Reason against Railing, AND Truth against Fiction.

Reason against Railing, AND Truth against Fiction. Being An Answer to those Two late Pamphlets, Intituled, A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, and the Continuation of the Dialogue, &c. by one Thomas Hicks, an Anabaptist Teacher. In which

  • His Dis-ingenuity is Represented,
  • His Prophaneness is Rebuked,
  • His Forgeries are Detected,
  • His Cavils are Confounded.

And Thomas Hicks proved No Christian, By several short Arguments raised from his Un­godly Way of Procedure against us.

By one that cannot but Contend earnestly for the True Faith once delivered to the Saints, W. Penn.

Ye shall conceive Chaff, ye shall bring forth Stubble; your Breath as Fire shall devour you,

Isa. 33.11.

Printed Anno 1673.



OF what sort of People soever thou art, sure I am, that Almighty God hath placed a Witness for himself in thy Conscience, unto whom thou must stand or fall in the Terrible Day of Account. Vain will all prove that gives not to abide the Test of that Day, when the Works of all Mankind shall assuredly come to Judgment: But blessed forever will they be, who, not deluding them­selves with Unprofitable Notions, shall appear with Consciences void of Offence before God, Angels and Men. And as I have been taught to seek that Happiness above all other, however mis-re­presented by Ungodly Men, so would I not for ma­ny Worlds hazard the Peace of that State, by any un­just Proceed against this Adversary now before me, however provokt by his Exorbitances. I would give the Worst of Men their Due, and as I justly esteem him of that Number, so God forbid that I should in the least deprive him of his Right, a Rob­bery I would not (after his Example) be guilty of.

Sorry I am that so many Occasions are renew­ed [Page] to trouble both thee and my self with Books of Controversie; did I consult my own Ease, and the common Peace of the several Religious Interests of this Land, Silence should have been my Choice,

God is my record, these things have deep­ly griev'd my very Soul, and made me cry, Oh when will Men rather press after Piety, then contend [...]or Opinion, and devote themselves to the sincere Practice of that true and undefiled Religion, instead of Pursuing the sinister Ends of what they falsly repute such! Shall Noise alwayes go for Zeal, and implacable Contest constantly be esteem'd con­tending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints? Miserable People! Who know not that of all the Enemies Faith has to overcome, there is not a grea­ter to be conquered? It is an old F [...]tch of the Devils to besaint his own Off-spring, that he may beguile the Simple-hearted; and to think of doing God good Service in persecuting his Truth, was the Condition of the high-professing Jews of old.

Reader, It hath been our great Unhappiness, that we have not been hitherto known, as we are; for since we evermore desire to be unvail'd to God, there is n [...] Reason why we should abscond our selves from Men no, would we were known of Men, as w [...] are known of the Lord: But such is the Impudenc [...] of this Adversary, that whilst we seek nothing mo [...] then to be understood, he would have the World believe, we glory in being Unintelligible, and seem [Page] to make the whole Drift of his Discourse to be a Dis­covery of us; who, instead of pulling our pretended Mask off, puts a frightful Vizard on, and then leads us up and down his Dialogues for a Sight; This is G. Fox, that G. Whitehead, and the other Edward Burroughs, or William Penn, &c. per­verting, detracting, mis-construing, vilisying, slandering to the height, and which is worst of all, this Villanous Practice is to pass for godly Zeal, and in Defence of the Gospel.

Reader, I have only this to request, be Mode­rate, be Impartial; and this grant for thy own sake, that what Judgment thou shalt hereafter make of us, or our Enemies, may be such, as thou shalt not be ashamed of in the Day of the Lord God. Certain­ly it concerns us to beseech all to weigh these Things; For never were Men more Innocent, and yet never any rendered mo [...] Nocent: Our Reputation here, and our Welfare hereafter are brought into Question; we must be at once the Worst and most Imprudent Men, if what be charged, be True; And if False, our Adversary greatly both: For such is the Accusati­on, that nothing short of foulest Wickedness can lie at one of our Doors. And though I know many slight him, who yet are not of us, reputing him no better then a meer Janizary in Religion, one that fights for his Pay, and writes for his Living, a kind of homily-Hireling, not worth our Notice; yet, since such is the Unhappiness of some, that they [Page] stick not to entertain more favourable Thoughts of his Endeavours against us; for their sakes, and to detect his Envy, Error and Injustice to the World, am I now engaged: And if God give me Life, I hope to pursue this undertaking effectually, let him get what Stock of Force and Ammunition he can. Reader, I omit to say more here, but that I am with all Sincerity

Thy true Friend, W. Penn.

[Page 1]Reason against Railing, AND Truth against Fiction.


The Introduction to the Discourse. Reasons why the Dialogue was not answered before.

IF it shall be wondered at by any, that we are so quick with our Return to T.H. upon his Second Dialogue, who seem'd no more concern'd for his First: 'tis fit that such know the Reasons we have to give in our Defence.

First, We esteemed it a Fiction, calculated to the vain and scoffing Humour of the Vulgar, with­out all Savour of Mercy, Justice, Seriousness or Ci­vility; worthy of no Man's Patronage, that would be in earnest about Religion; To employ our Time about a large, compleat and distinct Book, had been to loose it.

2ly, George Whitehead, the Person most engaged, had given such an Account of it in brief to the World, that with many it seem'd sufficient; since the Contradictions by him observ'd, are no wayes reconciled, nor so much as attempted by T.H. in his last Dialogue.

3ly, Because whatever might seem to carry any Force with it throughout that confident Piece of [Page 2] Forgery, we resolved to consider among many o­ther Adversaries in one large Volumn, which is ac­cordingly done. And had it not been for other intervening Discourses, with the great Difficulty we [...]ave to print our Just Defences, when we have made them (a Strait our Enemies are not put to) it had long ere this come to publick View.

4ly; Several other Adversaries were then before us, who, whether they said any thing more injurious, to be sure, pretended better Proof and Evidence for what they affirmed.

5ly, So just Complaint having met him, as well from several unconcerned in our Way, as our Friends, to wit, That he had charged the Quaker with saying, what he did not, at least to him, and in that case, if ever he coul [...] prove it to have been either his Saying, or his Belief at any time, or in any case. He now to vin­ [...]icate himself from such Injustice, 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 ow [...] Books, which, if faithfully done, I shall freely acknowledge, that a Quaker is quite an­other thing than a Christian. And as this may suffice all, but such as are resolved never to be satisfied with any thing that comes from us, of the Reason of deferring our further Answer; so having now that Ground to proceed upon, which we never had before. I shall with God's Assistance make the best of it I can, in Defence of the Truth, and the Innocency of them that profess it; only give me leave to hint at a few Things, which may not be im­proper to the Matter in hand, because they do not a little discriminate and give to relish the Spirit of our Adversary.


Something of the manner of his Dealing with us.

FIrst then, he has taken a very unequal Way to represent our Faith, Doctrine and Pra­ctice to the World, in that he hath rather deliver­ed his own Fury, then a true Quaker, and shews to the World, rather what he would have us to be, then what we are.

Can it be fairly done, to propose the most knotty Questions for himself, and give the weakest Answers for us? Had he but had the Generosity of a Roman, he would have given us fair Dealing for our Reputati­ons: To make a Fool and an Heretick both, and then call him a Quaker, is no less then a Rape, because a vi­olent Robbery committed upon those that go under that Name.

The best of Men can never escape, let their Ad­versaries have but the Characterizing of them. It had become T. Hicks, if he would have shown him­self a Christian and a Champion too, first to have set down our Principles and Arguments, as deli­vered and urged by us, and then have enervated both by his pretended greater Strength of Scripture and Reason, before he had made so many Trophies of Conquest; But because, had we been in the wrong, this had been the Practice of a true Christian, and that this has not been his Practice, we are taught to infer, that T. Hicks is thus far Antichristian.

[Page 4] Secondly, He has not only made us Weak and Ri­diculous by Answers no wayes to the Purpose, Dial. p. 66. but to belye our very Consciences and Principles. For when he asks us, Do you believe the Scrip­tures to be true Sayings of God? he makes us to answer, So far as they agree to the Light in me: An Answer never so delivered by us. And when he queries, Will you be so liberal of your Revilings, whether your Adversary gives Occasion or not? He answereth for us, It concerns us to render them as Ri­diculous as we can, and to make our Friends believe, they do nothing but contradict themselves, which is enough to us.

Certainly these things shew such premeditated and wilful Obstinacy to be wicked, that were 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 for­ever. I fear T. Hicks measures us by himself; and that the Answer he feigns to the Second part of his Dialogue, will be his Lot as truly, as he has there feign­edly said it. It would take up too much time to en­large, only thus much let me say, That Man is hard put to it, and Unjust with a Witness, who not only invents Answers to dis-repute a Man or People, but such as are very Lyes too against their Faith and Practice.

Thirdly, Nor is this all, but he hath managed the whole of his Dialogues in a Spirit of Prophanation, by a tanting and inapplicable Use of many serious Words, that have at one time or other been seaso­nably uttered by Sober, Simple and Religious Peo­ple [Page 5] to the insnaring Questions of such Trapan­ners as himself. As for instance, ‘Thou manifests thy Darkness, that thou art still in thy Imagina­tion; What dost thou witness in thy self? I see thou art a poor dark Creature, as by thy Talking is manifest; yea, it is manifest in the Light; yea, verily: Alas for thee!Pag. 13, 15, 25, 44, 45, 49, 54, 60, 76. I bear witness against thee: We are dead to Distinctions: Thou ma­nifestest a Perverse Spirit.’ These, Reader, with the like Expressions doth this Ungod­ly Scoffer give to the World in the Name of a true Quaker, as some of his best Answers; and that to such Questions, whose Matter hath been effectually considered and answered in many of our Books: however, his Spirit shows, to whomsoever those An­swers are improper, in one sense they are not so to him. But above all, that a Man pretending to Religi­on himself, and such a one too as next to us stands fairest for Reproach, should give our serious Lan­guage in a Jeer, as if we were fitter to be Derided than Informed, is horridly wicked. Can his Con­science be so seared, as to handle holy Things with­out Fear? Is Singularity grown so odious to an Ana­baptist Preacher, that he should make it a Subject for his Scorn and Drollery? However this may resem­ble T. Hicks, he does not herein answer the First Love of the People who go under that Name, while he shews so much implacable Hatred to his Consci­entious Neighbour, thereby not discountenancing the prophane Rabble in their frequent Scoffs at us, but furnishing them with such a Work of Darkness, as excites them further to it, making us to inherit those cruel Mockings, which were once the Portion [Page 6] of his own Profession. We know, what answers not God's Witness, shall never be able to abide the Tryal, and therefore we are the less concerned in his Comical Abuses of us, more becoming a More­field or a Smithfield Stage-Play, than a Christian Treatise. Thus much and no more of the Spirit of the Man in general, because more largely handled else-where.


The Question Stated, and accordingly Pursued. Our Ad­versary proved false and weak.

WE shall now descend to the main Question, and that which is the Ground of his Second Dialogue, and without which there can be no De­fence of his First, viz.

Whether those Doctrines and Expressions, charg­ed upon the People called Quakers by Tho. Hicks in both his Dialogues, be really the Doctrines and Sayings of that People, or not? And afterwards, Whether what we do own, and is by him charged with Error, is sufficiently opposed or proved such?

He affirms, they are; and undertakes to prove his As­sertions out of their own Works, which naturally leads me to consider, what are those Doctrines and Expressions he hath charged upon us to be ours; and what are those Proofs, by which he endeavours to make good that Charge. I shall first of all treat up­on [Page 7] the more weighty Parts of Doctrine, and reserve the more trivial Matters to the latter end.

The first considerable thing he endeavours to sug­gest against us, is, Our making the Light in every Man to be God, Dial. p. 3, 4, 5. which he un­dertakes to prove from G. Whitehead's Discourse upon John 1.4. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men; That if the Life was the Divine Essence, the Light must be so al­so; for such as the Cause is, such the Effect must be. Upon which sayes T. Hicks, ‘From this kind of reasoning we may conclude, not only the Light within, but every Creature both Beasts and Trees are God; these being Effects of infinite Wisdom and Power.’ Dost thou not Tremble at this Con­sequence?

Answ. This very thing shews great Dis-ingenu­ity in T. Hicks, That from G. Whiteheads asserting and proving the divine Nature of the Light within, he should insinuate, that every Measure of Light in Man is whole God, and which is yet more gross, to con­clude from G. Whiteheads saying, Such as the Cause is, such the Effect must be; that Beasts and Trees are God, because the Effects of his Power; whereas G. White­head did not intend it of a meer Potential, but Na­tural Effect, that is, something resulting from the Nature, and not the meer Power of the Divine Life. Men are the Natural Off-spring & Product of Men, but so are not all those other things in the Creation, which are notwithstanding the Effects of their Art and Power, so that there needs no Trembling at G.W's Blasphemy, as he afterwards calls it, but better Information to T. Hicks's Ignorance, or Rebuke to [Page 8] his wilful Blindness. Of this I refer the Reader to G.W's Part of that larger Volum.

Again G.W. affirm'd it must be God, because to de­ny it so to be, was to deny the Omnipresence of God, ‘Then it seems, says T.H. that the Light within, and the Omnipresence of God is one and the same thing with him. Is this your Champion? May we not con­clude the Body of Man as well as the Light within to be God by this Reason?’

Answ. By no means, and 'tis a Shame to hear that a Man pretending to Controversy should ask so ridi­culous a Question. Is there no Difference betwixt a Man, whose Reines are on his Neck, following the Lust of the flesh, the Lust of the Eye, and the Pride of Life, and the Light within, that T.H. himself ac­knowledgeth to convince of Sin, reprove for it, and unto which Man ought to give Attendance? Is there as clear a Proof of the Omnipresence of God in the one as in the other; I would know who is he that searcheth the Hearts, and trieth the Reins, and telleth Man his Thoughts? do not the Scriptures attribute this to God, and that as the most convincing Proof of his Omnipresence? And if he doth so search the Hearts and try the Reins, let us understand, if it be not as the Great Light, that enlightneth every Man that cometh into the World, since the Scriptures testify that God is Light; that every Man is enlight­ened; that God searcheth all Hearts, and that what ever doth make manifest is Light: Now unless a Man may have his Heart searched, his Reins tryed, his Deeds manifested & judg'd without an inward Light, it must necessarily follow, that the Light within, pre­sent with us every where, is to us the great Proof of Gods Omnipresence, and therefore of God. And though e­very [Page 9] measure of Light distinctly is not that Intire Eternal Being, yet we are bold to assert, that it is no other then God the Fulness of all Light, who search­eth the Heart and tryeth the Reins, and telleth Man his thoughts, that doth shine into the Inward parts of Man, and doth there convince of Sin, reprove for it, and lead out of it,John 1.16. Col. 1.19. as believed and obeyed: And 'tis by this Inward Discovery chiefly Men come to know that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that fear him; whence, when Men are Innocent, it is fre­quent with them to say, being unjustly accused, my Heart misgives me not, my Conscience doth not condemn me, I have good Courage to look my Accuser in the Face; A State transcending the utmost Stretch of all T.H's imagined Christianity.

In short T. Hicks's confident Conclusions against us arise from these Mistakes. First, He infers from Mans being Ignorant of all he ought to know, the Ina­bility of the Light to inform him, never considering Man's Obedience or Rebellion. 2ly, From Christs being the Light that enlightens every Man, every Man's having the whole Christ in him; And thirdly from our asserting God and Christ to be one, our Denial of Christs Outward Person and Bodily Appear­ance at Jerusalem, see pag. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 14. of the Dialog. and 41, contin. of the Dial. with much more of that sort: Than which, what can be more grosly Injurious to any People. Either let him leave of Writing, or understand better what he writes against us. In short, we are willing to let the Controversie ly here; that the Quakers own, promote and assert, that the Life of God which is the Light of Men, with which every Man is enlightened, is sufficient [Page 10] to everlasting Salvation; And Thomas Hicks asserts and promotes, that this Life of God, which is the Light of Men with which all Men are enlightened, is not sufficient to Salvation. I am not willing to break my Design of following his Charge and Proofs by much controverting the Doctrine in it self, since 'tis enough for me to shew, that the Doctrines and sayings he fastens upon us, and the Proofs he brings to maintain them such, are not ours: yet I am willing to mention one Passage among several others, that if I understand any thing, is a grand Contradiction to his Opinion of the Light's Insufficiency.

He quotes Stephen Crisp thus, If the Light ought to be obeyed, then it must be sufficient. To which T.H. re­turns this Answer. ‘But I appeal to the Light in thee, whether this be not an Insufficient Proof. I grant it ought to be obeyed, so ought the lawful Commands of Magistrates, Parents and Masters; yet who will thence infer, that therefore they are a sufficient Rule to Salvation?’

Answ. This cuts the Throat of his whole Design, For by the same Reason, that such who obey the lawful commands of Masters, Parents and Magistrates are to be reputed good Servants, Children and Sub­jects, those who obey the Light are good Subjects, Children and Servants to God: And if those who so keep the Commandments of Parents, Masters and Magistrates, escape Punishment, and obtain their Good Will, Favour and Recompence, which is an outward Salvation; then those who obey the Light, by his Allusion, do obtain his Favour, Love and Re­compence of the Reward of Righteousness, which Righteousness, that it might be fulfilled in us, so obeying, and walking after his Spirit, was the End [Page 11] of God's giving his Son a Light, condemning Sin, and that they that walk thereafter,Rom. 8.9, 10, 11. might not have Condemnation, minding the things of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the Dead, the Spirit of Christ, Christ in them, not minding the Things of the Flesh, which [...], or Minding, vers. 7. as it may be render'd, cannot be subject to the Law of God, but they that are subject and are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Children of God, and Heirs according to the Promise. Most Ungodly then must T. Hicks's Consequences be, that because we say, Christ enlightens every Man,pag. 8, 9. Saul persecuted the Church, and the Hea­thens multiplied their False Gods by the Light within. Like unto which is his Arguing, p. 14. where he thus pretends to answer his feigned Quaker: If indeed thou knowest not what I aim at in this Question, then thy Light cannot be God, as thou sayst it is; for God knows the Hearts and Intentions of all Men: thereby confoun­ding the Light and Creature together, and con­cluding Imbecillity, Insufficiency and Ignorance in the Light, which are the Imperfections of the Crea­ture. Was there ever any thing more Scoffing, Pro­phane and Dark then this? might not the Gentiles have treated the Christians after this manner, that if they knew not all things (whether it concerned them to know them, or not) the Christ and Spirit they pre­tended to be led by, were not God? This is so far from proving the Light not to be God, that admit­ting of it, it were to prove every Man a God. Is every Master as ignorant as his Schollar, because his Schollar knows not as much as his Master? T. Hicks knows not all truth, nay T. Hicks may be led into [Page 12] many Mistakes; Is his Bible, which he calls his Rule, there­fore the Cause? Certainly by his way of Arguing a­gainst the Light, if he be not Perfect & Infallible, the Scriptures must needs be Insufficient and Errable: But if it be an Evil, to make the Scripture accessory to T.H's Mistakes; of equal Reason is it Impious in him to charge Men's Infirmities upon the Light, and repute that Insufficient, because they are Rebellious. E­ducation, Prejudice, Interest, Self-Righteousness, Evil Living, bring Vails over the Understanding, that, though the Light shine in Darkness, they com­prehend it not.

When Saul's Formality, and Pharisaical Righte­ousness became shaken by the Law of Light in the Conscience, then, and not till then he cries out, Oh wretched Man that I am. Whilst Saul gave more heed to his Outward Religion, then the Light in his Conscience, he did Persecute, and thought it a Du­ty; 'twas when the Light struck him, that he became aw [...]kened: But if he persecuted the Church by the Light within, why not by the Spirit too, since God gave the Jews his good Spirit? If T. Hicks will say, But he resisted that; so say I, as to the Light; For­mality, Tradition, and many Superstitions (atten­ded with an Ignorant and Harsh Zeal) darkened him, that he could not behold it. But it is a gross Contradiction in T.H. to say, The Light ought to be obeyed; and yet say, That it led Saul to persecute the Christians.

And he abuses many of the Heathen-Philosophers, as well as the Light, in saying, That the Light within reproved them not for multiplying their Deities. For all Learned Men must needs know, as I have else-where at large proved, that by the Light within they have [Page 13] decryed the Heathen-Gods, maintained the Doctrine of the One only Wise God, and for their Faith and Perse­verance they have been Taken, Imprisoned, Arraigned, Condemned and Executed, though it went for justice upon the Enemies of the Gods. Who knows not this, is a Stranger to Story.

But hear T. Hicks, ‘I demand an Instance among the many Thousands of Mankind,pag. 9. Dial. that hath been convinced, or reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ by the meer Light within, before any Revelation was brought unto them; though I grant that the Light in them may reprove for those Sins, the Common Light in all Mankind will not, because thou hast borrowed much Light from the Scriptures, which all have not.’

Answ. I may well suppose, that as many have been reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ, by the Light within, as by the Scriptures; and my Reasons are; First, Because those who crucified him, were Admirers of the Scripture, and pretended to prove 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 that Light could not so effectually do. 2ly, Those who by Scripture came to any Convincement, originally received it from the Revelation of the Light within, which both opened the Scriptures and their Understan­dings. 3ly, Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Nathanael, the Centurion, Ruler, Diseased Woman, &c. confess'd him from the Illumination and Operation of the [Page 14] Light within, since whatever makes Manifest or works Conviction, is Light; They were not Dis­obeyers and Rebellers against it, who most readily received and followed Christ; They who waited for Israel's Consolation, lived in the Just Man's Path, a shining Light, which shined brighter and brighter to the leading such as walked in it, to the great Light of Israel, when he appeared.

Further, To say that the Light we have, being much of it borrowed from Scripture, Reproves for those Sins, the Common Light in all Men will not, is great Wickedness; for it is to say, that the Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned all Men, will not Reprove for all Sin; thereby placing the Defect manifestly upon the Light, as before, and not upon the thick and gross Darkness (through Disobedience of the People) as well as that he attributes to the Scripture that Con­viction, which is chiefly due to the Light. For by what Way can Mankind arrive at true Sight, Discer­ning and Knowledge in the Understanding part, but by the Light, and that as it shines into the Under­standing; is it not the Light to whom every Deed should be brought, to see if it be wrought in God, or no? What can any Man solidly and beneficially learn by the Scriptures, but through the Discoveries of that Inward Light? Are they not dark Sayings, or rather Man dark to those Sayings, if the holy Light arise not to shine forth, and give to under­stand their Scope and Tendency? All Scripture but Prophecy, which was given forth by Inspiration, as Reproof, Exhortation, Doctrine, &c. were first expe­rienced or witnessed, at whom) Tho. Hicks may e­qually cavil and scoff, (What's your Witnessing to [Page 15] me) & that through walking in the Light of the Lord, the Just Man's Path; and were written for the sake of others, that they might be asisted and helpt to the same Experience, but not another Way, then through the same Steps they had trodden: so that the Ground of the holy Ancients Experiences now written, and of the true Knowledge of the Scriptures, and Com­fort from them, as an outward Mean; and whatever is to be obtained and enjoyed within, is originally and chiefly ascribable to the Discoveries, Convictions and Leadings of the blessed Light of Christ within, through eve­ry Generation, however variously the Principle may have been denominated; as, the Word of God nigh, Wisdom, Light, Spirit, &c. under the Old Testament; and Light, Grace, Truth, Christ, Spirit, Anointing, Gift of God, &c. under the New Testament.

Two short Scripture Arguments spring in my Mind for the Divinity and Sufficiency of the Light; and from thence I shall conside this Objections:

I. If God be Divine and sufficient to Salvation, and the Word be God, and the Life of the Word, Joh. 1.5. One with the Word and the Life of the Word, the Light of Men, then is the Light of Men Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.

But God is Divine, and Sufficient to Salvation, and the Word is God, and the Life of the Word, One with the Word, and the Life of the Word, the Light of Men.

Therefore I conclude, that the Light of Men, which is the Life of the Word, which Word is God, is Divine and Sufficient to Eternal Salvation.

[Page 16]II. That which was in all Ages the just Man's Path, and there where the Blood of Cleansing is known to cleanse,Prov. 4.18. 1 Joh. 1.1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Joh. 8.12. Joh. 11.9, 10. and by which Fellowship is en­joyed, and the Light of Eter­nal Life obtained, is, ever was, and ever will be a Divine, Sufficient and Saving Way; But such a Way is the Light as the several Scriptures in the Margent will testifie. Consequent­ly, the Light is Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.

The only Cavil at these Arguments will be this; I deny this Light to be the Common Light in all Men. To which I say, that there cannot be Two Spiritu­al Lights of the Life of the Word, and not the same, if Two could be; For whatever is of the same Na­ture, though not of the same Degree, is still the same in Kind. If there be another Light that is Sa­ving, tell us from whence it comes; but first prove this not Saving. And as these things are too Diffi­cult, I hope, for him to compass, so is it as Ridi­culous and Blasphemous to think, that God should give Man an Insufficient Light. But why any, if not Sufficient?

I have heard and read often, That all God's Gifts are Perfe [...]t. 'Tis strange, that his Light to Men should be so Lame, Defective and Imperfect, as T.H. represents it. But suppose this Light to be so; Why an Insufficient Light, and a Saving Light both? The latt [...]r would have done our Business. It is Injurious to Man to let him have a Fallible Guide; For when he may think himself certain, he may be in the greatest Danger by mistaking one for the [Page 17] other; or thinking not of them as they are. But Thanks be to the God of Light, we know (for WE WITNESS) better things, how ill a Reason, and how offensive soever Witnessing is to Thomas Hicks an Anabaptist-Teacher; to whose Brethren, Experi­ences once were the great Foundation of both their Knowledge and Comfort, though now mockt at by him with great Derision in a Quaker.

But to his Objections faithfully contracted:

1. If this Light ever was and is Sufficient, how comes it, that Men have been and are so degenerated in Faith, Discipline and Worship? They have all this Light by your Principle.

2ly, If this Light had been Sufficient, wherefore should God have superadded so many other Wayes and Means; they would be then needless?

3ly, Christ being the Only Saviour, who was born of a Virgin at Bethlehem, wrought Miracles, was cut off, bore our Sins, &c. I query, how all this can be affirmed of the Light?

4ly, Are not all the Generations of Christians since Christ's time till within these very few Years certainly Lost and Damned, forasmuch as they acknowledge not this Light within, as the True Christ?

To the first I answer, There is nothing there­in, which may be thought to reflect upon the Light, but what falls as heavily upon all other Wayes, Helps, Ordinances, Appointments, yea the Scriptures, and which is more, upon God, and Christ, and the Ho­ly Spirit too; For if the Degeneracy of Man, that is the sad Effect of his own Rebellion, shall be a valid Proof of the Insufficiency of the Light [Page 18] within, then must we conclude from the Degeneracy, that hath been among Jews and Christians, and which remains to this Day, that all those Assistances, Wayes and Helps which have been given, in reality were not Potent nor Sufficient for the End they were given; The Con­sequences of which Opinion of our Adversaries are these Two, and sad enough. 1. That God in his Wayes must have been and is Insufficient; and 2. That Man never was, neither is any wayes faulty. In short, that may be suffici­ent to Salvation, which if neglected, will never work Salvation; as in the Parable of the Talents may be seen.

To the Second I briefly say, That Man's Mind be­ing so much abroad through unstable, and vain Wandrings from God's Light, the Lord in Wisdom and Condescension to the Weakness of Man, and Darkness of that Carnal State did accommodate both his Discoveries to Man, and that Worship he re­quired from Man, according to his Capacity to re­ceive the one, and perform the other. If God went into Outward Things to meet with Man's Mind that was abroad, to the End that gradually it might return home, shall we infer Weakness in the Light? Man in that State was incapable; he must have been new-molded, and as another Creation to have then received that Testimoy in all its Plainness, which God hath brought forth in after Ages.

If any will undertake to charge Weakness upon Man, let him; But I warn all, how they conclude it against the Light, since the same falls on God and his good Spirit, who made Use of such Wayes and Means in order to gain upon Man's Mind, and be­get a right Understanding and Sence of what was his Will concerning him: Besides, not only did the Di­vine [Page 19] Light and Life appear unto Man in, and through those things as Vailes; But that which gave Man true Discerning, Repentance, and to do the Thing that ever was acceptable with God in any measure, and which was as the Soul, Life and Spirit of all the true and well-pleasing Sacrifices, was a measure of that Divine Light of Life in their Hearts at that time; though as Samuel in a like Case, they knew it not. Let none then charge the Weakness of the Admini­stration upon the Light, but the Generation, to whom he that is the Light of and in Men, appeared, as Mankind has been able to receive the Knowledge of him: It was not Insufficiency in God, nor in his Light or Spirit, if Man's Eyes were not strong enough to behold the Brightness, of what after Ages have beheld; But it was his Mercy and Goodness, that he proportioned both his Discoveries and Re­quirings according to Man's Ability.

To conclude, The Light is still the same in it self through all Ages, and not a whit the less Sufficient, because through its Invisibility and Spirituallity, and the Wandrings abroad and great Carnallity of Man's Mind, some External Means were used, suita­ble to Man's Weakness, through which to reach into Man, and raise up some further Knowledge of the Spirtuallity of God's Worship: Nor because of the Light's Sufficiency as to it self, ought any to infer, that those Wayes or Means were vain or needless; For as the Weakness of Men should not call the A­bility of the Light in Question, nor their Carnalli­ty take off from the Light's Sufficiency, Spiritualli­ty or Divinity, so neither doth the Sufficiency of the Light render all Means accommodated to Man's Weakness vain or needless; especially when [Page 20] the Vertue that is in them, comes from the Light of Life.

To his Third Objection, which with most Opposers carrieth the greatest Weight, I have this in Plainness and Brevity to answer.

We own not, neither do we confess to another Christ then him, who after the Flesh was born of the Virgin Mary at the City of Bethlehem in Judea, who preacht an Everlasting Gospel, worked Miracles, bore our Iniquities, and was cut off, or dyed for the People. But since Thomas Hicks would have us believe, that he is not yet Socinian enough to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ, and therefore that Christ was not only a Man, much less that what was born of Mary, was crucified, and laid in the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathia, was the Whole Christ; I must distinguish.

The Word that was with God in the beginning, and was God, who in time took Flesh, was and is the Light of the World; in the fulness of time he manifested himself in a more Familiar and Intimate Manner to Mankind, in order to which he prepared an Holy Body, in which he preached his Everlasting Gospel, worked many Miracles, drew many after him: He sustained grieveous Weights, the Burden of the Iniquity of the whole World lay upon him, he travelled under it, and trod the Wine-Press alone, and was pressed as a Cart with Sheaves; And so well did he love the World, that, to testifie the same, he gave up his Life not only to recommend his Love, but to confirm his unchangeable Gospel of Remissi­on of Sins, and Eternal Salvation to as many as be­lieved, and followed him the Light of the World; that so Remission might not only be preacht in his [Page 21] Name, but Blood also (for it was a time of Blotting-out; for God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself) In which Manifestation he not only drew many to him, & gave Testimony of his Salvati­on to some particulars; but he combated the Serpent, bruised his Head, and gave him an absolute Defeat in the General, scattering his Oracles, chasing his Infer­nal Spirits, causing his own Light more universally to clear up, and break forth into the World, in­somuch that Thousands followed him: He qualified and deputed Ambassadors; Commissioned and Im­powred them from on high; whose Message was Powerful, and whose Ministry was Effectual; yet when all this is said, and believed most surely, as well as exprest most plainly, That which gave the Life, Power, Virtue, Strength and Efficacy to all this, and to whom therefore eminently the Work, Salvation, Power and Glory are most deservedly ascriba­ble, is the Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, whose Life was, and is the Light of Men, who took Flesh, and was manifested therein. Therefore He who is our Light, ought not to be denyed, being the true Christ, and true Saviour; For no other Light and Life then appeared in that Body, that was then an Offering for Sin once for all, is the Life and Light that we assert and defend. And for that Holy Body, it was our Lord's, as the Scripture speaks, Joseph of Arimathia begged the Body of Jesus, Mat. 27.58. Mark 15.43. Luke 23.52. They found not the Body of the Lord Jesus, Luke 24.3. He prepared it, he took it, he was manifested in it and by it; how can we deny that Body which was our Lord's? By no means. To conclude, though our Divine Word of Life and Light dyed not (for Christ [Page 22] as God over all blessed forever, could not dye) yet his Body did, and fo his Fulness therein and there by manifested, have we received, and Grace for Grace. So that all those who are talking of the Body of Christ, and seeking to represent us to the World as Deniers and Despisers of his Appearance, they are but in the Steps of the Persecuting Jews, who as they eryed up the Prophets, but being Strangers to their Divine Life, relisht not, savour'd not, and therefore yielded not to Christ (the Rock who fol­lowed the Fathers in the Wilderness, the Fountain of all the Life and Refreshment of the Holy Ancients) but with their Proud, and Conceited, and indeed Mistaken knowledge, not from, but of the Letter, and in a bitter Zeal for their dying Forms and Tra­ditions, did they war against the Breaking forth of that Day of Salvation, and that as Heresie, Blasphemy, and the like; so now, these Men seem busie and great Sticklers for the Body of Christ (which they know not) and for Bread, Wine, Water, &c. and all in Opposition to a more plain and Inward Manifesta­tion of the Divine Light, Life and Substance shed abroad, as the Accomplishment of the Promise of the Father in this our Day and Generation. But as it fared with those of old, so shall it with these Opposers, their Visitation shall pass swiftly over their Head, and their Temple shall be cast down, and not one Stone of their fair Edifice shall be left stan­ding upon another.

To his Last Objection I must tell him, that we have not that Uncharitableness in our Principles, which our Adversaries are guilty of. He, like the Jews of old, is ready to think every Man damn'd, nay, by his [Page 23] Principle, it is not avoidable, who hath not heard of the Name Christ, or is not enter'd into some kind of Church-Fellowship upon common Christian-Con­fessions, as they are called and distinguisht from meer Morality or Good Life: But for my part, as God had a People among the Gentiles of old, who became a Law unto themselves, doing the Things contained in the Law, whom I believe to be at Rest and Peace (notwithstanding the severe and positive Censures I have heard from several Professors against them, and Millions more) so, though much Darkness hath pre­vailed in most parts of the World, and still continu­eth, yet then, and where the Day of Ignorance re­mains, and where there hath been and is a Walking with Sincerity towards God, according to their Knowledge I do believe the Lord did and doth wink, and had and hath Mercy, though great Stran­gers to that Christian-Profession so much boasted of among too many in our Nation: And I doubt not, but that there may be found some Thousands both of Turks and Indians, who would not only have detested in point of Credit, but in Fear to God, dreaded do­ing a Tittle of what Tho. Hicks hath falsly and im­pudently said and done against our Persons, Practices and Principles.

In short, though God in every Age hath had a Regard to the Sincerity of Peoples Hearts, and their Upright Living, though subjected under gross Forms, and in the Darkest seasons of the World; yet, God having now caused his Day spring from on high to visit, whereby more certain knowledge & sound Judgment is given of the Darkness that hath covered the Earth, the Supersti­tion, Idolatries, humane Inventions, Will-Worships, Ʋio­lence, Cruelty, Wantonness, Intemperance, Avarice, and [Page 24] all manner of Ʋngodliness; all are required to harken to the Lord's Voice, to obey his Call, to let him in, and bring their Deeds unto the Light, that Christ, who is that true Light, may discover the Enemy, may bind him, spoil his Goods, and cast him out; that he may reign over Thoughts, Words and Deeds; so shall such be able to say as David did, O, all that is within me, praise his holy Name! For Christ will be known, as he is the Saviour of the Soul from Death, the Restorer of Paths, to dwell in, who destroyes the Works of the Devil, and brings in Everlasting Righteousness to the Soul. And though few observe it, That which is truly commend able in any People, proceeds from the secret Power and Efficacy of that Inward Principle we so much testifie of: 'Tis that convinces, discovers, reproves, restraines, tenders, humbles, and affects the Soul, and not their several Outward Forms, which, with Robbery to the Light or Grace within, they are apt to attribute it to, and whereby the Devil beguiles them into a Continu­ance of them. Wherefore let all our Opposers be de­horted from their vehement out-crys; for who with­stand, revile and set at naught this Blessed Appear­ance, God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, will break them to pieces, if they come not to timely Repen­tance for it.


