John Lawson was in Hell, but is now in Heaven?

10. Where have you a plain Text, that saith, Christ was not born after the flesh, but after the Spirit?

James, either give me express Scriptures that do affirm these things in the words, as thou layest them down, or else be ashamed to accuse others for bringing Conse­quences, when they bring the plain Text; whereas thou haft neither Text nor Consequence for any of these thy fond conceits.

And now I cannot but give the Reader to take no­tice that thou sayest, I have not found one Text that doth command Water-baptism after Christs sufferings; His 22. LYE. when, whoever looketh over the 25, 26 pages of my book, shall finde several Texts to that purpose; and nine [Page 27]several Questions upon that subject, to which James makes no answer at all, as any-body may perceive, that reades the 14 page of his book, where he an­swers all, by calling what I propose, Crooked Conse­quences. See if the man be not here at a Nonplus! or else, how could he have the face to intitle his book an Answer to mine, when he first leaves out the first two pages of my book, where I shew their jugling about their Name Quakers; and that they have lyed in saying, The world Nick-names them so: and to this he saith nothing, but That he shall not contend whether the world call them truly or falsly, when they call them so?

Again, I spend other two pages to prove, that they do give such Titles to their Pamphlets, as they will refuse to give to the Scriptures: And this I prove by their own books, as the Reader may perceive; and to this he sayes not one word.

Again, I do print the substance of two Conferen­ces, where he is so miserably Nonplus'd, that he can­not tell what to say to them, but onely tells his Rea­der, that I do adde words that were never spoken, and di­minish Truth, to make my self a cover with a Lye. This is all that he saith touching the two Conferences, contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 pa­ges of my book, as any one may see, that reades the fifth page of his book: and yet he hath got such a stock of impudence, as to call his book an AN­SWER to mine.

Again I propound twelve Quaeres in the 19, 20, 21 pages of my book: And to these, in stead of answering them, he proposeth questions of his own, for so I call them, because he hath left out the most material terms of mine in his transcribing them, by which they be­come [Page 28]his own questions, and not mine: and to these twelve Quaeres he saith as little as to the other.

Again, the like answer he gives to the nine Quae­res in page 25, 26 of my book; and the sum of his answer is, That they are crooked Consequences: See page 14 of his book.

He now comes to answer the sixteenth Error I charge upon them, which was, that one of their Scribes did ask a Minister of the Nation, Whether he had the Light that did inlighten every one that comes into the world? when he had before told him, That every one HAD that Light within him. This I charge as a piece of inconsistency in these, that would be counted perfect. To which he replies, That Christ did ask the disciples who they said he was, and yet they had the Light within them, that revealed him to be the Son of God. But what's this to the case in hand? the case in hand is not, whether a man may ask a question for the further confirmation of a thing that is in questi­on, as our Lord did his Disciples, in a time when there was various opinions of him: But, whether af­ter a man hath preached a thing that concerneth EVERY man, whether it be not very ridiculous to ask the same man to whom he hath preached, whe­ther it concerns him? Where doth Christ, or any wise man, ask such a question? Again, Christ demands this question of them that owned him, what their opinion was of him; but he asked the question of a man that disowned the Light to be in every one: So that this being considered, I demand, Whether Christ ever asked a man that did disown him and his Light, whether his Light was within them, or no? as this man hath done: for he asked the question of [Page 29]one that was a Minister of the Nation, whom they all say disown the Light of Christ.

He passeth over the second instance of their incon­sistency, and saith not a word to it: I do suppose, as he said at first, that these were some things he would not TROUBLE himself with answering; and in­deed, I think it would trouble him to answer them, and therefore he cunningly lets them alone.

He comes to say something to the third in stance I bring of their inconsistency; and that is, that though they pretend to own the Scriptures, yet one of them said to Parson Camelford of Staveley-Chappel, That he might as well have burnt the Scriptures, as his Quae­res: He answers, That it doth not prove all my false accu­sations cast upon them, &c. To this I reply, That I have not spoke or writ any syllable of untruth concerning you; and further, it doth prove all that I charge against you, about the case in hand, and all that I do urge in the foregoing pages, about your slighting the Scri­pture: For, for any one to say that a man might as well burn the Scriptures, as his Quaeres, doth not this prove, that your design is to eat out the honour of the Scriptures, and build up the honour of your contra­dictious stories?

And whereas in a Parenthesis, you question if there was any such that said so: Fie James, do not I in p. 29. of my book, cite those passages, and tell thee, That they are in a book call'd Truths Defence, which is own­ed by you all? and yet you question if there be any such: Dost thou think that book did write it self? and if not, why shouldst thou question whether there be such a man as saith those words in his book? for the words are there asserted, as I have transcribed [Page 30]them. But James, thou wouldst willingly be igno­rant of this story, because it doth so much lay open your hypocrisie and double-dealing about the Scri­ptures. And further, is not this book bound up, and owned by you, among the rest of your Works? and yet thou wouldst fain make the Reader believe, that there was no man among you that published such a thing.

