THE QUAKERS QVAKING: OR, The Foundation of their Deceit shaken, BY SCRIPTURE, REASON, Their own MOUTHS at several Conferences. By all which will appear, That their QUAKING, MINISTRY, DOCTRINE, and LIVES, is a mere Deceit, And themselves proved to be the great Impostors of these Latter Times:  
By JEREMIAH IVES.  Matth. 24. ●, 5. 
And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you: For many shall come in my Name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.  Rom. 16.18. 
For they that are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words, and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple.  Prov. 14.15. 
The simple believeth every word: but the wise man looketh well to his go.  Job 6.25. 
How forcible are right words? but what do your arguings reprove?  1 Tim. 1.7. 
That desire to be Teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  
London, Printed by I Cottrel, for R. Moon, at the Seven Stars in S. Paul's Churchyard. 1656.   

To the Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ, that are called to be faithful, and that are baptised into his Name, and meet together in his fear, to stand for that faith that was once delivered to the Saints.  
BRETHREN,  
I Know none to whom these ensuing lines will be more welcome, then to you, because you are the men about whom Satan hath laid his closest siege, and levied his greatest force: I therefore thought it my duty to send to you some relief, and (if Possible) to raise the siege that hath for a long time been laid against you, by the great and subtle Adversaries to your Faith and Order, which the Lord help you to continue in, that so you may be terrible as an Army with banners: and that you may so be, it shall be my daily request to the Lord on your behalf, that love and unity may increase among you, that you may all mind one thing; that so the Adversary may have no occasion given him, to spoil you of your joy and rejoicing in the confidence that you have in Christ Jesus: For when you shall divide and separate one from another, and have bitter envyings among yourselves, rendings and tearings of the Body of Christ, upon offences given or taken by some particular person, or for some particular Opinion; doth not this (if I may use the phrase) make the daughters of the Uncircumcised rejoice, and say, How are the Mighty fallen? even you that were once valiant for the Truth, will they not say, What? are you become like us? Therefore, for the Lords sake, let the bond of love and holiness be kept inviolable by you all, that so you may be preserved from falling into the gulfs of Apostasy, that many in these latter times have fallen into. And that you may so be kept, let me entreat you to keep high and honourable thoughts of the Scriptures; let none of the words of our dear Lord Jesus, slip out of your mind; have a care of sucking in such Principles that will impair the Credit and Authority of God's Words; as, That the Scriptures are not the Word of God; and, That the Light within you is of equal or better Authority; and, That it doth teach us how to Worship God without the Scriptures: And prise the Ordinances of God; and remember what a blessed thing it is, for Christians to meet often together, and to think often upon God's laws, and be frequent in the observance of them, in a time when men say, What profit is it that we have kept his Ordinances? knowing, that your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. And those that God bathe made your Elders and Overseers, say unto them, That they take heed to their Ministry, left the Lord charge the Souls of them that shall be seduced upon their score; and if God hath set such over you, that do wake and watch for your souls, have them in double honour; have a care of slighting them that are your Watchmen, left the Lord remove them from you into corners, and you be left as a City forsaken, for the wild Beasts of the field, and Boars of the forest to pray upon: from which the Lord deliver you. Oh therefore that you would every one in your places and callings watch and pray, that you enter not into the temptations of these times, especially these Quaking temptations, that like the snares of the Fowlers, are spread in all corners of the Nation; and remember that you are for your lives, that so you may escape the snare of the Devil, into which many are led captive, and are taken at his will: and that you might be the better acquainted with his wiles, I have presented you with a few of their snares, that you might know how to escape them, if they shall spread them before you: And I doubt not, but if you shall carefully observe, and seriously examine the Truth of what is here proposed, you will be throughly furnished to withstand these subtle Adversaries at every turn, and preserve yourselves from falling, unto his heavenly Kingdom: which shall be the Prayers of him, who is willing to bow his knee for you all, to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Jeremiah Ives.   

To the Impartial READER, of what Opinion soever.  
READER,  
I Shall desire no more savour from thee, then to read and judge, whether what follows be not conclusive, both from Scripture, Reason, and the men's own words against whom I writ, as will appear by the several Conferences that I have had with them; as also from their several Writings, to which I shall refer thee, if thou wilt take pains to search into them: By which thou shalt see, that this deceitful generation with whom I strive, and whose deceit my pen hath been in travel to bring forth to the world's view, are such, whose mouths are full of great swelling and lying words, saying, They are immediately sent of God, etc. And when they are put to prove it, can say no more than what others can say, whom themselves cry down for Antichristian: Nay, there is many whom they daily cry down, that can say more for their authority to Preach then themselves, though they will not boast of their immediate sending; and their mouths are not only stuffed with such big-swelling words, but their books also, especially in the Title-pages of them; as one calling his Book, Love to the Loft; another, A Salutation to the seed of God; another, A discovery of the wisdom from beneath; another, The Power and Glory of God shining out of the North; another, The Royal Law and Covenant of God; another, News out of the North, written from the mouth of God; another, The Vials of the Wrath of God pured upon the Seat of the Man of Sin; another, A Warning from the Lord to the Teacher and People; another, A true prophecy of the mighty Day of the Lord; another, A Trumpet from the Lord founded out of Zion; another, A Whirlwind of the Lord, gone forth as a Flying fiery Roll; another, The Shield of Truth, etc. By these great bushes, they call the simple in to drink of their adulterated Wine, which is but as the Wine of Sodom, and as the Grapes of Gomorrha. These are the Out-cries by which they call the simple to drink of the wine of their Spiritual Fornications: For I challenge any of them all to make it appear, that any one of these Titles mere given these Pamphlets, by him whom they entitle to them: And therefore, good Reader, consider these following lines; and what shall be found true, embrace, though it be not bombasted with the feigned words of them who would make merchandise of your Souls; and slight it not in any thing, wherein it speaks Scripture or right Reason, though with some neither are of weight: which is all that is desired from thy Friend,  
JER: IVES.   

The QUAKER'S Quaking: OR, The Foundation of their Deceit shaken, both in their Quake, Doctrines, Ministry, and Lives.  
IF ever the Mystery of Iniquity, or Iniquity in a mystery, did work in the hearts and minds of men: or if ever the devil did manage a Design under ground, surely be doth it now by the men called QUAKERS, who, like so many Apes, do imitate many of the Faithful in some circumstances, that they may the better deceive in matters that are most substantial. And this (through the help of God) I shall make appear, by showing, that their Quaking, and their Doctrine, Ministry, and Lives, is a mere deceit. And first, I shall speaking somewhat touching their Quaking: and therein, I shall first speak something touching their Name; and secondly, something touching their Practice, viz. Quaking; and the Scriptures they urge in favour to such a practice.  
I Shall in the first place speak to that Name or Title by which they are known to the world, viz. QUAKERS. In this they would make men believe they are nicknamed; as appears in a book of James nailer's, called, The discovery of the first wisdom from beneath: where in the Title-page he subscribes himself, One whom the world scornsully nicknames, and calls Quaker. Again, in another book of his, called, The power and glory of the Lord shining out of the North; in the title-page he subscribes himself One whom Ishmael's brood calls a Quaker. I could bring many instances of this kind, to show how they would make men believe they are greatly wronged when they are distinguished from other men by this term Quakers. Now see their deceit; they say Ishmael's Brood and the world calls them so, and yet they take pains to prove themselves so: see page 16 and 17 of the last  Book: he saith, But search the Scriptures, and holy men of God do witness quaking and trembling. See likewise Parnel's Shield of Truth, p. 1. and a Book of theirs, called saul's Errand to Damasew, p. 32. It being asked by a Justice, How it came to pass that people quake and tremble; James Nayler answered, that the Scriptures witness the same condition in the Saints formerly, etc. Now pray observe, the Christians of old were never offended at that which the Scriptures did witness them to be: as for instance, the Scripture calls them believers, because they believed; disciples, because they had learned; Saints, because they were holy; and they that prayed, were called a praying people. Now where do the Saints of old anywhere call these Nicknames, when they were called according to what they either believed or practised? Is it any more a Nickname to call a man a Quaker that quakes by the power of God, (if that be true that they say) then to call a righteous man a righteous man, that is made righteous by the power of God? or is it any more a Nickname to call a man a Quaker, that witnesses to quaking, and owns it, than it is to call a man a Christian, that witnesses to Christ, and owns him? I believe a man may deridingly be called a Christian, as doubtless some of these are called Quakers; and so many are deridingly called Saints and holy men; yet these are no Nicknames: if they are so, the people in captivity were deridingly bid to sing one of Sion's songs, yet these were not Nicknames to those songs. By this you may see that they are Liars, in saying that they are nicknamed Quakers, when themselves say they witness quaking: and though themselves witness quaking, yet they say that they are Ishmael's brood that calls them so. But I pray tell me, if a man be frequently found in railing, whether this be a Nickname to call him a Railer. In like manner, if these people (as themselves confess) do frequently quake, what Nickname is it to call them Quakers?  
But now to their Scriptures alleged for quaking, shaking and trembling: it is true, that some good men do say thus of themselves; as Heb. 12.21. Ezek. 12.18. Jer. 33.9. Acts 9.6. Psal. 119.6. and many other places. To all which I answer, first, This doth not prove that all were good that did quake and tremble: for the devils were quakers and tremblers, James 2.19. Again, good men made use of Scriptures, to exhort and instruct; yet some do make use of them to deceive and tempt, as the devil did Christ, Matth. 4.6. In like manner may Deceivers fall into quaking fits, that so they may ho●●●●me resemblance with the servants of God, (that did tremble for fear of God) though the fear of God be departed from them: for the devil, many times, and his ministers, that they may the better effect their deceits, do transform themselves into the likeness of the ministers and servants of Christ.  
