A Brief Narrative OF THE Second Meeting Between the People called QUAKERS And BAPTISTS At the Meeting-Place, near Whee­ler-Street, London, the 16th of the 8th Moneth, 1674.

Published for Information, by W.M. W.W. J.O. J.C. W.S. E.M. & C.P.

Printed in the Year 1674.


Sober Reader,

WE are not a little concerned, that there should be such con­tinued Occasion for these Debates; but either we must appear in Defence of our Holy Religion, or suffer the Malicious In­sinuations of our Adversaries, to go un­regarded, which with the generality is to be Guilty; the Consequence of which is no­thing below our being concluded Inconsi­stent both with Christianity and all Civil Society: We hope therefore thou wilt hold us Excused in our Honest and Peaceable Endeavours to Vindicate our Faith and Persons against as black Abuses as have been ever practised by Infidels, Jews, or called Christians: And though [Page]this Narrative relates still but to the Sub­urbs of the main Matter, our Enemies using what Stratagems they could, and that with an Unparallel'd Confidence and Ob­stinacy, to divert us from the more Gross Part of the Charge exhibited against Thomas Hicks; yet thou wilt herein be helpt to a farther Sight of the Controversie depending, and with the Knowledge of those Mean Artifices with which they en­tertain us in our Conferences.

  • W. Mead,
  • W. Welch.
  • J. Osgood,
  • J. Clay­pool,
  • W. Shewen,
  • E. Man,
  • C. Plumsted.

The Introduction.

SInce the last Barbican-Meeting we have with all Sedulousness en­deavoured another Publick Meeting, in order to make good our Charge a­gainst Thomas Hicks, as a Vindication to the World of our selves from his Black and Scandalous Imputations: To effect this, there was a Letter writ on the 12th Instant, directed to W. Kiffin, &c. But W. K. rejected a Pub­ [...]ick Meeting, and told our Friend [...]hat delivered the Letter, That He would be gone out of the Town; We finding [...]hat they utterly declined to Meet much less to Right) us publickly, notwithstanding their Engagement [...] us; we took that Liberty they [...]ad done the Meeting before, viz. [...]hat as they appointed the Time and [...]ce to be the 9th Instant at Two in [Page 6]the Afternoon at Barbican, so we ap­pointed the 16th Instant at Nine in the Morning at our Meeting-Place near Wheeler's-Street, and desired them to meet us at T. Rudyard's at Six in the Evening on the 12th Instant, to con­fer about the Manner of it; thither some of us went, and remained an Hour in Expectation of them, but none coming we went our Wayes. Two days after, (which was the day before the Meeting) they sent us a Letter, containing several Proposals, which we here omit, because printed by themselves. About Nine in the Morning, being the Sixteenth Instant, our Friends appeared in the Meeting-Place aforesaid; and though we ha [...] No Notice of their Intention to come a Galery was provided and kept fo [...] them: Some time after we wer [...] seated they came, that is to say; Ie­remy Ives, Thomas Plant, Robert Taylor and — Ruswell, with several atten­ding them. After they were place [...] [Page 7]and that Silence was desired, W.|P thus opened the Meeting.

W. Penn, FRiends and People; We are come hither this day to pro­secute our Charge against Thomas Hicks, and to evidence the Truth of what we have accused him withal, and that really he is guil­ty of those Black and Scandalous Things we have exhibited against him: In order to|do this, we must entreat both your Patience and your Silence; and that it would please you so to compose your selves, as rather to make a Judicious Determination within your own Breasts, then by any Acclamations or Exclamations, whose Noise conduce on­ly to render Meetings of this kind unprofita­ble, and is extreamly beside the Weight and Gravity that become such an Assembly; for without due Regard and diligent Obser­vance of what shall pass between us and the Persons of the other side, it will be utterly impossible for you to satisfie your selves and others with a True Narrative of the Matter; and an imperfect One, so variously given, as ye must expect this to be, will instead of [Page 8]Qualifying kindle into further Animosity; wherefore let me prevail with you to be si­lent and serious.

[W. P. spoak to the Baptists]

W. Penn,

I desire to know if Tho. Hicks be here, or will be here to day?

[W.P. calling upon some of our Friends, askt]

W. Penn, Had not T. Hicks Notice of this Meeting?

G. Watt & W. Macket, Yes, Notice was sent to him.

W. Penn, But Some-body should have gone to him, to prevent all Excuse.

W. Macket and others of our Friends answered, Some went to him.

W. Penn, Didst thou inform T. Hicks of this Meeting, W. Macket?

W. Macket, Yes, I spoak to T.H. him­self of it.

W. Penn, What return did he make? Would he, or would he not come?

W. Macket, He spoak as if he thought he should not come.

Note, A Friend of ours going to the Meeting, over­took T.H. by the way, who saying to some-body, that be knew not the way thither: The Friend told him, He was going thither, and would show him, But T.H. replyed, He was to call by the way.

VV. Penn, Did he give thee any Reason for it?

VV. Macket, I understood as much by him as if he would not venture his Person in so great a Multitude.

Note Reader, T.H. had lodged himself safely in an Ale-House very near the Meeting, but came not to us, and stayed there till his Confederates departing call'd him away

VV. Penn, That's a poor Shift indeed; I hope none would have done his Person Hurt.

Note, Perhaps he was afraid of being Assassinated; surely he had no Ground for such an idle Appre­hension.

J. Ives, Claemours and Noises, you know how prejudicial they were at Barbican; and they are so to us that speak, but more to you that hear; but therefore I desire your Pa­tience to hear us, and not at all to interrupt us by Noises. Concerning Tho. Hicks, before we come to answer as to that, somewhat is to be premised unto Consideration, that is, that Tho, Hicks, we do not think him concerned to be here, because wherein he is concerned, it is in Order to defend himself in a matter concerning which the other side have ap­pealed to us; and if so, there is all the Rea­son that T. Hicks and those his Friends to whom this People have appealed, should have [Page 10]consented to Time and Place of Meeting; but now whereas these Men have appointed a Meeting without Consent of T. Hicks or his Friends, it is no Reason they should expect his Appearance; but if they will answer our Propositions, that we may not be disturbed with Clamors and Tumults as we were before, which they nor we could suppress; we sent them se­veral Articles to regulate the Meeting, to all which if they could have excepted, we were willing, upon Notice, either to have added or substracted, as should have been mutually a­greed, but this not being agreed upon, we did not think it necessary, because we would have the World know, you have no Power to sum­mon us to appear; but however we would not stand upon those Niceties, if ye will accept of the Terms we have proposed, T. Hicks shall give you a Meeting once a Weck, or otherwise.

W. P. The Stress of the Objection made by J. Ives against our Expectation of Tho. Hick's being here, I conceive to be this, that T.H.'s Assent & Consent are not to the Time and Place, which (sayes he) are necessary.

Next, That the Baptists and other so­ber People, being appealed to, that their Consent also should be obtained before such Meeting be appointed; to which I return thus much.

[Page 11] 1st, There have been Means used to pro­cure such a mutual Agreement between both Parties, and we thought, that seeing the Method of Meeting was already lodged in those Propositions formerly agreed to, to make new Ones was Dilatory; they being fit for the first Meeting, they might as well be fit for the second: And truly I look upon this not to be a new Meeting, but a con­tinued Session of the former, and our parting at Barbican, but in the Nature of an Adjourn­ment; we also provided in our Articles for more Time, and we are not upon any new Matter that should require new Propositions.

2dly, For the Appeal, had they answered it by Way of Church-Censure, and not so publickly, with such very hard Measure, to the great and undeserved Reproach of our Principles, Profession and Persons (which had shown more Justice, at least Diseretion) we had not prest a publick Meeting, as we have done; but inasmuch as they have so divulged the Business, we have agreed, and that mutually, upon this Manner of Meet­ing in the old Proposals: And although T. Hicks is not here, the Auditory is acquainted that he had Notice to be here, both as to Time and Place; But seeing he has thus willingly absented himself, who is the Per­son [Page 12]chiefly concerned in that black Charge (for so it is) we shall not so much as proceed to read his Charg in his Absence (how hardly soever he has treated us) unless any of you'l espouse and undertake to defend his Cause.

[Here G.W. spoak to the same purpose.]

J. Ives, I have heard what you have said; I answer to what W. Penn spoak. 1. That whereas you construe us to intend to be Dilato­ry in these matters, I would know of you that if a Meeting and Manner thereof be agreed upon, Note Reader, who declineth a Publick Meeting. and Persons concern'd do find by Experience, that neither God can be so honou­red, nor the Hearers so edified, as ought to be the End of such Meetings, whether it would not become wise men to think upon and consult about some other Manner and Method of Meeting that might better answer the afore-said good End? J. Ives proves by his Carriage, be sought neither; so Light and Frothy was be. Therefore I say, whereas he calls it an Ad­journment, it is not so; for it was never so a­greed, that we should alwayes thus meet a­mongst such Rude & Dis­orderly People, They were your own People. We do af­firm it as witness the Barbican-Meeting; neither was it ever agreed that we should ne­ver revoak the Manner of our Meeting.

