THE Counterfeit Christian DETECTED; And the REAL QUAKER JUSTIFIED.

Of God and Scripture, Reason & Antiquity. against The Vile Forgeries, Gross Perversions, Black Slanders, Plain Contradictions & Scurrilous Language of T. HICKS an Anabaptist Preacher, in his Third DIALOGƲE between a Christian and a Quaker, call'd, The Quaker Condemned, &c.

By way of Appeal to all sober People, especially those called Anabaptists in and about the City of London.

By a Lover of Truth and Peace W. P.

The Vile Person will speak Villany, and his Heart will work Iniquity, to practise Hypocrisie, and to utter Error against the Lord,

Isa. 32.6.

But ye are Forgers of Lyes, ye are all Physitians of no value,

Job 13.4.

Printed in the Year 1674.


IT was about a Mon [...]th after the Publication of T. Hicks's last Dialogue, ere I knew there w [...]s such a Pamphlet in the World; I took gr [...]at Care to ge [...] it, and then us'd no less Diligence to per [...]se it, which having done, I shall bri [...]fly and faithfully give thee my Sense, both of the Man and his Work, and, I hope, sufficient Proof to justifie that Account.

Some were of the mind, our full and so [...]er Answer to his other disingen [...]ous Dialogues, with that Re­membrance we gave him of his own former Dislike and Reprehension of that unfair way of writing Controversie, to some of his own Profession in Wiltshire, would have had some place with him, and influence upon him, towards a more just Proceed with us for the f [...]ture; That instead of a Man of Straw, and a Fool and a Knave of his own creating (and therefore call'd by him a Quaker, that he might the better entitle us to his invented Error, Blasphemy and Immoralities, and bring us under the Odium that fol­lows) we should have seen, if not a real Contrition for the Wrong done us at least, if in the Wrong our selves, some Arguments more fairly given, and tenderly prest, in order to reclaim us: But in lieu of a solid & edify­ing Confutation (were we in the Wrong) the Man is become resolv'd and desperate; without all regard to [Page 4] God, Reason, Scripture, his own Credit, and the Reput [...] of his Party (not a little weakned by his Carriage) for it seems no matter with him how black the Stratagem be, provided it r [...]nders but the Quakers and their Faith detestabl [...]. And so remote is he from the least Acknowledgment of his former Miscarriages, to wit, Forgeries, Perversions, Evasions, Lyes, Slan­ders and Railings, that with regret I speak it, he has presumtuously continued & advanced in that Ungodly Practice, as if he would maintain on [...] Iniquity by the doubled Confidence of another; increasing, with the number of his Dialogues, the number of those Impieties, for which his other two were so frequently rejected of sober and well-disposed People. Now if the man be so bad, and that in his Book too, how his Book can be good, is beyond the Skill of any man to tell us. That he deserves no better Character at any good man's [...]and, and that I write but the very Truth of the Mat­ter, I shall proceed to manifest by such Instances and Evidences, as I think cannot be justly questioned of either Reason or Sense.

Reader, be but intent and impartial in thy perusal, and I desire no more at thy hands to our Vindication and our Adversary's utter Shame. Farewel.

THE Counterfeit Christian DETECTED;

NOt long after Tho. Hicks had brought forth his first piece of Fiction, being charged by several, as well those that were not of our Way, as our own Friends, with having made a Quaker of his own (and no wonder then that he should confute him) he, as one concern'd to buoy up his Credit above those Assaults, writes the Continuation, or Second Part, endeavouring to make appear, that he had not wrong'd us in his first. I undertook to consider them, and that in a Spirit of Moderation, to the people of his Profes­sion, and to him, at most, but in a Way of grave Re­buke of his Unchristian Practice. In this I represen­ted his Forgery, with many other of his Unrighteous Dealings towards our Persons and Profession. At this he fumed and raged; and where he might safely do it, in City and Country, I was a Knave, and I know not how many more Hard Names, that both suit his En­vy, pred [...]minan [...] Passions and sordid Practice, to t [...]e Disgrace of his Religious Pretences. But it has so hap­pened, that about [...] Year's time after, he has thought it requisit to give us six Sheets, which are to advocate his Cause, and prove to the World that I am an [...]r­rogant, Abusive, Prophan [...], Imperti [...]ent Man, with [Page 6] abundance of the like Dirt, out of his foul Pit, which he loads almost every Page withal.

The Intent of this last Undertaking, is to condemn us out of our ow [...] Mouth, and shew to the World, that we verifie what before he had charged upon us, and we so confidently denyed: But if upon Examination, it shall appear, that my Charges against him remain firm, and that by the Assistance of this last Dialogue it self, I hope, notwithstanding his high Rants, mighty Confidence, most positive and dogmatical Say-so's, and hard and scornful Names, with which he endeavours to over-bear us, he sh [...]ll be reputed the man we have describ'd him, and therefore unworthy of the Name of Christian, which he untruly gives himself in his Dialogues.

§. 1. Tho. Hicks proved guilty of Forgery.

I Shall begin with an Account of his Title-Page, and what he promises his Reader there; The Quaker Con­demned out of his own Mouth, or an Answer to W. Penn's Book, entituled, Reason against Railing, and Truth a­gainst Fiction; wh [...]rein W. P. hath confessed, That if those things objected against the Quak [...]rs in two former Dialogues be true, that then a Quak [...]r is quite another thing then a Christian. That those Matt [...]rs heretofore objected w [...]re and are real T [...]uths, and no Fictions is ful­ly cleared and evinced in this Third Dialogue between a Christian and a Q [...]aker, by THOMAS HICKS, Tit. Pag.

That a Quak [...]r is Condemn [...]d out of Tho. Hicks's Mouth, is no Wonder to me; but that he should be [Page 7] Condemned out of his own, would be strange, [...]nd is, we hope, a Task too difficult for him to surmount. However, he tells us, that what things he objected a­gainst us in his former Dialogues, called Fictions by us, are cleared and evinced to be no Fictions, but real Tr [...]ths by him: This is either true or false; if true, we are wrong; if false, T. Hicks is still to be reputed a Forger.

He that would clear himself from any Charge, must be sure to take into his Answer the Matter of that Charge, or he shuffles with his Adversary, and maketh no allowable Defence for himself. That this is T. Hick's Case, instead of Condemning the Quaker out of his own Mouth, and consequently that he is worthy to be con­demned himself for his Enterprise, I shall briefly shew.

I charged him at the Entrance into my former Book, with having answer'd his own knottiest Questions in our Name, with the most weak and impertinent Returns he could well invent; and in many Pages there was not so much as a Quotation to be seen (a Practice to be det [...]sted of any that have learned but the very Alphabet of Common Honesty) to which the man sayes nothing, yet would be thought a fair Disputant, yea, a Christi­an too, if any Body will believe him.

Next I charged him with having given some Answers, we could acknowledge ours, joyned to their proper [...]uestions, unto such Questions, as they were never re­turned to, therefore guilty of Forgery, though not in making them Answers at all; yet in giving them for An­swers to those Questions unto which they never rela­t [...]d, which is a manifest Misapplication of them; But of this neither do we hear one word.

Again, though what he has said in his Title-Page, be enough for u [...], and we shall anon descend to use it, yet [Page 8] does not that contain or reach my Question, as in Ho­nesty it ought to have done, which was this; Wheth [...]r those Doctrines and Expressions charged up [...]n the People called Quakers, by Tho. Hicks in both his Dialogues, be really the Doctrines and Sayings of that Peopl [...], or not? And afterwards, Whether what we own, and is by him charged with Error, is sufficiently opposed or proved such? Reason against Railing, p. 6. which, Reader, takes in not only what T. H. objects against the Quakers, but what he invents and answers for them, and under their Name, whether it be about Doctrine or Practi [...]e. Nor is this all that may be learned of T. Hicks in his Title-Page; For, to compleat his Baseness in that very Pas­sage, observe, that as he only renders us concerned at his Objections, so does he confine these words [are real Truths and no Fictions] unto them. Whereas it is notorious to all that have but turned over my Answer, that it was not only, nor indeed so much his Objections [...]gainst us, as those Answers he gave for us, that I char­ged with Fiction. But T. Hicks's Policy in this Con­trivance is not unworthy of our notice, though always of our Approbation; for this is the plain Language of it, If I use not these Stratagems to cloud the Question, and vary the Charge, I am a Forger, &c. there's no Help for it; and that discards me with all men, even those of my [...]wn Party; wherefore I will so ord [...]r the Matter, that I will only bring my self upon the *Not that I allow him to have rightly ch [...]rgd us in every thing in that Sense neither. Proof of my own Objections, and over-look theirs. But though this goes a great way, yet this alone will not do; For I query, Dost thou intend by Objections, which thou sayest I call Fictions, all or some; if but some of them, thou shouldst in Ho­nesty [Page 9] have said so; if all, as thy words imply, then ha [...] thou further abused us; for my state of the Question includes a grant of some of them in point of Citation, though none as Errors.

But, Reader, this is T. Hicks' [...] Fetch (for withou [...] them he can do nothing against us) If I can extend th [...] word Forgery or Fiction, as w [...]ll to things they do grant, a [...] those they deny, by some such general words, as Matters objected against the Quakers, &c. Then by proving they acknowledge I have rightly quoted and charged them in some three or four Particulars, I will clear my self from the foul Imputation of Forgery in all the rest.

That this is the very Truth it self, and therefore For­gery in the Abstract, let the Reader know, that this has been his Practice, to wit, Where we have never charged Forgery upon him, he has taken his Opportunity, and th [...] with the Confidence of an Innocent to cry out, Is this candid to call me a Forgery, when you confess the thing—Then I am not guilty of Forgery—this clears me from being a Forger— Examine these Pages in his 3d Dialogue, viz. p. 4, 5, 6, 9, 29, 36, 39. and mine to which he there refers, and which he pretends to answer, and thou wilt have such Evidence of the Truth of what I s [...]y to thy very Sense, as must needs render my Adversary's Carriage worthy of thy severe Censure.

But as he hath attempted the Proof of his Innocency in this Matter, by [...]aces that never reflected any such sort of Guilt upon him (therefore still the man once charged to be) so has he wholely declined medling with that very Head of Forgery, under which I rancked near Twenty Answers, set down by him in our Name, that were [...]ever given by us, in either Matter or Form, to those or any other Questions, as a Demonstration of the [Page 10] Truth of my Accusation; some of which are so very gross, that had not his Envy over-powred his Wits, Cre­dit with his sober Neighbours would have dis-swaded him, if the Apprehension of God's Judgments could not have deterred him.

Before I produce Particulars, I shall recite a Passage in his second Dialogue, p. 2. as a Proof of the immeasu­rable Confidence, as well as Folly and Wickedness of the Man. Quak. Thou hast presented the World with a Quaker of thine own framing, making him to speak those Impertinencies and Falsehood [...] that were never ut­tered by any real Q [...]aker; Therefore it is a Forgery. G. W. Epistle to D. P [...]. Anab. You had done well▪ if you had produced some I [...]st [...]nc [...]s wherein I made them speak what was never uttered by a real Quaker: But if I can prove that what is spoken under that Name is the Lan­guage of a real Quaker; then thou hast confessed that such may be guilty of Impertinencies and Falshoods.

But T. Hicks has made them speak what was never uttered by a Real Quak [...], and has not so much as at­tempted to prove the contrary; Therefore T. Hick [...] by his own Argument is guilty of Impertinencies and Falshoods. This I made appear in my Answer to his former Dialogues; and therein did well by his own Con­fession; For I produced several Passages to make good my Charge of Forgery, unto which he is wholely silent. I shall instance in three or four of t [...]m, that my Rea­der may both perceive the Spirit of the man, and see at what rate he has clear'd himself from my Imputations.


Is it hon [...]st in you to deny the Scripture to be a Rule to others, when at the same time you make it a Rule [...]o your selves? Dial. 1. pa [...]. 24, 52.

Q [...]ak.

Thou mistakest u [...]; when we make us [...] of [Page 11] the Scriptures, it is only to quiet and stop their Cla­mours, that plead for it as their Rule.


D [...] you beli [...]ve the Scriptures to be the true Say­ings of God, ibid. p. 25, 2.


Yea, so far a [...] they agree with the Light within.


May I not conclud [...], that the Reason why you so freely rail against and reproach your Oppos [...]rs, is only to secure your Cred [...]t with your Proselytes, ibid. p. 72, 73.

Q [...]ak.

I cannot deny but that there may be some­thing of that in it.


Will this convince me or any other of your Per­f [...]ction? ibid.


Though it do not, yet thereby we shall render you so Odious to our Friends, that they will believe no­thing that is spoken by you against us.


Will you be so liberal of your Revilings, whether your Adversari [...]s give occasion or no? ibid.


It concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can, and to make our Fri [...]nds believe, they do nothing but contradict themselves: And if this fail, we will in­sinuate something by way of Qu [...]stion, that may be Re­proachful to them.


But doth not this signifie a very Dishonest and Malicious Mind? ibid.


We [...]are not what you think, provided our Friends think not so. We will give it out, that we have both answer'd and confuted our Adversaries, and our Friends will believe u [...], which is enough to us.

What a Wicked and False Quaker this counterfeit Christian hath made to abuse true ones? If this be not Forgery, palpable Forgery, and that not only against some one Person, but the People in general, personated by his own mad [...] Quak [...]r, there is no such thing as For­gery [Page 12] in the World. Oh you that seriously profess Reli­gion, can you away with this?

But hath he vindicated himself from these base Cour­ses, or honestly confessed them? N [...]ither. How then can he justly call himself a Christian, or be thought to have answered my Book, that hath thus basely de [...]lined that part of it, which stood him most upon to disprove? But how grosly soever he hath represented us, and how silently overlookt our Charges, he wants not Confidence to write after this Strain; I do affirm in seriousness, that the Account I have now, and heretofore given of the Qua­kers, is no other then the very Truth, Epist. p. 5. How serious is this Man in his Lying? Forge first, and then Lye to prop it: Impudence in Grain!

For what he hath said heretofore relating to this parti­cular, I have here briefly considered it. Let us see if he be any better now; In order to it, I have already shown you the Shuffle of his Title-page: I will now proceed to give you an Account of his Progress in this Black Art of For­gery and base Abuse.


I am not conscious of having objected any thing against you in my former Dialogues, but what I am certainly perswaded to be true, p. 1.

But is not T. Hicks conscious of first making us say that we never said, & then calling it, A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker? That T. Hicks was a Forger, I have evidenced: That he is one still, his own words shew; for instead of retracting, he pleads Innocen [...]y in being so: No wonder this man can write against the Light within; whose Conscience, if we will believe him, is so seared, that it feels no Risings against the foulest Forgeries. But let's hear him a little further.


I am so confid [...]nt of the Truth of those Al­legations, [Page 13] that I doubt not to avouch them, to all imparti­al men, Ibid.

We never doubted his Confidence, but Honesty. His Allegations must either respect those Passages, which he book'd, & pag'd, or else all that he alledges under the Name of Quaker: If the former, he is a Forger still; for more then Three Hundred in his first Dialogue were neither book'd nor pag'd: If the latter, he tells a plain Untruth; for he has not so much as attempted to avouch them, unless it is to be understood of his Co [...] ­fidence.

Seven Instances I shall give of his Continuance in FORGERY.

I. T. Hicks's first F [...]rgery begins with his Title-Pag [...], and in that very Passage, where he promiseth an Evinc [...] ­ment of his own Objections to be no Fictions, but real Truths; to wit, that he doth not only content himself in making the Evincement of his own Objections against us (unfairly over-looking ours) to be all he is concern'd in, but in so many words tells the World, That I con­fess, if those things objected against the Quakers in th [...] two former Dialogues be true, that then a Quaker is quit [...] another thing then a Christian; who never said or co [...] ­fessed any such thing in all my Life: For I well knew, that the Controversie rise higher, and went further then his meer Objections; I mean, [...]o all he gave under our Name; as both the Question stated, and my Pursuit of it do evidently prove. So that he, to make the clearing of his own Objections enough (yet more then he can e­ [...]er do) brings me in with a Confession of a thing I ne­ver [Page 14] thought on, much less ever writ; what shall I call this but Forgery upon Forgery?

II. His Second Forgery brings me in thus:


If thy Quotations be true, I do freely acknowl [...]dge, that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian, Reas. against Rail. p. 2.

There is no Passage so laid down by me; my words are these, T. Hicks hath given us a Second Part, where­in he hopes to make good, what he charged upon us in his first by Quotations out of our own Books; If faithfully done, I shall freely acknowledge that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian. Where it is observable, that I do not lay the Hazard of a Quaker's being a Chri­stian, meerly upon the Truth of his Quotations, but the Use of and Application of them, if they be faith­fully done; that is, if he can make those Quotations and his Charges meet against us, I shall concede; for a Quotation implies an Agreement. He hoped to creep out at a few right Citings, and to be over look'd all false Applying and Perverting by unnatural Consequences to his Crooked Purpose. Though had I said, as he sets me down, I should have no Cause to fear the Issue; since if Naming us may go for quoting, he has done it an Hundred times, where he has directed to no particular Way of knowing the Truth thereof, consequently a Forger; and where he has been more punctual, I dare abide by every such one he ever made, well knowing he cannot get one Letter to speak for him, but by his meer Sophistry and customary Wrests.

[Page 15]III. His Third Forgery in this 3d Dialogue is thus laid down by him. He begins with an Answer to the last Passage he quoted for mine.


Art thou well advised in what thou sayest? p. 1, 2.


Were we as thou representest us, the severest Plagues and Judgments of the Eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, Reas. against Rail. pag. 4.

The Stress lies here, Whether this Answer were ever given by me to the Question 'tis now made an Answer to? I say, No; Therefore a Forger. Next, let us see if it was ever given to a Question of the like Tendency? No; therefore the greater Forger. I will set down the two Passages unto which this hath been given twice for Answer, that my Reader may be helpt to a clearer Sight of the Man.

In this third Dialogue he queries of me:


Art thou well advis [...]d in what thou sayest, in say­ing, If my Quotations be [...]rue, thou doest freely acknow­ledge that a Quaker is quite anoth [...]r thing th [...]n a Christi­an, Dial. 3. p. 1.


Were we as thou representest us, the severest Plagues and Judgments of the eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, R. against R. p. 4.

Thus T. H. layes it down: But let us see how it is in my Book.

T. [...].

queries, Will you be so liberal of your Revilings, whether your Adversary give occasion or not? He answe­reth for us: Quak. It concerns u [...] to render them as ridi­culous as we can, and to make our Friends b [...]li [...]ve, They do [Page 16] nothing but contradict themselves, which is enough to us. Upon which Reader, I made this Reflection: Certainly these things shew such premeditated and willfull Obstinacy, to be Wicked, that w [...]re we what he represents us to be IN THIS VERY MATTER▪ the severest Plagues and Judgments of the eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, &c. p. 4. If any said IN THIS VERY MATTER, then not in every Matter T. Hicks pleaseth to wrest or twist it to: Oh gross Abuse! Shall this Man go for a Christian? But his Evil is greatly hight­ned, when we consider, that these Words were spoken of such a Passage, as to this Minute he never so much a [...] attempted to clear from the Imputation of Forgery, though so charged upon him, pag. 67. of my Answer; because there was no Quotation for it, nor in sense can be expected for so plain a Fiction: And yet he makes i [...] a formal Answer to [...] Question about right and wrong Quotations, which were not there in Question; as if it were one and the same thing, to say, the Plagues and Judgments of God we might expect, &c. if so morally Evil as h [...] brought us in spe [...]king our selves to be, for which he directed us to no particular Proof, neither could: And to say, We might justly expect the Plagues a [...]d Judgme [...]ts of God, &c. if he represented us right, as to Quotations about Doctrines out of our own Books, which was never th [...] Question. He that can thus invent, add, diminish, and transpose, both Words and Senten­ce [...], may write Dialogues at Pleasure, and as easily abuse the Prophets and Apostles, yea, Christ Jesus himself, as the People called Quakers.

IIII. His fourth Forgery he makes, and that I think [...]t [...]o re [...]k, is this▪

[Page 17]

But doest thou indeed believe, that those Quotations in the former Dialogues are Forgeries?


I do so, Dial. 3. p. 2.

This is all false: I never thought so, much less writ so; nor was that the Question, taking Quotations for places cited, as to Book and Page. And if general­ly accepted by him, he brings me in denying all, which was as much beside my Thoughts.

Thus he shuffles with me, and endeavours to delude simple People by the word Quotation (which taken strictly, does not reach the one half of those Answers he made us to give) by getting a few Passages acknowled­ged, which he has punctually made (though miserably perverted) to make them believe, all given under our Name, not so cited, are also allowed under the same Term [Quotations.]

Besides, he has not referred us for any such Answer in any Book I ever wrot. This, Reader, is so far from proving and evincing former Charges against us, that it is to multiply more Fictions, and add to his other Score.

V. His Fifth Forgery is in page 59. and consists of two Parts: The first is, The foisting in of the Word only, The second of mis-placing and applying my An­swer, that he may the better have his Ends upon me, which is but one of his many unruly reigning Sins. Ob­serve, because I told him, that E. B. in saying, ‘That was not a Command to him, which was a Command to another,’ respected not those universal and eternal Pre­cepts of fearing God, and working Righteousness (as T. H. untruly inferr'd) But more extraordinary and particular Injunctions; such as the Going of Moses to [Page 18] Pharaoh, with many more. And because I explain an other Passage out of E. B. by him cited and wrested, viz. ‘You are not dead with Christ, who are yet subject to Ordinances;’ after this manner, E. B. pleads ONLY against such Ordina [...]ces, as were but Shadowy, and to pass off; He puts the Adverb Only, by me mentioned, in what I said to this last Citation out of E. B. in my Explanation of the first Citation, where I never menti­oned it. And that he might fasten a Contradiction upon me, he omits this last Citation out of E. B. mentioned in his second Dialogue, and makes the Answer I gave to his Use of it, to belong to that which I gave to the for­mer about Commands, as if they had been but one en­tire Answer to one and the same Passage, which were re­ally two.

The Advantage he hoped to gain, was this, that I should say, E. B. intended by Commands, only ex­traordinary Ones, as Mos [...]s's going to Pharoah, &c. and yet say, That E. B. only meant such Ordinances as are Shadowy; if only such extraordinary, then not on­ly such Shadowy; if only such shadowy, then not only such extraordinary; as if they had been said of the same Passage, and on the same Occasion; whereas the first was in page 47. of E. B's Works, and the other in page 105. as T. Hicks himself quotes them, in his second Dialogue, p. 59, 61.