2. None of the Saints of old did ever foam at mouth in this their trembling; but some of you do, as many are able to witness, and as yourselves cannot deny. When it was objected against you in the Westmoreland-Petition, that your practces did exceedingly savour of Sorcery, because of the swell, quake, and roar, and foamings that were among you at your meetings, but especially of young children; you deny no part of the Charge in your Answer, but Blasphemy and Sorcery: by which it plainly appears, that swell and foamings could not be denied, else you would as well have replied to that, as Blasphemy and Sorcery. For this, see their Book in answer to the West morland-Petition, p. 35. where they make no reply to foaming and swelling, though it is charged upon them to be in young children as well as old folks. Whereupon I demand, Whether any of the Saints of old ever foamed at mouth when they trembled? 2. Whether any young children did ever foam at mouth, quake, swell and tremble, in the Saints meetings? 3. Whether such kind of trembling that is accompanied with foamings, do not rather argue a man to be possessed with the devil, then with the Spirit of God? according to that of Luke 9.39.  
Lastly, Whether this be a good Argument: viz. Some of the Saints did quake, and that by the impulse of the Spirit of God: Therefore every one that quakes and trembles is a Saint of God, and doth it by the impulse of the Spirit of God.  
The next thing I shall speak to, is their Doctrines: And though I confess they preach somewhat that is true, yet in this they are but the greater Deceivers. For what Heretic is there, but preaches some truth? and what counterfeit silver will pass in pay, if there be not some appearance of real silver? So these men, to put off their bad ware, which other wise would not vent, do usher it in with many truths. But, that the Reader may see that All is not gold that glisters; take notice, in the first place, that these men will allow nothing to be called God's Word, but Christ. This is their first Error in Doctrine: which I thus prove: 
1 Error.   
First, because God hath but one onely-begotten Son Jesus Christ; but he hath many Words. That he hath but one Son Jesus Christ, I prove, from Joh. 3.16. 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.5. That he hath more words than one, I prove from Deut. 8.3. Man liveth not by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Prov. 30.5. EVERY word of God is pure. Jer. 23.36. the complaint is, that the false Prophets had perverted the WORDS of the living God. So that from this Scripture this Argument may be drawn against this Error: viz. If God have plurality of words, than somewhat else may be called the Word of God beside his only Son Jesus Christ. But God hath plurality of words: Therefore, somewhat else may be called God's Word, besides his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. And the fallacy of the Argument for the contrary, is thus detected: Jesus Christ is called the Word: Ergo, Nothing else must be called the Word but Jesus Christ. May not a man as well say, that Jesus Christ is called God's Son; Ergo, No one else may be called God's son but Jesus Christ? When we read that men are the sons of God by saith; and (Joh. 1.) As many as believed, to them be gave porter to become the sons of God; though I confess they are not sons in the same sense that Christ is: so likewise nothing is called the Word of God in the same sense the Scriptures call Christ so, but himself. Again, the Scriptures call Christ a vine, a door, a shepherd: but would it not be madness to say,  we read of a vine, a door, or a shepherd, it must be understood of Christ?  
Their next Error that I shall name, 
2 Error.  (and which is a consequence of the former) is this, That they say the Scriptures may not be called the word of God: and in many of their books they blame the Ministry of the Nation, and others, for saying the Scriptures are the word of God; when Christ calls the written Law of Moses the word of God, which he said the Pharisees had made of none effect by their traditions, Mark 7.13. But see the horrible deceit of these men! The Scriptures (they say) must be called a declaration of the mind of God, but at no hand they must be called the word of God: see their book called A cloud of witnesses, in the Title-page, and also in pag. 3. of the same Book, toward the later end of it, and the beginning of pag. 4. you have these words: But the blind guides, the Priests of England, that Preach for Tithes, hire, gists and rewards, they do teach the people, and say, Harken to the Word of the Lord, as it is in a chapter and a verse: and many other passages, which I forbear to cite, because it is a thing so generally preached and received by them, viz. That the Scriptures are not the word of God, but a declaration of the mind and will of God. See now their deceit! they would make the world believe, that it detracts from the honour of Christ to call the Scriptures the word of the Lord, and the word of God: when in truth, the design is to raise up the honour of their own Pamphlets, by the ruins of the Scriptures reputation in the hearts and minds of men. And therefore do but behold their impudence: The holy Scripture (say they) must not be called God's word; no, no: but see if they do not give the same titles, and as great, to their own bombasted, contradictious, lying Pamphlets. And for the proof of this, let me give thee a recital of some of them, among many.  
They have one book, called Love to the lost: which is a Title proper to none but God and Christ; yet this is given to one of their books.  
Another is called, A discovery of the wisdom from beneath: which none but the word of God can do, by their own confession many a time.  
Another book is called, The power and glory of God shining out of the North. Is not this Title as great, as if they had called it the word of God? Read, and judge you, whose light is not darkness.  
Another is called, The Royal law and Covenant of God; which is as great a Title as the word of God.  
Another is called, News out of the North, written from the mouth of God.  
Another is called, The Vials of the wrath of God upon the seat of the man of sin.  
Another is called, A warning from the Lord to Teachers and people.  
Another is called, A true prophecy of the mighty day of the Lord. Now if by the mighty day of the Lord, they mean that there shall be such a day; which they can hardly do, because some of them have said, The day of Judgement is passed already: but if that should be their meaning, it could be no Prophecy: for what prophesying is it for men to foretell such a thing shall be, if others have said it before them? for do not many, by the writing of the Scriptures, believe there shall be such a day? yet these cannot be said to prophesy of it. But if by prophesying of the mighty day of the Lord, they mean to foretell the very day, than they presume to know more than Christ, or the Angels, or any man, according to that of Mark 13.22. But to proceed.  
They have another book, that is called, A Trumpet from the Lord sounded out of Zion.  
Another is called, A whirlwind of the Lord, given forth as a flying fiery roll.  
I would from all this, ask but one question, Whether these Titles which they give these books, are not equipollent to the Title we give the Scriptures, viz. The Word of God? and yet these men blame us for this, and give as great to their own Pamphlets. But what shall we say? they stop not here, but at last call their own writings The Word of the Lord, and A Word from the Lord; as you may see in a book of theirs, called, A prophecy of the mighty day of the Lord, p. 13. and the like in a book called The vials of the wrath of God, p. 57 p. 9 p. 10. and in a book called News out of the North, p. 10. and p. 24. and in p. 1. of a book called The pure language of the Spirit; and many other places, where they do readily in words at length, give those Titles to their own books, they will not give to the Scriptures. Doth not this plainly show, that the design of this generation is, to do by the Scriptures, as Judas did by Christ, viz. betray them with a kiss, even by making men believe they do own the Scriptures, when indeed it is, that they may have the fairer opportunity to crucify them in the crowd of their pernicious Pamphlets?  
The third Error in their Doctrine, is, 
3 Error.  That they (say they) are immediately sent of God: see this in James Parnel's book, called A shield of Truth, page 12. He saith, They can witness an immediate call from God, to go from their Countries and Callings, etc. to go to preach the Gospel. I could show this out of many of their books; but I spare that labour, because it is daily owned by them, and they frequently assert it in public conferences. The substance of two of them I shall give you a brief account of: one was in last May 1656. in Beech-lane London; at which time, I did propose Question to James Nayler, viz. Whether ever any was immediately sent of God to preach the Gospel, but either God did bear witness to them from heaven, or else he did enable them to work Miracles, by which they might evince the truth of their authority upon earth? To this James Nayler replied, That God might send men, for aught I knew, to whom be bare no such witness. To this I replied, That God did never immediately send any, but he did either from heaven demonstrate the truth of their authority, or else gave them power to work miracles upon the earth. James Nayler told me I could not prove what I said. To which I replied, That the saying proved itself, unless he could give an instance of some so sent, to whom God bore no such witness. Hereupon James Nayler tells me, That Mathias was so sent, and yet did no Miracle. To this I replied, That the 2d of the Acts tells us, That the holy Ghost fell upon them, and they all spoke with Tongues, to the amazement of the beholders 
* And as for Mathias, he was not sent immediately, for he was chose by lot, Acts 1. latter end: So that he hath told two lies; first, that Mathias was immediately sent; secondly, that he could not work Miracles: both which are false, as the first and second of the Acts declare. . To which James replied, So can I speak with Tongues that thou canst not understand. I told him, I thought so he might, in their Canting dialect; but could he speak varieties of Languages, that was natural to several countries'. To which he replied, That he was not bound to answer to my demand, being an unbeliever: for (saith he) Christ told the Jews, That a foolish and adulterous generation did seek a Sign. To which I did reply, That if he could show as good a Sign for his immediate Call, as Christ did show that generation, to prove he was the Messiah, we would believe all he told us: for Christ said, That as Ionas was three days and three nights in the Whale's belly; so should he be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth: This Sign, he said, should be given to them. I challenge all the Quakers in England, either to show us such a Sign of their immediate sending, or else never use that Text to reprehend them that ask a Sign: For, though Christ did reprehend them, yet he shown a Sign unto them. Nayler did further reply, and say, That though Christ did mighty works, it was not at or upon the time that they demanded it. To which I replied, That if he would but say he had done it at any time, we would believe him. Hereupon he tells us of his Call from the Plough. To which I replied, and told him again, This doth no more prove that which was demanded then (as the story goes) the Man that left his fishing to be a Priest, and afterwards came to be Pope, was immediately sent of God. To which he replies, and tells me, That when Paul was brought before the Civil Magistrate, he gave no other account, but only told him how God called him. To which I answered, That if James Nayler could give any history of as good authority (as the History of the Acts of the Apostles is) for the proof of his Call, we would believe him. He hereupon calls me Liar: For (saith he) didst not thou tell me, thou wouldst believe, if I would but say it? To which I answered, That I did not say I would believe he was immediately sent of God, if he did but say it, for than I should give away the cause; but if he said, that he had at any time done a Miracle, we would believe him. Hereupon he told us, That he would prove his extraordinary Call, both by himself and other Witnesses: And to make this good, he gave us a Narrative how be was before the Magistrates of Appleby, and told them how God called him in the field at Plough, etc. To which I did reply, He