GEorge Whitehead hath made another ſcrible, in pretended anſwer to my book intituled, The Quakers proved Deceivers, &c. In which he doth but more manifeſt his folly and falſhood, as the more he ſcribles, the more it will yet appear, to ſuch as are not blinded with ignorance or errour. I ſhall, God aſſiſting, ſhew the reader briefly what pittifull ſtuff he hath, in ſome brief obſervations.

That in his title he calls my charge unjuſt, and my book a pamphlet, and the people I preach to, Mooreans, or Vniverſalists, are but ſome overflowings of the Gall of bitterneſſe that he is poſſeſt with, as alſo his calling my relation, a pretended and imperfect relation, and ſaying, that I falſly boaſt that I made good the charge, and of a pretended victory where I had none, which I leave to the judgement of the Lord, and of the auditory that heard our diſcourſe, though for the perfection and truth of my relation, George's inability to correct or contradict it in any thing of moment, in what he hath wrote againſt it, may paſſe with ſober men that hard us not, for a pretty good proof, or demonſtration. And as for his charging me with falſe doctrine, lyings, ſlanders, and perverting of the truth, I may give him leave in ſuch termes to vent his paſſion and never envie him for it, ſeeing God hath put him to rebuke before me, and the truth, notwithſtanding his ſerpent-like winding about to hide his deceits before his deluded followers tryumps over and againſt his errors.

His preamble begins with truths wrongly applyed by him to his deceits: the Serpent and his ſubtilty which appeares againſt the ſeed of God, and againſt the power and wiſdom of God] is manifeſt in him and his party, and the torment and vexation which the ſtriving againſt the truth brings, and the confuſion and darkneſſe that overwhelmes them that ſo do] is evident enough to them that can ſee in this envious and imbittered people, who hiſs, like Serpents out of their holes, when the truth diſturbs them, and laies them open. How empty & fooliſh a vapour it is that he ſaies, the Lord was with him, and by his ſtrength they were made able to tread upon their enemies. All that were at the diſpute (and remember how pitifully he was confounded, ſo that he would needs, for want of any reaſonable anſwer, have left the argument, and fallen to read on our book, to begin ſome charge againſt us, inſtead of defending himſelf againſt my charge) may eaſily diſcern. I bleſſe the Lord, I was in my ſpirit clearly above his deceits, and my mouth was enlarged over him, and the people generally received ſatisfaction againſt him. His charging me with rage and madneſſe againſt the truth, becauſe I was courageous for it, againſt his deceits, and was ſo far from raging, that I rejoiced againſt him, nothing moves me. I looke for an hundred worſe things from Satan than ſuch an aſpertion.

But whereas he ſaith, he ſeveral times ſent to me, to come forth in publick before he could get me; take the truth of the thing, that thou maiſt (Reader) ſee his deecit herein. When George Fox challenged me to make good my charge, he bad me appoint time and place; I appointed mine own houſe, or Mr. Iohnſons, againſt which he excepted not, but only that time he ſaid he could not. Therefore when George Whitehead ſent to me to meet him, to do it either in the Market place or Steeple-houſe, or Steeple-houſe-yard, or ſtreets, I returned him anſwer, what George Fox and I had agreed on, as to that matter; and yet, that if they would procure the ſteeple-houſe, I would meet him there: this he refuſed, and then would have me meet him at Iſbel Barnards, which I told his friend, I ſhould not refuſe, if my friends judged it convenient, or becauſe he had upbraided me with my God, I was not unwilling to meete him in the market place, would my friends thither accompany me, and the Magiſtrates approve it; upon advice with my friends they were not willing I ſhould go to Iſbel Barnards or the Mraket-place. Then I ſent him word, that if he and his friends would joine with me and mine, in repairing the harmes might by occaſion of the meeting in the ſteeple-houſe, be done to the ſeats, I would joine with them in procuring it. But this alſo, though one of his own party judged it but reaſonable, he refuſed, becauſe he would not put his party upon any charge: then he deſired me to nominate ſome indifferent private houſe, ſeeing he judged mine not indifferent, and we judged Iſbel Bernards as little or leſſe indifferent; and I did procure Mr. Philips his, where we ſhould have met, had his party, upon viewing of it, liked it; but the Church-warden in the mean while (without whoſe concent I would not make bold with the Church or ſteeple-houſe, or put either my friends or the pariſh upon the charge of repaires, they having been put to charge before at our former meeting by their occaſion) ſending me word that we might in the Chancel: ſo ſoon as we had that liberty granted, I ſent G. W. word of it, and accordingly there we met. Now judge Reader whether of us were moſt guilty of backwardneſſe to meete in the publick, ſo as was convenient, ſeeing I offered him ſo reaſonable, even in the judgement of ſome of his own party, and he refuſed it; but this is no new thing, to hide themſelves, and intimately accuſe others in deceit. He ſaies, The chief thing I drove at, was to make people believe, that there is no man living upon earth that ſinneth not, or can be perfectly freed from ſin in this life, and that the Prophets and Apoſtles had ſin in them ſo long as they lived] which though it's not altogether true; becauſe the main thing, I drove at was not that, but to prove the Quakers deceivers. Yet thoſe things, he ſaies, I drove at, and would have people believe me in, are in part, that very words of the Prophets and holy men of God; and ſo if I drove at that to make people believe thoſe things, I drove but at the making them believe the truth of the Scriptures, in thoſe ſayings and by conſequence George indeavoured to drive them from believing them. For, that there is not a juſt man upon earth that doth good and ſinneth not, and no man that ſins not, is not mine but Solomons by the ſpirit of truth, I trow, Eccleſ. 7.20. 1 Kings 8.46. and that no man is perfectly freed from ſin in all reſpects in this life, is evident both in Pſal. 143.2. and in that ſickneſſes, diſeaſes, and mortality that came in by ſin, abides upon all men till death, yea, and the bodily death that came in by ſin, abides upon all till the reſurrection: and ſo long as any fruit of ſin abides upon a man, he is not perfectly in all reſpects freed from ſin. And to ſay as he doth [that the aſſerting theſe things is the making way for my Fathers Kingdome which is upheld by ſin, as much as I could] is evident blaſphemy. For God being my Father (at leaſt by creation as he after, though erroniouſly ſaies, the Diſciples were taught ſo to call him their Father) his kingdome is not upheld by ſin; and if he calls him the Devil, he blaſphemes; or if he judge the Devil to be my Father, as no doubt his charity leads him, yet then he blaſphemes the ſpirit of truth which breathed in the holy men of God, while he makes the aſſerting their ſayings a warring for the Devils kingdome, that they be their ſayings, the places above quoted with, Rom. 7.17, 20, 21, 22, 23. Jam. 3.2. 