SInce that William Haworth (an Independent-Guide) hath pretended he was encouraged to print against us, and that we might well say, that we have all this while waged War not only with single W. H. but with all the Independent Party in England; and that be need not fear but that he shall have their Prayers and Encouragement to stand by him, &c. in his Book entit. J [...]s. Naz. p. 38, 39.

Thus eminent, thus popular, thus potent an Agent and Repre­sentative of all the Independent Party has W. H. rendred himself, which if true, their Cause must needs be concluded in him, ei­ther to stand or fall with him. But being closely urged in our last sheet against him, ‘To produce his Deputation for this his under­taking against us under the hands of some of the chief Pastors of the Independent Congregations, or otherwise we shall absolutely look upon his Work as the Fruit of his own silly Presumption and Usurpation: as we had cause so to do since he bragg'd so loud, and so lively undertook to personate all the Independent Party in England.’ But instead of producing such Deputation, he gives us this put off, viz. My Deputation for this Work is from the Word of Christ, Jud. 3. I need no other Deputation, p. 8. of his sheet Answer.

Whereas any Counterfeit may pretend the same from others Lines; an immediate Mission he pretends not for his Work a­gainst us; he comes off after a sorry and beggarly manner here; what's this to his approbation from his honourable Party, the In­dependents, whom he has taken on him to represent and perso­nate? but we thought they were wiser then to trust their Cause in his Hands or Management; therefore how plain is it, that his Work against us in his several Books and Pamphlets, is a Fruit of his own silly presumption and usurpation, and that he is but a Counterfeit Agent, who appears to represent such an honourable Party, as he calls them, and not so much as two or three of those most honourable among them dare trust him with their Cause, or adventure to own him in print; 'tis probable the wiser sort of them also look upon Him to be a presumptuous Busie-Body, except some of his prejudiced Hearers, Benefactors, and such like.

Note also, that we referr'd him for a more full Answer (to the Substance of his Book) then we have given about Christ's manhood, entituled, The Way Cast Ʋp, &c. by George Keith: But this he takes no notice of, but proceeds to cover himself with his former Falshoods and Reiterations of Matters already an­swered.

To make his Independent Cause seem very credible, he gives [Page 3] us this proffer, viz. If the Independents please to take cognizance of the Debate, I dare appeal to them, pag. 1. What a wonder­ful Hazard this man dares run! that he dares adventure to ap­peal to his Own Party! It seems he has far more Confidence in them then they have in him, in that hitherto they dare not so far trust him as to allow him a Deputation, or vindicate his Work in Print, he is left to shift for himself; only he would make us [...]e­lieve, he has them all on his side, because of his owning their Savoy Confession, whenas he has writ far more against the Qua­kers then that comes to in his several Books and Pamphlets, con­taining many false Doctrines, Contradictions, Slanders, Abuses and Perversions, which are not in that Confession; and had he not persisted therein, we might have forborn farther taking no­tice thereof; but we must yet shew what a bad Cause his is, that needs Lyes and Slanders for its Refuge.

And now again, as to some of those horrid Falshoods and Blasphemies which he most falsly saith Are the Quakers Doctrines, whereof he saith, Three are cull'd out of Thirteen, so that Ten remain upon us still, pag. 2. as if we granted all we have not ci­ted, which also is an implicit Untruth; for we plainly tell him (after the citation of a few of his Slanders and Reproachful Lan­guage) viz. These, with many more Slanders and Revilings are disperst throughout W. H's last Book; see Independent A­gent, p. 3.