Of the True Evangelical Rule.

ANd this forever raises the Foundation of T.H's Building: as indeed how can any thing so infirm long continue, built upon Forgery, and the hight of all Par­tiality: [Page 25] who makes us Hereticks, that he may be found; and abusive, that he may either shew his own Patience, or colour his frequent base Revisings of us: I say, this overthrows his whole Discourse about the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and Pra­ctice under the New Covenant. For, what ever is more Ancient, more Ʋniversal, and Able to Inform, Rule and Guide, that must eminently be the Rule; but that has been, and is the Light within: consequently that has been and ought to be the Rule of Faith and Practice. That it has been and ought still to be the Rule exprest, is proveable thus.

That which led those holy Men into those things, of which the Scripture is a Declaration, must needs have been the Rule; But that was the Principle of God within, by what Name soever denominated. That this is true, let it suffice to say, That who walked in the Light in any Age, so far walkt in the Counsel of God. And that all Mankind had an Ability from God so to do, is our Belief, what Abbridgement soever T. Hick's detestable Opinion of Reprobation may make of the Love of God.

That it ought still to continue to be the Rule of Faith and Life, I prove thus, That which is every where, which makes manifest that which is displeasing, and that which is acceptable to God, without which the Scriptures are unintelligible, and by living up to which Men only may come to witness the Truth of those things declar'd of in the Scriptures, must be, and ought to be the Rule of Faith, &c. But all this is true of the Light; which is further proved thus.

The Light Thomas Hicks acknowledges all Men have. The Light Thomas Hicks acknow­ledges all Men ought to attend unto:Pag. 7. Now [Page 26] unless some Man, who hath lived unblameably up to the Light can give us a Demonstration of its Insuf­ficiency to shew, and teach him that further thing, that God requires him to believe and do, there can be no valid Argument against the Light's Sufficiency. If T.H. dare be the Man, we shall joyn Issue with him in the Tryall of the Matter: But if the Light be before hand with Man-kind, furnishing him still with Work enough to do, as it certainly ever hath done, and still doth, let it be known to T.H. that such as would know more of Christ's Doctrines, must first do his Will ac­cording to what they do know: And as it is the common Method of the Dealing of God towards the Sons of Men; So is it great Impiety in any Man to infer or conclude Insufficiency to be in the Light to discover and teach Man what he ought to know and do, from Man's Ignorance of all, that he ought to know and do; since the Ground of that Ignorance is, his not doing, what the Light of God requires from him, as his present Duty to perform.

That the Scriptures are Ʋnintelligible without it, is easi­ly prov'd from the Variety of Judgments that are in the World about most of the Fundamental Do­ctrines contained therein; as about God's Essence and Similitude, Christ and the Spirit, their Divinity, Pre­destination, Original Sin, Free-Will, Redemption, Sa­tisfaction, Justification, Faith and Works. In short, the whole End of Christs Coming, Living and Dying they are strongly controverted: Now were the Scrip­tures so clear capable to determine in these Mat­ters, the Differences would quickly end; But since the utmost Ability they of themselves can give, is not enough to render those Things obvious, that are now doubtfull, and disputable; There is a Necessity [Page 27] of Man's Recourse to some other thing, which is able to discover the Mind and Intendment of the holy Pen-Men. Now I would be glad to know of any sober Man, if any thing besides the Light shi­ning into the Understanding is able to give true Sight, Discerning and Judgment about the Points controverted? would it not be reputed Madness to bid Men read, that have no Eyes, or if they have Eyes, at least no Light to read with them? The whole Scrip­ture, as it relates to Man's Duty, is a Declaration of the woful State of Darkness, and the blessed State of Light and Life, with the Way of Transla­tion out of the one into the other. And was this Knowledge without Experience, or by and through Ex­perience? I hope no Man will say, the holy Pen-Men were not Witnesses of the things they wrote: and if they were, I would fain know, by what o­ther Way they came to understand and comprehend the Darkness that was within, then by the Light within; And to know the Temptations and Subtil­ties of the Spirit of Darkness, the Discoveries, Reproofs and Leadings of the Light, the Tryals, Travels, Exercises, and finally the perfect Translati­on so frequently expressed in these holy Writings, but through the Manifestation of the Light of Christ in the Conscience, their Obedience to it, and 'its Operati­on to their Redemption and Sanctification. So that the State of Judgment, Repentance, Remission, Regenerati­on, called the New Birth, and perfect Justification, were their Experiences (or Witnessings, for all T. Hicks) from the Inward Work of God's Light upon their Hearts and their Souls, which though the Scriptures declare of them, they can never bring Man into, nor can any Man groundedly aver the [Page 28] Truth of those things, till he comes through Obedi­ence to the Light in his own Conscience to experience the same Judgment, Repentance, Remission, Regeneration, called the new Birth, and perfect Justification before God; Since then the Scriptures can do none of these things of themselves, however Instrumental they may be of Good, but the holy Light in the Conscience, and that these things are not know­able, though they may be read, talked and writ of, without being lead by the same Spirit, and trea­ding the same Steps of deep Experience the holy An­cients trod in, and have left us for an Example, it must be granted, whether T. Hicks will or no, That the Author of those Discoveries, Convictions, Judg­ments, &c. must be the Standing Immutable Rule to the Soul, what, how far, and which way we are to de­ny or own, reject or embrace, relinquish or follow, with Respect to those things that please God, or that please him not.

His Objections I shall contract into these Four, urged by him for the Scriptures, and against the Light's being the Rule of Faith and Practice; and in­deed they are the greatest Strength of his Book, if any it has.

First, The Light within cannot give a clear and distinct Account how Sin came to be; if we consult the Wisest Philosophers,Dial. p. 21, 22, 33. we shall find a deep Silence touching this Point: They saw Sin did overflow, but could not by all the Improvements of the Light in them, find out how Sin came to be.

I am perswaded T. Hicks never consulted so much [Page 29] as the meanest of them, at least effectually; had he, his Dialogue would have savoured of more true Sci­ence and Morality; for I will make it appear that he has contradicted himself, abused the Philosophers, and blasphemed the Light in this one Passage.

Where there is no Law there is no Transgression; then where there is Transgression, there is a Law. Now T. Hicks granting that the Heathen knew there was Sin, they must know it by Virtue of some Law that made it so. This Law was not written, but them­selves declared, God had imprinted it upon their Hearts,Pythag. Socrat. Cleanth. &c. as an Immutable and Infallible Guide to them in their Actions. If so, how could they be Ignorant of Sin's coming into the World? Who knew it to be a Deviation from God's living Commandment in their own Conscience, and a Committing quite Con­trary Things? If T. Hicks means by clear and distinct Account the History of Moses; that is, that Adam and Eve were beguiled by the Serpent, who tempted them with an Apple, &c. 'tis no wayes to his Pur­pose; For that which is Sufficient to that Faith which concerns Salvation is, to know that God is, that he is Pure and Holy, that he has given Man the Knowledge of himself, and his Will concerning Him by some Inward Law, Command, Light, Grace, or Spirit; and that who acts not correspondently to this Guide is a Transgressor, and incurs the Penalty; and that the Heathen had this, their Books at large tell us: Nor does Tho. Hicks deny it, so that he manifest­ly contradicts Himself, and abuseth the Philosophers in saying, They could not find out, how Sin came, since they expresly say, That God made all Good, and [Page 30] that Man's Erring from the Divine Law in him brought Evil into the World. And I boldly affirm, and in the next Head will prove, that the meer History is not absolutely necessary to Salvation.

Now that herein he has Blasphemed against the Light, is evident; since it is to say, That God gave Men a Law and Light not sufficient to let them see, how Sin entered the World; which is to say in plainer En­glish, what is Sin; it will and must end there. Be­sides, suppose the Philosophers had been Ignorant, must it needs follow▪ that the Fault and Want was in the Light, and not in them? Will T. Hicks become their Warrant in the Matter, that they arrived as high, as the Light could teach them, and that the De­ficiency lay on the side of their Teacher, and not on theirs? Confident, yea Impudent Man! Why should either the Darkness of any Age be charged upon the Light, or render it Insufficient; or the more clear Break­ing forth of Light in a following Generation be reputed another Light, because another Degree then what obscurely shined forth in the former; since it was not the obscurer in it self, but through the gross Blackness that might have over-cast that People be­cause of Disobedience, it seemed so to them? But let us hear him further.

2. Nor can this Light give any Account of that Reme­dy which God in his infinite Wisdom provided, Jesus Christ,Pag. 33. Dial. that he should be born of a Vir­gin, dye for others, and rise the third day: This is the Pinch.

But I answer: First, That the Prophets saw it by this Light, unless that they saw it without Light, [Page 31] or that the Light they saw it by, was not the Light of Christ, as the Word that was with God, and was God; which, I hope, T. Hicks upon serious Thinking will not say; for of no other do we speak. 2ly, Those that believed him, when he came, could never have received him, had they not seen him by an Inward Eye, enlightned by that Light in measure in themselves, which then so unmeasura­bly appeared in him; For the Jews had the Scrip­tures, and according to their Understanding of them, they reputed him a Blasphemer; and both plotted, promoted, and obtained his Crucifixion. The Question will be, Why did they not better under­stand them? The Answer is, because they Rebelled against that Spirit which could only so inform them: Had they brought their Deeds to the Light, they had re­ceived sound Judgment, and a true Measure would have been given them, which they rejecting, that was both the Ground of their Ignorance, and the Just Reason of their Condemnation. Hence we see, that Light, and not the Scriptures was the higher Rule and Judge of Thoughts, Words and Deeds, yea, and which way the Scriptures themselves were to be understood; And truly it is strange, that the Light in Men should not lead naturally to its own Being and Fountain. 'Tis Proverbial among Men The Way to the Fountain Head is to trace the Stream. I [...] the Light in Man leads not to Christ, who gives th [...] Light, let us leave off all Talk of Religion; for t [...] what, or whom else was it given to lead us?

But Thomas Hicks, tell me, Who, or what w [...] Christ in that Manifestation it self, but that D [...] ­vine Word, Life or Light manifested in Flesh? Wil [...] not then a Measure of the same in Man, lead him [...] [Page 32] course to acknowledge the Fulness, or in following its Leadings bring to Eternal Salvation; Or can that Light resist that Manifestation, as thou dost else­where seem to affirm?

If Christ his enlightned Men with the Light of his own Life, Dial. p. 38.42. and if they are required to bring their Deeds to be tryed by it, and if they are invited to follow it, and in following it, are promised, no more to abide in Darkness, but have the Light of Life, because of the Blood of Cleansing, that is therein met with, whereby such are cleansed from all Ʋnrighteousness, and yet the Light ne [...]ther a Rule nor Saving, then what else can be either a Rule or Saving?

But this Light (says he) could not tell any that Jesus should be born of a Virgin, dye for Sinners and rise again. But this is so great a Mistake, that had he conversed with the Sibylls or other Heathen Writers, he might in good part have informed himself to the contrary. But here I distinguish of Faith, There is an Histo­rical and Saving Faith, and there is an Historical and Saving Rule; as the Faiths, so the Rules differ, If T. Hicks sayes that 'tis the Scriptures that give the Knowledge of those Transactions, I m [...]st then understand him to mean Historically, if I assent, which is not Saving; for then all who believe those things to have been, must therefore be saved; the contrary to which is daily seen with our Eyes: since who believes not that Report among those, who are yet in great Wickedness? But if we are to penetrate deeper, and that T Hicks should hold as he seems plainly to do, that what Faith we can have of the most weighty Truths declared of in the Scrip­tures, is from it, and not from the Light or Spirit [Page 33] within, I must firmly deny it; For Faith is God's Gift, not the Scriptures Gift: No, so far is the Scrip­ture from giving Faith, that it is God's Spirit alone, that gives both to understand and believe them. The Scripture tells me of such Prophecies, Histories and Epistles, and of such Men as Moses, Job, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul and John; But what is it that gives me to believe the Things they writ of to be true? Is it not the Testimony and most certain Amen in the Conscience? and what is that there, which seals to those excellent Truths? Which way then can the Scripture be a Rule to me in believing the Scripture, when that Faith is begotten of God by his Light and Spirit concerning the Scripture? If the meer Scripture could give me Faith, then it might be allowed to rule my Faith; but when God by his Spirit alone begets Faith, and without which I can neither understand nor believe the Scriptures, tell me, If God's Spirit be not the Rule of my Faith; what, how far, and which way I am to believe them, or the things believed? Certainly they can never be my Rule, How far, and which way I am to believe them­selves, who of themselves cannot give me that Faith; but it must be wrought by another thing; so that what gives to believe, rules the Belief, and not the Thing be­lieved: Therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Rule of Faith.

Now as to this of Christ's Outward Manifestation, I say, so far as it is Historical, the Scripture is that which furnisheth me with a Belief; But I ut­terly deny, that they give to believe it in that deep Sense, which may be truly called a Saving Faith.

The Pharisees had the Scriptures, and they pre­tended to admire Moses and the Prophets; yet they [Page 34] crucified Christ, and sought to countenance their Murder by Scripture. Now had they believed and esteemed the Writings of Moses and the Pro­phets from an Inward Sence of Gods Spirit (which the meer Scriptures could not furnish them with) they had rightly understood them, and not made so ill an Use of their Historical Knowledge, as to cru­cifie the Lord of Life and Glory. This shews that Men may have an Historical Faith, and yet not the True Faith nor Knowledge of the Scriptures, what then gives to believe aright now? why truely that which did then: the Light and Spirit of Truth; no Man could call Jesus Lord without it, that is truly so, or upon good ground. No Man could confess that Christ was come in the Flesh, but whose Spirit was of God, yet now nothing is more common, & yet nothing is more True then that Thousands of them are not of God, but lie in Wickedness alienated from the Life of God, &c. what is the matter then? why this, Those who then confest that Jesus was come in the Flesh, did it by Virtue of an Invisible Sight, and through a Divine Illumination in their Souls: For im­possible had it otherwise been for them in any mea­sure to have seen through the Vail of his Flesh, in­to that Divine Life, Power and Wisdom that Ʋnmea­surably filled it, but having some inward Sence and Taste of that most excellent Being, that was mani­fested in and by that bodily Appearance, therefore did they confess to it, and their Spirits truely re­puted by John to be of God.

And as in that day it was Impossible for any truly and acceptably to confess to Christ, without a Discerning given, and Faith wrought by the Light and Spirit of God in the Heart, which was the sa­ving [Page 35] Faith; so is it now equally Impossible for any to believe that Christ appeared, and that he spake and did all these great things, so as to be benefitted thereby, and any wayes accepted of God therein, but as the Light and Spirit of Truth open those Things to the Understanding, and from a measure of that Divine Life which then immeasurably ap­peared (for we have all received of his Fulness and Grace for Grace) true Faith comes to be begotten in that Manifestation, and a right Confession unto it. In short, He that calleth Christ Lord, must now, as then, do it by the Holy Ghost, that is from an Experience or Witnessing of his Dominion, and Rule, which, through the Operation of the holy Spirit, the Soul is to be subjected to, so that who believes more then Historically that Christ came in the Flesh, must do it by Virtue of the Divine Light and Spirit, who alone gives to relish and savour the Truth, Nature and End of that Appearance.

And though it may be allowed, that the Scrip­ture is a Rule, respecting the History, as it was to those of old, in reference to the particular Pro­phecies fulfilled in Christ's coming; yet as there was then a more Inward and Heavenly Sence of Christ, which drew many after him, and begot deep Faith in him, so must there now be a more Inward Spiritual and deep grounded Faith of those things recorded in Scripture, of Christs Appearance, &c. then the meer Letter is able to give. And therefore that Light and Spirit which gives that discerning, and works that deep Sence and Faith must needs be as well the Rule as Author of it, and not the Scrip­tures; For if the Scriptures be the Rule, then ei­ther of Themselves or by Interpretation. If [Page 36] of Themselves, then either in their Translations, or Originals. Not in the Translations, unless the Trans­lators had been so inspired, that they mist not a tittle, which I am sure is not so; and consequent­ly none but Schollars have a Rule, for the Unlearned are secluded; & therefore the English Bible is not a Rule.

If in the Originals of Hebrew and Greek; Query, In what Copies? There are various Lections in He­brew: And for the New Testament, so called, there are no less then Thirty Copies, and all differing; in fine, there are many Thousands of various Readings.

Now let's Dialogue a little upon Supposition only.


If by Interpretation, who shall interpret? Meer Man?




The Light within?




The Spirit?




The Church.


What Church?


Shall Right Reason interpret?


Yes, sayes T.H.


I Query, Which of them is the Rule? And when that's found out and determined, then let T. Hicks prove that it is unquestionably true, and has re­mained Uncorrupted through every Generation: And by that time he has done all this, he shall have done a great deal towards our Satisfaction. But what is this Right Reason?


'Tis a Faculty in Man rectified.


Very well; But who has this rectified Faculty?


Thomas Hicks, say.

[Page 37]

Has none it but he?




Have none Right Reason but such?


It was an old Saying▪ Dip or Damn; but Inte­rest has taught us more Discretion.


Well then; Others may have Right Reason that are not dipped?


We say so, whatever we think among our selves.


What's the peculiar benefit of Dipping?


Much every way.


But which way?


We are brought into Church-Fellowship.


Are you brought into Fellowship with God by it?


No; I cannot say so.


No! what's your Fellowship worth then? the Saints Fellowship was in the Light, and the true Church-Fellowship was in Spirit: What do you re­ceive when you are dipt?




Are you no better?




Why, I once thought you received the Holy Ghost out of hand?


I thought so too, but was Mistaken.


Why wert thou dipt then?


To fulfil the Scripture.


But what led thee to it?


My own desire.


Is not that Will-Worship?


What, to do as the Scripture exhorts?


How knowest thou it exhorted to it▪


I thought so.

[Page 38]

Is that enough? Where's your being lead by God's Spirit? But to our Business.


How shall I know Tho. Hicks has this Rea­son before mention'd?


He loftily sayes so.


But is that sufficient? Well, but where is this Right Reason?


In Men.


Is it so? Then it seems that which gives the true Knowledge of the Scripture is in Man. But tell me honestly, Do ye believe this Right Reason may Err?


No; For then it were not Right Reason, if it could be Wrong.


Well argued. But if a Man Errs, is it not the Fault of Right Reason?


By no means.


Thou speakest honestly. But why then does T. Hicks charge the Light, the Quakers profess, with eve­ry short-sighted imperfect Saying or Action of this or any other Generation.


Does he?


Yes; it is the great Drift of his Books.


Truly that's not fair.


Honestly said. But if this Right Reason cannot Err, then Man cannot Err?


No, that does not follow; for Man may not submit to it.


Why, may Man have something in him that cannot Err, and he not be Unerrable?




Rightly said. But why then does T. Hicks con­clude so of [...]?


It is unfairly done.

[Page 39]

Very well. But you say, that this Right Reason is part of Man's Soul, or I am mistaken, see Dial. pag. 32. If so, then Man's Soul must be In­fallible?


Oh, Infallible; that word affrights us. What, Infallible? Pray what's Infallible?


Poor Man! I see it scares thee indeed. Why, Unerrable and Infallible are all one. Yea, Right Rea­son is Infallible by the same Reason, that it cannot be Wrong.


But the Popes talk of being Infallible; are not you like them?


Never the more like them for that; Talking, and Being so, are Two Things. Men should not deny the true Christ because of an Imposture; nor any fear Infallibility because the Pope makes Mar­ket with such Pretences. If thou art not certain of what thou believest, thou hast not that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints; for that was Certain, and therefore Infallible.


Why, Is Certain and Infallible all one?


Yes, Certainty and Infallibility is the same. But what think'st thou of the Light in this Case under Debate? for either it is the Rule, or it is given to un­derstand & use the Rule, or else its given for nothing?


'Tis not the Rule we are taught to say; and yet we cannot conclude it to be given for nothing.


Very well; then it must be given in order to understand and use the Rule. Now supposing the Scriptures be the Rule, that which informs me of my Rule, and teaches me how to use it, must be greater then my Rule, in that it teaches me to know and do that my Rule cannot do of it self: I query then, If this Light be not my Rule, how and which Way I come to [Page 40] understand and use this Rule. So that it is eminently the Rule because of its Present, Immediate and Cer­tain Direction and Knowledge, and the Scripture at most but a kind of Declaratory and Secondary Rule, and therefore subject to the Holy Spirit in the Apo­stles and primitive Christians, who took not Measures by it, when it distinguisht the Ceremonial from the Moral Precepts so intermixed in the 19th of Leviticus, and other places; but their Minds being exercised and guided by that Holy Living Rule, they left off, or continued for a time several Jewish Ob­servations, as there might be a Service therein sig­nified to them from that Living Rule. The Light and Spirit of God then, is both THE Rule of Faith and Guide of Life, superior to the Scriptures, and That by which only they can be rightly known, believed and fulfilled. A Doctrine Evangelical, and not disowned by those first Protestants, who testified that no Man could understand the Scriptures given forth by Inspiration, but by a measure of the same Spi­rit. To conclude, Historical Faith, Scripture is a Rule of, but Doctrinal and Saving Faith the Light and Spirit of God can only be the Rule of; for that which gi­veth Faith is only that which rules Faith.

3 But (says he) how could you have known, that Swea­ring in any Case were Ʋnlawful, if it had not been written,Dial. P. 22.Swear not at all; Is not then that Scripture your Rule in this Case?

But this shews both the Ignorance of T. Hicks in the Writings of the best Gentiles, and his Acknow­ledgment of the Light's Sufficiency, in case we are able to prove Swearing disallowed and dispract­ [...]ised before Christ's Coming in the Flesh.

[Page 41]The Seven Wise Men famous among the Greeks, and Contemporaries above five hundred years before Christ came in the Flesh, esteemed Swearing but a Remedy against Corruption, in E­vidence:Stob. 28. To be sure, they both believ'd and exhorted People to that State which needed it not.

Socrates plainly sayes, that there is a Life more firm, and unquestionable then an Oath. Con­sequently Swearing not the best State.Id. 114.

And Xenocrates was had in that Veneration in Athens for his exceeding Virtue,Val. Max. 2.10. Cic. pro Bal. Laert. that the Magistrates thought it a questioning of his Honesty to offer him any Oath, and therefore refused, implying, that Oaths were not made for the best of Men, and that there is a State attainable, which is more excellent, then that, in which Oaths are used.

And thus was that Evangelical Precept, Swear not at all, arrived at, preferred, and honour'd by pro­fest Gentiles about five hundred years before it was uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore the Light from T.H's Objection answered is proved Sufficient.

4 But here is an utter Insufficiency (if we will be­lieve him) in this meer Light within to direct us the right Way of Worshipping God; This, Dial P. 35.36. sayes he, is manifest from the great Loss the Wisest among the Heathen have been, and are at, about this very thing, the Multiplying their Deityes▪ Worshipping Devils, &c.

He is an incompetent Witness against the Light's [Page 42] Sufficiency, that has never tryed the Extent of its Ability by a Life conform'd to what it leads to: If T. Hicks walkt without all Reproof, it were something; But for a Man to talk of its Insuffici­ency, whilst it shews that which he is not come up to, as well as that it condemns for daily Failings is Arrogancy with a Witness.

But why is it Insufficient to direct him the Right Way of Worship. Because T. Hicks has not found it; Is it a good Argument against the Scripture, that be­cause those who pretend to Square their Faith by it, manifestly Err, therefore it is Insufficient to di­rect them Right? Tho. Hicks will never allow this against the Scriptures; and yet he calls us Names for not tacitly suffering his base Abuses against the Lord's Light. Rom. 1.19, 20. What if any of the Heathen became vain in their Imginations, who when they knew God, worshipped him not as God, will it follow, that God's Manifestation of him­self (as the Apostle plainly speaks) in Man, was an Insufficient Manifestation? The Jews turned Idolaters, they worshipp'd a Calf, and offer'd their Children to Moloch (Devotion made up of Murder and Idolatry) was God's Light, Law or Good Spirit, and that whole Series of Love and Mercy shown unto them, Insufficient, because of their Rebellion? I affirm that Thomas Hicks by this Argument is the horridst Blasphemer that ever lived among Men; For if the false Deities of the Heathen, and their worshipping of Devils, with the horrid Idola­tries of the Jews, were not the Effects of their own Erring from a Sufficient Light or Manifestation, to have better informed & directed them, but through the Insuffi­ciency of the Light to discover the True God, & how to wor­ship him, T.H. has evidently laid that horrid Charge at [Page 43] God's Door; for he could not reap where he had not sown. And thus far doth he render the Almighty accessory to those Impieties, that he gave not Man a Sufficiency of Light to inform him better, that he might have escaped so gross Abomination; which ends in that detestable Doctrine of Eternal Ʋnconditional Re­probation; an Off-spring of Satan, a Murderer from the beginning.

In short, Christ is the Light of Men: The Way of the Just is a shining Light: He that is the Way, Truth and Life, is the Light; Therefore those who Worship God according to the Light, Worship him in the Spirit and in the Truth, and walk in the Just Man's Path: For that Men should walk up to the Light of Christ, and yet be Ignorant of the Right Way of Worship, is gross Ignorance and Darkness. For Tho. Hicks then to say, that God doth make more known then is, or can be known by the Light, is false and contradicto­ry; For unless there be two Distinct Divine Lights by Nature (which is an absurd Thing, so much as to conceive) or that God can manifest any thing without Light, it will follow, that both the Light is One, and that by that One Light it is, whereby God hath revealed himself through all Ages: And here I would be well understood; for I know one Age hath been at­tended with larger Discoveries, yet this argues no Deficiency to have been in the former Manifestati­on, though it implies Weakness in the People that they could not receive the same Light in a greater. The Light is therefore One in it self, however vari­ously it may break forth in any Age and Generation; I know it hath arisen higher and higher; the Dif­ference is in Degrees, not in Nature; and so T.H. in great contradiction to himself acknowledges, [Page 44] Dial. pag. 36. What hath been the Duty of every Age, it hath shewen, and the best Reason and Rule for the Obedience to any thing superadded hath been the Convictions and Leadings of the Light, according to that Manifestation, it gave before: Those that went from the Light, and sat down, grew Rich in Literal Know­ledge, were the Opposers of the more glorious Breaking forth of Light, and not those who kept close to what was revealed. So 'tis at this Day; Such as have kept to the Tendering Grace and Spirit among Professors, such are most moderate to us, and inclin'd af­ter us; The Hard, Dry and Cavilling amongst them, as they are strongest in their Combattings, like the Pharisees of old, so are they most darkened from the Light, and most of all despise the Testimony of it, and set at nought and oppose, as to the Death, all those who are be­come Witnesses of the fresh Resurrection of Light and Life (If I may so speak) in the Hearts of People. I know not what better to call them, then Thieves and Robbers, spoken of by Christ, who have gone aside from the tender Spirit of Jesus Christ, that in Dayes past strove with them, and with whose secret Voice they were in some measure affected, and have set up themselves in a Form, without Power, Praying, Preaching, Dipping and all other Acts of Worship, Ordi­nance, &c. without the Leadings of God's Spirit: Wherfore, said Christ, of the like People; All that came before me are Thieves and Robbers, they climbe over the Wall, Jo. 10. they come not in at the Door; which Door is that State of Witnessing, at which that Light and Frothy Prophanist, T.H. bestowes so many foul Reflections; forgetting how much of the ancient Puritan, Brownist and Baptist Religion [...] made up of Experiences, which with Men that [Page 45] understand Words, hath the same Signification, as well as that Witnessing is more Scriptural. And indeed, I wonder not at all at it; for where Men that have had some Inward Sense of Life Eternal, give not way to the more full Breaking forth of the same, but run into Forms, and take up their Rest by the way, and so come to withstand it, they [...]ose what they had, and center, where those be who at first oppos'd them, emptying from one to the other till they arrive at Rome again, that so the Battel may be of Michael and the Devil, the True Church against the False, Power and Form of Godliness against Form without Power, and the Traditions, Super­stions and Inventions of Men; by which they have en­deavoured to make void God's Law: For whoever have lost their Inward Sense of God, and withstand the Propagation of that Inward Religion, however their Form may be more scriptural, the same Spirit enters them that reigned in their old Persecutors, and they at last run back, and end in that, from whence they at first reformed. So dangerous is it to rest sa­tisfied with a finer Form, which in Truth is but a better Covering for the old Enemy of God's Spirit and Power to act more disguisely and securely in.

But lest any should think that all this is said to justle the Scriptures out of all Use and Service, read these few lines following with Patience and Im­partiality. Though we eminently account the Light or Spirit of Christ to be the Gospel, Living and Immediate Rule (as the great Promise of the Father (and that without being ruled and lead or guided by, there is no being a Child of God) yet we do not thereby intend an Exclusion of the Scriptures from being Obligatory, or as not Declaratory of [Page 46] those heavenly blessed Truths, that are fit to be read, believed and practised; God forbid. No, we know better and practise otherwise, and have good Satisfaction therein. Nor do we say that those essen­tial Things relating to Faith and Godliness men­tioned therein are by us to be sleighted or contradict­ed; or that the Light and Spirit we are led by, doth or can lead to any such thing; for by its Holy Discoveries and Convictions are we made acquainted with them; and our Faith concerning them is firm, and they are thereby made our Duty, and such is their Correspondence and A­greement, that from an INWARD ASSENT AND LIVING AMEN, FROM GOD's LIGHT IN OUR CONSCIENCES do we testifie of their Truth, Ʋse and Dignity. And very vain is T. Hick's Objection, If your Light be Sufficient, why do you read them? since we may re­turn to him the same; If the Scriptures be Sufficient why dost thou use other Means? Though God's Grace be Sufficient of it self, therefore is the Creature al­ways in that Condition, wherein he needs not Means? And notwithstanding it be the Dispensation of Light and Life, more Immediately then has been known to former Ages, yet we deny not the Use of such Means, as may be used of God's Light and Spirit, as will be spoken more largly to elsewhere. Man's Mind being Carnal and abroad, Means in God's Power are us'd not as settl'd Teachers, but as Instru­ments in God's Hand to testifie of and direct to that one Great Prophet and Living Teacher in the Hearts of Men, that all may come thither, and be taught of him.


Of his Insinuations against us concerning the Scriptures

BUt T.H. that he may be true to his Ungodly Way of perverting our Principles, would in­sinuate, First, That we esteem the Scriptures no farther, P. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. then as they were the Experiences of Ancient Saints, thereby rendering the many Prophecies and Promises therein recorded, not yet fulfilled, Ʋnprofitable. But to take off all Credit to this evil Suggestion, let our sober Readers know, that by the Light of Christ in our own Hearts and Consciences as to confirm what of the Scriptures we have experienced, and press after the Compleatment of those Enjoyments therein expressed; so are we taught reverently to believe those ho­ly Prophecies and Promises yet unaccomplished to have been given forth by the Inspiration of the Almighty; and that they shall be as certainly fulfilled, as they are written. Yet we dare boldly affirm, and that in the Name of the Lord (before whom we shall give an Account for every Deed done in the Body) that the greatest Reason of our Belief concerning them, is not from any Out­ward thing, but that Inward Testimony, Record and Heavenly Amen, that we have frequently received from the holy Light within us, to the Truth and Faithfulness of those Sayings. And if any Quakers there be that are not thus minded, they are to me unknown, and I publickly renounce, and protest a­gainst that Principle that would in the least derogate [Page 48] from those Holy Writings; which leads me to his Second Insinuation, viz. As if because we do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice, in Ho­nour to that Divine Light, which was the Author of them in the Holy Pen-men, that we should therefore deny all those holy Precepts, Commandments and Rules relating to Life and Godliness that are therein contained: A Consequence so foul, that God forbid any of us should ever give any Just Occasion for it; For we both believe Men ought to liv [...] up to them, and that they are highly Reprov [...]able if they transgress against them But the Reason why, is that Convi­ction they meet with from the Light in their own Consciences; wherefore the Scriptures are so far from being the great Rule of Faith and Practice, that the Light of Christ within is both our Warrant and Rule for Faith in, and Obedience to them. And let T.H. say if he can, that the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lo [...]lards, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists and other Protestants made not the Testimony of God in their Conscience the chief Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures; to say nothing of the primitive Chri­stians and most uncorrupted Fathers, who are many and positive on our behalf.

3ly, He insinuates, that we equal, nay prefer our Books before the Scriptures, because of the Titles we give our own Books. viz. The Voice of Wisdom, A Te­stimony for God, &c. and what we give the Scripture, namely. Letter, &c. This I have largely spoken to in my Answer to J. Faldo, but not knowing whether ever that may be where this probably may come, I shal say thus much, If at any time we call the Scripture the Letter, it is not that we mean thereby, our Books are the Spirit, or that we would irreverently set them be­low [Page 49] our Writings, but upon a Comparison only be­twixt the Scriptures and the Spirit that gave them forth, and that, I hope, may be done without the least Dis­respect, though such whose Religion stands in Let­ter and Time, and not in Spirit and Power, be an­gry at it. But that we should be thought to sleight the Scriptures, because we bestow such Names upon our Books, is a strange kind of Consequence. Are not our Books mostly written in a plain, familiar and Scripture-stile? Do we not earnestly endeavour to confirm what we write by Scripture, which not on­ly renders it a Pa [...]t of our Book, but the most Noble Part too? And shall we notwithstanding be reputed Sleighters of the Scriptures? Certainly if our Books are called, The Voice of Wisdom, and A Te­stimony for God, because from the Voice of Wisdom, and God's Witness in the Conscience; by good Rea­son must the Scriptures be interested therein, who are both a part of them, and such a one too as unto whom our Quotation implies a Manifest Preference.

His next Insinuation is, that it is Dangerous for Ig­norant People to read the Scriptures, pag. 42. Contin. pag. 3. flinging those hateful Names of Jesuit and Roma­nist upon us. This Doctrine he layes to the Charge of G. Fox and Rich. Hubber­thorn, in a Book called, Truth's Defence, pag, 101. But the truth of the matter I will relate out of that Book it self, which has been most partially and base­ly represented by him.

The Priest's Query lies thus, ‘Whether the Scrip­ture being Carnal, and the Letter Killing, as you say, we may read them without Danger?’

[Page 50] Answ. The Letter which killeth, 2 Cor. 3.6. is Dangerous; for thou takest it here to war with­al against the Saints, with thy Carnal Mind, giving out thy Carnal Expositions upon it: And the Mini­sters of the L [...]tter are Ministers of Death, 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 Sixty, some an Hundred pound a Year: But Christ cryed, Wo unto such Whited Walls. And here you read with Danger, who speak of them, and speak a Lye, be­cause you speak of your selves, and you wrest the Scriptures to your own Destruction, and to you it is Dangerous to read or speak of it, who know not the Li [...]e of it as the Pharisees, who were learned in the Letter, but knew not Ch [...]ist. But I say, Blessed is he that doth read, and doth understand.

This is the true Account in brief [...]f their An­swer to the Pri [...]st's Qu [...]ry: And I appeal to God's Witness in the Reader's Conscience, if any thing of wh [...]t that Vile Man would suggest, is to be found in these M [...]ns Words; who by Letter evidently mean the Legal State of Condemnation; by Dangerous, not what Edification was to be got with respect to read­ing, but that Aggravation of Punishment, which would be the Recompence of those who make a Trade of them, and oppose them, Pharisee like, to the Life and Spirit of Christ Jesus, wresting them to their own De­struction. Reading to such End and Purpose, will prove Dangerous with a Witness. And that it was at such a sort of Reading they struck, consider this Passage, But I say, Blessed is he that doth read and doth understand.

[Page 51]Let this Forgery so obvious, ring through the Streets and Towns, where-ever his Book or Name is known; however this is little to what's behind. For my part I speak my Conscience in Sincerity; I had rather perish off the Earth, then live so great a Burden of foul Dishonesty, as I doubt not but a little time will manifest him to be.

That the Baseness of his Intentions in this kind of Arguing may yet further appear, let this gross Inference directly charged by him upon our Principle, of the Light's being our Rule, be dili­gently considered.