W. Penn, We understood no Necessity for New Propositions concerning the Manner of Meeting.

J. Ives, Because you understood no Neces­sity, does it therfore follow there should be none? You and others might have perceived a Neces­sity of a New Method of the Meeting by your Experience of Barbican.

W. Penn, There was no such Provision in the former Propositions; we have the Propo­sitions that W. Kiffin did offer and accept: Now then inasmuch as you appointed the former Meeting, and we so fairly and ami­cably fell in with you (being ever desirous to embrace all Opportunities to manifest to the World Our Integrity to God and Religi­on, and those that sincerely profess it, how­ever calumniated) We thought it very fair and equal that we might appoint the next Meeting, and that you should as readily accept of it, if indeed, as you pretend, you are Friends to Righteousness and just Deal­ing, the Contrary whereof we Charge upon your Brother T. Hicks. But that we might leave you wholly inexcusable & with­out any room for these Objections, there was a Meeting the last second Day appointed at T. Rudyards, and Notice given to you, by a Letter deliver'd to W. Kiffin, wherein we de­sired [Page 14]that Five of you might meet with Five of us, to consult about this present Meeting; but they were so Unkind (to say no more) as nei­ther any of them came, nor so much as sent us any Reason to the contrary.

J. Ives, It is true, we sent to them to offer Proposals for Regulation of another Meet­ing; but so offer'd it, as not to determine them thereby, but for them and us to consider of it: They sent us a Letter without any notice taken of ours, and did invite us to meet with them within two hours after, at five of the Clock at T. Rudyards; we heard not of it till about two or three of the Clock, and did not think it rea­sonable, that they should expect us presently to return a particular Answer, but we sent to them about it on Thursday [that is Yester­day.]

W. Mead, As to that Letter mentioned, that Letter was ready on Second Day Mor­ning, and W. K. was acquainted with it at the Exchange: I desired him but to tarry a little time, which he promised and I would bring it him.

J. Ives, W. Kissin did say and acknow­ledge that W. Mead told him of a Letter; but withal told him, it was not finished; and thereupon you received ours.

W. Mead, That I should say the Letter [Page 15]was not finished, that I. Ives adds; But upon the Exchange I told W.K. that there was a Letter to be delivered him, to give him timely Notice, that they might ap­point Five to meet with Five of us, to consult out the said Meeting: I told him, the Let­ter was Unsealed; but I would go to Iohn Osgood, who was concerned, and come back forth-with, and deliver it him; accor­dingly I did; but W. K. was gone; but following him home, there I found him, and delivered him the said Letter, who answer­ed, A Publick Meeting! I am against a Publick Meeting; Was he not at Barbican in G.W. & W. P's Absence? you see how Disorderly it was. And he would have Refused the Letter; but I told him, He was as capable to receive, as to deliver a Letter, and so he received it.

J. Ives, You say W. Kiffin had a Letter, and that you gave it him: But I will prove that you said at the Exchange, the said Let­ter was not finished, and that somewhat was further to be offered, which I suppose was the Postscript. Thus you told us of an Ʋnfinish­ed Letter, and would have us hastily meet that Evening.

W. Penn, Its not being finished, might be [Page 16]understood of its not being Sealed; for it was all writ, and not one word added.

J. Ives, It might be so.

W. Penn, For the Tumult of the last Mee­ting, it lay not at our Door; and Tho. Plant knows how uncivilly we were treated and used at our Coming in, contrary to what was promised us. The Cause of our requi­ring a Publick Meeting, when Tho. Plant mentioned Meeting, was, we ought to be as Publickly Righted as we had been Publickly Wronged; to which he answer'd, and T. H. with him, that it was very Reasonable: Now for them to give us Hopes of being as Pub­lickly Righted as Wronged, especially in Matters wherein the Reputation of our Pro­fession and Religion, as well as our Con­cernments as men in the Creation, are so highly engaged, and then so unfair by a Let­ter to Oppose themselves to a Publick Mee­ting, was not worthily done. But if Tho. Hicks will not meet us in Publick, we will follow him into any Private Meeting, that shall be equally proposed, as to Time, Place and Persons; resolving by the Help of God to adhere to this Controversie, wherein we are concerned for the Honour of God and Religion, That all the Rubbish of Lyes and Slanders by him and his Abettors cast in the way of the Simple may be removed.

[With this the Auditory amply manifested their Satisfaction.]

J. Ives, I offer this, that there be such a Meeting agreed upon, as is offered in our Pro­posals; not that I would conclude you, but you shall have Liberty to consult about it: But if this be disallowed, I shall now espouse Tho. Hicks's first Article, wherein he saith, The Quakers are no Christians; I will offer my Reasons to prove you are not, and I could wish I were mistaken.

VV. Penn, Tho. Hicks hath been charged by us to be A Forger, Perverter, Lyar, Slanderer of and against our Faith, VVri­tings and Persons: This is implyed in that first Article, and upon which we called to the Baptists for Justice; the Business of this Meeting is to take Cognizance of that Mat­ter, and for you to endeavour to give us the Go by, as to that black Charge against T.H. and to fall to other Matters of Controversie, is not only a Deviation, but to offer Violence to T.H.'s own Method of Procede: and if T. Hicks will not appear publickly, yet if J. I. or any of you will undertake to perso­nate him, we will first read the Charge, and then go on to make it good; for that is the Work of this Meeting: and for Men to say they will do this and that; But when they [Page 18]come to the Pinch, pick here and there what chey please to insist upon; this is not, I must tell you, for the Accused to do; 'tis my 'tPart to make good my Charge, viz. That T. H. is a Forger, &c. Let the Charge be read

[Here W. P. and others pressed hard to have the Charge read in the hearing of the Auditory, the People signifying a great De­sire thereof; but J. I. and his Brethren cry­ed out, Read no Charge; to which was joyned a loud Noise and Clamour from the Baptists, that it could not be heard.]

J. Ives, VVhereas W. P. saith, That if we will go on they will joyn Issue with us; but considering what they lay to T.H.'s Charge in the VVritings of W. P. and G. W. if it can be proved, the Truth of it is, that T. H. is the Prodigy of the Age for Slanders and un­worthy Dealings; but let us make a little Tryal: W. P. chargeth T. H. with Forge­ry, and one Instance to prove it, is taken out of W. P.'s Book, called, The sandy Foundati­on shaken, concerning the Word Only, which Word is certainly there; and at this Rate I will make all the VVorld Forgers, if they shall be so, because I say so.

W. Penn, If I. Ives will begin here with our Charge, I will abide by it, provided we [Page 19]may go through the whole Charge as pub­lickly; but if J. I. will assume a Priviledge to Chuse as he pleaseth, how does this an­swer the Method of the Charge, or his own Promise to begin? you may observe how they twist to avoid our proving T. H. a For­ger, &c. I say again, the Matter of Fact is charged by us; if J.I. will personate T.H. I am ready for him, and here offer to prove him, as such, guilty of Forgery, and the Di­alogus to be a Fiction.

J. Ives, I am deputed; and as far as we two shall proceed, he shall be concluded, as if T. H. were here: W.P. does ask if we will go on with the Articles as laid down; we have them, and will go on in the Name of T.H. and those Friends related to him; and as far as we go on, he and they shall be concluded by it; but as to many other Articles that require Witnesses, they must be left to an other Meet­ing for him to bring forth his own VVitnesses. Whereas he saith, That our Letter only menti­ons Matter of Fact, not Controversie; I say, Matter of Fact may be Matter of Contro­versie: If I charge a Man to be an Atheist or a Papist, he saith, it is a Scandal; we come to prove; now the Matter of Fact is Matter of Opinion, and so becomes Matter of Con­troversie; [Page 20] Now if T. H. saith, The Qua­kers are No Christians, he doth own it to be so; not only he, but I do here say as much, which is the first Article in the Dialogue.

[Here J.I. with great Levity in his Coun­tenance, thus saith.]

J. Ives, I am come here this Day to prove the Quakers to be no Christians, which I hope to do by the Strength of God.

G. W. That is not the first Article in the Charge; we charge him with Forgery: we say 'tis no real Dialogue, it is framed by T. H. that is the Charge; and this relateth to matter of Fact: he saith, it is a Dialogue; we say it is made by T. H. wherein (saith he) is faithfully represented and pulished the most considerable Opinions and Principles of the People called Quakers, collected out of their own Writings; made extant for common Be­nefit. Doth not this imply that this man is concerned to make it appear that his Dia­logues are a real Discourse between one or more that are called Quakers, and his so called Christian? We say it is not real, but a false Representation of our Principles and Practices, and that they are words we never spake nor writ, but are a meer Fiction: This is the matter of Fact, and here lies the stress; [Page 21]he said, It is a Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker; we are here to prove it a Forgery.