But that which yet adds Blackness to this Forgery, is first, that, at what time he foisted into my Explanation of the first Passage, he bas [...]ly left out these three Words [with many more] which were on Purpose to shew I did not stint E. B's Use of the Word Command, to the extraordin [...]ry Ca [...]es, instanced in my Answer. And next [Page 19] that, after all that premeditated Injustice, he flings these stinking Interrogatories at me, Dost thou consult thy Cre­dit in multiplying such Instances of thy Inadvertency and Folly? What Reason hath any Man to b [...]lieve thee, either in what thou affirmest or denyest, that dost so apparently contradict thy s [...]lf? This is not only to be bad, but bra­zen withall. To contradict a Man's self is reproveable; but to make Contradictions in another Man's Name, is detestable: To commit Injuries against any is ill done; but to brave the wronged with insolent Reflections must needs be a great Aggravation. What think the more so­ber among the Bap [...]sts of the [...]e Things?

VI. The Sixth Forgery I shall now mention is the Answer T. H. makes G. W. to give in his second Dialogue, pag. 1. The Question and Answer I will recite.


I have form [...]rly detected you of se [...]eral pernici­ou [...] Error [...], concerning the Scriptures, Light within, Person of Christ and Resurrection, &c. What say you thereunto?


I say, The Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee.

G. W.

denies that this was ever his Answer to that Question, Appendix, p. 13. Though he at the same time tells T. H. he no wayes doubts the Thing. T. H. that he may not lye under the Charge of Forg [...]ry, so fixt upon him by G. W. has by his Legerdemain, p. 69. trapt in Joh. Gladman, to cloak his Fiction, thus; Whereas G. W. denies that he said, The Plagues and Judgments of God would follow T. Hicks, th [...]se may certifie, that G. W. and my self being in D [...]scourse about the Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, he said, The Plagues [Page 20] and Judgments of God would follow T. Hicks, and all that had a Hand in that Dialogue, or that disperst it. J. Gladman, Dial. p. 85.

But the Meaness of the Shift aggravates the Forgery: Did G. W. ever deny that he had said so to J. G. or was that the Question? Vain Man! or tell us, Does J. Gladman certifie, that G. W. said so to T. H. at what time he controversially askt him that Question? Which is to come close to the Question: Or does he say, there ever was any such Question askt him? Clear 'tis, G. W. never deny'd that he had spoken those words, or to the same Effects, to any Body at any time, or upon any Occasion (Therefore hath J. G. also mani­festly wronged him in saying, whereas G. W. denies that he said, &c. this is an Untruth, as is evident by G. W's own Answer, Appendix p. 13.) and as evident it is, that the Substance of this Certificate goes no fur­ther then to testifie that which was never yet denied; Therefore no Certificate to clear the Matter objected a­gainst T.H. to wit, That he never received by Word or Writing any such Question from T. H. much less did he ever return him any such Answer; consequently T. H. a Forger still.

I will briefly parallel the Case: Let us suppose a Dis­pute between T. Hicks a Pr [...]destinarian, and J. Ives an Ʋniversalist, both Anabaptists, about El [...]ction and Reprobation; And J. Ives using his Wits to depaint T. H's Opinion to greatest Disadvantage; which T. H. looking upon as Unfair, and thinking himself not to have been doctrinally, gravely and justly dealt with, as by the Law of Sober Disputation should have been, falls upon J. Ives with this Rebuke, Thou art an Ʋn­g [...]dly; Vain and Ca [...]tious Man; the Judgments of God [Page 21] will overtake thee, if thou Repent not, for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel, and unfair Dealing with me J. Ives immediately writes a Dialogue; the first Que­stion suppose to be this.

J. Ives.

What dost thou say, T. H. to those gross and blasphemous Absurdities I charged thy Narrow and Ill-natured Opinion with; of damning men unconditio­nally from all Eternity to glorifie God, thereby rendring God more Cruel then M [...]n and Beasts, that naturally take care of their Off-sprin [...] representing him partial and double-minded, as having a reveal [...]d Will that speaks of his Desire that all should be saved, and a secret Will notwithstanding that damns far the great [...]st part, whe­ther they Obey or Rebel? with much more of the like cruel and black Aspect. I suppose, thou hast consider­ed them well; hast thou any Reasons to offer in Coun­tenance and Defence of this horrid Opinion? What sayest thou?

T. Hicks is made by J. Ives to answer thus:

T. H.

I say, thou art an Ʋngodly, Vain an [...] Cap­tious Man; The Judgments of God will overtake thee, if thou Repent not, for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel, and unfair Dealing with me.

Now, I would ask T. Hicks, if he thinks this Refle­ction, by him given upon the supposed disingenuous Carriage of J. Ives, to be a proper and suitable Answer for J. Iv [...]s to give in his Name to a doctrinal Que­stion, unto which, it was never given as an Answer? If not, how injuriously has he dealt with G. W? Are our Rebukes of T. Hicks's Unrighteous and Prophane Car­riage in his Dialogues, the only Reasons we are able to render in Defence of our Belief, or against his doctri­nal Objections? Or may a man honestly take another's [Page 22] Answer, and give it to his own Question, however im­pertinent, and that in the other man's Name, with de­sign to render him so? If not, then certainly T. H. has not acted the Christian, but the Counterfeit with us: And God will require this Wickedness at the Church's Hand to which he relates, if they indulge or connive at it.

VII. His Seventh Forgery, and the last which I will now stand to mention, is [...]is, and I intreat my Readers Attention; for He or I must needs be very Guilty.

In his second Dialogue pag. 5. he thus brings me in:


Be free and plain with me, how and in what re­spect is Christ said to fulfil the Law, and to DYE for Sinners.


He fulfil'd the Law Onely as our Pattern or Ex­ample. Christ is so far from telling us of [...]uch a Way of being Justified, as that he informs us the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love, was his Obedience: He is so far from telling us of being Justified by Virtue of his Obedience imputed, that unless we keep his Commands and obey for our selves; in all which Christ is but our Example, Pen. Sand. Found. shak. pag. 26.

To this, Reader, I return'd two Pages of Answer, in Defence of my Book, and to detect his Forgery, some of which he hath ventured to give, but with his wonted Disingenuity perverted: Let us hear him patiently.


But for as much as thou seemest to grant that Christs Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice, how will this a [...]ree with what thou hast formerly asserted? viz. That Christ fulfill'd the Law, Onely as our Pattern or Example, Dial 3. pag. 74.

Qu [...]k.

In this Quotation thou hast done exactly like [Page 23] thy self; for if thou canst find the word Onely there, or such an Answer to such a Question, thou hast not wron­ged me; But sure I am, there is no such Question, and as sure, the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on, and very certain, the word Onely was not there; Therefore thou art a Forg [...]r. That which I said, with the Scripture on which it was grounded, was this: If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my Love, &c. Reas. against Rail. pag. 78. Sand. Fou [...]d. p. 26.


H [...]re it is hard to say, whether thy Dishonesty or Impudenc [...] be the greater; for in this Answer thou are guilty of no l [...]ss then three notorious Ʋntru [...]hs: First thou insinuatest, as if the Text above named were the only Text from which thou didst argue in thy Sand. Found. pag. 26. 2dly, Thou art sure, the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there. 3dly, Thou art very certain, the word Only is not there: Thus hast thou aggravat [...]d thy Wickedness in adding Lye unto Lye, and all this knowingly, Dial. 3. p. 74, 75.

'Tis now Time for me to speak; and I beseech thee, Reader, hear me; for it is of great moment to deter­mine who is the Forger, who is the Lyar; T. H. or W. P.

First, he suggests by this Question, Is Christ's Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice, as thou sayest, how will this agree with thy former Assertion, That Christ fulfill'd the Law, only as our Pattern, as if the Death and Suf­f [...]rings of Christ, as a Propitiation to declare God's Righteousness for the Forgiveness of Sins that are past, upon Repentance, had been part of that Doctrine in that part of my Book, unto which those W [...]s relate, viz. Christ fu [...]fi [...]d the Law as our Pattern, [...]ich really was no part of that Doctrine, as may be seen pag. 24, 26.

For because we assert him to have been our Example [Page 24] in Fulfilling the Righteousness of the moral Law, T. H. would conclude from my words, That he was only our Example in ending Types, Shadows, Sacrifices, Pro­pitiations, &c. of the Law; Therefore great Forgery in him, to make me answer two Questions, the one in pag. 52. of his second Dialogue; the other in in pag. 74 of his last Dialogue, which take in the Death & Sufferings of Christ, that wholely related to but some part of the per­sonal Obedience of his Life.

I cannot forbear one Instance more of his foul Mis­carriage in this particular, viz.


Are we no further concern'd in the Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord Jesus without us, then only as our Example or Patttern?


What more wouldst thou have? I have told thee, that Christ fulfilled the Law; but Only as our Ex­ample.

Where there is nothing clearer then that he thrusts the Sufferings of Christ into the Question, which was no part of the Question, making me to deny the Benefit there­of, because I assert him to be only our Example in that which is our daily Duty unto Acceptance with God; not in being a Sacrifice for Sin. Is this not to be Guilty of Fiction? Or is this to describe a real Quaker, and act the part of a true Christian? Oh hateful Injuries!

But 2dly, In his Quotation of my Answer he hath omitted two Pass [...]ges; for when I said, If he can find such an Answer to such a Question he has not wronged me, I placed the [...]e words between, which he dropped, viz. or the M [...]ter strictly contained in that Question, which I knew he could never compass, because his Que­stion was, in what R [...]spect Christ dyed for Sinners; and the Answer he made me give, truly related to the ful­filling [Page 25] filling of the Righteousness of the Law in our selves. Oh Injurious Man! Is this the Christian?

His next Omission is this part of my Answer, which followed from my Argument (by him cited for Proof of his Charge) upon John 15.10. If you keep my Com­mandments, &c. Now ( [...]aid I) that this concern'd not the whole Law Christ came to fulfill; the whole Law he ful­fil'd, the plac [...] of Scripture quoted, the Nature and Mat­ [...]er of the Argument clearly prove. Again, He was our Example in Holiness, [...]hough not in his Ending of Types & Shadows, Reas. against Rail. pag. 79. Which Passages R [...]ader, plainly evidence, that if ever those words were spoken by me, they never extended to Christ's being but our Example in the Fulfilling of the whole Law, which T. Hicks by his Sophistry would insinuate.

For Answer to his Three notorious Ʋntruths he char­geth on me, take what follows. 1. He sayes I insinuate as if John 15.10. were the only Text from whence I ar­gued in my Sand. Found, pag. 26. which, Reader, is so far from Truth, that I only charg'd him with having argued from that Text in which no such word or matter was to be found, which he denies. 2dly, He says, That I am sure the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there; and that I know therein I have spoken falsly.

But sure I am he hath told two Tales in charging one upon me: For first, How could the Law, as he under­stands it, to wit, the Whole Law that Christ came to ful­fil, be intended, when the very Text & Argument upon it, shew, that it was the Keeping of Christ's Comman [...] ­ments, that they might abide in his Love, and without which they could not be accepted; that was insisted on.

2dly, He tells an Ʋntruth in charging me with th [...] Knowledge of that which was not: But as he declined [Page 26] [...]his Scripture, so the Arguments by which I proved the Impossibility of Christ's keeping his own Commande­ments in our stead, with which I made good my Con­clusion, viz. The Necessity of Keeping his Command­ments as he kept his Father's, in order to Acceptance with him.

3dly, He sayes, I am certain, the Word Only is not there, and so add Lye unto Lye knowingly; which, Rea­der, makes other Two Ʋntruths on my Adversary's part: For first, there is no such Word in all that Argu­ment and Paragraph out of which he made his Citation, as may appear Sand. Found. Shak. pag. 26. Argum. 5. Dial. 2. pag. 52. Reas. against Rail. pag. 79. 2dly, His saying, I should know of a thing that never was, makes up his other Falshood: But to the end he may acquaint all men with my Folly and Madness, as he is pleased to term his own horrible Fiction, he tells me, that he re­ferred in his Citation not to John 15.10. but Rom. 2.13. Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be justifi [...]d. But do men use to refer to Places they never cite, either as to Words, Chap­ter or Verse; for they are not mentioned in his former Dialogues: How then did he refer to them?

If he sayes, It was to my Argument, I make the same Demand. Do men refer to Argumen [...]s they never men­tion? If to those they do mention, then I can easily prove, it was not this Scripture or Argument upon it, that T. Hicks referred to▪ Reader, peruse Sand, Found. p. 26. Arg. 5. Dial 2. p. 52. Reas. against Rail. p. 78, 79. and thou shalt see his palpable Untruth.

But becau [...]e he builds here upon this Argument, l [...]t's bear it: ‘Unless we be Doers of the Law, which Chri [...]t came not to destroy, but as our Example, to fulfill, we [Page 27] can never be just before God: Let not any fancy, that Christ hath SO fulfill'd it for them, as to exclude their Obedience, from being requisite to their Acceptance, but Onely as their Pattern.’ Here Only is mentioned: But first, this was not the Place cited, but another that had it not, as before exprest; Therefore I no Lyar, but T. Hicks a Forger. 2dly, This Law mention'd Rom. 2.13. was the Moral & Eternal Law of God, & not that Sha­dowy Law containing Ceremonies, Sacrifices, Propitiato­ries, Meats, Drinks, and d [...]vers Washings, &c. which Christ by his Life, Death and Sufferings fulfill'd and en­ded, in which T. H. would make me say, That Christ was Onely our Example: That it was not the whole Jewish Law, the two next verses prove; For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do the Things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves, which shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts: Therefore not the whole Jewish Law, for that they had not; consequently, I do not contradict or make void the Benefit of Christ's Death and Suffer­ings, by saying, He was only our Example in keeping that Law which the best Jews and Gentiles were to keep and kept, and the Righteousness of which is to be ful­fill'd in us. Thus hath he unworthily added, diminished, mis-rendred, transposed, &c. from time to time. Certain­ly, the People call'd Anabaptists, are deeply co [...]cern'd to reckon with him for this great Scandal to their Pro­fession.

But suppose I meant the whole Law of God in that place, I see no worse Consequence from my words then this, That so far as man's Obedience to God's Law is requisite to his Acceptance, so far only Christ became our Example: For as he was not our Pattern in things [Page 28] that more peculiarly related to him to perform and finish; so was he no more then our Pattern in that which is our constant Duty to do. Now let T. H. snap and catch what he can, with all his Leg [...]rdemains, pag. 69. only take this along with him, That by his Reflection upon that Argument, viz. That Christ hath not SO fulfilled the Law for us, as to exclude our Obedience from being requisite to our Acceptance, he implies a Denyal of the N [...]cessity of Obeying the Law of God to Acceptance with God; A Doctrine suited to his Practice, contrived and continued to the Ease of Hypocrites▪ no wonder he struggles so hard for it; for without it no­thing but Horror would surround him, though at this rate he must not alwayes expect to escape the Blow (I mean not, assassinating of him) a Trick that lives nea­rer his Complexion then mine, but that Vengeance Which is the Recompence of every Soul that loveth and maketh a Lye.

With you▪ the People called Anabaptists, I leave this Section; Right us, Right your selves; Right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary, and your selves of so Scandalous an Advocate.

§ II. That T. Hicks has grosly Perverted our Writings.

TO Forge is bad, but to Pervert may in a Sen [...]e be worse; since it is to mis-use true words, and by Disguise twist them to a Sense never intended, when many times that which is false it undiscernably swal­lowed for the sake of something that's true.

This was another Charge I exhibited again [...]t T. Hicks, [Page 29] and an Argument by which I proved him no Christian. I frequently in my Book took Occasion to detect him of this Unworthy Practice and more especially by 26 instances under a distinct Head, containing ten page [...], our Principles in one Column, and his Perversions, in another; but he seems dumb to the Charge. Shall I enter him mute? that may alter, but not excuse the Pu­nishment (Ass [...]ssinating always excepted.) I shall, Rea­der, for thy sake and the Truth's, produce some of them, that those to whom this may come, may have some Account of his Carriage in his former Dia­logues.

I. From our Belief of the Light's Sufficiency to save, he infers, That all other Means are needless, Dial. 1. p. 36, 37. not considering it was not the Light's Insuf­ficiency, but man's Weakness, that occasion'd them. He might object Insufficiency as well against God, Christ, Spirit, Grace, &c.

II. From our making the Illumination in man to be a natural Emanation or Product of the divine Word which made all things, he wickedly turns it to An Ef­fect of God's Power, and so sayes, we would make Beasts and Trees, &c. also divine, Ibid. p. 4.

III. From our asserting that the Light of Christ shi­neth within the Hearts of Wicked as well as Good Men, He tells People (in our Name) that he is in the Heart of every Wicked Man, as he is in his Saints, Cont. p. 45, 46. Though through Rebellion they partake not of his Life, Power, &c.

[Page 30]IV. From our affirming, that God is the Teacher of his [...]eople, He infers, That we deny all Ministry and Visible Worship, though they stand in God's Power and Spirit, 1 Dial. p. 42, 43.

V. From our believing Christ to be in his People, according to express Scripture, and that as such he is crucified by Wicked Men, He infers, That we deny Christ to be as well without as within; or that he was ever crucified in the Flesh, 1 Dial. p. 44. Contin. pag. 37, 40, 42.

VI. From our denying of their rigid Satisfaction, that is, that Christ was punished by his Father for our Sin; and that Sins past, present and to come, are an­swered for: And that men may be Holy by Virtue thereof, though not new, but old Creatures, and so un­holy in themselves, He unworthily concludes, That We disown Christ's Death and Sufferings, as a Propitiation, that it carried away Sins past, and sealed Remission in his Blood to as many as believe: And that we expect to be both forgiven and accepted, not for Christ's sake, nor in his Sacrifice & Righteoussness, but our own Works, 1 Dial. p. 9, 10. Contin. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53.

VII. From our pleading for a Perfection from Sin, and the Duty of growing to the Fulness of the Measure, &c. He infers, Our Denyal of Perfection in Degrees, and our Belief of as high a Degree of Perfection in this World, as hereafter, Dial. 1 pag. 48, 49, 50, 51.

[Page 31]VIII. Because we say, that such Works as are wrought by the Holy Spirit in us, are necessary to E­ternal Life, and may in a sense be said to obtain it, since the Lord hath [...]o freely offered it upon the Condition of believing and [...]being, which are the Fruits of the Spirit of God in man; T. Hicks suggests in our Name, That we exp [...]ct to merit [...]ternal Life by our good Works, and those of our own Working, as the Spider weaves his Webb out of his own Bowels, Dial. pag. 38. Contin. pag. 51, 52.

IX. Because we say, All Spiritual Liberty stands in God's Power (that redeems from Sathan's Snares) He inferreth, That who are not of our Way, should have no Liberty, Cont. pag. 85.

X. Because we say, The Scriptures are not the great Gospel-Rule, but the Spirit; The Dispensation of the Spirit being that of the Gospel more peculiarly; and that without it we cannot understand, or savingly be­lieve any thing declared of in the Scripture, and there­fore that it is our Rule for believing the Scriptures them selves; He basely suggests, That the Quakers cast off al [...] Precepts in the Scriptures; and so will not bring their Cheats and Impostures to the Test thereof, counting them of no more Authority then Esop's Fables, Dial. 1. p. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. Contin. Epist. to the Reader. Behold your Anabaptist-Preacher!

XI. From our preaching men to a lost God and Christ, that is, to God and Christ whom they have lost Fellowship with, He perverts it to our believing, That [Page 32] God and Christ were in a lost or undone Condition, Cont. p. 49.

XII. From our asserting, that what was a Command to any Servant of God in old time, is not so to us, be­cause so to them, that is, such as Moses's going to Pha­roah, the Performance of Types, Shadows and Figur [...]s appointed for a Season, and to pass off, unless requir'd by the same Spirit anew, He falsly infers, That those Moral and Eternal Precepts, Thou shalt have no other God but me, Thou shalt not Murder, Commit Adultery, Steal, Bare False Witness, &c. are not binding upon us, but that we give our selves the Liberty of such horrid Principles, as the contrary to those Principl [...]s, and are therefore incosistent with Government, Contin. pag. 59, 60. Who would have expected this from a profest Baptist and Preacher too?

XIII. From our denying the Resurrection of the na­tural corruptible Body, leaving it with the Lord to give us a Body as pleaseth him, as 1 Cor. 15.36, 37, 38.

This Caviller endeavours to possess People with our Denyal of the Resurrection of any Body to Life eternal, however spiritual or glorified, Dial. 1. p. 56. to 62.

And lastly, from our asserting the Unity of God and the Soul, and Denyal of his carnal Resurrection; he concludes, That the Soul is Part of God, a [...]d that no fu­ture Rewards or Punishments are to be expected, Dial. 1. p. 16, 17.

These Reader, are some of the many Perversions this Ungodly Man is guilty of against our Principles. Is this [Page 33] to condemn the Quaker out of his own Mouth, and to evince his Objections against him to be real Truths? Is not Counterfeit a Name good enough for him that has thus counterfeited a Quaker an [...] a Christian too? Will this bring Honour to his Brethren? Or can it be consi­stent with their Credit, to encourage such base Attempts, when but a midling Heathen would have abhorred to have been the Actor of half that Injury T. H. hath not only committed, but continues in, and boasts of.

And that he has betaken himself to no better Refuge from the Pursuit of our Arguments, notwithstanding the Cautions of our former Book, I shall in a few In­stances make evidently appear to all that dare trust, and will but impartially use their Eyes?

1. From my saying, That those that crucified Christ were Admirers of the Scriptures, and pretended out of their own Law, that it was both lawful and necessary he should be put to Death: Whereas, had they brought that Deed to the Light, the Light would have shown it not to have been wrought in God; which the Scriptures without the Light could not effectually do: He makes no Cons [...]ience of inferring, That I intimate an Insuffi­ciency in the Scriptures to convince the Jews that Murder was a Sin, Dial. 3. p. 13. Whereas the Question was not, whether Murder was a Sin; but whether the Jews thought that Murder, by the Scripture: if they did, give us an Instance; if they did not, then I have the End of my Allusion, to wit, If the Scriptures are not there­fore insufficient in T. H's Account, because the Jews were not convinced by them of Murder; neither ought the Light within to be reputed insufficient, because Men were not convinced of their Unbelief in Christ by it. I will answer him in setting down his own Words to me: [Page 34] O Impious Man! sayes he: The Defect was not in the Scriptures, but in themselves, in not attending what was therein delivered, wherein Murder is peremptorily for­bidden. Right; But, O Impious Man! say I, the De­fect was not in the Light, but themselves, in not atten­ding to it, whereby Murder is also forbidden. How much more sufficient now, T. H. is the Scripture then the Light? Vain Shuffler!