The first of the three that he sayes are the Quakers Doctrines, is, That the Ordinances of the Gospel are vain and ceased. This being denyed, he quotes William Penn thus, viz. I affirm, Cir­cumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism, and the Pascal Lamb as Bread and Wine—the Appellation Ordinances of Christ I therefore Renounce as—Inevangelical—they are—not now required, Reason against Railing, pag. 108, 109. From whence this Independent Agent concludes, viz. There is Proof e­nough that the Quakers Doctrine is, that the Ordinances of the Go­spel are vain and ceased. Wherein his Charge and Inference is still false, even as to matter of fact; as if the Quakers did so teach concerning what are really the Ordinances of the Gospel; which is a falsly begging the Question. W. P. believes not that [Page 4] Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine, practised by the Anabap­tists, &c. (against whom he was writing) to be Ordinances of Christ, or now required; he does not say, that the Ordinances of the Gospel or of Christ are vain and ceased, but only that these are not such. See now how W. H. has plainly belyed the Quakers.

2. His second Doctrine charged upon the Quakers is, That it was the s Devil that suffered without the Gates, &c. for proof he brings u this Certificate, viz.

Note here, that though they have varyed in this Certificate from the words [Suffered without the Gate [first charged by W. Haworth, and instead thereof to [was made an Offering for Sin] which shews his Uncertainty and Fallacy in stating matters of fact; yet both, as stated by him and his Witnesses, being bad enough, are utterly denyed by the Quakers, as falsly charged upon them. And by the way let's query of W. H. and his Wit­nesses about their Question, 1st, If the Question in the said Cer­tificate be owned by the Independent Teachers, &c. as a Learned, Sound or Scriptural Question? And secondly, If the Indepen­dents do use thus to Catechize their People, viz. of the Soul of Christ being made an Offering for Sin, whether it was God or the Devil that was made an Offering for Sin? implying that the Soul of Christ (which was made an Offering for Sin, and which he poured out unto Death, &c. Isa. 53.) must needs be either God or the Devil; which is as condemnable as the Answer, which they say Samuel Pryor gave: for, to say it was the Devil, is Blasphemy; and to say it was God, is not only Unreasonable [Page 5] and False Doctrine, but also contraty to what W. H. has fre­quently said of the Soul of Christ's Manhood, as against its be­ing turned into an Immense Deity; therefore he should have re­proved Joseph Saward for his foolish and ungodly Question (see­ing he own; it to be his) as well as Samuel Pryor, if guilty of such an Answer, and teach his Hearers better then thus irreve­rently to catechize any Persons, or to expose their Folly therein in Print, as he has done his Disciple's unsavoury Question, without Reproof. But hear what the Person accused says to clear himself, viz.

Now hear what his Father and Brother say in this Matter, viz.

Note that the said Samuel Pryor has come some years amongst us, called Quakers, and we never understood that ever it was his Judgment to sleight or disesteem the Sufferings of Christ for Sin, much less to speak any such contemptible words of Christ, or his Suffering, as are charged upon us concerning him; but if we could find, that he did but at unawares speak any such words as those before cited, in answer to Joseph Saward's absurd and tempting Question about the Soul of Christ, we should severely reprehend and admonish him about it; howbeit, if it had been so, 'twas no ingenuous part of W. H. or his Hearers to catch and snatch away words unadvisedly slipping from any Person upon [Page 7] a surprizal by a corrupt Question, and then to expose him in print to be knockt in the Head in the Streets or High-way for a Blas­phemer, without first moderately enquiring into his Principle and Faith in the Matter after such words unwarily spoken; and not only so, but it must be charged as the Quakers Doctrine, how absurd and blasphemous soever: O disingenuous Persons! is this your Religion? far short of common Civility and Morality a­mong the very Heathen.

3. The third Doctrine charged by William Haworth upon the Quakers is most horrid, viz. That Mary was a Whore, and Christ a Bastard. And for Proof he bids us read the following Certi­ficate, viz.

William Craven should have certified the time when, and in what place it was in York, and in whose Presence besides himself, that he did hear J. Naylor say these words in Contempt of Christ, and on what Occasion? he should have been plain, if he had not been conscious and afraid of being manifestly detected in this thing; for we are fully perswaded he is a False Accuser, and has most grosly belyed James Naylor in this matter.