was not before me to give an account to me as to a Magistrate: And secondly, I told him, That this was a mere deceit; for we expected he should prove the truth of his Call, and he goes to prove, That he told the Magistrates of Appleby he was thus called: And I told him, That I did not want proof that he did tell them so, but that that which he told them was true, which was the main thing in question. Hereupon, several of his Proselytes stands up to witness, how he had turned them from darkness to light. I told them, that was a begging of the Question: for the great question is, Whether that be not Darkness they are turned to, and that the Light they are turned from: I therefore did tell them all, that it was horrible presumption for such as they, to proclaim both in City and Country, that they were sent of God, when indeed the Pope can say as much for his Infallible Chair, the Turk for his Koran, and the Jew for his Talmud, and a great deal more. Hereupon he desired me to dispute some other Points of Doctrine, viz. Whether Faith were the gift of God, and the like: To which I answered, That if he could prove that he was immediately sent of God, we would believe all he said; and if he did but that, it would save us a labour to dispute other Points: for if he did prove, That God sent him to check and control all the Religions of the World, we would willingly be controlled by him: which we did once and again call for proof of, but could not have it. I therefore bade him either renounce this pretended Call, or else prove it, before I would dispute any other Point of Doctrine with him. Hereupon he told us, he was immediately sent of God, because he could prophesy. I asked him, of what? He told me, Of our breaking to pieces, and dividing among ourselves. I told him, That break and dividings had been, and it was like might be among the Churches; but unless he could precisely tell us when such disasters should befall us, he was no more a Prophet then (as the story goes) the Fool, who having seen many a rainy day, did use to cry in fair weather, because it would rain, though he knew not when. This was the sum of the first Conference. Some days after, I was at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate, where at that time they had a Meeting, at which Meeting the former Question was revived, viz. Whether James Nayler was able to prove he was immediately sent of God? for I told the people, That the Light within me, taught me not to quit my Religion, to embrace another that was able to show no better, not scarce so good proof for its Authority, as either the Jew could for his Talmud, the Turk for his Alcoran, or the Pope for his Infallible Chair. To this James Nayler replied, that I said true, that if they had no better proof for their authority, than those they cried down, they were not to be believed: But (saith he) I will show better proof: and the first was, That they were of God, because they taught, that the Faith by which a man was saved, was the gift of God; which (saith he) thou deniest. I hereupon replied, That to fall into that question, How Faith might be God's gift, and how it might be acquired, would lose the first question: and therefore I told him, That if Faith (in his sense) were the gift of God, yet it did not follow, that they that so preached were immediately sent of God: My Reason was, Because then all the Ministers of the Nation, or at least the most part of them, are immediately sent of God: for they say, both in opposition to the Pelagians as well as Papists, That Faith is the gift of God: So that if his words were put into a Syllogism, they would run thus, viz. Every one that preaches, Faith is the gift of God, is immediately sent of God: But James Nayler preacheth so; Ergo. But may not a a man as well conclude from the same premises, Every man that saith, Faith is the gift of God, is immediately sent of God: But the Ministry of the Nation and others, whom thou criest down for Antichristian, do preach so; Ergo, they are immediately sent of God? If this be a true and undeniable Argument, the thou art a Liar in Folio, to cry down these and others for Antichristian: but if it be not true, thou hast not proved the question: for if some one may be Antichristian that preaches thus, thou art as like to be he as any. His next Argument was this, viz. They (meaning the Ministers of the Nation and others) did but SAY so. To which I replied, He did no more. He told us then, that he could prove it further by their fruits: I asked, what were they? He told me in the first place, Their leaving their Countries, to go up and down to preach the Gospel. To which I replied, That this was to a greater degree found among the Jesuits, who did travel to Rome for Orders, and after come and preach here in England, though there was a standing Law that made it Treason. I question much, if such a Law were against Quakers, whether they would venture so much for their Religion as the Papists do; and if they did, they could not do more than lose their lives, which the Jesuits frequently do. Now I demand, If this be a good Argument, viz. They that leave their Callings and Countries to preach, are immediately sent of God to preach: Whether the same premises doth not every whit as well prove (if not much better) That the Jesuits are immediately sent of God? For what though Christ's Apostles left their Countries and Callings, doth this prove, that every one that doth so is Christ's Apostle? No: the contrary to this is seen in Matth. 23.15. that the Pharisees did compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when be is made, be is more the child of the Devil then themselves: The like proof you bring; for they could not compass Sea and Land to make a Proselyte, without leaving their countries: and if this proves the Quakers are sent of God immediately, it as well proves the Pharisees were so sent. Again, we read in the Acts, of one that led into the Wilderness four thousand men: This man also left his country. By all this you may see, that that which these men talk most of, they can say least to, viz. That they are immediately sent of God. Again, another Argument, by which James Nayler would prove his immediate sending, was grounded upon their denying themselves in point of Apparel. To this I did answer, First, that many Orders of Friars did deny themselves in matters of Apparel, more than they: who (some of them) will not wear their clothes of any other colour, than wool that comes off the sheep is of, and save the charges of dying it; others of them wear hair-shirts, whereas you wear fine linen comparatively; nay, are they not generally known to be more selfdenying, both as to eating, drinking, and apparel, marrying, and other worldly delights, than any of your Teachers? how then for shame can you urge this as an Argument to prove your immediate call, when the same is found among them whom you call Antichristian? but these men will play at small game before they will give out 
* But if this be a good argument, than every one of them are immediately sent of God to preach, for they all are self-deniers in these things.  Another Argument was taken from the number of Proselytes they make, which, say they, they have turned from darkness to light: But, as I said before, how do they prove this? for we doubt not, but the Pharisees would have said as much of their Proselytes, which were made more the children of the Devil, than they were before. But further, and as I then told him, some may be sent of God, that may not turn people, as Ezek. 33. and Isa. 53.1. The Prophet saith, Who bath believed our report? Again I told him, That as many might preach that God sent, who might possibly not be received: so multitudes might receive a man that God never sent 
* See Mat. 24.5. MANY shall come in my Name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive. MANY. ; and that is rather a sign that God never sent you, then that he did send you: for Christ saith, That he came in his Father's Name, but they received him not; but he tells them, If one should come in his own Name, him that would receive. And the Apostles themselves did shake the dust off their feet against some places that received them not: But James Nayler saith, That he never came to a place, but be was received, and converted some in it. But our Lord Christ, though he did mighty work in Corazin and Bethsaida (he saith) they repent not: Which very Argument of yours is so fare from proving you are sent of God immediately, that it rather proves the contrary: for, who hath made more Proselytes, than the Roman Priests and Monks have? as for instance, Austin the Monk, who was sent to the Saxons by the Bishop of Rome, converted 10000 in a few days. See Speeds Chronicle, pag. 291, Sect. 8. And who is there that is acquainted with the proceed of the Spaniards in the West-Indies, but can tell, that thousands are daily reduced from Heathenism, to sober and upright lives by the Roman Ministry? and yet this drawing of multitudes, is an Argument, That Quakers are sent of God; but must not be urged by others, though they are able to say more at this turn, than all the Quakers in England. By this you may see, that the Quakers are shaking, and would gladly make every Straw a Staff to lean upon.  
But lastly, if it be as they say, That very man hath a Light within him, that would turn him, if he do follow it, to what purpose do they preach one to another: So that they have no cause to impute the converting of men to their Ministry, for they might convert without it.  
The last Argument to which I said little then (by reason I was interrupted with their Women-preachers) was this, viz. That it did appear they were immediately sent of God, because they did not give respect to persons. I answer, first then, All the Quakers, both men and women, are sent of God immediately to preach the Gospel, for none of them give respect to persons. But secondly, is not this an abominable piece of wickedness? for by the rule of contraries, Paul was not sent of God, for he did respect Festus, and called him, MOST NOBLE FESTUS, Acts 24.3. and 26.25. Now all the people were not Most Noble; for the Scripture saith, Not many Noble are called: by which it appears, that some were more Noble than others, and had that respect given to them, that was not common to all: But I shall say more to this anon.  
My last answer to this Argument (if I may so call it, and James not judge me for a Liar) is, That if their not sitting up, and giving civil respect, be an argument that these are sent of God; then Austin the Monk was sent of God, and many others that I could name: but let me trouble you with the recital of one story concerning Austin the Monk; and upon the reading of it, you will think (if James saith true) that Austin was a man sent immediately of God. Austin, 561 years after Christ, in the time of Ethelbert King of Kent, was sent by Pope Gregory to convert the Saxons; who, some time after call a Synod, unto which resorted seven British Bishops, and other learned men, saith Beda in this History, Book 2. Chap. 2. These men now ready to go to the Synod, came first to a certain holy wise man to ask his counsel (which some think was bishop of York) Whether they ought at Augustine's Preaching and Exhortation, to leave their Traditions (Austin being come a stranger among them) The good man answered, If he be a man of God, follow him; but (said they) how shall we know that? He answered, Christ (saith he) said, That we should learn of him, for he was humble, and meek of heart: If therefore (saith this good man) this Austin be mild and bumble, it is like he is of God; but if he be proud, no proud man is of God. Then the Bishops inquired, how they might know that? The man answereth, Provide (saith he) that he and his company come first to the place of Meeting; and if it be so, that when you approach near him, he arise and salute you, then think him to be the Servant of Christ: but if he do not vouchsafe to rise at your presence, let him be despised. They hereupon took the old man's counsel, and when they came in, Austin the Monk sat very still in his Chair, and stirred not: hereupon they judged him a proud man. See Speeds Chron. pag. 291. I do urge this to show, That if this be an argument a man is sent of God immediately, surely this man, viz. Austin the Monk, was so sent of God, and so are all the Popes at this day, that will not reverence any Monarch under Heaven; so that these Arguments are so slender, that if Christ and his Apostles had had no better, they had never made any Proselytes to the Kingdom of Heaven to this day, how greatly soever you brag of your Converts.  