From our Asserting the Light Within to be our Rule, he tells the World, That we mean the holy Qualification, that is in us:Pag. 20. Which were it true, he would hit the Mark, when he sayes, that Holiness, being a Conformity to the Rule, it cannot be the Rule But never yet certainly did any but Thomas Hicks so mis-represent the poor Quaker: Nay, he Confounds and Contradicts himself. How can we be said to make our Holiness the Rule, when we affirm it only to be a walking up to the Light within, which is Holy? He sayes that we assert the Light to be the Rule, how then is our Obedience to it the Rule; for that is true Holiness? Is there no difference between a Rule, and Obedience to it? Holy Life, and that which gives it, or makes it so? What a Meeting here is of Ignorance, Malice and Lying? Any thing to spoil the Quakers; but God will break the Bow and Spear of their Enemies.

Again, From his Quaker's telling him, ‘Thou [Page 52] takest up the Saints Words; but if thou hast not the same Spirit,See p. 21. what are the Words to thee;’ he dares to suggest, that our Opi­nion of the Light's Sufficiency in every Man cannot be true; And all the Reason he gives us for his strange Collusion, is this; That those Words imply, that the Spirit or Light of God is not in all Men.

Now what is more evident, then first, That it is not our Answer? 2. That it concerns not the Suf­ficiency, so much as the Universallity of it? 3. By not having the Spirit, or Light, is not meant, that we believe that God has not given a Measure of his Good Spirit unto all to profit with, or that there be some, whom he never enlightened, but that they so have not the Spirit, as to walk by it, be be­nefitted by it, or come to enjoy it as their Tea­cher and Comforter; and that some may be said, not to be Enlightened, who are not through Faith in, and Obedience to the Light, come to be advan­taged and made Children of Light by it. Let this suffice at present to shew the Man's Ignorance of our Principles, or his great Unrighteousness to pervert them.

I shall now attend the next Point by him han­dled, and that is Christ's Person, and our Faith in him, which, he sayes, we deny, and indeed he does but say it.


Of our Faith in Christ.

HIs next Cavil is at our Belief in Christ, and which is worse, he would be thought a Christian in doing so. The great Stress lies here, Tho. Hicks would have the World think, we Equivocate about our Faith in That Christ which after the Flesh ap­peared and dyed at Jerusalem. Dial. p. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. Contin. pag. 40, 41, 43, 44. The Reason of all this Clamour and Injustice on the part of our angry and restless Adversary is this; if I wrong him let him shew me: The Quakers say, that Christ is in them; Christ is God, is God Man in them? Again, The Quakers say, that Christ is in them; But since there is but One Christ, who was born of a Virgin, and that he suffered at Jerusalem, be­ing there crucified, can that Christ be in Man? The false Doctrine or Absurdity he would run us upon, is one of these two, Either that we deny Christ's Man­hood, or that He is actually in our Bodies with that Bo­dy he appeared in at Jerusalem, which is Impossible, witness this one Passage, If God be Christ, as Penn saith; or, If the Light within you be the Christ, as Naylor and Hubberthorn affirm, is it proper or safe to say, God was Slain, or the Light in you was Cruci­fied?

To which I answer, That as in other things, so in this, our Adversary has shewn his great Ignorance or Malice. For is it reasonable to infer from our Affir­ming [Page 54] in Scripture Language, Christ is in the Saints, that we deny him as to his Visible and Bodily Appearance in the World; and that because he is God, there­fore he was never Man; or that the Word took not Flesh; Is this to understand us right, or give the World a true measure of our Belief, who is it confesseth Christ to be every where, and if so, then in his People, see Cont. p. 34. Ah, God the Righteous Judge shall plead with thee in a Day that thou shalt not be able to escape his Terrible Recompence, if thou repen­test not. Let it suffice to the sober Reader (for of him I have little Hopes) that we do believe that Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever, did come of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh, that the Bo­dy prepared of that Line was his Body, that what Sufferings befel it, were the Sufferings of Christ, just as the Body is called the Body of Christ: Yet this we do say, and that not in any Undervalue to the Body, or Bodily Sufferings of Christ, that the Divine Word, in whom was Life, and whose Life was the Light of Men (who took that Flesh) is eminently to be lookt upon, and that to believe and obey the Light of his Life, wherewith he has enlightened us, is both the best way to know the Sufferings of his Body, and to receive the Benefit of them.

In short, unless Christ be not God, and unless the Light be not Christ, I know no hurt I have done, to assert him to be God, nor any Reason our Adversary hath to infer, therefore I, or any of us, deny him to have taken Flesh, or that he suffered without the Gates of Je­rusalem; or that he is not as well Christ without us as within us.

Again I do affirm that by the same Reason the bodily Sufferings of the Word, whose Life was the [Page 55] Light of Men, are frequently attributed to the Word it self, as if the Word had immediately sustained them, and not the Body, the Light which shineth in the Consciences of Mankind, which is the very Life of the Word, or Word it self, is not unconcern'd in the bodily Sufferings, but both gives to believe them aright, and to receive Benefit by them, and that as the Sufferings of his own Body, by and through which his Glory, Grace and Truth, did shine forth, in the World: which are now re­vealed afresh in the Hearts of all who believe in him. Let our Adversaries deal so fairly with us, as to distinguish between Christ, and the Body of Christ, as before Abraham the Rock in the Wilderness, and the Appearance of Christ in the Flesh, and not infer from our denying that the whole Christ could die; that Christ, that is, the Body of Christ suffered or died not; And when we say, he who took Flesh has appeared to, and in our Hearts, that we exclude and deny his then Visible and Bodily Appearance, or that he is not now as well without us, as within us; and we shall never doubt of a good Issue. But truly after the rate we have been used by him, the most Scriptural Assertions can never escape a being accounted False and Unwarrantable. For because we are with godly Fear Jealous, least the whole Christ should be thought to have been then cruci­fied, when his Body was, which strikes at the Life of the Immortal and Divine Being, we are repre­sented by this Perverter of our right Meaning, as Denyers of that Body, whilest he himself acknowledgeth that the meer Manhood was not the Christ, but the Word made Flesh, Emmanuel. Pag. 44. Dialogue.

[Page 56]2. Because we assert that true Light, with which every Man is enlightened, to be in it self the Christ of God, and Saviour of the World; he infers that we deny the Outward Sufferings of Christ in his Bodi­ly Appearance, and in short▪ that we deny the True Christ, because he dyed and rose again, &c. which the Light ne­ver did, never considering that if he makes what dyed & rose again the entire Christ & Saviour, he excludes the Divinity or Godhead, which he confesseth to be Christ in conjunction with the Manhood, and which the Scrip­tures call strictly the Saviour, besides whom there is none; and which J. Faldo himself pag. 85. part 2. acknow­ledges to be such. But if T. Hicks does allow, as indeed he doth, that Christ is God, as well as Man, there is nothing befalls us from his Inference, but what strikes himself equally; for if the Light, with which Men are enlightened, be not Christ, because it cannot dye, then Christ cannot be Christ as God, be­cause God cannot dye. Well! But T. Hicks tells us, that Christ as God is also Christ, and that it was Christ's Body only that dyed; Therefore I conclude, that to own Christ to be that true Light, which enlighteneth all men, or that true Light to be Christ, is no Derogation from Christ or Ʋndervalue to his Bodily Sufferings.

3. And because that one of us spoak of a Two-fold Appearance of Christ in the Soul, first as a Seed of Light in Man, and next, as perfect Day, or in a full grown State of Glory, Therefore sayes he, a Personal Coming in any respect is denyed by you, Contin. pag. 45. which Conclusion is so horribly Unjust, that no Im­partial Man needs an Answer to it. And let the Partial know, that we have not only confessed to his Personal Appearance, But T.H. has so much Faith [Page 57] for us. Dial. pag. 45. The Baseness and self-Con­tradiction of the Man is notorious enough as to this Point.

I shall proceed to the next Particular, and that is, If Christ signifie Anointed, and Christ be God, as Penn saith, I would query (saith our Adversary) whether God himself was anointed? Contin. pag. 47.

But though this might have seemd something from a Socinian hand, yet from T. Hicks, it gives us no Difficulty at all; for since he acknowledgeth Christ to be as well God as Man, and that Christ was not anointed by halfes, but intirely, as the Word [...] Christ, from [...] to Anoint, doth imply, I would fain be informed (Argumentum ad hominem) Who anointed the Godhead, without which T. Hicks affirms again and again, Christ was not Christ, because (says he) Christ is God manifest in the Flesh. Dialog. pag. 44. And since he is for Querying, let me ask him, who is understood in that Passage, God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyle of Gladness, &c? Was that said of Christ or no? If not, say so; If it was, as most, or all believe, then, whether the Divine Nature of Christ was unconcern'd in that Anointing? And who it was that anointed him is evident from the place? If T. Hicks will limit God to the manner of his Mani­festations and Operations respecting us, that is, that he is no otherwise to, & in himself, then what he appeares to us to be; what will he make of that place, To us a Child is born, to us a Son is given;Isa. 6.9. he shall be called Wonderful Counseller, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace? &c. Shall God's Condescensions to Man's weak and depraved state by personating, and representing things to his capacity, be an Argument that he is no [Page 58] otherwise in himself? Are we confused because we use his Words? or shall Man rise up against God's way of uttering forth himself suitable to the short­ness of his Understanding! This kind of Cavil might better become a Carnal Pharisee, or Scoffing Heathen then a Man pretending to Christianity. Base Man that he is, who rewards the Almighty so ill for his Merciful Condescensions! But to the Blind all things are dark.

But he thinks that he has caught me irrecovera­bly: hear his Dialogue.Cont. p. 48. Chr. Was not Christ God's Gift? Quak. Yea he was so. Chr. To what end? Quak. His Doctrine, Life, Miracles, Death and Sufferings to God is the Gift and Expression of God's Eternal Love for the Sal­vation of Men. Penn's Sandy Found. Pag. 19. Chr. Thou hast affirmed that God is Christ: If so, Did God die and suffer to God?

To which I answer, that T. Hicks, as in other pla­ces, so here is basely Unjust, and if he accounts me his Adversary or an Opposer of his Principles, though I never had to do with him in particular, nor any of that People in general; It behov'd him to be honest, and give me my due; Instead of which he leaves out some Words, and horribly perverts the rest. For first I did in that Book acknowledge and confess to Christ's Bodily Appearance, and that he was born of the Virgin Mary after the Flesh, and that largely and plainly p. 36. which he wholy o­mitts to mention. Secondly, I do not remember that I so exprest my self, that God was Christ, but whether I did or no, to insinuate a Denyal of his Manifestation in Flesh is most perversly wicked and ungodly, as well as that it plainly shews, notwith­standing [Page 59] his feigned Confession to Christ's Divi­nity, that in truth he owns him not to be God, or he has very ill exprest himself when he sayes thou affirmest God is Christ (or Christ is God) for it im­plies he does not; else what means his following words, did God himself dye and suffer to God? he thus queries to shew the Absurdity of believing God to be Christ (or Christ to be God) and tells us that he believes what dyed was the Intire Christ. Certainly, he is either rank Socinian in the Point (which I mention not in Disgrace, unless it be to that Party that so impious a Person is of it) or he has not well given us his Mind. But this proves what elsewhere I ob­serve of him, that from our Asserting Christ to be God, or God Christ, Tho. Hicks is ignorant or ma­litious enough to infer, that we deny that ever he took Flesh; whence he would fasten such like Absur­dities upon us, you say Christ dyed, Christ you say is God, did then God dye? &c.

But if he has represented us to deny the Bodily Appearance, why did he not also make us to deny his Death and Sufferings too, and then there had been no room for that preposterous Conclusion; But to insinuate a Belief of our Denyal of Christs's coming in the Flesh, and not of his Death, that he might bring us upon this Pinch of Contradiction, to wit, that God dyed, and not the Body in which he was manifested, is such an invented piece of Dishonesty as deserves nothing else then the Abhorrence of all Impartial Persons; In short, we say, that God ma­nifested in Flesh was the true Christ that then appeared, that the Flesh, and not God dyed, and that the whole of the Appearance, whether in Life or Death, was for Man's [Page 60] Salvation. And if Tho. Hicks is not herewith con­tented, we cannot help it, but hope others are not so Unreasonable.

But he proceeds thus; Give me leave to ask you, directing himself to his foresaid Quaker, Contin. P. 49. Whether one great End wherefore Christ was given and came into the World was not to seek and to Save such that were lost. Quak. Yea, he came to seek and save the lost.

Christ. But who, or what is this that was lost.

He wickedly and with an Aggravation, like the Enmity of his Spirit, thus makes G. Keith to answer, ‘That which is lost is still in Man, That, Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preach­ed People to this, the lost in Man, a lost God, a lost Christ, &c.’ To which sayes T.H. Blush O Hea­vens, and be Astonished O Earth! Was ever such a thing as this heard of before, that Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ? &c. Was ever God and Christ in a Lost Condition? But the Heavens may Blush, and the Earth be Astonished indeed at such sordid and base Dealing. G. Keith means, that Christ came to seek and to save, by turning People to enquire af­ter a lost God and a lost Christ, the Groat within, the Pearl in the Field. &c. that is, to God's Light in them, by which God and Christ are revealed to the Soul;Rom. 1. For whatever may be known of God is manifest within, which they Rebelling a­gainst, had lost the Knowledge of the only true God, and Jesus Christ: And this unrighteous Per­son turns it that G. Keith meant, that Christ came to seek and to save a lost God, and lost Christ; What Sence can there be in so horrible a Perversion, as [Page 61] well as that there is no colour for it, who endea­vours to insinuate that Christ came to save God and Christ, not the Soul by turning it to seek after God and Christ; and to represent God and Christ's Con­dition Lost and Perilous, instead of theirs, who had or have lost God and Christ? In short, Lost as taken by T.H. is meant of Man's lost Condition, and as there used by G. Keith, is understood of God and Christ, whom Man had and hath lost the Knowledge of, and Fel­lowship with. But such sinister Practices savour of the height of Dishonesty; The Inventer of BAXTER BAPTIZED IN BLOOD BY ANA­BAPTISTS is nothing to this horrible kind of Perversion; And I doubt not, but T. Hick's Recom­pence will be more terrible from the hand of a Just God, irritated by such Irreligious Proceedings. How­ever, I will return upon T. Hicks what more con­cerns him then he is aware of: If Christ came to seek and to Save that which was Lost, then because the whole World was lost, he came to seek and to save the whole World; And if so, then, Reprobates because Lost, or else there can be no such thing, as Eternal Reprobation, or Men from Eternity unalterably decreed to Eter­nal Destruction; How much more this confounds his own partial Opinion of Predestination then any thing he has said can the Quakers Principles, let the Sober minded judge.


Of the Seed, and Redemption of the Seed.

HIs next Stumble, and gross Perversion of our Words, is concerning the Seed, from a pas­sage or two taken out of the Books of J.N. and G.F. That the Seed is Christ, that the Seed wants Redemption, as being laden by Sinners as a Cart with Sheaves, &c. He thus argues; If then Redemption be of the Seed, and this Seed be Christ, either there must be more Christs then one, Dialog. pag. 47.48. or else Christ came to redeem himself. Again, Christ-without you esteem to be but a Creature; but the Seed-within you say is God. Tell me seriously whether a Creature can re­deem the Creator. Can you pretend to be guided by an In­fallible Spirit, and yet be guilty of such gibberish and folly as this?

To which, before I make my Answer, I think fit to insert that which he gives in the Name of the Quakers.

Here thou shewest thy dark Mind, and that thou art still in thy Imagination, understanding neither the Re­demption nor the Seed; which however feign'd by him­self against himself, is so great a Truth, that there is scarcely one Passage in his Dialogue more allowable.

But to his Argument and Question. We do assert the Redemption of the Seed for the Light and Life which has been as sown in the Heart of Mankind, [Page 63] has been loaded with Sin, pressed down with Iniquity, grieved and almost quenched through Disobedience, which words are not properly, but metaphorically to be taken, as used by the holy Pen-Men, whereby to make things the more plain and easie to common capacities. It is said in Scripture, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, a Place of Bondage and grievous Weights, Burdens and Oppressions, from all which the Seed was to be redeem­ed; and Christ came, or God was manifested in the Flesh, that the Seed of Light, Truth and Righteousness might break through and arise over all Corruption, by which it had been grieved and pressed down. And it is no Con­tradiction to say, That God did rid himfelf of the Enemies that opprest his own Righteous Life, or that he brought Salvation to himself; for the Scriptures fre­quently speak on that wise, especially in those two notable Passages of Isaiah, Isa. 59.16. And he saw that there was no Man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor, therefore his Arm brought Sal­vation to him, and this Righteousness it sustained him. Again, The Year of my Redeemed is come;Isa. 63.4, 4. 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 upheld me. Whence it is no wayes absurd that we affirm, that the End of God's Manifesting himself in the Flesh was for the Redemption or De­liverance of his Holy Life that was in Man but as a small Seed, even the smallest of Seeds, that had been long vexed, grieved, bruised and pressed down by Sin and Iniquity; For the End of that Appea­rance was, that Sin might be destroyed, and that Christ, who had been as a Lamb slain from the Founda­tion [Page 64] of the World, might be exalted in the Hearts of Men and Women, and his, and their Foes, made his and their Footstool: For the Work is Inward, we do aver in the Name of the Lord; for where the Devil hath Reigned and had Dominion to wit, in Man, there be must be defeated, and subdued; and Christ alone, by whom that is brought to pass, ought and must have the Power and the Kingdom forever. And if this be the Folly and Gibberish the Quakers must be charged with from this Anabaptist Preacher, we are content to use it, as well as patient to bear his insolent Scoff; only let all take notice, that we understand not by the Seed's Redemption, its being redeemed from the Pollution, but the Weight of Sin and Iniquity; for it was and is pure forever.

Now as to our Calling Christ-without a Creature, I must tell him, 'tis not our Language; but if he means by it the Body born of the Virgin, I suppose T. Hicks is far from believing that to be the Creator, though his manner of speaking shews a dislike of us, that we don't, because he sayes that we esteem the Christ without, or the Outward and Visible Part of Christ but a Creature, as if he believed it to be the Creator. However manifest it is he believes, that the Redemp­tion wrought, is not by that God, who in those fore­going Passages speaks so expresly to that purpose, and who in time manifested himself in the Flesh, but the Flesh only, by and through which he was so ma­nifested.


Of the Soul of Man.

HIs next Abuse of us that I shall take notice of, is this, ‘That G. Fox and others hold the Soul to be a part of God, of God's Be­ing,Dialog. p. 1. and that it is without Beginning;’ All which (sayes he) is as much as to say, the Soul is God. SO THAT GOD SETS UP A LIGHT IN HIMSELF, WHICH HE HIMSELF IS TO OBEY, AND IN SO DOING GOD SHALL BE SA­VED.

Behold your Anabaptist Preacher! A Man of Truth, Tender Conscience, of the first Form of Chri­stians, a Contender for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and what else he falsly pretends, and in vain would have us think him to be. What so Base? What so Irreligious as this Perversion? Men nor Devils could never study more our Wrong, then this pretended Christian has done. If this be his Christia­nity, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob preserve my Soul from ever coming within the Borders of such Religion; but Christianity is absurd by such Tradu­cers, and God's Spirit is grieved by such Injustice. I would not use the worst of Men, no not Devils themselves, at that unequal Rate he deals with us, who both mis-cites his Words, and abuses the true Meaning of what is truly cited. G. Fox sayes thus, [Page 66] God breathed into Man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul, and is not this of God, of his Being? &c. and is not this that comes out from God, part of God, & from God? Where nothing can well be clearer than that G.F intends that Divine Life, Power and Virtue by which Adam in Soul & Body came to live to God. Can T.H. say after all this, that he cited G F. right, and ask the Quaker in his Dialogue, Darest thou say I have not quoted him truly? Hardened Man!

Breathed that is Inspired: Breathed being the English Word, Inspired borrowed from the Latine Inspirare; the Greek has it [...], as Joh. 20.22 hath breathed into, enlivened, inspired, quickened; the Hebrew [...] and he breathed or blowed: on which R. Nachmanni and the Author Hiskuni in P. Fagins's Comment on the Place, speak thus, That God inspired Man with some­thing of his own Substance; that he contributed some­thing to him▪ and bestowed something of his own Divinity upon him, and that God did inspire Man with the Holy Ghost; and that [...] is a proper Word for it. Which is as much as can be collected or justly concluded from what G. Fox hath said concerning Man. But this Ungodly Person would infer from our Asserting that the Breath God breathed into Adam's Soul, whereby it lived to God, was of God's own Divine Life, that the Soul of Man, as a meer Creature, created Capacity, is of God's own Being and Substance; and when he his done, with a Taunt becoming none but a Prophane Person, tells us, that then God sets up a Light in himself, which being obeyed by him, he comes to be saved; as [...] the Soul needed either a Light or Saviour, in case it were God; or, that God could obey any thing, or needed Salvation. O monstrous Blasphemy [Page 67] against God, and horrid Injustice to us! For as God can obey none, nor need Salvation, neither in sense can we be thought so to believe of the Soul, as by him represented;Read G. Fox's Gr. Myst. p. 91. since our pleading for a Sa­ving Light, the necessity of Obedience to it, the Eternal Reward of Life or Death, Happiness or Misery, as it is conformed to, or rebelled against, prove our Faith in that Matter to be quite another thing. If this be your Champion, I dare warrant his own Baseness shall be his own Overthrow; we need no more against him, then his own Ignorance, Malice, Lyes, Forgeries and Slanders to his utter Confuta­tion in the Minds of all Impartial Persons.


Of Justification, and something of Satisfaction.

THe Doctrine of Justification is the next Parti­cular that I am to take notice of. He begins with the Quaker thus, Pray what is your Opinion of Justification by that Righteousness of Christ which He in his own Person fulfilled for us WHOLELY WITHOƲT ƲS. Quak. Contin. P. 50. ‘Justifica­tion by the Righteousness which Christ fulfills for us in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US, we boldly affirm it to be a Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which doth now deluge the World, Will. Penn Apol. p. 148.

[Page 68]This Apology cited was written against a Malici­ous Priest in Ireland, who in a Book by him published not long afore, laid it down as Unscriptural, and a very heinous Thing in us to deny Justification (with­out any Distinction exprest) by the Righteousness which Christ wrought in his own Per­son WHOLELY WITH­OUT If wholely with­out us, then none of it within us. US. To whom I made the Answer given by T. Hicks; And if therein I have crost the express Testimony of the Scrip­tures,It was such a Justification, as re­spected being made just by the Destru­ction of Sin inhe­rent by the Spirit & Power of Christ Jesus, and not be­ing accounted Just from the Guilt, and former Sins free­ly Remitted in his Blood, as an Offe­ring for Sin once for all to every one that truly repents. let any shew me; But if I have only thwarted a most Sin-pleasing (and therefore Dange­rous) Notion; let such as hold it look to that: He has not offe­red me one plain Scripture, nor the Shadow of a Reason, why this Passage ought to be reputed unsound or condemnable. If any Living will produce me but one Passage out of Scripture, that tells of a Justification by such a Righteousness as is WHOLE­LY WITHOUT US, I shall fall under its Authority; but if we only deny Men's corrupt Con­ceits and Sin-pleasing Glosses ▪ and they offer us nothing to our Confutation, or better Information, we shall not think bare Quotations of our Books to be sufficient Answers. But to the end all may under­stand the Reason of my so Answering that Priest, take those short Reasons then rendered, with any one [Page 69] of which I am to suppose T. Hicks desired not to meddle.

First, No Man can be Justified without Faith (sayes Jenner.) No Man hath Faith without Works (any more then a Body can live without a Spirit) sayes James. Apol [...]g. p. 148.

Therefore the Works of Righteousness, by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, are necessary to Justification.

Second, If Men may be justified, whilst Impure; then God quits the Guilty, contrary to the Scrip­ture; which cannot be, I mean while in a Rebelli­ous State.

Third, Death came by Actual Sin, not Imputa­tive, in his sense; therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness, & not Imputative.

Fourth, This speaketh Peace to the Wicked, whilst Wicked; but there is no Peace to the Wick­ed, saith my God.

Fifth, Men are Dead and Alive at the same time, saith this Doctrine▪ for they may be dead in Sin, and yet alive in another's Righteousness, not Inherent, and consequently, Men may be damned actually, and saved imputatively.

Sixth, But since Men are to reap what they sow; and that every one shall be rewarded according to his Works; and that none are Justified but the Children of God; and that none are Children [Page 70] but who are led by the Spirit of God; and that none are so led, Gal. 6. Rev. 22. Rom. 8. but those that bring forth Fruits thereof, which is Holiness; 'Tis not the Oyle in anothers Lamp, but in our own only, which will serve our turns; I mean, the Rejoycing must be in our selves, and not in another: yet to Christ's holy Power alone do we ascribe it, who works all our Works in us.

All which was not only not answered, but not ci­ted by him.

He brings me in again thus; Justification is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness; P. 51. Contin. but from the actual Performing and Keeping God's Righteous Statutes, Sand. Found. p. 25. To which, after this base and disingenuous Citation, he returns me this only Answer; Is it not written, Rom. 5.19. By the Obedience of one many are made Righteous? But before I explain the Truth of that Scripture, be pleased to hear my Argument, as it is laid down in my Book, and then give thy Judg­ment, Reader, upon the Man.

The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of his Father; The Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him, and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him. When a Righteous Man turneth away from his Righteousness, Ezek. 18.20, 26, 27, 28. for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye; Again; When the Wick­ed Man turneth away from his Wicked­ness, and doth that which is Lawful and Right, he shall save his Soul alive; yet saith the House of Israel, The Wayes of the Lord are not Equal. Are not my Wayes Equal? If this was once Equal, its [Page 71] so still; for God is Unchangeable; And there­fore I shall draw this Argument, That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the Imputation of ano­ther's As wholely without us. Righteousness; but the a­ctual Performance, or not keeping of Gods righteous Statutes or Com­mandments; otherwise God should forget to be Equal:It is to be un­derstood of a Righteousness Wrought by Christ's Pow­er within, when I speak of be­ing justified; that is, made just by it. Therefore how wickedly Unequal are those, who not from Scripture Evidences, but their dark Conjectures, & In­terpretations of obscure Passages, would frame a Doctrine, so manifestly inconsistent with God's most pure and equal Nature; making him to con­demn the Righteous to Death; and justifie the Wicked to Life, from the Imputation of another's Righteousness.—A most Unequal Way indeed.’

Where observe that the Answer he makes me give in his Dialogue, is delivered by me with an If it be so, fetcht expresly from the Text it self: so that the Scripture, and not W. Penn is most struck at by him. However it be, he has offered us no Opposition yet, but that Passage out of the Romans, which will not be found inconsistent with Ezeki­el's Testimony, on which my Argument was groun­ded.

The whole Verse was thus, For as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners, Rom. 5.19. so by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righ­teous; which if the whole Chapter be well [Page 72] considered▪ is no more then this; that as Adam, representative of Mankind (from whence he had that Name) was he by whom Sin entred into the whole World; So Christ was He, by whose comeing, and Obedience Righteousness had an entrance to the Justification of many. In short, the Work Christ had to do was two-fold. 1 To remit, forgive, or justify from the Imputation of Sin past, all such as true­ly repented, believed and obeyed him. And 2ly, by his Power and Spirit operating in the Hearts of such to de­stroy and remove the very Ground and Nature of Sin, whereby to make an End of Sin, and finish Transgression present and to come; that is, the first removes the Guilt, the second the very Cause of It. Now I grant that his Obedience unto Death was in order to make Men Righteous, because it was in the Nature of a Sa­crifice by which God testified unto the World his Desire of Reconciliation through the Remission of the Sins that are past, which was held forth, and came, and was confirmed by that Obedience, e­ven to the Death of the Cross; In which Sence the Just sufferd for the Ʋnjust:Rom. 2▪ 3, 4, 5. Chap. and whilst we were Sinners Christ dyed; He was made Sin, that is, to take away Sin for us (an Hebraism) and he justifieth the Ʋngodly, that is, re­mitteth the Ʋngodly upon Repentance, and bore our Iniquities, 2. Cor. 5.19. or bore away our Ini­quities, that is, by this Offering for Sin, was Remission for Sins past declared and confirmed unto all, as an Ʋniversal Propitiation; For God was in all these Sufferings shewing forth his Love and reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses un­to them. But still Repentance was that which brought [Page 73] home the general Pardon promulgated, in and by that holy Offering up of his Body once for all un­to every particular Soul. Thus by the Obedience of that one Man, even to the Death of the Cross, many come to be made Righteous, that is, justified from many Offences, see Rom. 5.6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. But if this first part of Justification, which is Remission of Sin, be not obtainable by any, however general it be in Christ, without Repentance from dead Works, which implyes Faith, Contrition and Amendment of Life; How miserably is T. Hicks out, who brings this very Scripture we are upon, to prove that we are compleatly justified (which takes in both Forgiveness of Sin past, and a being Inwardly made Just through the casting out of Sin by the just and ho­ly Power and Spirit of God operating in the Heart and Conscience) by Christ's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT US.

I grant it that Forgiveness of Sin is God's free Love, meer Grace and rich Mercy, declared in and by Christ Jesus to the World, and that this Grace abounded unto all; for He was a Propitiation, not only for the Sins of those that believe, but of the Whole World; yet the whole Benefit thereof should never redound unto any, whilst alienated from God by wicked Works.

Peter preached another Doctrine: For though Christ dyed for the Ʋngodly, yet they were not thereby Justified, that is, pardon'd for Sin past, while Un­repentant. Peter sayes, Repent, and then they should receive Remission of Sins. Act 3.38. Now I would fain know how this Repentance is wrought, by which, as a Condition, any come to [Page 74] have an Interest in that great Pardon held out to the whole World; Is the Spirit of Christ unconcern'd in it? Can we think one Good Thought of our selve [...]? Are we not altogether degenerated Plants of a Strange Vine? by Na­ture Children of Wrath? &c. Is not this frequently con­fest by the Professors of Religion in our times, and the most affected piece of their Righteousness too? Well then! If we cannot repent of our selves, and that Repent­ance is a Condition, & that it is in the Soul, and that it cannot be there without the Spirit of Christ work it, tell me plainly if something is not to be done within, and therefore of the Nature of Inward Righteousness, before any Benefit be procured, deriv'd or receiv'd from Christ's Death and Sufferings to any particular Person. This is close to our Point; for therefore is it that we affirm, that such as go on to transgress against the Law of the Spirit of Life, and so disobey the Light, and grieve the Holy Spirit by wicked Works, are not in that State Justified; I mean now, that they are not so much as forgiven, and least of all, that they should be look'd upon as compleatly justified, that is, by Qualification and Participation of the Divine Na­ture, truly and inwardly made Just; since it would be to say, that by the Obedience of one, many shall be made Righteous, who notwithstanding remain Disobedi­ent and Rebellious to God's Grace which has appeared unto them. We do say again, that such a Doctrine, so speaking Peace to a State of Sin and Death, and shutting out an Inward Work many wayes necessary to the Forgive­ness of Sin past, or dayly Acceptante with God, IS NO LESS THEN THE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS, and the worst they have to pro­pagate, to the Dishonour of God, and the Eternal [Page 75] State of People Souls. In short, here lyes the gross Mistake of our Adversaries: They make the Suffer­ings of Christ which peculiarly relate to the first part of Justification, Remission of Sins past, to be that which has answered, not only for Sins past, but present and to come, so as to acquit them from all Inward Work as necessary to Justification compleat­ly taken, contrary to express Scripture. Rom. 5.25. and the great End of Christ's Spiritual Manifestation in his People. There might be much more said in this matter, but because he thinks, I have not made a little for him in my Book truly entituled The Sandy Foundation Shaken, and that I am to be short, I shall proceed to dispatch what remaines, as God shall en­able me.

To that Answer he gave out of the Romans by the Obedience of one, &c.) already with other Scriptures explained and vindicated from his Abuse of them, he makes me thus to answer him.

Quak. It is a great Abomination to say, God shall condemn and punish his Innocent Son, that he having satisfied for our sins, we might be justified by the Imputation of his perfect Righteousness. O why should this horrible thing be contented for by Christians? Penn. ibid. p. 25.30.

To which he returns. Chr. How now Mr. Penn, Is this the Doctrine of Christ's Sufferings for Sinners, to make Satisfaction to Divine Justice an horrible thing, and an Abomination to you? Do you consider what you say? And thus brings me in answering him. Qu. This I do say, that the Consequences of such a Doctrine are both Irreligious & Irrational. Penn. ibid. P. 16. Now that he has dealt Blasphem ously with God, and Injuri­ously [Page 76] with me, as well as that he has given me no account of his thoughts upon the Errour he makes me guilty of, in case I held it, besides that imper­tinent Question, plainly appears.

First he has dealt Blasphemously with God in cal­ling Christ's Suffering, God's condemning and puni­shing his Innocent Son, &c. which his Censure of my so Phrasing their Opinion, manifestly implyes. Now I appeal to all Impartial People, which of us two is most to be blamed, I that confess to Christ's Suffer­ings as the Effect of Gods's Love; thereby not to satisfie himself, as a Revenger, or as he could not forgive (for none of that is in the Verse at all) which yet is in their Sordid Opinion; but as a God full of Mercy, Forgiveness and Pardon to all true Peni­tents, to declare to the World his free Remission of Sins, and that he would not impute their Iniquities unto them, if they would repent, believe & obey; or T. Hicks, who holds that God condemn'd and punish'd his Innocent Son for o­ther Folkes Sins, that he might be satisfied: for pardon he nei­ther could, nor would: And which is most absurd; Christ being this same God, he at once makes him the Party satisfying, & the Party satisfied, which is absurd and impossible; besides 'tis such a Satisfaction as hath paid all Debts, past present & to come, whereby all Inward Righteousness, though of Christ's Working, is not necessary to Justification in any Kind.

Secondly, He has dealt Injuriously with me, and that in two Respects, 1. In not stating the Do­ctrine truly, which I opposed, and my Words at length, that they might speak for themselves (But in that case, perhaps he thought he should have been oblieged to answer them, a thing he every where [Page 77] seems afraid of, his Trade [...]s Cavi [...]g,) And 2l [...], In that he brings this Passage which oppos [...]d suc [...] a Satisfaction, as is said to have paid for Sins p [...]st, present, and to come, to answer a Scripture which concerns Justification, and that part of it too, which relates to Remission of Sins; Insinuating, that I make Men's own Works sufficient to Justification in the first sense, I mean, Remission, & in the second sense, I mean daily Acceptance upon being made Just; and lastly, that I overturn all the Righteousness, Death and Sufferings of Christ; whilst in Truth and Sincerity of Soul, 1. by Justification, not by another's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT, I only meant, That it was Christ's Righteousness wrought in us, and not our own, which made Inwardly Just, and which gave daily Acceptance, and brought into the heavenly Fel­lowship with the Father and with the Son; the Ju­stification then intended by me. 2ly, Since God has made his Truth known to me, I have ever understood Christ's being offered up to signifie, the carrying a­way of Sin, the bearing away of Iniquity, that by which God declared Remission and Forgiveness of Sins past to all that repented. And this Justification, called Rom. 4. ver. 5, 6, 7, 8, God's not Imputing Sin, I have ever own­ed to be the Free Unmerited Love of God to the World; And was not that Justification by me spo­ken of in the Passage cited? 3ly, That which I opposed was so rigid a Satisfaction, as made it abso­lutely unavoidable or necessary in God to require a Satis­faction, thereby robbing him of the Power of his free Mercy and Loving-kindness to remit and pass by, and that Christ did not answer or pay, by the Act of his Suffering, for Sins past, present and to [Page 87] come; but as he declared Remission by his Blood for the Sins past of the whole World, the beginning of his Work; so that he doth by his Power and Spi­rit, subdue, destroy and cast out Sin out of the Hearts of all who believe in him, whereby their Consciences come to be made pure, they sanctified throughout in Body, Soul and Spirit, which necessitates to Good Life, and speaks no Peace to the Wicked in their Wickedness, nor yet to the sloathful, formal and carnal Professor of Religion. Therefore such rage, and imagine a vain thing against us.