Thou passest over my fourth instance of your in­consistency, and sayest not a word to it, which would trouble thee too much to answer it; and that is, That one Tomlinson in his book call'd A word of Reproof, p. 11. did blame the Ministers of the Nation for doing that they had no Rule for, when they prayed before or af­ter Sermon (this book is also owned by you, and bound up with the rest of your stories) and yet Edward Bo­roughs did pray after Sermon, before hundreds of peo­ple, at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate.

To this inconsistency among themselves he says not a word, but leaps over it.

He proceeds, and saith, The fifteenth Error I charge is a Lye, which is, That they study deceitful terms, that look with two faces, &c. James, it is not thy say­ing, I Lye in charging you, that proves it to be a Lye, as any one may see in page 30 of my book. And for all thou sayest, A man may affirm a Negative, yet that will not serve thy turn, for that is not the question, but, Whether a man being charged with speaking a thing that is Negative (for that's the case) doth not equivo­cate, in saying, He spake no such Affirmative?

He comes now to answer the eighteenth Error I charge, and that is, Their Lying: First, in saying, They are perfect, and sin not: This (he saith) is a Lye of [Page 31]mine own, and shall rest upon my head, till I prove they have said so. To this I answer, That I could prove this largely, if I should trouble the Reader to look over many of your writings: But however, to save that la­bour, I shall cite that passage in page 28. of this thy book:

Where you make this your ninth Quaere that you would have me answer, viz. What Faith is that which pleads for sin, and preacheth against perfection? and that believes that they can never be free from sin, and come to perfection while they are in this world? shew the Saint that so believed, and so practised. Let me tell thee, James, that if this be true, that men may be free from sin in this world, as one branch of the question doth plainly im­port; then if none of you are free from sin, you do not do that which you MAY do; and then you are self-condemned sinners, if you may be free from sin, and will not: is it not a shame for you to cry out against those that live in sin, (who, it may be, do think that they cannot live without sin) and for you that believe you may live without sin, to live in sin? Oh the deceit of these men!

But if any-body shall say, That the Quakers do not live in sin: I answer, Then what lye have I told, in charging them with saying, That they profess to be perfect? And doth not John Lilburn call Nayler once and again (in his Book lately published, call'd his Re­surrection) that TALL MAN in Christ? and yet Nay­ler saith, I Lye, in saying, They profess to be perfect. Now how can he be truly call'd a TALL MAN in Christ, that believes a man MAY be free from sin in this world, and yet is not free from it himself?

Again, may not a man believe that TALL men in [Page 32]Christ should be free from sin in this world, if any­body may? and yet James saith, I Lye, in saying they profess to be perfect: Indeed, this is such a bundle of imperfection, that if I had said they had been perfect, I had lyed indeed.

The second Lye I charge, is, that they said, They were immediately sent of God. To this he answers, that it is a Truth in them who are so sent, to say so; and the Lye (he saith) is my own, till I prove the contrary. To this I reply: First, that this is no answer to the Charge, but a meer evasion, to say it is truth for a man that is so sent to say so: and I wonder when James heard that denied by me, or any-body. But though it be a truth for a man to say that God sends him, when indeed God hath sent him; yet it is a Lye for a man to say, God sent him, when he never did: And that he never sent these Quakers, I prove at large, in pag. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of my book; to which (as I have said) he makes no answer: where I shew at large, that the Turk can say as much for his Alcoran, and the Pope for his Infallible Chair, as they can for their immediate sending.

The third Lye I charge, is, that Fox said, The world did not know his Name; and yet afterwards saith, He is known by the Name of George Fox. He answers, That the Saints that overcome have a new Name, &c. But what is this to George Fox? unless we should take it for granted, That he was an overcoming Saint? is not this a ridiculous Argument, viz. Every one that overcomes, hath a new Name; Ergo, George Fox hath overcome, and hath a new Name?

Again, he doth not say, The world did not know his NEW Name, but HIS NAME, without any such distinction.

Again, did ever any of the Saints of old subscribe themselves as these do? but surely such kinde of canting hath never been about subscribing names; unless it were among Thieves, that would be known in the City by one name, and the Country by another.

The fourth Lye I charge, is, that Edward Burough said, his book was sealed with the Spirit of the eternal God: to this he answers, that this is call'd a Lye, but not proved. But surely if any shall presume to utter such a saying, it is more rational for him to prove the thing affirmed, then for his respondent to prove what he denyes: for, if God had scaled Burough his book, we should have had more for the proof of it, then his bare say so.