1. Because he has written and divulged so much in his Books in Honour to Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.

2. Because neither W. C. nor any other of his Brethren have given us any such Certificate against J. N. either in his Life-time, or since, for above these twenty years, until of late (many years after J. N's Death) that W. Haworth was minded through his deadly Malice to brand the People called Quakers there­with, as by telling the World, These are the Quakers Doctrines, viz. That it was the Devil that suffered without the Gates; that Mary was a Whore, and Christ a Bastard; which are so horrid [Page 8] and monstrous, that its with a Dread and a kind of Reluctancy that we are occasioned to recite them.

By what follows the Reader may see how uncertain and incon­sistent William Craven (who is William Haworth's Witness) is with himself, viz.

Something farther added to William Craven's Certificate a­gainst J. N. as to time and Place, &c.

Note. So some through Envy and Malice, or Self-Interest, will Forswear themselves (and so become perjured) to injure [Page 9] others by Falshoods and Forgeries. And if William Craven should swear to his Certificate before cited, with these Circum­stances of Time and Place, it would be no hard matter (if it were before a Judge of Assize) to invalidate his Testimony, and prove him a Forsworn Perjured Person to his utter Disgrace and Shame; since 1st, 'tis evident that Iames Naylor, the Qua­ker, so called (who as such a one is accused) never was Prisoner in York Castle. 2. That between twenty six and thirty years since (before the 2d Moneth, 1678.) he was not a Quaker that we can understand (but an Independent, and one of the more Religious and Serious sort too) much less a Prisoner in York Ca­stle as a Quaker (between twenty six and thirty years since) for it was near the latter-end of the year 1652. that he was Prisoner at Appleby in Westmoreland, and but the Summer before in the same year came forth as a Quaker, and it was some time after his coming forth that his Mouth was open'd to preach and dispute for Truth, having before that been a Member of an Independent-Society at Horbery in Yorkshire, having been an Officer under General Lambert in his Troop; vid. Saul's Errand, pag. 29. and the Narrative of his Examination, pag. 2. with the following Testimony.

See now, Reader, how we have traced and evidently detect­ed William Craven in his Certificate, and found him false in his E­vidence, to his own and his Abettor William Haworth's utter Dis­grace; for publishing such a malicious Slander against James Naylor, as that Mary was a Whore, and Christ was a Bastard; and W. Haworth most wickedly charging the People called Qua­kers therewith, as being one of their Doctrines, for which let Shame cover this Independent Teacher, and those that take his part.

And now to conclude, we have this further to add, appealing to our more moderate Neighbours in Hertford, who have known us many years, whether they ever apprehended us to be of so Unchristian Practices in our Conversation; for if there be such Antichristian Principles and Blasphemous Tenents held and pro­fessed by us (as William Haworth and his Adherents have wicked­ly scandalized us withal) they would sometime or other break forth into Unsavoury and Antichristian Practices (as Christ saith) By their Fruits you shall know them. But it doth most evidently appear now what the drift of W. H. and his Accomplices de­signed [Page 11] in their scribling and contesting against us, that by writing and asserting Lyes they may render us as odious as may be (not only to get our Nest at Hertford (as he calls it) broken up (which W. H. saith, its high time it were) but also (as much as in him lies) to render us such as assert Blasphemous Principles (because he hath gotten some Forgers to witness it against one or two Persons (all which is deny'd) that so our Lives and Estates might be indanger'd through their Malice, by casting that upon many which is unquestionably false concerning any one, as by what hath been before said doth more fully appear.

And as for our Principles, we are still ready by the Lord's assi­stance to maintain them by Scripture and otherwise in Print and Testimony to all ingenuous and impartial Persons: but it seems evident it is, our Destruction he longs for, or otherwise he would not print such horrible Lyes of us: Oh Wicked Wretch!

And now hear James Naylor's own Confessions to Christ Je­sus, out of his Books.