1 John 1.8, 10. and 2.1, 2. make it evident. See Reader how this man diſcovers his ſhame and falſehood in al his oppoſitions, his intimations that we denyed him liberty to ſpeak in evidence of his (pretended) truths, is ſo falſe, that the contrary, namely that when he would have been reading, and at other times he was called upon again and again to anſwer, he would not for ſome time; yea, and ſometime he had liberty, or took it, to talke ſo much, that I could not have liberty to reply upon him, and the calling out of the company to him to anſwer or elſe own himſelf proved a deceiver, and perhaps ſometimes laughing at his folly, is that he calls the incivility towards him, and clamoring of many at once againſt him. And where he ſaies that, many hearing him with ſoberneſſe, was (as appeares) a grief to me, and probably ſome cauſe of my publiſhing of an imperfect relation of the diſcourſe in print to render him, and what he calls the truth, odious, and in my pride to make people believe I had got the victory. I avouch in the preſence of God, that the people hearing him with ſoberneſſe was no grief at all to me, or any thing that I ſee as making againſt me in the people, and if it appears ſo to him, it's becauſe his eye ſees by a falſe light, and the ſpirit of truth guids him not therein. I was very much rejoiced in the Lord to ſee his helpfulneſſe afforded me, and Geo. Whit. ſo made manifeſt to the people, and the people ſo ſatisfied: for which cauſe alſo I publiſhed as perfect a relation of the diſcourſe of theſe points ſpoken to, as poſſible I could, and could I poſſibly have come by every word, or fillable of it, I was not afraid nor aſhamed to make it publick, knowing right well the more perfectly it had been publiſhed, the more perfectly his folly had been made manifeſt: So that if what I have publiſhed in print render him odious, it is becauſe his folly and deceit in the diſpute was ſuch as deſerved it. As for what he ſaies, he ſhall make good againſt me in the ſtrength of God, it will appear to be but a deceived vapour in him by what I ſhall (through Gods aſſiſtance) ſay here to his two latter charges, which (he ſaies) his Treatiſe makes good, namely; That my Miniſtry, in which he (falſly) ſaies, I contend for ſin (juſt as the Apoſtle John did in 1 Joh. 1.8, 10. with 2.1.) is Anti-Chriſtian and both againſt the commands, promiſe and works of God, and leads to the making both the preaching and praying of Chriſt and the Saints ineffectual, and that. 2. I (like a chollerick envious man againſt the truth of God and his people) am a forger of lies, a falſe accuſer and ſlanderer, and ſo one of the Dragons army, &c. By this making good, or not making, thou maiſt judge Reader, whether the ſtrength of God be with him to make good his former againſt me by diſpute, which he could challenge me to in publick, either in market place, Steeple-houſe or their meeting houſe in Lin, namely. 1. That I am out of the ſteps of the true Miniſters, and am in the practice of deceivers, an hypocrite, and no Miniſter of Christ, and being a pariſh Priest am guilty of the Priests iniquity in many things againſt which I have declared. And 2. That I uphold a dead formal worſhip like the world, whereunto people are not called by the ſpirit of truth; which is not the true worſhip, and keep people from the life of God, and my Miniſtry formal and corrupt. Which his fooliſh challenge I ſhall not accept, both becauſe his folly and falſhood in his boaſts of ſtrength, to that may be ſufficiently diſcovered in his failers, of what he boaſts he hath done in his Treatiſe, as alſo becauſe he therein laies a trap for me, to get occation to reproach me; for he knowes I ſent him word, that I ſhould henceforth have no more to do with him, but according to the Apoſtles counſel reject them; now ſhould I accept his challenge, he and his party would reproach me, as they did upon a leſſe coloured occaſion as a lyer and falſe. Beſides theſe being perſonal charges, and the overflowings of their anger againſt me, becauſe foiled at the diſpute, and ſuch things as theſe ſpoken ſo much as we thought needful in anſwer to his former book in which he ſpits ſuch venemous ſtuff againſt me, I ſhall not go about to plead my own cauſe, but leave it to God; and rather take good Hezekiahs courſe when Sennacherib railed upon him, that would not have him anſwered again.

That he is far from making good his charges in the two other points of it ſpoken to, as he ſaies in his treatiſe, theſe things that follow in anſwer hereunto, I hope will fully evince.

To my proofes for the Scriptures (which he only ſets down the quotations without ſaying any thing to them particularly,) that the Prophets, Apoſtles, and holy men of God (even after they were Prophets, Apoſtles, and holy men) came confeſſing themſelves ſinners, and to have ſin. He ſaies, I have not made it appear that the Quakers do not ſo, for they own their confeſſing ſin, and they have confeſſed their ſins to the Lord as they did. To this I anſwer, that's evident enough that the Quakers do not boaſt by their not denying our charge againſt them in our firſt book, but pleading for their conceited ſinleſſeneſſe, and by what they ſay here; for, obſerve I pray, 1. They do but ſay, they own the Apoſtles and Prophets, confeſſing their ſins, ſeeing they ſay a man born of God hath no ſin to confeſſe, either then they deny the Apoſtles and Prophets, when ſuch, to have been born of God, or how do they own their confeſſing ſin? Nay, George ſaies, Paul (and he may as well ſay it of all the reſt) ſpake not of his own ſtate, but other mens.

2. What if they own their confeſſing ſins, that proves not that the Quakers do confeſſe them. The Scribes and Phariſees owned the Prophets doings, yet they did not as the Prophets. Thirdly, He ſayes they have confeſt them, that implies they do not ſo now. But the Apoſtles and Prophets do not ſay only they had in times paſt confeſt and forſaken them, but even when Apoſtles and Prophets confeſs them, in the preſent; ſee elſe David again and again as Pſal. 6. and 19. and 25. and 38. and 40. ſo Paul Rom. 7.17, 20. We find no time of the Apoſtles and Prophets, while here, in which they ſaid, they had no ſin in them. But it ſeems the Quakers would be thought to be better than the Prophets and Apoſtles: As for their denying themſelves and ſin, I would they did as truly as pretend it, but their lying, falſifying, and paſſionate language, diſcovers the conntrary in them, for all their ſaying as this peice of Georges ſufficiently proves, his reproaching the Miniſters by the name of Prieſts, as he doth me often with much bitterneſſe, as Prieſt Horne, this Prieſt, this ſcornefull Prieſt, Horne, &c. As they argue him not to have put off all malice, bitterneſſe, &c. So are they not to be mattered by us; nor his reproaching any of us, as not forſaking our ſins, but pleading for them; its likely Davids enemies did ſo in Pſal. 38.15, 16, 17. to which George hath given no anſwer, though alleged to prove the Quakers ſuch towards us, as Davids enemies were to him. Doubtleſſe theſe Quakers would have accuſed the Apoſtles of not forſaking ſin too but pleading for it, had they lived in their time, and heard them ſay ſin dwelt in them, and that in many things they all offend, eſpecially they would have taxed David with it that is ſo often confeſſing his ſin, as in part I have noted. But ſee how ſilly his pretended proof is, that ſin doth not abide in all men the term of this life, and that they are out of the ſpirit and life of the Prophets and holy men of God, it is this, They know the fear of the Lord, which is to depart from iniquity, which fear keeps the heart clean, and ſuch as live in it ſhall not depart from the Lord, Jer. 32.40.] as if where men know, or have the fear of the Lord, there is no ſin in them, and as if to have ſin