The fifth and sixth Lyes I charge, is about some passages that were in a letter that James sent me; where he saith, that I did tempt him to deny the Lord; and that I did tell him, that if he came in his own name, I would have received him. These were both false, as many can witness; for I bid him either prove he was sent of God, or else disown his pre­sumptions in saying so: and for my telling him, I would have received him, if he had come in his own name, &c. surely if I had been of that mind, I should have received him at that time, for I did then, and so I do still, believe, that he never came in any bodies name but his own, as our whole discourse doth make manifest; though with the false Prophets of old, they boast of their being sent of God.

And where as he adds at the bottome of his letter in Page 18. of his book, that I said, if he were sent of God, it were to no purpose to put my faith upon tryal with him, for he would overturn all my proofs: James, thou needest [Page 34]not witness this; but then this doth shew thy Lyes in thy letter: Which was, that I did tempt thee to deny the Lord; when I did at that time say, that if God sent thee, we would not stand to contend with thee, if thou couldest but prove that: I further added, that then I would fall down under all that he said; doth this look like tempting one to deny the Lord?

The seventh Lye that I did charge upon them, was, that he being charged with those two fore-mentioned Lyes writ in the letter, did deny that there was any such passages in the letter.

And whereas he saith, that he did not know of the fetching the letter, &c. this is no answer to the charge; the charge is, that he denyed he writ any such passa­ges: and it is not his now printing them, that proves he did not then deny them; which is all he urgeth to prove it.

And as for his running away, while the letter was fetching for to prove him a Lyer; that, I did urge as an aggravation of his sin of lying; and that he did so, though he knew the letter was gone for, (though he now denyes it) will appear by certificate at the end of this book.

He proceeds in the 19. Page of his book, and saith, that I make a boast of somthing I will prove, His 25. LYE. and that is (saith he) that I said, I would prove the writings of the Scriptures to be the Word of God. For shame James hide thy face: did I ever say any such thing? nay, do not I say, Page 34. the writings may be burned, but the Word of God contained in them, cannot; And, That the Tables might be broken, but the Commands contained in them did remain like Mount Sion? &c.

And yet this man hath the Impudence to tell his [Page 35]Reader, that I say, I would prove the writings of the Scripture to be the Word of God.

But at this turn the Devil makes him speak non­sence as well as falsities; for is it not non-sence to say, the writings of the Scriptures? What is that, but in plain English to say, the writings of the writings? which is absurd, and therefore the more like the Author that devised it: for my words are these, that the written precepts and promises of God, together with his threatnings of Judgements, and exhortations to amendment of life, they are, and ought to be called, the Words of God: and this I have used arguments to prove, to which he says little.

His next Lye, is, that he saith in Page 14. His 26. LYE. of his Book, that I would prove that the letter of that roll is the Word of God which Baruch read; VVhen there is no such passage in my whole book: and having thus set up a man of straw, he valiantly goes to fight with him; and saith, that Baruchs roll might be burned, but the VVord of God cannot. See if this man hath not belyed me in his letters, that will thus bolye me about things that are published in print, charging that to be in my book which is not in it, and then go about to confute it; for I say nothing of Baruch, but the very words of the text, Jer. 36.2, 5.

He proceeds in Page 20. and calls the next proof of mine AS CONFUSED AS THE REST; because I charge them to deny the Scriptures to be the Word, and yet say, I will prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God out of their own mouths. But what confusion is this? doth not Christ prove God to be just, and judge the unprofi­table Servant out of his own mouth? And yet the un­profitable Servant said, God was not just; for he said, [Page 36]that he did reap where he sowed not: so may I judge you out of your own mouths, that deny the Scriptures to be the word, who at some turns, to save your credit, own them: and because I prove from your own words, as doth appear by my Book, page 35. that the Scrip­tures must be call'd Gods Word, because you say, nothing can declare Gods VVill, but Gods VVord; you from hence would prove that Balaams Ass was Gods VVord, because he declared Gods VVill; and this you would fasten as an absurdity upon me, which is an Argument that I raised upon your own principles; and therefore the absurdity lights upon your own head, who say, no­thing can inform into the Will of God, but the Word; and yet at another time say, the Scriptures declare Gods VVill, but are not his VVord.

You go on still in Page 20. of your book, and say, That I confess Christ is the light that lightens every man that comes into the World; and yet say, it is an error for you to say, that THIS light will teach people to worship God rightly.

Now James, when did I count it an error in you to say, that the light of Christ is sufficient to teach peo­ple to worship God rightly? this is another of thy lyes. Indeed, I have often said that every man hath not the light of Christ in him; and that, that light which every man hath, is not sufficient to teach him to worship God rightly: but did I ever say the light of Christ was not sufficient? Do I not say the contrary, (viz) that the light of Christ is sufficient, Page 36. of my book?