That the Consequences of the common Notion of both Satisfaction and Justification are Irreligious and Irrational, though what has been said might suffice with Sober and Impartial Readers; yet I may anon have further Occasion to prove it. In the mean time,Contin. P. 52. He tells the World, that William Penn, in Answer to this Question, How did Christ fulfil the Law for Sinners? says, That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Pattern or Example, S.F. p. 26. In which he has done exactly like him­self; For if he can find the Word ONLY there, or such an Answer to such a Question, or the Mat­ter strictly contained in that Question, he has not wronged me; but sure I am there is no such Questi­on, and as sure, that the Fulfilling of the Law, was not the Subject treated on, and very certain, that the Word Only was not there; therefore a Forger. That which I said, with the Scripture on which it was grounded,Sand. Found. Shaken. p. 26. follows: If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my Love, even as I have kept my Father's Commandments and abide in his Love.

[Page 79] ‘[From whence this Argument doth naturally a­rise; If none are truly Justified that abide not in Christ's Love, and that none abide in his Love that keep not his Commandments; then conse­quently none are justified but such as keep his Com­mandments. Besides here is the most palpable Op­position to an Imputative Righteousness that may be; For Christ is so far from telling them of such a Way of being Justified, as that he info [...]m [...]th them, the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love, was his Obedience; and is so far from telling them of their being Justified, whilst not abiding in his Love, by Virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them, that unless they keep his Commands, and obey for themselves, they shall be so remote from an Ac­ceptance, as wholely to be cast out; in all which Christ is but our Example]’ Now that this con­cerned not the Whole Law Christ came to ful­fil; The whole He was Our Example in Holiness, though not in his Ending Types & Sha­dows. Law he fulfilled, the place of Scripture quoted, the Na­ture and Matter of the Argument clear­ly proves. Next, If Christ had been other then our Example in that case, then he should have fulfilled his own Commandments in our stead, who from Obeying his Father's, taught us, our Duty was to obey His. And supposing that he could have kept his own Com­mandments, and obey'd himself for us, or in our stead, it would have followed, (1.) That we need­ed not to have kept them, unless they were to be observed twice over. And that (2ly,) in not kee­ping [Page 80] of them, we had been notwithstanding justifi­ed from his alone Fulfilling of them; unless his An­swering them had been Insufficient. The first of which, if I understand any thing, opens a Door to all Licentiousness (however Upright some may be in their Intentions to the contrary) And the last strikes dead their own Opinion of the Sufficiency of Christ's Personal Obedience, to perfo [...]m all needful on our Account;Contin. p. 52. From hence he undertakes to charge me with the Merit of Works. My words at length are these, which he thought good to conceal.

‘Was not Abraham justified by Works when he offered Isaac?Sand. Found. Shaken, p 30. and by Works was Faith made perfect; and the Scrip­ture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness. By which we must not con­c [...]ive, as do the dark Imputarians of this Age, that Abraham's Offering Personally was not a Justifying Righteousness, but that God was pleased to ac­count it so; since God never accounts a thing that which it is not; nor was there any Imputa­tion of another's Righteousness to Abraham; but on the contrary, his Personal Obedience was the God's Love is not excluded, nor his Power that so worked in Abra­ham's Heart. Ground of that just Imputation; & there­fore that any should be justified from the Imputation of ano­ther's Righteousness, not inhe­rent, or actually possessed by them, is both Ridiculous and Dangerous. — Ridi­culous, [Page 81] since it is to say, A Man is Rich to the value of a Thousand Pounds, whilst he is not really or perso­nally worth a Groat, from the Imputation of ano­ther, who has it all in his Poss [...]ssion: Dangerous, because it begets a confident Pe [...]swasion in many People of their being Justified, [...] whilst in Captivity to those Lusts, whose Reward is Condemnation; whence came that usual Saying amongst many Professors of Religi­on, That God looks not on them as they are in That is, within them as to Qualifica­tion. Themselves, but as they are in Christ; not considering, that none can be in Christ, who are not New Creatures, which those cannot be reputed, who have not disro­bed themselves of their old Garments, but are still immantled with the Corruptions of the Old Man.’

In all which I see nothing Unsober or Unsound. But he thinks he has caught me fast in my Caveat against Popery, Ibid. p. 52.53. where in distingui­shing betwixt Grace and Merit, I say, Grace is a Free Gift requiring nothing; and now ask, sayes he, was not Abraham Justified by Works? and that Good Works may be said to procure, deserve or obtain, Apol. 198. Is this writ like an Infallible Dictator? Thus far T.H.

There is an old Proverb, That some love the Treason, but hate the Traitor. No Man that writes, rants it more imperiously then Tho. Hicks. It is hard to say, whether his Dishonesty or his Impudence be the greater. I think, I never used Tho. Hicks so ill, or any of his Way, as to deserve so many Scoffing Taunts, Base Detractions, and Down-right Scurrilities from his [Page 82] hand; But let that pass. To the Point. Hear what I have said in the Caveat. p. 12.

Grace and Merit, as stated by Calvinists and Pa­pists, are taken for Faith without Works; and Works without Faith; like the two Poles. Doctrines the most opposite; Now Rewardableness is neither, but something in the middle, and indeed the most true; for Grace is a Free Gift, requiring no­thing: Merit is a Work proportionable to the Wages: Rewardableness, is a Work without which God will not bestow his Favour, and yet not the Meritorious Cause; for that there is no Proporti­on betwixt the Work that is finite, and temporary, and the Reward which is infinite and eternal; in which sense both the Creature obeyes the Com­mands of God, and does not Merit, but Obtain only; and God rewards the Creature, and yet so, as that he freely gives too.

Now what Contradiction is there in all this? I plainly distinguish the Word Merit in the strictest Acceptation of it, from that which is truly Scrip­tural, respecting us at least. That I did not menti­on Merit in my Sandy Foundation Shaken, the Book proves. Is there no Difference between obtaining the Justifying Presence of God by the Fruits of the Spirit in our Heart and Lives, and strictly meriting his Acceptance of us by Works, and those of our own making too, Dialog. p. 38. Contin. p. 53. as what T.H. doth wickedl [...] suggest? I say, Abraham was justified in offering up his Son, because he had been condemned if he had disobeyed.’ But sayes T. Hicks, He was Justified before. And why was not his whole Life mention'd to his Justifica­tion? [Page 83] But I must tell T.H. that as among Men the Will is taken for the Deed, so the Lord finding A­braham right in his Heart, that he believed, and would obey; he was as much justified therein, as if he had actually done it. We have cause to believe T. Hicks never knew what the Consequence of that working Faith, and offering up an Isaac to God is. Nor was it needful to recite the whole of his Life: Measures are frequently taken by some e­minent Tryal. If he was accepted in that, Obedi­ence being the Condition, where that was before, he was before accepted no doubt. But sayes he, see the Caveat, p. 12. and Apol. p. 198. How do they agree? Truly very well: For Grace is Free, requi­ring nothing. How? Nothing at all? By no means. How then is it free? Grace is free, because it was the good Pleasure of God both to give Remission of Sins, and Eternal Life to as many as should Repent, Believe and O­bey to the End, and thereby come to be conformed to the Image of his Son. But may T. Hicks say; Is Repenting nothing? Believing nothing? Obeying nothing? No, T.H. not one jot of Merit in all that; It is the great Grace of God, to give us Eternal Life upon so small Conditions. They obtain it; but that is God's good Pleasure, and no Purchase, therefore Grace still; All that is our Duty; the Reward is Free; God gi­veth it, but chuses a Way by which to do it. If T.H. will understand Grace, as my Caveat condemns it, I cannot help that; sure I am, I never writ such Doctrine as my Faith, and therefore no Contradi­ction to my self, whatever it may be to him. But sayes he, Your Apology speaks that good Works may be said to procure, deserve, or obtain, &c.

[Page 84]My Apology as my self, and other Books, are not Apology enough for me and my Friends against such Envious Perverters as T.H. though I doubt not but they may be effectually such with more moderate Persons; thus it speaks,

‘The Word Merit, so much snarled at, allows a two-fold Signification; the First, a Proporti­on or Equali [...]y betwixt the Work and Wages, which is the strictest sense, and that which he (S. Fisher) least of all intended; The Second, something that may be said to procure, AND IN SOME SENSE to deserve or obtain, and so good Works do; since without them there is no Acceptance with God, nor Title to Eternal Life.

Where it is observable, how basely he has left out, both my absolute Denyal of the strict Sense of the Word MERIT, and those qualifying and distinguishing Words, which come after Procure and before De­serve, namely, AND IN SOME SENSE, to deserve or obtain, with the last Clause. Certain it is, that whatever sense I had T. Hicks took me in the worst he could invent, yea in that very sense, which all along I have most particularly refused and condemned; A Baseness, and piece of Forgery, unworthy of any Man pretending to Good Conscience!

But he proceeds still, & much after the same manner; he would have People believe, That we assert the Ground of our Rejoycing and Acceptance to be not in,Contin. p. 53.and from the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by Faith (where observe, that WHOLELY WITHOUT US, is omitted, to render us Denyers of Christ's Righteousness in any sense) but only in a Righteousness inherent in us, and [Page 85] done by us; Which great Untruth he gives the Lye to, in his own Book. But because he pretends to fetch this out of my S.F. Shaken. p 27. let's hear what I have said. But let every Man prove his own Work, and then shall he have Rejo [...]cing in himself alone, and not in another Be not deceived, for whatso­ever a Man soweth that shall he reap.

‘If Rejoycing, and Acceptance with God, or the contrary, are to be reaped from the Work that a Man soweth, either to the Flesh, or to the Spirit, then is the Doctrine of Acceptance, and Ground of Re­jo [...]cing from the Works of another utterly excluded; every Man reaping according to what HE hath sown, and bearing HIS OWN Burden.

The Question will now be, Whether I meant this of the Creature alone, or by the Assistance of God's Holy Spirit, by which his Children are led?

Concerning which I need say no more, then what that Book speaks in my Defence, yea, that very Page, from whence he fetches this pretended Dangerous Assertion. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the Sons of God.

‘How clearly will it appear to any but a Cavil­ling and Tenacious Spirit; that Man can be no further Justifi­cation not as Remission, but as made Just. Justified, then as he be­comes obedient to the Spirit's Lea­dings; For if none can be a Son of God, but HE that's led by the Spi­rit of God, then none can be justifi­ed without being led by the Spirit of God; because none can be Justified but he that is a Son of God: so that the Way to Justification [Page 86] and Son-ship, is through Obedience to the Spi­rit's Leadings.’

By all which it appears, that I am not speaking of Remission of Sins, as if by our Conformity to the Spirit it self, we could so justifie our selves. No; but that by being Led by the Spirit of God, and Fulfilling of his Royal Law, Men come to be accepted, as Children of God; and the Ground of their Joy is from their own Experience of the Work of God in them. What was it made the Faithful Servants that improved their Ta­lents be accepted; and gave an Entrance to the Wise Virgins into the Bride-groom's Chamber? Were it not the Improvements of the one, and the Oyl in the Lamps of the other? And if T. Hicks come not to know that holy State, he shall never know Eternal Rejoycings, that is the Word of Truth to him; For such as he sows, such shall he reap in God's Day of Ac­count.Contin. p. 54. Wherefore that Scripture by him brought out of Isaiah makes greatly for us; Surely shall one say, in (or from) the Lord have I Righteousness; that is, not in or from my self;Isa. 45.24, 25. In the Lord shall all the Seed of Is­rael be justified, and shall glory. Is there no being in the Life, Power, Nature and Virtue of that Seed? then no Salvation. Also that of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthi­ans, 1 Cor. 1.30, 31. Christ is made unto us Righteousness; wherefore let him that glorieth glory in the Lord. For this I affirm, and that with Boldness and Truth, that Isaiah and Paul speak of a Real and In­ward Righteousness, not the less in the Creature, because not of the Creature, but of Christ. Was [Page 87] not Paul's Righteousness the Son of God revealed [...]n him? that everlasting Righteousness, that Christ binding and casting out of the strong Man, making an End of Sin, and finishing of Transgression, he brought and brings into the Soul? For that their Righteousness should be in or from him, or that he should be made their Righteousness, & they never know a being cloathed and made Righteous by it, were Absurd and Impossible. In short, As we know no Righteousness out of Christ our Lord, so knowing his Appearance in us, and that Grace for Grace, received of his Fulness, in whom are hid the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, and being obedient thereunto, we know and witness a Participation of his Everlasting Righteousness, Holy Wisdom and Saving Know­ledge, which qualifie and adorn the Soul for the blessed Marriage of the Lamb, who takes away the Sins of the World; not only the Guilt of Sins past by Remission upon Repentance, but as a Redeemer from under the Power and Nature of Sin present and to come, through the Virtue of his Holy Life in the Soul, which is the Compleatment of Justificati­on, and the Thing now insisted on.

Lastly, he gives under the Quakers name, as a dangerous Doctrine, this Passage; Justification goes not before, but is consequential to the mortifying of Lusts, and the Sanctification of the Soul. Cont. Pag. 59. Penn, Sand. Found Sh. p. 27. To which he answers. Doth not this import that a Man must be formally just before he be justified? I would ask whe­ther Remission of Sins be not one part of Justification? Qua. I suppose it may. Chr. Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty? It looks like a Contradiction, to [Page 88] pardon one that is Innocent. Certainly he that is pardoned must be a Sinner. To all which I return this much were he True and Honest in his Reasoning, I had been to blame for my Ignoronce, and T. Hicks to be commendable for his Answer; but he dodges basely. He would avoid my Argument about the second part of Justification, by suggesting that I meant it of the first, to wit, Remission of Sins, as much as if he had said; What, must all Sin be mortified be­fore a Man be pardoned his old Score? and can a Man's own Good Works so remit, Cancel or justifie? But his Sleight will not do. I have oft [...]n declared that upon Repentance God doth not impute past Ini­quity to any, therefore that part of his Answer which seems most smart upon me, that is, Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty? &c. vanisheth of Course; for the Question is not, Whether Man in his na­tural Estate is Guilty before God, and such can be no otherwise so justified, that is, Remitted, then by the free Love of God▪ which is the first part of Justification, as David speaks, Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord will not impute Sin. But whe­ther Men are daily accepted as Children of God, redeemed, and saved of the Lord, and justified as such, in his Pre­sence, further than as they come to be led by his holy Spi­rit, and know Victory over Sin? which is the second part of Justification. So that he did dishonestly with me, to suggest my Denyal of Remission of Sins past, upon any other Score then the Mortification of Sin in the Party so pardoned: For though Sin may not be mortified, yet if there be a Foundation of true Repentance laid, the Guilt of former Iniquities, I have often said, is not imputed. It was therefore very [Page 89] unfairly done of him, from my Asserting daily Accep­tance, and Fellowship with God, to be the Consequent of a Self-denying and mortified Life through the powerful Working of the Spirit of Christ in Man, to infer, that before this Work was done, there could be no Re­mission of Sins past; as if it were the procuring Cause of Pardon, and not the free Love of God upon Repentance. In short, it is to say, that because I deny Men may be justified in the second Sense, with­out being made truly and really Just; that there­fore Men are to be made Just and Innocent before they are forgiven; which is Justification in the first Sense. And thus has he dodg'd disingenuously with me throughout this Point: Where I meant by Justi­fication, Remission of Sins, he has run It the other way; And when I have understood it of a State of Fellowship and daily Acceptance with God, then he has taken it for Remission, with manifest Design, to render me as confus'd, contradictory and unscrip­tural as he could; but that all lights upon himself, and I doubt not but in the end it will appear, that I have contended for the Justification of Life, whilst his aimes will have been at nothing more in all his Bussle, then to promote a Justification in a State of Death, where the indwelling Life, Power and Virtue of Christ, which gives to live to God in the nearness of Life, cannot be enjoyed nor known: else, what means his reputing that Assertion in my Sandy Foundation shaken, so Er­roneous, namely, without Good Works there is no Ac­ceptance with God, which, without any Wrong to him, causes me to believe, that it is his Faith, that Men may be accepted with God without Good Works; and consequently that they are not necessary to Salvation. I [Page 90] wish for his sake, more then mine own, he had been no more Injurious to me, and the Truth I have defended, then I have been to him, in expressing but the natural Result and Tendency of his Doctrine.

I shall now be as good as my Word, and that is, to produce an Argument or two against the Com­mon Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification, as they have been opposed by me in this short Dis­course, and that out of my Book called, The Sandy Foundation Shaken, because it has been most in this Adversary's Eye; That if he thinks fit to reply, he may have something else to employ his Mind about then to write Dialogues filled with Lyes, Shifts, Forge­ries, Scoffs, Impudence and Scurrility.


1. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth Iniquity, and passeth by the Transgression of the Remnant of his Heritage? Micah. 7.18. He retaineth not his Anger forever: because he delighteth in Mercy. [Can there be a more express Passage to clear, not only the Possibility, but real Inclinations in God to pardon Sin, and not retain his Anger for ever? since the Prophet seems to challenge all other Gods to try their Excellency by his God, herein describing the Supremacy of his Power and Superexcellency of his Nature, that he pardoneth Iniquity, and retaineth not his Anger for ever: so that if the Satisfactionists should ask the Que­stion, Who is a God like unto ours, that cannot pardon Iniquity, nor pass by Transgression, but retain his Anger until some-body make him Satis­faction? [Page 91] I answer, Many amongst the harsh and severe Rulers of the Nation; but as for my God, he is exalted above them all, upon the Throne of his Mercy, who pardoneth Iniquity, and retaineth not his Anger for ever, but will have Compassion upon us].

2. And forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our Deb­tors. [Where nothing can be more ob­vious then that which is forgiven, is not paid:Mat. 6.12. And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction receiv'd, and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them, then is a Satisfaction totally excluded. Christ farther paraphrases upon that part of his Prayer, v. 14. For if you forgive their Tres­passes, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Where he as well argues the Equity of God's Forgiving them, from their Forgiving others, as he encou­rages them to forgive others, from the Example of God's Mercy in forgiving them; which is more amply exprest in Chap. 18. where the Kingdom of Heaven (that consists in Righteousness) is represen­ted by a King; Who upon his Debtors Petition had Compassion, and forgave him; but the same treating his Fellow-Servant without the least Forbearance, the King condemned his Ʋnrighteousness, and delivered him ever to the Tormenters. But how had this been a Fault in the Servant, if his Kings Mercy had not been pro­posed for his Example? How most unworthy there­fore is it of God, and Blasphemous may I justly term it, to be in any's daring to assert that Forgiveness impossible to God, which is not only possible, but enjoyn'd to Men.]

Consequences Irreligious and Irrational.

1 That it's Unlawful and Impossible for God Almighty to be Gracious and Merciful, or to par­don Transgressors; then which what's more Un­worthy of God?

2 That God was inevitably compell'd to this way of Saving Men; the highest Affront to his in­controleable Nature.

3. That it was Unworthy of God to Pardon, but not to inflict Punishment on the Innocent, or require a Satisfaction, where there was nothing due.

4. It doth not only disacknowledge the true Virtue, and real Intent of Christ's Life and Death, but intirely deprives God of that Praise which is owing to his greatest Love and Goodness.

5. It represents the Son more Kind and Com­passionate than the Father; whereas if both be the same God, then either the Father is as Loving as the Son, or the Son as Angry as the Father.

6. It robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption (which the Scriptures attribute to the unmerited Love he had for the World) in affirming the Son purchased that Redemption from the Fa­ther, by the Gift of himself to God, as our com­pleat Satisfaction.

7. Since Christ could not pay what w [...] not his own, it follows that in the Payment of his own, the case still remains equally grievous; Since the Debt is not hereby absolv'd or forgiven, but trans­fer'd only; and by consequence we are no better [Page 93] provided for Salvation than before, owing that now to the Son, which was once owing to the Father.

8. It no way renders Men beholding, or i [...] the least oblieg'd to God; since by their Doctrine, he would not have abated us, nor did he Christ the last Farthing, so that the acknowledgments are pe­culiarly the Sons: which destroys the whole cur­rent of Scripture Testimony, for his Good Will to­wards Men.— O the Infamous Portraiture this Do­ctrine draws of the Infinite Goodness! Is this your Retribution, O Injurious Satisfactionists?

9. That God's Justice is satisfied for Sins past, present, and to come, whereby God and Christ have lost both their Power of injoyning Godliness, and Prerogative of punishing Disobedience; for what is once paid, is not revokeable; and if Pu­nishment should arrest any for their Debts, it ei­ther argues a Breach on God's or Christ's part, or else that it hath not been sufficiently solv'd, and the Penalty compleatly sustained by another; for­getting that every one must appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ, Rom. 14.12. 2. Cor. 15.10. to receive accor­ding to things done in the Body: Yea, eve­ry one must give an account of himself to God. But many more are the gross Absurdities and Blasphemies, that are the genuine Fruits of this so confidently believ'd Doctrine of Satisfaction.


1. Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but He that doth the Will of my Father. Mat 7.21, 24, 25. Whosoever heareth these Sayings of mine, and doth them, I will liken him unto a Wise Man which built his House upon a Rock &c. [How very fruitful are the Scrip­tures of Truth in Testimonies against this absurd and dangerous Doctrine; these Words seem to im­port a two-fold Righteousness, the first consists in Sacrifice, the last in Obedience; the one makes a Talking, the other a Doing Christian. I in short argue thus, If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but they that do the Father's Will; then none are ju­stified, but they who do the Father's Will, because none can enter into the Kingdom, but such as are justified. Since therefore there can be no Admit­tance had without Performing that Righteous Will, and Doing those Holy and perfect Sayings, Alas! to what Value will an imputative Righteousness amount when a poor Soul shall awake polluted in his Sin, by the hasty Calls of Death to make its Ap­pearance before the Judgment Seat, where 'tis impossible to justifie the Wicked, or that any should escape uncondemned, but such as do the Will of God.]

Rom. 2.13.2. For not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be justified. [From whence how unanswer­ably [Page 95] may I observe, Unless we become Doers of that Law, which Christ came not to destroy, but, as our Example, to fulfil, we can never be justi­fied before God; wherefore Obedience is so abso­lutely necessary, that short of it there can be no Acceptance; Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfill'd it for them, as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance, but only as their Pattern, For unless ye follow me, saith Christ, ye cannot be my Disciples: And it is not only repug­nant to Reason, but in this place particularly re­futed; for if Christ had fulfill'd it on our behalf, and we not enabled to follow his Example, there would not be Doers, but One Doer only of the Law justified before God. In short, if without Obedi­ence to the Righteous Law none can be justified, then all the Hearing of the Law, with but the meer Imputation of anothers Righteousness, whilst actu­ally a Breaker of it, is excluded as not justifying before God. If you fulfill the Royal Law, ye do well; so speak ye, and so DO, as they that shall be judg'd thereby.]

3. If ye live after the Flesh, ye shall dye; but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the Deeds of the Body, Rom. 8.13. ye shall live. [No Man can be dead and justified before God, for so He may be justified that lives after the Flesh; therefore they only can be justified that are alive; from whence this follows, If the Living are justified and not the Dead, and that none can live to God, but such as have mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit, then none can be justified but they who have [Page 96] mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit; so that Justificati­on is compleatly taken. justification does not go before, but is subsequential to the Mortification of Lusts, and Sanctification of the Soul through the Spirit's operation.]

4. Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works, when he had offered Isaak his Son upon the Al­tar? Jam. 2.21, 24. Ye see then how that by Works a Man is justified, and not by Faith only. [He that will seriously peruse this Chapter, shall doubtless find some, to whom this Epistle was writen, of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our t [...]me; they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in, and the Imputation of anothers Righteousness; but James an Apostle of the most high God, who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant, gave them to understand from Abraham's self-denying Exam­ple, that unless their Faith in the Purity and Pow­er of God's Grace, had that effectual Operation to subdue every beloved Lust, wean from every Dallila, and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaak himself, their Faith was a Fable, or as a Body without a Spirit; and as Righteousness therefore in one Person cannot justify another from Unrigh­teousness, so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith, whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth, and Works of Righ­teousness, their Faith they will find at last Fiction.]

Consequences Irreligious and Irrational.

1. It makes God guilty of what the Scriptures say is an Abomination, to wit, that he justifieth the Wicked.

2. It makes him look upon Persons as they are not, or with respect, which is unworthy of his most Equal Nature.

3. He is hereby at Peace with the Wicked (if ju­stified whilst Sinners) who said, There is no Peace to the Wicked.

4. It does only imply Communion with them here, in an Imperfect State, but so to all Eternity;Rom. 8.30. for whom he justifieth, them he also glorifieth. Therefore whom he justify'd whilst Sin­ners, them he also glorify'd whilst Sinners.

5. It only secures from the Wages, not the Do­minion of Sin, whereby something that is sinful be­comes justify'd, and that which defileth to enter God's Kingdom.

6. It renders a Man justify'd and condemn'd, dead and alive, redeemed and not redeemed at the same time; the one by an Imputative Righteous­ness, the last by a Personal Unrighteousness.

7. It flatters Men whilst subject to the World's Lusts, with a State of Justification, and thereby in­valids the very End of Christ's Appearance, which was to destroy the Works of the Devil, and take a­way the Sins of the World.


Of the Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection. The Ignorance or Malice of T. Hicks Detected.

OF the Doctrine of Sanctification he has several Ʋnsanctified Passages, though he bestows not much time upon that Important Subject; some of which I shall take a little notice of.

Christ. Let us understand your Opinion of Sanctificati­on, Cont. p. 56. what it is? Out of Ed. Burroughs he an­swereth himself thus, Quak. ‘'Tis Christ. Hence we conclude, to say Sanctification is Imperfect in this Life, is as much as to say, Christ is Imperfect.’ To which he replies. Christ. 'Tis true, 'tis Jesus Christ by his Spirit is the Author and Worker of Sanctification; but will it therefore follow, that the Work of Sanctification in us is Christ, or that this Work is perfect in all its Degrees?

Now let any tell me wherein T. Hicks could have more grosly mistaken E. Burroughs, who frequently insults over the Grave and Labours of that Faith­ful Servant of the Lord, then he has done, on pur­pose I doubt not, to insinuate his Belief of the contrary to what he opposed. But hear Edw. Burrough's Words at large in Answer to Priest Eaton.

‘Thou sayest, Sanctification is not Perfect in this Life; And the New Man, the Spirit or Law of the Mind is that Grace or Imperfect Sanctification: Then [Page 99] Christ is not Perfect in this Life; for He is made of God unto us Sanctification, 1 Cor. 1.30.’

In this it is evident First, That the Priest did not so much strike at the Work done in the Creature, as at the Perfection of the Principle, by which the Work should be perfected in the Creature.

2dly, E. Burroughs did not in that place meerly in­tend the Work of Sanctification, but the Author and Worker of it, who is oftentimes called by the Name of the Work it self, the Cause by the Effect, as is plain from the Scripture quoted, in which he used but Paul's Words.

How basely done was it then, in Tho. Hicks, not only to leave out what the Priest asserted, but to mis­construe E.B's Answer, and (that such Perversion might go the more Unquestionable) omit the Inser­tion of that Scripture, in which Christ is by the A [...] ­stle said to be made Sanctification to the Saints; the mention of which would have given a clear Under­standing of E. Burroughs's Answer, and broke the Neck of his Ungodly Purpose to misrepresent him. We say, and it was the Faith and Tendency of the Writings of that Just Man, 1. To assert a Perfect Principle of Righteousness and Sanctification, which is Sanctification and Perfection in the abstract. 2. The Possibility of being Perfectly Sanctified by it. 3. That such Sanctification, when taken for the Author of it (who is the Fountain of all Holiness and Purity) is Compleat and Perfect. 4. When taken for the Work of the Spirit in the Creature, it is first Perfect in De­gree only; but as the Creature comes into perfect [Page 100] Subjection unto the Spirit and Power of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, which hath wrought that Perfection in Degree,1 Thes. 5.23. he comes to ex­perience that Sanctification throughout, in Bo­dy, Soul and Spirit, which the Apostle (o­therwise minded then T. Hicks) prayed the Churches might witness, which is that blessed State, wherein he that's born of God SINS NOT; Old things are done away, 1 John 5.18. & 2.1, 3. ALL IS BECOME NEW; No more I, but Christ that liveth in me. I write unto you, Matth. 15.48. Young Men, because ye have OVERCOME the Wicked One:Ephes. 4.13. Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Fa­ther is Perfect. 2 Tim. 23.17.unto a PERFECT MAN.Hebr. 13.12. That the Man of God may be PERFECT.1 Pet. 5.10. The God of Peace make you PERFECT IN E­VERY GOOD WORK.2 Cor. 7.1. The God of all Peace make you PER­FECT. Let us cleanse our selves from ALL FIL­THINESS OF FLESH AND SPIRIT; Perfecting Holiness in the Fear of the Lord. With ma­ny more Places of like Importance.

But he objects, Why doth the Apostle exhort Sanctifi­ed Persons to put off the Old Man (from Coloss. 3.5.) If where the Old Man, the Body of Sin remains none are Sanctified, as saith E.B.

This indeed is the Drift of the Man, he would be Sanctified whilst Unsanctified; as Dangerous, as it is Absurd: For what thing can be and not be the same thing, at one and the same time? But I deny they were [Page 101] then Sanctified who stood in need of that Reproof and Exhortation, to wit, that they should mortifie such Lusts, as Fornication. Ʋncleanness, Inordinate Af­fection, and Covetousness, which is Idolatry. Sanctify­ing such are, who are Mortifying: but when Sin is not Mortifying, none are Sanctifying; and where Sin is not Mortified, no Man is Sanctified. We may easily see, what a Church-Fellowship T.H. can allow of, and what a Gospel-Sanctification it is he pleads for. Can Men be Sanctified, and yet so Corrupt? If they can, tell me in what sense, and from what they are cleansed? Is this the End of pleading for Perfecti­on in Degree, to allow these Abominable Enormities, as Church-Infirmities? Away for Shame! But that a perfect Sanctification is no Heresie, suppose they had been Sanctify'd Persons to whom the Apostle wrote (which could not be, Sanctifying was the most) yet since he exhorted them, to put off the Old Man, which Old Man is the Body of Sin, and that when he is off, he is not on, and that the Apostle exhorted them Not to an Impossible thing, I conclude from his Question, that a State of Perfect Sanctification is attainable. He pretended to correct E.B's Extravagancy; but whatever Face he puts upon it, this is the Mark he aims at. To conclude, and sum up his Ungodly Method; E.B. speaks of a Perfect Sanctification in Christ. T.H. infers, that same perfect Sancti­fication immediately to the Creature; not only confounding the Worker and Work, the Cause and the Effect, about which one piece of Baseness he bestows not a little Pains; but suggesting thereby, that we deny all Sanctification or Perfection in Degree, and that we are as compleatly Perfect as Christ himself. [Page 102] Next, He leaves out those words, that would best explain his Mind. And Lastly, All his Opposition is, because the Quakers are for having Men Sancti­fy'd before they are Accounted so, and New Crea­tures before they ought to be reputed Good Chri­stians; which so directly Ʋn-churches and Ʋn-christi­ans T. Hicks, that we may well believe it a main Reason for his Implacableness against them.


Of COMMANDS, MOTIONS and MI­NISTRY. T. Hicks proved Ʋnjust to us, and an Enemy to God's Law, Gospel, the Quakers, and himself.

HE has not less abused and belyed us in these three Particulars, then any thing he has writ­ten against us, which I shall briefly shew.

To this Passage in E. Burroughs's Works, That is no Command to me which is a Com­mand to another, E.B's Works, p. 47. neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another, he thus answers, Then that Law which forbids Idolatry, Adultery, Murder, Theft and Bearing false Witness is no Law to you. And after ha­ving made this indirect Consequence, he breaketh forth, Impiously Horrid, Ʋngodly, Irreverent Patroni­zers of Blasphemy, Countenancers of such Novices, Pro­phane Scribler, and abundance more.

[Page 103]Now though I have said something to this before, and have largely vindicated that Passage against J. Faldo, yet I cannot well omit touching here up­on it, the Matter being so aggravated by this dis­ingenuous Person.

These Commands must either relate to Ordinary or Extraordinary Duty, I mean, they must either be such Commands, as that of Moses's going to Pharaoh, Isai­ah's going Naked, Jeremiah's making Yoaks, Amos's going to the Kings's Chappel; with many more: And here I do affirm with that Faithful Young Man of God, that the Command which came to them, not coming to another, that other Person is not only not war­ranted, but condemnable in an Imitation of any of them. If then such Extraordinary Commands, as these be­fore mentioned, must not be intended, then those that are Ordinary and Common to Mankind, as Fearing God, and working Righteousness towards God, towards their Relations both Natural and Civil. Now I would ask T.H. if he believes that Idolatry, Mur­der, Adultery, Theft and Bearing false Witness be not reproved by the Common Light in all Men? if not, T.H. gives the Lye to all Mankind,Dialog. p. 8. Cont. p. 68. and his own Books too; Nay, what is it good for? But if they be; query, If any can confess to one God, love his Neighbour, be Chaste, be Just, and speak Truth in his own and Neigh­bour's Cause, without being thereto oblieged by that Light they have? Did the Gentiles of old the things contain­ed in the Law, without a Word, Commandment, Law or Light within, inducing them thereto? I perceive T. Hicks owns no Command in himself against Idolatry, [Page 104] Adultery, Murder, Theft and Bearing false Witness; which is to say, if the Scripture did not restrain him, he should be guilty of all. Farewell Grace, Spirit, Light and all Inward Rule or Judge, by which to see, taste, relish and determine of things. But in this Condition, how knows he that the Scriptures were writ by In­spiration? If he sayes he was told so; I ask how they knew it? If they say they were told so too, and so upwards; I ask what Assurance can any Man's Say-so or Hear-say be in a Matter of such Importance? Nay, Suppose I should grant them a True Tradi­tion from the Apostles times, I ask, how knew they to whom they were writ, that they were the Fruits of Divine Inspiration? In short, take away all Inward Testimo­ny, or the Certainty and Sufficiency of it, and Farewell to all Right Belief of the Scriptures them­selves. Behold the Strait he is run into! But if at last T.H. shall desire a little more room, and ac­knowledge the Spirit must give the Discerning, and Relish, and most Convincing Testimony; will it not fol­low that he believeth the Scriptures, and performeth what may be his Duty therein, upon that Conviction, and not meerly because written or recommended by any Man whatever?

But he proceeds to prove E.B. as he thinks, an Enemy to God's Commandments, and a very Lyar. Contin. p. 61. The thing he Wickedly, but in vain aims at.

He quotes him thus, Quak. You are not dead with Christ who are yet subject to Ordinances, E.B. p. 105. To which hear him. Christ. The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they who [Page 105] are subject to, and keep the Commandments of God, are the Children of God, and they who do not are Lyars. See the first Epistle of John 2.3, 4. and Chap. 5.2, 3. Yet this Wicked Man saith, That they who are subject to Ordinances are not Dead with Christ.

Edw. Burroughs's Words are those of the Scrip­tures of Truth, therefore true Words in them­selves. But how does E.B. abolish what God per­petuates? I am sure I can plainly perceive that Tho. Hicks does call a Conscientious, Departed Sufferer, and Prisoner unto Death for the Testimony of Jesus, Wicked Man, because he dared not be guilty of Will-Worship, by going into any Practice of Worship, without the Leading of God's Spirit. Six Particulars comprehend my An­swer in brief.

First, That Edw. Burroughs only pleaded against such Performances, under the Name of Ordinances, as were but Shadowy, Observe how T. Hicks can quote Scripture to keep Ordinances, never mention­ed nor intended in it. A­gain, that he puts more Value upon such Commands as are Temporary then those that are Immutable; and brings Scrip­ture that concerns the Latter to confirm his Belief of the Former. Elementary and Pe­rishable Things; and which they were not led to by God's Spirit, but took up unwarran­tably, and by meer Imi­tation, and therefore Will-Worship.

2. That Thomas Hicks implies by calling him Wicked Man, that it is a Wickedness, not to take up any Outward or Visible Part of Worship in a Man's own Will' and Time; But to stay God's Time, and wait [Page 106] for the Leadings of God's Spirit: From whence I infer, [...]e is no Child of God; for every such one, is led by the Spirit of God; therefore no better then an Ape, or I­mitator of the Out-sides of Religion; In short, a Will-worshipper, and not a Worshipper of God in the Spirit and in the Truth.