in a man, and to depart from the Lord, was all one. See the folly and falſehood of this paſſage. Did not David know the fear of the Lord which is clean, when he ſaid, Pſalm 19.9. the feare of the Lord is clean enduring for ever? or did he ſpeak at randome? and yet did not pray preſently after, cleanſe thou me from my ſecret ſins? or had not Paul the fear of the Lord, or did he depart from the Lord when he delighted in the Law of the Lord in his inner man, and yet found another law in his members, warring againſt the law of his mind? Rom. 7.21, 22, 23. Doth not theſe paſſages evidence, that George Whitehead is ſo far from being in the ſtrength of God, as he boaſts, that he is a man of no judgement (that is, right underſtanding) that cannot diſtinguiſh between ſins being in men, and the heart departing from the Lord by ſin offending in a mans walking and leaving the way. How ſilly alſo it is that he accounts it abſurd for me to ſay, That people ought to account the Quakers accurſed, whom we have ſaid to be an heavy judgement of God to us in this Nation, for then they muſt count the judgement of God accurſed. And again pa. 11. That in ſtriving againſt, and reviling the Quakers, we ſtrive againſt and revile Gods judgement, when as we ſhould patiently bear Gods judgements? for doth not judgement begin at the houſe of God? 1 Pe. 4.17. and doth he not ordain wicked men for judgement, ſuch as the Caldeans? Heb. 1.12. and falſe teachers? Jude 4. yea, and Satan too, as to Job? and may we not accompt Satan his inſtruments accurſed, and yet not count Gods judgement ſo? or becauſe the judgement of God is juſt and holy, are the wicked men ordained as a judgement holy and juſt too? If God ſhould judge a Nation by ſending wild beaſts among them, muſt they patiently let the wild beaſt devour their folkes, becauſe they be a judgement ſent of God? or elſe do they reſiſt the judgement of God? I trow not; its a judgement that we muſt be put to ſtrive againſt ſuch beaſts, and yet that judgement we may patiently bear in all our ſtrifts againſt them. Sure if G. W. cannot diſtinguiſh between the judgement of God as a judgement from him, and as to the conditions of the thing which he uſes as judgements, he is but a blind guide and they that follow him will fall into the ditch with him. Whereas I ſay, the true Apoſtles and Prophets never uſe to ſpeak of themſelves as finleſſe. G. W. ſaies its falſe, for the true Prophet ſaies, all his judgements were before me, and as for his ſtatutes I did not depart from them, I was alſo upright before him, and have kept my ſelfe from my iniquity, 2 Sam. 22.24. But mark here Reader, that David acknowledges he had then iniquity, for how was iniquity his, if there was none in him, his keeping himſelf from it, is the ſame with that in the Apoſtle, of not walking after the fleſh, which alſo implies fleſh to be in them, and intice them that walk not after it. And David ſpeaks there of his innocency in reſpect of his carriages toward Saul and his other enemies in the things they accuſed him in, and pretended as juſt cauſes of their perſecuting him, the Pſalm being pend upon that occaſion as the title ſhews, beſides which he committed many ſins, though yet then notwithſtanding it is ſaid of him, that he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not a ſide from any thing that he commanded him all the daies of his life, ſave only in the matter of Vriah the Hittite, 1 Kings 15.5. But in thoſe things between him and his enemies, God rewarded him (not after his iniquitie which he kept himſelf from, as in another place, Pſal. 107.10. he hath not dealt with us after our ſins, nor rewarded us after our iniquities; in which he acknowledges, even he among others, that they had ſins and iniquities, but they being kept from ſerving and living in them, God dealt not with them after them, but after the righteouſnes and cleanneſſe found, according to the ſpirit or inward man; even as Paul when he had ſaid, he ſerved with his mind the Law of God, but with his fleſh the law of ſin; yet adds, there is therefore no condemnation to them that walke not after the fleſh, but after the ſpirit; God therein deals with them according to their cleanneſſe in Chriſt, and in their walking after the ſpirit, and not after their ſin in their members: ſo that quotation alſo clearly failes him. It is true too that God promiſes that his people ſhall be all righteous, and clean from all their filthineſſe; yea, and they are righteous in Chriſt, and his blood actually and continually cleanſeth them; but that proves not that the Saints and Prophets ever boaſted themſelves to be without ſin: But even they that ſaid, the blood of Chriſt cleanſeth us from all ſin, ſay too imediately after, if we ſay we have no ſin we deceive our ſelves; nay, ſeeing Gods afflicting his people, is to purge away their ſin, as Iſa. 27.8, 9. and the temptations he tries them with, are to try and purifie their faith from the mixtures therein, (both of them being as baptizings with water and fire to thoſe ends) it appeares, that ſo long as they are ſubject to afflictions and tryals, (which is ſo long as they live, death it ſelf being one way of afflicting and trying) they have droſſe and uncleanneſſe to be purged from, and God is performing his promiſes to them therein, that they may be all perfectly righteous even in themſelves, in the new heaven and earth and new Jeruſalem, where ſhall be no unclean thing, and where ſhall be the full accompliſhment of Gods righteouſneſſe upon them, to which alſo Iſa. 60. alludes. As for thoſe that John ſaw Rev. 14. that were without fault before the Throne of God, and that could ſing to the Lord a new ſong, I ſay all that heartily believe in Chriſt, and are not moved away from the hope of the Goſpel, it is Chriſts office to preſent them holy unblameable and without reproof in Gods ſight, Col. 1.22.23. not becauſe they are ſinleſs in themſelves, but becauſe they are in him who is their perfect righteouſneſſe; nor is that the new ſong they ſing, that in us is no fault or blame; but while they accuſe themſelves and confeſſe their ſins, he is juſt and faithful and forgives them, and ſo preſents them in himſelf without blame before God, and their ſong is praiſes or ſalvation to the Lord, as in Pſal. 40.23. David ſung that new ſong, and yet complained of innumerable ſins, and evils compaſſing him about in himſelf: See elſe Pſal. 40.11, 12, 13. So that ſtill here appears in George nothing but ignorant miſtakes, or the ſpirit of deceit. He adds, that that ſong cannot be ſung by thoſe that are in their iniquities, and pleading for ſins, being enemies to the ſtate of the new creature. But he herein groſly prevaricates and deceives his Reader, confounding mens having ſin in them, and confeſſing their ſins with men being in ſin, and pleading for it; between which is a vaſt difference: Paul was not in his ſin, but in Chriſt, nor did he plead for ſin, but ſtrive againſt it and deny it, when he ſaid, ſin was in him, and bewailed that he did what he would not. We ſay not then, that the true Apoſtles and Prophets were in ſin, and pleaded for it, but had ſin in them, and bewailed their ſins; nor do we in ſo ſaying, plead for ſin, no more than they did. Therefore George herein bewrayes his great ignorance and miſtake, and his concluſion is meer vanity and deceit, viz. That they have a cloud of witneſſes, and many evidences for their teſtimonie that it is of God, and that what they hold is truth, and that all that own God muſt own them herein. Which is all falſe, as by what is ſaid may be ſeen.