Thou goest on, glorying in lyes, and sayest, Page 21. of thy Book, that I do apply that text of Gods purging Israel, Ezek. 24.14. to the light of Christ, to prove it [Page 37]was not sufficient. See thy false tongue! when I do bring those words to parallel with Joh. 1. to prove. That that Light is sufficient to inlighten all, though all have not this Light within them: See my book, page 36.

You go on, and call this, The next piece of my di­vination, because I say, that if every man have recei­ved the Light, then every man hath received Christ, &c. All thou sayest to take off the edge of the Ar­gument, is, That because Christ is that Light, I would make that Light Christ. And James, what hast thou said to the contrary? for (is it not the same) Christ is THE Son of God, Ergo, THE Son of God is Christ? and how canst thou deny this? And yet the like Argument to this, thou callest Divination.

You answer the Scripture I bring, Joh. 11.10. where it is said, He that walks in the dark stumbleth, because there is NO LIGHT IN HIM, by telling us, There is no Light in his WAY: For shame man, leave off thy ad­ding to Scriptures! Dost not thou adde to the words of the book? doth not the Text say, There is no light in him, and thou sayest, There is no light in his WAY?

But may not a man as well interpret Joh. 1. and say, That when the Text saith, He lightens every one that comes into the world, that it is to be understood, of his lightning the worlds way, and not as you notion it, That every one hath this Light in him? This is the man that would have nothing proved by Conse­quences; and yet when we have a plain Text for what we say, viz. That they that walk in the dark stumble, because there is no Light in them; he shuf­fles it off, by telling us, He hath no Light in his way. So that James, it seems we must believe thy conceited [Page 38]Consequences, by which thou wouldst prove every man hath the Light within him, spoken of in Joh. 1. and not the plain Text, that saith, He that is in the dark, hath no light in him.

You come to the next thing, and that is, that I say, The day of Judgement is not past: This thou seemest to own to be a truth, by bidding me prepare for it, &c. But if with Lawson, thou didst not believe it past, thou wouldst never tell those untruths, as I have made appear thou hast told in thy book: For, didst thou believe Judgement to come, thou wouldst tremble after another manner, then ever thou hast done in Quaking Delusions, and fear to lye at this rate.

You go on still in page 22. and touching what I have asserted about Baptism and the Lords Supper, in page 38, 39 of my book, you say, You have spoken somewhat already, and that must stand till it be disproved. I see a short Answer serves your turn, or else you might have told us where we might have found it, that so it might be disproved: but though thou didst finde something proposed by me about baptism, thou leapest over it, as though thou wast afraid to look on it, and saith nothing to several Texts alledged, and nine Questions proposed, but that I brought crooked Consequences, and no plain Text, &c. The next work is (he saith) TO PROVE RESPECT OF PERSONS, which are none of my words.

And he saith, His 28. LYE. I pervert that Text in Lev. 19.32. be­cause I reade it (as Beza renders it) Thou shalt honour the PERSON of the old man: But why is this a per­version of the Text, when I have as good reason to follow his translation as any? But 2. is not that which is done to the face of a man, done to his per­son, [Page 39]be it honour or dishonour? And 3. are not these terms, FACE and PERSON convertible; as Isa. 3.15. where it is said, that The FACE of the poor was grinded; was not this the person of the poor?

And whereas you charge me with lying, in saying, you deny respect due to Parents, Masters, Husbands, Wives, &c. I cannot but wonder at you: for I did not say so in any place of my book; I say, you did deny respect to persons, which I prove ought to be, because I am commanded to honour my Father and Mother, &c.

I brought this to prove, we ought to honour some more then others; and you say, I charge you with denying honour to Father and Mother, &c. But sure James, thy Conscience is very guilty at this turn, or else thou wouldst never have said, because I brought those Scriptures to prove what I laid down, that therefore I said you were guilty: But hadst thou done fairly, thou shouldst have spoke to the Scri­ptures and Arguments alledged, and have shewed us in what sense the unjust Judge was blameable, in not reverencing man; and many other Texts, which may be seen in page 39, 40. To all which thou sayest no­thing, but quarrell'st about that I never said.

You go on, and say, That I Lye, because I say, Not one in ten shall give the same answer to a question, if it be ask'd them severally: and this thou sayest is a lye, be­cause (thou sayest) I never proved ten of you therein. But James, this is as true as the rest; for I have pro­ved twenty of you herein: and to make it appear, I will meet thee at any time, and ask thee a question ap­pertaining to the things of God, and not one of ten shall give the same answer with thee, the question [Page 40]being asked apart; if they do, I will be content to be call'd a Lyer, but not before.