Obs. Now see how contrary these serious Confessions of the Honour, Power and Glory of Jesus Christ, and his being the Son of God, &c. are to what William Haworth and William Craven have accused him; and how unlikely their Accusation is, and how it favours of a Lye and Forgery, or a gross Mistake at least against J. N.

Also in his Vindication and Answer upon his Examination at the Sessions at Appleby, in the 11th moneth, 1652. in the Book en­tituled, Saul's Errand, pag. 25. Christ is not divided, if he be, he is no more Christ: I witness that Christ who is God and Man, &c.—seperate God and Man and he is no more Christ, pag. 31. I own no other Christ but he who witnessed a good Confession before Pontius Pilate, pag. 32. This may suffici­ently detect W. H. and his Reproachful Calumnies against J. N. and us about Jesus Christ.

His Allegation for his saying, That these are the Quakers Do­ctrines, viz. [That it was the Devil that suffered without the Gates; and that Mary was a Whore, and Christ a Bastard] runs thus, viz. 'Tis enough for me to call those things of a Religious Con­cern which any Quaker writes or asserts in discourse Doctrines, while they all pretend alwayes to be guided by one infallible Teacher, the Light Within, p. 3.

1st, That any Quaker hath writ or asserted such Doctrine we find not; but the contrary (as before hinted) and look on't as meer Malice and Baseness so to accuse them.

2. Set Case any one had so writ or asserted, it follows not that the whole People are chargeable therewith [as the Quakers Doctrines without exception] that's no good Consequence nor natural inference from their all pretending to be guided by the same infallible Teacher, the Light within.

See what a rare Logician this man is! Either the Light within must be chargeable with such Doctrine against Christ and Mary, as before, or else all the Professors of it, because some pretend­ing to it, have (if he sayes true) so discoursed. What gross Fallacy and false Logick is this! Whereas such an Absurdity was never the Assertion of the People called Quakers, viz. that ei­ther every one pretending to be guided by the Light Within, on distinguish't by the Name [Quaker] is therefore guided by the same Light in all Discourses, or so to be owned by the said People. Therefore his general Inference is silly and groundless, as well as unjust and Fallacious. Would the Independent Con­gregations be thus argu'd against, as to be thus universally char­ged with all the Private Opinions or Discourses of every Indepen­dent, because they all pretend the holy Scriptures to be the Rule, as well as the Quakers do the Light of Christ within? Let them answer this Question, and see if the Reason will hold. Are they all willing thus to be concluded? If so, then

1st, These, which are some of William Haworth's Doctrines; may be charged on all the Independents, viz. That [God] the Father poured out all his Wrath upon his Son Jesus Christ.

2. And his Brother Powell's Doctrine, viz. That Jesus Christ was the Greatest Sinner in the World, vindicated by William Ha­worth.

3. And his asserting, That Paul when a Christian counted his spiritual Obedience Loss and Dung for Christ; and that this is ve­ry good, sound, blessed and comfortable Doctrine, received by Mil­lions of Saints in Heaven and Earth, &c.

4. And that our own Righteousness (which the Apostle calls his own in Phil. 3. 9.) consists in those Gifts and Vertues that the Spirit [Page 14] of God works in our Minds, and we express those outwardly, &c. [Thus far W. H.]