I ſayd, that when John ſaid, 1 Ioh. 4.17. As he is ſo are we in this world, he could not mean it, we are without ſin, becauſe that's contrary to his own expreſſions, 1 Ioh. 1.8. This G. W. railes on me for, and adds, That John who knew the ſtate in which they had ſin, and in which if they ſaid they had no ſin, they deceived themſelves, &c. did not ſay they ſhould have ſin ſo long as in the world, for he ſaith, little children let no man deceive you, he that doth righteouſneſſe is righteous, as he is righteous, 1 John 3.6, 7. Plainly implying that they are deceivers that ſay, men cannot be without ſin while they are in the World, &c. Mind Reader the wildneſs of his anſwers, & how he leaves my ſaying undiſproved, do what he can; for what if Iohn did not ſay in expreſſe words, that they ſhould have ſin ſo long as they were in this world; Seeing that Scripture ſpeaks of what they were at preſent (as he is, ſo we are in this world?) it's enough to proove, that what Iohn ſaid there, of their preſent ſtate, may not be interpreted as the Quakers do, that they were then without ſin, ſeeing it croſſes what he ſaid before of their preſent eſtate, in that reſpect. And what though he that doth righteouſnes is righteous, even as he is righteous; that proves not that he that doth righteouſneſſe hath no ſin in him, for he that confeſſes his ſins, doth righteouſneſſe therein, otherwiſe how is it righteouſneſſe and faithfulneſſe in God to forgive him, 1 Iohn 1.9. So then he that, in ſuch a ſenſe as in that, 1 Iohn 1.9. confeſſeth his ſins, is righteous as Chriſt is righteous, for Chriſt is his righteouſneſſe; and yet he that confeſſeth his ſin, is not without ſin in himſelfe, for then he ſhould confeſſe a falſehood: And what though (as he adds) that in 1 Iohn 4.17. have relation to their dwelling in God and God in them (that's but George's affirmation) do not they that walke in the light, as he is in the light, dwell in God, and God in them? and yet have ſins that the blood of Chriſt cleanſeth them from: and if they ſayd, they have no ſin, they deceive themſelves, 1 Iohn 1.7, 8. I ſay, the true Apoſtles & Prophets uſed not to glory in their perfection, and finleſneſſe. He anſwers. Then they uſed not to glory in Chriſt, and who is it that will believe this deceit, for Chriſt was their righteouſneſſe and perſection, See Reader, what a deceitful man is this, that leaves out the word ſinleſneſſe, which I added on purpoſe, to ſhew what perfection I meant of, and then to ask if the Apoſtles gloried not in a perfection, which he was ſure I meant not of, for though Chriſt be by the gift of God their perfection, yet he is not their perſonal ſinleſneſſe or ſelfe perfection, that I ſpake of; theſe men are good at little, but at crafty catching at, and perverting expreſſions.

Again, to our ſaying they reproached us, for owning our ſelves part of the Nation, guilty of ſin with them. He taxeth us, For finding fault with the Teachers and people, and yet now we are joyned with them, and guilty of ſin with them, and that I joine my ſelf with the blind watchmen, and dumb dogs, and then taxe us with hypocriſie and deceit, for one while declaring againſt the Teachers, and people of the Nation, and another while to joine with them.] But marke Reader, that I ſaid not we joined our ſelves with them in their ſinning, but in confeſſing ſins; that is, we conſeſſe ours with theirs, nor ſay we, that we are guilty of all their ſins, but guilty of ſin. And will not his charges of us, for this, fall upon the Prophet Iſaiah, did not he one while inviegh againſt the watchmen and the people, yea many times, and yet another while joine in himſelf among them, in confeſſing the Nations ſins, in Iſa. 59.10, 11, 12, 13. when he ſaid, we grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes, and our tranſgreſſions are multiplyed before thee, and our ſins teſtifie againſt us. Did Iſaiah ſpeak thoſe things of himſelf and the Diſciples, as a diſtinct party from the body of the Nation, or as joining in the Nation with themſelves? If as a diſtinct party, would not George ſay then, they were hypocrites for faulting others, and being as bad themſelves? If as joining themſelves in with the Nation, were they not guilty of the ſame that George throwes upon us, if we be therefore guilty, as he ſaies? Surely all that read theſe things, may ſee herein G. W.'s weakneſſe. My charges of them denying Chriſt to have that body glorified in heaven, in which he ſuffered, is not diſproved by my ſaying, they granted the ſame body that ſuffered was glorified at Gods right hand, becauſe (as elſewhere we have cleared it) they meant equivocally in that ſaying, and not of the perſonal body of Chriſt: but to that and their denyal of the reſurrection of mens bodys, we have ſpoken fullyer, in our anſwer to their book againſt us. Nor will my ſaying, they are perſons of no judgement in theſe things, ſave them from being guilty of indeavouring to ſubvert the faith about them, ſeeing judgement, in Scripture expreſſion, ſignifies right underſtanding, as in Iſa. 42.14. and 59.8. and they that have no underſtanding to do good, may be wiſe to do evil, as the Prophet ſaies. Jer. 4.22.

To that of our Saviour, Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, alledged by G. W. to proove, that ſome men are without ſin here. I noted, That men may in Scripture ſenſe be ſaid to be perfect, that have ſin in them. Inſtancing in Job. and Aſa. And 2. That exhortations to things, prove not thoſe things to be perfectly attained by any here, nor doth the Scripture ever ſay, Let not ſin be in you, &c. The firſt of theſe George paſſes over, which, would he have defended himſelfe to purpoſe he ſhould not have done. To the 2. he ſaies, To what end or effect then was his exhortation? What, muſt men be under the commands after death which they had in their life time, and not till then fulfill them? here's darkeneſs indeed (ſaith he) made manifeſt, and the command put a far off. To that conſider, are all commands to no end and effect, that are not fulfilled by them to whom they are given? Sure then many commands given of God, muſt be concluded to be ſo, for how many commands of his are broken by men, & not fulfilled of them? Neh. 9.29. Jer. 32.23. Shall we ſay therefore they were to no end or effect? Sure his end is that we ſhould preſſe, in his ſtrength, after what is commanded, to our ability, knowing that he accepts through Chriſt our endeavour, though we attain not here its perfection: and that where we are ſhort we acknowledge it, and in the ſenſe of it, being humbled in our ſelves, give glory to God, in, and for Chriſt, in whom we are (and by whom we ſhall be made) perfect; as Paul ſaid of himſelfe, to will was preſent with him, even to will all that the commandment requires, but how to perform it, he found not: yet was not the commandment without end or effect, in as much as in the inner man, he delighted in it and groaned for the day of perfect liberty, when there ſhould be no let to do it perfectly; and thanked God in Chriſt Jeſus, in whom he being perfect, was not under condemnation, for what he found not; as for being under commands after death, I ſay men ſhall fulfill commandments after death given in this life; for muſt not the ſpirits of juſt men love God after the bodily death and in the reſurrection? yea, ſhal they not then love him with all their heart, more perfectly than now they do, when they more perfectly injoy him? And yet they are commanded now to love him. So that the darkneſſe appears in G. W. To the other, that the Scripture ſaies not any where, Let not ſin be in you. He ſaies, Is it not all one to ſay, be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect, or waſh you, make yee clean, keep Gods commandment, love and ſerve him with all the heart, which muſt be fulfilled: then what part of man muſt be a ſubject for ſin to dwell in while he lives here?] To the firſt of theſe, the ſaying, Be ye perfect, &c. Is not the ſaying, Let not ſin be in you? Thoſe words are not theſe, & no more neceſſarily included in them, than, Let no weakneſſe, infirmity or mortality be in you, or no ignorance of any thing in heaven or earth; ſeeing God is as perfectly free from them, as from ſin: but the ſayings of Scripture are to be interpreted according to their ſcope, which there appears to be perfect in teſtifying or extending love to enemies, as well as friends, as God doth. As God is ſo perfect in charity, as to love and do good to the evil, and good, ſo would Chriſt have his diſciples in an anſwerable ſenſe, which how G. W. and the Quakers faile in their bitterneſſe and reproaches ſufficiently evidence. Nor is it all one to ſay, Waſh you, make you clean, and let no ſin be in you; for theſe phraſes alluding to the waſhings under the Law; as it was not one and the ſame there, to ſay, Waſh you from ſome uncleanneſſe defiling the fleſh, and let no ſuch unclean or defiling humor, as of blood or other matter, be in your bodies; for the cleaneſt body had ſuch humors in it, as, iſſuing out upon it, would defile it: So, neither is it all one to ſay, Waſh you from your ſins and defilements (which is done in confeſſing and denying them) and let no ſin be in you; the being of ſin in men, being not imputed, were not conſented to, or ſided with, no more than the being of unclean humors within the body, were accounted to men when they did not iſſue out, to touch and ly upon the body. As Rom. 7.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. and 8.1. Nor is it all one to ſay, Keep the commandments, love God with all the heart; for that requires no more, as to Gods gracious acceptation, than that as he is in the light, we walk in the light, and love him with all the ability of knowing and loving here given us; which is not, while here, ſo perfect as to have no ignorance of God, and ſo no ſin in us; however thoſe ſayings are not that. To that queſtion, In what part muſt ſin dwell, &c. I ſay ſin will, whither we will or no, dwell in our members while they be mortal. Rom. 7.17.20. with Pſalm 143.2. So as no man living, ſhould God enter into judgement with him, can be juſtified in his ſight, which, • he ſaies next • Proves not that the Prophets and Apoſtles had ſin in them while they lived, and ſeeing the Scripture it ſelfe doth not prove it, he ſaies, it's no matter of my word, who (he ſaies) perverts the Scripture therein, both belying me and the Scripture, for the Scripture gives this as the reaſon wher • o • e David would not that God ſhould enter into judgement with him, though his ſervant, that no man living ſhould be juſtified in his ſight. Doth not, no man living, include no Prophet or Apoſtle, as men while here living, Suitable to that, Pſal. 130.3. if thou Lord mark iniquities, Lord who ſhall ſtand? as implying none ſhould. So that Scripture proves what I aſſerted, unleſſe the Apoſtles and Prophets could be proved not to have been men ſo long as they lived.