You say, the next thing I would prove, is, That Christ had two Bodies. But James, why couldst not thou as well lay down the Proposition in my words, as thine own? my words are, That Christ had a Bo­dy besides his Church; and to the Arguments and Texts alledged, thou sayest nothing, but tell'st us a few of your own Notions; as, That thou wilt not dis­pute with me, but sayest, It serveth thee to know he is thy head, &c. But why didst not thou answer my Arguments alledged to prove what I urged in the case?

You go on, and say, You do not deny Christ taking flesh, &c. James, I did draw thy veil from before the face of the people, which thou hadst cast upon them, and made thee speak somewhat plainly at the Bull and Mouth; and now thou wouldst fain speak somewhat to cover over thy vile sayings: but to this I shall speak anon.

And as touching the next thing, which is, that one of them said, Christ was but a figure: This he saith is a Lye, because of the PRINTERS Errata, who put page 54 of Sauls Errand to Damascius, in stead of page 8. in which page he hath the words I charge, though he saith there is no such saying in the book; for this very thing was objected against him, and he answers, That Christ in the flesh was a figure.

And whereas I shew you, that you have affinity with Gnosticks, Manichees, and Familists, &c. you an­swer in page 24. that it is not worth answering; a cun­ning shift indeed! but if I should say so to your que­stions by and by, you were well enough served.

You go on, and tell me, that I have perverted the Scri­ptures, &c. but hast not shewed one Text wherein, un­less it be that of Lev. 19. which I have already shewed to be no perverting of it.

He goes on: and because I say in page 45 of my book, that all that I have writ against you, is ei­ther from your own Mouthes or Writings; you say, This is a Lye: but James, in the same page, about the middle of it, you might have found these words, name­ly, That the Errors I charge you with, are either such as fell from your own Mouthes, or else such as your selves being charged with, could not deny. Now put all this together, and what untruth have I told? for did you deny any of those things that I say you did not deny? And though you say the men were bloody per­secuting Priests, &c. that charged you, the more shame for you, that you should call your book an Answer to their Petition, and withall print their Objections your selves, pretending to answer them; and when all comes to all, never deny the charge in the particulars I mention, but say somewhat else in stead thereof, which is nothing to purpose, as you have done by me, as any may see, that reades your Answer both to my book, and the Westmerland Petition, which is a thing I never saw, any further then as your selves did tran­scribe and print it.

He now comes to the Postscript at the end of my book, and saith, that because some saw my murtherous minde, they did write down what he said. Though that which they have writ to cover thy Assertion, was not spoken at that time, as many can witness that came out with me, whatever you spake after I was gone: [Page 42]And though you seem to carry it by witness, you must know, That your Witnesses are Parties, being of the same faith with thy self, viz. That Christ was not born after the flesh: and it doth behove them to make a cloak for thee, lest thy deeds & sayings should be made manifest. But whatever they have said, that matters not, since you confess all that I charge, which is, That Christ was not born after the flesh: And how have you answered the thing I charge in the Postscript, which is, That it is all one to be born after the flesh, as it is to be born according to the flesh? and though I prove it all one in the 52, 53 pages of my book, yet thou makest no kinde of answer; which shews, that thou hast pick'd up this Letter, to keep thee from the lash of the Law, because thou sayest, Some saw I had a murtherous design, or else thou wouldst have answer­ed what I say in the Postscript, but that you did fear the light.

You proceed, and in page 26. say, that I say, The Scriptures make no such distinction, as born after the flesh, and after the Spirit. His 29. LYE. This is another of thy Lyes: Where do I say any such thing in all my book? but this I said, That the Scriptures made no distinction between a being born after the flesh, and born accord­ing to the flesh.

And you say again, That Christ, as he was born of Mary, was not born after the flesh, but begotten and brought forth by Promise. To this I answer, First, that this is nothing to the question; for though he was be­gotten and brought forth by promise, doth this prove, that therefore he was not borne after the flesh? for Isaac was borne according to the promise, yet he was borne after the flesh likewise; So Gods promise con­cerning [Page 43]Christs Birth, doth not prove, that therefore he was not borne according to the flesh. And where­as thou say'st, he that was borne after the flesh, per­secuted him that was born after the Spirit; I say, that though this be true in sinfull unregenerate men, that have no other Birth and generation, then what was after the flesh: yet it is not true in Christ, and his being borne after the flesh; for he being without sin, did not persecute him that was borne after the Spirit, as sinfull men do. And therefore James, because thou say'st Christ was not borne after the flesh, shew me a plain text for such a Doctrine, without any of these conceited consequences; or else take shame to thy self, for finding fault with proofs that others bring, when they do not give the express text.