W. P. When a Charge is exibited, it ought to be confest, or denyed: If T. Hicks confess himself a Forgers, &c. then let us pro­ceed to matter of Doctrine; if he denyes it, I am here to prove him one.

[Here the People cried, That is fair; and urged to have the Charge read.

J. Ives, The Substance of what they have said is this, That the first Accusation is for writing Dialogue wise.

W. P. No such matter; We do not ac­cuse him for writing Dialogue-wise, but for writing Fictions, calling them A Dialogue, making Persons to speak & write what they never writ or said, nor is consistent with their Principles.

J. Ives, I shall shew you that this hath been the way of the Quakers; Here is a Book of Solomon Eccles.

G.W. Read the Title of the Book.

[The Title was read.]

W. Penn, I will show you in this matter, how unfair and impertinent J. Ives is: He suggests as if we were against the way of Di­alogue writting, and here he brings you an In­stance in a Book of S. E. nothing at all to the [Page 22]Purpose in hand; for S. E. expresly sayes By way (that is, in the manner) of a Dialogue: Be­sides, how doth this clear T. Hicks?

G.W. Let that Book alone at this time: S.E. is not here, he will answer for himself; he is now remote from this place.

T. Plant, Here is an other Book of a Qua­ker's, between a Jesuit and a Quaker; Can you prove that a real Dialogue?

G.K. It is a real Dialogue; we can prove it.

W. Penn, Do you rid your hands of Tho. Hicks, if you can; and if any such Actions can be found among us as his, so will we: Let us come to the Charge; read it.

[It was begun to be read, but the Baptists, as before, raised a Noise in the Meeting, that it could not be distinctly heard, and so forc'd to give over reading.]

J. Ives, I take Notice then, that to write Dialogue-wise is allowed on all Hands, so it be writ simply, and nothing falsly represen­ted: But say they, T. H. hath used not only the Method, but he brings in things not said by us, nor sayable by us, with con­sistency with our Principles: But we have produced Two Books of their own writing Dialogue-wise, wherein they do the same things; therefore it seems the Quakers may have Liberty to do so, but not others: I shall [Page 23]concede with W. Penn, and let it be referred to prove; and now let us go on to the Mat­ter with all my Heart: 1st, That T. H. hath Opposed the Christian to the Quaker.

G. VVhitehead, He bringeth in an une­qual Comparison; as if the Quakers took a Liberty to do what they would not allow o­thers to do; and I will make it appear to be Scandalous, &c.

[Was interrupted by the Baptists with a Great Noise.]

J. Ives, Since the Meeting begun this is the greatest Impertinency I have heard.

G. Whitehead, By the same Way that Thomas Hicks will go about to prove the Quakers No Christians; I can prove the Baptists to be No Christians; some of them have denyed the Divinity of Christ, and Im­mortality of the Soul, and Free Grace of God to all men; now because some of them have so done, and thence may be proved No Christians at this rate; is this fair, to charge this upon the whole of the Baptists to prove them no Christians?

W. Penn, I will meet J. Ives, T. Plant, or any other about these Matters on a fit Occasion; will you now proceed in the Mat­ter of T. Hicks, for which we are come to­gether?

G.W. What we exhibit against T.H. you have in writing by it self, comprised in seve­ral Articles, But you endeavour still to wave that, and to introduce other things, pickt out of our Friends Books, whereof we have had no notice that we could search into them for the Truth thereof; though we gave you notice of the matter in hand concerning T. H. in Print and otherwise, according to your own desire: Now instead of maintain­ing T.H. you go to baffle us off with New Passages: we know none that are publickly own'd by us that have writ any thing but what we can stand by; yet it is possible there may be some Person that may have been counted a Quaker that may have writ what we cannot own; but what is that to the Busi­ness in hand as to T. Hicks?

W. Penn, Let us come to the matter: I thus prove T.H. (or J. Ives, as personating T.H.) a Forger: Hear me.

T. Plant, The first Charge consists of two parts, Manner and Matter, Form & Things.

[People cry, Let us hear it.]

T. Ellwood begins to read it.

Baptists, No Charge; We will have No Charge read.

[raised a Noise that it could not be heard, though the Generality were for it.]

W.P. Thomas Plant, and all ye that hear me, I charge T. Hicks with Forging things in our Name, which are not sayable by our own Principles; I desire the Articles may be read, and I shall proceed.

J.I. T. Hicks hath opposed you to Christians, we are here ready to prove that he hath therein done well; will you hear your selves proved no Christians?

[The People houted at him.]

W.P. Since J. Ives hath told us, that he is here to personate T.H. we desire that our Charge may now be read, which is as rea­sonable as if T. H. were personally here, and I will prove him as unreasonable a Forger.

J. Ives, You are mistaken; I did not say that I would be answerable for every Article of T. Hicks.

[Here the People houted at him.]

W. Penn J. Ives doth not undertake (it seems) to defend T. H. in all things; what if some of the Particulars that we have charg'd T. H. with, be such as he will not undertake to discourse, must we leap over them and in­sist only upon what J. Ives will please to dis­course of? Is this fair? Is this to answer our Charge, or do us Justice against T. Hicks?

J. Ives, I appeal to the People to do me right, whether I did not say, so far as the Articles were a common Cause, so far I would appear for him.

[The People were silent.]

W.P. Is your common Case Forgery, &c? if it be, we will proceed; if not, it answers not our Charge, nor the reason of our be­ing here.

J. Ives, So far as I undertake to Discourse T. H. shall be concluded; but if any thing be too abstruse, we must refer it to another Meet­ing: we stand here to justifie T. H. in that he saith, you are no Christians; we say you are none, and we will prove it.

W. Penn, I hope thou dost understand so well the Way and Method of Controversie, that when a Man doth exhibit a Charge, the Party is to deny or confess: now we say, that T. H. his Dialogue is a Fiction; he that writes a Dialogue, and writes a Fiction, is a Forger; T.H. hath so done; I offer to prove it, and that we met about.

J. Ives, That which Mr Penn hath said, is this, which is very reasonable, that a Charge exhibited should be owned or denied; we do say as to the Matter of T.H's VVritings, we do own it, and are here to defend it: If I [Page 27]say a Man is a dishonest Man, I am bound to prove wherein; and if I say you are no Chri­stians, I will prove it so.

G. Keith, Jer. Ives faith, we are a­greed upon the first part of the Charge; I deny it: for T.H. saith, it is A Dialogue; and I say, its No Dialogue, but a Fiction; so that it being no True Dialogue, it is an Abuse to the Nation; the last Meeting I offered to prove it; Jer. Ives opposed me in it: now I say, if I cannot be suffered to go on with my Proof, then we are deni­ed that which was promised, and is in it self just.

J. Ives, You have said much, I say not to much Purpose; you have told us no more then what hath been told us by others before; there­fore you need not be so big with Speech.

G. Whitehead, Since they are so shie in suffering us to read the Charge; and seeing J. I. hath undertaken the Matter on Behalf of Tho. Hicks, we offer to prove, that in our Charge we have not wronged T. H. He would tye us unto T. H's opposing the Qua­ker to the Christian: What Christian is this? it must be understood an Anabaptist-Christi­an; our Charge then is this, That this Ana­baptist is no Christian; and that this Ana­baptist that belies others, and that perverts [Page 28]their Sense and Meaning in their Writings is a Forger, and no Christian; but a Baptist hath thus done; Therefore he is a FOR­GER, and no Christian: Let us prove that which we meet here for; and then whether we be Christians, or not, let that follow: This Christian that opposeth himself to the Qua­ker, is not to be understood of all Christians, but of an Anabaptist-Christian; whether this Anabaptist hath manifested himself a Christian in his Dialogues, or can be proved a Forger, and no Christian, is the Matter in Hand; let us come to it.

J. Ives, T.H. doth mean by a Christian, all such as do believe in Christ Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified by the Jews, rose again, and in an human Nature ascended into Glory; and whosoever doth thus believe, is a true Christian: And we say that T.H. hath not done ill in opposing you to Christians; will you hear your selves proved no Christians?

W.Penn, J.Ives, the end of the Meeting was to prove T.Hicks a Forger; let us do that, and then we will answer any thing that you can mention to prove us No Chri­stians.

[To this the People with great Alacrity signified their Consent; saying, This is fair, [Page 29]this is fair, and the Charge was begun to be read; but the Baptists, with their wonted Manner, drowned the Voice with their Noise.]

G. Whitehead, It is called a Dialogue be­tween a Christian and a Quaker; but we [...]y, made by T. Hicks, containing Matter [...]ever said nor owned by the Quakers, but a [...]eer Forgery; that we say, is our Charge, and about which we came: We did not come here to affirm our selves to be Christi­ans; we let the Quaker alone at present, whe­ther he is a Christian or no, we will see that in its Place; but that T. Hicks is a For­ger in what he hath done, and No Christian, [...]s the Work that this Meeting is appoin­ted for.