He ſaies, That Scripture includes not the Saints, as to prove them unjuſtified, who were changed from that ſtate wherein no man living could be juſtified in the ſight of God, and were come through the death and the many tryalls and tribulations into the life and righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.] See here, Reader, if this man hath any thing but deceit? And is it a matter for his words without Scripture proofe? Was not David a Saint, when the ſervant of the Lord, and deſires God to anſwer him in his faithfulneſs and righteouſneſſe? who is the accuſer of the Saints here, but G. W. that implies, that David was not a Saint? or is no man living a Saint? Muſt they ſtay from being Saints till they are dead and Canonized by the Pope? If the Saints while they live here be men that live, then cannot they be juſtified if God ſhould enter into judgement with them; either then ſay, that the Saints are not men living, while here alive, or that David ſaid falſe, or elſe that G. W, is a deceiver, and not to be liſtened to by us. And yet we ſay not, that the Saints be ſo included as to be unjuſtified while here, but that is not becauſe they could be juſtified, ſhould God enter into judgement with them, though he may judge them through him; he deals not with them immediately, as, or according to what they are in themſelves, or according to their ſins, Pſal. 103.10, 11. But in, and according to his good will in Chriſt, what he ſpeaks of a ſtate in which they are come through the death, &c. What be they but his additions to the Scriptures, of which Davids ſaying gives no intimation. Is there any Saint living here in any ſtate that is not a man living? or is it ſaid, no man in the death, or that is, not yet paſſed through the death, can be juſtified? Alas, what be theſe things, but ſorry deceitful evaſions from plain truth. He ſaies, I relate part of our diſcourſe deceitfully and imperfectly, and yet after queſtions, whether I relate it or not, and then laies down part of what is related about Pauls groning to be delivered, &c. But wherein I relate it imperfectly, much leſſe deceitfully, he ſhowes not, only ſaies, I have belyed and wronged his words and left out the greateſt part of them that cleared his anſwer: and yet afterwards ſaies, he could not have liberty to open what he ſaid ſo much there as here; and yet if the Reader compare what I related, with the ſum of what he ſaies here, where he took his own liberty aſſuredly, without moleſtation from us, he will find, that beſides his quotations and perverſions of what he quotes from John, Jeremy & Iſa. of which he then made no mention, I clearly laid down the ſubſtance of his ſayings, and that he could not have liberty there to clear his ſayings, is ſo far from truth, that we often urged him to anſwer, and he was ſo void of any clearing anſwer, that he would have left the argument to read on our book what did nothing concerne it. And that I have caſt no lye nor ſcornfull ſlander upon him in ſaying, he was baffled (as he here charges me) may be evident from this, that to my demand of him, Whether the Apoſtles and Prophets, were not Apoſtles and Prophets when as he granted, they confeſt they had ſin: he denies not that he granted, yea, nor that to my queſtioning, what ſtate it was, then of which he ſaid they had a time and ſtate that they had no ſin: he replied, when they were born of God, nor that to my queſtion whether they were not born of God when Apoſtles and Prophets? he anſwered, that they (as Paul for inſtance) had a time when not born of God, viz. when he groaned and travelled, waiting for the adoption, nor doth he deny, that he went about to clear up that, that he was not born of God while he ſo waited for the redemption of the body, only faults me for not giving a full relation of what he ſaid to it: now then I do demand, if he was not baffled, to what purpoſe did he (upon my quoting 1 John 5.1. to prove that he was born of God all the time he was an Apoſtle) fly to another anſwer; that Paul ſpake to conditions below his own? If he was not quite beat off his other anſwer, why fled he to this? which cannot be true and the other too: For if Paul was but then groaning to be born, and not born of God, then ſpake he of his own ſtate, and if he ſpaek to others ſtates below his own then, then is it not true that he had, while an. Apoſtle, or then when he ſaid, he ſo waited a time in which he was not born of God, ſo theſe two ſhifts clearly overthrow one the other. And whereas he ſaies, many that heard the diſpute can witneſſe againſt me for impudent belying and ſlandring him. I call God to witneſſe, in whoſe preſence I am, and dare appeal to all indifferent and underſtanding Auditors, that I have not in any thing belyed or ſlandered him, much leſſe impudently. Let us ſee what he himſelf ſaith he ſaid, Paul witneſſed, ſaith he, the groaning and travelling in pain before the birth was born in him, or before he was born of God, or in the ſtate of him that was born of God. (Mark Reader his own inconſtancy and confuſion, as not knowing how to phraſe it) intending (ſaith he) as 1 Iohn 3.9. who cannot ſin, it ſeems he was ſo baffled that he could not then tell us his intention, nor now doth explain here thoſe in 1 Joh. 3. are ſaid to be born of God, only ſeems to imply, that he thinks there be other kinds of being born of God than that ſpeaks of, which would or could he have cleared himſelf, he ſhould have proved, and not ſo ſpoken without diſtinction and underſtanding. He adds, that Paul could ſin, when he could do the evil he would not] which yet he proves not, ſeeing he expreſly ſaies, it was not he that did it, but ſin that dwelt in him, and to the Galatians, that the fleſh luſting againſt the ſpirit, and the ſpirit againſt the fleſh, they could not do what they would, and ſo it was there with him, as the law in his members, warring againſt the law in his minde, he could not do what in his ſpirit he would, ſo the inner man or ſpirit delighting in