3. Let it be observed, that there is not so much as the least mention made in all the Epistles of that Be­loved Disciple of any of those Ordinances, which stood in Visible and Corruptible Elements; but the Scope and Tendency of them, is the most Inward and Spiritu­al of any of the Apostolical Writings: So that to bring in things of a Temporary, Shadowy Nature, among the Spiritual and Durable Commands of Christ un­der the New Covenant State, without keeping of which Men incur Eternal Wrath, is an Abuse both of the Apostle's Words, and E.B's, which he intended by them to confute.

4. T. Hicks does as good as tell us, That the Com­mandments of God may be kept without the Spirit of God; since he opposes the Necessity of our Do­ing God's Commandments, to our doing them in the Time and Will, and by the Assistance of God's Spirit. O Irreligious Man, and Enemy to God's Spirit!

5. It plainly tells us, that Tho. Hicks has no Com­mand in himself for doing what he does; that the bare Authority of the Scripture is all he has to induce him, which raizes to the Ground that old Protestant Doctrine of Believing the Scriptures from an Inward Te­stimony, and Worshipping God in Spirit and Truth.

6. Lastly, If all are Lyars that keep not God's Com­mandments, and therefore none of his Children, as saith the Place, & as asserts T. Hicks, then either T.H. [Page 107] keeps God's Commandments, and so is perfect, or he must be a Lyar, and so no Child of God.

That he keeps not God's Commands I prove.

If such, as say that Man cannot fulfil, obey or keep the Law, nor the Gospel; pray, preach, dip, eat Bread and drink Wine, nor live without Sin, keeps not God's Commandments; but so doth T.H. expresly or impli­citely; therefore he keeps not God's Commandments, and consequently is a Lyar, and no Child of God; For the Lyar is for the Lake.

To say, we deny Obedience to God's Commands, because we deny the present Necessity or Use of their Water, Bread and Wine, will never hurt us; For, First, we know, and they confess, that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more Hidden and Spiritual Substance.

2. That they were to endure no longer then till the Substance was come: Now the time of the Bap­tism of the Holy Ghost, Christ's only Baptism, therefore called the One Baptism, has been long since come; Consequently the other, which was John's,Mat. 3. Acts 1. was fulfilled, and as becomes a Fore-run­ner, ought to cease. The like may be said of the Bread and Wine; for as there is but One Baptism, so is there but One Bread. The Least in the Kingdom was Greater then John's Water-Baptism; He was to Decrease, Christ to Increase. Jesus Baptized not with Water: 'Tis true, he bid his Apostles Go, Teach, Baptizing, &c. but no Water is mentio­ned: But Luke in the 1st of the Acts, sayes that before Christ gave that Commission mention'd by Matthew, said, John Baptized with Water, but ye [Page 108] shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence; and then comes the Commission in Force, Go, Teach, Baptizing, &c. How? With the Holy Ghost; turning People from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan unto God.

3. They were but the more Noble among the Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, that the Apostle said were but Shadows of the Good Things to come; For I would not that any should be so Sottish as to think, that Christ came to abolish those Shadows of the Jews, and institute other in their room; by no means: He came to remove, change and abolish the very Nature of such Ordinances, and no [...] the particular Ordinances only, to wit, an Outward, Shadowy or Fi­gurative Worship and Religion. For it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks, and divers Wash­ings, but because they were Meats & Drinks, and divers outward Washings at all, which never could, nor can, cleanse the Conscience from dead Works, nor give Eternal Life to the Soul: else wherein would the Change be? I affirm by that one Scripture, Circum­cision is as much in force as Water-Baptism; and the Paschal Lamb, as Bread and Wine: They were both Shadows, and both Elementary and Perishable. And though the Letter were more immediatly fore-run­ning and introductory of the Substance it self, yet not to be perpetuated; For a Continuance of them had been a Judaizing of the Spiritual Evangelical Worship; The Gospel would have been a State of Figures, Types and Shadows, which to assert or practise, is as much as in such lies, to pluck it up by the Roots; The Appellation, Ordinances of Christ, I therefore renounce, as Unscriptural and Inevangelical: Be­sides, [Page 109] a Spirit of Whoredom from God, gross Apostacy in­to Superstition and Idolatry, yea, a Spirit of Hypocrisie, Persecution and Murder, and all manner of Wickedness has got them, and covered It self with them, Jeze­bel-like, the old Enemy of God's Faithful Prophets and People. And we can testifie from the same Spi­rit by which Paul renounced Circumcision, that they are to be rejected, as not now required; neither have they, since the False Church espoused and ex­alted them, ever been taken up afresh by God's Command or, in the Leading of his Eternal Spirit: And the Lord will appear to gather People out of them; but ne­ver to establish, or keep People in them, no; they served their time; and now the False Church has got them; yea, the Whore has made Merchandize with them, and under such Historical, Shadowy and Figu­rative Christianity has she managed her Mystery of Ini­quity, unto the beguiling Thousands, whose Sim­plicity the Lord has, and will have tender Regard to.

But they Baptized after the Holy Ghost was pou­red out. True; And they also would not eat the Flesh of things Strangled, nor Blood; They Circumcised and Purified themselves in the Temple, and had Vows after the Pouring forth of the Holy Ghost. By which we may learn, that Condescension & Practice are quite differing things from Institution; else Paul would never have said. He was not sent to Baptize (i. e.) with Water; whose Commission doubtless went as far as any of the rest.

But they brake Bread, and Paul received it from God. True; But Paul never enjoyned it; He said, As often as ye do it, &c. which is very wide of any [Page 110] Institution. Again, Read the Chapter fore-going 11. or 10. where he tells the Wise Men of another Bread then that he spoke to the Weak of, who eat and drank to Excess, not discerning the Lord's Body.

Further, Let it be considered, that no other Apostle recommends these things, nor Paul himself to either the Romans, the Corinthians (in his first Epistle) the Ga­latians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews (if his) nor to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, when he set down the Order of the Churches. What an Over-sight (might one then say, according to T.H.) was it in him, not only not to press and charge, but not to mention the Sacraments of the Church, necessary to Salvation, as they are cal­led and esteemed? Would it not have been accoun­ted a great Neglect and Defect in Calvin, if he had been silent to any Church instituted in his Time and Form; or to say, He thanked God he baptized none but such and such? Yet how full are his and their Epistles of Divine Exhortation, Information, Reproof, Instruction, and the like? Is it not very Wicked then in T. Hicks to tell the World of our Denying to keep God's Commandments in general, because we Refuse to practise these Shadowy, Temporary, Perishing Things, especially at this time a day, after such an Abuse of them, and that the Gentile-Spirit has troden them un­der [...]oot so long, being part of that Outward Courts of Religion, given to them, which were left out at the measuring of the Evangelical Temple of God. Rev. 21? Besides, what Authority have these Men for Using them? To do as Men would be done to, concerns all in all Ages; but to practise Figures and Shadows in Religion, we know does not. A Church can­not [Page 111] be without one, yet without the other. Would it not be Ridiculous in any Man to adorn himself either as some eminent Commander, or other Offi­cer, because it is required by Office or Place of every such one that really is so? The Apostles bap­tized, therefore must T.H? The Apostles anointed with Oyl, therefore should T.H? Nay, Christ washed his Disciples Feet, telling them, they ought, or it was their Duty so to do one to the other, there­fore should T.H? The Believers sold their Posses­sions, and had all things Common; but will T.H. either imitate, or enjoyn this upon his Hearers? But since T.H. and his Adherents, do not several such things, once done and enjoyned to, as Blood, Things Strangled, Anointing with Oyl, Washing of Feet, &c. why are they not to be as much blamed, as we are for omitting that of Bread and Wine? Or why should not they rather desist Practising of those with the rest, and that upon the same terms? I will warrant T.H. for going to Synagogues, Decr [...]ing Hirelings, Preaching Freely, Exposing himself to all Hardship for the Gospel's sake, which the Apostles did.

To conclude, God never condescended to use such Things (to lead to, and hold forth the hidden Sub­stance) that People should rest there, and much less in a Way of Opposition to the Substance it self: such an Use of them has caused God to loath them, and enjoyn us to testifie against them. Remember the Instituted Brazen-Serpent of old, &c. what be­came of them in the like case? We would be glad to see more Honesty, Meekness and Godly-mindedness in our Opposers, though there were less of this Imitation: [Page 112] They are for such Commands, as they call them, which Hypocrites, Apostates, the False Church, yea, the De­vil himself can come into; but as for those that concern the Daily Cross and Victory over Sin, they can Wicked­ly pl [...]d a kind of Liberty from, at least to their Unconquerable Infirmities, as they are willing to believe them. But we testifie against the False Church, whose Faith & Worship stands not in the Life, Pow­er and Spirit of God, however deckt with the an­cient Attire of the True; for her finest Forms out of the Life and Power of God we renounce, and as becomes the true Evangelical Church, we assert, That he is not a Jew or Christian, who is one Outwardly, neither is that now the Circumcision, Baptism and Supper, which is Outward; but he is the Jew or Christian, that is one Inwardly; and that is the Circumcision that is of the HEART, that the Baptism, which is of the HO­LY GHOST and FIRE, and that the Supper, which is of the BREAD THAT COMETH DOWN FROM ABOVE, which gives Eternal Life to as many as eat thereof, and that is of the WINE WHICH IS TO BE DRUNK NEW WITH CHRIST IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITHIN, Luke 17.20.

Much might be said in this matter, but I refer the Reader to the Book entituled Quakerism a new Nick-Name for old Christianity. However let it be noted, that our Adversary is for Will-Worship, and not the Quakers; For we affirm that no Sacri­fice nor Performance can be acceptable with God, to, and in which his Holy Spirit leads not; by the which only, Self is abas'd, kept under, and in perfect O­bedience to, and watchfull Observance of God's [Page 113] Holy Will. But Tho. Hicks makes this a Strange and Dangerous Doctrine, insinuating that we perform nothing but upon a kind of Spiritual Compulsion, as if that God required Man to do all his Comman­dements without his holy Spirit, alwayes ready to incline and help them, either to begin or per­form any such Duty: or that there were no Diffe­rence between waiting for the natural Springs of Divine Power to assist, and being compell'd to worship. But this shews his great Ignorance of God's Spi­rit, its dayly Movings upon the Heart of Men, ei­ther as a Reprover or Comforter for Good; for were he better acquainted with its Dealings, it would not be so uncouth to him, to hear of our Waiting to feel the holy Stirrings of it, in order to every Religious Performance: wherefore let not his Ignorance be any Argument against our holy Gos­pel Practice. The Saints of old had a Warrant in them­selves for what they did: They were not wont to run into the Imitation of former Generations as to any External Appointments because then com­manded, and practised as proper, but consulted the Anointing they had receiv'd about the Continuation or Dis-use of such Figures or outward Services; and as they receiv'd Wisdom and Counsel therefrom, either to use or decline the Practice of them, they acted, and no otherwise; making good the Apostles Saying, that as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the Sons of God: Are we led by It in ALL things, then in, and about God's things. Had it not been for this, how could the Apostles have preach'd down the whole Ceremonial Worship of the Jews? The meer Let­ter of Scriptures could never have been their Rule in [Page 114] the Case. If any say they were extraordinarily Inspired, I answer, how did such as then believ'd know that, if not from an Inward Testimony? Nay, what Rule had the many Thousands then to worship God by? The Hebrew Bible was little, or not at all known to the Gentiles. The Scripture tells us that whole Churches were setled in the Faith before the Epistles were writ; And it is hard to think, when they were writ, that they could be suddenly collected; and when collected, that every Individual could get a Coppy, that to be sure, ought to have a Rule; for Prin­ting was not so early in the World, and Trans­scribing must needs have been to Irksome for every Person to obtain a Coppy for his or her peculiar Benefit: But because we are taught to believe that they wanted not True Rule of Faith and Practice, and that the Scriptures especially of the new Testament, could not be all that to them, our present Adversaries conclude to make the great Rule, let them not be displeas'd if I infer from hence, that a Measure of that Holy Spirit, which was given to every one to profit with, was their Rule, and therefore ought to be, our great Rule and Guide, in all things relating to Faith and Worship. And let it be remembred, that Christ promised to send the Spirit of Truth to lead into all Truth; as much as to say, none are led into the Truth, nor in the Truth, but by the holy Spirit of Truth; or that their Practice is a Ly, or they are led into a Ly, who are not led by the Spirit of Truth, that alone leads into all the Wayes of Truth: where by Truth, is not to be understood the meer Letter of the Scripture, which notwithstand­ing is True, but the Living, Powerful Truth; Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, of which the Scrip­ture [Page 115] is but a Record, or Declaration: Many may run into a Practice of several Outward Things mentioned in the Scriptures to have been the Pra­ctices of the Saints of former Ages, and yet, not be led into the Truth; for all that is but Will-Worship, Imitation and Unwarrantable. To be led into the Truth, is to be led into God's Living Pow­er, Wisdom and Righteousness, whose Fruits are Peace and Assurance for ever; This is the Truth, the Spirit leads and is all-sufficient to.

Certainly, Christ, intended This for the Great Evangelical Leader, Rule, Judge, Law-giver and Guide through the whole course of Regeneration, the only Way into the Everlasting Kingdom. And all those who are not by this Holy Spirit prepared, moved and assisted to perform Divine Worship un­to God, but run into that weighty Duty, or any other (supposed) Ordinance, without its pure Lea­dings, which makes it a Spiritual and Living Worship, they are but those anciently fore-told of, LORD, LORD-CRYERS, whose Portion shall be that dis­mal Depart from me, I know you not; who has requir'd these things at your hands? Let this therefore be a War­ning unto all Professors in the Name of the Lord, that they run no longer Ʋnsent, nor think to be accepted for their many Words; God regards the Heart that he has broken, and is made contrite be­fore him, and which trembles at his Word; 'Tis not meer Worship, but that which is Spiritual, which he expects and accepts; and to perform that, Man must Cease from his own Spirit, Strength, Strivings and Imitations, and become Dumb before the Lord, and as a Man dead to Self-Performance, and then will [Page 116] he breath into him the Spirit of Supplication, and raise him up in the Newness of his own Divine Life; whereby (though but in Sighs and Groans) a Spi­ritual and most Acceptable Worship shall be offered unto God, in which his Soul will be well pleased, and every such one come to be refresht and establisht in Righteousness. For all Offerers and Ʋpholders of strange Fire, of what sort of People soever they may be, in the Great and Notable Day of the Lord God, will he cause to lie down in Sorrow.

And because he thinks his Advantage is not small, that he hath against us by basely inferring and aggravating such Consequences as this, What of Duty we neglect, we are to charge upon the Spirit's not moving us to it; or because we must not obey without a Motion, we are acquitted from all Fault till then, &c. Let me tell him, that he striketh himself, and not the Quakers; For they hold, that God's Spirit ought to be daily waited for; And that it is alwayes ready to inform and instruct Man's Soul, and to move it to those Thoughts, Words and Deeds, with respect to God and Man, as are Well-pleasing to the Al­mighty: For we do not only teach, that the Spirit of God is alwayes present to convince of Sin, but to lead out of it, and in that Way of holy Living, which is well-pleasing unto God. In short, God's Worship stands in the Spirit; and I testifie from the Eternal God, all other Worship then what springs from a Mind touch'd, sanctify'd and mov'd of his holy quick­ning Spirit, is abominable to him; His Righteous Soul loathes it: And what else were their Sacrifices, as theirs were, who in my hearing said, Pray Bro­ther [Page 117] will you Pray? No, Brother, I am not so well able as you are; Let Brother such a one Pray, he is better gifted for the Work, &c. Complementing, Shifting, and at last Praying, &c. in their own Wills, and not in God's Motion— This God hates.

Next, Since the Pouring forth of the Spirit is the great Gospel Gift, and that the Children of God are to be led by it; In what should we more dili­gently wait for its Heavenly Assistance, then in that part of our Duty, which we owe to God? Is his Worship Spiritual, and can we perform it out of the Motion of his own Spirit? For what then was his Spirit given? Again, If Men should pray in a known Tongue, much more with the Spirit, as the Apostle speaks. No Wonder the Professors ask Pardon for their Prayers. Indeed God's Spirit gives them to see the Emptiness of their Righteousness, and con­demns them for it, wherfore they are at times dissatis­fy'd in them; yet they will not learn of him, to be gui­ded by him, who would cover them with Everlasting Righteousness. Blessed would they be, if their Minds were stayed in his Counsel: But instead thereof T.H. does as good as say, that if he should stay till the Spirit mo­ved him, he might stay long enough; rendring the Spirit Wanting in that for which he was shed abroad in the Heart: Because through his Enmity and Darkness, & hasty Running in his own Spirit, he feels it not to lead him: else he would never infer, from our Asser­ting the Necessity of the Spirit's Moving to Right & Acceptable Worship, that we are acquitted from any Fault in omitting to do that which is Good, and the Blame must be laid upon the Spirit. But let me ask him, Can [Page 118] any Man do Good of himself? Surely he will say, No. How then shall Man do that Good he ought to do, but by the Holy Ghost? Canst thou call Jesus Lord by any other Power or Spirit? Read the Scrip­tures. What greater Contradiction can there be, then to believe, Man of himself can do no Good; and yet to say, he can do it without God's Spirit to in­cline and assist him thereunto? But if the Spirit do not, what does? Tell me, what can tender the Heart, pre­pare the Soul, raise the Affections, give true Feeling of Wants, and help to perform all in that Fear, Reverence and deep Sense (which becomes all New Covenant, Spiri­tual Worshippers) if this cannot, or do not? Nay, what an Affront is it to God; since it is to suppose, that Man wants him not, that his Spirit neither moves to Duty that ought to be performed, nor yet condemns for Du­ty omitted? Behold the Impudence of the Man! He talks of Gospel, Christ, the Mysteries of his Glori­ous Kingdom, &c. What grosser Opposer of the New Covenant can there be, who denies the very Life, Virtue and Soul of all true Gospel-Worship and Discipline; and without which the otherwise best Christian-Church that ever was, would be worse then Legal? For they that worship not from the Motions of God's Spirit,James 4.3. offer strange Fire, set up their own Worship, and are Image Makers; such ask, but they receive not, because they ask not aright. For if no Man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost; no Man can pray to the Lord, or in his Name, without the Holy Ghost; yet a Sigh or Groan from its holy Operation, that Sacrifice, though with­out Words, is manifold more engaging and effectu­al [Page 119] with the Lord, then the most excellent Perfor­mance of Man's own Spirit. 'Tis the Fear and Hea­venly Sense of God in the Soul that recommends the Performance, and that the holy Spirit begets: And as the Minds of Men and Women are exercised in the Law of this pure and quickening Spirit, as it appears in them, they shall know the true Worship, which stands in Life and Power, whose End is Everlasting Peace; when the LORD, LORD-CRYERS, that have Prayed and Preached in their own Wills and Wisdom, as well as to their own Ends and Ad­vantages, Mat. 7.21. shall be cast out forever, with a DE­PART FROM ME YE WORK­ERS OF INIQUITY. But there is one Ob­jection taken from my Book called, The Spirit of A­lexander the Copper-Smith, &c. which he thinks, splits us irrecoverably. It runs thus;

‘Either there is such a thing as a Christian-Church, or there is not; if there be,Spir. of Alex. p. 9. then this Church either hath Power, or hath not; If no Power, then no Church; If a Bo­dy or a Church, then there must be a Power within it self to determine.’

To which sayes Tho. Hicks; For Christians to plead this, who own the Scriptures for their Rule, and not the meer Light within, Contin. p. 64. the Ar­gument may safely be allowed; But you can­not stand by this: For will you say, what a Man doth with­out an Inward Motion is accurst, and yet disown him for not doing what he is not moved unto?

But though this be plausible, it is no more; For the Difficulty remains, in Case the Scripture be admitted for the Rule; for Instance: The Church unto which [Page 120] Tho. Hicks belongs own the Scripture to be the Rule: But suppose Tho. Hicks in some one Point believes the Scripture not to intend the same thing, the rest of the Church understand it to mean, as in Case of Free-Will; I query how this Matter shall be recon­ciled? They affirm the Scripture to be the Rule, and say, This is the true Sense of the Scripture; Thomas Hicks also affirms the Scripture to be the Rule, but that his Sense is the Mind of the Scripture: This occurs almost daily among those who believe the Scrip­ture to be the Rule of Faith. Now observe the Parallel.

The Quakers by the Light within them, as their Rule, judge that rude Ima­gination of keeping the Hat on in time of publick Prayer.The Anabaptists by the Scripture, as their Rule, censure Thomas Hicks for upholding a Contrary Sense to the Scripture.
The Dissenter from the Quakers sayes, The Light (which he calls his Rule) manifests no such thing to him, nor doth he believe it to be the Mind of the Light to him.Thomas Hicks makes Answer to the Church, that by the Scripture he understands quite ano­ther thing; and the Scrip­ture is his Rule for what he sayes and maintains in the Matter.

I would ask any Man of Common Sence, if the Scripture is not as well set in Opposition to it self by these two Pretenders, as the Light within? and if the Church of Anabaptists would not therefore doubt the Truth of their Interpretation, but pro­ceed [Page 121] to censure Thomas Hicks as a Disturber of their Church in its Doctrine or Discipline by the In­troduction of New and Unprofitable Opinions? Neither are the Body of the Quakers to question their Judgment given by the Light within as their Rule, to be a true and unquestionable Determination against such Alexanders and Enemies to the Peace of their Jerusalem.

But I would further tell Thomas Hicks, that though we renounce all Worship not led to by God's Spi­rit (his Reflection upon which, shewing it to be none of his Faith or Practice, and so no Spiritual Wor­shipper) Yet the Men testified against in that Book were such as had been in Unity with us before, and in going from that into differing and opposite Pra­ctices, we imposed nothing upon them, but they innovated Ʋnseemly Customs upon us, so that which Tho­mas Hicks's Conscience had no Mind to observe, least he should loose the Force of his Cavil, removes it out of the Way.

Let Thomas Hicks tell me by what other Rule then God's Spirit, Men's Spirits, and the Inside of their Religion can be tryed, relisht, or favoured and he doth something. The Devil can transform into all Outward Forms, and subscribe the best Metho­diz'd true Articles that ever were written; Who, or what shall unmask him? God gave us the true Taste, Savour and Discerning of that Spirit that leads out several from the Heavenly Unity, and from thence we gave our Judgment. If Men become darkn'd, and led by a Delusive Spirit and call that the Light, though it give the Lye to the Light, and strikes at the Life, they whilst faithful, felt among us, they [Page 122] must look to that. You say, Every Man ought to make the Scripture his Rule, some that say they do, you say do not; do you think your Judgment the less valid? By no means; Neither do We. Will you not desist from censuring those that answer not the Scripture, though they fancy that they do? Why may not we also by the Light of Christ judge those to be deluded, who notwithstanding pretend to be ruled by it? Ye turn People to the Scripture, and they mistake it; We direct People to the Light, but they mistake it: So that here is the Difference be­tween our Saying, that Men should do nothing but what the Spirit requires; and your Teaching, that Men ought to do nothing but what the Scripture requires. For if we disown them for not doing what we know the Spirit requires, you daily disown such as do not somethings you suppose the Scriptures do require: And as you think the Scripture to mean the same you ever did, notwithstanding your Opposers Sug­gestion, we are by you justified in mantaining our judgment against those Pretenders to the Guidance of the Light.

To conclude, I see no Difference between Tho. Hick's saying to me, William Penn, thou bidst me obey the Light within me, and because I do thou disownest me; and my saying to him, Thomas Hicks, thou bidst me obey the Scriptures, and because I do thou censu­rest me. This d [...]ives unavoidably to an Infallible Spirit, whereby to savour all Spirits, Words and Works; for the Anointing is Judge, and meer Pretenders weaken not its Judgment: And till Men come thither their best Duties are Unholy Things, indeed.

[Page 123]Let none fancy an Impossibility of Trying Spirits by that without which it is utterly impossible to try them. God's Spirit gives his Children to savour and discern Spiritual Bad, as well as Spiritual Good Things; It is not unknown to such as are led by God's Spirit, of what Nature and to what Tendency such Words or Actions may be. It was on this a­lone, and upon no other Foundation, the Spiritual Gospel, Sound and Heavenly Fellowship stood of old; for by One Spirit were the true Christians bap­tized into One Body.

O You that are Professors of Religion, who in dayes past, and years that are gone over your Head, Prayed loud and fervently for the Spirit, rise not up against it because it stains your Beauty, subjects your Wills, brings you out of Self, and overturns your dead Forms, where the Spirit of this World has had its Seat for Ages, and in a Mystery insnared and beguiled you; But wait upon God in deep Silence to all Fleshly Conceivings, and Will-Worships, so shall you come to feel God's Pure & Quickening Spirit, to Inliven, Tender and Affect your Hearts; in which State one Sigh or Groan is more Valuable, then Years of unprepared and unsanctified Will-Sacrifice.

The next thing aimed at in this Cavil, attended with so much Bitterness and rude Language, is this, that Thomas Hicks being desirous to represent the Quakers to greatest Disadvantage, takes not a little Pains to incense Parents, Magistrates and Masters against them, as Neglecters of all Lawful [Page 124] Commands, without an Immediate and Extraordi­nary Impulse to perform them.

Were we such Wretches, as he would render us, we should not deserve to live in Civil Societies. What I shall say in our Defence is briefly this.

1. The Quakers Principles and Practice have pro­ved themselves consistent with Government, because they have encouraged to Good Life, Peace and Honest Industry. I shall not here seek an Eye for an Eye, nor tell any of those Black and Horrible Tra­gedies, that go up and down the World, under great Au­thors Atestations of the People called Anabaptists. No, I have more regard to the Sincere and Moderate a­mong them; though 'tis a great Shame to the Pro­fession that T.H. should be suffered among them, at least as a Teacher, after such Forged, Prophane and Abusive Trash, which lies more dangerously exposed to the Lash of Story then we do: But for this time I spare him; yet if he proceeds on this wise against us, perhaps [...]e may hear further of me▪ and that People to whom he belongs, if they take not some other Course with him.

2. As to the Commands of Parents I have this to say, and that by good Experience of more then one, That those who have had Children of our Way, though with great Disquiet, and not a little Dis­pleasure and Severity against them at the first, they have left the World with this Testimony of their Children, they never disobeyed them, but for Con­science sake, and from Threatning them with the Loss of all, have become so Affectionate towards them, and Confident in them, as to entrust them with the Whole [Page 125] of their Worldly Substance. 'Tis true, here and there a Crooked, Perverse Professor, whose Husbands, Wives, Children or Servants convinced, have the worst of Lives, through their extream Opposition, and Wat­ching for Evil, may perhaps have spy'd an Indiscretion, which, though against his own Blood or Family, his Enmity has aggravated to an Heinous Offence, and then it must be given for a Demonstration of the Errone­ousness of the Quakers Way. But how Just, Natu­ral or Conscientious such Proceeding is against such Dissenting Relations, or the People they associate with, let all Impartial Persons judge. This is not doing as they would be dealt by; Liberty of Con­science! Tyranny, and Egyptian Oppressions. I ask, Would the Anabaptists be thus served concer­ning their own Proselytes? Did they never any of them suffer from their Parents? And have not their Parents complained of them? And has that been taken by their Church alwayes for sufficient Proof?

And for the Story of the Woman that went rambling from her Family and Husband, Contin. p. 63, 69. bidding him take another Woman, &c. with some preten­ding Revelations to refuse just Debts, I shall say no more but thus, We know of no such things, and believe them to be downright Lyes, as others that are gone before them; However, should they be as true, as we hope they are false, we can but judge them, and that we do, by the Light of Christ Jesus to the Pit forever. But if we should take this Course, of proving the Anabaptists those vile Impostors, he doth call and pretend to prove the Poor Despised Qua­kers to be, p. 69. How many Miscarriages might [Page 126] we collect and publish against the People that are called by that Name: but we do not desire that Pro­phanists should have any such Theames from us, to sport their Unclean Minds upon, notwithstanding Thomas Hicks's Liberality to them: Is it not then wickedly done in him, to tell us in the same page, That if a Miscarriage be, it is improved by us to make the Truth Odious, who without such Arguments and his own Forgery, would in Truth have nothing against us? But truly it is very hard, that we should suf­fer, as we have done, for the Miscarriages of other Parties, and yet receive these gross Abuses at their hands: But our Eye is to the Lord, and our Inno­cent Suffering Cause will he plead in his own time, whose Will be done by us, and that will be our E­verlasting Rejoycing.

3. For Masters, I must speak my own Experience; many have desired to retain us, and great Trusts have been reposed in us. To whom were we False? Of whose Service were we Negligent? When did any of us say, I am not moved to do this or that, when so required thereto? Shall a Lying Dialogue be Demonstration enough to prove us what so invective an Adversary would have People believe us to be? We do declare to all, that the Light whereby we are enlightned, al­wayes commands and strictly enjoyns us Duty, Obedience, Love, Peace, Gentleness, Faithfulness, In­dustry, Holy Living; And whatever is supposed to the Contrary, we disclaim it in the Fear and Name of the Righteous God of Heaven and Earth to be no Product of our Holy Principle.

I shall now attend his Cavils about the Ministry, [Page 127] and give a short Taste of the Rancour of his Spirit therein. He asks, What is the True Mi­nistry? Comin. pag. 65, 66, 67. To which he maketh G.W. an­swer. Quak. In the New Cove­nant God is the Teacher of his People himself immediately, by his Immediate Spirit, Power and Unction, Christ Ascended, p. 64. Christ. If so, wherefore were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pa­stors Teachers, &c. giver, and set in the Church for the Work of the Ministry? And why do you set up one among your selves, and appoint Ministers before-hand to speak in such a place, and at such a time. From whence I plainly collect thus much.

1. That T.H. in so many words denyes God's Immediate Teaching by his Spirit, Power and Ʋnction under the Gospel; And in that one Expression strikes out, what in him lies, the whole Pourings out of the Holy Ghost, the great Promise of the Father; being led by the Spirit; no more I, but Christ that liveth in me; the Tabernacle of God is with Men, and he will dwell with them; the Anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, or you need not Man's Teaching, &c. In short, the very Dispensation of the Gospel, which is a State of Power and Life immediately received of God, is denyed by him.

2. That in acknowledging such Officers to con­tinue in the Church, he must confess to their Qua­lifications, or he does nothing. Now, that which qualified them was the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, and those Heavenly Gifts by it, which were necessary for the Discharge of those respective Services in the Church. By this it appears, that either Thomas Hicks must now [Page 128] yield to Preaching and Praying by the Motion of the Holy Spirit, or in opposing of it, acknowledge to his own Contradiction, that there are no such Apostles, Prophets, &c. (who ministred to the Church, as any thing was revealed to them, the great Evangelical Qua­lification to the Ministry) in our dayes.

3. But why should Tho. Hicks therefore degrade the Dispensation because the People are not yet fit­ted to It; or oppose the Means used to b [...]ing them to It, to the End for which the Means are employ'd; Besides, is it Man's Teaching, or Christ by and through Man? God was in Christ; and Christ in his Ministers reconciling the World unto himself, that he might be the Immediate Priest, Prophet and King to the Souls of People. Might not the same Objection be more colourably made against the Apostle John, who at that time wherein the Churches were so weak,1 John. 2.27. and the Means so many, and late­ly establish't, said unto them, But the A­nointing which ye have receiv'd of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same Anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is no Lye; And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him: Where he is so far from meer Man's Teaching (T. Hicks's only Teaching) that by his words one would think, the Churches to whome he wrote, had as well been gathered without Means, as that he admonished them to abide in that holy Unction, as Sufficient to their Instruction and Comfort: There­fore let him go ask the Apostle John, why Men were to attend upon the holy Anointing as Sufficient; not withstanding thos [...] Means then provided? And the Answer to that Question will be ours. But [Page 129] here is the Darkness of the Man from our denying of empty Ʋnauthoriz'd Imitations he infers our Denyal of such Means as God's Power uses; and from out Using such Means to our Contradicting our selves, and Immediate Teaching: and because we use Means in God's Power, to bring People to God, the Judge of all, that he may be their Judge and Law-giver, and that from his Immediate Hand they may receive Wisdom, Knowledge and Comfort, he ignorantly concludes that Men, where they are, ought not to have Means us'd to bring them to this Blessed State; but that God should Immediately teach them there.

4. I charge him with another Lye, in saying that we appoint Ministers before hand to speak in such a a place, at such a time, Ibid. and much less that the End of our Meeting is to decoy, trapan and inveagle others, as he scoffingly and falsly insinuates. We deny the Sug­gestion, and renounce and judge such Practices by that pure Spirit that hath otherwise taught us; God preserve us from that dry, Hireling Custom, and Pra­ctice of Tho. Hicks, who will avenge our Cause upon the Head of this Ungodly Slanderer. But he thinks he has uterly foyled us in his Representation (in­deed Perversion) of our Belief about the Seed, which though spoken to some distance before, yet I am willing to say something to it, least it be taken for granted, and his scurvy Names accounted due Titles to such miserable Wretch­es as he endeavours to render us. The Objection en­tirely is this.

[Page 130] You say, that the Work of the Ministry is to point People to this Seed; That to the Carnal Mind, which rules in any, the Commands of Christ are not given; And that the Spirit not only manifesteth the Promises, but ex­erciseth Faith in, and fulfils them; out of E.B. G.K. G.W. p. 106. [...]m. Rev. p 77, 78. Chr. Asc. p. 10. Query Is [...]othi [...]g else taught but this Seed, then your Min [...]stry is only God Preaching to Himself? &c. Will you [...] of Infallibility, and Talk like Mad-Men? YOU ARE IMPLACABLE ENEMIES TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; MEN INSPIRED BY SATAN, AND AS VILE IMPOSTORS AS EVER WERE. Here stop a while.

Certainly, Reader, No Man was ever given up to a Spirit of greater Injustice, Dishonesty and bitter Rage against any People then T. Hicks seems to be against us: He does not so much prove us Bad, as he would make us so, that he may cover his Wicked­ness against us. What false Doctrine is it, to preach People to the Seed God has sown, in which is Vir­tue, Life and Power, to bring forth blessed Fruits to God? To suggest from thence, that there is nothing to be taught but the Seed, is great Darkness and Prejudice; For the Ministry is not to teach the Seed, but to bring down, and humble the Mind of Man to it, that the Mind may be taught, and the Seed delivered from under the Pressure of Sin and Ignorance. Strange Contradiction, that the Seed should be sown in Man for its own Salvation, and not for Man's! [Page 131] What but Wickedness it self could thus write of us?

And that the Carnal Mind receives not the Things of God, because it perceives them not, is ac­cording to Scripture, if not according to Tho. Hicks. But it is not the first time by many, that Scripture in a Quaker's Book has been given under that Name, for gross Error and Delusion. That the Spirit mani­fests the Promises, exerciseth Faith in, and fulfils them, cannot be False Doctrine, if it be allowed to give a true Understanding of them, and if it gives to exercise Faith in them, and finally, to accomplish or fulfil them. But his Insinuation lies here, that the Spirit of God is that which believes in God, and exercises Faith for it self in God, which was ne­ver G.W's Intent. But as I have said, the Spirit is that only which gives us Faith, and exerciseth that Faith it gives in the Promises of God, which are Yea and Amen in that Seed, the Quakers preach People to be­lieve and grow in; for which T. Hicks is pleased to call us Praters, Canters, Enthusiasts, Mad Men, Idle, Non-sensical, Blasphemous, Inspired of Satan, and as Vile Impostors as ever were, &c. For which God Almighty rebuke his Envious, Enraged and Unclean Spirit.


Of Resurrection and Rewards.

THe last great Doctrine he insinuates our De­nial of, is that of the Resurrection from the Dead. Dialog. p. 57. That which he brings under the Quaker's Name, as a sufficient Proof for that Suggestion I shall relate, that every Impar­tial Reader may be satisfied of the Man's Inconsi­stency with sound Doctrine, as well as the Common Justice of Doing as he would be done by.