Now who and how many of the Independent Teachers besides William Haworth will own and subscribe these Doctrines as Or­thodox? le [...] them plainly answer us. If they are not generally owned by them, would they take it well to tell the World, these are the Independents Doctrines, which are so evidently impious against Jesus Christ, against the Gifts and Vertues of God's ho­ly Spirit, and spiritual Obedience among Christians? [...]ut be­sides his fallacious Attempts, to fasten these fore-cited Doctrines upon the Quakers (concerning the Virgin Mary and Christ) like a hardned wilful Person, having a Conscience seared. He persists in his general Accusations and Slanders upon Reports against that solemn Attestation that we have given to the contrary, in answer to those things before, which he has asserted to be the Quakers Doctrines, where we have said, viz. To all which in the Sight and Presence of the holy God we answer, We are certain that 'tis an abominable Slander in that General Charge upon the Quakers; and he hath most infamously abused us in this matter, in saying, These are the Quakers Doctrines, which we testifie against as so gross and abominable that nothing like them hath entred into our Hearts ever to imagine, Much less to preach for Doctrine, as, That it was the Devil that suffered without the Gates; and that Mary was a Whore, and Christ a Bastard. And yet he tells the World, These are the Quakers Doctrines. What abominable Wickedness is this! thus to make infamous a People who abhor such Blasphemy, pag. 2. of our sheet Inde­pendent Agent.

It appears that this Independent Preacher had not the Modesty to tell the World, that such and such things are reported of some among the Quakers; but such lying Reports as he has against us, he both espouseth and asserts them positively, as, These are the Qua­kers Doctrines, their Blasphemies; not these are reported to have been discoursed by some among them. Thus the man's Out-rage, Malice and Revenge exceeds all Bounds of common Reason, Civility or Humanity, as if he were mad against us, and envyed not only our being at Hertford (wishing that our Nest at Hert­ford [Page 15] were broke up, as his words are) but even our Prosperity and Being (as a People) upon Earth, as deserving to be stoned to Death by the Righteous Law of God, if it were in force, pag. 3. But 'tis much if he and his Accomplices and Abettors be not made ashamed of his Malice and Out-rage ere we have done with him, if he will not study Quietness among his Neighbours, not doubting but God who is with us will rebuke his Baseness and Malice against us; who having falsly accused us from malicious and false Reports of others, Suspitions and Jealousies of his own, proceeds thus, viz.

W. Haworth, My Thoughts are, That the Quakers no more believe Christ to be a real Man in Heaven, then I believe there is a Man in the Moon, pag. 4.

Reply, No wonder he should harbour Evil and Unbelieving Thoughts of us, and what we have confessed to Christ's real and most glorious Manhood in the Heavens, since he is so apt to be­lieve, assert and spread lying Reports and Slanders against us for Truths, if it were possible to destroy us from off the Face of the Earth: Such as are given up to believe and assert Lyes, will dis­believe and oppose the Truth: He would have us appear bad, and therefore hee'l believe no good of us. But why thinks he the Quakers do not believe Christ to be a real Man? His main and frequent Reason is, he saith, We say that the Soul of Christ is in every Saint, and that his Body is changed as to substance, pag. 5, and 7. of his Sheet. For the first he quotes the 6th page of our Testimony, where we confess Christ's Spiritual Presence with his Saints, which he dares not deny, he having confessed Christ's Soul to be his Spirit from Luke 23. 46. in his Antidote, and we have opposed his arguing against the extent of Christ's Soul (or Spirit) to the Saints on Earth, seeing he is both God and Man; his Soul or Spirit, even as Man, as Mediator, virtually and ef­fectually (through his divine Power and Authority) extends and reaches to the Saints on Earth; and at length he is made to grant, that the Man Christ is virtually present on Earth, in his Book Jes. of Naz. p. 20. l. 7. But how can this be, that Christ's Soul should be in the Saints on Earth? for then (says he) 'tis im­mense, and turned into a New God, pag. 5. of his Answer. [Page 16] Whereas it is virtually in the Saints, through the Divine Pow­er of the Father, being both God and Man, without destroying, annihilating or confounding the Properties of the Manhood with the Deity, or leaving his Body dead in Heaven, as has been most vainly argu'd by this Independent; for does the Virtue of the Vine in the Branches and Fruit leave the Vine or Root empty and dead, because it extends to every Branch?

Besides his own Confession, viz. That the Deity perfects all good IN US, but then the Humanity is in union with it, and ACTS with it, and they must not be put assunder; and that the Deity acts in it and through it as an Organ or Instrument.