W. Penn, Do you own the Charge that you are Forgers; let us come to discourse that; read it.

[The People with one Accord called for the Charge, the Baptists excepted.]

J Ives, You shall not impose upon us the Reading of a Charge, we do not agree to it: but of you have a Mind to have another Meeting, according to mutual Consent, that T.H. may be personally there, it may so be; but for the present I do aever, that we are upon the first Ar­ticle, and I ask you if you be Christians or not? [Page 30]And I offer to prove you none; let us go to [...] or we have done.

[Here J. Ives cryed out, laughing.]

J. Ives, You are afraid; here you [...] upon a sandy Foundation.

W.Penn, All this is contrary to their Pro­mise, when we delivered them our Charge; for they promised it should be read, and that it should be insisted upon: But alas! what Struggling is here to divert us from pursuing the Charge, and to bring in a Dispute rechar­ging us: The Appeal to them was on this very Account, that we might be cleared from the Forgeries, &c. T. H. had committed against us; we say therefore, this Baptist is no Christian: The Quaker doth not affirm himself in this Case a Christian, to put him­self upon the Defensive Part; but the Qua­ker chargeth upon the Baptist, that he has dealt Ʋnchristianly with him; and when we have shown How and wherein, we will come to Matter of Doctrine.

[Great Importunity was here from the People to go upon the Charge.]

J. Ives, VVill you hear your selves proved No Christians?

[At which they hooted him.]

G. Whitehead, We gave the Charge for the Honour of God and Christianity, and the [Page 31] Reputation of Religion, not meerly as Men, but as we are Religious Persons.

J. Ives, VVe are to prove you are all Impo­stors, and that you delude the People.

W. Penn, I beseech this Kindness of you to hear me: Those very things, wherein we will prove T.H. a Forger, &c. shall at the same Time also prove us to be Orthodox Chri­stians, holding and contending for the Christi­an Faith; why will you not come to the Charge, seeing we offer by proving T. H. a Forger, &c. to manifest our Christianity? We come to vindicate our selves as Christi­ns, in detecting him of Forgery.

[The Auditory as with one Voice cryed, let the Charge be read.]

[T. Elwood begins to read it.]

[The Baptists renewed their Noise, that it could not be well heard.]

J. Ives, I offer before all this People, to prove you no Christians; and with all the In­terest we have in them, will perswade them quietly to hear, provided you will begin with this, whether you be Christians, or no.

W. Penn, Jeremy Ives, Did I ever charge T. H. with Forgery?

J. Ives, VVhat do I know whether you did, or not?

W. Penn, Wilt thou say, whether he is [Page 32]or is not so, and so proceed; else let us lay aside T. H. and we will begin with J. I. I am the Man that chargeth T. H. to be a Forger; Jeremy, what sayst thou? wilt thou personate T. H. and that the Charge be read?

J. I. I never read any Passages in your Book.

W. Penn, Wilt thou come hither against me, and what I have writ, and hast never read my Book?

J Ives, I read none of it till last Night; since that a Man may have read a pretty deal: I heard you charge T. H. with Forgery; but I told you, Mark the Confusion and Contradiction of this Disputant. that you bring that in too early by five or six Particulars: I re­assume the thing again, That if you will come to this, to prove your selves Christians and Gospel Ministers, sent of God, I am here ready to be your Opponent.

W. Penn, We appealed to the Baptists against T. H. I am Opponent; I charged T. H. with Forgery, and thou oughtst to hear me, according to the Intent of this Meeting if thou personatest T. H.

A Stranger, Gentlemen, I am an Indiffe­rent Person, and not concern'd in the Matter, neither of on side nor the other; I suppose the Error is here, both sides would be Opponents: [Page 33]I would know who is the Plantiff and who is the Defendent; if they come as Plan­tiffs, they should oppose; they ought to propose for what they accuse him; let the grieved Person make out his Grievances, and let the Defendent answer for himself; this in my Judgment is fair between you.’

J. Ives, To the Stranger; You have spoken disereetly; but there is something necessary for you to have had previous Knowledge of. If I abuse you in VVords, you come in against me as Plantiff, in this Case, it is reasonable the Plantiff should make a Declaration of his Grie­vance, and then the Defendent is to make his Defence: We are chargd for writing Dia­logue-wise.

A Stranger, ‘The Difference between you is this, The first thing that the Baptists would be at is, to prove the Quakers No Christians. W. P. saith, If you will let us come to the Charge, to prove Thomas Hicks a Forger, we will afterwards come to the o­ther; and that the first Article agreed to discourse upon at this Meeting is, that the Dialogues are Fictitious, and he that made them a Forger.’

J. Ives, VVe say, They are No Chri­stians.

G. Keith, Is a Forger's Testimony to be [Page 34]received? I offer to prove Thomas Hicks a Forger.

2d S [...]rang. ‘I am neutral, and in Consci­ence I speak what is Equal; They are wil­ling as Plantiffs to prove Thomas Hicks a Forger, and say, It is the first Article a­greed upon to discourse in this Meeting; Let them go on to prove it in their own Way, and you need not trouble your selves about proving any other Way. If I am the Plantiff, you are to answer my Accusation; so let us see what it is they will prove Tho. Hicks a Forger in, before you bring them to New Matter.’

J. Ives, Forgery is not the first Article.

W. Penn, It is the first Article; hear it read.

[Peoples Importunity was great to have it read.]

Baptists, No, No, No, No.

J. Ives, Do ye think a Man hath Lungs to answer you all?

W. Penn, It is not the first time thou hast run away from me, and said, My Lungs are not made of Whetleather.

Strang. 'This is not to the present Mat­ter; hear the Articles of the Charge read, 'that we may understand them.

'Bapt. No, No, No, No.

J. Crook, I declare, I desire not any thing more then to come to that Matter, whe­ther or no we are Christians; and in order to that, whosoever is the Man personating T. Hicks to prove us no Christians, we are ready to answer in its place: But we say that T. H. is illegalis homo, a Forger, and his Testimony is not to be believed, and there­fore non rectus in curia.

[The People seem'd herewith greatly sa­tisfied.]

T. Plant, I see that J. Crook is mista­ken in the Matter: T. Hicks hath all manner of Liberty to go on with his Charge, opposing the Christian to the Quaker. You appealed to the Baptists herein; they called Thomas Hicks to Account; He confessed the Matter that be did so Oppose the Christian to the Quaker, and J. Ives offers here to personate Tho. Hicks, and prove it so.

W. Penn, On what Account did you call T. H. into Question?

Bapt. Ʋpon the Account of your Appeal.

W. Penn, Where is that Appeal?

T. Plant, In Count. Christian, &c.

W. Penn, And is not Forgery the first Ar­ticle there charged against him? (which W. P. proved out of his Books) Let the Charge be read.

Bap. No, no, no, no.

Stranger, ‘You will not let it be cleared, whether T. Hicks be a Person guilty of For­gery or not: If he be proved so in any one thing that he hath written against the Qua­kers, then whatever he hath written may be suspected to be alike; If you will not do this, you refuse that which is ratio­nal. You did last Meeting divert this Matter, as now ye do: You did promise another Meeting; and now ye do the same thing. Moreover, I did hear, that W. P. did charge that Person that writ this Dia­logue with Forgery; You could not but hear the same thing; yet one of you now said, that He did not know that T. H. was charged with Forgery.’

J. Ives, Here is a Young-man that pre­sumes to conclude I heard what he did, when I am Thick of Hearing.

—Russel, I am under some Suspition, that this Gentleman that spoak may be a Priest, or a Romanist at least, and have 2 Reasons for it.

[The People shouted at it as Ridiculous]

Stranger, 'I am charged, let me be heard.

[Baptists refused to hear him.

[The Auditory was in great Discontent.]

W. P. Here is a Person charg'd, which if it were real, as I believe it false, argues with me but a shallow Head and a feeble Cause; Such [Page 37]use to refuge in the like Reflections: But this savours of an Envious Mind, to insinuate as if we brought in a Jesuite to help us; Right us in this matter.

J. Ives I will do you all the Right I can: I desire I may be heard, the Strength of my Ʋoice is not like other men: I desire I may have Audience, I will only speak to that Sug­gestion, as if that Gentleman were a Priest or a Romanist; I do say, There was such a Sug­gestion, and there was no more in it, that he might probably be a Jesuite or a Romanist; some Person of that Community, either a Prea­cher or an Hearer; However, I do say that the man here that did speak these words, did it not by any Desire of ours; they were his own words: Some of you the last Day took Offence because there was a Person spoak that was no Baptist; There might be as much Occasion given us, that a Person that is no Quaker should speak here: I confess it is a Subject that many of your and our Adversaries insist upon frequently, that they may render us and expose us unto Danger, to cast it upon us to be Jesuits; and it was lately cast upon me in my Travail, and I answered that Person, that I was never out of the Nation: However, [Page 38]let the Person answer for himself, whether he be so, or not.