Thou tellest me of my promise to repent, if I should be better informed, &c. to this I answer, that thou hast rather strengthened my former opinions of thee, then any way better informed me, except I will take thy bare saying I lye, for a better information.

Thou now comest upon me with a pack of questi­ons, to which I shall answer.

His first question is, whose Spirit that is which men understand the Scriptures with, and try Spirits with, who are without the Spirit of God? Seeing thou affirms, that a man may understand Scriptures with­out the Spirit of God? or whether God hath set up such a tryer, yea or no.

Answ. The greatest part of this question, is grounded upon a false bottome, (viz.) (something that I said) which is most part false; for I did never say those words: yet I have answered to them, so far as I am concerned, in my answer to thy letter which thou [Page 44]sent'st to me, after our meeting at Gerard Roberts, in the former part of this book: but yet if by understanding the Scriptures, thou doest mean all things contained in them; I say, this he cannot do without Gods Spirit: and if by trying Spirits, thou meanst, to try between your Spirits, and the Spirit of Christ; I can say again, that a man without the Spirit of God, may by his own Spirit understand, that you are not guided by the Spirit of truth, that have told so many un­truths.

His second Quest. Seeing thou confesseth Christ to be the true light, and that he lighteth every man that comes into the World, but denyes that light to be within; shew in plainness, where he doth inlighten every man that comes into the World, and not with­in; and how they come by it: and seeing thou say'st every man hath it; how have they it, and not within?

This is answered already in Page 51. of my book, called Quakers quaking. The later part of the questi­on is a lye: for I never said, that every man hath the light of Christ, though Christ hath used means to bring the World to the light, that their deeds may be reproved. But lest both my books should not come to the readers hand, I do again answer, that Christ is said to inlighten the World, as he pardoneth their sins; though none but them that believe shall receive remission of sins, yet he pardoneth their sins, by pro­posing a way for the pardon of them; So Christ in­lightens every man (I, and that within too, if you will have it) by giving them means to be inlightened within, though thousands (like your selves) stum­ble, because there is no light in them.

3. Quest. Seeing thou confessest, that the heathen have a light that reproves them of sin, but not within, shew where it is, and what it is; whether the light of Christ or no, and how they came by it?

Answ. That the heathen may have a light among them, that may not be in them, I have already shewn in my former book, Page 52. but further, did not Christ tell the Pharisees, Luke 17.2. that the King­dome of God was within them, when indeed it was but among them? and so the margent reads it: for they were far enough from having his Kingdome erected in their inward man. In like manner may God send light among the heathen, which may not be within every individial man of them. And whereas you ask me, what light it is? I say, it is the light of nature, which taught them to do by nature the things con­tained in the Law. And whereas you ask, how they came by it? I answer, that, that manifestation they have, is from God, for God hath shewed it to them, Rom. 1.19.

4. Quest. Whether that which reproves the hea­then when they sin, be the same that reproves thee when thou sinnest, and the rest, who call your selves believers? and whether it be in the same place? and wherein doth it differ, as to place, nature, and opera­tion?

Answ. To which I answer, First, that, that which reproves the heathen of sin, doth reprove us and you too. And as touching the place, I confess it is an odd term: yet I answer, that it is the conscience that must be reproved of sin, according to Rom. 2. but yet this light may differ in the nature of it, as the light of the Moon differs from the Sun; and as a man may [Page 46]see further by the light of the Sun, then he can by the light of the Moon; even so may them that have the light of Christ, have a further inspection into the things of Christ, then the Gentiles who walk by the light of nature: yet that light of nature we have (to­gether with the light of the Gospel) which will con­vince us of sins against nature; but for sins in the par­ticular circumstances, relating to Gods worship, the light of nature will not convince: and here these lights differ in operation also.

5. Quest. The fifth Question is, whether your light, who call your selves believers, be within you? and if within you, how came you by it, when you were in darkness, as the moving cause? and if with­out, how doth it inlighten, and not within? and where doth it abide for you, that is not in you?

Answ. To this I answer, that God which comman­ded the light to shine out of darkness, is he which hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 4.6. this being answered, there is no need of an­swering the later part of this quaere, for the light that is in believers doth abide in their hearts.

6. Quest. Whether that light which is not within, can inlighten the heart and understanding? Whether the Gospel be not hid to all who have their hearts and minds blinded? and whether it be not the work of the God of this World, to blind hearts? whether such as deny the light within, and preach against it, lest people should believe in it, be not in his work and Ministry, yea or no?

Answer. To the former part of this Question, I Answer by concession: to the later part, if by preach­ing [Page 47]against Light within, you mean preaching against the Light of Christ in his Saints, we make one minde with you; but if you mean preaching against your notion, viz. That every one hath the light of Christ in him; then I say, that a man may preach against this, and say with John, He that walks in the dark, hath no Light in him.