What's more plain, then that the Deity & Manhood of Christ do act together in Union in perfecting all good in us? Does not then the Soul of Christ extend to the Saints on Earth? When will this Adversary see how he is self-condemned and confuted! For do the Deity and Manhood of Christ together act and per­fect all Good IN US, and yet his Soul have no place in us, nor so much as extend to us? And what though the Manhood does not extend so far as the Deity, which is infinite, is it a good In­ference, that therefore it cannot extend to Saints or Men on Earth? Are they so infinitely remote from the Man Christ Je­sus their Head? But his Inferences and Arguing against us in this matter is like his concluding, that we deny the Manhood of Christ, from our confessing to the Change, Spirituality, and Glory of his Body, and the powerful extent of his Soul, and spiritual Presence to and in the Saints on Earth, which does not at all lessen the substantial Dignity, but exalt it; so that instead of denying or dissannulling the Man Christ Jesus, we magni­fie him more then William Haworth allows of, that is the ☞ Case.

One great Exception that lies heavy upon our Adversary Wil­liam Haworth's Argument, and which he gets not off nor answers, is his confessing Satan to be an Angel, yet but a Creature; and not­withstanding, that he is here on Earth to tempt the Saints because he is not yet bound in Hell, pag. 36. of his Jesus of Nazareth. So that still he allows Satan more Power to tempt the Saints (though in many places at once far distant) then the Man Christ [Page 17] to relieve them, though he be their Mediator and Head, and is touched with the feeling of their Infirmities, and succours them that are tempted, and has promised to be with his Disciples to the end of the World.

But says William Haworth, It is the Will of God, that Satan should yet be here on Earth to tempt the Saints, he is not yet bound up in Hell.

What then! is it the Will of God, that the heavenly MAN Christ Jesus (who is the Son of God) should remain bound in Heaven, so as not to visit and relieve his Saints or Members on Earth; nor his Soul or Spirit so much as extend to them? Has Satan more Liberty and Priviledge given him of God then his dear Son Christ Jesus has? Oh miserable and uncomfortable Do­ctrine!

To his arguing, That the Soul of Christ cannot be in Millions Myriads of places, no not in two places at once; for then it would be immense, turned into a New God, &c.

He has argued better for Satan then thus. Is Satan immense then? He has placed Satan's Liberty to tempt the Saints on Earth and limiting Christ to Heaven (the mean while) upon the Will of God, Jes. Naz. pag. 36. so that his Plea of Christ's Soul or Manhood not being God or immense is now removed as no Ar­gument either to prove it in no wise IN the Saints, or not ex­tending to them on Earth; seeing Satan himself reacheth to ma­ny places at once; and Christ Jesus is above and greater then he. And sure the Will of God is more eminently concerned in Christ the Mediator, for the Good of Mankind, and the Consolation of the Saints in their Tryals, then in Satan's tempting them. And seeing we have alwayes believed and confessed the Immorta­lity and intire Beings of the Souls of all other Men, it must needs be evidently unjust to accuse us with denying the Manhood of Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth, to have a Being both as to his Soul and Body, as this Adversary has frequently insinuated.

And as for Christ's Body being changed, as to substance, which he often infers upon us, from our arguing against his asserting Christ's Body (in Heaven) to be a Natural Body, of an Earthly Substance. The Terms Natural and Earthly, as given to the [Page 18] Glorious Body of Christ were and are offensive to us, as well as contrary to his own confessing, that it is such a Glorious Body, that it is more bright then a Thousand Suns. So that then it must needs be a very glorious heavenly Body, which sure is not the same with Earthly (neither is Natural and Spiritual both one quality.) And we believing such a Change in the Body of Christ, we do not there­by (nor ever did) conclude, that the Body of Christ which suf­fered was annihilated, and that his Flesh saw Corruption. No such matter. May there not then be a wonderful Change in the Body, and yet the Substance not annihilated nor destroyed? Nor does it follow from our not believing nor owning his Characters of natural and Earthly on Christ's Glorious Body, that therefore nothing of that Body remains, or is in being, as he falsly and frequently argues in his Books. For he has confessed, Christ hath a Glorious Body, and all the Saints shall have like Bodies, Phil. 3. ult. And that both his is, and theirs will be spiritual, heavenly, glori­ous for Qualities, pag. 29. of his Jesus of Nazareth. And grants it Angelical, Spiritual, Celestial as to Qualities, pag. 31. ibid.