W. Penn, I hope, to have a Jesuit and a Presbyter speak in a man's behalf, is not of equal Scandal in England.

Strang. ‘You have here charged me, and you will excuse your selves by saying, It is but a bare Suggestion: I would ask you, whether you are altogether Strangers to the Mischief that comes upon such Sugge­stions; but some men may be used to such things. After the last Meeting, it was repor­ted in the City, That the Quakers had sent for a Jesuit out of Holland to help them.

W. Penn, Jeremy Ives acknowledged, that he had had the same thing suggested a­gainst him; hast thou not?

J. Ives, I have so, often.

W. Penn, Very well; and I will assure, thou lookst as like a Jesuit as he doth.

J. Ives, I have but one word to say; W. Penn hath spoak modestly: And I say, There was nothing laid down categorically to assext, that he was either a Priest or Romanist, but only by way of Suggestion; Yet thus much I shall say, I wish there were in the Land such Zeal, as to abominate the Name of Jesuit: But I am of the Mind, that W. P. himself [Page 39]will say, That there is too little of that Spirit in the Land. But are not you a Catholick?

— Russel, I have Two Reasons to offer, why I say so.

[The People desired that the Stranger might speak to clear himself.]

Strang. ‘I do not say, I am no Catholick; but I say, I am no Roman-Catholick, that is to say, I am not of the Church of Rome.

J. Ives, VVhat are ye then? Are ye a Hobist?

Strang. 'I never read his Books.

Bapt. Do any of you know him?

Answ. I have known him to be a Trader in London this Fourteen Years.

Strang. 'Capt. Bromel knows me.

[And others knew him to the Satisfaction of the Meeting.]

W. P. Now where is he that is behind with his Two Reasons, to give some Ground for his Suggestion?

[There were none produced]

Stranger, ‘I have heard the Discourse hitherto between you; I do understand here is a great deal of means used for to evade the Matter intended by the Meeting; and let me tell you, it will not only be a Means to make me, but more, Quakers, to see the Weakness of your Carriage: You [Page 40]have charged them with several Things; they charge you with Forgery therein, and they meet here to prove that it is so; and if you thus do evade the Matter, they shall stand innocent in the sight of Honest Men: I desire these People, call'd Quakers, may have Liberty to read their Charge against T. H. they gave you Liberty to charge them; shall not they have the same?’

[Interrupted by T. Plant, who said thus,]

T. Plant, Mr. Penn, pray let us all sit down, and hear this Man preach us a Sermon.

[The People were displeased, and hooted at T. P.]

W. Penn, Must he not clear himself?

J. Ives, VVe have spent almost an Hours Time in this Digression.

W. Penn, How can we expect Satifacti­on from you, as to T. H. if you will not give it us for the Slander your Brother hath endeavour'd to insinuate against an uncon­cerned Person.

J. Ives, As to this Suggestion against this Person, you may remember in an other Matter, it was by you urged that is should be left, as being unimportant to the Case in Hand; but now by your insisting upon the Matter rela­ring to this Gentleman, so much besides the Business, you manifest your Minds, rather to [Page 41]be to prolong the Time, and stave it off; there­fore I say, Come, will you hear your selves pro­ved No Christians?

W. Penn, It is to the Peoples Edification to come to enquire, whether or not T. H. is a Forger in the Matter of his Dialogues, and that is the Matter ye ought to go upon, if after that you question the Truth of our Christianity, we freely offer to meet you upon that Occasion, either private or publick.

Stranger, ‘I am concerned, Christianity is so much abused by you Baptists, that pre­tend so much to Christianity: T. H. hath writ Books against them, they charge his Books with Forgery, you should go on to hear whether or no it can be proved.’

Baptist, VVhat a Coxcomb is that?

[Here the People cry'd out, Take notice of that Man.]

1 Stranger, ‘We have been here a great while, and I suppose the Auditory cannot make much to their Content out of what hath past among you: I offer again, that you will determine who is Plantiff, and who Defendent; who Opponent, and who Re­spondent; [...]f you cannot come to this, it is as good to depart.’

J. Ives, VVe are willing here to prove the Quakers to be No Christians.

[The People make a Noise, and are dis­contented.]

T. Plant, You call'd upon us at our Meeting to call upon the People for Silence; why do not you do the same here, and call for Silence?

W. Penn, Do not reflect; we have cal­led upon them, and urge them to be silent; nor do we believe it is our Friends that make the Disturbance.

T. Plant, If we say nothing with Respect to that Gentleman, we shall be clamoured about the Town for it.

W. Penn, He is a Friend of yours as well as ours; we are not at all acquainted with him.

T. Plant, Sir, I do not think you are a Je­suite or Romanist, nor do I approve of what was said: I would not have said so of any Man, except I knew it: But this I have to say to that Gentleman, If he should turn Qua­ker upon this, I should take him to be a very silly and weak one.

[The People here manifested their great Dislike of T. Plant's making Apology.]

T. Plant, I mean if he should turn Quaker upon the Account of any VVeakness of ours, it would manifest him weak in Christianity, not those that are Quakers.

Stranger, ‘I did not say thus; but, it might [Page 43]be a Means to make me and others, Qua­kers, to see the Weakness of your Carriage, that protent so much to Christianity.

Ist Stranger, ‘I hope you will come to an End of all Particularities; and I desire Mr. Ives and Mr. Plant, that some Article may be agreed upon: You say, The Qua­kers are no Christians; they decline not the Proof of it, but they say, It is not the first thing to come to, but that the first thing is, for them to prove T. H. a Forger; that is the Charge.’

W. Penn, Shall we read the Charge?

T. Plant, No, No.

W. Penn, Shall T. H. read my Charge against T. Hicks?

Stranger, It is most fit that it be read by an indifferent Person.

T. Plant, Very well, you shall.

W. Penn, Shall the same be read that was read at Barbican?

People, Yea, yea.

[The Stranger begun, and was interrupt­ed by J. I.]

G. Whitehead, The Auditory may take notice, that though J. Ives have undertaken F. Hick's Cause, that he is unprepared; for he said, he did not read the Books till last night: Now ought he not better to have [Page 44]considered the Matter before he had en­gaged to personate T. H. If they will not pursue the Charge, we shall conclude they are afraid. We do suppose the Way they go, is not the Way they would be dealt with them, that is, to pick things out of our Books: Now, if they would prove us no Christi­ans, it must be by somewhat that is gene­rally own'd by the Quakers; and you know, I offer in the same manner to prove Baptists no Christians: That is thus; Some Bap­tists have denied the Divinity of Christ; Im­mortality of the Soul; the general Love of God to all Men; therefore in their Manner I might as well from thence prove the Bap­tists no Christians, as they have done against us: I say, some Baptists have been of the Opinions aforesaid: Now, if the whole Bap­tists will be concluded by those Particulars, then they do as they would be done by: The Baptists are divided, and some may have unadvisedly laid down Arguments against the Divinity of Christ: Now, if the Bap­tists will go from Particulars to Generals, let them consider, if they would be thus done by; then in the like manner I will prove the Baptists are no Christians.

I. Ives, G. Whitehead hath intimated that our Collections from which we infer the [Page 45]Quakers no Christians, are gathered out some of their Books writ long ago: Now he argueth thus; if it be fair dealing to infer from thence the whole Body of Quakers to be no Christi­ans; then he may infer of the same Account, that the Baptists are no Christians. To all this, I say, First, This doth suppose that there are some Quakers that are no Christians: 2dly, That if this be true, that some Qua­kers have writ what the whole Body doth not own, that there is not that Ʋnity amongst them that they would make the World believe; for if some Men of the Quakers Iudgment have put out those things that is not reason to apply to them in general, it sheweth, that they are not all of one mind; or else it is fair, to apply to all that which is the Iudgment of one. 3dly, That they say, that the Bap­tists have some Men that deny the Divinity of Christ, and Immortality of the Soul, and it were unreasonable thence to conclude against all the Baptists to be no Christians: It is well known, that when such Opinions have been a­mong the Baptists, they have born Testimony against it, as I challenge them to shew, that they have done against any thing that might be written by any of their Iudgment.

G. Whitehead, Whereas he takes it for granted, that I did conclude, or did imply [Page 46]some of the Quakers to be no Christians; I deny that there is any such thing by me in­tended; for it appears that I only mention­ed those things to this end, to shew that the Baptists would not be so dealt by, as they have dealt with us: I did only suppose it; for I do say, I know not of any known Quaker, that is own'd as a publick Person amongst us, that hath laid down what we cannot stand by; therefore I was far from that Conclu­sion which he maketh. But, saith he, the Baptists have protested against any such thing amongst them: I ask, Have the Bap­tists in general protested against them that deny Ʋniversal Grace, the Immortality of the Soul, the Divinity of Christ? Now, if I find that there are some of the Books that we ne­ver knew any general protest against, the pa­rallel holds equal; if they say, there may be Books that they have not well perused, they should have allowed the same Charity.