But this is not all his Perversion; for he further infers in my Name, That the Scriptures did rather countenance and justifie, then condemn them in that Fact, Dial. 3. p. 13. Which, Reader, in plain Terms, is as much as to say, because the Scriptures do not so effectually discover evil Conceptions as the Light within; therefore the Scrip­tures rather countenance and justifie them: Monstrous Baseness! The Truth is, were his Endeavours against us but well weighed of all that see them, there were lit­tle need of our Labour in his Discovery, or our own Defence. But that which aggravates his Sin, is the hard Words he gives me after all; I know not why, un­less to cover his own Guilt, or make his credulous Rea­der think me as hateful as he would have me.

2. The second Perversion I shall instance, is this: Be­cause I told him (in Answer to his Objection about the Light's Insufficiency, for its not discovering to the Hea­then-Philosophers how Sin came into the World) If he meant by that Discovery, a clear and distinct Account and particular History, how Adam and Eve were begui­led by the Serpent, it was nowayes to his Purpose (un­less he can prove the Knowledge of it absolutely neces­sary to Salvation) He, according to his usual Baseness, makes me to say, The Penning of that History was to no Purpos [...], Dial. 3. p. 41. thus interrogating of me, Wilt thou [Page 35] dare to say, the Knowledge of this is to no Purpose? Why then did sacred Penmen give such full Account thereof? As if it were one and the same Thing for me to say, the Penning of that History is to No Purpose, and to say, It is not to T. Hicks's Purpose. Is this the Way to prove the Quaker no Christian? But since this full Account is made such a great Instance by T. H. for the Sufficiency of the Scripture, and Insufficiency of the Light, let him tell me, What Paradise Adam was put in; and where it was? What was that Serpent that tempted Eve; a fallen Spirit, or a Beast of the Field? And what was that Fruit and Tree God forbad, and the Serpent tempted the Woman to eat of? And what was the Voice Adam heard in the Garden? What were those Fig-Leaves he covered himself withall? And what was that Death that he dyed? And what were those Cherubims and the flaming Sword and the Tree of Lif [...], all mentioned in that History? If he takes the Account Literally, let him say so; but let him take this with him, that then Adam bodily dyed, before he begot his Sons and Daughters; and the Histo­ry gives us no Account of his corporal Resurrection: But if he take the Account in whole or in Part mystically, then how is it full, clear and distinct, not distinguishing Literal & Natural from Mystical and Spiritual Things? Is this the Way to prove the Insufficiency of the Light within, that sends all People to the Light within for a sufficient Account, which sayes Dr. Henry Moor of Cambridge, spoke in and reproved Adam for his Lapse from God, Philosoph. Cab. p. 27.

However it be, this lies at T H's Door, that because I said, his Instance of Moses's Writing was nothing to his Purpose, he makes me to conclude, They were writ [Page 36] to no Purpose. If he loved his Soul, he would hate these Courses, that need no Aggravation, their own In­famy is enough.

3. Again, from my acknowledging that the Scrip­ture furnisheth me with the Knowledge [...]f Christ's vi­sible Transactions; he infers thus, which is as if thou shouldst say, God manifeste [...] [...] lesh c [...]uld not have been known by thee, were it not revealed in the Scriptures, in­timating, thou couldst NEVER have known it, but by the meer Light in thee, Dial. 3. p. 44, 48.

Which intimates, that Thomas Hicks is an arrant Perverter of my Sen [...]e. Is there no Difference between saying, I was informed of a certain Passage by A. B. and saying, It was impossible I should have known it any other Way then by A. B. But why all this wre [...]ing? Is it to conclude, therefore the Light within is insufficient? which may as well be inferred against God, Christ and the Holy Spirit; for he makes me to exclude all other Wayes of Di [...]covery, the [...] what is made by Scripture. If an Account be wanting, the Light of Christ is as sufficient now, as it was in the Time of Moses and the Prophets, who wrot both of Things past and to come: But a Relation being with us, the Light of Christ doth n [...]thing unnecessarily. But 'tis like T. H. degenerates not from his Ancestors; he can cry, Come down and save thy self, &c.

4. From our asserting the Works of the Spirit in us necessary to our compleat Justification or Acceptance with God, he insinuates, Our making those Works the meritorious Cause of our Salvation, Dial. 3. p. 69. which is manifestly denyed and rejected by me, in my Answer, p. 72, 73, 82, 83, 86. whi [...]h he no more regards, then [Page 37] if it never were: The Trick of an unfair and shuffling Adversary.

5. From my asserting the Necessity of an inward Work of Righteousnes [...], by the Power of Christ in these Words of the Apostles to the Galatians, Let every Man prove his own Work, & then shall he have Rejoycing in himself, and not in another: He, to make his Ends up­on me, infers, That the Doctrine of Christ dying for Sin­ners, hath nothing in it, as the Ground of our Rejoycing: For our Rejoycing must be in our selves, not in another, Dial. 3. p. 69, 70.

That, Reader, which aggravates this wretched Con­sequence by him, charged upon me, is first, that he sayes, it is plainly deducible, which is so plain a Wrest: And next, that they are the Apostle's Words, and not mine, of which he makes so ill an Use.

Is this to make the Scripture his Rule, that is so un­ruly in his Abuse of them? I am sure, a lying and an abu­sive Spirit has been his Rule throughout his three Dialo­gues, which God rebuke.

6. The sixth Perversion is as follows: Being former­ly assaulted by T. Hicks, Cont. p. 50. for having said in a Book entituled, The Serious Apology, &c. p. 148. That Justification by a Righteousness wholy without us, is a Do­ctrine of Divels; I undertook my Defence, and perfor­med it in my Answer to his other Dialogues, from p. 68. to p. 98. I distinguished upon the Word Justification, first as it might be taken barely for the Remission of Si [...]s, or the acquitting Men of the Guilt and Punishment due to Sin, which was the free Love and Mercy of God up­on Repentance (d [...]clared in Christ's Death, as a Prop [...]ti­ation for the Sins of the whole World) and therefore not to be merited by the best Works we can perform, 2dly, [Page 38] As it imported a being made inwardly just by the bringing in of Christ's Everlasting Righteousness to the Soul. To leave out this latter, and make the former only suffici­ent (whereby Men are left in an unjust and unrighteous State) I affirmed to be a Doctrine of Devils. But not­withstanding this plain and scriptural Distinction to satis­fie T. Hicks (would he but be satisfied) what I meant by Justification; He is so unjust to me, as to infer in my Name, That I account the Doctrine of Christ's Death in the Nature of a Sacrifice, to declare the Righteousness of God, for the Remission of Sins that are past (because transacted without us) a Doctrine of Devils, Dial. 3. p. 72, 73, 74.

Canst thou, Reader, in earnest think, this Man makes Conscience of his Endeavours against us, who commits these frequent Abuses against our Books, Persons and Principles? As if because I acknowledged Christ's Death to be in the Nature of a Sacrifice, to declare God's Righteousness, in the Remission of Sins that are past, unto them that believe, &c. to be one Part of Justification; & that this Transaction was confessedly, without us, even while we were Sinners, &c. that therefore, I should call this the Doctrine of Devils, because without us, though the Word wholy be not there, upon which lay the Stress, and which was only said by me of a Justification, that wholy excludes Christ's Righteousness revealed within, to the making Man Just; unworthily applying that Re­flection to the begin [...]ing of Justification, that I have so expresly owned, which was made against a Doctrine no wayes concern'd in this true and Gospel-Justification. In short, If Justification by Christ's Righteous­ness without us, be the same, with being justified by Christ's Righteous­ness wholy without us; then T. H. is not so bad a man, [Page 39] as I have represented him: But if there be any Diffe­rence, as undeniably there is, a [...]d a material One too; then T. H's Inference and Con [...]lu [...]ion in my Name, make a foul Perversion.

7. The last Perve [...]sion I at this time think fit to menti­on, is his last, both in his Epistle and Book, to wit, from my saying, upon a sad Conside [...]ation of his many Mis­carriages towards us, That his Head sh [...]uld not go down into the Grave in P [...]ace; he thus interprets my Words: I must take them either as a Prediction, or as a Menace of some Mischief, he himself, or s [...]me influenced by him intend to perpetrate upon me: The former I fear not, the latter is most Probable; as if Reader, his not fearing a Prediction, implies my not meaning a Prediction. But why is the former not feared, & the latt [...] more probabl [...]? because he would render me a Murder [...]r, as his follow­ing Words sufficiently evidence. Wherefore, sayes he, I desire all to whom this Book may come, that if at any time they hear of any Violence offered me, or that I be ASSASSINATED, they would remember these Words of W. Penn. that my Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace, Epist. Book End. Now though this mi­serable Construction be ridiculous with wise Men, and rejected of several of his own Way, and so unlikely a Thing in it self, that I should proclaim that to be my Design that leads to t [...]e Gibbit, viz. Murder; yet I was unwilling to pass it by, since first, it rather renders him to be the M [...]n he suggests me to be: And secondly, It aggravates the Sin of his false Constru [...]tion; because to insinuate it the better, he has left out all these Words going before an [...] afte [...], that had they been mentione [...], wo [...]ld have detected his Malice, viz. Though thou hast best [...]w [...]d much Time to abuse our Friends in general, a [...]d [Page 40] my self in particular, a Stranger to thee, yet I can for­give thee: Oh, that these heavy Things might not be laid to thy Charge! God will visit for these Ʋnrighteous Dea­lings, if thou desist not. Now, Reader, if I forgive, how can I Assassinate? and if it be God's visiting Hand, how can it be mine, or any influenced by me? Again, these following Words were the next to those by him cited, viz. Yea the Light within will bear Witness to the Truth of these Things on thy DYING-BED, and then remem­ber me. How comes this T. H. to be omitted? Dy­ing-Beds do not use to be unnatural Deaths; Nor will the Light within bear VVitness for Murder: Was all this left out to evince, that the Fictions I charged upon thee, were real Truths & no Fictions; & that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian? because it is his Honour to be quite another Thing then such a Christian as thou art, that is, a very Counterfeit.

Reader, Does not thy Soul rise against these abomina­ble Practices? Falseness was ever hateful to Truth, and Baseness to an honest Mind, which T. H. being proved thus guilty of, I must conclude him quite another Thing then a Christian.

Thus have I finished my Observations on his Perver­sions, leaving them also with the People called Anabap­tists, upon whom I cannot chuse, but frequently call for Justice against this their unjust Member; concluding my Complaint in this Section, in honest John Husse's a­gainst the like Adversaries, on the same Occasion: ‘Some of these Propositions I did write and publish, other some mine Enemy did feign, now adding, then dimi­nishing and taking away, now falsly ascribing and im­puting the whole Proposition unto me.’

§ III. T. H. proved guilty of Lyes and Slanders.

REader, In my Answer to his former Dialogues, I charg'd him with Eighten Lyes and Slanders un­der a distinct Head, pag. 154, 155, 156. of which I find not that he hath taken any notice, saving two by way of further Affirmation, but no Proof. A few I shall mention to his utter Shame with all men loving Religion.

1st, That the Quakers owning of Christ Jesus, and the Christ they own, are a meer mystical Romance, Dial. p. 10. Cont. pag. 9. A prophane Untruth!

2. That the Light in the Quakers see [...] no Necessity of a Mediator, 1 Dial. p. 35. when, God knows, we feel the daily Benefit of him.

3. That the Quakers account the Blood of Christ no more then they do the Blood of a common Thief, Ibid. p. 38. An ungodly Aspersion.

4. That we deny his Visible Coming and Appearance in the World, Cont. p. 37. This he contradicts else-where.

5. That the Quakers dissemble when they tell People they own the Scriptures; and that they render them of no more Authority then Esop's Fables, Cont. Epist. Both a­bominable Untruths.

6. That a Quaker should say, The Thing that troubles t [...]ee is thy Puzling thy self in that Book the Bible, Thou wilt never be setled till thou throw that Book away, Cont. pag. 76. An arrant Slander.

7. That a Quaker should say to one J Nobbs; What d [...]est thou tell me of the Scriptures, They are no more to me t [...]en an OLD AIMANAK [whereas J. Nobbs, if he be [Page 42] alive, and have but a little more Honesty then T. H can't but confess that he was no Quaker; nor that there was one so call'd in that Country, when any thing like those words were spoken] As T. Holbrow, the Person charg'd by J. N. related it to me the last Summer, Dial.

8. That the Quakers appoint their Ministers to speak in such a Place, and at such a Time: And they go to Meetings only to DECOY, TRAPAN & INVIEGLE, Cont. pag. 66.

9. That a Woman-Quaker should bid her Husband take another Woman, Ibid. pag. 63.

10. That the Motions of God's Spirit are pretended by Quakers, at least one of them, to REFUSE just Debts, Cont. pag. 69.

What Man that makes Conscience of Lying, would have told so many gross Ʋntruths; and that cared for his own Reputation, would have pass'd over their Proof in such Silence?

Either he thinks it no Sin to render men Hereticks & Knaves at Pleasure; or that there is no Obligation upon him to maintain [...]is foul Imputations. But let see how much better he is grown since his second Dialogue.

1. The first Great Lye he tells in his New Book, is the very first Sentence that is writ in it, viz. The Qua­ker Condemned out of his own Mouth: For it is His foul Mouth that hath both Accused and Condemn'd him; as we have already prov'd, and shall yet have further oc­casion to do.

2. His second Ʋntruth is in the fourth Page of his Epistle, viz. That there was a Person esteem'd by the Quakers a Friend, of whom W. Penn gave this Chara­cter, That he might be trust [...]d with one's Life (not with­stand [...]ng W. Penn's Infallible Jud [...]ment) co [...]n [...]erfeited [Page 43] (like an Ʋngrateful and Ʋnworthy Wretch) W. Penn 's Hand, took up a considerable Sum of Money in his Name (pretending for his use) which W. Penn in a little time found (though to his Cost) to be a meer Cheat.

Reader, He hath put the Quaker in this man's Livery, that he might have the fairer Plea for abusing him. Ʋn­grateful and Ʋnworthy Wretch, are Words not so much flung at the Fact or the Man, as the Quaker: For, were it the Temper of Thomas Hicks to be grateful and worthy to them that obliege him, he would never be Injurious to them, that never hurt him. But, be that as it will, I have three things to say to T. Hicks: 1st, That this Man was never a Quaker, unless such as sometimes come to T. Hicks's Meeting are to be repu­ted Anabaptists, having never come under any of those external Significations, by which they are differ'd from other People; and I think I ought to be believ'd before T. H. that knew him, and perhaps he never saw him. 2dly, If he were an Ʋnworthy Wretch for counterfeiting my Hand in Money matters; how much more Ʋnwor­thy a Wretch is T. Hicks who hath counterfeited the Faith, Doctrine and Practice of a great Body of People to the rendering them Infamous with all men, were that Work as Really Believed, as it was Enviously Contrived. 3dly, But for all my Infallible Judgment, I was cheated, sayes T. H. How plentiful, Reader, are the Instances T. H. gives us, to detect him: For besides the Baseness of his Taunt, he inferreth from our Asserting an Infalli­bility in the Principle, our arrogating an Infallibility to all our Persons, as well in Civil as Religious Concerns, whether we obey it, or no. But to turn it back upon himself: Have no Anabaptists been cheated, notwithstanding they pretend the Scriptures to be their Infal­lible [Page 44] Rule? If they have, shall I make one of T. H's Conclusions? viz. That they are Infallible, because they have an Infallible Rule; Or that the Rule is Fall [...]ble, because they are Fallible themselves? Or in Case of being cheated, should we tauntingly say, Where is your Infall­ble Judgment, because you say, You have an infallible Rule?

3. I charge him with slandering our Friends, in say­ing, That when it hath been demonstrated [...]o them where­in (he thinks) I have erred, What dost thou tell us of W. Penn; He is an Heady, Rash Youngman, we take no notice what he saith— Yet acquaint them with the like Extravagancies in the Writings of the former, G. F. &c. They will either peremptorily deny them so written, or else tell us, We understand not their Meaning, Epist. pag. 5. This let him prove if he can.

4. That the Quakers excuse some of of their Villanies, by Pretences to the Innocent Life. This we esteem an abominable Falshood, 3 Dial. Epist.

5. The next Slander is, That the Quakers warn their Proselytes against reading their Adversaries Books, lest their Wickedness should be detected, p. 76. A very Falshood.

6. That W. Penn by the Sense of the Eternal Spirit doth declare, that Cursing, Railing and Lying were the only fit Answers to be given to the Priests trapanning Questions, pag. 10, 80, 81, 82. Oh Ungodly Slande­rer! The Lord rebuke thy foul Spirit

.7 That the Quakers have discovered themselves to be no other then the Spawn of that wicked Brood, the Ran­ters, having lick'd up their Vomit, pag. 80. What say the Baptists to this? It is known, none so opposed them.

8. The Quakers say, They witness Innocent and Sober Enquirers after their Faith and Religion to be Beasts, Sots, in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, pag. 85. which ma­nifest [Page 45] Slander I suppo [...]e, proceeds from certain Names, E [...]w. Burrough gave to a Priest that by subtil Queries endeavoured to trapan some of our Friends, as they of old, our Lord & Master, under the censure of Blasphemy, and as was attempted upon some about that very time: So that he was an Innoc [...]nt, and Sober Enquirer, by the same Figure that T. Hicks hath been an Innocent and So­ber Dialoguer, who first invents Lyes, and then kicks them up and down for our Principles and Practices.

9. Another notorious Falshood committed by T. H. against us, is in pag. 88. to wit, That some Overtures have of late been offered to the Quakers, in order to a pub­lick Meeting, to debate the chief Things in Diff [...]rence be­twixt them and others; which the Q [...]akers refused, under Pretence of being cau [...]ious not to run themselves volunta­rily into Jeopardies, and therefore think it their best Way to Rail at their Adv [...]rsaries. It is to be hoped T. H. by this time hath suff [...]ciently shewed and vented his False­hoods and Slanders by the Frequency of them; and that for the future they will less need our Animadversion. That this is one, and a Great One too, take what follows.

W. Hayworth, an Empty, but Hot-headed Preacher among the Professors at Hartford, often making a kind of Challenge to some of our Friends to meet with any of their Teachers; and being answered that they would not refuse him a Meeting, he proceeded thereon, and propo [...]ed Ware for the Place; against which the Scruple was made, and not about a Meeting, as T. H. falsly re­lates: This our Friends Answers to W. Hayworth prove. In Th. Prior's first Answer to W. H. it is said, I perc [...]ive they (the Quakers) are not intended to refuse thee a Meet­ing, at a convenient Time and Place agreed on by both Parties; and it is expected and intend [...]d, the Book au­thorized [Page 46] by thee, styl'd, The Quaker Converted, be th [...] Subject of the Dispute. And in the second Paper to W. Hayworth, it is proposed, That the Meeting be at Theobald's; and that after the said Book be fully discour­sed, if he had not Disputing enough, such other Questions as tend to Edification be propounded, and a further time taken to discourse them: But he would nowayes con [...]ent that his Book should be the Subject; saying in his Letter, That to undertake it would narrow the Debate.

Judge now Reader, who evaded the Meeting; and if T. Hicks hath not falsly accused the Quak [...]r with re­fusing it: yet doth he Rant, Revile & add Lye unto Lye in that very Page where he told this, that he might make the most of his fancied Advantage against us, to our Dis­grace, and his own Tryumph. But he shall fail in his Endeavours, and God will advocate our Cause among Men, against these foul and provoking Imputatio [...]s. One Slander more, and we end this Section.

10. That the Tendency of all the Quakers Reasoning about instituted Religion, is to DEBAUCH MANKIND, to teach them how to live in Rebellion against God. Their Religion is a meer Cheat, calculated only to the Service of the Devil and their own Lusts, and inconsistent with Go­vernment, Dial. 1. pag. 62. Dial. 3. p. 65.

Here is a great deal in a little; all at once: This shews what the Man would be at, and makes good what else­where he saith, That we are inconsistent with Govern­ment, Cont. pag. 69. The Consequence is plain; A New-England Antidote, to rid Old-England of the Epi­demical Disease of Quakerism: For it is a Maxim in Law, That whosoever is inconsistent with Government, deserves not the Protection of Government.

But that this Language should drop from the Pen of [Page 47] an Anabaptist to a Quaker, is justly surprizing; since a Multitude of his Profession stand charg'd on record with so many gross Immoralities, erroneous Doctrines, and rebel [...]ious Practices, as have rendred them and their Profession, the Suspicion of the Weak, the Abhorrence of the Multitude▪ and at best the Dislike of many good men: But though T. H. hath invented Crimes to blacken us, I shall not so much, as recriminate the People that go under t [...]at Name, having abundance more of Charity for them then the softest Passage in T. H's Dia­logue can afford us. I am well satisfied, that I have thus far honestly represented him in his Inventions, Perversi­ons, Slanders and Aggravations; so inconsistent with the Spirit, Language and Carriage of a true Christian; and therefore his Pretence of being such, renders him b [...]t the geater COUNTERFEIT.

§. IV. That T. Hicks, is guilty of Plain Contradictions.

IT is inconsistent with the Credit of any man that writes, to contradict himself: But for one who pretends himself a Christian, so to do, and that in Mat­ters of Religion, is shamefully to make void his own Pretences. That T. Hicks is the man, I produced sever­al in my Answer to his former Dialogues; But they were equally disregarded with the rest, not havi [...]g so much as attempted the reconciling of them.

I will briefly repeat some of them, and add more out of all three Dialogues.

I. Contradiction.

First, I, T. Hicks do acknow­ledge, [Page 48] that the Light within checketh for many Evils, and excites to many good things; and that I ought to shun those Evils, and do that Good, 1 Dial. p. 8. Yet in direct Contradiction he dares to tell us, That this Light in us directing to its best Actions, swelleth men but with proud Conceits; and that it doth deceive and mis-guide such as follow it, 1 Dial. p. 3, 37, 38.

2 Contr.

I, Thomas Hicks do and must bear Wit­ness against thy Erroneous Opinion, if true to the Light in me, Dial. p. 8. I am to do what the Light in my self directs me, and herein is my Comfort, p. 91. I grant i [...] ought to be obeyed, p. 7.— Yet in direct Contradi­ction, and to unsay this, he tells us, That the Light i [...] uncertain; in one man it teacheth one thing, and in ano­ther the directly contrary, so that, saith he, there can be no Certainty of Truth or Error, Sin or Duty by this, Dial. p. 42.