the law of God, and luſting againſt the fleſh or law in his members, he could not do what his fleſh would, and what ſin in him did: yea, what his members or fleſh, and ſo he (as denominated by it) did, he as in the ſpirit, or according to the inner man (accoring to which John ſaies, whoſoever is born of God cannot ſin) could not do. What he adds about his travelling in pain for deliverance from the bondage of corruption, and that where the ſon or birth from above is born, the glorious liberty of the Sons of God is injoyed, which the creatures waited for, and the travelling in pain for deliverance is ceaſed, as alſo the firſt clauſe of his ſaying above related, that Paul witneſſed the groaning and travelling in pain before the birth was born in him. Is all beſides the buſh, as in our relation of the diſcourſe alſo is evidenced, for as I then and there cleared it, what Paul ſaies of travelling in pain and of deliverance from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God, he ſaies of the whole creation, diſtinguiſhing himſelf and the Sons of God, who had then received the firſt fruites of the ſpirit from the creature before ſpoken of, as is clear, Rom. 8.20, 21, 22, 23. for he ſaies, not only they, but we our ſelves alſo that have the firſt fruits of the ſpirit, even we our ſelves groan within our ſelves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of the body. It's clear, that the Apoſtles there, in ver. 19, 20. &c. ſpeakes of the reſtitution of all things ſpoken of by the Prophets (as Act. 3.21. When the glory of the Sons of God, that now ſuffer with Chriſt (as ver. 17.) even to the bodily death, ſhall be revealed; and when the creature it ſelf, as diſtinct from them, even the fabrick of the world ſhall be renewed and freed from the bondage of corruption, that it is by occaſion of mens ſins ſubjected to in hope, for which freedome in it's kind, it groans and travels together till now, and for the redemption of the body, then alſo to be effected, from the bondage, to what it ſuffers now, and ſhall lye under, in ſome things till then, they the Sons of God diſtinct from the other creatures, alſo waiting, groaned; what groaning or travelling was neceſſary to precede the being born of God, Joh. 1.12, 13. ſo as to be made Sons of God, Paul and the other holy Apoſtles and Prophets had it in their receiving Chriſt, before they were made Apoſtles and Prophers, though I deny not but in that birth there might be degrees and growth after, nor will the perfection of it, be as to the body till the reſurrection thereof from the dead: So that yet it abides firme, that Paul, when born of God, confeſſed he had ſin dwelt yet in him. Whereas he adds, That I perverted his compariſon, and that it was not intended to prove that Paul was not born into the world according to the fleſh wherewith he travelled, &c. I anſwer, that G. W. groſly plaies the Sophiſter in repreſenting me as wreſting his compariſon to any ſuch intention. It's evident what I ſaid is to this purpoſe, that as no woman travells with natural children before ſhe her ſelfe be born, and be a woman; So neither did Paul groan for the reſurrection of the body, till himſelf was born of God in the mind and ſpirit, and ſo that he was born of God, when he ſo groaned as he there ſpeaks of. His quotation of John 16.21, 22. is impertinent, for Chriſt ſpeaks there of the ſorrow they had before the ſpirit was powred down upon them, before they were ſent out into all the world, as Act. 1.8. with Luke 24.49. which Paul had before he was an Apoſtle, and ſo before he made that confeſſion of ſin, Act. 9.17. in Rom. 7.17.20. or elſe alſo of their having ſorrow in travelling to bring forth the knowledg of Chriſt in others, and their joy after in their being brought forth unto God, and moſt fully when they ſhal be preſented with them, together at the great appearance of Chriſt in his glory at the reſurrection of the juſt, as 2 Cor. 4.11, 12, 13, 14. that in Jer. 30.6. ſpeaking of Jacobs ſorrow in captivity, and their joy in their return again, is yet more impertinently alledged by him, and ſo is that in Iſa. 9.6. abuſed; for the Prophet Iſaiah doth not witneſſe as George pretends, that in them a child was born, & in them a ſon was given; but to them, which he ſpeaks prophetically of Chriſt given in the counſel, purpoſe and promiſe of God, and to be born in his time, which he ſpeaks of, for its certainty as if then accompliſhed, though not to themſelves, but to us in theſe after ages, they miniſtred the things now preached as accompliſhed; as the Apoſtle Peter tells us, 1 Pet. 1.11, 12. His confuſion in ſaying one while, The Diſciples travelled in ſorrow before the man, or birth from above, was born in them, and preſently, that they were in pain before they became that birth, I paſſe, as alſo his judging me as ignorant of the ſtates he ſpeaks of, their talking of a babe in them, faſhioning their bodies to the likeneſſe here of Chriſts glorious body, I have writ and yet do teſtifie againſt, as arguing their unbelief, and denyal of the reſurrection of the body, and the power of Chriſt thereto, which makes them turne the things thereabout into fancies and allegories of their own divifing, which ſhews them to be ſuch as ſubvert the faith, and ſuch as are to be counted accurſed. That, I wickedly belyed the people in ſaying they all laught, becauſe many of his friends, and others that were ſober minded did not join with them, &c. Is as falſe as that Mathew wickedly belyed the people of Judea and about Jordan, in ſaying all Judea, and all the regions about Jordan went out to John, and were baptized of him, when it appears that the Phariſees rejected the counſel of God, and were not baptized of him, Mat. 3.5, 6. with Luke 7.30. I diſtinguiſhed the people both from his friends and our ſelves, but are his friends no ſober minded men, that they are diſtinguiſhed from them; I ſpeak of the generality of the people, if there were one or two did otherwiſe, it's more then I obſerved.