W. Penn, Let us come to the Matter; I offer this to Ieremiah Ives; that I will stand to all that T. H. hath instanced out of our Books, and prove him a Forger concer­ning them. Here hath been much Discourse beside the End of our Meeting; and this, I say, is the Matter of our Meeting, to prove T. H. guilty of Forgery, and if thou I. I. does [Page 47]personate T. H. let me go on, and I will prove thee a Forger; read the Charge.

[The People with one voice cry, read the Charge.]

T. P. R. T. We will have no Charge read.

W. Penn, Let T. Plant himself read the Charge.

[The Baptists renew their Noise,]

W. Penn, My friendly Auditors, the Matter is, whether we are Christians or not; T. H. saith no, we are not, and he will prove it out of our Books: I charge him with Forgery therein, and am ready to prove it, ere I go out of this Place; Is not this fair?

[The People generally cry out, This is fair, this is fair.]

W. Penn, If you do not intend to pro­ceed upon the Charge as it is here, but T. H. must do it, let him come where we shall agree to meet, and let our Charge be read, and indifferent Persons hear what we have to say, and so let it be Published to the World.

T. Plant, The Quakers are offended that T. H. hath so writ; we begun upon the first Article of the Charge at Barbican; we come hither this day upon the defence of that Arti­cle, Hicks opposing the Christian to the Qua­ker; and therefore, because the Doctrines you [Page 48]hold are inconsistent with Christian Religion; we come to prove you no Christians; but as to the particular Charge, T. H. himself must be concerned in it; therefore there must be such a Meeting; for if he should speak as much as we do here, he might be quite spent or k [...]ll'd: so forasmuch as you do not consent to the Discourse as offered, to prove a Quaker no Christian, we will appoint such a Meeting as you say, and then let it be Printed to the World.

W. Penn, T. Hicks hath writ such things. I grant, I come to prove him a Forger there­in, and that he is no Christian: will not this answer to every ones Expectation & Under­standing? He saith, Christian so, Quaker so, Wilt thou prove it T. H. say we: Yea, saith he, I will not bate you one word, as he said before: so then the Person grieved is the Quaker; here is the Grievance, that T. H. has Forged things under Our Name; we call upon the Baptists to hear us: If T. H. had Lungs and Voice enough at Barbican, sures­ly he might have been one of four here; but seeing he has declined to appear, we do consent to such a Meeting, to hear the De­bate, and when it is heard, before an Audi­tory agreed on, being taken by Writers, that it go forth to be World.

J. Ives, I would have added, as we met by Consent at first, so let us meet by Consent again that you may not be incumbrd with Propositions at the next Meeting; so will ye refer the Mat­ter to such a Meeting? and will ye now closly fall to hearing the Proof, that ye are no Chri­stians?

W. Penn, Hath I. Ives Lungs enough now to go upon that, and not upon our Charge as it lyeth.

J. Ives, There is something in that which I cannot mannage; that which I can mannage is, that you are No Christians, and that I will mannage against you.

W. Penn, If J. I. will debate all here, let us begin; if not all here, then why any here? Is this to proceed methodically? nay, but it offers Violence to the Order agreed upon.

J. Ives, I am well satisfied to enter into that Debate, to prove you No Christians.

W. P. We are not afraid to meet with thee, nor to give an Account of our Faith and Be­lief in our Lord Iesus Christ, That he was born of the Virgin Mary, that he preached a Heaven­ly Doctrine, confirmed it by many Miracles, was crucified and rose again, and ascended into Glory, and is God over all, blessed forever. But if all must not be debated here, for which we do arraign them, and have exhibited our, [Page 50]Charge, which they refuse (so much as to have read) we might very justly refuse to answer to them in this Matter.

J. Ives, W. Penn hath made a Confession of his Faith; I will prove that what he hath said is Equivocation, and that you are no Christians; but what you say is rather to ac­commodate your Party to the Vulgar: I do say, the Quakers are No Christians, but what they say is Equivocation: I am here now to prove you no Christians; if you will not consent to that, we will break up the Meeting.

W. Penn, Well, let him then.

W. Welch, Take notice, this is a Con­descension on our Part: The Charge on our part was to prove T. H. a Forger; this I say, is a Condescension.

J. Ives, It is no Condescension.

W. Penn, It is a receeding from the Mat­ter, therefore a Condescension; but go on Jeremy, and do thy utmost Strength; we shall answer thee.

J. Ives, I say, it is no Condescension, that those that are charg'd to be No Christians, is hear themselves proved so. If W. P. be no Christian, then all that he hath said concerning Christ is Equivocation: But W. P is No Christians, Therefore, &c.

[Here the Baptists made merry among themselves.]

G. Keith, Although, according to the Method of Dispute, we are not oblieged to hear thy Proofs, until first our Proof be heard against T. H. that he is a Forger (we being the first Plantiffs) yet we will condescend to hear J. I. his Proofs in this Matter.

J. Ives, W. Penn is my Adversary, not that Gentleman; I charge W. P. with E­quivocation.

G. Keith, I do not interpose, as being dif­fident in W.P. for I believe he is able enough to answer thee; but I sympathize with him, because of his Bodily Strength.

W. Penn, If T. Plant, R. Taylor, and the Man that hath his Two Reasons yet behind, have had Liberty to speak one after another, I think I may have the Liberty to let another speak sometimes for me.

G. Keith, My Name is in all the Articles of Agreement concerning those Meetings, and am abused as well as W. P. so I may well, being a fresh Man, and having Regard to his Bodily Strength, be admitted to speak in this Matter.

J. Ives, VVill you then undertake it?

G. Keith, Yea, I am ready to undertake [Page 52]it and by the Lord's Assistance to debate it thee for a Pair of Hours.

J. Ives, How say you? for a Pair of Hours? Yea, yea, six if ye will; speak out; my Hearing is not good; and you being a Stran­ger, I cannot well understand your Dialect.

G. Keith, I shall repeat J. I's Argument: If W. P. be no Christian, he is an Equivo­cator: But he is no Christian; therefore he is an Equivocator. I deny both his Propo­sitions of his Argument: Let him prove the Consequence of his first Proposition; that is, That if he be No Christian, then an Equi­vocator.

—Russel, That man speaks so Scottish, that we cannot well understand him.

G. Keith, Though my Voice is small, yet it is clear and distinct: And I being a Stran­ger, not of the English Nation, but of ano­ther Nation, ye should be more civil to me, as a Stranger: I hope I shall speak intelligi­bly.

J. Ives, You have done well; Have you done like a Schollar? like a Disputant?

G. Keith, Shew me wherein I erred or failed.

J. Ives, You have not repeated my Argu­ment right: My Argument was founded [Page 53]on W. P's Confession of his Faith, that he believed, that Jesus Christ is God and Man, and that he dyed for Sins. My Argument is this; If W. P. be No Christian, then all he hath said is Equivocation: But W. P. is No Christian; Ergo.

G. Keith, I deny both his Propositions.

[Here I. Ives stirred up the People to Lightness, that G. K. thereby was inter­rupted.]

J. Ives, Do you understand the Propositions.

G. Keith, I suppose I do, but I shall re­peat them before the Auditory, that ye may know I understand them: Thy Argument is thus; If W. P. be No Christian, then he is an Equivocator: But W. P. is No Chri­stian; therefore he is an Equivocator.

J. Ives, that was not my Argument.

G. Keith, I understood it so, to be the same upon the Matter.

J. Ives, My Argument was this; If W. P. be no Christian, then all his Confessions of Christ are Equivocations: But W. P. is No Chri­stian; therefore.

G. Keith, Well, the Argument is the same upon the Matter, as I said before: I deny both the Propositions.

[Here J I. stirred up again to Laughter, [Page 54]as if G.K. had given some ridiculous or unlaw­ful Answer.]

G. Keith, I desire to be heard, and I shall show, that my Answer is Lawful and orderly, according to the Method of Dispute; for Arguments have two Propositions and a Con­clusion; Now the Conclusion follows alwayes the weaker Proposition; and so if one of the Propositions be false, the Conclusion is false. But sometimes both the Propositions are false, as in this Case; though I had denyed only his second Proposition, it might suffice; yet the first Proposition being false, I also deny it, for it implyes that all who are not Christians are Equivocators, which is false; for a man, from a true Conviction may confess both to the Divinity and Manhood of Christ, and yet not be converted to be a true Christian, and this Confession of his is no Equivocation.

J. Ives, I speak not in general, but in par­ticular of W.P.

G. Keith, But the Proposition is founded upon the General, and so if it hold not in the General, it doth not hold in the Particular of W. P.

J. Ives, Will you lay the Stress upon the De­nyal of the first Proposaion?

G. Keith. Not the whole, but a part of it.

[J. Ives again stirred up to Lightness.]

G. Keith, I desire to be heard peaceably, I am a Stranger that liveth about 400. miles of this place; ye ought to be more Civil to to me, that I am a Stranger, of another Na­tion; nor seek to oppress me, because I am of little Stature: I ought to be heard without Interruption; for I have stay'd about this Month, waiting on this Occasion. I say, I lay not the whole Stress upon the Denyal of the first Proposition, but a part of it; for the Conclusion leaneth not in whole upon one Proposition, but on both.