3 Contr.

Again, T. Hicks sayes, That it is no Disparagement to the Light within, to say, That God doth make any Thing more known of his Will, then is or can be known by it; For it is but to say, that EACH DEGREE of Light is serviceable to its End, 1 Dial. p. 36.— Yet in direct Contradiction to, and Undervalue of this, he sayes within two Pages after, The Improv [...] ­ment of the Light within subverts the Covenant of Grace, the only Way God hath revealed for Salvation; and that it directly Opposeth it self to the Ends of the Covenant, and ought to be rejected, p. 38.

My Animadversion contracted upon these Contra­dictions I will give: If this be to argue safely, prudent­ly and like a Disputant, I am greatly mistaken; sure I am, there is nothing of Truth or Christianity in such Confusion: For that a Man should be oblieged to obey a [Page 49] Light that doth mis-guide, or that T. Hicks should talk of acting according to the Light in him, making his Ap­peal to it in others; and yet say, that it may deceive, and oppose the very Ends of the Covenant of Grace, is with [...] the Top of all Impudence and Self-Contradiction.

All this, Reader, he pass'd with his usual Silence.

How concern'd he was to consider it, I shall leave with thee to judge, having hereby so manifestly forfei­ted his Reputation, both as a Christian and a Disputant. But I will not leave him here; I shall greaten his Score ere we part, and yet evidence, that he hath said little a­gainst us, wherein he hath not said a great deal in Con­tradiction to himself.

Contr. I.

I, T. Hicks, appeal to the Light in thee, Steph. Crisp, whether this be not an insufficient Proof; for I grant the Light ought to be obeyed; It cheks for E­vil, and excites to good things, Dial. 1. pag. 7, 8.

Yet in Contradiction to this, hear what he sayes:

I deny not a Light to be in every man; for the Ʋnder­standing and Conscience being Parts of the Reasonable Soul, these do remain still in the Worst of Men, though the RECTITUDE BE LOST, Dial. 1. pag. 32.


Is it not Madness in T. Hicks to appeal to a Light that hath lost its Rectitude (that is Reader, which through Depravity is become Darkness) for an Evidence about matters of the greatest concern in Religion? Can such a Light check for Evil, and excite to Good, that T. H. sayes, hath lost its Rectitude? And is it a Crooked and Depraved Light that he grants, is to be obeyed and followed? Is this man fit to reprove the Quak [...]rs for turning men to a sufficient Light, who himself [...]onfes­sedly follows a Crooked & Depraved Light? No Won­der [Page 50] if he cannot see the Truth and Streightness of our Light, who judgeth of it by a Light that hath lost its Rectitude: For, saith he, I do and must bear witness a­gainst thy Opinion of the Sufficiency of the Light in every man, if I be true to the Light in me, that hath lost its Rectitude, 1 Dial. pag. 8, 32.

Contr. II.

It will be our Wisdom, yea our Duty (al­so) to attend to the Light within, 1 Dial. pag. 13. as the Place imports.

Yet in direct Contradiction he sayes pag. 38.

What intollerable Pride and Arrogancy have you Qua­k [...]rs arrived to, and all this in following the Conduct of the Light within?

What sayest thou to this, Reader? Is this Man like to make the Quaker No Christian? Is it not a Shame for those call'd Anabaptists to suffer this man as well in his manifest Weakness, as great Dishonesty to manage the Controversie against us?

Contr: III.

That which any of you Quakers have said of the Light within, hath been no more then what the Apostle speaks of the Man of Sin. And what may as well prove Mahomet to be the True Christ, as the Light in you. Again, If thou sayest that the Light in every man is Christ, I charge it with Blasphemy, 1 Dial. pag. 3, 11, 12.

Yet in direct Contradiction T. H. saith:

How could you (Quakers) call the Light within Christ, if [...]ome Scriptures had not mentioned Christ in you, and that he is the the Light and Life of men, 1 Dialog. pag. 22.

Obs [...]rv.

D [...]e [...] Joh. 1.4, 9. chap. 14.20. 2 Cor. 4, 6. [Page 51] chap. 13.5. Gal. 1.16. which we are wont to offer as well prove the Man of Sin, & Mahomet, to be Christ as the Light which T. H. acknowledgeth to check for Evil, to ex [...]ite to Good things; and confesseth, as be­fore, That the Scriptures have given us to call the Light within Christ, and Christ the Life and Light of men? Wer't thou aware of these things, T. H. when thou wrotest them? Art thou fit to accuse me of Inadverten­cy, that committest it thy sel;f. I will not say that any of thy Friends, being charg'd with thy Follies, replied, What doest thou tell us of T. Hicks? He is a Heady, Rash Man, we take no notice what he saith: But that thou hast prov'd thy self Rash and Heady, and that they ought to take no further notice of thee then to check thee, thy wretched Management of the Controversy against us, sufficiently proveth: But let us proceed.

IV. Contr.

You Quakers, since you have reproba­ted the Scriptures from being your Rule, and given up your selves to the immediate Motions and Government of the Light within, have arrived to this Degree of Wickedness, to deny Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without you, 3 Dial. pag. 15, 16.

Yet in plain Contradiction he sayes, That every Man hath a Light within him, is not denyed; and that it ought to be obeyed is granted, Ibid. pag. 8.


The Consequence, Reader, which is this, That Men ought to obey that Light, the Government of which leads to deny Jesus Christ, &c. and to persist in a Reprobation of the Scriptures. Is this Doctrine like to Christian the Anabaptist, and Ʋnchristian the Qua­ker?

Contr. V.
[Page 52]

Verily, I much doubt, that you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that as concerning the Flesh he was put to Death at Jerusalem, 1 Dial. Pag. 43, 44.

Again, The Quaker denies That Christ was over Vi­sible to Wicked men; and consequently that Person, call'd in the Scripture by this Name, who conversed in the World and suffered Death openly and visibly at Jerusalem, to be the Christ; So that a Personal Coming in any respect is manifestly denyed by you, Contin. pag. 37, 45.

Yet to un-say and contradict all this, he sayes, I never charg'd you Quakers for denying that bodily Appearance, 3 Dial. p. 26. I no where accuse you for denying Christ's Bodily Appearance, Ibid. pag. 33. Ye have confessed to Chris [...]'s Bodily Appearance, Ibid. pg. 31. Which is to say,


The Quakers do own Christ's Visible Ap­pearance; The Quakers do not own Christ's Visible Ap­pearance: yet I doubt whether they own Christ's Vi­sible Appearance or no. Is this Man fit to write Contro­versie that is of three or four Minds in the writing it? T [...]e End of all this Confusion will be, not our Confuta­tion, but Vindication in the minds of all impartial Men.

VI. Contr.

His sixth Contradiction is this: That the Religion of the Quakers is a Cheat, calculated only to th [...] Service of the Devil & their own Lusts, 1 Dial. p. 62. yet confesseth to us, T [...] every man is inlightned, that this Light checks for Evil, and exciteth to Good; That it ought to be obeyed, Dial. 1. pag. 7, 8. Dial. 3. pag. 8. And that this is the Quakers first and grand Principle, Di [...]. [...] Pa [...]. 6.

[Page 53]

Now, Reader, how our Religion can be cal­culated to the Service of the Devil, and our own Lusts; & yet the first & grand Principle of that Religion be un­concern'd in that Hellish Service, is more then I can tell.

The plain English of his gross Contradiction is this: Th [...] the Light within, which checks for Evil, and excites to Good, and ought to be tended upon and obeyed, is the f [...]rst and grand Principle of that Religion, which is calculat [...]d to the Service of the Devil, and their Lusts that receive it. For which detestable Blasph [...]my, with more Reason may I use T. H's Exclamation, Blush O Heaven! and be asto­nisht O Earth! Was ever such a thing as this heard of be­fore? I must tell the People call'd Anabaptists, that the Attempts of T. Hicks will prove as great a Reproach to their Profession, and bring the Endeavours of our Adver­saries into as utter Abhorrence with all honest-minded People, as any Opposition ever made against us.

Contr. VII.

The seventh Contradiction, and the last I shall here mention, is very well worth the notice of my Reader; since it doth at once invalidate his whole Enterprise with Persons of Understanding: And that is this.

A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, wherein are faithfully represented some of the chief & most concer­ning Opinions of the Quakers, 1 Dial. Title page. Again,

A further Account of their perilous Errors, clearly and plainly represented, Contin. Title-page. Again,

The Things objected against the Quakers in the form [...]r Dialogues are fully clear'd & evinced, 3 Dial. Title-pag. Yet as a man infatuated with a Spirit of Contradiction, thus gives the Lye to his three Title-Pages, and in t [...]em to his Three Dialogues.

[Page 54] The Doctrines delivered (by the Quakers) are such, as neither themselves, nor any for them can give us a di­stinct and intelligible Account of: And that the Tendency of all their Writings and Declarings, doth but lead Peo­ple into the Thicket of Absurd, Inexplicable and Ʋnin­telligible Dotages, Contin. Epist. p. 3.


Now, Reader, if no man can understand them, how can T. Hicks represent and evince them? Are they inexplicable by every Body, and yet explica­ted by him? Be they unintelligible to all People, and yet not only pretended to be understood by him, but by him made intelligible to others? How can he with Honesty or Sense pretend to give an Account of our Doctrines to the World, who confesseth not only that he has not, but he cannot have from us or any other a distinct and intelligible Account of them? Has he not then shot his Bow at Random? Is this the way to evince and confute them? Never, certainly Reader, did any man, thought to be in his Wits, give greater Ground for People to believe him out of them: We have no Cause to fear what a Thousand such Adversaries can do against us, who thus manifestly help us against themselves, and fall by their own Weapons: Which leads me to conclude this part of this Discourse; and that I shall do in this Argument:

He that pretends to be a Christian, and yet commits Forgery, useth Perversion, tells Lyes, publisheth Slanders, and in his Endeavours contradicts himse [...]f, and that ma­terially, must be a Counterfeit, and no Christian: But such a Man we have evidently prov'd Thomas Hicks to be; Therefore, I think I may be held excusable in conclu­ding that Tho. Hicks is a Counterfeit, and no Christian.

THE REAL QUAKER JUSTIFIED, In a Desence of the Doctrines held by him, against the Mean Sophistry and Shuffling Opposition of Tho. Hicks the COUNTERFEIT.

§ I. Of the Light within.

THough it matters not much what so Ill a man sayes of any Religion, yet lest some should be so weak as to conclude from our Silence, our Doctrines indefensible; and that in having the last Word, he has the best Cause. I shall briefly con­sider his Opposition.


I do say, that the Quakers affirm the Light in every man to be God: And W. Penn ask [...], Who of us did ever say, that the Light within is the whole entire God? Reas. against Rail. p. 7. when I no where express those words, 3 Dial. p. 4.


Nor do I, T. H. in the manner delivered, nor to any such Charge, as thou now makest them to [Page 56] answer: What I said, with the Ground of it, was this: G. W. inferring from Joh. 1.4. That if the Life was of the Divine Being, the Light must be the same; (which was against T. H's calling it an Effect) for as is the Cause, the Effect must be *Which was only admitted with respect to its Illumination or Measure of its Appearance in man; It was never G. W's Principle or Words, t [...]a [...] the Life which is the Light of men, Joh. 14. is but in it se [...]f a me [...]r Effect, for he owns it in its o [...]n Being to be no other then God himse [...]f, and values not the Counterfeit's Quarrel. thou madest this un­reasonable Conclusion, th [...]t not only the Light within, but every Creature, as Beasts and Trees are good, because the Eff [...]cts of God's Power and Wisdom. I then charged thee with insinua­ting, that every Measure of Light in man is whole God: So that thy not expres­sing those words will not acquit thee from not insinua­ting them; since thou dost insinuate upon what G. W. said, not only every measure of Light, but every Tree and every Beast, because an Effect of his Power, to be God.


Thou say [...]st the Light within is not a potential, but a natural Effect, which thou illustratest thus; Men are the natural Off spring and Product of men &c. Though this be true, yet a Son is a distinct Person from his Father: Is the Light within such an Effect? Is it another God? ibid. p. 5.


I will answer thee in the Language of thy own Creed: The Son of God is the natural Off-spring of God, is he therefore another God? The holy Ghost pro­ceeds from the Father and the Son, is he therefore another God? Her [...] is Off spring and Production; what sayst thou T. H. to this?


If the Light within be a natural Effect, then [Page 57] it is a necessary Effe [...]t, and that from Eternity: But were Men from Eternity, in whom God had thus naturally shi­ned? if not, how is the Light within a natural Effect? It is in vain to pretend to Infallibility, whilst thou talkest thus idly, Ibid.


Both thy silly Sophistry and Reflection are too weak for the Business. If the Light within had taken its Beginning with Men, as thou asserts, Dial. 1. p. 32. It were a good Consequence, That the Light were not Eternal, and therefore not God; or if the Light had ne­cessarily been within from Eternity, that Men were from Eternity: But that Men were from Eternity, because the Light which shines in Men was from Eternity, is to say, the Word, as manifested in the Flesh, was from Eter­nity, because the Word was from Eternity, or that Im­manuel, God with men, was not from Eternity, because he was not with Men, nor Men with him from Eternity. In short, thy Sophistry playes upon the Word within; we speak of the Eternity of the Light's Nature, and thou turnest it to an Eternity of Manifestation; as if because we say the Light within is Eternal, that therefore it must needs have been Eternally within. This is not to act the Christian, but play the Jew against the Son of God. For the Term Effect, it is variously spoken and taken among Men: The Light of the Sun is called an Effect of the Sun and yet the Light of the Sun, is not another Sun. Howbeit, the Scripture holds forth the the Life of the Word to be the Light of Men; Conse­quently, The Life and Light are one.


Though thou wilt not affirm every Measure of the Light within to be the Eternal Being; yet thou wilt not deny, but that it is God. This clears me from Forgery.


Thy saying so, makes thee but the more guilty, [Page 58] because the Passage thou pretendest to answer, has no such Charge in it; besides, thou hast perverted my words as thy self hast given them, viz. ‘Though every Mea­sure of Light distinctly is not that entire Eternal Being, yet we are bold to assert, that it is no other then God, the Fulness of all Light, who searcheth the Heart, &c. that doth shine into the inward Parts of Man, and doth convince, reprove, &c.’ These latter Words were omitted by thee, on Purpose to make the Word God, relate to the Measure of Light, which is joy­ned by me to the Fulness. But this is frequent with thee; proceed.


Either the Light within, in the least Measure, is God, a Creature, or nothing: Thou wilt not say it is the entire God; thou darest not say it is a Creature; it must then be nothing; Might not thy Time and Abilities have been better improved, then in contending for that, which is neither God nor a Creature.


This Reflection as well reaches thee for conten­ding against nothing, as me in contending for nothing: But (Argumentum ad hominem) consider this; either the Spirit in the least Measure of it is God, a Creature or [...]othing: I suppose T. H. will not say, that in the least Measure it is the entire God; T. H. dares not say it is a Creature; shall W. P. then say in T. Hick's Name, it must be nothing? Thus through Inadvertency, do Men intangle themselves in their own Net; we speak of a Measure of the Light and Spirit of God in Man, T. H. presently prophanely takes God into Parts and Pieces, as pag. 4, 5, 6. and then charges it upon us, as the Con­sequence of our Doctrine: Are not Measures and De­grees Scripture-Terms? Does it strike at God's Immen­sity, because he measures forth himself, in his inward [Page 59] Discoveries, according to Man's Capacity; It is called Measure, with Respect to Man, and not that God is di­visible.

But the Truth is T. H. Thou hast made it thy Business not soberly to argue, but vainly to quibble, manifestly aiming to take frothy Minds: A small Share of such So­phistry might easily obscure the clearest Truths, and seem to lead in Triumph the strongest Arguments given in its Defence; but the best of it is, such Attempts are short-liv'd and, so are thine? not, I promise thee, that I intend to have thee assassinated. But let us hear what further thou hast to say upon this Passage.


For the other Part of thy Discourse, viz. That God searcheth the Heart, who denies it? But what is this to the main Point? Because God searcheth the Heart; is therefore the Common Light in every Man God? [...]ure­ly, no Man, except under the Power of Delusion would thus reason, p. 6.


The Word Common is neither ours, nor the Scrip­tures, yet if that be the main point, it will not be hard to prove, provided, by Common, thou meanest that which shines in all Men; for if God be the Searcher of all men's Hearts, & he that shows unto man his Thought [...] (as we must believe, till T. H. can groundedly assign us some other more common Searcher of the Heart, &c. then God) and if God doth this, as he is Light, who is Light, 1 Joh. 1.5. & Ephes. 5.13. Then this Light which T. H. calls Common, and which we from Scrip­ture say, enlightens all Men, is God, as Joh. 1.4. In him was Life, and that Life was the Light of Men. And here is thy main Poi [...]t concluded against thee. I shall add, Reader, to this, another Instance of his evasive Carri [...]ge, [Page 60] which, I entreat thee to take particular notice of, that thou mayest see at what rate he shuffles with us.

In his first Dialogue, pag. 7. he quotes Stephen Crisp thus, If the Light be obeyed, then it must be sufficient; and answers, I grant it ought to be obeyed, so ought the lawful Commands of Masters, &c. Yet who will thence infer, that they are a sufficient Rule to Salvation?

To this I replyed, as he quotes me, Dial. 3. p. 8. By the same Reason, that such as obey the lawful Com­mands of Masters, are reputed good Servants, those who obey the Light, are good Servants to God: And if those who so keep the Commandments of Masters, obtain their Favour and Recompence; then those who obey the Light, by T. H's Allusion, obtain God's Favour and Reward of Righteousness; unto which he makes this Return:


This concludes not the Question in Controversie, therefore it can be no Prejudice to me.


No, T. Hicks? Is it nothing to the Purpose, that those who obey the Light, are saved from the Wrath, and receive the Favour and Reward of God; as Servants which obey their Masters Commands, are saved from the Wrath, and receive the Favour and Recompence of their Masters? Let the Reader judge how much this concerns the Question.


I confess, the Light within ought to be obey'd, and so ought the lawful Commands of Masters, from whence thou boldly, like thy self, concludes to the Sufficiency of the meer Light within: S [...]ch Extravagancies as th [...]se, do ordinarily attend thy peculiar Genius, Dial 3. p. 9.


Soft a little! If the Light ought to be obeyed, it is a su [...]icient Rule for that Ob [...]dience: To keep to thy [Page 61] [...]wn Parallel of a Master and a Servant: How can a Servant be condemned of his Master for not answering his Command, whilst the Master's Command is not a sufficient Rule for the Servant's Obedience. The Com­mand implies a sufficient Rule to the Performance of the thing commanded.


'Ti [...] true, that God approves of Servants that do sincer [...]ly obey the Commands of their Superiors; will it ther [...]fore follow, that their Commands are sufficient to g [...]ide us to Salvation, p. 9.


What a wretched Shuffle is this? Was it ever the Question, Whether the Commands of Masters were suf­ficien [...] to guide us to Salvation? Or are the Commands of the Light about the Things of God, no more sufficient to Salvation, then the Commands of Masters (be they a­bout what they will) are sufficient to Salvation? Is not this a taking away the Comparison, by putting the Subject of it in the Room of that for which it was brought? making Salvation to be as natural a Co [...]se­quence of following the Commands of Masters, as of following the Requirings of the Light. But we are not so to be shifted off; for by the same Reason, that the civil Commands of a Master, obeyed, are sufficient to the ob­taining of a civil Salvation from Man's Wrath; The spiri­tual Commands of the Light obeyed, are sufficient to the ob­taining of a spiritual Salvation, that is, a being sav'd from the Wrath to come, which is and shall be further revea­led against all the Workers of Iniquity. Let me use thy own words, T. H. falsly reflected upon me in this very matter; Where Proof is defective, thou beggest the Que­stion (nay, I may say, changest it) and triumphest in thy o [...]n Confidenc [...], which a modest Man would not do: A­way [Page 62] with these poor Shuffles for shame! Is this to evince the Matters objected to be real Truths?

But what sayest thou to my Argument p. 15. groun­ded on Jo. 1.4? ‘If God be Divine and sufficient to Salvation, and the Word be God, and the Life of the Word, one with the Word, and that Life the Light of men; then the Light of men is Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.’


Oh, what profound Divinity and exquisite Logick is this! I perceive thy Mind abounds with Ignorance, from the Arguments that spring thence. Thou hudlest the Principal Agent and Ordinary Means together, p. 18.


A rare Excuse for thine— or something worse. Ought they not to be together in an Argument design'd to prove them one? Ordinary Means are thy own words, and not mine. A meer Shift for an Answer. But to go on.


How can God himself be called a Means? p. 18.


After the same manner that his Power saveth us, and his Spirit sanctifieth us, and that he becomes the Tea­cher of his People; such a Means, if thou wilt call it so, my Argument was offered to prove the Light to be. Is this to act either the Divine or Logician after all thy con­ceited high Rants, thus pittifully to beg the Question? But what follows?


Thy Argument is fallaciou [...], because that which is spoken in the first should exactly be the Subject of the second Proposition, p. 18.


And so it is. See Reas. against Rail. p, 14.


If the Proposi [...]on were right, yet thy Conclusion doth not reach the plain Terms of the Question, viz. Therefore the common Light in every man is God, and sufficient to Salvation.

[Page 63]

Though I told thee before, that the word com­mon is none of ours, yet I am not offended with it: For the Love of God is never the worse for being com­mon, whatever thy Reprobation-Faith thinks of it. But art thou willing in earnest this should be the Que­stion between us? For I perceive, when thou art put to a Pinch, it is frequent with thee to turn me off with such Expressions as these, Prove this to be the Common Light within; What is thi [...] to the Common Light with­in men? Meer Evasions; and most times attended with hard words to cover them, as in pag. 9, 14, 15, 17, 39, 42, 43, 52, 53, &c.


This is the Controversie between us, whether the Common Light in every man be God, Christ, and suffi­cient to lead to Salvation, p. 8. If thou couldst demon­strate this, it would put an Issue to a great part of the Controversie between us, Ibid. p. 17.


Very well; Thou hast granted, that in the Word was Life, and that Life the Light of men, as Joh. 1.4. on which I grounded my Argument; and that the Life and Light there mentioned, are one with the Word (or of its own Being) consequently God, and sufficient to Salvation. But that such a Conclusion reacheth not the Terms of the Question, to wit, the Common Light in Men; which thou denyest to be one with the Life of the Word, and therefore Insufficient to Salvation. Upon this I thus argue; for the bringing of the Contro­versie to an Issue.

