power and glory of the Father; for "worthy is the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world, to receive power, and wisdom, and glory, and might," &c.

However T. II. slights our testimony of the seed of God within, as in several states, and also of the spiritual resurrection of Christ in man, his brother H. G. confesses thereto in his book, (p. 54.) where he says: "Praises and hallelujahs to God for ever, who hath given us that witness in ourselves of which thou speakest, that we can experience the power of Christ's spirit risen in us for our sanctification and renovation, as well as Christ was raised from the dead," &c. Thus far H. G. Is it not here evident, that he has confessed to Christ's arising in man, for man's restoration? What thinks T. H. of this? Is this canting or gibberish? as his words are, p. 47.

Moreover, as the elect seed is spoken of in the scripture, both with respect to Christ the anointed, and with respect to his seed and heritage; so also the seed is Christ, not only as in himself, anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, but also as in union and conjunction with his church or members. As the body is one, and hath many members, so also is Christ; and so Christ and the body comprehensively are one. He is the Anointed, and we are anointed in him, and he that hath anointed us is God.

By all which it is understood, that we are partakers of the life, redemption, and privilege that is in Christ, as we are in him, and grow up in him. So that all our opposer's cavils, (which render our principle as only including Christ and God in the redemption, and not man,) fall to the ground as frivolous.

As for his groundless cavils in his 48th page, the little understanding he hath either of the measure of God's gift, his seed within, or of redemption by Christ, the elect seed, is very intelligible from the tenour of his impertinent and contradictory discourse throughout his pamphlet. By all which we see the nature of his pretended christianity, and how unchristian he is in his apparent oppositions against the Divine light and seed within.

SECTION XXI.

The Baptist's imperfect work against perfection.

Concerning perfection which we say is attainable in this life, he attempts to confute us, though very feebly, as will appear.

T. H. "I perceive you are forced as much as any others to borrow from the scriptures, without which you can no more prove any thing, either concerning Christ or perfection, than a mere Indian." p. 49.

Answer. Touching which it appears, that while thou grants we proved something for perfection from scriptures, how consistent with this thy after work is, against perfection, will further be manifest. But while thou concludes, that we can prove no more of perfection than a mere Indian, without the scriptures; how agrees this with thy former confession, that man was always under an obligation, that God's sovereignty over him, and his inferiority to God might be acknowledged." Now if this be truly to be acknowledged by man, or mankind in general, why are Indians excluded? And if God's sovereignty over man, and man's subjection thereto be known, doth not this extend to perfection? If either the rule be perfect that thus obligeth man, or if in God's rule, power, or sovereignty, (as over man,) be perfection, which we affirm is able to evince itself where true fear and subjection to God is lived in, or sincerity and uprightness towards him retained. Though to such as thou art, who oppose sinless perfection as attainable in this life, there is a need more especially of producing scriptures to prove it, while you pretend a belief of them; for the perfect light or gift of God within you do not believe in.

Yet thou hast granted to perfection," as sincere and upright;" (p. 50.) and is not this perfection of sincerity and uprightness without sin? Were it good doctrine to say that perfection, as it respects the sincerity and uprightness of saints, is sinful?

But that a perfect freedom from all sin in this life is attainable, we intend is by the all-sufficient power of Christ; and no true christian doth dissent from us herein. Nor doth this cause either pride or presumption, as thou falsely insinuates; but the contrary sin-pleasing doctrine that is for imperfection and sin while in this life.

And while thou confesses "a holy fear, humility, watchfulness, and industrious endeavours to persevere in a holy course to the end," (p. 50.) either thou dost hereby grant perfection, or a perfect freedom from all sin attainable in this life, or else thou excites people to be industrious, and endeavour for that which thou believes is not attainable; which is as much faithless inconsistency as to say, use your industrious endeavours to persevere in a holy course (that is sinless) to the end, but it is not attainable. Were not this a sad and heartless way of preaching, to put people upon impossibilities.

Again, upon Phil. iii. 15, " As many as are perfect, be thus minded." Thou says: "By perfection, no more can be understood in this text, than sincere and upright, accompanied with an earnest reaching after perfection, as Paul did.” p. 51.

Answer. Whatever perfection with respect to a full apprehension or knowledge was pressed after by Paul, as Phil. iii.

12, 13, yet this his perfection of sincerity and uprightness was sinless. It was pure in nature, wherein he was capable of attaining a perfect growth in spiritual understanding. And this is implied in his pressing after perfection while he was perfect, as appears in his own words.

But if in this sense, sincere and upright men do earnestly reach after a sinless perfection, and that Paul did so, then it is attainable; otherwise both Paul and the rest did earnestly strive after an impossibility. And this renders both their praying, striving, and preaching invalid as yours is, who require people earnestly to reach after perfection, and yet tell them it is not attainable.

Upon Mat. v. 48: "Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," thou presumes, we intend not that we should be perfectly powerful, wise, and good, as God is.”

Answer. 1. We do not intend that we should be God,—but holy, just, and good men, renewed after his own image, which is perfect. 2. Though not so perfectly powerful and wise as God is, yet while thou withal excludes being good as God is, thou art contradictory in saying, the meaning of the text is, "be merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful," that is, "love your enemies, do good to them that hate you." p. 51. These are not

intelligibly consistent, that we must not be good as God is, and yet merciful as he is; that is, love our enemies, &c. 1 would know if that soul is not endued with the goodness of God, that is endued with his merey and love, so as to do good to enemies. Was it not a plain character of being his children, that they so loved their enemies, and did good to them that hated them? See Mat. v. 44, 45.