J. Ives, I prove the Consequence of the first Proposition: He who confesseth what he deny­eth, his Confessions are Equivocations; But W. P. confesseth what he denyeth, &c.

G. Keich, I shall repeat the Argument, that ye may know if I have heard it aright: He who confesseth what he denyes in his Heart, his Confessions are Equivocations; But W.P. confesseth what he denyeth in his Heart, &c.

J. Ives, You repeat my Argument wrong; I did not say, what he denyeth in his Heart, but what he denyeth.

[Reader, Take notice J. Ives denyes that he said, W. P. denyeth in his Heart what he confessed; So it is but a Verbal Denyal that J. Ives doth alledge.]

G. Keith, Well, I deny the second Propo­sition, to wit, That W. P. confesseth what he denyeth.

[Note, Reader, That because I did not commonly use the Termes Major and Mi­dor, J. Ives laugh'd and stirr'd up the People to Laughter: Whereto I replyed, That I waved the Termes, Major and Minor, for the sake of the Vulgar, because they were not so easy to be understood, as first and second Proposition.]

J. Ives, I prove that W. P. confesseth what he denyeth: If W. P. denyeth Iesus Christ, he confesseth what he denyeth: But W. P. denyeth Iesus Christ, &c.

G. Keith, I deny the second Proposition, viz. That W. P. denyeth Iesus Christ.

J. Ive, I prove it thus: He who hath no Rule of his Faith and Practice, denyeth Iesus Christ: But W. P. hath no Rule of his Faith and Practice; Therefore, &c.

G. Keith, I deny again the second Propo­sition, viz. That W. P. hath no Rule for his Faith and Practice.

J. Ives, I prove the second Proposition: If W. P. have any Rule for his Faith and Pra­ctice, it must either be immediate Inspiration, or the Scripture: But W. P. hath neither im­mediate Inspiration nor the Scripture for his [Page 57]Rule of Faith and Practice; therefore &c.

G. Keith, I deny the Second Proposition; for he hath both, viz. immediate Inspirati­on, as the primary Rule; and the Scripture as the secundary.

J. Ives, I prove he hath not immediate Inspiration. He who hath immediate Inspi­ration for his Rule, must give an Evidence of it in his Ministry unto others, that he is a true Minister of Christ, such as no Impostor can give: But W. Penn can give no Evidence of it in his Ministry unto others, that he is a true Minister; therefore, &c.

G. Keith, Here I. I. thou dost trans­gress the just Laws of Dispute, by an Error called in the Schools, [...], that is to say, A Transition from one kind of Matter to another: For first, thou didst undertake to prove, that W. P. was no Christian, and now thou undertakest to prove him to be no Minister; he may be a true Christian, and yet not a Minister, so as to be able in words to minister to others; for these two, Christian and Minister are not reciprocal Terms: Every true Mini­ster is a Christian; but every true Christian is not a Minister.

[Here again I. I. with the Baptists his Confederates stirred up to Laughter.]

G. Keith, I desire to be heard: To defend W. P. to be a Minister, is not my present Task; but to be a Christian, that is the pre­sent Matter in hand; when this is discussed, I shall not decline the other; therefore I. I. is unreasonable to go from the Matter of the Dispute to another Matter.

J. Ives, I am content to leave out the Term Minister.

G. Keith, I desire the Auditory to take Notice of this Advantage against I. Ives, how he passeth from his last Argument; let us hear his next.

J. Ives, He who hath immediate Inspirati­on for his Rule, must have an Evidence, where­by to distinguish it from an Imposture; but W. Penn hath no Evidence, whereby to distinguish it from an Imposture; there­fore, &c.

G. Keith, I deny the second Proposition.

J. Ives, He hath no Evidence, because he can show no Evidence, so as to make it appear; for ye know the Maxim, Of that which appea­reth not, and of that which is not, is the same Reason.

G. Keith, He hath no Evidence, because he can shew no Evidence, I deny the Con­sequence; for a man may have an Evidence of a thing which he cannot show; and as to [Page 59]that Maxim, De non apparentibus, et non ex­istentibus eadem est ratio, it holdeth not true universally; but is false in many Cases; as it doth not appear to me, whether the Dutch or French have had the Victory in the last War, must I therefore conclude, that none of them had it?

J. I. It is true, the Maxim holdeth not in all Cases, but in this it holdeth; for if W. Penn have any Evidence that he hath imme­diate Inspiration, he ought to give a Proof of it to others: Let W. P. prove himself to be a Christian, otherwise we are not bound to be­lieve him.

G. Keith, We do not impose upon you to believe that we are Christians, but recom­mend it to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God, as he shall witness for us; but that is not our present Work, to prove our selves to be Christians, but to answer J. I. his Argument, whereby he undertook to prove that we are no Christians.

[Here G. Whitehead offered to speak, but they would not suffer him, alledging, that it was agreed upon, that the Dispute should only be betwixt J. I. and G. K.]

G. Keith, I said, I was willing by God's Assistance to undertake it; and so I am rea­dy still, finding the Lord present with me; [Page 60]but I did not engage, that none others should speak what they had upon them by any pressing necessity, nor did any others engage to any such thing; but seeing ye will not suffer others to speak, I answer the same with what G. W. hath said, that J. I. goeth again from his Matter, which was to prove W. P. to be no Christian; and instead of proving that, he putteth me to prove that W. P. is a Christian, or that we are Christians. Are all his Proofs come to this Beggarly Shift?

J. Ives, If ye can give no Evidence of it, ye|are No Christians.

G. Keith, What Evidence wouldst thou have? Must I be No Christian. because I cannot express my inward Sentiments to na­tural and prejudiced Men? We can at least give as good Evidence, that we are Christi­ans, as I. Ives, or any Baptists on Earth can give, that they are Christians; if by Evi­dence he means a Life and Practice, answera­ble to Christianity.

J. Ives, I am glad, that at least, ye will parallel us with you.

G. Keith, I speak modestly; we stand, at least, upon equal Ground with you, as to Evidence: I say, we can give as good Evi­dence; I do not say, we cannot give grea­ter: [Page 61]If you require another outward Evi­dence, then a good Life or Practice, as name­ly, either Miracles, or a verbal Demonstrati­on, then it will follow, | that no dumb man can be a Christian, because he can give no Evidence of it by verbal Demonstration.

[Here W. P. as having a stronger Voice, began to repeat my Argument, giving the Instance of a dumb man.]

J. Ives, I spake nothing of a dumb man; why do you alledge this?

G. Keith, I do not say, thou didst alledge it; for it was not to thy Advantage; but I alledged it, as making against thee.

[Here some Baptists denyed that G. K. al­ledged the Instance of a dumb man; but many of the Auditory that stood near him affirm­ed, they heard him give the Instance.]

J. Ives, But 'tis well known W. P. is not a dumb man: I speak not of Infants or dumb men.

G. Keith, But if a dumb Man, who can give no verbal Demonstration, may be a Christian; it followeth, that others may be Christians, who can't verbally demonstrate it.

I. Jves, I speak of Things, not of Persons; I require you to give one Evidence of your Faith and Practice.

[Here T, Plant repeated this Distin­ction of J. I. that he spoak of Things, not Persons; it seems the Man admired it, as a very Learned Distinction.]

G. Keith, Thou doest vainly Distinguish; for thou speak'st both of Persons & Things: Are not W. P. and G. K. Persons? Now thou requirest us (to wit) W.P. and G.K. to give an Evidence of our Faith and Practice, to prove our selves to be Christians, which is not our present work to do, as is already shewed; and it is sufficient that we have the Witness in our Selves, as the Scripture saith, He that believeth hath the Witness in himself. And Friends, and all People here present, I have one thing more of great weight to signifie unto you, and that is to tell you, that although the Baptists do falsely accuse us, as deriving our Pedegree from the Jesuits; yet it may appear how near a Kin they are to the Jesuits, seeing I can produce a Jesuit who hath used the very same Argument up­on the Matter, against all the Protestants, which the Baptists have this day made use of against us: The Jesuit is one Dempster, his Argument, and the whole prosecution of it, together with the Answers thereunto by one, called a Protestant, Munster J. M. is in Print, the Title of the Book is Papismus [Page 63]Lucifugus. See people, how the whole Pro­testant Cause lieth at the Stake; in the De­fence whereof we with all true Protestants, are concerned against the Jesuits and Baptists, to their own Overthrow, who take up the Pa­pists Arguments against themselves.

J. Ives, Give me an Evidence how I may know that you have immediate Revelation for your Faith and Practice from Heaven or from Hell.

G. Keith, That is not my Task at present; I do not impose it upon thee so to believe.

J. Ives, Then we have done, not a Word more.

[G. Keith offered farther to proceed.]

[J. Ives refused.