In Answer to his Questions about the Resurrecti­on of the same Carnal Body that Dyes, he brings in G. Whitehead thus:

Q. Is it not written, Thou Fool, that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be, but God gives a Body as pleaseth him?’

Thus (saith Tho. Hicks) Whitehead replied; and G. Fox the Younger speaks to the same purpose. ‘Two Fools that say, This Body of Natural Flesh and Bones shall rise. I say, The Body which is sown, is not the Body which shall be.’ I query, (saith he) Whether both these Persons do not tacitly deny the Resurre­ction of the Body?

Now that T.H. hath shown himself at once Dis­honest and Erroneous too; Let it be observed, 1. That from our Denyal of the Resurrection of the [Page 133] same Natural, Fleshly Body, he absolutely infers and concludes our Denyal of the Resurrection of the Body in any Sense; which is great Injustice to any Adversary. 2. Let it be well observed, that he makes the Scrip­ture it self to deny the Resurrection, and so Heterodox, by Accounting G. Whitehead and G. Fox their Answers in Scripture-Language, to be a Denyal of the Resur­rection: For if Thomas Hicks does not intend by his Arguing, That the same Body that dyed, without any Mutation shall rise again, what makes him to quarrel the Apostle Paul's saying. Thou Fool, that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be; and re­pute us Hereticks for believing him?

Certainly his gross Belief of the Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all Men right in their Wits in the Point. Who can have the Confidence to call the Scripture his Rule, and yet Contradict it so egregiously, as when the Apostle tells us, It is not the same Body that is sown that shall be, to assert, that it is the same Body, and that who sayes the Contrary, denies the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Recompence? In short, We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to E­ternal Recompence, and that every Seed shall have its own Body, and rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us; But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What? so must we for­ever deny the gross Conceits of T.H. and his Adhe­rents concerning the Resurrection.

But Tho. Hicks would have us believe, that the Apostle said Thou Fool, to him that denyed, and not him that owned the Resurrection; But he must excuse us if we refuse to Credit him; for it was not, Whe­ther [Page 134] every Seed should rise with its own Body, or that Bodies should rise; but, as taking that for granted, the Question was, What Bodies they should be? So that T [...]ou Fool is most due to T. Hicks and his Associates, who are not with us, satisfied to leave all with the Lord, but intrude and query, What Bodies shall rise? Wherefore no Answer can be more proper to him then, Thou Fool (Thomas Hicks) That which thou sowest is n [...]t the Body that shall be.

But he thinks he is not without Reason; For, sayes he,Dialog. p. 58. If the It in the Text be not the same Body, how can that be called a Resurre­ction; for that supposeth the same?

I Answer, If a thing can yet be the same, and notwithstanding changed, for Shame let us never make so much Stir against the Doctrine of Trans­substantiation; for the Absurdity of that is ra­ther out-done, then equalled by this Carnal Re­surrection.

The Papists say, That the Bread and Wine after Con­secration are very Christ, though the Accidents remain. Tho. Hicks, and abundance of that sort of Men hold, That Man's Body in the Resurrection is the same with that Carnal Body buried, and yet that it is changed to a Spiritual Body: How it is possible that It should be the same, and not the same? How that Body, and yet, as the Apostle sayes, Thou sowest not that Body that shall be, is very hard to reconcile.

And truly, that which yet is very strange, Those Three Scriptures peculiarly cited in Defence of his gross Conceit of the R [...]surrection, are either relative of another Matter, or directly opposite to, and in­consistent with his Assertion.

[Page 135]1. And this Mortal shall put on Immorta­lity, Dialog. Ibid. this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption, 1 Cor, 15.53.

I grant that this implies a Change; but I deny, that it so much as intimates, that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried. No, the Apostle not only tells us, that the Body sown is not the Body that shall be, but that Flesh and Blood can­not inherit the Kingdom of God, vers. 50. If the Flesh and Blood be transmuted, or changed into no Flesh and Blood, I query (and I think I may do it safe­ly too) Whether It be the same Flesh and Blood that is changed into no Flesh and Blood, that is the Body raised? O Absurd, Dark and Carnal Man!

Nor am I afraid to tell him, that the Scripture can­not rationally be taken strictly, as translated (nei­ther ought many more) for there are certain Fi­gures, Modes and Wayes proper to that Language in which this Epistle was written, which are to be un­derstood with Allowances; for how can the Mortal (taken for Mortality, and not him who in part is Mortal) put on Immortality; It is Impossible. Can Mortality be cloathed with Immortality? then it seems that Mortality is the Person, and Immortali­ty the Garment. If Thomas Hicks should tell me, No; it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body, it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Inter­pretation, as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body: If so, it is as Law­ful for me (and more, if in the Right) to construe [Page 136] It thus, That we, who are Mortals respecting our Bodies, put off the Mortal Part, and put on instead thereof Im­mortality;2 Cor. 5.1. suitable to that weighty Passage of the Apostle Paul, For We know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dis­solved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, Eternal in Heavens; which as directly concludes the Charge, not of Accidents, but Bodies, from an Earthly House or Tabernacle, to an Hea­venly House or Building, as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels.

To conclude, Since Mortality can not proper­ly put on Immortality, but Man that is cloathed with Mortality, may put off or exchange Morta­lity for Immortality, because otherwise Mortality would have Immortality for its Garment; a thing impossible and absurd; I do infer that this place yields no Strength at all to Thomas Hicks's gross Ap­prehension of the Resurrection.

2. His next Scripture is that in the Romans, But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, Rom. 8.11. dwell in you, he that rais'd up Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

But this is nothing to T.H's Purpose in the least; For the Apostle treats not here of the Resurrection of Dead Carnal Bodies in our Adversary's Sence, as the whole Chapter seriously read proves; but of the In­ward Work of the Spirit, in order to the making Man's Body a fit Temple for the holy Ghost to dwell in, as he writ to the Corrinthians.

[Page 137]3. The third place he brings, is out of the E­pistle Paul, writ to the Philippians: He shall change our Vile Bodies: Upon which he say [...]s, This cannot be meant of a New-created Bod [...], because such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed.

But what makes this for his Conceit? Surely nothing; For if the Ʋile Body he changed, then it is not that Vile Body; therefore not the same Bo­dy. Again to say that Scripture can't be meant of a New-Created Body, because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed, makes much against him: For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be, is Vile, else what means his Saying Because such a Body cannot be said TO BE (not to have been) either Vile or Changed. 2. Though the Body That shall be, may not be said to be either Vile or Changed, yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body, and so the Vile Body Changed for one that is Glorious. It was either Ignorantly or Sophistically done in Thomas Hicks to imply. That Body that shall be, could not be said to be Changed, since the Change lies on the side of the Vile Body, that is exchanged for a more Glorious Body; Therefore all along we must conclude, it is not the same, but another Body. But how Disingenuous is Tho Hicks to repute G.W's Answer in the Apostle's Words, a pressing the Metaphor too far, and yet by so doing, runs himself into this Dark Imagina­tion of a Fleshly Resurrection.

But Tho. Hicks thinks, The Joyes of Heaven Im­perfect else.

[Page 138] I Answer; Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glo­ry Imperfect? or are they in Heaven but by halfes? If it be so Unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joyes Celestial; Is it not in measure Unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body?

This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul (held by many Baptists) or I am mistaken: But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body? Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Wid­dow, and so in a State of Mourning and Disconso­lateness, to be without its Beloved Body? which State is but a better sort of Purgatory. See T.V. and T.D.

What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body, 2 Cor. 5.8, 9. that he might be present with the Lord, if such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy, as our Adversaries in the Point of the Resurrection suggest, if not boldly affirm? In short, If the compleat Happiness of the Soul rests in a Re­union to a Carnal Body, for such it is sown, then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran; for such a Heaven and the Joyes of it, suite admirably well with such a Resurrection. The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit, I thus Contract.

1. Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dis­solution and no Resurrection of that which is dis­solved, being Earthly, and Unfit for a Celestial Paradice; and therefore holds forth a Building of God, and House Eternal in the Heavens.

[Page 139]2. If the Body be the same, it must have the same Nature, otherwise not the same Body: But if it have the same Nature, it will be Corruptible still: Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures, not Im­mortal; Neither can Mortal be Immortal, and yet the same Nature as before; for that Change made, tell me, What remains of the Old Earthly Body?

3. It makes the Soul Uncapable of Compleat Hap­piness without a Fleshly Body, as if Heaven were an Earthly Place to see, walk in, and all our Out­ward Senses to be enjoyed and exercised, as in this World, though in an higher Degree; which I call Mahometism: For what Spiritual Happiness the Bo­dy now can have, respecting God, is derived through the Soul to the Body, and not through the Body to the Soul. Besides, if so great a Change or Altera­tion pass upon the Body, how is it that Carnal and Sensible Body that suffered? And how can that same Body be equally sensible of Celestial Delights? for the Flesh & Blood that suffered is not to enter God's Kingdom; and if that very same Carnal Body en­ter not, which sustained any part of the Tribulati­ons, the great Knot is broken, and our Adversary's strongest, if not only Plea, is rendred Invalid: For if the same Natural Body, Parts and Senses, consisting of Living Flesh, Blood and Bones, that suffered and dyed, rise not, another is given in which the Children of the Resurrection (who have suffered in the Flesh) have their Recompence: and if they do so strictly rise as they dyed, then every Man is to rise Married, Low, High, Fat, Lean, Young, Old, Homely, Handsom, and according to former Com­plexion [Page 124] and Sex: And which is yet more Unreaso­nable, This Body is to be Ʋncorruptible, Immortal, Spi­ritual, Fashioned like Christ's Glorious Body, and as the Angels of God. May our Adversary blush at these Dark Imaginations but here toucht upon, because more largely handled else-where? Only I cannot but signifie, that this Sort of Resurrection pleaded for, is renowned by some Baptists, and several other more Clear-sighted Professors.

For our Parts, A Resurrection we believe, and of Bodies to, unto Eternal Life. What they shall not be, I have briefly said and proved; What they shall be we leave with God, who will give every one a Bo­dy as pleaseth him, and THOU FOOL, belongs to the Unnecessary Medler.


A Collection of some of T. Hicks's many CONTRA­DICTIONS, PERVERSIONS, LYES, FOR­GERIE [...], RAILINGS, and SCOFFS at WIT­NESSING; from all which he is proved to be neither a True Christian, nor a True Man.


Argument I. HE that Contradicts Himself, is not led by Gods Spirit, & consequently no Child of God, nor certain of their own Faith; but so doth T. Hicks; therefore No Christian Man.

He tells us, That the true Light hath enlightned [Page 125] every Man, from John 1. and that it ought to be at­tended upon, making the Light to be distinct from the Soul, and not the Soul. Dial. 7, 22.In Contradiction to which he makes this Light to be but a part of the Soul, by which he falls into the same Confusion he falsly would fasten upon us, namely. That if the Soul ought to o­bey the Light, it would obey It self, which is ab­surd and cannot be, Dial. p. 14, 32.
2. He acknowledges, That the Light checketh within for many Evils, and exciteth to many Good Things, and that he ought to shun those Evils, and do that Good, p 8. In short, That Christ is the Light and Life of Men, p. 22.Yet he dares to tell us, that this Light, in direct­ing to its best Actions, swel­leth Men but with Proud Conceits, & that it doth deceive & misguide such as follow it, p. 3, & 37.
3. But I do, and must bear witness against thy Erroneous Opinion, if true to the Light in me, p. 8. I am to do what the Light in my self directs me, and herein is my Comfort. p. 91. Again, Where a Rule is, there must be Light in the Subject, yielding Obedience; otherwise no Reasonable and Acceptable Service, p. 14. I grant it ought to be obey­ed, p. 7.To Ʋnsay, which he as­sures us, as his Judgment at least, That the Light is Uncertain; In one Man it teaches one thing, in another the directly contrary; so that (sa [...]es he) there can be no cer­tainty of Truth or Er­ror, SIN or DUTY BY THIS.
[Page 142] Again, He sayes, that 'tis no Disparagement to the Lightin with, to say, that God doth make any thing more known of his Will then is, or can be known by it; for 'tis but to say, that each DEGREE OF LIGHT is ser­viceable to its End, p. 36.In direct Ʋndervalue of, and Opposition to which he tells us, within 2 Pages af­ter, that the Improvement 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.

From all which it is very observable, 1. First, That the Light is Christ's Light. 2. That it ought to be Obeyed. 3. that it is not a Distinct Light from a Gospel Light, but in DEGREE only, and Consequently One and the same Light; therefore Saving in its Nature. But in Contradiction to all this he sayes, 1. That it is part of the Soul. 2. That it will Misguide and Deceive. 3. That it is Repugnant to the Ends of the Covenant of Grace, and ought to be Rejected. These are a few of his very many Self Oppositions. Now 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 Man should be oblieged to obey a Light that does misguide, or that Tho. Hicks should talk of A [...]ing according to the Light in him, making his Appeal thereto in others; and yet suggest that it may deceive and oppose the very Ends of the Covenant of Grace, is with me the Top of all Impudence, and Self Contradiction.

Of the Quakers PRINCIPLES And Tho. Hick's PERVERSIONS.

Arg. II. Who Perverts and Misrepresents another Man's Principles, acts not like a True Chri­stian-Man; but such is T. Hicks, therefore no Christian-Man.

1. Because we hold, Christ is God, & God the Light, and that all Men are enlightned by him;He concludes, that e­very Man comprehends whole God, and whole Christ. Dial. p. 2, 3, 4, 5.
2. Because we assert it to be sufficient to save all from Sin, who are led by it, and walk in it;He concludes from the Ignorance and Wickedness of those that have it tender­ed to them, but obey it not, that the Light is Igno­rant, Weak and Deceiva­ble, Ibid. p, 10, 32, 33, 34
3. From our Belief in the Light's Suffici­ency to Save, as that which was and is gi­ven [Page 718] of God for Salva­tion, to as many as bring their Deeds to it, and are translated by it.He infers, That all o­ther Means are needless, not considering it was not the Light's Insufficiency, but Man's Weakness, that has necessitated the great Light to make use of Ex­ternal Means to bring mens Minds from wandring a­broad to the Inward Light, which is the Just Man's Path, Ibid. 12.36, 37.
4. 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 would by that Argument make the Trees, &c. also Divine, Ibid. p. 3, 4.
5. From our asser­ting that Christ shi­neth by his Light in the Heart of every Wicked Man, as well as every Good Man.He tells People, that we hold Christ to be in eve­ry Wicked Man, as he is in his Saints; Cont. p. 45, 46. though such Ʋngodly Persons partake not of his Holy Life and Power, nei­ther are subject unto his Government.
6. From our affir­ming God's Promise made good, that he would be the Teacher [Page 129] of his People; and Directing People to God's Light in them, as the Gospel-Instru­ction to the Way of Life.He wickedly infers a­gainst us, yet as our Mea­ning, that we deny all Mi­nistry, all Visible Wor­ship, &c. though they stand in God's Power and Spirit; Dial. p. 41, 43 A thing ne­ver believed nor intended.
7. When we speak of Christ's Manhood, or Christ's, Visible Ap­pearance, and when we speak of his Eter­nal Godhead, or as he is now to his Saints & People, saying, he was never as such, Visible to Wicked Men.He is not ashamed to tell the World in our Name, that Christ was never Visible to Wicked Men, as to that Bodily Ap­pearance, and therefore that we deny any such Appearance at all. Cont. p. 37, 40, 41.
8. From our Belie­ving Christ to be in his People, according to express Scripture, and our asserting that as such, he is Crucified by Wicked Men.He infers, that we de­ny Christ to be as well without, as within; not that he was ever Crucifi­ed in the Flesh, Dial. p. 44. Oh Wicked Man!
9. From our Deny­al of their rigid Satis­faction, [Page 146] that is, that Christ was punished by his Father for our Sin; and that Sins past, present and to come, are answer'd for; and that Men may be Holy in Christ, by Virtue thereof, whilst not New, but Old Creatures, and so Un­holy in themselves, their Consciences not being Purged from dead Works;He unworthily concludes, that we disown Christ's Death and Sufferings as a Propitiation, that his Body was an Offering for Sin; that he bore the Weight of the Iniquity of the whole World, that he carry'd away sins past, & 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 and Righteousness, but our own Works, Dial. p. 9, 10. Cont. 48, 49, 50▪ 51, 52, 53. All which is an horrid Abuse of us.
10. From our asser­ting that the End of Christ's Coming to be not only the Forgive­nes of Sin past upon Repentance, but the finishing of Transgres­sion in the Creature by the Operation of his Power in his Inward and Spiritual Appea­rance;He Wickedly infers, that we make his Visible Ap­pearance of no Value, and deny the End of Christ's Sufferings. Dial. p. 10. Cont. p. 50, 51, 52, 53, 44, 55.
[Page 147]11. Because we say that Men are not ac­cepted of God, but up­on the Inward Work of the Holy Spirit in the Soul, as to daily Comunion with God: And that there is not another Way to be saved from Sin present and to come, then by Christ's Inward Ma­nifestation and Ope­ration;He Insinuateth as our Faith, that we purchase our Forgiveness by our own Good Works, and not that Christ was Gods Propitiation, by whom Remission of Sins past came; which is the meer Love and Mercy of God, declared then by him in the World more eminently, and now by the Light in the Conscience, to all that Re­pent. Ibid. p. 51, 52, 53.
12. Becauce we make Obedience a Condition to Salvati­on;He would have People be­lieve, that we make it the Meritorious Cause, and so Papists, Dial. p. 2, 63.
13. Because we say that Christ is but our Example in his abi­ding in the Father's Love by keeping his Commandments;So Wicked is he as to con­clude, that we believe Christ to be in ALL THINGS BUT AN EXAMPLE. Ibid. p. 54. Behold this Wickedness!
[Page 132]14. From our plea­ding for a Perfecti­on from Sin, and a Growth to the Mea­sure of the Fulness of the Stature of Christ in this Life.He confidently infers our Denial of a Perfection in D [...]g [...]es, and our Be­lief of as high a State of Perfection of Glory in this World, as hereafter. Dial. p. 48, 49, 50, 51.
15. From our asser­ting True Rejoycing to be the Result of God's Work in Man, and Man's Conformi­ty to him, and what Man sows he reaps.This Person basely infers our utter Denial of any Cause of Rejoycing from what Christ had done for us, when bodily in the World, or by his Righ­teousness now in us, Ibid. p. 53.
16. 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 so free­ly offered it upon the condition of Believing & Obeying, the Fruits of the Spirit of God in Man.He wickedly suggests in our Name, that we expect to Merit Eternal Life by Good Works, and those of our own working, as the Spider Weaves his Webb out of his own Bowels Thus does he pervert and misconstrue our pure Faith. Dial. p. 38. Cont. p. 51, 52.
[Page 133]17. Because we say all True, Spiritual Li­berty stands in God's Power, that loses from Satan's Snares.He unrighteously infers, That who are not of our Way, should have no Li­berty. Cont. p. 87. O Im­pious Man! God will reckon for these things with thee.
18. From our asser­ting that the Breath of Life, which came from God, by which Adam became a Living Soul to God, was something of God himself.That he may keep his old Wont, he falsly renders it as our Meaning that the Soul is a part of God; and then fastens all his hideous Con­sequences Dishonestly upon us. Dial. p. 45, 46.
19. From our Prea­ching the Redempti­on of the Seed from under the Weight and grievous Pressures of Sin, and calling it the Lost Groat, and Pearl in the Field, &c.He dares to give it as our Faith, that we believe that Holy Seed to be in a Lost, Undone or Pollu­ted State, Dial. p. 47 Cont. p. 49. then which what can be more Wicked?
20. Because we say the Scriptures are not the great Gospel-Rule but the Spirit, because [Page 150] the Dispensation of the Spirit is 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 them­selves;He basely suggests, that the Quakers cast off all Precepts in the Scrip­tures, and will not bound either their Doctrines or Lives thereby, & so will not b [...]ing their Cheats & Impostures to the Test thereof, counting them of no more Authority THEN ESOPS FA­BLES. Dial. p. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. Cont. Epist. to the Reader. Behold your Anabaptist Preacher! In­deed an Ʋngodly Wrester to his own Destruction.
21. From our asser­ting, that what was a Commandment to a­ny Servant of God in old times, is not so to us, because so to them; that is, such as going to Pharaoh, going Naked, going to the Kings Chap­pel, as Moses, Isaiah and Amos did; as also those Elementary Types, Shadows and Figures appointed for a Season, and to pass [Page 151] off, That such are not Commandments to us unless required by the same Spirit anew;It is not a little his Endea­vour Ʋnrighteously to infer, that those Moral, Per­petual, and Eternal, Holy Precepts thou shalt have no other God but me; thou shalt not Murder; thou shalt not commit A­dultery; thou shalt not Steal; thou shalt not bear False Witness, &c. are not binding upon us: But that we give our selves the loose of such horrid Principles, as the contrary; and are there­fore inconsistent with Civil Government, Cont. pag. 59, 60. As if that Eternal, Holy, Omni­present Light, with which we are enlightned, did not continually declare and re­quire these Just and Righ­teous Things at our hands. God rebuke him.
22. From our Use of the Scripture, and a Ministry with such like Means, though by the Assistance and Lead­ings of the Eternal Spirit, & for this End, that all may come by them, as Helps, to the Life and Power it self; the great End of all External Means;He would insinuate the In­sufficiency of the Light, and does prefer the very Beggarly Elements of the Jewish Religion be­fore it, which holds as well against God, Christ and his Power, Grace and holy Spirit, because the like Means are used notwith­standing to reclaim and re­store Men to a State of Happiness; but if that were Wicked, what can his Reflection be upon the Light? Dial. p. 37, 41, 42, 49,
23. Because we say that no Man can right­ly worship God, with­out the Preparation & [Page 136] Motion of his holy Spi­rit, which we daily wait to feel, and accor­dingly are prepared & drawn forth to worship the Lord, whether in publick or private; for we never sought his Face in vain.This Envious Man sug­gests, that we never wait to be so prepared or mo­ved; But if the Spirit of God compels us not, God must go without his Wor­ship, and not blame them, with such like; making as if the Spirit were as far off, as he would have Christ; and that to stay till Men were mov'd, were never to worship: which suffici­ently shews his Ignorance of that Spirit, whose alone Leadings make a Child of God, as well as the Wicked Ʋse he makes of that Holy and Christian Practice, Cont. p. 60 61.
24. From our as­serting, that every Man ought to be con­vinc'd of what he does, and that by the Light in him, as his Rule of Faith & Duty, before he sets about to do or perform it.He insinuates, the Im­possibility of our Re­nouncing and Rejecting any tenacious Disputer about unprofitable Que­stions, that may go out from us as a Religious Society, because such Person or Persons, may plead the Light within for it, Cont. p. 64, 65. As if they might not as well plead the Scripture too, upon his Belief of a Rule, and give him the same Difficulty? Must every one use the Scripture right that pretends to it as their Rule? If not, then why may not several pretend to the Guidance of the Light, for that which the Light really condemns.
[Page 137]25. From our de­nying the Resurrecti­on of the Natural and Corruptible Body, and leaving it with the Lord to give us a Bo­dy as pleaseth him,This Caviller and Foo­lish Intruder into Sacred Mysteries, endeavours to possess People with our be­ing Shufflers about, & De­nyers of the Resurrecti­on of any Body to Life Eternal, however Spi­ritual or Glorified, Dial. p. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62.
26. And from our asserting the Unity of God and the Soul, and our Denyal of their Carnal Resurrection,He blindly concludes, that the Soul is part of God, and so no future Rewards or Punishments at all to be expected by any. Dial. p. 16, 17.

Thus much to give the World a Taste of the Man's Spirit. He that can thus far believe him to be an Honest Man, ought to be condemned for great Igno­rance and Inhonesty. God that made Heaven and Earth, will Recompense it into his Bosom with a Ven­geance, if he Repent not.

A Collection of a Few of his Many GREAT LYES.

Arg. III. He that Lyes is not of God; but Thomas Hicks is a Lyar; therefore not of God, then no Christian.

1. First, That our owning of Christ Jesus is indeed no other then A MEER MYSTICAL RO­MANCE, and that the Christ we own is no other then a MYSTICAL ROMANCE, Dial. p. 10. Contin. p. 9. A Prophane Untruth; Ʋntruth, in speaking so of us; and Prophane with a witness, to call the Light a Mystical Romance, which he just now said, ought to be obeyed. Is this your Champion?

2. That according to the Quakers Conceits, Scripture and Reason must not be made use of, Ibid. p. 26. A Lye our Books and Practice plentifully prove.

3. That the Light in us sees no Necessity of a Mediator, Ibid. p. 35. When God knows we feel the daily Be­nefit of one.

4. That the Quakers account the Blood of Jesus Christ no more then they do the Blood of a COMMON THIEF. Ibid. p. 38. An Ungodly Aspersion.

5. That we deny his Visible Coming and Appearance in the World, Cont. p. 37, 45. Though a Contradicti­on to himself.

6. That the Quakers hold, they can work a Compleat [Page 155] Righteousness OUT OF THEIR OWN BOWELS, Ibid. Epist. & p. 53. Dial. p. 38. and yet a while since, all was to be done by the Moti­on and Operation of God's Spirit alone. O Con­fusion it self!

7. They own Christ in all he did, ONLY as an Ex­ample, Contin. p. 54. yet just now he made us deny his Coming at all. What strange Lying and Self-Contradicting is here?

8. That the Quakers Dissemble when they tell People they own the Scriptures, and that they render them of no more Authority then ESOPS FABLES, Cont. Epist. That a Quaker should say, That which troubles thee is thy PUZLING thy self so much in that BOOK THE BIBLE, thou wilt never be setled till thou throw that Book AWAY, Cont. p. 76. A Wicked Lye. Also, That a Quaker should sa [...] to one T. Holl­brow, What dost thou tell me of the Scriptures? they are no more to me then an old Almanack Which we renounce both as being a Lye, and an Irreverent Expression. For J. Nobbs on whom it is charged, was a Ranter; and if I mistake not, it was spoken before the People Quakers were known in the Southern Parts, if not before God's Breaking forth by them.

9. That any thing against our Ministry (though never so true) must be looked upon as the greatest Lye, Ibid. Epist. But this is one to be sure; God will clear their Innocency, and confound their bitter Enemies.

10. That Nicholas Lucas said to one of T. Hicks's Acquaintance, that he might burn the Bible, and serve God as well without; and that he might write as good Scripture himself, if he would have any, Ibid. pag. 5. A Lye, he disowns, and in the Appendix may be seen.

[Page 156]11. That they appoint their Ministers afore-hand, to speak in such a Place, and at such a Time; and that they go to Meetings only to encourage (that is, to decoy, tra­pan and inveagle) others, Ibid. p. 66. Very Lyes, I testifie in God's Fear.

12. That the Quakers bid People follow the Light within, and if they do so, then will they load such with most bitter Revilings, Ibid. p. 68. A Lye, every title of it. What? Are they represented to be Overturners of all things to exalt the Light within, and now revile People most bitterly if they obey it?

13. That one of us should bid her Husband take another Woman▪ Ibid. p. 63. We charge upon him for a Slander.

14. That Motions of God's Spirit are pretended by Quakers, at least one of them, to refuse Just Debts, and that they may do so by their Principles, Ibid. p. 69. is also a Story hatcht in Hell.

15. That scarce a Man that reads W. Penn, but thinks him to be either DISTRACTED OR WORSE, Cont. p. 87.

16. That such as ask us Questions we call Reprobates, in the Sorcery, Witchcraft, polluted Beasts, Serpents, Sots, &c. Ibid. p. 86.

17. That one of us should say, if one that had writ a­gainst us, that if he writ any more against us, that we would Print any thing against him, that any would report, BE IT WHAT IT WOULD. Dial. p. 73.

18. If any Discourse with us, 'tis the Man, and not the Argument that we will be concerned with. And if we can fix anything that is Odious, it shall pass for an Answer, and a Confutation; And to fill up their Wickedness they will in their solemn Way of Prophaness and Blasphemy, bless God that they have thus answered.

[Page 157]But who has most medled with Persons may be seen, who unprovokedly has taken into Twelve Sheets about 20 Persons, and all of them such as have been wholely unconcerned with him, and are Stran­gers to him; a Way I never took. How far we medle with our Adversaries Strength, our Books will best declare. Nor are his Dialogues with me less then a most undeniable Demonstration of the highest For­gery, Partiality, Cowardliness and Impudence that ever was given by Man, who falls upon our Conclusions, and never concerns himself in our Premises: A Principle obtained through many Arguments, he can tell how to crop, clip, pervert and disguise, and then call it ours; But to engage an Argument that leads to it, as by us defended, it is not in him so much as to adventure; His Forgeries have been his Answers; And our Princi­ples abused, he thought Confutation enough to themselves. When he has given an Error for a Quaker's Princi­ple, truly all may believe it, if they will for him, he has offered in no place but little to the contrary, and in most places nothing at all.

How Honestly or Worthily he has dealt with us is further evident, who brings in five of us, Fox, Dews­bury, Crisp, Whitehead, Penn, under the Suspicion of being Wilful Lyars, Fornicators and Adulterers: For though he sayes but some of them; yet not Naming Who, the Blemish lies against us all, every one being left to his Liberty to think, which are the Men.

Ah! the God of Vengeance will repay this Mur­dering, Wicked Spirit, that as greedily Haunts after our Ruin, as the Evening Wolf doth after the Prey. If these Defamations are to pass unjudged of the [Page 158] Anabaptists, God's despised Light will judge them, when all their Profession shall never relieve them from under Burden of it.

Thus far of Contradictions, Perversions and Lyes. Now for a few of his Forgeries.

Some of Tho. Hick's FORGERIES Detected.

I shall now endeavour to give some brief Account of his FORGERY; and notwithstanding the Hole he hopes to escape at, I doubt not to make it appear that he is guilty of it, and therefore a FOR­GER. My Argument runs thus.

Arg. IV. He that gives that for a Man's Answer to any Question, that is not his answer to that Question, is a Forger; but that Tho. Hicks hath done, there­fore a Forger, consequently no True Christian.

He agrees to the First Proposition; the Second he denies, as I suppose, which I will prove.

T.H. Anabaptist,

Is it Honest in you to deny the Scriptures to be a Rule to others, when at the same time you make it a Rule to your selves? Dial. p. 24, 52.


Thou mistakest us when we make Ʋse of the Scriptures, 'tis only to quiet and stop their Clamours that plead for it as their Rule.


Did this Light within create the Heavens [Page 159] and the Earth, &c. it being proved that it self is but a Creature?




Is this Light within the Immediate Object of Divine Worship?




Doth not this justifie that horrid Act of James Naylor's at Bristol, in receiving Hosannah's with Divine Worship, &c? Dial. p. 64, 65.


I think not meet to answer such Enquiries. A wicked Lye; for we disowned what was Condemna­ble, as himself afterwards did. Again,


If this Light be the Rule, who is the Sub­ject capable of understanding it? Ibid. p 13, 14, 15.


Thou art Drunk with Words and Carnal Di­stinctions, I know not what thou wouldst be at. A very Lye,


More the Pitty, if thou so furiously Con­tendest for this Thing, and yet knowest not what I would be at, &c. He makes us Bad that he may condemn us.


Thou art a Wicked Creature; Blackness of Darkness is reserved for thee. This is given in De­rision.


Was not my Question Plain and Familiar; but is this Answer pertinent? Is it not needful we should be informed, who must obey this Light? &c.


Thou art a Serpent, and the Curse of God is Eternally upon thee. A Question never so answered that he can prove.


This Language is so Natural to you, that it is as difficult for you to leave it, as for the Ethio­pian to change his Skin, &c. Ʋngodly Man! Who sees [Page 160] not that 'tis his Design not to be informed, nor inform us; but to Scoff and Deride us?


Thou manifests thy Darkness, and that thou art still in thy Imagination.


What need these Impertinencies? T. Hicks is the Father and Forger of them.


I comprehend thee, and see the Serpent's Sub­tilty in these Questions; thou art out of the Truth, and drunk with Words. What is he that spues out these in­vented Answers?


Either thou canst, or thou canst not an­swer me; be so free and honest as to tell me so. If thou canst, pray let me know, whether the whole Person, or part, or something else? What is this but to incense People against us, and beget Derision?

Thus Reader, does this Ungodly Anabaptist (the Scandal of his Profession) treat us. We charge it all with Forgery in the Name of God, the Lord of Heaven & Earth; and every Body that is not Blind, may s [...]e enough Scorn, Ignorance and Prophaness. But hear a little more.


Do you believe the Scriptures to be the true Sayings of God? Ibid. p. 25.


Yea, so far us they agree with the Light within. An Ar [...]ant Forgery.


How shall I know that?


I Witness it.


Must I believe thee upon thy own Words?


I would have thee do so. Abominable For­gery!


Wer't thou never Mistaken about Persons and Things?

[Page 161]

This is an Ensnaring Question.


Did the Primitive Christians use to answer thus?


We deny Imitation; We are to speak as we are moved. O Ungodly Mocker and Forger!

Here's your Anabaptist, a Preacher, a Perverter, a Forger, and a Prophaner of wholesom Words. Who moved him to this Romance, but the Father of Lyes? What Quaker can this be besides his; I mean, that Ʋnchristian Tho. Hicks? God will avenge the Qua­kers Cause upon his Head, as sure as he is God, if he for these things repent not. But yet a little more upon Perfection.


Will this convince me, or any other, of your Perfection? Ibid. p. 72, 73.


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.


Then may I not conclude, that the Reason why you so freely Rail against, and Reproach your Opposers, is only to secure your Credit with your own Proselytes?


I cannot deny, but that there may be something of that in it. O Unreasonable Man!


Will you be so liberal of your Revilings, whether your Adversaries give Occasion or no?


It concerns us to render them as Ridiculous as we can, and to make our Friends believe, they do nothing but contradict themselves; And if this fail, we will insi­nuate something by way of Question that may be Reproach­ful to them. O Horrible Impiety! God, our God [Page 162] vindicate our Innocency from these Hellish Slan­ders.


But doth not this signifie a very Dishonest and Malitious Mind in you?


We care not what you think, provided our Friends think not so. Again, We will give it out, that we have both Answered and Confuted our Adversaries, and our Friends will believe us, which is enough to us.

Observe Reader, what a very Villain this Ana­baptist has made of a Quaker; But where will it light, when the Anabaptist shall be known to be the Ma­ker both of the Quaker and the Villain too? If this be not Forgery, there is no such thing in the World? O my Heart trembles within me to think of this detestable Piece of Cheat. He writes as if he were hardened against God, desperate against us, and resol­ved to the Abuse of the poor People, to make them be­lieve his Fictions to be Truths. But the Devil al­ways spoils his own Business: For who (not quite distracted) can think it to be more our Interest, to please our Friends, that we are already sure of, then those who are not yet such, with Design to make them ours?

I charge these things with abundance more, rela­ting to both our Doctrine and Practice, upon him, as abominable Forgery; And the Weight hereof shallly upon his Soul in the day of his Death. And the Righ­teous God of Heaven and Earth will terribly plead our Cause in his Conscience to his great Amaze­ment, and perpetual Anguish, if he repent him not of these Undertakings.

But he objects, what Fierce and Impertinent [Page 166] Language he has given in Answer to several Questi­ons E.B. furnisheth him with, in his Answer to one Phili [...] Bennet [...] Priest; As these: Thou art a wicked Creature, Blackne [...]s of Darkness is reserv' [...] for thee. Thou art a Serpent▪ and the Curse of God is eternally upon thee. T [...]o [...] Beast, to [...]hom the Plagues of God are due; with which he makes [...] great B [...]ast in his Continuation of the Dialogue written, in part, to prove the first no Fi [...]ion: But till it be better done, he will remain a Forger in the Minds of all Impartial People; For that i [...] not the [...]wentieth part of what he ha [...] given under the Quaker's Name. Should that be admitted for a Proof so [...]ar as it ex­tends? We have little Reason to believe that to be a sufficient Proof of the Reality of the f [...]rst, whose ve­ry first Question [...]nd Answer is a downright Forgery in G. Whitehead's Name and that with no Quotation, though he promis'd it; at once proving himself Ly­ar and Fo [...]ger too. But in Defence of that wor­thy Sufferer, and d [...]ceased Prophet of the Lord, I have this to say.