To that of, 1 John 5.1. Whoſoever believes that Jeſus is the Chriſt is born of God. he cavils that I did it without underſtanding and without diſtinction, whereas it was his part being the anſwer, to have diſtinguiſhed, if he underſtood any ground for it, and not mine, who was opponent; but ſomething he will ſay, though to no purpoſe, how much more truly might I have ſaid, what he charges me with, of the generality of his own quotations in his anſwer, as that in 2 Sam. 22. 1 Joh. 3.9. and 1 John 4.17. and yet when in my poſtſcript I diſtinguiſhed of that in 1 John 3.9. He ſnatches at the firſt part of my diſtinction, (viz. that whoſoever is perfectly born of God (as the ſpirits of juſt men made perfect, and the men themſelves in the Reſurrection) cannot ſin at all; but none ſo perfectly born of God here) taking no notice of the other propoſitions that ſpeak of men, as here born of God, and then cries out. Oh what pittiful ſtuffe is here to imagine men are not perfectly born of God, ſo as not to ſin till deceaſed; this would make the worke of God imperfect here, when all his works are perfeci; & then taxes me as if I had ſaid, that thoſe that were born of God in the Apoſtles daies, were ſome that were deceaſed and riſen again. Whereas I in the other part of the diſtinction ſhewed how thoſe that are born of God, while here, may be ſaid not to ſin, and that they cannot ſin; but why is it ſuch pittifull ſtuffe, to ſay, that the ſpirits of juſt men deceaſed, & the men themſelves when raiſed, are, or ſhall be, more perfectly born of God, the while here living? do they gain no degree of perfection by death? where then is the advantage they have by it? Nor ſhall they gain none in the reſurrection neither, when ſeeing him as he is, they ſhall be like him? 1 John 3.2. or have the preſent propoſitions of truth, all their fulfilling at the preſent? He that hath the Son hath life, 1 John 5.12. Have they not ſo that are deceaſed in him? and ſhall they not have him, and life more fully in the reſurrection, if G. believe it? And why muſt the work of God be imperfect, if men be not perfectly born of God here? was the work of God, all whoſe works are perfect, imperfect when Paul ſaid, not that I am already perfect, or have already attained? Philip. 3.12. or becauſe the Fathers dyed in the faith, not having received the promiſes God, having provided ſome better thing for us, that they without us ſhould not be made perfect, Heb. 11.39. Were the works of God therefore imperfect till theſe laſt ages? If ſo, then why not ſo too till the reſurrection? If they were perfect alwaies, and in all generations, then mens not being perfectly born of God, while here, hinders not their perfection, no more then Pauls or the Fathers being not perfect did. Surely G. W. is very ſilly, if he think as he writ here, and a very deceiver, if he thought otherwiſe, and they be ſimple that are catcht with ſuch chaff, or worthy to be blind ſtill that will not ſee it, but let us ſee what diſtinction he hath deviſed upon, 1 John 5.1. to ſave his credit. He ſaies, It's true according to Johns teſtimony of a true believer, who by faith hath victory over the world, and ſo being born of God, is not under the bondage of corruption, &c. But ſuch he ſaies I. H. doth not own while men are here.] Folly and falſehood, folly, for he implies, that Johns ſaying is not true without diſtinction, and yet John ſaid it without diſtinction; for he ſaid not, whoſoever ſo, or ſo, believeth that Jeſus is the Chriſt, but in general expreſſions whoſoever believeth that Jeſus is the Chriſt is born of God. True it is that he ſaies ver. 4. whatſoever is born of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith, but then in ver. 5. he explicates what their faith was anſwerable to, ver. 1. ſaying, who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believes that Jeſus is the Son of God, which is all one with whoſoever believeth that Jeſus is the Chriſt; clearly fignifying, that he that believeth that, is born of God, and ſo overcometh the world, even the ſpirit, rudiments, and pollutions of the world ſo as none elſe: and that they who believe not (that is, with their heart believe not) that Jeſus (even that Jeſus of Nazareth whom the Jews crucified bodily, and God raiſed from the dead (for heſides him the Apoſtles did preach no other Jeſus, name, or thing, within men or without men to be the Saviour, or ſalvation of God to be believed on, Acts 4.10, 11, 12.) is the Chriſt the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, the annointed one to bring us back to God, the propitiation for our ſins, the righteouſneſſe and life given us of God; I ſay he implies that they who believe not him to be the Chriſt, or annointed Saviour, in, and through, what he hath done and ſuffered for us in the body of his fleſh, and is become for us therethrough, and is doing for us in heaven on Gods right hand, as the great Mediator and high Prieſt for us, and from heaven, to, and in us, as the great Apoſtle and Prophet of our profeſſion, and Lord of all; and in what he is appointed to do, and will do at his glorious deſcent from heaven, and appearing, and kingdome then to be revealed in glory; they have not, nor do overcome the world: But whatever be their pretences and appearances to men of being out of, and above the world, they are overcome of the world and are in the worlds ſtate; being led of and by the god of the world and rudiments of it, which lead men that ſeek after righteouſneſs and hope toward God, to ſeek it in themſelves and their doings, mortifications and frames; but not to go out of themſelves into Chriſt and his name, to accept of him (even that Jeſus of Nazareth, as made ſin for them, and raiſed again for their juſtification, and glorified at Gods right hand) for their wiſdome, righteouſneſſe, holyneſſe and redemption, and ſo to have their rejoycing in him, and expectation from him, and of him, at his appearing: they who have ſo received him and abide in him, are indeed born of God, and have overcome the world: But they that do not ſo receive him, are in and of the world, who neglecting him, and counting faith in him fooliſhneſſe, live and rejoice in their own good meanings, honeſty, zeal, blameleſneſſe, mortifications and devotions, as the Phariſees and ſome falſe Apoſtles did, who yet were of the world, though they had avoluntary humility and ſhew of wiſdome therein, in neglecting the body, &c. Col. 2.18, 23. And much men may have that way, and great appearance of having overcome the world, becauſe they can, and do deny themſelves of many groſſer comforts and vanities of it, and indure much voluntary hardſhip or ſufferings from others of it, as the Prieſts of Baal, 1 Kings 18.28, 40. And the old Philoſophers, and wordly religious amongſt both Turks and Papists, who alſo glory in ſuch things, and yet are deeply in the ſpirit of the world, even as by that deſcription of the overcomer of the world, here given by Iohn; the Quakers, ſo called, are evidenced to them, that judgement carnally by outward appearance (as moſt do, which makes them have ſo many Proſelites) but by the ſpirituall eye of faith, however they boſt themſelves as perfect, and vaunt themſelves as out of, and overcomers of the world; yet they are moſt deeply and dangerouſly, though moſt myſtically, and to the world-ward indiſcernably overcome of the world, and the ſpirit of the world; as being moſt out of, and reprobate concerning the faith that overcomes the world, viz. That Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of God, they accounting his coming in the fleſh (as Rich. Hubberthorne ſeconded by G. W.) to be but a figure, and touching his being in heaven and work there, and coming thence, being moſt dangerouſly corrupt and unbelievers; having their rejoycing and glorying not in that perſon of Jeſus and his ſufferings and ſacrifice according to the Scripture; as their book, in anſwer to us, and their writings generally evidence, but in themſelves, their ſinleſneſſe pretended, and in their actings and ſufferings, by which it is evident that they are not born of God, nor have overcome the world whatever outſideappearances they walke and glory in. 2. Becauſe I produced according to Johns teſtimony without diſtinction or alteration, and meant it only of true believing. 