7 Quest. VVhat kinde of Faith thine is, who hast denied the Faith that is the gift of God? and how thou camest by it, which God did not give thee? and whether that Faith which is not of God, he not of the Devil, yea or no?

Answ. This question is grounded upon another of thy false suggestions, as I have shewed already: For though I deny thy Faith to be Gods gift, yet I did ne­ver tell thee that my Faith was not his gift: and though I do say, That no Faith is the gift of God as you fancy it, to wit, that men must do nothing to­wards the obtaining it, but wait till they are puft up with your quaking dotages; yet I do say, that we ought to contend for that Faith that was once GIVEN to the Saints.

8. Quest. Did ever any of the Saints profess a Faith which they received not of God? and whether thy contention be for the Faith once delivered to these Saints? and if so, from whom hadst thou it, seeing thou deniest it to be the gift of God?

Answ. This question is the same with the former, and therefore the same answer will serve to it, as to the former. However, I cannot but take notice, that thou multipliest words without knowledge, or else thou mightest have seen this question to be the same with the former, and grounded upon the same falsity.

9 Quest. What Faith is that which pleads for sin, [Page 48]and preacheth against perfection? that believes they can never be free from sin, nor come to perfection, while they are in this world? shew the Saints that so believed, and so preached.

Answ. This I have in part answered already, some pages before, when I proved, that by the import of this question, that you profest to be perfect men; which you were forced to deny, when I laid so many imper­fections and inconsistencies upon you, that you leaped over many, and did not answer them; yet I shall adde this further, That the Faith which pleads for sin, is of the Devil (if such a thing may be call'd Faith) and from beneath: but where didst thou learn this dialect, as to call a pleading for sin, Faith? where­as the Scripture notes it for unbelief.

10 Quest. Is not the end of Christs Ministery for the perfecting of the Saints? and is not that Anti­christ, whose Ministery is against it? or is Christs Ministery now changed from what it was?

Answ. The end of Christ Ministery, is for the per­fecting the Saints; and that is Antichrists Ministery that is against it; and Christs Ministery is not chan­ged from what it was.

11 Quest. Whether that Faith which is not of God can receive the things of God, or can be imputed for righteousness to him that hath it? And is not his righ­teousness of himself, whose Faith is of himself? or can it be otherwise, if it be the righteousness of Faith?

A. This question is confused like the qerent that made it, or else he would never ask, whether the Faith which is of God, can receive the things of God? and, Is not his righteousness of HIMSELF, whose FAITH is of [Page 49] HIMSELF? and yet ask in the latter end of the same Quaere, If it can be OTHERWISE, if it be the Righteousness of Faith? Therefore till he under­stand better how to make a question, I shall forbear to answer any otherwise, but that he that hath not the Faith of God, is not of God; neither can any other Faith be imputed for Righteousness, then that which is of Faith in Christ Jesus.

12 Quest. Whether he that hath not received the Faith, be not an infidel? or is he to be believed in matters of God and Christ? And being of a false Faith, is it safe to believe what he saith against the children of Light?

Answ. If by the Faith of God, you mean the Faith that you do profess, which is, That Christ was not born after the flesh; then I say, That this Faith is not the gift of God, neither is he an infidel that hath not received it; neither is he to be believed in matters of God and Christ, whatsoever he talks and prates of, if he have such a false Faith Neither is it safe to be­lieve what a man of such a [...]aith saith, either against the children of Light, or [...]y body else.

13 Quest. Whether it be not plain Non-sense to say, that Christ doth inlighten every one that comes into the world, (as thou dost confess in thy book) and then to deny that Light to be in that inlightens?

Answ. Thou mightest as well ask, whether John did not speak Non-sense, in saying, Joh. 1. That Christ is the true Light, that lightens every one that comes into the world; and yet afterwards in Joh. 11.10. sayes, If a man do walk in the night he stumbles, because there is no Light IN HIM. But to this I have spoke once and again, in my last and this also.

14 Quest. Whether Paul was rightly call'd and endued to the Ministery, who was not sent to baptize? and whether it was not a sign that John was decrea­sing, and Christ increasing, that being left out in Pauls Command, who was call'd after Christ was offered up? And cannot a man now be a Minister of Christ, and not sent to baptize?