If SPIRITUAL, and HEAVENLY or CELESTIAL, &c. be Qualities, then NATURAL, and EARTHLY, and CAR­NAL are Qualities also. And if we must believe our Adversary when he says, Christ's Body in Heaven is very glorious, spiritual and heavenly for Qualities, yea, brighter then a Thousand Suns, then we must not believe him where he says, 'tis natural, earthly, &c. which are contrary to spiritual and heavenly. If hee'l yet infer, that then there's nothing of the Substance in being, we deny his Inference, it being also contrary to his own Confession, viz. That the same Substance remains: so that it may be so won­derfully changed as to Qualities, and yet the Substance neither destroyed, lost, or nullified.

But to wave many more of W. Haworth's Untruths and false Consequences in his Books and Sheet, take two or three Instances of his Falshoods and Forgeries, which are very obvious in matter of fact, in the 6th and 7th pages of his Sheet touching Christ's Ascention, where he says, that When we say, the same man a­scended, by ascending into HEAVEN (he says) we mean the [Page 19] Globe which we call the EARTH: Which is all one as to say, that by HEAVEN we mean EARTH. For proof of this notorious and most absurd Falshood he refers the Reader to the 16th page of his last, and saith, According to our Principle there was nothing of the Man Christ to ascend.

As if we allowed nothing of the Man Christ, either of Spirit or Body to have a Being (after his Resurrection) to ascend; a most horrid Falshood brought to prove another such as his Book and Page quoted is stufft with. His pretended Reason is answer­ed else-where in this, viz. If the Body was changed as to Substance, &c. For though it was changed, and become more excellent, refined and glorious in the Substance, it follows not that 'twas annihilated.

He addeth, And the humane Soul Immense.

Another Falshood still imposed on us in his own Unscriptural Phrase. Though Christ be God and Man in a most glorious U­nion and Power, yet the Manhood is not the Deity, nor the Deity the Manhood, yet inseparable in the Heavenly Man Christ, who is Lord from Heaven.

W. H. saith, He remembers one of G. Fox's Interpretations, that when 'tis said, he took upon him the Seed of Abraham, that Seed was the Light within. On this we asked, Where does Geo. Fox so interpret that Scripture? we do not believe he e­ver did so. William Haworth gives us this answer, viz. I did not say, I received it in his Books, but I Remember, &c. I have heard it, and from good hands, whether they have heard it from his Mouth, or read it in his Books, I know not—I do believe it.

Rep. Observe how wonderful Credulous this man's Ma­lice makes him against us, to make a direct Charge from a Report, viz. That he remembers that it was one of G. Fox's Interpretations on the Scripture cited. But now he remem­bers he hath heard it so REIORTED, and he does be­lieve it. One while, he remembers it was Geo. Fox's Inter­pretation; another while, he believes it, as having had it from other Hands, but whose Hands he tells us not, that we may know or enquire how good: it is greatly to be questioned, whether [Page 20] he has not herein belyed good Hands to cover his Lye against G. F. and us. But to support his Credit in this matter, he bids us, Hear Naylor interpret this thing in the very same way, Love to the Lost, Preface, viz. So to the Light within—makes for the gathering Creatures together, to that one Name and Seed wherein all the Nations of the Earth are blessed. Do but see how hard the man's put to it for a Proof to save his Cre­dit. But how much besides the Point in two respects, 1st, as to the Person; 2dly, as to the Thing: for 1st, James Naylor is not G. Fox. 2dly, The Light of Christ within (or what proceeds from him the Root) making for the gathering Creatures toge­ther in that one Name and Seed, wherein the Nations are blessed, is not the same with saying, That Seed Rom. 1. of Abraham, which according to the Flesh Christ took upon him, was the Light within; nor either of them the Inter­pretation of that Scripture. For that Name and Seed wherein Nations are blessed, is Christ himself. Not that the Fleshly Seed (taken by Christ) was the Light within. How misera­bly hath this Adversary come off! Oportet mendacem esse me­morem.