But this perfect resemblance of the heavenly Father, such sin pleasers and pleaders, as T. H. will not admit of in this life, who is so far from this love and goodness towards enemies, that his enmity leads him to abuse, and defame us, who never owed him nor his friends any ill-will in the world.

But when doth he expect this resemblance of God, or sinless perfection to be brought forth? This appears in answer to the question stated by him thus, viz." Where wouldst thou be perfectly free from sin, if not in this life?" His answer is, " in heaven." p. 50.

Reply. He would be perfectly free from sin in heaven, as he pretends, but opposes perfection being attainable in this life, accounting it the cause of much pride, and presumption, and ' hinders all holy fear, humility, watchfulness, and industrious endeavours to persons in a holy course; whereas this all tends to a perfect life. But sufficiently hath he contradicted this his sinful doctrine against a perfect freedom, where he confesses, (p. 24.) "that Christ came to carry on in the world the design

of Infinite grace and love, in being a Saviour of sinners from sin death and hell."

Note here, he hath given a deadly blow to his own imperfect, lame, and sinful cause. For if Christ came into the world to save sinners from sin, and to redeem us from all iniquity, then to be so saved is attainable in this life; for Christ is able perfectly to do the work which he came for, that is, to save from sin, and to redeem from all iniquity.

Again, T. H. in his forgery deals very corruptly, according to his wonted manner, in stating the christian and the Quaker thus speaking, viz.

"Christian. If thou canst prove a perfect freedom from sin's inherency, &c. remember thou must prove it by scriptures or instances.

Quaker. I will prove it by both.

First. By scriptures, Phil. iii. 15. Mat. v. 48.

Secondly. By instances, many of our Friends do witness it." p. 50, 51.

Reply. Herein most falsely and abusively he hath acted towards the Quakers, speaking his own notorious forgery as their proof. They have no reason to choose him for their mouth; for why need they bring any instances of themselves for proof, when they are left to prove perfection by the scriptures, or instances, while the scriptures plainly prove it. And let me tell him, it is not our manner of arguing with our opposers, to tell them, that many of our Friends witness perfection, knowing not only that to be the thing which they seek to reproach us by; but also that to plead the verity of principles from the mere credit of persons asserting them, will be no prevalent proof, nor effect any conviction, while the persons themselves are slighted and abused.

But our adversary having thus falsely acted the Quaker, saying, "many of our Friends witness perfection," he declines the scriptures for it, and falls upon personal reviling; and to express to the world some wrong expressions and mistakes of persons-if he rightly state them, which I much question, because of his many notorious abuses.

SECTION XXII.

Thomas Hicks' groundless calumny and malicious railing against G. Whitehead.

Now we come to his railing and slander against G. Whitehead, viz. "That he is guilty of deceit and falsehood in matter of fact; and that he told him he was a knave, that is, he was a false deceitful man." p. 53.

Answer. Here I shall take leave to answer for myself; therefore understand, reader, what he pretends as his reason for this abusive language to me. 1. He accuses me with "denying my opinions, when charged with them." 2. "He that shall give a false relation of what another man asserts, and does it wilfully, is false and deceitful." Thus he accuses me; and why so? Because I acknowledged explications to be given to his propositions, yet give not the least hint what those explications were." p. 53.

Reply. To the first, I still do deny, as none of my opinions, as stated by T. H. in his accusing the Quakers: viz. "That they deny the person of Christ, his offices, satisfaction, and the resurrection of the body." I do recharge these upon him, as his lies and slanders, forged and brought forth in envy and darkness, as I did in the paper and public debate between us; and in so doing I do not deny any opinion or tenet of mine or my friends. And he dealt most disingenuously in not laying down my own words to prove that I denied the person of Christ, or his offices, satisfaction, and the resurrection. But, instead thereof, was it either ingenuous or honest to bring my adversary T. D.'s pamphlet, styled a "Synopsis," (which falsely accuses me with saying, "there is no resurrection from the dead,") for proof? Most falsely instancing my answer to W. Burnet, in which answer, quite contrary to what I am accused of, I have given a plain confession to the man Christ, his offices, satisfaction, and the resurrection, according to the scripture, though it is probable not in my opposer's words and terms. For note, that his charge which I denied, was not that the Quakers deny the raising again of this very body of flesh, &c. but the resurrection of the body, in this general phrase.

Is it therefore ingenuous that I should be thus accused in these general terms? And when I cannot in reason or conscience own T. H.'s manner of stating things, as my opinions, in his own words, both besides and contrary to what my words were or are, must I be therefore called "a knave," " a deceitful fellow, "&c.? Whereas my conscience bears me witness, that if he had stated either my affirmations or denials, in any case, in my own words, books, or writings, I would not in the least have disowned or receded from them as mine, but either have stood by them, or upon plain scripture evidence to the contrary, should have fallen under conviction and reprehension, according to the nature of the error or mistake, if truly detected or proved guilty thereof.

Concerning the resurrection, I am so far from balking my testimony, or receding from what I have and do hold concerning it, that I intend, (if God permit,) to speak further