If the Light of men, John 1.4. be the Light of All men, then is it a Light common to all men. Thou must deny one of these two, either that Light of Men is the Light of all Men; or, that the Light of All men is common to all men; The latter I should think in [Page 64] Point of Reputation thou wilt not be so unreasonable as to deny: The former then I must suppose thee to reject, viz. That the Light of men, is the Light of all men. This I shall maintain by the general Phrase of Scripture, Eccles. 1.13.—This sore Travail hath God given to the Sons OF MEN, chap. 2.3, 8. the same chap. 3.10. I have seen the Travail God hath given [...]o the Sons OF MEN, vers. 18, 19. That which befall [...]th the Sons OF MEN befalleth Beasts; as the one dyeth so [...]y [...]th the other, Jer. 32.19. Thine Eyes are upon all the Wayes of the Sons OF MEN, to give every one accor­ding to his Wayes. Which prove, that OF MEN is mea [...]t OF ALL MEN. I will add two Places more out of Prov. 8.4. Ʋnto you, O Men! I (Wisdom) call, and my Voyce is to the Sons OF MEN. And ver. 31. My Delight is with the Sons OF MEN. This proves Matter and Phrase: For both Of Men, signifieth of all Men; and this Voice cometh from him, in whom are hid all t [...]e Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, even the Eter­nal Word, in whom is Life, and that Lif [...] the Light of Men. From all which I conclude, that the Light of men, is the Light of all Men, yea, Every Man that cometh into the World, Joh. 1.9. And that the Light of all men, is a Light Common to all men; and that the Light that is com­mon to all men, is a Common Light. Now T. H. thou hadst done something, if thou hadst given us as plain Reason and Scripture for thy Two Lights within, Common and Special; and made good that Distinction between Light and Light, in Job. 24.13. John 1.4, 9. chap. 3.20, 21. Ephes. 5.13. 1 John 1.5, 7. chap. 2.8, 9, 10. and have told us, if thou couldst, Where the common Light endeth, and the sp [...]cial Light begins: And if the Special reprove for Ev [...]l as well as the Common (which tho [...] sayest, reveals [Page 65] much, and ought to be attended to) thou shouldst have let us know how the Discoveries, Motions, Reproofs & Commands of [...]he one might be discern'd and distingui­shed from the other: For we own but one real Spiritual-Light to the Sons of men, though divers Manifestations and Operations of that one Light, suited to the Capaci­ties of all Persons and Ages; and not to shuffle me off with asking me, How canst thou infer with such presum­tuous Confidence, wilt thou dare stand by this Consequence? after thou T. H. hast made it as Ugly as thy Malice and Dishonesty could well contrive. Mean Artifices to bear thy weak Reader in hand; thou hast hit the Mark, when thou hast all along shot quite beside it; Practices, un­worthy of any fair Disputant, much more a Man of thy Pretences to Religion. Hadst thou truly regarded that Light of which thou hast writ so many slight things, we should not have seen that Envy, Passion, base Shuf­fling, Insolence, &c. that thy Writings now abound withall. Therefore under all thy higher Conceits thou standest condemn'd of the Light: Be exh [...]ted first to obey it, before thou undertakest to write of thi [...]gs tho [...] vainly thinkst beyond it.

Testimonies concerning the Light Within.

Munsterius, Castalio, Ʋatablus, Drusius, Clarius, Co­ [...]ureus, upon Job 24.13. & chap. 25.3. They are of those who Rebel against the Light. Ʋpon whom doth not his Light arise? say, that this Light is of the Di­vine Wisdom and Fountain of Light, alluding to the Psalmist, [...]; and Mat. 4.19. The Peo­ple that sa [...]e in Darkness saw great Light. Also see [...]ese Men, Erasmus and Camero upon John 1.4, 9.

I shall for a further Defence of the Light, produce [Page 66] some Testimonies from several Gentiles some Hundreds of Years before Christ.

Orpheus, His Hand reaches to the End of the Sea, his Right Hand is every where ( [...]hen within) of him alone are all things, Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 5.

Thales thus, There is but one God; he is Glorious forever; he knows Hearts and tells Thoughts. He makes the Teller of his Thoughts God, as in Amos 4.13.

Pythagoras thus, God resembleth LIGHT and TRUTH; he is one; he is not OUT of the World; he is the SALT of all Ages, ONE HEAVENLY LIGHT, and Father of all things, only Wise, Invisible, yet Intelligible. The very Language of the Apostle, Jambl. Just. Mart.

Heraclitus thus, God is not made with Hands.

Pythagoras, What things are agreeable to God cannot be known, unless a man HEAR God himself.

Again, Having overcome thy Rebellious Appetite, thou shalt know the COHABITATION of the Immor­tal God and Mortal Men; whose Work is Immortality, Eternal Life, Tim. de Anim. Mund.

Sophocles, speaking of the Precept [...] written in man's Heart, saith, God is their Father, not Mortal Nature. Neither shall they ever be abrogated; for there is in them a great God that never waxeth old. Again, saith he, This is with respect to man's Conscience, a Divine, a Sa­cred Good, God the Overseer. Oedip. Tyr. Cl. Alex. Str. l. 5.

Socrates had the Guide of his Life within him, and preach'd as he was moved by it, even in [...]he Streets; And dyed for Reproving the Corruptions of the Athe­ [...]ians in Manners and Religion.

Plo [...]in taught, That man had a Divine Principle in [...], which maketh a True and Good Man.

[Page 67] Hi [...]ron called it, A Domestick God.

They held Victory over their Sins by the Power of it; witness Chilon, Socrates, Plato, Zeno, Antipater and others; which Doctrine of Perfection, thou T. H. with all thy pretended super- [...]d [...]d Light, can't tell how to swallow. As they prest Perfect Living, so they clearly laid down Eternal Rewards, the Pure to God [...] the Impure to Chains, said Pythago [...]as, as if he had read that Scripture writ Six Hundred Years after him, The Pure in Heart shall see God.

The Good, sa [...]d Socrates, shall be united to God in an inacc [...]ssible Place; the Wicked in conveni [...]nt Places suffer due Punishment.

And though they might not have the Jewish History and Chronicle, yet they had a sufficient Law and Light within to Salvation; and such as trusted in it, came to Salvation by it: and so much the Apostle sayes, Rom. 2.

And for the Fathers, that they confirm the Testimo­nies of the Gentiles, and speak not of another Eternal Law and Light; briefly thus.

Justin Martyr in his Apology saith, God has built to himself a natural Templ [...] in the Conscienc [...]s of men, as the place wherein he would be worshipped, and there men ought to look for his Appearance.

Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. It is the Voice of Truth that Light will shine out of Darkness. Theref [...]re does it shine in the hidden part of Mankind.

Strom. l. 5. Man cannot be void of Divine Know­ledge, who naturally, or as he comes into the World, par [...]akes of Divine Inspiration.

Lactant. de Cult. ver The Law of God is made known unto us, whose Light clearly discovers the Path [Page 68] of Wisdom. That Law is pure and unspotted Reason, diffused through all the World.

A [...]hanas. contr. Gent. The Way to attain to the Know­ledge of God, is Within us; which is proved from Moses, who saith, The Word of God is within thy Heart; and from this saying of Christ, The Faith and Kingdom of God is within you.

§. II. Concerning the Soul of Man.


I affirm that G. Fox sayes, the Soul of Man is Part of God's being without Begin­ning, and infinite, which is to say, The Soul is God, Dial. 3. pag. 19.


I have two things to say: First, That in case G. F. so holds, thou hast done unworthily to con­clude generally against the Quakers: In thy former Di­alogues thou chargedst it upon the Quakers; and now thou layest it directly upon G. F. Are such Shiftings & Runnings from Generals to Particulars allowable in Dis­putation? Is this equal Dealing? But 2dly, I deny that G. F. so holds: what sayest thou to that?


G. Fox in his Great Mystery, p. 90. in Answer to one that said, There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul; yet it cannot be Infiniteness in it self, speaks thus: Is not the Soul without Beginning, coming from God, returning into God again? Hath this Beginning or Ending? and is not this Infinite in it self? Can anything be clearer then that G. F. mak [...]s the Soul the Subject, and not the Di­vine Life? Ibid. pag. 20, 21.


Yes, that there may: For it is clear enough that [Page 69] G. F. intends by the Soul and Breath coming out from God, the Divine Breath, or Soul of the Soul, as Augustine calls it; and as Mach, Neshemah, Pneunia, Anemos and Spiritus signifie. 'Twas this made Adam a living Soul to God [Thou dealest unfairly with G. F. and us in making his Questions about this, both his and our Affirmation. That the Soul (or Spirit) of Man is God. A manifest False­hood and Abuse.] And was not the Death threathned Adam upon Disobedience, the Loss of this? They that read G. F's Books with a more impartial mind then thou doest, may see that sometimes he speaketh of the Soul, as of the Man, pag. 91. where he sayes, That such as re­ceive the Light, receive Redemption, wh [...]r by their Spirits, Bodies & Souls are sanctified; and sometimes he speaks of the Soul, as respecting that Breath of Life, by which it became a living Soul to God, which is Man in the Heavenly Image. He that reads page 90, 91, 100. may discern the Truth of this But why art thou not angry with the PRIEST, for talking of a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul? 'Tis at the Quaker and not the Principle, thy Gall is stirr'd: For a kind of Infiniteness [...]ust be Infi­niteness, and not a Finiteness. Did G. F's words at most rise higher? What further doest thou object?


But G. F. saith pag. 100. God breathed into man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul; and is not this which cometh out from God, part of God? which Soul Christ is the Bishop of. Can Fox here in­tend, that Christ is the Bishop of the Divine Life, &c.? Yet is he as absurd in calling Christ the Bishop of the Soul: For if the Soul be part of God's Be [...]ng, and Christ be God, th [...]n one part of God must be B [...]sh [...]p over another, Ibid, p. 21, 22.


Suppose this Cavil had any t [...]ing in it, and that [Page 70] thou hadst herein faithfully represented our Belief, might not I retort upon thy own Creed, that God is the Father of God: And when Christ prayed, God prayed to God; since the One Nature could not pray without the other, and the Spirit makes Intercession, that is, God intercedes with God: What thinkst thou of this T. Hicks? Besides I told thee then, that God inspired man with something of his own Substance in the Name of R. Nahmanni, Hiskuni, and P. Fagius, That God contributed some­thing to him, and bestowed something of his own Divi­nity upon him, and that thou didst manifest thy self an ungodly Person, for inferring that what is vulgarly call'd the Soul of Man, to wit, the meer Creature, is part of God's own Substance, because we asserted, that the Life, Breath or Soul, as it may very well be term'd, which God breathed into man, was of his own Being and Substance: what sayest thou to his?


If G. F. be understood to speak with Reverence to the Soul, then my Inference is natural & proper, viz. That the Soul is of God's Substance, and part of God's Being, p. 22.


Are all thy Brags come to this? Take Soul as be­fore expressed, and it is granted without any Dammage to our Doctrine: For the Scriptures that testifie, God communicated of his own Breath or Life unto Man, whereby he became a living Soul, do not confound man and that Divine Life; no more doth G. F. he never affir­med Man to be God, his own words distinguish them, viz. God breathed into man, &c. and consequently, that Man is not that Breath of God which he inspired Man with. Again, G. F. in many of his Writings, speaks of the Fallen and Degenerated State of Men, the great Pol­lution and Wi [...]kedn [...]ss th [...]y lie and live in; and that h [...]avy Wrath and Vengeance which will follow: all which con­cerns [Page 71] Man, and not that Divine Life God hath breath [...]d into Man; It was not That, but Adam which was be­guiled: Had Adam liv'd in That Life, he had been preserved. But suppose what I said granted the Question, as it did not, Many Great and Learned Men have run in the same Line, and they escaped the Cryes of Blasphemy, Absurdity, and the rest of thy Exclamatory Termes from Millions: What makest thou keep such a Barking at us? Is it that thou ha [...]t more Authority, or less Candor?

Before I conclude this Section, I would put thee in mind of a double Injustice thou hast committed: The one was in making this false & Prophane Consequence, That God sets up a Light in himself, which he himself is to obey, and in so doing God shall be saved, to follow from G. F's words forecited. The second is in thy giving this sharp Rebuke for this Passage, as an Answer in thy Dialogue, without so much as inserting one word of it, that thou mightst cover thy own Unrighteousness, and render me severe. These Tricks, T. H. will never compass thy End, but greatly contribute to fru [...]rate it.

§. III. Concerning the Redemption of the Seed.


FOrasmuch as Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, I did que­ry, who or what was that which was lost? Ibid. p. 34.


I know thou didst; and that thou madest G. Keith answer, That which is lost is still in man, that Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached People to this, A lost God, a lost Christ, &c. [Page 72] Upon which thou madest this Exclamation, Blush Oh Heavens, and be Astonished O Earth, &c.! Did J [...]sus Christ come to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christs was ever God and Christ in a LOST CONDITION? I told thee then, and do still, that the Heavens and the Earth might blush at thy base Dealings with G. K. I also told thee, as thou hast cited me, that he intended no other then that Christ came to seek and to save, by turning People to enquire after a lost God and a lost Christ.

What sayst thou to this?


If by Lost we must not understand man's lost Con­dition; what less can be understood, but that Jesus came to seek and to save a lost God. 'Tis true, G. K, speaks of People's FINDING a lost God, whom they had lost, Ibid. p. 35.


If this be true, that G. K. so speaks, to wit, that by lost God, he understood People's loosing of God, what's become of thy Blush O Heavens, &c. Is God and Christ in a lost Condition? It is well thou art drawn to confess this against thy self.


But still, if Lost be meant only of God and Christ, how can Christ be said to seek and save a lost God? Ibid.


No such words ever fell from G. K. to any such Question, as thou makest them an Answer to. Thou hast unworthily perverted both his Words and Sense. Though lost be said of God, yet the Loss is Man's; For every man who hath lost God is truly in a lost Con­dition: But to apply that lost Condition to God, and not man, becau [...]e man hath lost God, and is admonish­ed to seek after a lost God, is to commit great Injury against us, as thou hast attempted with thy silly Ins [...] ­nuation, viz. If Lost he meant ONLY of God and [Page 73] Christ, &c. What poor begging Shifts art thou put to?


But to put the Reader out of Doubt, that what I infer is indeed your very Opinion, G. F. and J. N. tell us, that the Seed wants Redemption, and the Seed is Christ either then there must be more Christs then one, or Christ came to redeem himself, Ibid.


Is it to put us out of Doubt, to leave it in Doubt whether G. F. and J. N. ever said any such thing, or these words, as laid down together? for tho [...] referrest to no Book.

But suppose it be true; will it bear thy Inference; therefore God and Christ are in a lost Condition? Is it all one to say, that Christ is brui [...]ed and oppressed, and crucified afresh by wicked Men, and put to open Shame; and to say, That Christ is in a lost Condition? If it be not, as every ordinary Capacity may easily see; how needless, as well as how false is this Rant of thine? p. 36. viz. Wilt thou assert the very thing which I infer from your Words, and yet say, I pervert them; May we not justly esteem of thee, as a heady, rash and inconside­rate young Man, &c. Thus T. H where it is impos­sible for thee to make good thy Conclusions, thou tellest me of granting the Charge, and then fallest into thy usu­al Insults, the better to insinuate a Credence of thy Abi­lity and Honesty with thy Reader.


But is it not absurd, yea, blasphemous, to talk of God's redeeming the Seed? Ibid.


No more Blasphemy then is in the Scripture, which sayes, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, a Place of Burdens. But I the less wonder at thy Ignorance in these Heavenly Things, who never yet drunk of his Cup, nor was baptized with his Baptism, nor knew the true [Page 74] Fellowship of his Death and Sufferings; but art now adding to them by as provoaking Impieties, as any man of this Age hath committed against him.

Give me thy Judgment of these Scriptures, and my Consequence from them. And God saw that there was no man, and wondred that there was no Intercessor; therefore his Arm brought Salvation to him, and Righteousness it sus­teined him, Isaiah 59.16. Again, The Year of my Re­deemed is come, and I looked, and there was none to help, and I wondred that there was none to uphold; therefore mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me, and my Fury it uph [...]ld me, Chap. 53.4, 5. Whence it is no Contra­diction to say, That God did rid himself of the Enemies of his own precious Life, or that he brought Salvation to himself.


I infer from your Words this horrid Absurdity, that God redeems himself, p. 37. This is thy Truth a­gainst Fiction.


It is not from our Words, but the Words of Scrip­ture; and but that thou art become shameless, I should wonder that any Man pretending the Scriptures to be his Rule, should charge plain Scripture with Absurdity and Blasphemy.


Thus Christ is at one and the same time at Liber­ty and in Bondage, redeeming and redeemed, conquering and yet pressed down: And though this kind of Language be Folly and Madness, yet thou tellest us, thou art content to use it, p. 38.


And it were well if thou wouldst be contented, not to abuse it: Is this thy Religion, to vilifie the Lan­guage of other Peoples Religion; nay, of holy Scrip­ture it self?

But how dark art thou T Hicks, to make b [...]th a [Page 75] Wonder and a Scoff at Christ's conquering and yet being pressed down at the same Time; when the Scripture so plainly holds forth, that he is crucified by such counter­feit Christians as thou art, at what Time he reigns in the Hearts of his Children? And is not the Spirit said to be quenched by some, at what Time it lives in others? And is he not grieved by the Rebellions of some, whilst he is delighted in others? Was not God at Liberty at what Time he said, They made him s [...]rve with their Sins? And was he not whole, at what Time he said, He was broken, Ezek. 6.9.*T. H. takes that literally, which is metaphorically spo­ken, both in Scripture and our Books, and makes li [...]eral Consequences upon metaphorical Premises, as if [...]od had Hands, Eyes, Head, Arms, could be imbondaged, broken, &c. af­ter a Worldly Manner, or in [...] strict and proper Sense, and [...]ot rather in a more hidde [...] [...];c Metaphorical Signification; He is herein e [...]ther very blind or very mali [...]ious. Canst thou reasonably infer, be­cause of these Expressions, us'd after the manner of men, that it is Absurdity and Blas­phemy, that God heals him­self, delivers, himself, and eases himself of his Enemies; Words of equal Import? Methinks thy unsavory Car­riage should reflect Shame upon W. Kiffin, with his El­ders, &c. to suffer such irreverent Trash to come out of their Congregation; if they value their Credit, they will not suffer thee any longer thus upon the Ramble. But be­fore I leave thee in this Section, I have one thing more to charge thee with, and that is, not only the Abuse of our words, by concluding from Man's being turned to seek after a lost God and Christ, that God and Christ are in a lost Condition, but that they only want Redemp­tion, and that Men and Women are not the Objects of Redemption, as in 3 Dial. p. 37. Then which nothing can be more false, and consequently, injurious to a People. But I have left wondering, that thou shouldst be base.

§. IV. Concerning our Belief in Christ.


ANother Instance by which thou underta­kest to prove the Quaker no Christian, is, his Denyal of Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without him: Is this true, or no?


I accuse you for denying Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without you, p. 25.


I say that thou hast varied thy Charge, and given thy self an Answer to it out of my Book, which was ne­ver an Answer to any such Matter, viz. Herein thou hast shewn thy Ignorance and Malice; nor is it so in my Book, but Ignorance or Malice: Thou also omitteth the Ground of my so speaking, which is not fair, viz, The Quakers say, that Christ is in them, Christ is God-man; is God-man in them? Again, there is but one Christ, born of [...] Virgin, that suffered at Jerusalem: Can that Christ be in Man? In Defence of which strange Construction of our Belief, thou hast offered nothing to what I op­posed. Howbeit, I desire my Reader to take notice, that since thou pretendest to own but one Christ, and sayst, that it is impossible that Christ should be in Man, that thou both denyest the Scripture, and contradictest thy self; there is not any Doctrine clearer in holy Record, then that of Christs indwelling with his Saints, Joh. 14.20, 23. Chap. 15.4, 5. Chap. 17.23. Rom. 8.10. 2 Cor. 13.5. Cal. 1.16. Col. 1.27. Revel. 3.20.

The same Objection thou makest against us, holds good against them, as thus, Christ is God-man; can God-man be in the Corin [...]hians? What might not a T. Hicks have cavilled against Christ and his Disciples, [Page] [...]s well as against us? Is this the Way to prove the Qua­ker no Christian, that makes that Thing Error, which can only constitute Men right Christians: For if Christ be not there, no Anointing can be there, which John sayes, leads into all Truth: Besides, thou contradictest thy self, as thou mayest see, Dial. p. 22, 23. But to thy present Charge.


This I object against you, your denying Christ to be a distinct Person without you; to which thou speakest nothing, signifying thereby, that y [...]u are pinched, Ibid. p. 26.


I told thee under the Head of Perversions, that this was not all thou madest us to deny; for thou didst untruly infer Our Denyal of Christ's Bodily Appearance, concerning which thou speakest nothing, signifying there­by, that thou art pinched, unless it be to deny thou ever saidst so, as p. 26, 31. thereby adding a Lye to the Shuf­file. But why are we pinched, because we say nothing to a Doctrine the Scripture sayes nothing of: Give me one Place that mentions Christ to be a distinct Perso [...] without us; art thou so destitute of common Sense, as to think of proving the Quaker no Christian, because he denies a Doctrine, not expressed in Scripture; and yet at that Instance to magnifie the Scripture, as thy sole Rule: Verely, thou makest thy self a Derision to all wise Men. But go on, make the best of thy Charge.


G. F. in his Great Mystery, p. 16. writes thus, Thou art deceived, who sayest Christ is distinct from the Saints: Can any Man eat the Flesh of Christ, if his Flesh be not in them?


This probably thou mayst have found in thy Brother Faldo's Book, and thou mightst have found it defended in mine. Wh [...]re is Distinct among G. F's Words, which [Page 78] are these, ‘But God and Christ is in his Saints, and dwell [...] them, and walk in them; and he, the Priest, is Reprobate, and out of the Apostles Doctrine’: which plainly shews that G. F. only opposeth Christ's being as a Distance, as divided from the Saints, because they who know not Christ to be in them the Apostle terms Reprobates; and not that Christ and his Saints are in di­stinct Beings. That Christ's Flesh must be in People if they eat it, is so far from being either Matter of Error, or any Proof for thee, that, till thou canst prove, how a Man may eat his Victuals without him, thou wilt but render thy self ridiculous in talking at such an idle rate. What else hast thou to offer?


G. Whitehead saith, Jesus Christ a Person with­out us, is not Scripture-Language, Dip. pl. p. 13.— We cannot own your Limitations and un [...]criptural Notions concerning Christ's Being, R. against R. 1. p. 22.


But (why dost thou leave out the Word God-man, which thou usedst at first, and was repeated by G. W.) what of all this T. H?