I now come to their next Error, 
4 Error.  and that is, That every man hath a Light within, that will teach a man to Worship God rightly. This is so common a principle of theirs, that to go about to prove it, were but to hold a candle to the Sun: therefore taking this for granted, that they thus teach, as I hope I may without wrong to them, I shall now show, That this is false Doctrine, and is taught to no other end (I fear) then to thrust out the Authority of the holy Scriptures.  
1. For first, what need is there of Scripture to declare the Mind of God, if it may be known without it every whit as well? But now the Scripture saith, that what was writ afore-time, was writ for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. and John 20.31. But these things were writ, that you might believe: 1 Cor. 10.11. These things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.  
2. I demand, Whether by the Light which is in the whole world, or in every one that comes into it, all men may come to know a Virgin had a Son, without any other external means?  
3. I demand, Whether the Light in every man, without the Scriptures, can bring every man to know Christ died, and risen again in three days?  
4. I demand, What favour it was to the people of Israel, to have the written Law of God, in such a manner as it is said of them, He had not dealt so with any Nation, if all Nations by the Light within them, might have (with the like facility) understood to serve and worship God as well without them?  
5. Whether all men by the Light within them, before the coming of Christ, could ever have understood, that he should be born in Bethlehem, as it was written?  
6. Whether the Name of Jesus Christ may be known to all the World, by the Light within them, without Scripture or Traditions?  
7. I demand, if the Light within can inform all men into the Divine Worship and Service of God, without the Scriptures, Whether it may not do it without your Books? If so,  
8. Whether or no you that will not be prodigal of your Apparel, and who will not lay out money upon needless things, are not at this turn very prodigal, to buy candles to light them to the Sun? My meaning is, to lay out hundreds of pounds to print so many Books, when the world (if your Doctrine be true) might have known as much without them?  
9 Whether this is not as great superfluity and prodigality, as wearing any thing that is not needful; viz. your paying great Rents for places to meet and preach in, when you say you know so much by the Light within you, as you need no Teacher? as appears by a Book of James nailer's, called, A Discovery of the first Wisdom, pag. 8. where he makes it the character of the first man (or carnal man) to know God by relation from others, either by word or writing. And to this purpose they apply 1 John 2.27. and Heb. 8.11. and in thee same page he makes it a note of a Spiritual man, that he knows God from his dwelling-place, and not by relation from others, etc.  
10. Whether there is not the like vanity in your spending your precious Times and Moneys to go about the countries, if the Light which is within the countries, could have showed them the same things without you?  
11. Whether you would not count it as vain a thing, as wearing any thing that is needless is counted by you, if any of you should be at great cost to carry a Bushel of coals to Newcastle, where there is coals enough already?  
12. Whether the Moneys that is thus needlessly laid out, would not be better bestowed where is more need, viz. upon the hungry and the naked.  
The fifth Error I shall name, is, 
5 Error.  That there was one Jo: Lawson accused for saying, The day of Judgement was passed; which he in stead of disowning of the charge, goes about to prove it from Matth. 12.20. and saith not one word touching the untruth of it. See a Book of theirs, called, saul's Errand to Damascus, pag. 35. where you have that very Error objected against them, with their answer to it. I should not have charged this Error upon them all, it being but the writing and the saying of one man, did not all of them received and own it, as appears by the printing of it in a book, wherein many of them are concerned. Now is not this a consequent of that devilish Doctrine, taught by Hymeneus and Philetus, which said, that the Resurrection was already past, and destroy the Faith of some? 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. For if the Judgement-day be passed already; Resurrection, that goes before Judgement, must be also past.  
The sixth Error I shall name, is, That George Fox, 
6 Error.  whom all of them own, professeth himself to be the Eternal Judge of the World: and being charged with it by the Petitioners of the County of Lancaster, makes no denial of any part of the Charge, but saith, The Saints shall judge the World: See pag. 6. of a book of theirs, called, saul's Errand to Damascus.  
The seventh Error I shall mention, is, That George Fox, 
7 Error.  whom they all own, said, He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and being charged with this by the Petitioners aforesaid, he denies not a syllable of it; though it is observable, that many things that the said persons do object, they in their Replies do deny that ever they said so; yet to this he makes no denial, but saith, The Old-Man cannot endure to hear the Newman speak, which is Christ. This you may find to be his answer in pag. 7. of saul's Errand to Damascus.  
The eighth Error I shall charge them with, 
8 Error.  is, That the said Fox said, That he which took a place of Scripture, and made a Sermon of it, or from it, was a Conjurer, and his preaching was Conjuration. This he is charged with by the men aforesaid, and in his printed answer denies not one syllable, but saith, He that raiseth the Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer 
* See p. 7. of the last mentioned Book. . First, doth not the Scripture say, Acts 8. that from that place of Scripture which the Eunuch was reading, i. e (viz.) Philip preached unto him Jesus? and did not the Eunuch read the Letter, and did not Philip preach the Christ? was not that the Spirit, as yourselves notion it? and yet you say, They that raise the Spirit out of the Letter, are Conjurers. Oh horrible Profaneness!  
The ninth Error is, 
9 Error.  that being charged with saying, The Scriptures are carnal: In the book and page last mentioned, he answers, The Letter of the Scripture is carnal. How now George! what is the Letter of the Scripture carnal? and do not you tell the people that you walk according to them? But why should you walk after a carnal Rule, since you profess to be such a Spiritual man? But by this the world may see, if their Candle be not put out, that this cunning Fox can run with the Hare, and hold with the Hound.  
In the ninth page of the last mentioned Book, 
10 Error  one Leonard Hill is charged with saying, Christ had no body but his Church: which he denies not, but saith, There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called.  
The eleventh Error is, 
11 Error  That John Lawson said, pag. 35. of saul's Errand to Damascus, that he had been in Hell, but now was in Heaven: Of this he is charged, and denies it not, but citys that place out of the second of Jonah, where Jonah saith, Out of the belly of Hell he cried to the Lord: Doth this prove Lauson was ever in this Hell, or in any other? but he may come there before he thinks of it, if he repent not; and his Heaven he is in, will not shelter him.  
The twelfth Error is, 
12 Error  That they say they are perfect, and sin not. See a Book of theirs in answer to Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, pag. 9 where they charge the men aforesaid for lying, because they said, The Quakers boast of perfection; and yet in the same page they say, They own perfection, but do not boast of it. Oh strange! What, that men should be telling and preaching of their perfection, and in print proclaim they own it, and yet call men Liars, for saying, that they lost of it! I pray resolve me this Question: If any man should by word or writing, or both, publish his estate to the world, that he is thus and thus rich, would not yourselves call him a proud boaster, especially if he shall boast of that he never had? and that you do so, I shall make it manifest in due place.  
The thirteenth Error is, that James Nayler said, 
13 Error  that None can come to God nor Christ, but they that come to perfection: See Naylers' Book, called, Love to the Lost, pag. 23. If this be true, Paul was not come to God nor Christ; for he saith, Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained, or were already PERFECT: And in the seventh of the Romans, the same Apostle saith once and again, That sin did dwell in him; and doth not Christ call sinners to come unto him? and yet you are so impudent as to say, That None can come, but they that come to perfection.  
The fourteenth Error is, 
14 Error  That James Nayler in his book called Love to the Lost, p. 23. speaking of the Lords Supper, saith, That at all seasons, whensoever they eat or drink, they were to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in their eating and drinking, though it were at the Gentiles (or Unbelievers) Table: alluding to that place of Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.27. And another of them in a Book of theirs, called, Truth's Defence against refined Subtlety, pag. 100 calls a man Carnal Sot, for ask whether Paul did administer the Lord's Supper with Bread and Wine; and thereupon demands, Whether the Apostles did give to the Corinthians Bread and Wine.  
The fifteenth Error is, That James Parnel, in his Book called A Shield of Truth, hath these words, viz. That he denies all Baptism, but that of the holy Ghost and Fire: See page 12. Another of them in a Book called Truth's Defence against refined Subtlety, hath these words: he being asked, Whether Christ did command his Disciples to baptise with water? or, whether they did baptise with water? he answers, That the querent had showed his subtlety, in being ignorant of the Letter: alluding to that place, Matth. 28.19. But I demand, Why these perfect men cannot speak perfect sense? for what subtlety is it for a man to be ignorant? yet he tells his querent, he hath showed his subtlety in being ignorant. But to the thing itself, viz. That there is no baptism, but that of the Spirit and Fire; when as the Scripture tells us of a baptism with water, which is also required of them that do believe. But to evade the force of the Scriptures that speak in the behalf of waterbaptism, they use to say, That waterbaptism did end, when other Ceremonies of the Law ended; but after the Resurrection of Christ, it was not to be practised.  
To which I answer, That it was by Christ commanded, after that he risen from the dead: See Mat. 28. and Mark 16.16. But if any shall say, This was to baptise with the Holy Ghost; I demand, First, Whether that this baptism was not peculiar to Christ himself, as appears by John's words, Matth. 3.11. HE (meaning Christ) shall baptise with the holy Ghost and fire?  
Secondly, Whether that if the command of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. be for to command the Apostles to baptise with the holy Ghost and fire, they did ever obey it? if they did, show when and where.  