Answ. I answer, first, Paul was rightly call'd and endued, though (he saith) he was not sent to baptize. But James, how canst thou prove, that this relates to his not baptizing with water; since thou wilt not have that Text in Matth. 28. so understood? but tell'st me, our understanding the Text to be meant of water, is a crooked Consequence, because the word WA­TER is not exprest: though thereupon I have said so much, that it would trouble thee to answer; and there­fore thou cunningly slipst it over, and sayst nothing to it. And now James, how canst thou, without the like Consequence, prove this was meant of water, since the word water is not here exprest? But 2. if that be granted, that it is meant of water, doth this prove (because it is said, He was NOT sent to baptize) that therefore he was not in any sense commanded to it? Doth not the Scriptures sometimes lay down such say­ings, that are to be understood chiefly and eminently, and not exclusively? as, Labour NOT for the meat that perisheth; doth this therefore prove, that believers are not to labour for earthly bread at all, but eat the bread of idleness, as you do? in like manner is this saying of Pauls to be understood, who though he was not chiefly and eminently sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, yet he also did baptize, as the same place, 2 Cor. 1.14, 16. doth declare. Now if Paul did baptize, [Page 51]it was either in the Name of God and Christ, or his own Name; but it was not in his own Name, for this he denies, ver. 13. when he saith, Either were you ba­ptized in the Name of Paul? Well then, if he did ba­ptize in the Name of Christ, then I quaere, Whether it be not great wickedness to do a thing in the Name of God or Christ, that Christ never commanded? and therefore I say, Pauls saying, he was not sent to baptize, doth not prove, that therefore John was de­creasing; if by decreasing you mean, that the things that John was a Preacher of should decrease; for, John was a Preacher of Repentance, as well as Water-baptism: And may you not as well say, That he de­creased in one thing, as well as another? And to the last branch of the quaere, I say, That in the sense Paul was a Minister of Christ, and was not sent to ba­ptize, a man may be a Minister of Christ now: But did you ever finde a Minister of Christ in all the New Testament, that did not baptize at all, or that said as you do, That Baptism with water is not Gods Com­mand?

15 Quest. Your next question is, seeing the last of Matthew is your strength for Water-baptism, I ask, Whether one may not be baptized into the Name of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, without being dipt in car­nal water? also, whether all you dip in water, you ba­ptize into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? if the first of these be Yea, and the later No, then I conclude, that carnal dipping is not the thing.

Answ. As for thy word carnal water, it is a word of thy own; and therefore I have nothing to say to it. But as touching the rest of the question, I say, That the former is Nay, and the latter Yea, to use your own [Page 52]phrases; for none were ever baptized into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that were not ba­ptized with water; and do thou prove it if thou canst, without a crooked Consequence, and I will believe all you say: and the latter is Yea, for we do not baptize any, but we do it in the Name of Father, Son, and holy Ghost.

16 Quest. Doth every one that reades the Bible, hear the Word of God? or hath every one the Word that hath a Bible? and what difference is there be­tween the ministration of the letter now, and that in the Jews time, BOTH denying the Faith which is the gift of God? and will that save now more without the ministration of the Spirit, then in their dayes?

Answ. First, every one that reads the Bible, READS the VVord; though it is true, that many can reade, that do not hear. Again, 2. every one that hath the Bible, hath the VVord; if by VVord you mean the written Commands of God, and his Promises to them that obey, and his Threatnings to them that obey not. And whereas you ask me, what difference is between the ministration of the letter now, and that in the Jews time, since both denied the Faith which is the gift of God, &c. I wonder at thy ignorance, James; doth not Paul say, 2 Cor. 3.7. that the ministration written with Letters, was glorious? and was not that to the Jews in the Jews time? and yet thou hast the face to say, That the ministration of the letter in the Jews time, did deny the Faith of God; and so thou sayest now: But where hast thou a text for this, that proves the ministration of the letter to deny the Faith of God at any time? is not this one of thy brain-sick Notions? And whereas you ask, if it would save now [Page 53]without the Spirit, more then in their dayes? I say, That question is needless; for, neither then nor now can men be saved, without Gods Spirit: But what's this to thy purpose, who saith, That the ministration of the letter in the Jews time, and now, do both deny the Light and Faith, which is the gift of God? For shame man leave off thy talking of God, without thou couldst speak more to purpose, and less to his disho­nour!

17 Quest. VVhether that righteousness that a man reades in the letter, sets him to do the like without Faith, which is the gift of God, or the leadings of the Light of Christ, the ministration of the Spirit, be the righteousness of Faith, or Self-righteousness?

Answ. The letter no where sets men to do the righ­teousness which it calls for, without the Faith of God and Christ. 2. To the latter part of your question, I answer, That the righteousness of Faith which men have by the Light of Christ, and the ministration of the Spirit, is not self-righteousness.

Thus have I plainly and faithfully transcribed thy questions, and answered them; which in reason thou couldst not expect, since thou hast left mine unanswer­ed: And were it not but that thou wouldst have been wise in thy own conceit, I should scarce have taken the pains; and if thou shouldst joy in the strength of thy Quaeres, know, That the joy of the hypocrite will be but for a moment, till my Answer can overtake them.