If these be your Words, wherein is my Ignorance or Malice manifest, in giving the World an Account of your Belief? Ibid. p. 26.


Thou mightst as well have said of our Dis-Belief of thy unscriptural Belief: Canst thou upon second Thoughts perswade thy self, that this is the way to prove the Quaker no Christian, cond [...]mn him out of his own Mouth and evince his Errors to the World, that wander­est from sound Doctrine and whols [...]m Words, to effect it. Howbeit, not so much for thy sake, who makest it thy Business to render us a Scorn and Reproach among Men, by the most injurious Practices upon our Persons and Principles; as for theirs in whom there is some [Page 79] Tenderness and sober Enquiry, I shall endeavour to take away all Occasion of Stumbling, by this short and se­srious Account of our Belief.

'Tis granted, that Christ, who is God over all, bles­sed for ever, is a distinct Being (though not at a Distance) from the Saints; Otherwise, it would be all one indeed to ay, as thou, T. H. wickedly concludest, p. 30. from thy own Invention of Man's being the Seed, which is God, that it is all one, whether we call God by the Name of W. Penn or call W. Penn God and Christ; a Blas­phemous Absurdity indeed, as thou sayeth! But then, what art thou that madest it? Next, we never said, that Christ was not as well without us, as within us; for we cannot comprehend him, but are comprehended of him: We never set any Limitations to Christ's Presence; they are the false and hateful Inferences of our Enemies; And let the Reader beware, that he be not abused by them. For the Word Person (as thou usest it, in telling us of Christ, God-man, a distinct Person without thee) it is no Scripture-Phrase; for in Heb. 1.3. [...], Hy­postasis signifies Substance; and in 2 Cor. 2.10. [...], signifies in Christ's Stead, Name, Sight or Authority, or for his sake, as [...]rotius, Erasmus and the Ancient Fathers have it. However, I hope for our Ten­derness in this particular, considering that T. H.'s Charge is no Scripture-Phrase, and that such like Expressions occasion People to retain mean and dark Apprehensions of God, and Christ, and his Place of Residence; we shall not suffer in the Mind of our sober Reader, as Men undeserving the Name of Christians. Hast thou T. H. any more to offer upon this Head?


If the Light be Jesus Christ, and a Measure of it in all Men, but more eminently in your selves; whether [Page 80] W. P. and G. W. may not as properly be called Jesus Christ, as well as that Bodily Appearance or Outward Per­son? And why may not divine Worship be given as well to you as to him?


That Jesus Christ is the Light of Men, the Scrip­ture holds forth; but that W. P. or G. W. should be the Proper Body prepared of God, for himself to be ma­nifested in (as was that in which God was manifested in the Flesh: in whom dwelt the Fulness of the God-head) is not scriptural, nor a Consequen [...]e from our Opinion; but a blasphemous Inference of thy making, to be ab­horred of just Men. Are we Christ's Body, as that was? Did we ever say, that the Fulness of the God­head dwelt bodily in us? He is manifested in us mea­surably, to save us: But was he so manifested in that Manhood to save it? Or is either G. W. or W. P. as properly and peculiarly the Man-hood of the Saviour as that he took to manifest himself Saviour in? Thou shalt see whither thy Sophistry will lead thee: The Son of God appeared bodily and visibly at Jerusalem: The Son of God was revealed in Paul; therefore Paul might as well be called Jesus Christ as he, in that Appearance. Again, Divine Worship is to be given to Christ: but Christ was in Paul; therefore divine Worship was to be given to Paul. Again, T. H. doubtless, at least many of the Baptists, believe they have the Spirit of God, and that the Spirit of God is God, and therefore to be worship­ped; will it be a good Consequence, That T. H. or those Baptists are to be worshipped? These vain Cavils and Sophisms thou undertakest to entertain thy Reader with, and to abuse us by; are great Instances of a weak Cause and an evil Mind.


Be not angry if again I ask thee, if Christ signifie [Page 81] Anointed, and God be Christ, as thou affirmest; whether God himself be Anointed, Ibid. p. 32.


It seems then, Socinian-like, thou dost not affirm that God is Christ; and yet it is but two Pages before that thou sayst, The God-head of the Son, and the Man­hood conjunct is the Christ. And Dial. p. 44, Thou cal­lest God manifest in the Fl [...]sh, Christ. Is not God then Christ by thy own words? But what Answer did I give thee to thy Question about Anointing?


Thou sayest, Christ was not anointed by Halfes but entirely; herein thou contradictest thy self, and over­throwest thy own Distinction between Chr [...]st and the Bod [...] of Christ.


No such matter; for the Distinction came from thy insinuating, that the Man hood of Christ was the the Christ, because that only could be Anointed, upon which, knowing it was lately thy Opinion, that Christ was God as well as Man, I said, that he could not be a­nointed by Halfes; and therefore Christ was anointed as God as well as Man: What sayst thou to this?


The Difficulty still remains: If God alone was that which was anointed, the Question returns upon thee, whe­ther God did anoint himself, and with what, and to what End?


Thou art mistaken, and miserably begst the Que­stion, and sendest it back again: For when thou (to prove the meer Manhood to be the Christ or Anointed) didst insinuate the Impossibility of Christ to be God as well as Man, and that God manif [...]st in the Flesh, makes the true Christ or Anointed, and that it is absurd to think he should be anointed by Halfs: Is not God or the di­vine [Page 82] Nature also anointed? if so, T. H. who is it that anointed the God-head, and with what, and to what End? These are thy own Words, and they belong to thy own Doctrine. Thou didst object against our Principle, and hapned to contradict thy own Principle in it: I sent thee the Objection home again, for thee to disingage thy own Principle of it, First, Thou growest angry, tellst me of contradicting my self, and returnest me the Ob­jection never considered; but back it must go; and when thou hast found the way to clear thy own, that shall serve for thine and mine too. And thus I leave thee and thy Cavils in this Section.

§. V. Concerning the Gospel-Rule.

LEt us hear what thou hast to say to the Arguments I gave about the Rule.


You deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice u [...]to Chri [...]tians, p. 38.


Thou would t here insinuate, as if our Faith and Practice [...]ere not according to Scripture, because we do not assert them, but the Spirit that gave them forth, to b [...] the [...]ule, especially, in new Covenant Times: I grant the Scriptures are to be fulfilled, and that many Heavenly Exhortations, Reproofs & Instructions there­in contained, are to be regarded by us; but that which is my Rule to direct my Under [...]tanding, what is fit for me to embrace, and what to reject, and how to understand that which is to be received, m [...]st be the Spirit of Truth, which alone g [...]ves true Discerning: Therefore let us hear what thou sayest to my Argument, Reas. against [Page 83] Rail. p. 25. as thou they self has cited it, Dial. 3. p. 38. viz. ‘That which is more Ancient, more uni­versal, and more able to inform, rule and guide, that must more eminently be the Rule: But that hath been, and is, the Light within; therefore that hath been, and ought to be the Rule of [...]aith and Practice’: What dost thou offer to invalidate this Argument?


Then her [...]in I have not misrepresented your Belief, p. 39.


But is this the Way to confute our Belief? Or did we charge thee with misrepresenting it in this particular? Dost thou think thus to evince the Truth of thy Obje­ctions, to grant us the Matter objected: It seems, we are to take this for thy Answer; and consequently, that the Light within is eminently the Rul [...], for ought thou hast said against it. Proceed.


[...]ut forasmuch as you often say, you own the Scrip­tures, and the holy Rules therein contained: In what Sense do you acknowledge them to be your Rule?


Thou makest me to answer this Question thus, The Scripture is the Rule of Historical Faith; the Spirit can only be the Rule of saving Faith, Reas. ag. Rail. p. 40. But can any Man that hath the least Draghm of Hone­sty or Justice, think this the Way to confute me, to skip over near 15. Pages, containing several Arguments made to evidence and confirm the Truth of the fir [...]t?

Hadst thou not a Conscience that dares do and say any thing, thou could [...]t never have given me such an unhandsom Slip. But let us hear what thou sayst to that which thou hast cited.


If the Light within be more able to inf [...]rm, rule and guide, and therefore more [...]minently the Rule; What need is there of an historical Rule? p. 39.


Did ever any Man pretending to be in his VVits, [Page 84] talk so idly? what is it but to say, If the Spirit of God was alwayes more able then the Scripture; what need is there of having Scripture? Is not this to infer from God's Condescension to Man's Imbecillity, that the Light and Spirit of God are Imbecil: Is not this to reprobate all external Means, and to conclude God, Christ, the Light and Spirit insufficient, because that any were ever used: Is it a good Argument, becau [...]e the Light does not reveal such a thing, therefore the Light can­not reveal such a thing, which is the utmost Strength of thy Opposition. I further told thee, that those who gave forth the Scripture, came by the Enjoyment of those Thing [...] through the Light and Spirit of God, or they could never have writ them; therefore the Light and Spirit, and not the Scriptures, were the Rule of their Faith. But of this and abundance more to the same Purpose, thou takest no notice: I further told thee, that the Prophets saw him with this Light, unless they saw him without Light, and that those that believed him, when come, could not have received him, had they not beheld him with an inward Eye. Thus thou quotest me: What Reply makest thou to this?


That the Prophets saw him by the Light of divine Revelation, I grant: And that none do believe in him, what do not know him is true; but that this Light or inward Eye is the common Light in every Man, that thou must prove. p. 42.


It was formerly, and is again proved to be the same Light, though not the same in Manifestations. Eve­ry one had th [...] same Light; but not the same Prohe­cies, nor the same Sights: When thou hast proved two Lights, it will be Time for thee to talk at this Rate: No [...]hing did then, nor can now, lead truly [Page 85] to know and confess to the Word that took Flesh, in which VVord was Life, and that Life the Light of Men; but [...];uch Discoveries as proceed from a Measure of the same Light, as hath been already proved. And should I admit of thy Construction, that the Light by which such as had a true Sight of Christ before, and at his Co­ming was not the common Light, as thou callest it; but that which thou thy self allowest to be divine; yet wilt thou give me Leave to infer in thy Name, that the divine Light was insufficient, before such time as it reveald those Things to the Prophets, and gave tho [...]e that were alive at Christ's Spiritual Coming, a Knowledge and a Sense of them, because they did no [...] know them before they knew them: For at this Rate thou [...]reate [...] [...]s abo [...]t the Light within; the Light within doth not do this, [...] the Light within cannot do it, presumpt [...]sly conclu­ding it insufficient to discover those things, that either do not need a Discovery, because they are already known, or that it seemeth good to God in his VVisdom to conceal.


If the Scriptures tell thee [...]here was such [...] Man as Moses, David and Matthew, &c. without which thou couldst not have known any such [...]ing; so the Scripture tells thee what they spoke and wro [...] of; therefore the Scrip­tures must be the Rule of thy Belief, both conc [...]rning those Men and their Sayings, p. 45.


I grant that the Scriptures tell me, there were such Men, as Moses, D [...]id and Matth [...]w, and that they wrote: But what is it that gives me to believe the things they wrote to be true? The Rule of [...]aving Faith is that we speak of, and not that which is historical? It is impossible for me to understand the Truth of those Things, till I come to that Spirit of Truth that gave them forth; for no Man can know the Things of God, [Page 86] save the Spirit of God. The want of which hath been the Cause why so many have been bewildred about the things there de­clared:Note: I would ask him how he knows the Scriptures extan [...] are perfect, both as to Number, and Copy and Translations? Several Books are [...]oft, that is certain; does the Scripture tell us what they con­t [...]ined? if not, the Rule is impe [...]fect by T. H s Consequence. The Copies are above Thirty in Number, at least, in which there are Thousands of different Readings; the Translators greatly differ, and have greatly c [...]rrupted. A [...]so T. H is to look to prove the present Collecti­on Canonical. If he pleads the Testi­mony of [...]od within, his Cause is gone; if Tradi [...]ion, I ask how? Is he assured the first Canon was rightly made? The Council as either Fa [...]ible or Infalli­ble; If the First, what Assurance ha [...] he? If the last, it grants Infallibi [...]ity, since the Apostles 360. Years; but begets the Qu [...]stion, How does T. H. know they were in the right? And if in one Thing, why not in al [...]? But those [...]oun­cils con [...]radicted; and none ever gave the Cata [...]ogue, as now it is; nor can T. H. give a Canon for it. And if he cannot assure us, that it is e [...]ct with the Ori­g [...]nal, free from Variation, Corruption, M [...]s-translation, &c. as it is not; he can never prove it the Rule, as he e [...]ea­vour, in Opposition to the Spirit; for tha [...] i [...] alwayes p [...]in and pe [...]fect. But more of thi [...] in the Christ [...]an Q [...]aker; not to lessen Scr [...]pture, but to con [...]ound such Cavi [...]ers. Spiritual and heavenly Things are not di [...]cernable by carnal Men, they are hid from their Eyes; & till the Light shine out of Darkness, to give them the Know­ledge of the Scrip­tures; they are as a sealed Book, and they labour in a Labyrinth of Uncertainties. I do say again, The Light in all Ages hath made known Do­ctrines, fit to be obey­ed, though not the Histories and Narra­tives of other Mens Actions; which is thy silly Objection against the Light's Sufficien­cy. But one thing I must not forget, on which thou didst not depend a little, as an Instance to prove thy Conceit, viz. How could we have known, that Swearing in any Case were [Page 87] unlawful, if it had not been written in the 5th of Matthew Swear not at all, Dial. 1. p. 22. But this I proved to thee, to have been revealed above 400. Years before that was written; but what is the Reason thou over-lookest that Answer? Clinias was taught by it rather to suffer a great Fine, then swear; the Essaeaens had rather dye then swear, which was long before Christ came in the Flesh: Was not the Light then a sufficient Rule for their practising of an Evangelical Doctrine by thy own Argument? But T. H. art thou not greatly ashamed, that because I supposed upon thy Principle, thy Light and Rule to be two, Reas. against Rail. p. 39. That there­fore I contradict my self, and overthrow mine own Opi­nion, saying, If Light be given to understand the Rule, then it self is not the Rule, much less greater then the Rule; and as if thou hadst come rightly by this Conse­quence, falling into thy customary Insults, telling me, T [...]is is so far from being Truth against Fiction, that it discovers me to be a rash, heady, confident and ignorant Man, one that neither cares what he sayes or affirms. Hadst thou any Regard to God, thy own Conscience, thy Neighbour, or thy own Reputation, thou wouldst never commit, much less continue to practise, these horrid Wrongs against me. However, as I said before, so again: I affirm, that supposing the Scriptures were the Rule, that which informs me of the Rule, and teaches me how to use it, must be greater then the Rule, in that it teaches me to know and do what the Rule cannot do of it self: I query then, if t [...]is Light be not the Rule, how and which way I come to understand and use the Scrip­tures? &c. therefore eminently the Rule, the Terms of my Argument; for the Question lay not upon particu­lar Rules.

[Page 88]

The Primitive Christians took not their Mea­sures from the Light within, but from the Will of God re­vealed to them, p. 46.


This is Confusion it self: Are the Light within and the Will of God revealed inconsistent things? Who was it revealed to them (Paul turned from Dark­ness to (Light the Will of God, but the Light? And what was it taught them the Truth, when John said, They had received an Anointing, which abode in them, and taught them all things; unto which he directed, and with which he left them, John 1. 2, 27. And doth not the same Apostle tell us, If we walk in the Light, we have Fellowship one with another, &c? Was not the Light then the Rule of their Obedience, and the Way in which they were to walk? for the Accomplishment of that Prophetick Speech, Isa. 2.5. Oh ye House of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the Light of the Lord.

And is there any thing plainer, then that the Apostle Paul describes the Children of God, to be such as are led by the Spirit of God, Rom. 8.14. and that he exhorts the Galatians to walk in the Spirit, chap. 5.16 and the Ephesians to walk circumspectly, which was, according to the Manifestations of the Light, chap. 5.14, 15, 16. Finally does not the same Apostle pro­nounce Peace on as many as walk according to the Rule of the N [...]w Creature, Gal. 6.16.

I further told thee that the Waldonses, Lutherans, Prot [...]st [...]ts, [...]alvinists, &c. made the Testimony of God in their Consciences the chief Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures, Reas. against Rail. pag. 48.


That the Walden [...]es, &c. made the Testimony of [Page 89] their Consciences the chief Ground of the Belief of th [...] Scriptures, is confidently said, but more then ever W. Penn is able to prove.


But if W. Penn is able to prove that the Walden­ses, Lutherans, Prot [...]stants, Calvinists, yea and Indepen­dents, and Anabaptists too, have made the Testimony of God in their Consciences, the Ground of their Be­lief of the Scriptures, wilt not thou then appear to have told a confident Untruth? Let us hear what they say.

That the Waldenses held so thou mayst inform thy self if thou pleasest, out of their History, penn'd by John Paul Perin of Lyons, lib. 1. cap. 1, cap. 11, cap. 13.

Luther taught, That the Spirit is required to the Ʋnderstanding of the whole Scripture and of every part there­of Again, The Scriptures are not to be understood, but by that very Spirit by which they were wrot, Tom. 3. fol. 169.

John Bradford, a worthy Martyr, thus answered the Arch Bishop of York, who catechised him how he came to know the Scriptures? We do believe and know, said he, 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 that wrote and spake them, Book Mart. vol. 3. p. 298.

William Tindal, another faithful Martyr in Hen. 8 his time, writes thus; It is impossible to understand the Scriptures more then a Turk, for him that hath not the Law of God written in his Heart to fulfil it. Again, Without the Spirit it is impossible to understand them, W. Tind. Work. p. 319. & p. 80.

B. Jewel against the Papists hath this Passages; F [...]esh and Blood is not able to understand the holy Will of God, without special Revelation, therefore Christ gave Thanks unto his Father; and likewise opened the Hearts [Page 90] of his Disciples, that they might understand the Scrip­tures: Without this special Help and Prompting of God's holy Spirit, the Scriptures are unto the Reader, be he ne­ver so wise or well learned, as the Vision of a sealed Book.

Calvin saith, It is necessary that the same Spirit that spake by the Mouth of the Prophets should pierce into our Hearts, to perswade us of the Truth of what they delive­red, Instit. lib. 1. cap 8

Beza saith, That the understanding of the Scriptures should be fetcht from the same Spirit that dictated them, Bez in Nov. Test. 2 Pet. 1.19.

Pet. Martyr taught, That it is the Spirit of God, that reveals the Truth in the holy Scriptures, Com. loc. p. 2 cap. 18.

H. Bullinger asserted in his 4 Decad. & 8 Serm. dedicated to K. Edw. 6. That men fetch the Ʋnder­ [...]anding of heavenly things and Knowledge of the Holy Ghost from no where else then from the same Spirit.

What sayest thou to this T. H? Can the Holy Ghost be this Discoverer and Instructor, and yet not eminently the Rule?

But in asmuch as thou chargest me with denying the Scriptures Authority, and then railest, p. 61. because I place it upon the Te [...]timony of the Light and Spirit of God In the Conscience; Hear what D. John Owen sayes, The only Publick Authentick and Infallible Interpreter of the holy Scripture, is He who is the Author of them, from the Breathing of whose Spi­rit it derives all its VERITY, PERSPICUITY and AUTHORITY, Exerc. 2.7, 9. VVhat would have become of me, T. H. if I had spoken so broad as this? This makes the Spirit Interpreter, Judge and [Page 91] Rule of our Knowledge, therefore eminently the Rule.

T. Collier, an ancient and considerable Baptist, shall be my last instance here; There is the Law and Testi­mony in the Spirit, saith he, as well as in the Letter.

The Law of God is in the Heart, there it is written; and there it testifies the Truth of God: And if any man speak not according to this Rule, it is because there is no Light or Morning risen in him. See his Works, pag. 249. Again,

Others know no other Touch-Stone nor Tryal, no other Light by which they judge of Truth then Scripture; thus putting it in the room of the Spirit, which is Light, and the Greater Light: For they say, they cannot know Truth till they bring it to the Letter for Tryal; thus making an Idol of the Letter, setting it up in the room of God, Ibid. pag. 248.

I could produce a great Cloud of more Witnesses, both of Fathers and other Authors; But I hope I have discharged my self of my Engagement, and made ap­pears, That what I asserted was not too hard for me to prove, and therefore thou T. H. wert too confident in saying so: but thy notorious Ignorance in these things may a little excuse thee.

But thou chargest us with undervaluing the Scrip­tures, a Fault I abhor to be guilty of; Let me hear in what.


You contemptibly call the Scriptures the Letter, whilst you entitle some of your own Pamphlets, The Voice of Wisdom, A Message, &c, wherein you manifest­ly prefer your own Writings before the Holy Scriptures, pag 55.


This Cavil has been answered again and again, [Page 92] I told thee before, and thou hast cited me thus, ‘If at any time we call the Scriptures Letter, it is not that we mean our Books are the Spirit, or that we irreverently set them (the Scriptures) below our own Writings, but upon a Comparison only between the Scriptures and the Spirit that gave them forth.’ What Return dost thou give to this?


It is aggravate, not to excuse your Error.


It is an Error to call the Scriptures the Letter in a Comparison with the Spirit? And an Aggravation of that Error, to prefere the Spirit before the Letter? But as this all thou hast to say to the Matter?


Why have you not respect to this Comparison when you entitle your own Books? But that you would have us to believe that your Writings are more eminently from the Spirit then the Sciptures? p. 56.


How do we prefer our Writings above the Scrip­tures, which we prove by the Scriptures? I perceive it is become almost impossible with thee to make any o­ther Constructions, then what rather shew thine own Envy then our Sense. Was there ever the same Reason for a Comparison between our Writings and the Spirit? Did we ever set them up for the only Rule of Faith and Obedience, and that in Opposition to the Spirit, as the New Covenant Rule, and those that maintain that Plea? If there were the same Occasion, thou shouldst quickly hear of the same Distinction and Comparison. But go on.


Hence it is, That when both stand in Competition you thus distinguish them, Letter, yea, Dead Letter, as the proper Term for the Scriptures; but The Voice of Wisdom to your Books: Art thou not ashamed of this Bas [...] ­ness and Prophaneness? pag. 56

[Page 93]

Whatever I am, I perceive thou art not ashamed of making me base and prophane too, and printing a most horrid Untruth to render me so: There is not a Sen­tence in thy Book gives a clearer Testimony of the In­justice of thy Carriage then this in hand. For nothing is more frequent with thee throughout thy Dialogues, then first to invent something odious in our Name, and then, as if none so Modest and Righteous as thy self, cry out, Who would not be astonished at this Blasphemou [...] Absurdity? p. 30. Art thou not ashamed of this Pro­phaneness and Baseness? p. 59. O Impious Man, &c. p. 13. But let this determine this Point between us. Produce but one of our Friends, that ever brought his VVritings in Competition with the Scriptures, calling the Scriptures the Dead Letter, & his own Books the Voice of Wisdom, &c. and I will yield thee to have written Truth: If thou canst not, thou hast but fastened Base­ness, Prophaneness and Lying upon thy self: with thee I leave them; for there thou ought est to rest, till thou canst better clear thy self of them.