Thirdly, Whether we may not judge, that the baptising men and women in water in the Name of Christ, which the Apostles frequently did, was not in obedience to some Commission they had received from their Lord? If so,  
Fourthly, Do you show us where and when their Lord gave them a command so to do, if this of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. was not it: If you shall say, They did it in order to the people's weaknesses, as Paul's circumcising Timothy was; then I demand,  
Fifthly, Whether Paul did in the Name of the Lord Jesus impose Circumcision upon Timothy? if not, How doth this parallel with the case in hand, viz. waterbaptism, which Peter, Acts 10. doth command in the Name of the Lord? But if you shall say, That baptism with water was not commanded, but left to liberty: I demand,  
Sixthly, Whether to command a thing to be done in the Lords Name, which he commands not, be not to sin, & take his Name in vain? See to this purpose Deut. 18.20. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name, which I have not commanded him to speak, etc. even the same Prophet shall die.  
Seventhly, And whereas it is alleged, That waterbaptism is a thing of indifferency, that may be done, or lawfully left undone; I demand, Whether it was not then as great a sin in Peter, Acts 10. to command the doing of it in the Name of the Lord, as it was for men to forbid to marry, or to command to abstain from meats, 1 Tim. 4.2, 3. seeing that to command the doing of that which God hath left to liberty, is a sin of equal extent with the forbidding of that he hath left to liberty?  
Eighthly, But if it shall be said (as sometimes it is) That they in the Primitive Times did receive waterbaptism, because they had a command immediately so to do, and therefore we are not to be baptised till so commanded: I answer, First, how will this be proved, that all they that were then-baptized, were so commanded? is not the contrary to this easily made manifest, from Acts 2. and Acts 8. and many other places, where the people were mediately, by means of the Apostles preaching, put upon this duty, and not by extraordinary Revelations?  
But to the main Question, and that is this, Whether or no that this very Principle doth not lay all other Precepts waste, and excuse the observance of them till I am immediately inspired thereto? I believe, if a man did owe a Quaker a sum of money, he would be loath to be served as he would have men serve Christ: As for instance, Suppose I did owe James Nayler a sum of money; and he should desire me to pay him, and should urge this Scripture, Own nothing to any man, as an argument to persuade me to pay him; what if I should say, It is true, James, this was a command to them that could witness it in themselves; and when by an immediate power they were inspired to the observance of it, than they were to do it; but till then they did not sin in omitting of it: and therefore when I can witness this Text within me, I will pay thee thy money: Do you think they would count this fair dealing? yet in this manner would they have men deal with the commands of our Lord Jesus: and the truth of it is, this evasion of the command of baptism doth as forcibly evade all other Precepts in the whole Bible. By this the Reader may see, that these men would make the commands of God of none effect by their tradition.  
The sixteenth Error that I shall insist upon, is, 
16 Error  That though they say they are perfect, yet they are inconsistent with themselves; as appears, First, in as much as they make it their daily practice to preach, That every man in the world hath a light within him, according to that Text, John 1. And yet one of their Scribes asketh a Minister of the Nation, Whether he had that light which doth lighten every one that comes into the world 
* See for this a book of theirs called Truths defence, p. 3 ? Oh horrible blindness! Did ever any man in his right wits ever ask such a question; having over and over asserted, that every man hath that light spoken of John: 1, and yet to ask a man, Whether he hath that light spoken of John 1. Surely this man did not understand, that the party of whom he demanded the question, was a man, or else he was not of age to understand, that universals do include all particulars of their species; and yet these are the men that witness perfection. Let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, that these men are the saddest spectacles of Gods Spiritual Judgements, that ever any Age hath heard of: And surely, if ever any people were given up to believe a lie, these are the men: for was it ever heard of, that a man should profess to be immediately sent of God, and to be infallibly guided by him, and to have attained to perfection, as these would have it, and yet not know common sense? What think ye, if after Paul had told the Athenians, Acts 17. that God did give to all life and breath, if afterwards he should ask the Areopagite, Whether God had given him life and breath? Do you think he would ever have cleaved to Paul, as the 34 Verse of the aforesaid Chapter, doth declare he did? and yet such are the injudicious minds that many in our days are given up to, that though an Angel from heaven should detect their vanity, yet some would resolve to be vain.  
A second instance of their inconsistency, is, That though they say the letter of the Scripture is carnal, as appears by a Book of theirs called saul's Errand to Damascus; yet, for the justifying of their conceited New-light, they make use of the first of John, and many other Texts in the letter, though therein they stretch it beyond its line.  
But further, at another time they say, That it is a sign of a dark mind, to think the Scriptures should have another meaning 
* See a Book of theirs called Truths Defence, p. 1. . And yet in the Book called, saul's Errand to Damascus, they say, The letter is carnal: and yet for all this, a little before in the same book, they say, He that raiseth Spirit out of it, is a Conjurer; as I have already mentioned upon another occasion.  
What miserable confusion is here? doth this look like perfection? One while the letter is carnal, and another while its conjury to raise Spirit out of it; and another while its a sign of a dark mind, to think the Scriptures should have another meaning; and another while they will give other meanings to them, than what is expressed in the letter.  
A third instance of their inconsistency, (and by which, all that I have said is justified) is, That though they say they own the Scriptures, and will talk a few words sometimes in their behalf; yet one of them said in a book called Truth's Defence, pag. 2. in answer to Parson Camelford of Stavely-Chappel, That he might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned, as his Quares that be sent unto him; or, that he might as well have said the say of Christ and his Apostles were absurd, as to say those Quares were absurd, they (meaning his Quaeres) being given forth by the same Spirit the Scriptures were.  
A fourth instance of their inconsistency, is, That one William Tomlinson, in a book of his called A word of Reproof, p. 11. doth blame the Ministers, for praying before or after Sermon, and saith, What, did Christ or his Apostles fall short of what they ought to do, and leave it to you to mend it? And yet in other cases we must not follow Christ's and the Apostles example; and yet he would bring them to disprove the lawfulness of praying before or after Sermon, because they did not so.  
But further, he inveighs against the Ministers for so doing; yet one of their own Merlin's prayed after Sermon, at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate, before hundreds of people. I pray judge, if any thing of this look like perfection: nay, are not these things Strong symptoms of the greatest degrees of defection, that can befall the sons of men?  
Now I come to the next Error, 
17 Error  and that is, They study and devise deceitful terms, that look with two faces, like the Oracles of the heathen Gods, that they may the better effect their deceits: as for instance, one of them, namely, Farnworth, being charged by Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, for saying, Paul was not converted, when be spoke those words in the 7 to the Romans, where be cries out of a Body of Death: To this they answer in a printed book, called Scriptures freed from Scandals, pag. 12 & 13. That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book. Now mark: the charge is a Negative Proposition, viz. That Paul was not converted when he spoke those words in the 7 of the Romans, concerning a Body of death; they answer, That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book.  
Reader, had these words fallen from the mouth of a man that were conscious of his imperfection, Charity would have taught me to have overlooked them; but now I cannot: for such a speech as this, either argues the speaker to be imperfect, and so discovers his deceit, in saying he is perfect; else if he be perfect (as believe it who's will) how could such a thing fall from his pen? and on the other hand, if he understood what he writ, than it follows, that he writ that to rescue himself from the force of the charge, that so simple people, that know not a Negative from an Affirmative, might think he was not guilty of such a charge; by his saying, There is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book.  
But Oh the impudence of these men, that dare to say, That one might as well burn the Scriptures, as their Papers; when, if the Scriptures had let fall Negatives in stead of Affirmatives, and Affirmatives in stead of Negatives, how could they have been for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come? I dare challenge all men in the world, either Quaker, Atheist, or Anti-Scripturalist, to show me such a piece of Nonsense from any of the Penmen of old, who were inspired by the holy Spirit. Who will believe that these men's tongues and pens are infallible Oracles, that know not I from No, and that put Nay in stead of Yea: for is it not the same? he is charged for saying, Paul was not converted, and he saith, There is no such Affirmative in his whole Book: but than it seems there is such a negative; and if so, then how dare they call those honest servants of Christ liars, viz. H: Haggar, and Tho: Pollard? By this you may see, that these are the greatest Seducers that these latter Times have produced; and the Lord grant, that these things that I do bring to thy mind concerning them, may be as warnings to you that stand, to take heed left you fall; and you that know God, delight to glorify him, left he give you over to a reprobate mind, to do the things that are not convenient: Take heed there fore, and be warned of turning the truth of God into a lie (as these men have done) left God in his Justice give you up to believe a lie.  
The next thing I have to present the Reader with, 
18 Error  is, their Lying: and that, first, in saying, They are perfect; when all the forecited imperfections are found in them, besides many more, as shall be named.  
The second Lie is, that they say, They are immediately sent of God; which nothing is more false.  
The third Lie is, That one Fox writ a book, and in the Title-page said, The world did not know his Name; and yet in two several places of the said Book, he subscribes himself, Known by the Name of GEORGE FOX.  
The fourth Lie is, That one Edward Boroughs said, His Book was sealed by the Spirit of the Eternal God: and being demanded to prove it, he asked, If any thing he writ in it was false? it was replied to him again, If he proved that God sealed his Book, we would believe all that was in it: which I am sure he can never do while the world stands.  
A fifth Lie is, That James Nayler in a written Paper which he sent to me, calls me shameless man, for tempting him to deny the Lord: when I said no such thing; but that I did say, & to which he alludes in his Paper, was, That either he should prove he was immediately sent of God, as he professed, or else that he should renounce it: and thereupon he calls me shameless man, in tempting him to deny the Lord.  