3. He ſaies it's true of true believers; as if he would imply that Paul and the other holy men, when they ſaid they had ſin in them, were not true believers, though in ſome other falſe ſenſe believes that Jeſus is the Chriſt; what, were the Apoſtles hypocrites when they ſaid they had ſin in them; that George thinks them not then to have been true believers? For if they were not true believers, they were feigned believers; and we may well bear G. W.'s railing language of us, and his judging us to be hypocrites, if he judged the Apoſtles, when Apoſtles, were ſuch, ſure G. W. did better before, when he waved it, and fled before the power of God in it, than to rake up ſuch an evaſion, as implies his taxing the Apoſtles to be no true believers when they confeſſed their ſins; or that they • ad not overcome the world, when they were tranſlated out of it, into Chriſt, and held forth the faith of Chriſt againſt all oppoſitions of the World; then he is guilty of falſehood, in ſaying John deſcribes the true believers to be from under the bondage of corruption, when he makes no mention of the bondage of corruption, though that they are ſo in ſome ſenſe is true; but then he ſaies falſe, and belies me in ſaying, that I own not ſuch while men are here, for in ſuch a ſenſe, as true believers are free from the bondage of corruption, that is, from being detained under the guilt of ſin and condemnation for it, or the dominion of it, ſo as to inſlave them to it; I own believers, though not from the being of it in their members, is it all one to have corruption in a man, yea, and in many things to offend, and to be under the bondage of corruption? Was James under the bondage of corruption, as corruption ſignifies ſin, when he ſaid, in many things we offended all; or John, when he ſaid, If we ſay we have no ſin we deceive our ſelves, &c. Surely G. W. had need to goe to ſchool to learn more underſtanding before he be a teacher, that cannot diſtinguiſh things that ſo broadly differ. He ſaies, A man muſt believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt, and believe in him too, before he be born of God, as Chriſt ſaid believed in the light, 〈◊〉 ye may be the children of the light. What is this but to fight againſt the Apoſtle John, and to tell him, Nay John thou ſaiſt not truly in ſaying, who ever believes that Jeſus is the Chriſt is born of God. Men may believe that and yet not be born of God, for that goes before a mans being born of God, and yet ſome things are before others in order of nature, that yet are not without them; as he that hath life hath breath, & yet, in order of nature, life is before breath: & ſo though it be true, that men muſt believe in the light, that they may be the children of the light; yet, it followes not, that ſome do believe in it that are not the children of it, and yet even they that are born of God, and ſo are children of the light, may be further born of it, and ſo more the children of God; that is, like unto God, as the Diſciples when born of God (for God was their Father) yet Chriſt bids them to love their enemies, &c. That they might be the children of their Father, Mat. 6.44, 45. And yet again, There is ſome difference between believing in the light, and believing Jeſus to be the Chriſt, ſome did believe in the light, before they believed that Jeſus is the Chriſt as Nathaniel and Cornelius and divers others. So that here is nothing in Geo. yet, but deceit, and oppoſition to the Scripture ſayings, nay, G is broadly contradictory to John the Apoſtle, and ſticks not to make him a lyer, plainly afterward, as well as ſafely to perſwade people that ſome of his party perceived my deceit. For ſaith he, What people are there of any underſtanding, even among thoſe Prieſts, which this Prieſt Horne calls greedy dogs, ſtrong to appetite, that doe not believe that Jeſus is the Christ? Are they therefore born of God?] What is this but to caſt the lye upon John, for being ſo raſh as to ſay, whoſoever believeth Jeſus is the Chriſt, is born of God, when as he ſaies, ſuch as he reviles as the worſt of men, do that, and yet are not born of God? Judge Reader, Whom ſhall we here believe? the Apoſtle John or Geo. Whitehead? Is it not better and truer to ſay, what ever men perſwade themſelves of, and what ever they pretend, they do not believe Jeſus to be the Chriſt, that are not born of God, than thus raſhly to give the Apoſtle the lye: That George fled to another ſhift when beat by that Scripture from his former anſwer, that the Apoſtles were not born of God while they confeſſed ſin, he denies not; but indeavours to juſtifie here, what he therein ſaid. For he ſaies here again, that The Apoſtle condeſcended to the Romans to ſeveral ſtates which be paſſed through, and which was below his own, when he writ to them. Which is not to the purpoſe, For when he writes to the Romans of the ſtates, he had paſſed through, he writes of them as things paſt, not as preſent, as Rom. 5.10. When we were enemies he reconſiled us; he ſaies not, we are yet enemies, ſo Chap. 7.9. I was alive without the Law, but when the Law came, ſin revived and I dyed; and ſo in 1 Tim. 1.13. Who was before a blaſphemer and a Perſecutor and injurious; we never find him when he was an Apoſtle, to ſay, I am a blaſphemer, &c. But of ſin being in him, he writes in the preſent time; I know that in me, that is, in my fleſh, there dwells no good thing, and I am carnal, ſold under ſin, (not, I ſell my ſelf to ſin as Ahab, but am ſold as by an other, with reference to what was done to him in Adam, and yet remained upon him, as to the fleſh,) and that he ſpake of himſelf too, and not of others excluding himſelf, is evident, ver. 25. So then I my ſelfe (marke he ſaies I my ſelf) with my mind ſerve (he ſaies not did ſerve) the Law of God, but with my fleſh the Law of ſin. Should we ſay, we our ſelves do what we only mean others do, he and his fellowes would call us lyers, and yet he fears not to faſten ſuch an imputation in effect upon the Apoſtles, one after another.

He would confirme his former ſaying from Rom. 6.19. which is to as little purpoſe, as if he had quoted Gen. 1.1. For the Apoſtle there ſpeaks nothing of himſelf, or of any ſtate that he ſaies he was then in, as mentioning his own perſon, but ſpeaking of ſpiritual things under earthly metaphors (as of Maſters and Servants, and freedom from ſervitude) He ſaies, I ſpeak after the manner of men, becauſe of the infirmitie of your fleſh. But is this the manner of men, to ſpeak untruths of them ſelves, as to ſay, they are in that ſtate they are not, to make their ſpeech more underſtandable, or doth the Apoſtle ſpeak any thing ſounding to that ſenſe there? He ſaies not there, I yeeld my members ſervants to uncleanneſſe; but as ye have (in time paſt) yielded your members ſervants to uncleanneſſe, &c. ſo yeeld your members now ſervants of righteouſneſſe. Was it not as underſtandable, for the Apoſtle to have ſaid, I did ſometime find a Law in my members, but now I have got rid of it, and there is no ſin in me, as if it had been ſo as to ſay, I do ſee a law in my members? yea, might not this more encourage them to ſin than that, if it be as G. W. often caſts upon us a pleading for ſin, to confeſs that ſin is in the Saints? It clearly appears in all this ſtill, that G.W. is much out of the way, and the truth is, neither in, nor with him; for where it could diſtinguiſh between Paul, as after the fleſh, and as after the ſpirit in the ſame time, in his fleſh in bondage, and in his mind free, and waiting for the deliverance of his body too in due time, both from ſins and ſufferings: But how can he diſtinguiſh ſuch things, that could not diſtinguiſh things nearer hand? But whereas I ſaid, I was able in the ſtrength of God to worry ſuch Foxes as he, that is to baſſle and confound them, as I alſo actually was helpt to do, yet becauſe I ſay, after that people ſee I was weary and ſpent, he vapors as if I was not therefore in the ſtrength of God, forgeting that of the Apoſtle, that at the ſame time in different reſpects, a man may be ſtrong and weak both; when I am weak, then am I ſtrong; and, I was among you in weakeneſſe, yet my ſpeech was in the demonſtration of the ſpirit and power, 1 Cor, 2.3, 4. Surely when I ſaid I was able to worry him, in the ſtrength of the Lord, I did not ſay, or ſignifie, nor could any of the people I ſuppoſe ſo apprehend me, that I was able to beat him at handicuffs, or had ſtronger Lungs then he, but that I was able, by the power of the truth, to make manifeſt his deceits: which alſo God gave me bodyly ſtrength to do, ſo as to the ſatisfaction of the indifferent auditory, and had I needed more to that, I queſtion not but he would have given it me: He that cannot diſtinguiſh ſpiritual ſtrength from bodily, how ſhould he diſtinguiſh between Pauls ſtate after the ſpirit, and his ſtate at the ſame time after the fleſh? As a man in the fleſh, warring yet againſt ſin, and wiſhing for deliverance (for that's the force of that phraſe (who will deliver?) as Deut. 5.29. according to the Hebrew, who will give them an heart to fear me? argues not that the Lord was ignorant, or doubted who would, but an earneſt deſire that they had ſuch an heart) but in the ſame time he thanked God by Jeſus Chriſt. Rom. 7.24, 25. and ſo Paul was free in his ſpirit and more than a conqueror in all his ſufferings, though Chriſt who dwelt in his heart by faith (though I never read what G. W. intimates that Chriſt was in Pauls fleſh, though therein, and therethrough he might manifeſt his power and vertues) but us to his body that was not above priſon and weakneſſe and death, even ſo, neither was his fleſh free from ſin being in it, though his ſpirit was ſet free and above it.