1. First, God having raised him with others by his Eternal Power which was very dreadful, & lived as a flaming Fire in the bosome of them against the Formality, Hypocrisy, Covetousness, Persecution and other Wickedness of that Generation of Covenant-Break­ing Professors, both with God and Men, from whom they under-went bitter Mockings and cruel Sufferings. He and they have been drawn forth of the Lord to check, rebuke and strike dumb that Ʋnclean, Ʋnregenerate and Serpentine Spirit and Nature which was predominant, and that under the shew of Worship, and Forms of Reli­gion, acted in a Mystery against the Life and Power of [Page 164] Godliness. Wherefore, when this Priest in his Sub­tilty and unclean Wisdom of the Tribe and Trade of the Ungodly Pharisee proposed these De [...]p and Weighty Queries (not so much to be inform'd as to ensnare; that's God's Word of Truth) whose State was to come to Judgment for Sin, and into the deep Fear, Aw and D [...]ea [...] of Allmighty God, because of Iniquity, that through God's Righteous Terrors and Judgments, he might learn the true and experimental Knowledge of what was convenient for him to know (For they that do the Will of God, can only know the Life and Truth of his Doctrine) I warrant it from God, and by the Sence of his Eternal Spirit do declare, that it was the Portion, and only fit Answer to be given to those trapanning Questions. And had E.B. gone into a familiar Opening to his Vulturous, Unclean, Ser­pentine Eye, all the deep Things of the Spirit of God, and Mysteries of his holy Kingdom, who was in that Nature that crucified the Lord of them, E.B. had brought the Wrath of the Eternal, Allwise God upon himself instead of the Priest, whose righteous Judgments were come, and at that time abroad in the Earth; And I do believe they struck him home, or we had heard of him ere this; For Hypocrites and Disob [...]dient Men sometimes are soo­ner struck with Judgment then Argument.

2. Nor did the Priest enquire so harmlessly, as Th. Hicks would falsly insinuate.Cont. P. 18. It is the Language of a white Devil, on­set to Carp, Cavil, Catch and Ensnare the Innocent, for the Promotion of the outside and formal Re­ligion; then cryed up, and secretly to smite at, and withstand the Lord's Spiritual Appearance [Page 165] then breaking forth in the Nation. But the Priest queries smoothly? And what then? Is it ever the farther from being Serpentine for that? Was it not Then the Jews sought to entrap Christ by their Questions, when they came with a seeming Vene­ration and Acknowledgment, calling him Master, and the like? Are sharp Words a greater Provocation, then a subtil Twining and Dec [...]itful Spirit. If Tho. Hicks can no better discern Spirits, than to believe every thing fairly spoken, to be true, his Judgment is like to be little minded; he is dead to all right Feeling. Every Spirit and Question is not to be answered; And can he so basely misconstrue our planest and most upright Assertions, and yet put so high an Estimation▪ upon every thing writ against us? He shews he would have us misrepresented at any rate. Let it suffice that E. Burrough gave no har­der Names then the Scripture by Rule allows, we read of Dogs, Bears, Wolves, Swine, Serpents, Vi­pers, Foxes, Children of the Devil, and such like; and as that Nature to whom they were then gi­ven, thought them hard, so does T.H. now; but the same Power that then gave them, has now us'd them, to the same End and Purpose, and I abide by it.

3. Whereas Th. Hicks insinuates, that what E.B. said was to the Man, especially as to determining his Eternal State; I say, he has in a great part mi­staken both him and us; For it was not so much to the Person, as that accursed Seed which was trans­f [...]rmed in him, by whom the Soul was deceived, and the Heel of the true Seed bruised: Therefore it was an Answer of Love to the Priest, though a sharp and [Page 163] heavy Answer of Judgment upon that Mind in him, which never did, nor never will, nor can please God in any.

4. 'Tis very [...] and wicked with a Witn [...]ss, in T.H. Ibid. P. 27.29.32, 33, 34 38. that he should run [...] with two o [...] thr [...]e leaves of a large Fo­lio Book of about nine hundred pages consisting of so [...] so [...]id T [...]stimonies, pertinent An­swers, heavenly Epistles, his P [...]eas of Liberty of Con­science, his Letters, Prophecyes and Messages to the Pow­ers (some of which his party is concerned in) and overlook them all; yea, and like a most Irreligious Miscre [...]nt indeed (for 'tis but a Misbeliever) and with as much Hard-heartedness and Inhumanity, as could be shewn by one Man, trample upon all his Valiant Acts, Tedious Labours, Great Sufferings, and Testimony unto Death it self for the free Exercise of a Good Conscience to God and all Men: And as if it were not enough, to rob him of the Praise due to his Life, and to speak Evil of him, now he is dead, he endeavours what in him lyes, to invalid his Reward, by rendring him unworthy of any Portion but what's to be had in Hell. God is my Record this day, I would not, to inherit more Worlds then there are Stars in the Firmament, have so viol [...]ed the Law of Cha­rity; against the most violent of our deceased Oppo­sers; and God is a [...]l-sufficient both to find out, question, and recompense this Ungodly Traducer, whose Envy, I doubt not has Fire enough in it, to burn that good Man's Bones with his Books, as the Blood-thirsty Pope did honest Wic [...]ss; But Thanks be to almighty God, 'tis not in his Power, nor any of his old Covenant-breaking cankered Adherents: [Page 167] God has swept them off the Stage; And I declare it to be both my Faith and Prayers, that they may never come on it more; For it is scarcely to be doubted, but if that Day were come, rather then not root out the Quakers, Th. Hicks would first forge Faults, and then Evidence to prove them. No Man can be secure of him in common Converse, who to compass his End, upon such as oppose him, will SELF-CONTRADICT, PER­VERT, LY, FORGE, beyond which in this World is nothing but direct Murder, and that's a Question, since in some Cases it were less irksome to dy, then to be defamed.

Is this Doing as Men would be done to? Was D. Patricks Friendly Debate betwixt the Conformists and Non Conformists so Unrighteous in the Account of the Non-Conformists, because he made their An­swers? and doth Tho. Hicks pursue that Example; yea, to a Continuation also, as he did before him▪ Nay, did not T. Hicks once, upon a time, condemn the Disingenuity of that Way of Writing? Yet himself the Man. Let us but consider the Early and great Care of some called Anabaptists, to de­tect the Forgery of the New-England Bloody Baptism, lately cryed and vended in this City. Could one think that a Chieftant of them should be so Guilty of the same Injustice? and which is worse, hardened in it too? and which is worst of all, at that very Instant when they were testifying their great Abhor­rence to all such Actions, and using all possible Means to check and interdict the Forgery? But we may learn from hence how hard it is for Th. Hicks and some of his Abettors, in the midst of all their [Page 168] pretended Zeal for the Christian Religion, to do as they would be done by: They can fly to the Council-Board for an Order against it; to the Lord Major for a Prohibition of its Sale; To the Arch-Bishops Chaplain, both to recall his License to the For­gery, and give them one to detect it. What have they mist to clear themselves? But this had less sus­pected to be done meerly out of Reputation, if they had taken that Vile (yet their Brother) Anabaptist, T. Hicks into hand, for his Envious, Lying Pam­phlets against us; whose Greater Pretences to Re­ligion renders him far the worse Forger of the two: For the Author of that Pamphlet did not so much make it the Principle of those People to destroy, as to recount under the Relation of a Bro­ther to the Party murdered, the Lamentable Tragedy acted by a Member or two of that People, which if it had been true (as perhaps it is a Lye) the whole Body had not been concern'd to answer for the Pas­sion and Fury of two or three particular Persons, further then to renounce that Action. But T. Hicks hath publickly avowed Lyes against us, the Grossest imaginable, rendring us Inconsistent with Christani­ty, and Destructive of the Government under which we live, and that by OUR PRINCIPLES too; then which no greater Charge can be given, as well as no greater Lyes told against us. Well! God will be even with them for these things; and will rid both Himself and us, of that Generation of Vipers and Hypocrites, who make Lyes their Refuge, and glory in their Warfare against the Lamb, and his Followers; who will assuredly have the Victory: But the Tender-Hearted God will [Page 169] gather, and that speedily, I do believe as well, as that I do very greatly desire it.

To conclude, In both Books he has given those Answers in our Names, which never were our An­swers at all; And that little he has quoted out of our own Books, he has given as those Answers to o­ther Questions, & many times to other Matter; there­fore not our Answers, but his own: And conse­quently Th. Hicks is guilty of Forgery, and so a Forger. Thus much of this Subject, to his eternal Infamy, if not wip'd away by unfeigned Sorrow and Amendment of Life.

Of his RAILING, ILL LAN­GUAGE and EVIL TREA­TING of our Friends in general, and my Self in particular.

Arg. V. He that Rails, Reviles, calls Names, &c. is no True Christian; but such is T. Hicks; therefore no True Christian.

It seems a great Crime with Tho. Hicks, that the Quakers will not own the Scurvy Reflections of their Adversaries (which were the next way to be thought Guilty) And which is stranger, he calls them Names for defending themselves. If we refuse their base Epithetes, reject their Lyes, and lay their Slanders at their own Door; they report us a sort of Foul-Mouth'd-People, Censorious and Judging; and which [Page 170] is most intollerable, they account such Carriage to­wards us Gospel-Zeal & Plain-Dealing, which are only better Words for Reviling and Railing. But whilst some have thus shewn themselves against us, upon close Encounters with our Books, Tho. Hicks, that he may be Extraordinary (though in Wickedness) forges Ill Language under our Name, that he may the bet­ter practise Railing against the Quakers, and insinuate with the Vulgar for a Reality, a very Fiction; but since the Answers as they are, he pretends to con­demn as bad, he is at once to be blamed for Forgery, and forging that which is Reprovable too.

But that which deserves our notice is, that Tho. Hicks should be the Man of all others, that takes most upon him to rate the Quakers for their Sharp Dealing with their Adversaries, who is not only Unjust in do­ing so, but Excessive in his Bitterness against them, wit­ness th [...]se Scurrilous Invective Expressions.

A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker. Their owning Christ, and the Christ they own, a meer, Mystical Romance. Dial. p. 1, 10, 27, 28, 41, 43, 78, 79, 80, 81, 89. Cont. Tit. Pa. p. 50, 56, 58, 66, 68. 70. Cheats and Impostures. Lyars. Malignant Errors. Their Hypocri­sie, Deceit. Equivocations. The way they arived to that Degree of Perfection, was by Quaking, Foaming at the Mouth, with dreadf [...]l Roarings and Howlings, and this, he sayes, the Devil Influenced us unto. Again, Delusions, Impertinent Canting, Non-sense, Blasphemy, The Devil's Slaves. Paganism. Satan's Snares. Pernicious and Perilous Er­rors. They are inspired and influenced by that grand Impostor the Devil. Blasphemous and Ridiculous Canting. Enthusiastical. They decoy and trapan. Your Idle, Non-sensical and [Page 171] Blasphemous Prating. Inspired by Satan. You are as Vile Impostors as ever were.

Thus much of Us and our Way in general, besides his Knaves, Cox-combs, Impudent and Audacious Fel­lows, that he has called our Friends in Religious Con­ferences. I think it not unseasonable to say some­thing of that Entertainment I have had at his hand. I am wholely a Stranger to him; I ever had an E­steem and tender Regard to the Sober and Tender-hearted among that People with whom he walks; I know not that ever I had to do with them in ge­neral, and I am sure, nothing at all with Tho. Hicks in particular, as to Religious Controversie. I may further say, that some of them have known me long, my Temper, Education, early Dissent from Na­tional Worships, my Sufferings upon it; and if they will be true to me, they must say, I have had the keeping of a Good Conscience above the one half of my Life in my Eye, being now about twenty nine Years old. Now that T. Hicks in the midst of his severe Rebukes of us as abusive to our Ad­versaries, should treat me with such Unhandsome Reflections, as Confident Dictates,Dial. P. 83, 84, 85, 92, 93, 94. Contin. P.­toxicated with Pride; Tinkling and Ridicu­lous Words; Arrogant and Conceited Man; Confident Dictator; Rash, Inconsiderate and Opinionated; I appeal from W. Penn in his Rage and Fury; His Talk beray'd his Ar­rogancy, transported with Pride and Er­ror▪ Brazen'd with Impudence Rage and Folly; Pre­sipitate into Blasphemy. I say, that he should thus vent his Passion and Displeasure upon me, who ne­ver had to do with him, is certainly very Unchristi­an, [Page 172] and altogether Unworthy of any Man that pretends to correct others.

But why Transported with Pride and Error? only, because I said, in Defence of God's revealing his Will to Man, that methinks this one Demonstration should satisfie all (viz.) when neither Man, nor Scrip­tures are near us, there continually attends us that Spi­rit that immediately informs us of our Words, Thoughts and Deeds, and gives us true Directions what to do, and what to leave undone.

And this is the whole Provocation, or Reason assigned by him, for such Rude and Unhandsom Expressions, and that to a Man that never had to do with him. God's Witness in all Consciences judge betwixt us, if so true an Expression deserves such Affronts; and if such an Answer ought to pass for a Confutation. Besides it is basely done of any Man to run down the Labours of any Man by Shreads and Scraps of Matter; or to fall upon a Conclusi­on without so much as encountring one of those many Arguments that leads to it. A Way, T. Hicks of all Men, has proved himself most Expert and most Unjust in. But why Confident Dictator, and brazened with Impudence, Rage, and Folly? Because in my Second Part of the Apology in Answer to T. Jenner, a Priest in Ireland, who had publisht scores of Lyes, Scandals and Personal Defamations against many of our Friends, and particularly against my self (that his Book seemed but an Epitome of Lyes and Abuse) I did say, O wretched Impudence! Could any but a Priest brazn'd with Rage and Folly, ever pro­nounce so great a Lye, as that we should persecute the Truth and its Followers, with bitter Revilings [Page 173] and Reproachings? when yet sayes T. Hicks, that, to which Penn thus replyes, is such a matter of Fact, that Thousands can bear Witness to the Truth of it. But herein has he done foolishly, for it being yet dis­putable betwixt us, what is Truth, and what is Per­secuting, and what is Reviling? Can he have so little Modesty in his Cryes against Impudence, as to make our Accusers & Parties, either Judges or Witnesses? We shall submit it to an Impartial Judgment; but not to Tho. Hicks's Pride and Passion. However, this is most true, that to call Christ's Light an Ignis Fatuus, a dim Light, the Spirit of the Devil, that we are of the Devil, that we are possest, are Witches, acted and mov'd by Satan, Enemies to God, Christ, the Spirit, Reli­gion, humane Societies; with many Stories that we have offered to prove Lyes in the Sight of all Men, and particularly what he charged upon my self, viz. That Penn, another of their Teachers, did boldly affirm to a Friend of mine in Dublin, that whosoever shall expect to be saved by that Jesus Christ that was born in Judea, and suffered at Jerusalem, shall be deceiv'd; which I declare to be a Lye in the whole, and every part of it. I say, this is certain, that so much evil Treatment may well extort that sharp and just Rebuke from me: But if it be Criminal, (I know in T. Hicks's account it is) for me so to Character a Priest that had written an entire Book against us, in which he had most wickedly belyed our Principles, and abu­sed our Friends, and bespattered my self in par­ticular.

What can He think of himself, to say so much more of me, who never writ against the Anabaptists in general, nor Tho. Hicks in particular, much less, [Page 174] that I have vented or aggravated so many horrible Lyes against either them, or him? If his Conscience con­demn him not of Baseness, Passion and Partia­lity it is feared; and if the Party he belongs to, judge him not for such Unjust Procedure, they will be condemn'd of God's Light, that will bring e­very Unfruitf [...]l Word and Work into judgment.

His Insinuating that I entitule J. Nailors Blasphemy and Railing, wherewith he was charged at Bristol, upon the Holy Spirit▪ and that neither he had, nor I have Words enough to signifie our Venom and Malignity; because I said of James Nailors Book writ long before his being so charged, ‘That if he had treated that ac­cursed Stock of Hirelings ten thousand times more sharply▪ it had been but enough;’ is like the rest of his Ʋngodly Perversions already noted; For first I speak against Hir [...]lings; and I have said nothing of them, that the Holy Prophets have not exceeded, who called them Dumb D [...]gs, Greedy Dogs, Wolves, and such like. But T. Hicks's Concern for Hirelings shews both that he is one himself (and indeed has been so a long time) and next, that he is fallen with many more from the fi [...]st Love and Principle of that People called Anabaptists.

2. From my Justifying James Nailor's Sharpness in a particular Contr [...]v [...]sie [...]gainst a Deceitful, L [...]ing Pr [...]e [...]; he infe [...]s, th [...]t I d [...]fend him as to his p [...]blick Misc [...]ri [...]g [...]s at Bristol. I [...] this thy Consci­ence? hath all thy pretended Sc [...]iptural Doctrines Knowledge, [...]tudy, Preachm [...]nts, &c. brought thee no further? God will b [...]t it all, and bring thee to Judgm [...]nt for [...] cler [...]gs.

Well may I return the third particular against [Page 175] thy self, and Warn all People how they adhere to a Man f [...]'d with so much Ʋn [...]ruth, Slander, Perversion and Forgery; who art alien [...]ted from G [...]d's Light as near as it is to thee, and that Heavenly Life that is felt therein of all those who believe and obey the Light.

Reader, Let us not be esteemed Railers because we rebuke Railing; Nor our Rel [...]gious [...]ensure of their Perversions, Forgeries and Proph [...]ness, be accounted Reviling? 'Tis Trouble enough to us to be thus conce [...]ned in Controversie; We would find other Employment if such Envious Spirits found not this for us. 'Tis not our Choice, but theirs; They began, and which is worse, when the Powers left off. Their Restles [...] Spirit shows, it must have its Vent some way. Policy and Enmity together have turn'd it upon us: so that our Peace from the Powers proves a Persecution from some of the Professors, as the Experience of the base Cowardize of many among them gives us to remember, that the Powers Pe [...]secution was the time of their Peace; who like Insects lay dead during those Winter Seasons: We were then their made Walls to flat the Shot, and Bulworks, to resist the Assaults; and the more Moderate prayed, that we might be en­abled to stand; But no sooner were we come out of that Fiery Furnace then we were saluted with an Imposture from Lincoln, and a L [...]e from Dover, both subscribed by Anabaptist [...]re [...]chers, with several Clamor [...]us Books since. An Ill Rec [...]mpenc [...] indeed for our Love and Sufferings: But fr [...]m God is our Reward, therefore we are not moved; with whom we leave our Innocency; and [...]e will Effectually plead our Cause with our Adversaries.

His SCOFFS, or slight ESTEEM of WITNESSING; With a Word to Professors; With a Conclu­sive Supplication to the Lord.

Arg. VI. He that Slights and Scoffs at Wit­nessing is no True Christian; but that doth Tho. Hicks, therefore no true Christian.

It was the Way of the True Prophets, Apostles and Churches of Christ to declare of what they had known Experimentally of God and his Work, otherwise they must have been uncertain of the Truth of those Things they have recom­mended to us:The Waldenses ac­counted themselves Wit­nesses; their best Argu­ment was their Conscience, P.P. Perrin. Hist. Wald. Luther oppos'd the Pope and his Adherents, par­ticularly about Justifica­tion by Works, upon Ex­perience. He made it to stand in the Testimony of God in the Consci­ence, that he was accep­ted from an Inward Work of God's Spirit, and not any Outward Wo [...]ks, much less such as their Works were, Wessel, & Luth. confer. Fox. Mart. 2. Tom. And since the Times of Reformation, from the Thickness of Po­pery, Experiences have been very Excellent Things. I remember, though ve­ry young to Thousands, what a great Stir and Flockings there has been in my time after such Prea­chers, who could by any Experiences, approach the Consciences, and tell People upon Tryal what God was, and what Christ [Page 177] was, and the Holy Spirit, with respect to the Soul of Man, as to Manifestation, Operation, Conviction, Faith, Temptation, Victory over Sin, Regeneration, The English Martyrs laid the Stress of their Op­position to Popery, upon their Witnessing better things, Book of Mart. and the like. Indeed, it was the Want of this Preaching that gave such a Dis-relish to People of the National Priests, and they suffe­red not a little for their Change: Sure I am,The Brownists call themselves, God's-Sack-Cloth-Witnesses in their Apology dedicated to King James, in the begin­ning of his Reign, 1. yea, in that Epistle Dedicatory, they speak several times to that purpose, their being Witnesses, that they did Witness, &c. The like of­ten in the Preface & Book it self, with great Zeal and Honesty. 'Twas what they al in their several day felt springing up in them, that gave them to relish Persons, Words, and Things; and as they sa­voured, so they testified. Their Experience was the Ground of their Know­ledge; And their inward Witnessing the Work and Will of God, the Reason of their outward Witnessing for it unto Death it self. some Forms, reputed less Phana­tical then that in which T. Hicks is, prest closely af­ter such a Ministry, and utterly decryed all other to be Beneficial in the Church of Christ: But the Lord God having appea­red in a more Immediate and Spiritual Manner, & some having taken up their Rest by the way, (therby losing their first De­sire and Love, and so the more Insensible of these further Breakings forth of God's Power amongst them) under the more re­fined Form they have sat down in (and where the [Page 178] Lord in some Measure might have appeared to them) do they in this Day set themselves to War against the Light and Life of Christ within; For indeed it is a State too Inward, Self-less, and Spiritual for their Carnal Minds, that can only perform an Outward and Formal Worship, to arrive at. Now such being closely beset in their Fading and Dying Forms, and many on all hands, in whom there are any tender Desires after God's Invisible Presence, falling from them (like Men that seek themselves, and not the Lord) they are belabouring hard to prevent such a Separation from them; and indeed, they are grown so Dry & Barren of all Good, by their Opposition to the Lord's Truth, as now re­vealed among us▪ that they come to lose (with their former good Desires) their very Doctrine; And that which above all things was once most desirable to the better Sort of them) and applauded by all, is be­come a Theam for Scorn and Derision; I mean, WIT­NESSING.

Thomas Hicks, though an Anabaptist-Preacher, can­not abide to hear of Witnessing. He had as lieu meet with the Lye, Dial. p. 20, 25, 68, 72. Cont. p. 23. as Wit­nessing for an Answer. He commonly bestows Ignorance, Folly, or such like upon It for a Companion; And though another Return might be as easily found out by him, yet be­cause it may not so well suite the Scoffer and Prophane, WE WITNESS IT, is to go in its room. To which kind of Answer he usually replies, What is Thy [Page 179] Witnessing to Me? Do not put us off with your Witnessings, which signifie nothing to us. Thy Commands and Witnes­sing are much alike to me, with more of this kind.

My Friends, In the Love of God, that would have you redeemed and saved, I beseech you, turn away from such Blind Guides, their Paths are Darkness, and the End thereof Death; If ever you will know and worship God aright, you must come to the measure of his Spirit in you, that is given to convince the World of Sin, and you must know the Work there­of Experimentally in you, or your Souls perish for ever. My Friends, I have a great Stress upon me concerning you, would I could reach into every Soul of you, that you might be toucht with this true Testimony; for I know not more truly that God is, then that I feel him to be a Rewarder of every Man according to his Works; and such as Men sow they must reap. And truly, my Friends, Time pas­seth away apace, and the Day makes haste over you, if your Visitation be shut up in God's Withdraw­ing the Light of his Countenance (inwardly to be felt and known by such as turn to it) your Condition will be miserable for ever. I beseech you in the Bowels of the Love of Christ Jesus, unto whom this comes; Be Still, Cool and Moderate, let him in, whose Right it is; He will affect your Hearts, purifie your Souls, destroy your Enemies, and finally save you from Sin here, and Wrath to come; for to that End was he given a Light to lighten the Gentiles, and for Salvation to the Ends of the Earth. And hold no Communication with such Unsavory Persons as Thomas H [...]ks, a Man turn'd, I testifie, from the Grace of God in­to Dryness, and Wantonness, and Prejudice, who [Page 180] makes a Mock at Experience, and to whom the Weigh­ty Work of Witnessing is Matter of Derision. O the Ill Use he has made of Religion, and the Lamen­table End he is come and coming to! My Friends, get to Experience, get to Witnessing by all Means, and that with all Speed; for those who cannot witness God's Work and Will done in them to their Sanctification, shall never see Heaven; That is the Word of the Lord God of Life and Power, and it is sealed for ever. Ah! Life for your Souls, or you perish, which is only known in the Light; and ye must be born again, or you enter not into the Kingdom of God. No splen­did Shew, no Methodical Articles, no Outward Fellowships will serve turn; Friends, they will all stay behind, when you must go away once and for ever. Therefore be not Opposers of God's Work in your selves, nor others; but seek after Invisible Life for your Souls, that will go with you: And if you will believe in the Light, you shall not abide in Darkness, but shall have the Light of Life; which, bles­sed be God, we do Experience, yea, Thomas Hicks, we Witness it. And though thou hast bestowed much time to Abuse, Belye, Slander, and Traduce our Friends in general, and my self (a Stranger to thee) in particular, yet I can forgive thee, and the Lord is Record for me, I wish thy Salvation. O that these heavy things might not be layed to thy Charge [...] For, so sure as God liveth, Great will be the Wrath that shall follow; yea, God will visit for these Un­righteous Dealings: And I testifie to thee from God's Living Spirit, if thou desist not, and come not to deep Repentance, the Lord will make thee an Example of his Fury, and thy Head shall not go down [Page 181] to the Grave in Peace; and by this shalt thou know, that not a Lying, or Delusive, but a true and In­fallible Spirit hath spoken by me; yea, the Light within will bear Witness to the Truth of these things on thy Dying Bed; and then remember me. I wish well to all; I seek the Good of all; I have nothing in my Eye, but the Glory of my God, the Prosperity of his Truth, and the Salvation of all People, through their Belief in it, and Obedience to it. Wherefore my Heart is not discomforted, but I have Peace with him, whose Presence I feel, in which is Life to my Soul, Strength towards my Labours, S [...]pport under Sufferings, and a plentifull Reward for them all.

A Conclusive Supplication.

O Lord God! Plead thy own Cause, and the Innocency of thy own poor People. O Lord! Reach into the Consciences of all thy Enemies; Breath a Blast upon all their pleasant Shews; Stain the Glory of their Will-Worship; Bring them down, that thou mayst exalt them; Wound them, that thou mayst heal them; Break them, that thou mayst bind them up. O, that they may all Hunger and Thirst after thy Appearance; that thy Life, and Power, and Wisdom they may come to witness, that they may be all saved in this thy Day, O Lord, from every Barren Way, and from every Evil Work; that the Life of thy Pu [...]e Spirit may shine forth by them to thy Eternal Praise, who over all art worthy, who art God, Blessed forever, Amen.

Magna est Veritas, & Prevalet.
Great is the Truth, and it doth Prevail.

A Postscript of Complaint Against the Unfair Dealing of our Publick Enemies.

SInce God visited us by his Glorious Light, and that he Alarm'd, Q [...]icken [...]d a [...]d Ra [...]s'd us by his Almighty Power, that broke in upon our Hearts and Consciences to Discover Sin, wound for it, and redeem from under the Yoak of it, that our Religion might not stand i [...] Word and in Form only, but in Power and Life) But specially since our Out-cry against the Formality and Emptiness of the many Religions in the World, preaching the Necessity of Obedience to the daily Cross unto Salvation; many have been our Enemies, and those of divers sorts. What Stratagems they have used, may be better known when it shall be considered, what they have not used to our Destruction; Indeed [...]ew, or none: For if Lyes, Forgeries, Perversions, Mis-representati­ons, Aggravation of Invented Miscarriages would have done, we had not been now in the World: [Page 183] But God has preserved us to this day, and the Point of their Arrows have retorted upon them­selves, and the Hole they have digg'd for us, they have o [...]ten fallen into themselves; and our Pati [...]nce and Resolution will wear out their Envy a [...]d Cruelty.

Among other of their Essayes, Writing hath not been the least in Practice and Request. But this we have publickly to declare of, and that in a way of Just Complaint: Our Enemies multiply their Books against us; yet never answer our De­fences. The utmost of their Endeavours to­wards it, seems to end either in Cavilling, Per­verting, Mis-representing our Words and Meanings (rather disguising then confuting our Principles) or else inventing Error and Weakness in our Name, that they may the more easily convict us of both; though guilty of neither.

Since therefore they afford us no Just Dea­ling, but instead of weighing our Reasons, in Vindication of our so much decryed Way, seek to defame it, through Ignorance or Malice, or both; We thought it fit to let them know, that we have several Books already out, which contain a large & effectual Defence of our Prin­ciples and Practices, which we demand a serious Con­sideration of, and full Answer to, before we shall think our selves obliged to any further Tracts [Page 184] in our Vindication, then what have been alrea­dy writ, and which we are now in hand withal. For that we should so often defend our selves, and our Defences be neglected; and instead of an effectual Consideration of them, that they should fall to their old, and so often repell'd Charges and Accusations, as if they writ, not to have us clear our selves, nor yet that they would justifie their Mis-representations of us, by confuting our Apologies, but to be dirt and disguize us to the People, is most Unreasonable on their side, as well as that it would argue great Indis­cretion on ours, to follow them into every re­petitious Accusation. For our parts, we can never think our selves obliged to justifie our Principles so many times over against the same Charges, till our Answers have been better weighed: For as such Trouble would be almost endless; so in reality, it looks more like making us Work, then Refuting us. Besides, I must needs tell the World, the base Cowardize of this Ad­versary in hand; for we have offered him a free Meeting with his Books in our hands, proffering to refute them viva voce before the World; but instead thereof, or any other way (as several have been tendered) he disingenuously slincks away, and [...]uts us off by meer Shifts and Eva­sions: His Business is to write Dialogues, which [Page 185] he is sure to answer himself, and to back his For­geries with Lyes.

But avoiding all Party-Reflection, or any fur­ther Aggravation of this base Fear and Injustice too; we shall among the many Books writ by us in general in Defence of our Way we profess, lay these few upon the Heads of our several Adver­saries, as containing much of what can be said in behalf of our Principles and Practices.

1. Priests & Professors Principles, writ by G. Fox.

2. Rusticus ad Academicos, writ against J. Owen, R. Baxter, J. Tombs and T. Danson, by S. Fisher.

3. [...], writ against Bishop Gauden, by Samuel Fisher.

4. Edward Burroughs's Works.

5. The Divinity of Christ, &c. writ against J. Owen, T. Danson, T. Vincent, W. Maddox, by G.W.

6. Oaths no Gospel-Ordinance, against A. Smalwood, writ by Francis Howgil.

7. The Great Case of Tythes, by Francis Howgil.

8. Immediate Revelation, &c. writ by Geo. Keith.

9. The Serious Apology, &c. writ against T. Taylor and T. Jenner, by G. Whitehead and W. Penn.

10. The Nature of Christianity, &c. writ against R. Gorden, by G. Whitehead.

11. Christ Ascended, &c. writ against J. New­man, by G. Whitehead.

[Page 186]12. The Light and Life of Christ within, &c. writ against W. Burnet, by G. Whitehead.

13. No Cross, no Crown, &c. writ by W. Penn.

14. The Spirit of Truth Vindicated, &c. writ against the Socinians, by W. Penn.

15. Quakerism a New Nick-Name for Old Christia­nity, &c. writ against J. Faldo, by W. Penn.

16. The Christian-Quaker, &c. writ against the Strength of all our many Adversaries in gene­ral, and several of them in particular; divi­ded into two Parts, the first by W. Penn, the second by G. Whitehead.

These, with our present Discourse, let them answer; and if they have any thing that's new to offer, we shall, we hope, by God's Assistance, freely and faithfully consider it; otherwise let Shame cover the Face of our Enemies for their Unjust Out-cries and Base Forgeries against us, whom they cannot by Reason silence, nor sober Argument confute.

AN APPENDIX: Being ſ …

AN APPENDIX: Being some SOBER and SHORT ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Certain Passages in Tho. Hicks's Dialogue and Continuation of the Dialogue; by which his Ʋnchristian Spirit is further Detected to the WORLD. Also a Collection of those Doctrines and Princi­ples, which have been chiefly Controverted be­tween us, Granted and Confest to by our pre­sent Opposer Thomas Hicks, and others of the Baptists Perswasion Drawing the Present Controversie to an End.

By George Whitehead.

His Mischief shall return upon his own Head,

Psal. 7.16.

Printed in the Year, 1673.

Moderate Reader,

IF any of these our present Opposers, to wit (some angry Anabaptists, and traducing Dippers) be minded to Quarrel and Scold at us for the Last Word or Pamphlet, I do not think it any Dispa­ragement to our Religion, nor any Lessening of our Christian Reputation, if they should have the Last Word, and we should mutely sleight their Revilings; but as yet we have a Necessity on us, both for True Religion and Christianity's sake, to manifest to the World their Abuse of both; together with the Envious, Lying, Perverse and Abusive Spirit, that appears in their Scornful, Irreligious Agent Thomas Hicks (who will bring no Honour to them, nor their Religion, but Disgrace) who hath forged up a second Dialogue to render the True Quaker no Christi­an, but the most implacable Enemy to the Christian Religion. p. 68. and hath therein im­proved his Study to render us Odious, and not in any serious o [...] solid way of Treatise to answer our Principles, but with a bundle of impertinent Introro­gatories, Cavils, Scoffs, Jeers, Flouts, Forgeries, malitious Revilings, perverting our Words, in divers places mistaking them for his own Malitious Dsiegn, to render us, our Sufferings and Consciences [Page 4] Odious and Contemptible; and to destroy our Repu­tations both as Men and Christians, as appears in the whole Tenour of his Work in these two Pamphlets, and as may be seen particularly in the 67, 68, 69. pages of his Continuation. And to conclude his Work, as one consciously Jealous of what he had done, that he might be detected; for Prevention, and to keep us mute, he gives us a kind of severe Threat, saying,pag. 88. I have been sparing touching your Practices, horrid Enormities raigning, &c. if therefore you will provoke me to speak all I can, either respecting your Opi­nions or Practices, blame me not, &c. They that have read his Dialogues, may judge, how sparing he hath been; and if we were guilty of horrid Enormi­mities or Immora [...]lities, what Mercy we should have from such Judges as he, who is thus liable and ready to be provoked. But as we expect no Christian-Dea­ling nor that Charity from him which is not easie to be provoked; so his Threats shall not deter us from ma­king our Just & Christian Defence on Truth [...]s behalf, a [...] such Malitious Forgers and Perverters, whilst n [...] [...]ve the Testimony of a good Conscience to plead, and a holy Confidence in God's eternal pow [...]rful Truth, which shall out live all the Emnity of its Adversaries, wherein they fret and we [...]ry themselves for very Va­nity, who have conceived Chaff, and brought forth Stubble; they have travelled in Pain, and brought [Page 5] forth a Lye, whose own Breath as Fire shall devour them, and they shall be caught in their own Snares, and fall into the Pit, which they have digged. Observe, that Ingenuous Disputants or Contenders (especially for Christianity) will diligently take notice of the ve­ry Strength & Stress of their Opponents Objections and Arguments, and endeavour their Conviction by a candid and fair Answer; but instead thereof the Di­alogue-Man frames Objections and Interrogatories in the Christian's Name with what Subtilty he can, and feigns Answers in the Quaker's Name as silly, feeble and contemptible as he can (together with gross Calumnies and manifest Slanders) to render them Ridiculous and Odious, passing by the Strength of their Arguments, and perverting both their Words and Intentions in their Books against their Opposers, par­ticularly those of his Party: therefore while he pre­tends, that all he intends is only our Conviction and Recovery, he is guilty of gross Hypocrisie and Falshood, as in the Sequel will surther appear.

Ʋnprejudiced Readers,

LEt it be observed, that after Thomas Hicks hath pretended faithfully to represent some of the chief Opinions of the Quakers in his first Dia­logue (T [...]tle Page [...] And in his second to give a more full Relation of their Dangerous Tenets.

Continuation Epist. pag 2. He saith, The Doctrines delivered by them 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 Thickets of Absurd, Inexplica­ble and Ʋnintelligible Dotages. Epist.