A sixth Lie is, That James Nayler in the said Paper saith, If he had come in his own Name, I would have received him, as (he saith) I did plainly confess. I do believe this man hath bend his tongue like a Bow for lies: for I dare appeal to all the company (which I believe were at least two hundred) if I said any such thing.  
A seventh Lie is, that being charged with writing such falsities in his Paper, by a friend that read it, and knew what was in it, he (at a Meeting at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate in London) did utterly deny it; and while the said friend ran from them to my house (which is not fare) to fetch the said Paper, to prove that he had writ those untruths that he had charged Nayler with, in the mean time he slips away, and was gone. If these are tokens of perfection, sure one may as well say the Devil is perfect: but sure if these men are perfect in any thing, it is in the art of deceiving, lying, and equivocation.  
These are but few of those legions of Lies and Inconsistencies that their Writings and Preach are stust withal, as the judicious may perceive, that will but strictly weigh what they either writ on speak, in the balance of the Sanctuary.  
Having now been in the place of a Respondent, to show the Fallacies, and Non-sequiturs, and absurd Contradictions of the Arguments that these men bring for their Quake and Infallible Preach; together with other their vain Conceits of the Scriptures, and of the Ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ: I shall now assert something briefly by way of opposition to these men's conceits, and endeavour the proof thereof from Scripture and Reason, as God shall enable me.  
And first of all, I shall affirm, That the written Precepts and Promises of God, together with his Threaten of Judgements, and Exhortations to amendment of life, they are, and aught to be esteemed the Words of God.  
That his written Commands may and aught to be so called, I prove from Mark 7.10. for Moses said, Honour thy Father and Mother, etc. which was the writing of Moses, Exod. 20.12. And Christ saith, their making this written Law of none effect, in doing nothing for their Father or Mother, was To MAKE THE WORD OF GOD of none effect by their Tradition, John 10.35. and Jer. 36.2, 5. And Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, all the WORDS OF THE LORD: and ver. 8. He was reading in a BOOK the WORDS OF THE LORD. Again, the Apostle calls the Law of Moses, which contained Precepts, Promises, Threaten, and Exhortations, The Oracles or WORDS OF GOD, Rom. 3.2. But it is objected, The written Word did not make the World. To which I answer, That if they mean the Ink and Paper, we make one mind with them. But yet further I reply, That the same God whose Word made the World, and whose Word preserves the Fabric of the World, did speak those words that are written, for the admonition of the World; and therefore they may truly be called Gods Words, according to the forecited Scriptures, and many other that may be named.  
Again, it is objected, That the Word of God abides for ever, but the Writings may be burned: To which I answer, That this doth not prove that which they would have, viz. That the Commands contained in the Scriptures, may be burned, or any of God's Promises to him that sears him, or his Judgements upon them that do not fear him: No, these remain like Mount Zion, that shall not be removed: As for example, the Words of God were writ upon Tables of Stone; yet the breaking of the Tables did not put a dissolution to those words that were contained in them, but they were as truly to be observed, as if the Tables had been whole.  
Reader, I should not urge these as arguments to those that disown the Scriptures in words at length; but sure I am, that they will serve to confute these men, that in words own them, yet in works deny them.  
Again, I prove the Scriptures as aforesaid to be the Word of God out of their own mouths, though it may be they may deny the consequent: for they, though they deny them to be the Word of God, yet they say they are a declaration of his Mind and William.  
Whence I thus argue, That which declares God's Will, is God's Word: But the Scriptures declare God's Will; Ergo, it is God's Word. The major I prove out of their own mouths; for they all say, that Nothing can enlighten but the Word; and, that Nothing can bring us to know God's Mind, but the Word: though it may be they mean somewhat else by Word than I do, yet that matters not: for, if nothing can manifest God's Mind, but God's Word, and the Scriptures by their own confession do so; than it follows, That by their own Principles (if they have any) that the Scriptures may be so called, though in words at length they do deny it. By which you may see, how miserably these men contradict themselves, in saying, The Scriptures are not God's Word, and yet say, They are a declaration of his Will: when at another time they say, Nothing can declare God's Will, but his Word; which they say the Scripture is not.  
Secondly, I do assert, That the Light which every man hath, doth not direct him into the worship and service of God: and though Christ be the true Light, that inlightens every man that comes into the world, or that doth that which in its nature and property hath such a tendency; for so the Scriptures speak sometimes, Ezek. 24.14. Because I have purged thee, and thou wast; not purged; that is (as if God had said) I have done that which was sufficient for thy purgation; And the like in Joh. 1.29. Christ is called, The Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world; though he that believes not, shall die in his sins: the meaning than must not be, that every man hath his sins pardoned. In like manner then when the same pen saith, that as he taketh away the sins of the world, ver. 29. so he doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, ver. 9 which is as much as if he had said, Jesus Christ by his blessed mediation, hath done that which is able to effect pardon of sins for the world, and which also is able to enlighten and inform the world into the knowledge of it: How then doth this Text prove, That every man hath this Light within him, any more than the other Texts proves every man's sins were took away? the latter of which, themselves will not allow.  
But further, if every man hath received this Light, Joh. 1. then every man hath received Christ: for he is that Light, ver. 9  
But every man hath not received Christ: Ergo.  
The minor I prove from the 11 ver. of the same Chapter; He came to his own, and his own received him not; and the Builders were said to refuse him, Matth. 21.42. and many other places: But if they shall think to be relieved at this turn with this distinction, viz. That it is one thing to have the Light, and another thing to receive it: Then I demand, If this Light was not received, how can it be in all men, unless they are born with it? Secondly, whether men HAVE ANY THING, but what they have RECEIVED, according to I Cor. 4.7. especially any Light or Knowledge of Jesus Christ. Lastly, whether the Scriptures do make a distinction between a man's having the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Christ within him; and his receiving Christ, and receiving of the Spirit within him, or in his heart, as the Apostle phrases it, Rom. 8.  
But to proceed: Doth not the Scripture say, John 11.10. That He that walks in the dark stumbles, because there is NO LIGHT in him? And Isa. 8.20. If they speak not according to this rule, it is because there is NO LIGHT in them? and yet these say, Every man in the world hath the Light within him, spoken of John 1. which Light is Christ.  
Thirdly, In opposition to another of their Errors, I shall prove, That the day of Judgement is not past; which I prove thus:  
If the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the Fire of that Judgement-day, then is it not passed already: But the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the fire of that day; therefore that day is not passed already.  
The major is unquestionable: For if they are yet kept from the fire of that day, and are reserved to the fire of it; than it followeth, That none bathe seen that day, because the Heavens have not felt the heat of it. The minor is proved out of 2 Pet. 3.7.  
Again, if the day of the perdition of the ungodly be not past, than the day of Judgement is not: But the day of the perdition of the ungodly is not; therefore the day of Judgement is not.  
Again, if in that day all must give account of the deeds done in the body, and there are thousands, and ten thousands that have not given an account; than it follows, that the day of Judgement is not past: But there are thousands, and ten thousands that have not given an account of the deeds done in the body; therefore the day of Judgement is not passed already.  
Again, if the day of Judgement be passed already, than the Resurrection is passed already: But the Resurrection is not passed already; Ergo.  
The major I prove from John 5.29.  
The minor I prove thus: In the Resurrection they neither marry, nor give in marriage: But now men do both; therefore they are not in the Resurrection.  
Fourthly, They say, There is no Baptism but that of the Spirit. In opposition to which, I do affirm a Baptism with water; which I prove from Mark 16.16. and Matth. 28.19. 
* Act 2.38, 41. & 8.3, 6. & 10.4, 7.  And that the baptism here commanded was waterbaptism, it appears by what I have already said, by way of Reply to this notion: Also the Scripture tells us, Heb. 6. of the Doctrine of BAPTISMS. And whereas it is objected, That the Scripture tells us of one Lord, and one Baptism: I answer, First, this is not exclusive; for there are Lords many; yet he saith, There is but one Lord Jesus: So in like manner we read of divers baptisms; as of water, and afflictions, and the holy Ghost: yet there is but one properly so called, to wit, That of water, and the other are metaphorical baptisms.  
Fifthly, That the Lord Christ did administer bread and wine, in token of his bloodshedding and bodybreaking; which they deny: This I prove from Mai. 26.27, 28. where Christ did use both bread and wine upon that occasion: and that the Apostles did so, appears from 1 Cor. 11.23. where he saith, That that which he received of the Lord, he did deliver unto them, how that Christ when he was betrayed, took bread: and ver. 25. In like manner (saith the Apostle) he took the Cup when he had supped, etc. All which show, That bread and wine was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Primitive Christians, in remembrance of the die of the Lord Jesus.  
Sixthly, That civil honour and respect is due to some persons more than other; which they deny: First, from the child to the father, as Exod. 20.12. Eph. 6.2. Secondly, from the wise to the husband, Eph. 5.33. and 1 Pet. 3.6. Sarah obeyed Abraham, and called him LORD. Thirdly, this is due from servants to their Masters, 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their Masters worthy of All honour, etc. Fourthly, it is due from young solks to the aged, Levit. 19.32. Thou shalt rise up before the boary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: or as Beza hath it, Thou shalt honour the PERSON of the old man. Fifthly, this respect is due to persons in Authority; as not only the Apostle exhorts, I Pat. 2.17. but as Paul himself practiseth (as I have said) when he calls Festw, Most Noble: and our Lord Christ notes the unjust Judge for one that did not reverence man, Luke 18.2. and yet the Quakers make it a note of their infallible Ministry, that they do not reverence men; when Christ makes it a character of a wicked man. This was urged by James Nayler at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate, viz. That their not respecting persons, was a sign they were immediately sent of God, as I have already minded.  