I charged thee with having wronged Geo. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorn, in making them to say, It is Dan­gerous for ignorant People to read the Scriptures; and then fixing the Name of Jesuit and Romanish upon us; producing their words at large, which thou hast basely contracted to thy own Ends, leaving out what might most make for their Innocency, and the evincen [...]ent of thy own Forgery.

Thou givest the words thus, The Letter killeth, is Dangerous: In my Quotation, and in their own Book, thus, The Letter which killeth, 2 Cor. 3.6. is D [...]nge­rous [for thou (Priest) takest in h [...]re to war with [...]l a­gainst the Saints, with thy carnal Mind, giving out thy [Page 94] carnal Expositions upon it.] All this, T. H. thou hast unworthily left out, that thou mightest the better fa­sten thy Fiction upon G. F. and R. H. I ask, Is it not Dangerous to read the Scriptures to these Ends? And the Ministers of the Letter are the Ministers of Death; here thou leavest out again [which is to Con­demnation, and you take it to make a Trade with it, and with what the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles said, so that some have 60 and some 100 l. a year; but Christ cryed Wo unto such Whited Walls] having left out this part, that concerned the Hireling thou puttest in again; And here you read with Danger who speak of them and speak a Lye, because you speak of your selves: Here a­gain thou lettest drop [and you wr [...]st the Scriptures to your own Destruction] (as the Unlearned and Unstable do; and is not this Dangerous in them?) Then thou bringest in this, And to you it is Dangerous to read or speak of them; omitting all that here follows by me ci­ted to clear them of thy Charge, viz. [who know not the Life of them as the Pharisees, who were learned in the Letter, but knew not Christ: But I say, Blessed is he that readeth & doth understand] All this so necessary to give the Undertstanding of their true Meaning thou hast de­signedly overlookt: However, let us hear what De­fence thou hast made for thy self.


The Question respects the whole Scripture, which you say, is Dangerous and Killing; The Ministers of the Scriptures are Ministers of Death, and it is Dangerous for such to read them: What a shameless Man art thou, thus to confess what I accuse you of, and yet condemn me as a Forger? pag. 57.


These foul and confident Questions thou usest to ask me with which thou wouldst insinuate thy Innocency, [Page 95] do but aggravate thy Forgery. For first, How do I confess what thou accusest us of, when it is neither to be found in my words, nor theirs upon whom thou chargest them, viz. It is Dangerous for Ignorant People to read the Scriptures. 2dly, I told thee they meant by Ministers of the Letter, Ministers of the Law and Death, because of Transgression, and thou makest it Dangerous for such to read the Scriptures; whereas G. F. and R. H. said, It was Dangerous for Hirelings and whi [...]e Walls to use them against the Saints with their carnal Exp [...]sitions, op­posing them Pharisee-like, to the Life of them, wresting them to their own [...]estruction. It is Dangerous for such to read them to such Uses and Purposes not in any Sense as thou untruly sayest: Of this thou takest no notice. So that here the Reader may plainly see thy first Forgery; since it was not the Man of no Letters, but the Men of Letters, such as the Scribes and Pharise [...]s, who used them against the right Heirs of them, of whom G.F. and R.H. [...]poak. And thy second is not less visible, in that thou hast impo­sed upon the Reader my Confession of thy Accusation, who never confessed any such thing. These are some of thy wonted Tricks, ever & anon imploy'd to cover thy Nakedness with, and to get off unsuspected, from en­countering the Difficulty of our Charge, Proof or Argu­ment. I appeal to God's Witness in my Reader's Con­science, to right us against the many Injurious Practices against us: And shall conclude with this Acknowledg­ment and Argument concerning the Scriptures.

We do receive and believe the Scriptures given forth by Holy Men of God, as they were moved of the Holy Ghost, and that they are profitable for Doctrine, for Re­proof, and for Instruction in Righteousness; yet since they are Writings relating to the things of God, no man can [Page 96] understand them, or have an assured Testimony of them, but by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. which alone reveals the deep things of God: It was not the Scripture, but the Father that revealed Christ to Peter, Mat. 16.5.

Further, The New Covenant Times are Times of Ful­filling of the Scriptures, by the pouring out of the Spirit, therefore Peoples regard should be to the inward Draw­ings and Leadings of the Holy Spirit. The Law outward was a Rule to the Jew, though not eminently unto them (for the Lord gave them also of his good Spirit; & what for, if not to rule them?) But the Law of the Spirit of Life promised to be reveal'd within, under the New & Ever­lasting Covenant, was certainly to be the Rule under that Covenant, being a time for the more immediate Flow­ings forth of Spirit and Life. We do not say that every one hath hereunto attained: But we affirm, that God hath given a measure of his Spirit unto Men & Women, that they might receive the pretious Promises, unto wch we direct them for that End. I know that T. Hicks, ac­cording to his wonted Baseness, pag. 49. interprets our saying, that we deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice in honour to the Divine Light, to be our denying & rejecting the revealed Will of God, thereby must hate their Parents, because they are to love Christ first, Mat. 10. This were to say, that Paul's regard to the Law of the Spirit of Life in him, as his Rule, was not to fulfil, but to deny & rej [...]ct the Law without: If this Conse­quence be false agains [...] Paul; How can T. H.'s Consequence be good against us? Is it to reject and deny the Scriptures, to have the good things they declare of brought in by the Eternal Spirit? And since the Scriptures can not ful­fil themselves in us, but the Spirit; is not the Spirit the Rule and Guide to our Divine Knowledge and Enjoy­ments. [Page 97] But from our asserting the Spirit to be the Rule, T.H. infers, That we deny to live according to the Scrip­tures, a Mi [...]take he fell into before, which I offer'd to help him out of in my Answer; for to own the Scripture to be the Rule, and to live according to the Scriptures, are not one and the same thing: For the Gentiles did the things contained in the outward Law, and yet had not the outward Law for a Rule, Rom. 2.14.

Nor is it to be doubted, but that Paul and the pri­mitive Christians lived up to the outward Law (that is the inward Law outwarly declared) by the Law of the Spirit of Life, which was the Rule of their Obedience: Yet can any infer, that the outward Law and not the in­ward was the Rule of their so living? And I must tell thee, Th. Hicks, that thy Exalting of the Scriptures, is but an Endeavour to throw down the Spirit; which Sa­crifice, be it known unto thee, the Lord of Heaven loathes. And I will say to thee, as G. F. and R. H. said to the Priest, They are Dangerous to be read and used for those Evil Purposes thou employest them upon: But as they said (though that also thou didst overlook) so say I, Blessed is He that doth read, and understands them.

Testimonies concerning the Rule.

Irenaeus, pag. 242, 384, 389. The Writing in the Heart is the Rule. Again, l. 5. c. 8. The Word giveth his Spirit to all, to some according to Condition. And, l. 4. c. 30. The Fathers justified by the Righteousness of the Law in them, therefore had no need of REPROVING LETTERS.

W. Perkins Works, 3 Vol. pag. 220. The Light of Nature and Grace teacheth to do as we would be done to, pag. 221. It is the Fulfilling of the Law, the Rule to [Page 98] judge Scripture. That (of God) made the Rule, Some­thing in the Conscience; Happy Times, if Men would follow it.

Bp. R. Sanderson, De Obligat. Conscient. pag. 127. A Rule of Discerning without the Scriptures. Regula discernendi extra Scripturam.

And T. C [...]llier in plain words saith, The Spirit of God, who is God, is the ALONE RULE of a Christian, Gen. Epist. to the Saints, chap. 12. — The Spiritual Man judgeth all things by the RULE OF THE SPIRIT, ibid. The Law of the New Testament is written in the Heart, ibid.

But what need is there further of my maintaining this Point, concerning The Light being the Rule in all Ages; since thou hast made such ample Confession, That the Godly in all Ages before Christ in the Flesh, were turned from the Darkness to the Light, pag. 64. This Light must needs be within because the Darkness is there: And it must needs be sufficient, because thou sayest it was that which Paul was sent to turn People to, p. 63, 64. And what could this Light be for, if not to Guide, Rule and Lead them in the Wayes of Godli­ness, and consequently the Rule of the Godly in all Ages? Therefore the more General Rule, because the Scripture was not in all Ages, and suffi [...]nt; because it was of God appointed for the Godly Man's Way, unless thou wilt suppose, that they were turned to an insufficient Light.

§. VI. Of Commands and Ordinances; particularly Baptism and the Supper.


I Have sufficiently shown under the Section of Forgeries the horrid Abuse thou hast committed in thy last Book against E. Burroughs, con­cerning Commands and Ordinances; I shall here further detect thy Miscarriage.

The Matter charged upon E. B. I shall set down with his Name before it.

E. B.

You are not yet dead with Christ, who are subject to Ordinances.

T. H.

The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they that keep the Commandments of God are the Children of God, 1 John 2.3, 4. Yet this Wicked Man E. B. saith, That they who are Subject to Ordinances are not dead with Christ [Sec Colloss. 2.19, 21.]


E. B. pleads o [...]y against such Performances under the Name of Or [...]ances, as were but Shadowy, Elementary and Perishing things, appointed for a Sea­son, and to pass off. Thus thou thy self hast quoted me, Dial. 3. p. 59. What sayest thou to this?


If thus E. B. did plead, why dost thou say I b [...]ly­ed him? Ibid. p. 59.


Because in thy former Dialogue thou madest him as well deny to continue Obedience to such eternal Pre­cepts of Righteousness, as thou thy self confessest the Light within dictate, as to Shadowy, Elementary and Perishing Things. For about his saying, That was not a Command to him, which was a Command to another, [Page 100] thou didst most unjustly infer, That the Law which for­bids Adultery, Murder, Theft, and bearing False Wit­ness, is no Law to us; breaking forth upon us with Impi­ously Horrid, Ʋngodly, Irreverent, Patronizers of Blasphemy, Countenancers of Novices, Prophane Scrib­ler, with abundance more; whereas p 47. of his Works, whence the Passage was taken, proves it to have been writ about extraordinary and particular Cases: as, Thy Running to Preach, because Peter preacht; or, Plunging People in the Thames, or elsewhere, because John baptized many in Jordan: What sayest thou to this?


Thou hast a strange Confidence! If thou hadst examin'd the place my Quotation referrs to, thou must needs know I have not bely'd you: If thou hast not, how darest thou thus charge me? p. 58.


My Confidence is grounded upon Examination: And this Ranting Answer will not clear thee. And the greatest Kindness that can be shown thee is, to believe thou tookst the Quotation first upon Trust. But in this Dialogue thou art left without Excuse: For had E. B. intended general Commands, it would not have cost thee much more Trouble to prove it, then to say it; doubt­less it would have been a Pleasure to thee. But as a man guilty, thou art wilfully silent about those horrid Constru­ctions made upon his words, as the genuine Sense of the place, and vainly thinkest to shift it off with accusing me of strange Confidence: But I return thee thy own Words, If thou, T. H. hast examined the Place thy Quo­tation refers to, thou must needs know, that thou hast be­lyed us: if thou hast not, how darest thou thus (continue to) charge us? But what sayest thou concerning shadowy Ordinances?


Forasmuch as [...]hou confessest, that E.B. did plead [Page 101] against-such Ordinances as were but Shadows, appointed only for a Season; and to pass off, that such Ordinances) are no Commands to us, how wilt thou prove this?


This is to grant, that thou art for continuing Sha­dows under a Gospel-Dispensation: My Reason against it is this; Shadows are Members of the Ceremonial Law, the Substance of which is the Gospel: The bring­ing in of the Gospel is the ending of them; because Sha­dows give way to, and End in their Substance. But let me see how thou bringst me in to answer thy Question; ‘Let it be observed, that there is not the least mention in all the Epistle of John of any of those Ordinances, that stood in visible and corruptible Elements, so that to bring in things of a shadowy and temporary Nature, a­mongst the Commands of Chirst, is to abuse the Apo­stle.’ What's thy Return to this?


Let it be observed what an arrogant, abusive, pro­phane and impertinent Man this W.P. is. Suppose none of the positive Institutions of Christ be expresly mentioned in his Epistles; did he therefore deny them? p. 60.


To pass over thy hard Names, thou dost suggest to the Reader, as if this were my whole Strength, in Answer to thy first Query, viz. How wilt thou prove shadowy Ordinances to be no Commands to us? whereas it was never given by me to any such Question; nor in­deed would it have been Proper to do so: But since thou hardst so little Sense, as to quote John's Words, viz. They that love God keep his Commandments, in order to prove the Continuance of shadowy Ordinances, I had so much Sense in me, as to make use of thy own ci­tation again [...]t thee, where no such Ordinances are men­tioned, upon which thou foolishly queries, did he therefore deny t [...]em? which was not the Question. But [Page 102] whether that Place proves them: But this I am bold to infer, That it was not John's Message to recommend and perpetuate them, as thou dost: And it is strange to me, that they should be of such Weight in the Christian Re­ligion, and not one mention them in all their Epistles, save Paul once, in denying Baptism a Share in his Com­mission; and another Time in regulating the Corinthians about their disorderly Use of the Type. If bodily Ex­ercise profits little in Religion, much less Shadows. If Men run into external Performances, without the Lea­dings and Preparings of the Spirit; such Duties cannot be acceptable with God, running into external Imitati­ons without internal Qualifications, gives but to boast in another Man's Line: And such Oblations are so far from being accepted, that they are abominated. To this let us hear what T. Collier will say, a Man of great­er Eminency and Antiquity that T. H. in the Baptist Way; I see, saith he, that external Actings according t [...] a Rule without, is nothing, if not flowing from a Princi­ple of Love and Life within, Works p. 247. I perceive T. H. thou art not of that Mind, so far from it as to account it Error: But let us hear what else thou ha [...] to say, in Defence of thy formal unwarranted Practice


We are certain, that our Lord did walk in th [...] Observance of positive Institutions; and he that abideth [...] Christ, ought to walk as he walked, 1 Joh. 2.6. p. 61.


What makest thou forge, pervert, lye, sland [...] and abuse us then? If thou wouldst be a Chr [...] ­stian, thou shouldst walk as he walked: He was lovi [...] thou art envious; he meek, thou passionate; he lo [...] Suffering, thou froward; he was good to his Enemi [...] thou base to thy Neighbours. Surely thou hast forg [...] that if thou walkest, as he walked, thou must have [Page 103] do with that dangerous Doctrine of Perfection, as thou else where reputest it. But at thy Rate of quoting this Scripture, and following of Christ, thou mayst as well bring in Circumcision and the Passover, as Baptism and the Supper. Christ told his Disciples, The Spirit should lead them into all Truth, after his Ascension; and his beloved Disciple John referred the Churches to the Anointing.


You tell us these Ordinances were used as Figures and Shadows, no longer to endure, then till the Substance comes, viz. The Baptism of the holy Ghost. The Rea­son can be no other then the vain Conceit of a deluded mind; for they are no Figures of the Baptism of the Spirit; there­fore this can be no Reason for the abolishing of them: Christ commands his Apostles to teach and baptize, promi­sing to be with them to the End of the World.


Who ever said, that Breaking of Bread was a Fi­gure of the Spirit's Baptism? It's a meer Fiction of thy making, as p. 107. of Reas. against Rail. will shew. But if Water-Baptism and Breaking of Bread are no Figures nor Shadows, they must be Substances ▪ and what Difference then there is between thee and Po­pery in this Point, let the Reader judge. And for Christ's bidding his Disciples, Go, teach, bapti­zing, Matth. 28. I told thee, ‘That no Water was mentioned; and that Luke, in the first of the Acts, sayes, before the Commission mentioned by Mat­thew could be given, at least executed, John bapti­zed with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost, not many Dayes hence: And then comes the Commission in Force; Go, teach, baptizing; how? with the holy Ghost, turning People from Dark­ness t [...] Light, from the Power of Satan unto God.’

[Page 104]

If the Baptism of the holy Ghost do put this Com­mission in Force, as thou saist; then the Obligation to those Duties signified in the Commssion cannot be taken off: If so, thy Argument falls.


A poor Shuffle indeed! Does my Argument fall, because thou beggest the Question? which is, Whether their Baptism be with Water or the holy Ghost?


If Baptism of Water be not intended, then none: not the Baptism of Afflictions; for the Apostles were not to persecute: Not the Baptism of the holy Ghost; for that was a Promise, not a Commission, p. 63.


Thou dost but triffle with us still: Though to be baptized was a Promise, yet to baptize was a Com­mission: To be baptized not many Dayes hence, was the Promise of Christ, but go and baptize all Nations, which followeth, was a Commission; and that it was with no other Baptism, Christ's Distinction sufficiently proves, viz. John indeed baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost not many Dayes hence; stay till then; and go, and teach, baptizing all Na­tions, &c.


To baptize with the holy Ghost, was none of their Duty, it being properly Christ's Work, p. 63.


It was both their Work and Duty, witness that Simon Magus would have bought that Gift of Pe­ter: And that Paul baptized with the holy Ghost, Acts 19. Did he not therein do his Duty?


Is it proper to say, I baptize you with the Spirit in­to the Name of the Spirit?


Yes, if thou hast the Spirit; unless thou wouldst make a counterfeit Christiaen of him, whom thou, without the Spirit baptizest into the Name of the Spirit: wouldst thou have a Man baptized into [Page 105] the Name, and not into the Nature of the Spirit? Can a Man baptize into Spirit and into Life, without Spi­rit and Life? God did convert, reconcile, baptize, beget and build up Thousands to himself by them; unto whom the VVord of Reconciliation was com­mitted, and who were Embassadors in Christ's stead. Now, as for Water-Baptism, what Paul sayes of him­self, I may say of his Commission, It was not behind any of the rest; yet he denies Water-Bap­tism to be any Part of it, and is as plainly rejected of him, in Point of Institution, as any Thing in Scrip­ture. So that either Water-Baptism is none of Christ's Institutions; or else Paul had no Commission to per­form Christ's Institutions, which were strange. T. Collier determines this, The Baptism of Christ is the Baptism of the Spirit.

But if any of you can shew a larger Commission then Paul had, let him produce it: if not, I must conclude they Run, and are not Sent.

§. VII. Of the Doctrine of Justification

I Perceive [...]y what thou hast writ of Justification, thou inten [...]st to end at the rate thou hast manag'd the Controversie all along; I mean with the same shuffles and injustice. I will set down thy Charge, the Answer thou makest me give, and thy Reply.


Thou hast holdly affirm'd that Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholely with­out us, to be a Doctrine of Devils, Apol. pag. 148. What sayst thou is this?


This Apology cited, [Page 106] was written against a malitious Priest in Ireland, Reas. ag. Rail. p. 68. If thy Position cannot be prov'd it will be no Excuse to say, It was given to a malitious Priest, yea, thy Folly and Rashness is the more aggravated, &c. p. 96.


As if I had given that Answer, not to inform Persons against whom the Book was writ, and the Occasion of the Passage, but (as one unable to say any thing in my Defence) to extenuate the Fact, and Excuse my writing it. I perceive, rather then want Occasions to Abuse me, thou wilt make them. But what sayst thou concerning Justification?


Thou supposest the Doctrine of Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled wholely without us, to be a Sin-pleasing and dangerous Notion: What Reason hast thou so to esteem it? p. 67.


I do so; taking my Words in my Sense, and my Reasons are, 1st, Because wholely wit [...]out us, is an unscriptural phrase: 2dly, It takes away the necessi­ty of all Inward Work. 3dly, No man is justified without Faith. No man hath Faith without Sanctifi­cation and Works; therefore the Works of Righ­teousness, by the Spirit, are necessary to compleat Justification.


Whether a sincere Faith is necessary to our Justifica­tion, is one thing: But whether such a Faith be our sole Righteousness by which we are Justified, is another, p. 67.


And whether T. H. be not a [...] idle Shifter is another thing. Was it the Question, Whether our Faith were the sole Righteousness to Justification; or whether Justification were by a Righteousness wholy without us and our Faith too? If a sncere Faith be ne­cessary; then because Faith is not Faith without Work, Justification is not wrought wholely with­out. [Page 107] I told thee before, that this Doctrine of thine speaks Peace to the Wicked, whilst wicked. But there is no Peace to the Wicked, saith my God.


It is horrible wicked to conclude, that what Christ hath done and suffered without us, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilest such.


R [...]g [...]t; but who is the Man? Not W. P. for opposing a Doctrine which leaves men as wicked as it found them; yea, encourages them in it. I ap­peal to the sober Reader, if it be all one, to say, that Justification by the Righteousness of Christ wholely without, which leaves the Conscience as polluted as ever, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilest Wicked, and to affirm, that what Christ hath done and suffered with­out us, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilest wicked. Thy indirect Consequences T. H. are to obvious and numerous to deceive any ordinary Reader. But what sayst thou to my Distinction about Justifi­cation? ‘Christ's VVork was two-fold; 1st, to remit, forgive or justifie from the imputation of sins past, such as truly repent and believe. 2dly, By his Power and Spirit working in the hearts of such, to destroy and remove the very Nature of Sin, to make an end of it, to finish Transgression present and to come: The first removes the Guilt, the second, tne Cause of it: Me thinks this should a little allay thy Clamours.’


This Distinction of the Work of Christ proves not what thou hast asserted: viz. That Justification is not by imputation of anothers Righteousness; much less that such a Justification is a Doctrine of Devils. p. 72.


This shews thee weary of the VVork, or else [...]hou wouldst not so soon after my Distinction con­tinue [Page 108] in thy mis-construction of my VVords, for the clearing of which, my Distinction was made: I grant, that such as Repent and Believe receive Re­mission, or a justifying from former Sins through the Righteousness of God declared in and by Jesus Christ. But is this Compleat Justification? it is a ma­king Inwardly Just, through a Purging out of Iniquity, and Mortifying of Corruption, and bringing in Christ's Everlasting Righteousness? If not, then to exclude this, and yet conclude men compleatly justified, by what Christ hath done wholely without, is a Doctrine of Devils; for it leaves men in an impure state, and allows the Devils Kingdom to continue in being. In short, it is as much as to say, that W. Pen calls what Christ hath done for Men without, a Doctrine of Devils, because W. P. asserts that to be a Doctrine of Devils, which maketh all that is necessary for Mans compleat Justification before God, to have been wrought by Christ wholely without, thereby excluding the necessity of the Just-working, or Just-making Power of Christ from Man to that VVork. Well, but I also told thee of the necessity of Faith and Repentance, even to the first part of Justification; consequently, that men cannot be justified in any sense, without regard had to any inward VVork, viz. Of Sanctification, without which there can be no true Believing.