W. Penn, Then let me take up the Argu­ment with T. Plant or Rob. Taylor.

[They refused.]

[G. Keith offered to proceed with J. Ives thus.]

G. Keith, He is not a Jew that is one out­wardly, but he is a Jew that is one inwardly: I offer to prove my self, by as good Argu­ment, that I am a Christian, as the best Bat­tists in the World can produce.

[J. I. would not hear, but refused to re­assume the Argument.]

W. Penn, J. Ives, T. Plant, R. Taylor; [Page 64]What mean you by this Evasive Carriage? Is this the Entertainment we receive from you after our Condescension to your Impor­tunities? first, you declined our Charge; Next, Though you pretend to prove us No Christians, you now clamour at us, to prove our selves Christians; And because we tell you it is not our part at this time, since you undertook to prove us None, you set your Company a Bawling for a Retreat: But that you may see we will follow you into all your SHIFTS, I will undertake the Proof of our being CHRISTIANS with any of you upon such Evidences, as Christians and Martyrs have been wont to give; and if they happen to prove No Evidences in your esteem, I will make it appear, that you not onely do conclude us, but YOUR SELVES with the best of those you esteem Christians, gross IM­POSTORS.

G. Whitehead, Observe how far this De­bate is gone.

1st, The Result of J. Ives, his proving the Quakers No Christians, is turned to a putting it on us to prove our selves Christi­ans, and W. Penn a Minister, which was not the Question.

2. That we must evidence that immediate Revelation is our Rule, or else we are no [Page 65] Christians, but Impostors; but what Evi­dence that must be (whereby we may con­vince these prejudiced Opposers) he has not told us: However, be it observed, that if true Christians must shew some Outward Evidence of their having immediate Reve­lation or Inspiration; it follows, that all, even Baptists and others, who now deny both or say they are ceas'd, are No Christians.

3. Suppose we do not, or are not called to give an outward Evidence or Demonstra­tion of our Christianity, to the Conviction of all who require it, or impose upon us therein; it follows not, that we are No Christians, much less Impostors; for there were some, among whom Christ himself could not do many Miracles, because of their Unbelief; and others that said, He cast out Divels by Beelzebub. [All true Christians were not Workers of Miracles] Nor did the Apostles give such Evidence, as made all believe and confess they were true Ministers; for they were counted Deceivers, yet true; and so manifest in many Mens Consciences in the Sight of God: And though we pro­fess and experience immediate and divine Revelation, as the Ground of our Faith and Testimony; yet we do not profess (or look on our selves as oblieged) to make all (that [Page 66]require Signs of us) especially, such as believe & confess to us, as such, are in Enmity & Pre­judice against us: However, we have a Proof or Evidence in Mens Consciences, &c.

[Here the Baptists were earnestly urged by very many Persons to continue the Dis­course; W. P. calling upon them, Do not run away, Do not run away; and adding]

W.P. If so to believe as to have the Witness in a man's self, be sufficient to render a Man a Christian, as holy Scripture imports; then a Man's being a Christian depends not upon a distinguishing External Evidence from what an Impostor may give, but the Evidence in Himself; otherwise, because an Impostor may make as fair a Show, as a real Christian that hath the Evidence in Himself, it would fol­low, that He is as good Christian, though he hath no such Witness in Himself.

If He be not a Jew that is one Outward, but H E a true Gospel. Jew that is one In­ward; then since an Impostor can imitate the Former, and not the Latter, it follows, that A man may be a true Jew (that is, a true Christian) who may not exeede an Impostor as to External Evidence, Words or Forms.

If the Spirit's of God witnessing with the Spirits of the Ancient Christians, that they were Children of God, was a suffici­ent [Page 67]Evidence thereof; then since no Impo­stor has that Evidence, and that Evidence is not visible, it follows that a man may be a Christian by such a Testimony that doth not alwayes distinguish him by outward Obser­vation, to the Eyes of the World, from an Impostor.

If Flesh and Blood could not reveal Christ, neither could Flesh and Blood see or reveal that Revelation: But will it therefore follow that Revelation was no Evidence in it self, and that Peter was No Christian?

[Note Reader, Whilst W. Penn was speaking J. Ives, T. Plant, R. Taylor, &c. went their Way; but the Auditory remained, bating it may be of Two Thousand People not One Hundred that went away with them.

In short; If Jer. Ives intended an Evi­dence, that is, such as should be convincing to Some-body, though this is not absolutely necessary in it self, as in the Case of a Man that is born Dumb, or one struck Speechless upon a Sick Bed, &c. yet will it not reach the Terms of J. Ives his Question: And if he intend by an Evidence such as should be convincing to every Body, then I utter­ly deny it; for by the same Reason, the greatest of Miracles, and most Excellent Argument that the Lord Jesus Christ be­stowed [Page 68]upon the unbelieving Iews, would be no Evidence in it self, because not received by them. The Consequence is the horrid Blasphemy of the Pharisees, That he cast out Devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of De­vils. This doth exclude all Martyrs from having a Sufficient Evidence, because they could not convince their Persecutors of the Validity of that Evidence.

I do not doubt the poor Woman that said, She could not dispute for Christ, but she could burn for him, had a sufficient Evidence, and better then an Impostor, that could have made a better verbal Defence. I remember that I. Bradford that honest Martyr, Book of Mart. 3 Vol. p. 298. gave this Answer to the Arch-Bishop of York, We do believe and know the Scriptures, as Christ's Sheep; not because the Church saith, They are the Scriptures; but because they be so, being thereof assured by the same Spirit which spake them. This was all, I hear, he gave to the Bishop, as an Evidence of his Faith concer­ning the Scriptures: Did therefore I. Brad­ford believe them no more then an Impostor, because an Impostor might say so? Or was there no better Evidence to Protestants of him, then that he was an Impostor?

Also B. Iewel, one of the learnedst and [Page 69]most ancient Prelates of the Church of En­gland, in his Book against Harding, pag. 532, 534. asserts, That without the special Help, Prompting and Revelation of God's Ho­ly Spirit, the Scriptures are to the Reader, be he never so wise or well learned, as the Vision of a sealed Book: So that, 1st, Inspirati­on was the Rule of their believing and un­derstanding Scripture: 2dly, The Evi­dence that they and other Christians gave of their Christianity, besides good Words and Works, was, that internal Evidence of the Spirit, which Gual. Cradock affirms, gives to know the Spirit or Fruits of it in other men. To conclude, If Articles of Faith, according to Scripture, the Inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, fair Words, and sober Living, and Sufferings are no Evidence, because imita­ble, or pretended to by Impostors; or that all such are Impostors, who cannot evidence their Right to such Things; not only Millions in Happiness are questioned, as to their Sin­cerity by J. I. but the best among those he accounts Christians, now alive, must be con­cluded Impostors; and for himself, alas, poor Man! he will prove an IMPOSTOR with a Witness.

I. Crook, It seems very unreasonable, that he that hath Faith, and is a true Belie­ver [Page 70]should give an Outward Evidence of his Faith to him that hath no true Faith, or else he must be No Christian; seeing the Scrip­ture faith, and it is true, That there is a white Stone, and a New Name written in it, which no Man knows, but he that hath it: And he that hath it in himself, knows it certainly to be the True Evidence, when he hears it from another; for it answers, as Face to Face in a Glass: And as Iob saith, There is an Ear that tryeth Words, as the Palat tast­eth Meat, &c.

[Much more was spoak by him to evidence the Truth of this Assertion, to the Peoples great Contentment; but cannot so particu­larly and exactly be remembred.]

G. Whitehead, I have been concerned in many Disputes and Controversies about Re­ligion, and with divers Sorts of People; but never met with such unfair Dealing, clamo­rous Work and hideous Noise in Disputes, from any People as from these Men, though we owe them no ill will, the Lord open their and all your Understandings: I desire that Seriousness, Sobriety, and the Fear of God may possess all your Hearts, &c.

G. Keith, Friends and People, I desire you to take notice, that whereas I said, We had as great Evidence to show that we were [Page 71] Christians, as any Baptists on Earth: I spoak modestly; I could have said more, and now I do say more; for there are two Outward Evidences of a Christian unto others; one is Good Works; another is to Suffer pati­ently and boldly for the Principles of the Christian Religion: Now the Baptists dare not deny but our Works are as good as their own: And as for our Sufferings in Times of Persecution, they commended them far above their own; then they could call us their WALL of Defence betwixt them and the Blows of Persecution; and told us, they prayed for us, as divers here present can witness. Note, Reader, if any object that Saying, Not the Suffering, but the Cause makes the Martyr; I say, the Maxim is true; but they have not yet proved, that our Cause is not good; this they did un­dertake, but have been shamefully, foyl'd in their Pursuance of it, as doth appear to such indifferent and impartial Auditors, as were present both Times; and may appear to all such impartial Men, who read these Relations of the whole Matter in Print.

[I. Crook added a few Words more to the People, and concluded the Meeting with his Prayer.]

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.