Again, was not Jacob a faithful man, and doth not the Scripture say, that he called Esau LORD, Gen. 32.18. Gen. 33.13, 14, 15. And Luke calls Theophilus, Luk. 1.3. Most Noble Theophilus: And Christ himself bids his Disciples, Not to covet the uppermost rooms at feasts, lest a MORE HONOURABLE person come in, and then they be bid sit lower, Luke 14.8. By all this you may see, that though we must not respect persons in Judgement, or do any thing for a rich man, because he is rich, without respect had to the equity of the cause; or give flattering Titles to men, to whom it is not due, as to call one Master, and say, I am his Servant, when I own him no service: yet this doth not hinder, but a man may and aught to acknowledge himself a Servant, when he is really and truly so: And though it be flattery to give Titles that are not due; yet it is a duty to give them where and when they are due.  
Seventhly, they are not Infallible, as they pretend: This I prove, because if one propose a question to one of them, he shall give one answer; propose the same to another, he shall give another answer, quite contrary to the former: and so if you shall go on to a fourth or fifth, not one of five, nay (I dare say) not one of ten shall give the same answer with the first: and yet sometimes these men do make the harmony that is among them, an argument that they are infallible; when no Trumpet that sounds forth any thing of Religion to the world, gives a more uncertain sound than theirs. And truly, I know nothing wherein they were ever so well agreed, as they were office at their Meetings in Kent, wherein they all agreed to meet together many times, and said nothings Truly, if this dumb spirit had always been among them, it had been happy for many thousand souls in this Nation, who are now miserably deluded with their fair words.  
Eighthly, I shall further prove, in opposition to another Error of theirs, That Christ had, and yet hath, another Body besides his Church: And my first Argument is this, viz. If Christ had a Body that was broken for his Church, than he had a Body besides the Church: But he had a Body that was broken for his Church; Ergo.  
The major is unquestionable; or else Christ gave the Church to be broken for the Church, if he had no Body besides the Church; which is absurd.  
The minor is proved from Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19. where Christ saith of his Body, that it was broken for them. By this you may see, these men either cannot or will not distinguish between the Body of Christ, which is glorified in the Heavens, and the Church of Christ, which is his Mystical Body upon Earth, and who (if they continue faithful) shall have their vile bodies made like unto his glorious body; according to that of the Apostle, Phil. 3.21.  
Thus, Reader, thou hast an account of a sew of those many vain Errors that are professed by this generation of men, who go up and down to subvert whole houses, and congregations, and to pervert the right and strait ways of the Lord. But I hope the Lord will put a stop to these men's careers, that they may proceed no further, that their folly may be made manifest unto all, that every one may take heed, that he be not led away wit the error of the wicked, and fall from his own steadfastness.  
I shall now proceed to show the Reader, that these conceits, though they are newly risen among us, yet they were such wherewith the Churches of Christ have been pestered, even in the Primitive Times; and that not only in the days of the Apostles, but in the Ages following, wherein men did rise up, and say, They were sent of God; and afterwards grew into such Blasphemous Opinions, as these men are now fallen into; some saying, They are the Eternal Judges of the World; others saying, The Day of Judgement is past; Others saying, They have Divine Revelations; others saying, They are Christ's; and, That they are the Way, the Truth, and the Life, etc.  
And that these men do agree with most of the Heretics both Ancient and Modern, I shall mention some few among the rest.  
As first, they have affinity with Hymeneus and Philetus, who said, That the Resurrection was passed already, 1 Tim. 2.18. in that they (as I have already shown) say, The Day of Judgement is passed already.  
Secondly, they have affinity with the Gnostici, which said, They knew all things: See Epiphan. Haeres. 26. So say these men: and thereupon one of them, namely, Farnworth, being asked, If he knew what two men spoke one to another, being apart from them? he answered, That though he did know, yet he was not bound to answer the question, because (saith he) it is an unbeliever that, asketh it. Again, they agree with the forecited Heretics, inasmuch as they taught, That Christ did not take flesh really, but in a figure; so say these; for one of them being asked this question, answers, That Christ was but a figure: See saul's Errand to Damascus, pag. 54.  
Thirdly, they have affinity with the Manichees, whose Ringleader Manes, called himself, The Comforter, and said, He was Christ, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. So do some of their Teachers, saying, They are the Way, Truth, and Life.  
Fourthly, they have affinity with the great Heretic Seleucus, who denied the Humanity of Christ to be in Heaven, and Waterbaptism: He lived in the time of Theodosius Magnus. See August. lib. de Haeres. Both which Errors are maintained by the Quakers, though they are repugnant to holy Scriptures.  
Fifthly, they have affinity with the Papists, in the great Master-veins of Popery: As 1. the Papists do introduce all their vain conceits by this Maxim, That the Church cannot Err: and from thence it is, that the Quakers do usher in all their Dreams, viz. That they are perfect, and cannot err. 2. The Papists do make the writings of their General Counsels of equal Authority with holy Scripture: So do the Quakers make their pernicious Pamphlets. And at this they exceed the Papists; for the Papist will not say, That none of their Priests have erred; neither will they say, That the Writings of any particular man (except the Pope) is Infallible: but these Quakers say, That their Writings are of equal Authority with hely Scriptures, although they are the private conceptions of either particular men or women's brains. 3. They agree with the Papist Priests, in that they would make the outside of their conversations, an argument to demonstrate the truth of their Apostolical sending. In like manner (as I have formerly said) James Nayler and Boroughs, and divers others of their false Apostles, being asked, How they could prove they were sent of God? answered, That their lives did make it manifest, because they denied themselves in point of Apparel, etc. By this it appears, that the Quakers are compounded with most of the grossest Errors that the Church of old were encumbered withal.  
Sixthly, and lastly, they do in many of their  Errors, agree with their lorefathers the Familists, who were great perverters of the right ways of the Lord in the days of Luther, and Calvin, especially in the Netherlands, and many places in Germany; as these are in our days (to our grief we may speak it) in many places in England.  

The CONCLUSION.  
I shall now conclude with a word or two of Caution: and that first, That every one would compare what I have writ with holy Scripture, and then judge, whether I have said any thing of these men, that is either harsh or unsavoury, save what the harshness and unsavouriness of their Opinions and Practices call for: and then, I hope, none will think amiss of me for calling them Liars, Deceivers, Blasphemers, etc. if they shall finde that I have prove them such, both by Scripture, and Reason, and their own Say and Writings. I do confess that it is very common among men, to call those that differ from them in Opinion, Liars, and Deceivers, etc. though they are not able to prove them so: But though this be an evil, to call that an Error or Blasphemy that one cannot prove to be so; yet this doth not hinder, but that I may lawfully call that an Error and Blasphemy which the Scriptures call so in expresness of terms: As for instance, The Scriptures say, He that denieth Christ come in the flesh, is Antichrist: Now though I may not call a man Antichristian, that differs from me in some circumstances and disputable Points of Doctrine; yet he that shall say, He is equal with Christ; or that shall say of himself, That he is the Christ, The Comforter; The Way, the Truth, and the Life; and the Eternal Judge of the World, as these men have said of themselves; surely such men may be called Deceivers, Liars, and Blasphemers, without breaking the Law of Love and Charity.  
But if it shall be doubted, whether the things I charge them with be true or no; let me tell thee, that all that I have writ concerning them, are either such things as have fallen from their own Mouths before hundreds of witnesses; or else such things as have been faithfully collected out of their own Writings: and therefore let me caution thee, whoever thou art, to read their Books, especially those places to which I have referred thee, before thou judge I have wronged them. This I am sure thou must do, before thou canst judge righteous Judgement in the case: And if thou dost but take pains to inform thyself, thou wilt find, That the Erorrs I charge them with, are either such as themselves being formerly charged with could not deny, as appears by their printed answers to them; or else they are such as they have in words at length positively afferted, as will be found among their Writings, in the books and pages I have cited.  
I confess, many things have been reported to me, concerning the evil manners of some of the Teachers of this way, and of the badness of their lives: and though doubtless this hath not been without ground, yet I do forbear to mention any thing of that kind; First, because the miscarriage of some particular persons, doth not prove the whole to be guilty; unless it be in matters of Doctrine, which they all receive and own: And secondly, because the Errors of men's lives and conversations, do not infallibly prove the Errors of their Doctrine; inasmuch as some men do walk contrary to what they make profession of: yet let me tell thee one thing by the way, viz. That though Error in life doth not prove Error in judgement; yet Error in conversation doth prove Error in conversation; my meaning is, If the question be about Errors in Doctrine, than the goodness or badness of the lives of them that profess it, doth no way resolve the question certainly, though it may probably; but if the question be about Perfection in life, which these Quakers say they have attained to; then let me tell thee, That any Error in the lives of such, proves infallibly, that they are not such as they profess to be, viz. Perfect men. My last reason why I do not insist upon the particular evils that relate to the conversation of these men, is, Because I know that the proof thereof is not so easy for the Reader to attain, because possibly many of them may live hundreds of miles from the places where this may come; and also, because that they will not believe any thing that is witnessed against any of their way, but shuttle it off with saying, That Christ and his Apostle were evil spoken of, and persecuted, etc. But let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, That this is a vain plea: for what though Christ and his Servants shall be evil spoken of without cause; yet this proves not, that therefore every one that is evil-spoken of, is Christ's Servant; for thousands there are, that give just cause to be evilspoke of daily; and may not these men excuse themselves, by saying, Christ was evil-spoken of? and do not the Papists Priests (many of them) at this day excuse their wicked and beastly practices (with many of their Nuns, who have vowed Chastity) by saying, That Christ was evil-spoken of, and so are they for being his servants? when indeed there is cause enough to speak evil of them, though there was no cause to speak evil of Christ. In like manner do these Quakers shuttle off all evil that is objected against any of them, by saying, They are belied, and suffer falsely; therefore to prevent any thing of this kind, I charge them with nothing, but what is either daily preached among them, or else what may be found in their printed Books.  