Though this be more close to the point then any thing thou hast spoken, yet it is not close as to prove thy Position: For if Repentance be but a Condition, then it is not the sole Righteousness for which we are justified, p 73.


Produce me but one Passage of ours that ever spoke that Langu [...]ge, and I will yet say thou hast not wronged us. Besides this Answer is wide from [Page 109] thy purpose, though it comes very close to mine: For from contending for Justification by a Righteousness wholely without (the Question) thou art come now to contend against, a Justification by a Righteousness wholely within, which was not the Question.


But thou sayst Abraham's personal Obedience was the Ground of his being accounted Righteous: If so, Then we are not made Just by a Righteousness perform'd without us, but by a Righteousness perform'd by our selves. But then, What wilt thou say to this Text; If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God? Rom. 4.2. p. 77, 78.


The Apostle James beares me out in what I said; for if Abraham were justified by works, as said James, then his Obedience to God's Spirit, which makes up those VVorks, gave him acceptance in God's sight: and let T. H. say, if he dare, that Abraham was not justified in God's sight, in his re­signing up Isaac for a Sacrifice; and if he were, how do I err?

But that I might not be thought to oppose one Apostle to another, know, Reader, that the Apostle James speaks of such Works, as were not performed in Abraham's own strength, but through Faith and his Obedience to God's Spirit; and therefore Evan­gelical. And the Justification they lead to, was a daily Acceptance with God. The Works the Apo­stle Paul speaks of, were meerly Abraham's in his own power (as those of the Jews from the Law) therefore not justifying before God in any sense; least of all could they merit Remission, or purchase Abraham those great Blessings and peculiar Favours that it pleased Almighty God to bestow upon him above [Page 110] others. Works and Justification thus distinguish'd and allow'd, prevent Mens setting one in opp [...]sition to the other; and here Paul may come in without con­tradiction to James: If Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. The whole Chapter concerns a justifying by the Remission of Sins that are past, as the following Verses evid [...]n [...]e: Even as David also describeth the Blessedness of the Man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works; say­ing, Blessed are they whose Ʋnrighteousness are forgiven, and whose Sins are covered. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin, Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. So that the Righteousness not obtainable by the Works of the Law, ver. 16. and the Justification (which Abra­ham's own works could not procure) which is ob­tain'd by Faith in the Love of God, is here explain'd to be, the Forgiving of Iniquity, and the covering of Sin. But this is far from maintaining th [...] Compleat­ness of Justification from a Righteousness wholely without.

Testimonies concerning Justification.

Erasmus. We grant to be justified by Faith, that is, Hearts to be purged, See Fascul. rerum expetend. p. 129. De amabili Eccles. concord.

The Fathers were just by the Righteousness of the Law in them, Iren. l. 4. c. 30.

Noah, Abraham, &c. were just by the Law na­tural (that is eternal) Tertullian Adv. Jud. p. 184.

Clem. Alex. saith, That Abraham was justified by Faith, but that Faith he calls [...], a per­ [...]ect purgation. lib. 1. praed.

Justin. Martyr. Defens ad. Anton. saith, Socrates [...]ved with the Word; and that he knew Christ in part, [Page 111] Defens. ad Senat. That was by the Light within: How could he know him otherwise?

Scultetus p. 38. of his Medulla, saith, There are some at this day of his Opinion, and that do reckon Melchi­zedek, Abimelech, Ruth, Rachab, the Queen of Saba, Hiram, Naaman, &c. among Christians.

H. Bullinger D [...]cad. 1. serm. 6. de Justif. To justi­fie signifieth to [...]m [...]t offences, to clense to sanctifie and to give utterance of Life Everlasting. Again, Justifica­tion is taken for Remission of Sins, for Sanctification and Adoption into the number of the Sons of God.

§. VIII. Of Personal Reflections. T. H's Scurrulous Language. The Conclusion.

THou accusest me with defending and jus [...]ying E. B. in Cursing, Railing and Lying, and that in the Name of the Lord, Dial. 3. p. 10, 82, 83. where it is to be observed, that thou doest not onely esteem it so thy self, but supposest me both to confess it to be such, and that notwithstanding I warrant it from the Lord. These are thy black and odious Insinuations and Conclusions, as may at large be seen in the pages, be­fore mentioned as if to deny them to be such, were to affirm them such; for I know not by what other Fi­gure I allow them such. But because this cannot appear less then an absurd and incredible Lye, to all that have their senses, I shall the less heed it; But what Proof doest thou bring that E. B. curses, lyes and railes? To call what he sayes by such hard Names, concludes no such thing. All I see is, that thou ry [...]'st to the words by him utter'd, as if a Re­petition [Page 112] were a Proof: Poor Man! This it is to be upon the Fret, Proud and Passionate: E. B. must curse, lye and raile, because thou sarst so. Is not this to act the Dictator with a witness? The Truth is I scarce think there ever was a fouler. But thou stomackst my saying that the Scripture allows those Names, and retor'st, it seems you can make the Scrip­ture your Rule for Lying, Cursing and Railing. But this is as irreverently said of the Scripture as abu­sively of us, and absurdly in it self; can any man make them his Rule for that which is impious? I had thought that at what time any act wickedly, th [...]y cease to make them their Rule. Shall I make one of thy Conclusions now against thee? T. Hicks says, the Scripture may be a Rule for Lying, Cursing and Rail­ing. But is every Example a Rule? a Rule always relat [...]s to Duty; a President or Example not. Is it my Duty to call bad men by all the Names mentioned in Scripture, because there are such Examples? VVhat then should I call Thee, that art as bad a man, every jot, as the worst of them? This shews that the Scripture cannot be a Rule in an hundred such Cases, but the particular measure of Wisdom from God, that is always present, and gives to und [...]rstand and apply things suitably, and not upon mere Imitation, where thy Religion, such as it is, stands. I say, that our justifying our Practice by the Example of Scripture, does not conclude it our Rule, or any man's whatsoever, in so citing it: And therefore thy thread-bare Answer, it seemes you are forc'd to make Scripture your Rule to prove this or that, is out of doors and to be despised, as plausible as it looks: Again, [...]f the Scriptures be our Rule in any particular cases [Page 113] (and I think we live up to it more then thou d [...]est, witness thy three impious Dialogues) yet this concludes not the matter in Question for thee; since it proves not the Scriptures to be eminently the Rule, or the most eminent or general Rule, &c. But T. H. why has E. B. transgress'd more than either Prophets or Apo­stles, yea then Christ himself, when he (to such car­n [...]l men as thy self) seemed so unkind and harsh in his Answer and Rebuke of Peter's Love and Care of him, as to say, Get thee behind me Satan? The Priest that E. B. gave those Names (no one of which was harder then Satan) was never half so kind to him, as Peter was to Christ; Nay, they were entrapping Questions; such as they used to assault Christ with, when they sought occasion against him, whom he called Children of the Devil. And we know that some of thy race T. H. in the former times when power was in your Hands, diligently sought matter against us: G. Fox was about the same time indicted for Blasphe­my, and endeavours great in some of the old Pharisai­cal stock, thy Brethren, to take away his Life. E. B. knew whom and what he answer'd: And I do say, that by thy Argument about the Scriptures being the Rule, without, further Regard thou oughtest to stop thy Mouth, unless thou canst prove that E. B. had not the same Warrant the holy men of old had, to name thy Predecessors by; to do which, thou must come to the discerning of Spirits: And by what wilt thou perform that enquiry and Judgment? How canst thou tell, whether a man using Christ's Words to Peter, to a loving Disswader of him from Suffer­ings, that onely intends his Good, is well or ill done? The Scripture is no Rule for our discerning aright [Page 114] this case; nor is it his Duty, in case he be in the right, because Christ's words are there recorded, un­less he be thereto prompted, of the same Power: Yet if he say so, and be reproved by any; 'tis and must be granted that there is an Example which shuts the Mouthes, or should do, of all who respect the Scripture; which is our case with thee. Well, but Christ had no Provocation by Peter's words, but the Spirit that lurkt in them, which savour'd not the Work of God then doing; To relish the like case aright there must be the same Spirit; which T. H. rejecting for the Rule of right Judgment, to be sure he can be no right Judge of E. B. But upon his own Opinion ought to be silent from further Clamour a­gainst him, and repent of his scurrulous reproachful Lan­guage, with which he has so often run over his Grave.

But thou chargest p. 86. Nicholas Lucas with say­ing, That if the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, and though he denies it, yet thou tell'st us, it is never the less a Lye for that; and that he knows his Accusers. But suppose it were true, had it not more become an Anabaptist, and a Preacher too, (especially, when one of the Scriptures in thy Title Page is, A Man that is an Heretick, after the 1st and 2d Admonition reject, who never dealt so with either him or us, that thou so hast publickly writ against as such) first to have dealt with N L. about it; and granting he had been so obstinate in a wicked Saying, as thou Dialoguest him to be, had this been a sufficient Ground for thee to charge it upon the Persons and Principles of the People called Quakers? But now thou hast given the World a Saying to measure us by, that first is of several years standing, and but [Page 115] lately raked up, and might have been either at first mis-apprehended, or some word forgotten or mis-placed. 2dly, That N. L. denies that he ever spake it, by a serious Certificate in G. W's Append. confirm'd by H. Stout, appeal'd to by thy Anabaptist Informers, which thou hast not so much as attempted to invalidate. 3dly, That he abhors the Matter contained in the Story, and that without all mental Reserves. And 4thly, That it's charged upon, and made to be the Measure of Ʋs and our Principles and Motions, there­by making us to blaspheme God's Spirit, as well as reprobate Scripture, (and that with no small Ag­gravation) who are innocent, by never speaking the Words, by never countenancing such Words, & by not holding the Matter directly or indirectly contained in them; and we do utterly renounce and abhor both the one and the other. Well, T. Hicks! God will plead our Cause against the Malignity of thy Slanderous Spirit: No Justice, no Discreti­on could ever have led thee to this monstrous pitch of Abuse: thou shewest how glad thou art to bedirt us, by making other Folks Lyes thy Charges, and then insisting on them with as much Confidence, as if thou wert infallibly assured of every jot. But we have some cause to suspect thee more then ever; thy Tale wears so many Dresses: One while it is, Thou mayst burn thy Bible, and write as good an one thy self, Contin. p. 5. Another while, We may burn our Bible, and make as good an one our self, Dial. 3. pag. 3. And last of all, it is to go thus, If the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, ibid. p. 86. Now, T. H. answer; thou that pretendest to such punctu­ality, which of these are we to take? The first is [Page 116] unlikely, because what ever we think we could do, to be sure thou canst not think that a Quaker should have so good an Opinion of an Anabaptist Woman, as that she could write another Bible as good as this, that we are sure understands not this. If we must take thee in thy second Account, then the Woman is out in her first Story: If in the last Relation of this Fiction, then it concerns the Quakers no more then the Anabaptists. For suppose the World were under one Emperor, and he so impious as to enjoyn the burning of all the Bibles, and all were burnt; I hope they are not so irreligious as to limit God's Power, who is Almighty, that he could not furnish us with one as good as this, especially, since Christians would else, as you must hold be without a Rule: for I would have thee take notice T. H. that thou hast so materially varied in thy Charge, that now it is not, whether, if the Bible were burnt, any Man could make as good an one; but whether if it were by such Impiety burnt, as good an one might not be writ, which words are general. Here, T. H. to give the—his due, thou hast helpt thy Fiend Quaker, by bringing him in, saying, what T. H. unless he would questi­on God's Omnipotency, dare not deny.

But to conclude, either these Mistakes proceed from the first Authors, or from T. H. If from the first Authors, why should they be credited at all, who show such incertainty? if from T. Hicks; what Reason has he to be so infallibly sure of their Me­mories, who is not sure of his own Books, much less of his own Memory being found in such manifest Variations? But since every just Judge accounts that Accuser and Witness of little Credit, that are found [Page 117] divers and inconsistent in their Stories; I hope my sober Reader, who is made judge betwixt us, will in justice cashier T. Hicks from all Credit with him in these attempts. But as against N. L. so against S. Eccles T. H. has publish [...] a foul Slander, viz. That he should say, the Scriptures are a Lye. This G. W. Appe [...]d p. 12. reflected upon thee, as an abusive and false Charge; To which I cannot find that thou sayst any more then this, that one of thy Witnesses against N. L. can testifie that S. E. said, he used Scripture, onely to satisfie him, Dial. 3. p. 86. Doubtless that Wit­ness has long Eares, thou hangst so fast by them. But he can witness it. But why does he not? Is that Put-off like to confirm the Charge? But granting thy Witness remembers better against S. E. then N. L. Does S. E's. saying, that he us'd Scripture to satisfie his Opponent, prove, that he said, the Scriptures were a Lye? Do men use to prove Truths by Lyes? Doth not this make S. E. imply the Lye to his own Prin­ciples, which he quoted Scripture to prove real Truths; What sayst thou T. H. Is this to [...]vince the truth of thy Objections and Charges against the Quakers, and secure thy Credit with thy own and other People, that carries with it what merits the Detestation and Rebuke of every honest mind?

But that thou mayst go out with the same braving Rant thou camest in with, and the like Honesty, thou tellest thy Reader, that W. P. is guilty of wilful Lying, in saving, that thou disingenuously slankedst from a publick Meeting, and evadedst the offer made thee by G W to that purpose: It is not unlikely but thou takest thy old Way of proving, which is in the end to detect thy self of that thou chargest me w [...]th the Guilt of. First thou sayst, that long before my Book was out, thou didst [Page 118] desire to meet with me, and I refused. But doth this prove me guilty of wilful Lying, in charging thee with evading the offer made for a publick Disputati­on? Are the termes of a Meeting for a publick Dis­putation in thy Answer? If not, How does thy An­swer reach the Question? VVell, But I refus'd; to do what? To meet a Man in private that had twice printed a Knave, a Fool, an Heretick▪ a Blasphemer [...] and I know not how much more, either in those Termes or in Circumlocution, to the VVorld: No such matter, T. H. I never intend to release thee from the Burden and Shame of so many publick and manifest Villanies as thou hast committed against me, a Stranger to thee in all respects, and my Friends in general, that it may be never heard of such a man. Besides, Let me tell thee, I look upon thee to be so base a Person, that as I shall always desire to have nothing to do with thee (for that cause, and not thy Abilities) so I never intend to trust my self in such private manner with any man, that is detected of such notorious Perversion, Lying and Forgery; there being no Security to any one in common con­versing with thee; save that thou deservest no Cre­dit against any man, who hast so publickly forfeited all Credit in thy numerous fictions against us. But to prove thou hast not evaded the publick Meeting, thou tellest thy Reader,that thou didst send six Que­stions to G. W. to debate them upon notice in a convenient time and place; that he refus'd; therefore G. W. did both shuffle and lye; which is the great shuffle of thy 3d. Dial. in little, or the Evasion or thy whole Book Epi­tomized: For as thou hast pretended in thy 3d. Dial. that the Evincement of the own Objections, was all that we required or stood thee upon to do; so here [Page 119] thou makest as if the Discussing of those Objections (herein consider'd) had bin all, there was any ground to dispute upon; which was for thee, who art the Abuser, to chuse a Char [...] for the abused to insist upon. But why didst thou no [...] [...]ell thy Reader, that G. W. first sent thee a Charge in writing; and that he offered in a publick Auditory to prove thee guilty of Forgeries, Self-contradictions and gross Errours, from thy own Dialogues? Instead of yielding to the Test, even a­bout matter of Fact, where thou hast grossely abus'd us, thou didst in plain termes shuffle by a fresh pro­posal of Question; as if thou wert to teach us where and what to charge our Enemies with; and then prescribe Rules (with many taunting Expressions, omitted in thy 3d Dial,) how to behave our selves, on purpose to evade the Meeting. I would have thee know, it was our Right to make the Complaint; and hadst thou been a man of any Honesty, thou wouldst readily have considered it, and joyn'd issue upon our Charge: This, in Reputation to thy self, as well as Justice to us, thou oughtst not to have declin'd; And yet to aggravate these shuffles G. W. proffer'd in his 4th paper to thee a note of the particulars charg'd as Forgeries &c. if thou desiredst it; so willing was he and others to have seen thee in a publick Auditory. B [...]t seeing this would not do, he and I went to John Gladman's, desiring him to offer thee from us, we wou [...]d meet thee and who else to defend thee, in a publick Auditory with thy Dialogue in one band and the Bible in the other; the fairest of tenders; to make thy own Book the Subject; and the Scriptures, (thou sayst we reprobate) A Rule. But this thou canst not but know was also rejected: So that to conceal these Shifts, nay, to say thou art Shuffler, and which [Page 120] is worse, to charge G. W. with both Shuffling and Lying at what time thou art so manifestly guilty of both, is to highten thy Ʋnworthiness to a monstrous pitch.

But as the Matter of thy Book is injurious, so thy Languague insolent and scurrulous; intitling us Cheats, Impostors, a mad, arrogant, abusive, prophane M [...]n, Knave, in discourse [Coxcomb] impious Cursers, Lyars, Blasphemers, most implacable Enemies to the Chri­stian Religion, as vile Impostors as ever were, influenced and inspired by the grand Impostor the Devil; calling our Religion, malignant Errors, a mystical Romance, Satan's Snar [...]s, Blasphemy, blasphemous Absurd [...]ties, I proclaim to the World, that your Religion is a meer Cheat, calculated only to the Service of the Devil, and your own Lusts: and abusing our religious Language with such like Expressions as these, Impertinent Canting; your idle non-sensical and blasphemous Prating; Termes that as much unbecome thy Pretences, as they re­semble the rest of thy Practices. Canst thou with good Conscience upbraid E. B. with rebuking a Priest in Scripture Language, whilst thou hast taken the Liberty; throughout thy Dialogues, when and where thou we [...]t never provok'd, of such foul and frothy Expressions, as becomes not any Man writing of Religion? Is this to make the Scripture thy Rule; or to act the Christian against the Quaker? and to prove the Quaker none? No such matter T. H. but much the contrary, and that in the minds of not a few, and those too, of thy own Way, though of a better Spirit, who have disown'd them, Root and Branch. I would not, after thy Example, reprobate all with thee, God forbid: That God has turned these ill design'd Attempts to our Advantage, re­member what sort of Salute was lately given thee, [Page 121] by a Religious and Ingenious Person in Bristol (once a Preacher among the Independents) at thy reflecting upon his adhering to the Way we profess, viz That he read thy Dialogues before he ever read the Quakers Books (or Answers) and that the disingenuity of that Dealing (apprehending it to be no real Dialogue) was a FURTHERANCE of his INQUIRIES, and so of his CONVICTIONS, grounded upon thy ABUSES; an Argument never to be answer'd by thee, T. H. if thou shouldst write Three Dialogues more, unless they were as remote from these as thou wert from Honesty when thou writ'st them; who doest first Forge, and then Lye and Rail to maintain it.

Think not with these Comical Courses to obtain thy Ends upon us, nor raze the Foundation of our Religion by thy abusive Interludes; in which thou hast not imitated Christ, but Ap'd the prophane Stager; writing a sort of Mock Religion instead of solid Controversie; therein playing the Humourist with the Vulgar, like Aristophanes of old, (though with worse Malice, and less Wit) who sacrific'd the Ver­tue and Gravity of Socrates and his Friends, to please their Enemies, and profit himself; the Hin­ges on which thy Dialogues turn. The First is mani­fest, and so is the Last to the value of 300 Books at an Impression [if some of thy Assistants do not wrong thee, as we suppose not] (ask the Bookseller else) besides [...]erquisites; hereby proving thy self, one of those unruly Vain-Talkers, who writest things thou oughtest not for filthy Lucre sake, applyed to us in thy Title-page but due to thy Self.

And however sweet these Courses may relish to thy worldly Palate, thou wilt find them deadly Poysonous in the End; at what time thy own Dia­logues, [Page 122] and not I, nor any influenced by me, will prove so many ASSASSINATORS in thy own Bowels. God, if it please him, give thee Re­pentance, that thou mayst escape his fierce VVrath to come. Amen.

Now sober Reader, I shall address my self to thee, and God's righteous VVitness in thy Conscience, whether I have acquitted my Self in this Controver­sie as becomes a Christian-man, against the Violent & U [...]fair A [...]ults of my Adversary? and if I may not with very good Reason conclude, that he has all this while but counterfeited the Christian, and abused the Quaker; and consequently, that he (and not the real Quaker) is quite another thing then a Christian? Let Righteous Judgment take place.

A true Lover, and hearty Wisher of thy Souls Felicity, W. P.

Not every one that sayth unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doth the Will of my Father which is in Heaven,

Mat. 7.21.

For he is not a Jew which is one outward; neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the Flesh: But he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit; and not in the Letter, whose Praise is not of Men but of God,

Rom. 2.28, 29.

But us then he that was born after the Flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now,

Gal. 4.29.

But be of good chear I have overcome the World,

Jo. 16. last.

Pag. 13. line 7. read two first Dialogues. p. 34. l. 32. r. Dial. 3. p. 41. p. 35. l. 28. r. spoak. l. 31. r. was p. 41. l. 26. r. 76. p. 46. l. 14. r. of [...]his.

A Postscript by another Hand.

WE expect to hear what the Baptists in and about London will say (as being appeal'd to) concerning their Brother Thomas Hick's Proceeding in his Three Dialogues, and whether they approve thereof, or of such Play-Books, or Romances about Religion, yea or nay; for they are highly concerned to give Judg­ment, and to be plain to the World herein, as they tender the Glory of God, and Reputation of Religion, &c.

NOw, if you the Teachers and Elders, &c. among the Baptized People, do not publickly clear your selves of Thomas Hicks, and these his unjust Proceed­ings against us; and hereafter he further persists therein. VVe may take it for granted, that you own his VVork; and may justly deal with him, and pursue him, not only as Tho. Hicks, but as the Bap­tists great Champion, peculiar Agent, or Represen­tative. But if you ingenuously clear your selves of him and his Corrupt, Perverse VVork, then his fu­ture Miscarriages will be chargeable only upon T. Hicks himself, and you will appear to the VVorld, so far clear thereof; and approve your selves the more honest and sincere towards, God, Truth and Religion.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.