Also, where William Haworth accuseth the Quakers; Now to say, That what Paul saith in Rom. 4. 6. is contrary to what David saith in Psal. 32. 2. For this he quoteth the eighth page of our Vindication, Doct. 11. with this addition, viz. They cite the words of Romans 4. 6. and then say contrary to Psalm 32. 2. Thus (sayes he) they set one Scripture against another.

Rep. Here he has committed an abominable Falshood twice over; 1st, in his Jes. Naz. pag. 8, 9. and 2dly, in his Sheet. For in our Vindication there is no such thing, as that what Paul sayes, Rom. 4. 6. is contrary to Psal. 32. 2. Neither do we say, that these words cited Rom. 4. 6. are contrary to Psal. 32. 2. Nor yet do we set one Scripture against another, as he has most falsly accused us, but his own false Exposition and Perver­sion on David's and Paul's word; in Psalm 32. 2, and Rom. 4. 6. As where David describes the Blessedness of the Man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works. What Works, sayes William Haworth? and then answers, Done [Page 21] by the Spirit surely; for such were David's Works: see his Anti­dote, page 18. line 25. Whereas 'twas not David's words, but these last words of William Haworth, viz. [DONE BY THE SPIRIT SƲRELY] (these were shewed by great Characters) that we opposed to David's words, Psal. 32. 2. As to say, That God imputeth Righteousness without Works done by the Spirit; this we affirm is contrary to David in Psalm 32. 2. where the blessed Qualification of that man unto whom the Lord imputeth not Iniquity is intimated, viz. in whose Spirit there is NO Guile. Now a man's Spirit can neither be sancti­fied nor clear from Guile without the Work of the Spirit of God. Therefore to say that a man is imputatively Righteous or blessed of God, without any Works done in him by his Spirit, is erroneous, and directly contrary to David's Testimony in the Psalm cited; See now where the Contradiction is evidently placed by us. 'Tis between W. Haworth and the Prophet David, and not between the Apostle Paul and David.

Another of William Haworth's Forgeries is, that William Bates saith, He is ONLY SORRY for his Weakness and Over-sight in giving him any such Answer. We told him, he ad­deth [Only Sorry] and makes himself work on this Lye. To come off with an Excuse here, he tells us, The word [ONLY] the Printer should have put into another Character. As if another Character would make that true which is an apparent Lye, as in his saying, That William Bates (in his Retractation) saith, he is only sorry, &c. for 'twas none of his saying, nor sense of all he says in his Retractation; and neither consist in the Emphasis which a different Character may shew. And William Haworth does not at all amend his matter, by saying, that William Bates mentions not any more that he is sorry for, but that he gave him such an Answer; If for nothing else, for that only. Here he makes his own implicite Consequence, to prove that William Bates said that in his Retractation which he did not say, viz. that he is ONLY SORRY, &c. which words are not there. William Haworth is a Forger in this and many more things against us then as yet we divulged. Besides, William Bates did not only ac­knowledge [Page 22] his Weakness in giving any such Answer, as is cited in his Retractation; but also clears the People called Quakers from teaching or holding any such thing to his Knowledge; and like­wise from William Haworth's Reproaching them on that Occa­sion, as being No Christians, but Seducers, &c. which with ma­ny more False Aspersions he has cast upon us.