I have one Caution more, that I shall give to my Antagonists (if any of them shall undertake to write any thing in answer hereunto) and that is, That they lay aside all such un-man-like reasonings, wherewith many of their Books are stuffed, in telling their Adversaries, They are Sots, and Fools, and Blind; and, That they are of the Devil, and in Darkness, and speak the first wisdom from Beneath; and, That they are Liars, etc. till they have first proved what hath been writ to be false: and remember how foolish a thing it was counted, to say, Bellarmine lied, before he was proved a Liar: And therefore let what I have spoken, be answered with words of truth and soberness; and if by the words of truth it shall be made manifest, that I have spoken any untruth, I shall with the like readiness of mind make a public acknowledgement of it to the world. And I would also entreat, That there may be no carping about words, thereby to avoid the force of any argument or question that is proposed, but that every thing (whether Words or Arguments) be orderly and directly spoken to; that so the Readers on both sides may judge, on which side the Truth lieth, as I question not but they will easily do.  
Thus having discharged my conscience towards God, in the publishing these Lines out of love to the world in general, but more especially out of love to my Brethren, whose feet (many of them) are taken in this Snare, not knowing that they are for their lives: And if God shall bless these Lines, either to the prevention of the falling of them, who (through grace) yet stand, or to the restoring of those that are fallen; or if otherwise I have mistaken any thing, God will bring this good of my mistake (if in case any be found) as to raise up, and provoke some one or other to make my mistake manifest. If by these Lines I obtain any of these ends, which I do not much question; then sure I am, that I have not run in vain, but shall give God the glory, while I am able to subscribe myself  
Jeremiah Ives.    

POSTSCRIPT.  
READER,  
AFter I sent my book to the Press, I had another Conference with James Nayler, on the 22 of June, 1656. at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate; which was as followeth:  
The people being met, and James Nayler standing up to speak, I did desire that James Nayler would prove that which he had so often afferted, viz. That every man in the world had the Light within him, spoken of in John 1. To this James Nayler replied, saying, That Christ did enlighten every man that came into the world, according to Joh. 1. To this I answered, That I did not oppose the saying of that Text, but his saying, which was, That every one in the world had the Light within him, Spoke of in that Text. To this James Nayler replies, saying, He would have me bring him a man in that place, that would say the Light of Christ was not in him.  
To this I did answer, First, that every man in the world was not in that place; and therefore if every one in that place should say, This Light was in them, it did not follow, that therefore that Light spoken of Joh. 1. was in every one in the world.  
But secondly, I told him, That if every one in that place would say, they had this Light in them; it did 〈…〉 as I fear many of this generation do: I did therefore bid James Nayler to give me a Scripture to prove, that every one had the Light within them, spoken of Joh. 1. He answers, That it was proved already in every man's Conscience: but (saith he) it is not evidenced; for if it were, there would need no Teaching. To this I replied, that if it were proved to every man's conscience, than it was EVIDENCED; for proof and evidence to the conscience, was one and the same: which he denied. I further told him, That the conscience might be misguided; and therefore it did not follow, that a thing is therefore true, because a man in conscience thinks it so: I therefore, as before, called for a plain Text for proof of what he said. He thereupon brings Eph. 5.13. 2 Cor. 4.6. I told him, Neither of these Scriptures did prove, That every man in the world had the Light within him, spoken of Joh. 1. and therefore if he had any Scripture that said it, he would do well to produce it; and if not, to forbear preaching any such thing, that he could show no Scripture for. Hereupon James assumes an Apostolical Authority, and saith, That though there were no Scripture that said what he said, yet it might be true: for (saith he) the Apostles said many things, that THEY had no Scripture for. To this I replied, That he was no Apostle; and therefore, as before, called for a proof of this notion (that they preach in most places where they come) viz. That everyone hath this Light within him. He hereupon demanded, How Christ was the Light that lighteth every one that comes into the world, if this Light was not in every one. To this I did answer, (as formerly) That God and Christ were usually said in Scripture-dialect, to do things for the world, when they did use a means sufficient for the doing of it; and so Christ is said to take away the sin of the world; and to be the Saviour of the world; and the Saviour of ALL men; though all men shall not be saved: inasmuch as he hath by his dying for the world, put all men into a salvable capacity: In like manner he lighteth every one that comes into the world, inasmuch as he useth means for the bringing the world to the Light; though all have not this Light WITHIN them. Again, I told James Nayler, That this Light in Joh. 1. was Christ, who is the Light of the world; and if every one had this Light in them, than every one had Christ in them: But I told him, that could not be, because we read Eph. 2. of some that were WITHOUT Christ.  
I further told him, That the Scriptures told us of some that had NO Light in them, Joh. 11.10. Isa. 8.20. He answered, That possibly God had put out their Light, because they did not walk according to it. To this I did reply, That then he did contradict himself; for if some had no Light in them, because God had put it out, How could he say, EVERY ONE HATH this Light IN him? But further, the Text in Joh. 11. saith, that If A MAN walks in the dark, he stumbles, BECAUSE there is NO Light IN him: Now I told James Nayler, That those that he says he turns from darkness, are such as WALK in darkness, by their own confession; and if so, then whether it be not better to say with the Texts There is no light in him; then to say contrary to the Text, with the Quakers, that when men walk in darkness, The light of Christ is in them?  
Hereupon James Nayler asked, If the heathen had not a Light? I told him, first, that they might have a light among them, that they might not receive within them. And secondly, that though they had a Light in them, yet this did not prove, that the Light which they had, was the Light spoken of Joh. 1. which Light is Christ Jesus; which is the thing they affirm. I therefore did entreat him, to reconcile their Doctrine with Joh. 11.10. Their Doctrine is, that Every one hath the Light of Christ within him: John saith, If a man walk in the dark, he stumbleth, because there is NO Light IN him. To this James Nayler replied, that there were two seeds in man; and there was an old man and a new man; and a man born after the flesh, and a man born after the Spirit. so that (saith he) he that is the old man, and born after the flesh, he hath no Light in him. I than asked him, How every one that comes into the world, hath the light of Christ in him, if he that is born after the flesh have not the Light within him? for (as I then told him) no man comes into the world, but he is born after the flesh. He answers, that I spoke like a Sot, in saying, that very man that came into the world was born after the flesh: for (saith he) Christ was not born after the flesh. To this I did reply, saying, that I had heard it reported, that the Quakers should deny Christ to be born according to the flesh, but I never heard it from any of their mouths before: which saying, I told Ja: Nayler, was contrary to these express Scriptures, Rom. 1.3. where it is said, that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the FLESH: and Rom. 9.5. Of whom as concerning the FLESH Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for over: and Gal. 4.4. Christ was MADE of a woman, etc. and Acts 2.30. James Nayler seeing this was a broad-faced piece of Heresy, was willing to cover it with the Fig-leaf of this distinction, viz. That it was one thing for Christ to be born after the flesh, and another thing to be born according to the flesh. To this I replied, that the Scriptures made no such distinction: for when Moses did all things ACCORDING to the pattern shown him in the Mount, Heb. 8.5. do but compare it with the command in Exod. 5.40. and you will find, That God bids Moses look that he made things AFTER the fashion shown him in the Mount: Now may not a man as well say, that Moses did not do things after the pattern, because the Scriptures saith, He did it according to the pattern; as this man may say, Christ was not born after the flesh, because the Scriptures saith, He was born according to the flesh? Therefore let me ask one question, Whether a man may not as well say, That Moses did not all things after the pattern, because the Scriptures say, He did all things according to the pattern; as say, That Christ was not born after the flesh, because the Scriptures saith, He was born according to the flesh? But further, That you may see that there is no place for this distinction about the case in hand, do but take notice, That Beza renders the Text in Gal. 4.29. where it is said, That Abraham had a son born AFTER the flesh, etc. Sed quemadmodum tunc is qui SECUNDUM CARNEM, word for word with Rom. 1.3. I mean by word for word, so far as concerns the case in hand, viz. That it is all one to deny Christ to be born after the flesh, as it is to deny him to be born according to the flesh: And therefore where it is said, That Christ was born according to the flesh, in that place of the Romans before-cited; Beza likewise renders it, De filio suo facto ex semine Davidis SECUNDUM CARNEM: So that these men you see are forced to take Sanctuary at any vain distinction, that may keep the world from seeing into the bottom of their Designs; which is indeed to deny Christ to be made flesh, or to be come in the flesh: For is it not the same to say, That he was not born after the flesh?  
This was the sum of the last Conference, with some additional Answers, that I had not then liberty (by reason of the confusion that was among them) to give in at that time. And lest any should think that these words are such as might fall from him in haste, or unadvisedly, about his denying Christ's being born after the flesh, and therefore I ought not to insist so much upon them: Let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, that for more surety, when I was going away, I did ask the question again, Whether he did believe Christ was born after the flesh? or, Whether he did deny it? He answered, That he did deny Christ was ever born after the flesh; and so did another of their Proselytes the same day in the afternoon, before hundreds of people, at a private Meeting in Beech-lane; who when the Sermon was ended, stood up, and opposed what was then and there delivered; and withal did say, That he did deny that Christ was born after the flesh. Now what is this less, then to deny Christ come in the flesh? which is an Antichristian Doctrine, 1 Joh. 4.3. And the same John saith, that Whosoever shall deny Christ come in the flesh, is a deceiver, 2 Joh. 7. For many deceivers are entered into this world, which confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: He is a Deceiver, and an Antichrist; and if these men are not such Deceivers, I know not what deceit is: Therefore let every one in the fear of God try the Spirits of these men, and see if this which hath fallen from their mouths, doth not prove them to be what I have said of them; and the Lord give you understanding in all things.  
Vale.  
FINIS.