How plain is it, that the Absurdity and Dotage (yea, and Falshood) is his own, let the Rational Reader judge in his pretending Faithfully to Repre­sent those Opinions and Tenets, which he confesses neither themselves, nor any for them (excluding himself with all others) can give a distinct and intel­ligible Account of; and that they are inexplicable, I do not so much regard his absurd Lye herein, as take notice how Inconsistent, Fruitless and Absurd his Work against us is. But why can neither themselves, nor any else, give a distinct and intelligible Account of their Doctrines? If you'le believe him, he saith, They talk like Mad-Men, as having lost their Common Reason▪ and were absol [...]tely Infatuated, Cont. p. 67. and would make the World beli [...]ve, as if they were either Distract [...]d or [...]orse p. 70. and saith, That scarce a Man that reads W. Penn, but thinks him to be [Page 7] either Distracted or worse, p. 87. Surely, if this Man believed all this of us, he would not perplex and trouble himself with so much Studying and Scrib­ling against us, as he doth; his Vexation and Tor­ment would not encrease, as it doth: What! Mad-men? absolutely Infatuated? Distracted, or worse? and yet their Doctrines and Tenets Dangerous? How can this be? especially if neither Intelligible nor Ex­plicable? His Lye against W.P. is so apparent, that all in their Wits, who read him, may see it: O T. Hicks! why hadst thou not so much Wit as to have hid thy Folly in Silence?

Thy Prayer is, The Lord in Mercy vouchsafe to us (in this Hour of Tryal, wherein the Spirit of Error doth so fearfully prevail) that his Holy Truth may shine out, &c. Epist. [Shine out] Must not that be in Man's Conscience then? How agrees this with his opposing the Light within as a Rule? By [Spirit of Error] no doubt but he means the Spirit of the Quakers; But what need this Hour of Tryal thereby come so near him, or he fear its prevalency with Errors, if it appear in such Distraction, and so unintelligible and inexplicable therein, as he renders it? But how Mad and Distracted soever he represents us, his cha­rity and pretended Christianity leads him not to pitty us, but grosly to Revile, Slander and Abuse us, both as Men and as Professors of Religion: His Malice cannot enough vent it self against us by counting us Mad-Men, absolutely Infatuated, Distra­cted, &c. but also Cheats, Wicked or Vile Impo­stors, Monsters in Religion, Dissemblers, Prophane, Im­moral, Knave, Impudent Fellow, and guilty of Decei [...] and Hypocrisie, Equivocation, Idle Pra [...]ing, Horri [...] [Page 8] Blasphemy, Arrogance, little Respect to Magistrate [...], Wilful Lying, Vile Hypocrisie and Deceit, the most Im­placable Enemies to the Christian Religion, as Vile Impo­stors as ever were, Destructive to all Humane Society, Horrid Enormities, &c. But how well this kind of t [...]a [...]i [...] us with most Calumnious Reviling agrees ei­t [...]e [...] with his Accusation before, of Mad Men, Distra­cted, &c o [...] [...]ith his Pretence to Meekness and Fear, p. 3 [...]. Scripture Language and Terms, p. 38. or with his intending only our Conviction and Recovery, let all sober Readers judge: we are sure, that this Way of Des [...]ming, rendering a People so grosly Odious to the Nation, and Obnoxious to the Powers, is not the Way either to convince or recover them, if de­ceitved or mis-guided; much less to Belye and Slan­der them in Matters wherein they know themselves clear, as he hath done by us. As when we declare ou [...] Faith in a Matter, and give as plain and sincere An­swers as we can, & that according to plain Scripture, he tells us, We do notoriously Equivocate and Dissemble, p. 54 & that we do not in truth believe what we perswade ma­ny well-meaning People we do, p. 69. Such is the mea­sure we meet withal from this Malitious Accuser, who most falsly presumes to be a Judge of our Minds and Intentions, contrary to what we in Plainness express▪ wherein our Consciences bear us Reco [...]d in the Sight of God, he grosly belyes us; and the De­ceit and Falshood lies upon himself, and he cannot wash his hands of it. He told us in his Dialogue, p 90. That if the Quakers return him the Common An­swer, that they are Lyes and Slanders, and that he is an Envious, Railing Man; To the first he should not think himself concerned to give any Reply, because he is fully [Page 9] satisfied, &c. Upon which (as I had sufficient Ground) I did charge him with being Guilty of [...]oth Lyes and Slanders against the Quakers, of which [...]instanced Seven, Dipper Plung. pag. 16, 17. Not­withstanding he hath promised, he should not think himself concerned to give any Reply on this Occasion; yet he hath not only written a second Dialogue Which if it must be taken for any Reply, he hath broken his Pro­mise; but if no Reply, then it clears him not. to vindicate himself from b [...]ing a Slanderer and a For­ger; but for [...]roof of his own Lyes and Forgeries hath added more against us. And for the most [...]art of his Contradictions, I char­ged against him in the said Dipper [...]lung'd, he has not so much as made [...]n Essay to reconcile them: Neither has his Brother V. Kiffin, nor any else of his Brethren appeared in [...]rint, either to vindicate or excuse him, though rferred to therein; but he must either stand solely [...]on his own Legs, or fall. In that they do some­what Wisely and Warily, but neither Prudently, [...]r like Christians, to suffer their Brother Hicks, thus Headily and Out-ragiously to persist in his Perverse Spirt to Clamour, Vilifie, Reproach and De­fame both particular Men, and a Body of People fearing God, together with their Religion and Suf­ferings; nor will he Grace the Anabaptists Cause with [...]is Defaming Pamphlets, nor they in sprea­ding them, being patcht up with both Lyes and Falshood.

Be it further observed, That Tho. Hicks would perswade the Reader of his Honesty and Conscien­ciousness, touching his Work against us, in his see­ming [Page 10] Solemn Appeal, Epist. p. 2, saying, God forbid, that I should be guilty of such vile Injustice, as to charge them with false things; Examine the Quotations, and th [...] judge.

He would make the World believe, he is very Just; But let us try him (though he be fully han­dled before) if he be not guilty of such vile Injustice, as he mentions.

Where he saith, The Holy Scriptures are esteemed by them (viz. the Quakers) inferiou [...] to their own Pamphlets; These are both Abomina­ble Lyes. yea, they render them to be of no more A [...] ­thority, then the Fables of Aeso [...], Epist.

Where are his Quotations from the Quakers, that they thus render the Holy Scriptures? He refers us to none at all; I charge him with an Abominalle Slander, Vile Injustice and Gross Deceit in th [...]: And we utterly Disown and Abominate such an Un­dervaluing Comparison of the Holy Scriptures, as here he hath accused us of. O seared Conscience to appeal to God, as one not guilty of such vile Injust [...]ce, as that of charging us with false things, and refer the Reader to Examine the Quotations, when here [...]s not one Quotation, nor the colour of one, that the Qua­kers did ever thus speak of, or render the Holy Scrip­tures to be of no more Authority, then the Fables of Ae­sop. What will not Envy and Wickedness had this Man to say against us? Doth this agree with [...]is Pre­tence, That all he intended, was only our Conviction and Recovery? Dial. p. 10. Is it not rather to do us what Injury and Mischief he can by Slanders and For­geries?

[Page 11] Tho. Hicks's Charge against Nicolas Lucas, viz.

That N.L. a Real Quaker, was moved to declare his Mind thus (to one I know very well Where is his Quotation for the Reader to Examine here?) Thou mayst burn thy Bi­ble, and when that is done, thou mayst serve God as well without it; and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture, thou mayst write as good a one thy self.

N.L's Answer follows.

These words (whereof T. Hicks hath thus pub­lickly and positively accused me, and that divers times over in his Pamphlet) were never spoken by me, nor was it ever my Principle, Way or Moti­on, to Dis-esteem, Undervalue or speak evil of the Holy Scriptures; for I really believe, that Holy Men of God spake them forth as moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore this Charge against me is an Abominable Lye, and Wicked Slander: And with a clear Consience I speak it, I do neither know nor remember, that ever any words past from me, whereby Tho. Hicks could so much as colour this Lye and Slander against me. And I cannot but look upon my self to be greatly Injur'd and Abus'd by T.H. until he, o [...] his Brethren do me Right in this thing, in as publick a Manner to the World, as he hath done me Wrong. Which i [...] they do not, I commit my Cause to God to judge between us, and clear my Innocency herein.

Nicolas Lucas.

[Page 12]Whereas Nicolas Lucas was referr'd to Owen Hor­ton and his Wife for Proof of Tho. Hicks's Charge before, to whom Nicolas spoke about it, and she referr'd her self to Hen. Stout to witness the Charge, to which Hen. Stout answers thus, viz:

I Hen. Stout of Hertford never in all my dayes heard Nicolas Lucas speak the Words (nor any of the like Import or Tendency as) charged on him before, nor any Man else, before Tho. Hicks, that I can call to mind; But am satisfied in my Consci­ence, that he hath most grosly Wronged Nicolas Lucas.

To which I subscribe H. Stout.

Another Accusation is, viz. That S. Eccles, dis­coursing with a Friend of his in London, told him, The Scriptures were a Lye. But that this may appear a very likely Lye against S.E. he adds, 'Twas reply­ed, Why then dost thou mention them that? The Quaker answer'd, To silence thee.

That he should say, the Scriptures were a Lye, or that he made use of a Lye to silence his Opposer, ap­pears a most absurd Slander: and where is his Quo­tation the Reader must examine for Proof? Hath he not here Abused his Reader? But let S. Eccles's own Words clear him of this Lye and Slander.

In his Book Mus. Lect. he often cites the Scrip­tures, calls them, ‘The Holy Scriptures, pag. 13. Thou that sayst, the Quakers deny the Scriptures, belyest the Innocent, pag. 20. Do not belye the Scriptures, nor the Spirit that gave it forth; for [Page 13] Holy Men wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, pag. 22.’

Whereas Tho. Hicks begins his Continuation thus:


I have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures, the Light Within, the Person of Christ, and the Resurrection, &c. I presume, by this time you have considered, what say you thereun­to?

(To this he feigns the Answer thus, viz.)


I say, the Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee. G. Whitehead.


I testifie against this as a Fiction; for this was not my Answer, neither has he referred us to any Quotations of mine; though upon this he is pleased to accuse me with Passion, Furious Replies and Sarcasms for his own Fiction, to which he hath counterfeited my Name: I question not but the Judgments of God will follow him, and such For­gers and Spreaders of Lyes. But that was not my Answer to the said Objection: This Dialogue-Man's Liberty in these Forgeries, and silly Botcheries is nei­ther Christian, nor Civil.

As to what he sayes pag. 3. I answer:

1. That the Life, which is the Light of Men, John 1. is not a Creature, but Divine, and of the very Being of God, I still affirm, and have else-where pro­ved; though the whole Essence or Being of God is not contained in Man, yet enlightens all Men. And

2. That the Inward Speaking or Living Mini­stration of the Spirit of Truth, is of greater Au­thority then the Scriptures or Writings in the Ab­stract.

[Page 14]3. S. Crisp doth own the True and Real Christ, the Son of the Living God (in his Spiritual Divine Being) to be without either Beginning, Date, or End. This he hath fully answered else-where.

4. That the Soul, or Spirit of Man (as it relates to the Creaturely Being) is a distinct Being from the Infinite Being of God, and is not properly a Part of God. For he is not divided into Parts or Parti­cles; but with respect to its Original Life, where­by it immortally subsists, we are God's Off-spring, and the Breath of Life, or Immediate Inspiration of God (by which Man became a Living Soul) or the Original Life of Man's Soul. Of this G.F. spoke, when he said, Is not that of God, which cometh out from God? viz. the Breath of Life? His words are perverted and mis-cited by T.H. For in another Consideration and State he owns the Infinite Being of God, and the Soul or Spirit of Man to be distinct Beings, where he speaks of the Soul being in Death, in Transgression, Man's Spirit Ʋnsanctified, the Soul being in Death, Transgressing the Law, see Great Myst. p. 91. This he could never intend or speak of the Infinite, Incorruptible Being of God; for that ne­ver sinned.

5. That G.W. denies the Resurrection of the Body (that is, of the Dead, or any Body at all) is false; nor is this prov'd against G.W. from his Saying, Thou sowest not the Body that shall be, it's raised a Spi­ritual Body, and Flesh & Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. 1. Cor. 15. And T.H. may as well charge it upon the Apostle, and upon his Bro­ther Tho. Collier, who in his Marrow of Christianity p. 40, 94, 95. plainly saith, The Form, in which they shall [Page 15] be raised, that is in a Spiritual Form, not in a Fleshly &c. All Flesh shall be swallowed up in Spirit; and our Body shall be changed and made like his glorious Body. But Tho. Hicks plainly contradicts him saying, That the Apostles and all true Christians say, This Body of Flesh and Bones shall rise again. Dial. p. 59, 60. which he could never yet prove.

The Contradiction I placed upon T. Hicks was not between his Denying the Light within to be a Sufficient Rule, and his Granting, it ought to be obeyed (as he falsly states it, Contin. p. 8.) but between his Saying, the Light within (which we attend to) hath in many things misguided thee, and his granting, it ought to be obeyed, appealing to it; See Dip. plung. p. 5. Is that which ought to be obeyed (or appealed to in things relating to Salvation) a misguiding Light?

T.H. his Comparison between those Signs wrought by the Light within, and what is spoken of the Man of Sin, 2 Thess. 2, 9. or that what we have said thereof may as well prove Mahomet to be the true Christ as the Light within. Dial. p. 11.12. — I say, still this is Blasphemy, and contradicted by T.H. himself in his Saying, that Christ is the Life and Light of Men, Dial. p. 22. Of which Contradiction he takes no notice, but abuseth and accuseth me with Deceit and Falshood.

His sleighting our Obeying the Commands of the Living Eternal Word in us, and reflecting upon our owning Jesus Christ, as being with such a mental and mystical Reservation (as he falsly saith) which that it is no other than a meer Mystical Romance, Dial. p. 10. and now (to mend the Matter) that the Christ we own is no other then a Mystical Romance. Herein I must [Page 16] still look upon him to have acted the Prophane Ro­mancer, and Irreligious Miscreant: And the Condem­nation and Deceit he would cast upon me falls on his own Head, and not mine. I speak my Consci­ence; We attending upon the Light of Jesus Christ in us, it naturally, leads us to know and own Him, who is our Life and Light; whom to call a Mystical Romance, is Horrible Blasphemy.

He puts me off at an easie Rate, when he saith, Th [...]se other things are so frivolous, that I think [...]hem not worth any Reply, Contin. p. 9. Will this reconcile his many Contradictions, which I have jus [...]ly char­ged him with in his own words? He hath only see­med to take notice of one before, and that he has fals­ly stated, as is hinted.

Why should he charge me with affirming the Light within to be the Divine Essence, p. 10. (though they are not my words) when he himself has confessed, Christ to be the Light and Life of Men? And Philip Bennit, whose Queries are cited, and commended by him, confesseth Query 17. That Christ, in respect of his Divine Nature, is in all Places, p 34. What sayest thou T.H. to this? Dost thou not believe this? If not, why didst thou cite it without opposing it?

It was never my Assertion, that the Principle of Divine Light within is but an Effect of Power, or Thing made, as thou beggest the Question, in cal­ling the Light within but an Effect, or meer Creature, Dial. p. 3, 4, 46. but that God's Immediate Illumina­tion or In-shining is a Natural Effect, flowing from himself; which therefore is Divine. I never could intend (much less affirm) that all kinds of Ef­fects were in every Respect such as the Cause, though [Page 17] in some sense they are: but God's Immediate Illumi­nation, or Shining in Man, is Natural to himself, and so Divine, as the Effects of the Law written in the Gentiles Hearts were agreeable and natural to the Law it self, which is Spiritual, Holy, Just and Good; and so were the Effects.

His Proof (that we deny the Person of Christ without us) is ve [...] lame, being from something he would lay hold on, since he did first so accuse us, and that is, Jesus Christ a Person without us is not Scripture-Language, pag. 10. Mark, here he va [...]ies f [...]m the Person of Christ, to Jesus Christ a Person without us; wherein he has also va [...] in his own words in [...]is first Dialogue, p. 9. Jesus Christ, God-Man, a Person without thee—Which Phrase I did and do say is not Scripture-Language, but the Anthropomorphites, who prosest a Personal God, denying him to be an Infinite Spirit: Doth it therefore follow, that I deny the Man Christ Jesus, in his Being either without or within us? But T.H. his words, God-Man, a Per­son without thee, equally excluding God under the Li­mitation of Man and Person without us, he is pleased now to leave out the word God-Man, and to accuse us of Denying the Person of Christ without us; he should have explained what he means by the Word PERSON; for though we are not satisfied with the Words before, being Unscriptural, this is no Denying of Jesus Christ in his being either as with­out us or within us; We confessing, that he is as­cended into Glory far above all Heavens, and that he is at the Father's Right Hand of Power in his Glorious Being—which yet doth not exclude or li­mit him from being within us.

[Page 18] Of Election T.H. saith, viz. Why art thou so much concerned about Election, who believes no such thing of Persons, either absolute or Conditional? That Election you generally hold, is only of the Seed, which is Christ himself, p. 11.

He sayes, I do not know his Belief in this Mat­ter; but I am sure, he mistakes our's. If he coun­teth us in Error, he should have informed (and not reproacht) us. Though we own, That God's Election or Choice is originally of and in the Seed, (Behold mine Elect. &c. Isa. 42.) yet this also ex­tends to Men and Women, as chosen in him through Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief of the Truth; I have chosen you out of the World, saith Christ; The Saints are a chosen Generation. But an Eternal, Absolute, Personal Election or Reprobation, as held by some Predestinarian Anabaptists, and others, I own not; nor a Perpetual Hatred to particular Persons, as absolutely and unchangeably designed of God f [...]om all Eternity: but that in the first place God's Free Love and Saving Grace is free to all Mankind, till Men rej [...]ct it. He calls all Men to Repentance, tenders Life and Salvation in his Son to all, and condemns none upon meer Will and Pleasure, but for Unbelief and Rebellion, which God is not the Author of. If T.H. deem us in Er­ror herein, he should have Informed (and not Re­viled and Abused) us.

And seeing he often in his Continuation mentions Election, without explaining his Belief therein (if he have any settled Belief in the Point) I ask him▪

1. First, Whether doth he not intend it as abso­lutely [Page 19] designed, and unchangeably decreed of God from Eternity to particular Persons?

2. Whether this be not one main Ground of his and some others consining, or limiting Saving Grace, or Divine Light, to such a narrow Com­pass as only afforded of God to a few particular Persons?

3. How should I believe, that God doth not af­ford a Divine or Saving Light to every Man (but only to some few) or that the Light within, that is given to every Man, is but a meer Creature, Natu­ral, Ʋncertain, Variable, and no Sufficient Rule to di­rect to God, unless it can be proved unto me, Ei­ther that God hath from all Eternity, particularly and absolutely designed and decreed the Eternal De­struction of (and Hatred to) the greater part of Mankind, or the Passing them by (with Displea­sure) for that End?

Whereas T.H. quotes me for saying: That I can­not believe, that he (Christ;) hath a Personal Being at the right hand of God without all Men, To this he sub­scribed G. Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 18.

Those are not my Words, he hath falsly ci­ted them: but these are mine, ‘I cannot believe his Body to be a Carnal Body in Heaven, or that he consists of a Carnal Existence. See Christ Ascended p. 18.

It seems, that by [Personal Being] he means such a Carnal Body; but he doth not vindicate his Bro­ther Newman his asserting Christ to be a Body of Flesh and Blood in Heaven, a Personal Being at the right Hand of God, without all Men remote &c. and this to prove, [Page 20] that Christ doth not dwell in any Man. Which I op­posed. The [...]o [...]ition as U [...]scriptural, the Conse­quence as false, as not only confining and limiting Christ from his Saints, but God and his right hand also unto a remoteness from his Temple (how then doth his Right Hand save and uphold us?) In all which th [...]se Baptists shew their too carnal and mean Th [...]ughts of Jesus Christ (as in Glory) and of God, and is right hand of Power, wherein they are ful­ly answered, as also about Christ's Second Coming to Salvation. Christ ascended. p. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 24, and 69

But when T.H. can neither vindicate his Bro­ther Newman's Limitation or Confinement put upon Christ and G [...]'s Right Hand, nor answer my Objections against him▪ he Queries, viz. Is Christ no [...]t [...]rw sc [...] God's Right Hand, then as he is in you p. 43. and wi [...]h this agrees the Socinians If T.H. did not pick and call out of our Adversaries Book [...] [...]o [...] t [...] his Butchery [...]gainst us, but [...]. In partial­ly Mo [...]rate, we should have fairer Deali [...]g [...] than we have from [...]im. false: Inference drawn from my Words, Controversie ended p. 48.49. his Words are, It seems then that Jesus Christ is no other­wise in Heaven, then he is in the Saints, which is as false, as his Saying, that we do absolutely deny Christ to be a Man, p. 47. herein both the Water-Baptist & Socinian have drawn a false Inference upon my Objection; for though I [...] that Christs being in Glory at God's r [...]th [...]d of Power is no Proof, that he is not in Man [...] is [...] be proved that God, and his right hand are [...] only to a remoteness from all Men, [Page 21] and so that he is not Infinite God, or that his right hand is meerly to be taken Literally, as a Man's hand) It follows not that I intend, that Jesus Christ is not otherwise in Heaven at God's right hand then as in the Saints on Earth; for his Exaltation and Glory (into which he is ascended not only into the Heavens, but far above the Heavens) Trans­cends that Degree attained in these Suffering Earthly Tabernacles; his inaccessible Glory is a­bove Men and Angels, above all Suffering Natures and Conditions; he is made higher then the Heavens, in all things hath the Preheminence, yet not excluded nor limited from his People (so far as they are made capable to receive him) nor from being touch­ed with the feeling of their Infirmities.

And it is said, whilst we are at home (or Stran­gers) in the Body, we are absent from the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. which though it cannot be as remotely sepa­rate from his Presence, yet in Comparison of that more Full and Glorious Enjoyment, that we shall have of him when absent from the Body, there is a Degree of Absence while Strangers in the Bo­dy, howbeit by Faith, whereby we now walk, we have both a living Knowledge and Enjoyment of him, and walk with him, being the Sons of God, though it appears not what we shall be.

The Socinian tells u [...] of a Personal Christ; Con. End. Pag 47. and that the Man Jesus, our Lord (although he is the Eternal God, has in Heaven a place remote from Earth, a Humane Body p 49.

But doth he believe, that Jesus Christ is the Eternal God? I cannot think it while he imagins him to be a Personal Christ or Humane Body so [...]ted or con­fined into a Remoteness,

[Page 22]But seeing these Anabaptists & Socinians do so much concur in their opposing us, because we cannot own their Limitations, and Unscriptural Terms about Christ's Being. I ask both the Author of Controversie Ended, and Tho Hicks, If they really believe, that Jesus Christ is a Humane Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and in that Sense a Personal Being, not in Man, accor­ding to J. Newman? or that he consists of a Humane Bo­dy of Flesh and Bones, according to Henry Grigg in his Light from the Sun, p. 30, 31.33? But is it good Doctrine to say, that his Glorious Body that we shall be fashioned like unto, is a Humane Body? If in th [...]se things they agree, as they seem to do, then doth it not follow, that they must concur in the Consequences, viz That though they own three di­stinct Persons in the Deity, yet not Coeternal Persons, but that Jesus Christ is a meer Creature, a Personal Be­ing, or Humane Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and therein limited? But if Socinians do not look upon Christ's Personal Being in that gross Sense, but ra­ther with respect to his Spiritual Existence, then is not Christ confined to a Remoteness, from the Saints; for they have received of the Spirit of the Son, but then what mean these Men by Humane Body in Hea­ven? Is not Humane Body an Earthly Body? Hence it seems we must look upon Personal Being as applica­ble to the Father, Son and Spirit in a different Sense, viz. 1. To the Being of God. 2. To the Being of Christ as a Creature. 3. Else to the Body that he took upon him in time, whereas Christ the Son of God, who took upon him that Body, that was pre­pared for him, did pre-exist (or was before) that Bo­dy, and therefore he himself consists not of such a Personal, Created Being, or Humane gross Body, [Page 23] as is limitable like our Earthly Bodies (the Asserters of a Trinity of three distinct Persons, do not call them so many Personal Beings, but distinguish the Personallity from the Being) and though Christ was made a little lower then the Angels in his Suffe­ring State in the dayes of his Flesh on Earth, yet he is above Angels in his Glorified Estate, and surely then his Glorious Being and Body must not be infe­riour to their's.

If T.H. would strictly limit us to confess our Creed in his terms, 'tis meet they should be strictly defined and he to be at some Certainty without va­rying therein, as from [Jesus Christ, God Man, a Person without thee] to [Jesus Christ hath a Personal Being at God's Right Hand without us] (I question, whether he rightly knows either what Person, Be­ing, Essence or Substance is) In the first he concludes God as well as Man under the Limitation of Person without, in the second that Christ hath a Personal Be­ing without us; how then doth God and Christ con­sist thereof? or is that Personal Being? But if by [Personal Being] he intends an Intelligent Being, or Rational Substance, I grant, Christ is such a Being or Substance: or if by Personal Being he means, a Body distinct from our's, I believe, he hath a Spiritual Glorious Body, distinct from all these Earthly Sublu­nary Bodies.

But for T.H. he hath as little Knowledg of Christ's Personal Being (as he calls it) in Heaven, as he hath Scripture for this Phrase, or Faith in his Light with­in, if by Personal Being he means the Manhood of Christ, our confessing the Man Christ as Mediator, is sufficiently evinced, and the Socinian clears me [Page 24] in his Controversie Ended, pag. 50. where he saith, Geo. Whitehead useth the word Manhood, viz. he took upon him the Manhood in time.

Is the Heavens that must retain him only the Hearts of Men? p 43.

It is not the Heavens must retain him, but whom the Heaven must receive, &c. Acts 3.21. and this is above and larger then the Hearts of Men. Where proves he by Scripture, that Christ's Second Coming without Sin to Salvation is a Personal Coming? while he an­swers not this, he sayes nothing to purpose about it, p. 43, 44. and answers not what I have writ, Christ Ascended, p. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

But is it a Contradiction in me to confess, that Christ arose with the same Body that was Crucified and put to Death, and that he ascended into Glory, and yet either to say, that I cannot believe his Body to be a Carnal Body in Heaven; and these words are not Scripture-Language, viz. to say, that Christ is a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, a Personal Being at God's Right Hand, remote, and not in Man; or that his Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation is seen Spiritually, not Carnally; and that they are like to be disappointed of their Hope and Expectation, who are expecting, that Christ's Second Coming or Appearance to Salvation will be such a Personal Co­ming, and his Reign a Personal Reign? The Belie­vers in the primitive Christians dayes, who looked for him,Heb. 9.28. were not thus dis­appointed of their Hopes and Expectations.

But to say, I cannot believe that Christ ascended [...] the same Body which rose from the Dead &c. p.44. [...] one of my Words, though he cites them for [Page 25] mine, O gross Forgery! [...] then to infer upon is that I did but dissemble in the first, viz. in saying, ‘that Christ arose with the same Body that was cru­cified and put to Death, and that he ascended into Glory.’ God, who knows my Sincerity, will judge this Forger of Falsh [...]ds and Slanders against me! & my Conscience bears me Record in the Sight of God, I speak my Belief sincer [...]ly, without Dis­simulation.

Touching the Body of Christ, he answers not the Objection he layes down in my name, viz. Where doth the Scripture say, that Christ's Glorified Body in Hea­ven is of an Humane Nature? p. 45.

Whereas T.H. queries, Doth not the Scripture say, that the same Jesus that went away, shall in like manner come again, Acts 1.10, 11. And then frames the Answer for us thus, viz.


I deny he shall come visibly; and though it be said in like manner, yet every like is not the same. And to this he subscribes Whitehead, pag. 22. of Christ Ascended.

And then for Answer saith, Is not this a plain De­nyal of the Second Personal Coming of Christ, Contin. p 43.

To all which I answer, In his subscribing my Name to these as my words, viz. that I deny he shall come visibly, he hath abused me and my Name with a Forgery of his own, they are not my words. But I quoting Rev. 1.7, 8, 13, 14, 16. about Christ's Ap­pearance, I said, In none of which is Jesus Christ called a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones visibly to come again; but that he is Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, vers. 11. he proves not by Scrip­ture, [Page 26] that Christ's Second Coming to Salvation is such a Personal Coming, as he imagins; but in like manner he shall come again. Its true, I said, every like Manner is not the very same, nor all Clouds the same, Christ Ascend. p. 22, 23. and therein I would be understood, that though I own Christ's Coming a­gain the second time to Salvation as certain and ma­nifest, as he was seen to ascend, when the Cloud re­ceived him out of their Sight, who stood gazing up into Heaven; yet he after that came again, and signally appeared variously to divers, and in a more glorious Manner then he was seen to ascend; for he ascended into Glory, which his Coming again doth not divest him of: and he shall be universally seen to some Men's Terror and Sorrow, and to others great Comfort and Joy. To Paul he appeared in a Hea­venly Vision or Light from Heaven above the Brightness of the Sun, in so much that he fell down to the Earth, and was without sight for three dayes; So that he could not stand gazing at his Coming, as the Men of Gallilee did at his ascending. And when John was in the Spirit, he appeared to him, so that his Eyes were as a Flame of Fire, his Countenance as the Sun shineth in his Strength; insomuch that he said, When I saw him, I fell at his Feet as Dead, Rev. 1.13, 14, 15, 16, 17. So that John could not stand gazing at this Appearance, which is like unto the Angel's Appearance unto Daniel in his great Vi­sion, insomuch that he said, there remained no Strength in me, see Dan. 10 5, 6, 7, 8. compared with Rev. 1.13, 14, 15, 16, 17. And I must own Christ's Coming universally in his Kingdom, and the Glory of his Father to be after a more Transcendent Manner and [Page 27] Higher Glory, then Men shall be able to stand Ga­zing at, as they did at his Ascension; And must con­clude, that 'tis a Design of Satan, to keep some Men in Carnal Imaginations, and dark Thoughts of an Humane Personal Christ, consisting either of Flesh, Blood and Bones like theirs, or of Flesh and Bones with­out Blood; and so of God's Right Hand, as limited to that Remoteness, that they neglect to wait for Christ's Inward and Spiritual Appearance, and the Know­ledge of God's Right Hand near them, to save a [...]d preserve them from Sin and Death; In this the E­nemy hath deceived them, and the Devil blinded them from the Spiritual and Saving Knowledge of Christ, and his coming in his Kingdom.

But why must I be counted guilty of vile Hypo­crisie? Is it for saying, Every Man has not the Son that is revealedly and unitedly in Possession, which was my very Intent) and yet a Light of the Son appears in every Man in some degree? or for denying that this Light is a meer Creature, and asserting, that in him was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men; and this Life and Light is Divine and Increated, In what Sense Christ is in Man, and in what not, is explained, Serious Apology, p. 35. Nat. Christ. p. 49. p. 46, 47. I am still of the same Mind; and though the Man repeats some of my Words, he hath brought me no Argument to Convince me, that this Life, which is the Light of Men, is but a meer Creature; But if it be Divine and Increated, he takes it for granted it must needs be Christ; And let it be so then, if it must either be a meer Creature, or else Christ (though he is not revealedly in every Man, neither do Re­probates [Page 28] know Christ in them; and he that hates his Brother hath no Eternal Life abiding in him.)

Well, I affirm then, that there is an Immediate, Di­vine Light of God and Christ in every Man (to which their Minds, Reason and Understandings are to be directed) and thus far, or in this sense, God and Christ is in all, and through all, even in them, who yet know him not, in whom his Light is vailed and obscured.

But mark T.H. his great Charge in his first Di­alogue, p. 3. 'Tis Blasphemy to say, that the Light in Man is God or Christ. Is it so? How agrees this with their saying, That Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is in all places, and that Christ is the Life and Light of Men? If in respect of his Divine Nature he be Christ, then is Christ in all places; how then shall this agree with his saying, 'tis Blasphemy to say, that God and Christ is the Light in Man? Seeing he cannot do it, let's endeavour it; I suppose by the Light in Man [...]e means Natural Reason, or else the Spirit of Man; in­deed that is neither God, Christ, nor the Light, but Blasphemy to affirm it is: But that Light in Man, which we contend for, and direct to, is an Im­mediate In-shining of Divine Light upon Man's Consci­ence, that kindleth and lighteth Man's Spirit, and maketh it bec [...]me the Candle of the Lord, which shews him Good and Evil, and moves him to decline Evil, and excites him to Good; and this with re­sp [...]ct to God and his own Salvation.

[...] who deny Christ to be the Light, through [...] every Man, or him to be the Light and [...]ife of [...], are A [...]ichrists, as E.B. saith, [...] T.H. opposeth this, he opposeth his own Concession.

[Page 29] T.H. excepts against my saying, In the New Covenant God is the Teacher of his People himself by his Immediate Spirit, Power and Unction within, which I still affirm, and he cannot confute, but que­stions, If so?

1st, Wherefore were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers given and set in the Church for the Work of the Ministry? p. 65.

Answ. Hereby he hath implyed, as if the Work of the Ministry did argue, that God is not the Tea­cher of his People in the New Covenant, when both true Prophets and Ministers are taught by [...]im, and tell us, that he is, and we must wait on him [...]or that End; which implies no Defect in the Anointing within, any more then John's Epistle did, wherein he directs them to, and testifies of the Sufficiency of the Anointing within to teach them, 1 John 2.

2. Why do you set up a Ministry among your selves? p. 65.

False; 'tis of God's setting up, it proceeds from the Holy Unction within; and God hath blest our Mi­nistry with his Presence, for the turning many from Darkness to Light▪ and from Men's Corrupt and Lifeless Preaching to the Anointing within; and this you Angry Water-Baptists cannot hinder with all your Quarrelling and Reviling.

3. Why do you appoint your Ministers before-hand to speak at su [...]h a Place at such a Time? p. 66.

A gross Falshood; we appoint them not so to do; they attend each Man upon God's Call and Motion in themselves, and in Subjection to him is our Soci­ety; we do neither appoint them to Preach nor [Page 30] Pray, as Baptists were wont [...]o do, saying, Brother, do you Preach, or do [...]ou Pra [...], and then the Brother to make An­swer▪ Nay, pr [...] Brother do you, [...]ou are more able then I, &c. on such Motions you can Preach or Pray without feeling any immediate Motion from God's Spirit to either.

4. You invite others to your Silent Meetings, telling us, they will be such; how are you assur [...]d that those you invite may not be moved to speak? p. 66.

False [...]gain, we do not conclude before-hand they will be wholly Silent Meetings, nor limit the Lord from moving any one to speak in them.

Whereas he abuseth our Distinction between the Soul of Man,Cont. p. 40. and its Saviour, as if it were but the same that's between Christ and his In shining Light or Gift in Man, or between God and some part of himself (supposed.)

Answ. Man's Soul and [...]s Saviour are distinct Be­ings, the one Creatural (having a Beginning) and the other Divine and Infinite: Christ and his Light within, which we vindicate, are but one in Being; Its grosly Fals [...], That the Meaning of my Distincti­on must b [...], That Christ is not Divine and Increated, but his Light is, p. [...]0. For the Meaning of mine is be­tween the Giver and the Immediate Gift, as flowing from him; the Fountain and the Stream, the Sun and its immediate Shining. God is the Fulness of Light and Life, and yet its by degrees, that he makes known his Discoveries or In-shining in Man: but my Distin­ction between the Soul of Man and its Saviour is of another kind, as appears by my citing those Scrip­tures in the Cas [...], viz. Rom. 2.9. and Isaiah 3.9. The Distiction is plain, see Dipper Plunged. pag. 15. [Page 31] and The NATƲRE OF CHRISTIANI­TY, pag. 15, 17, and 27.

I may not well omit briefly to retro-inspect some perverse and corrupt Passages in Tho. Hicks his Con­tinuation. I still affirm it a gross Slander, that the Quakers account the Blood of Christ no more then an Ʋnholy or Common thing, Dial. p. 9. and no more then the Blood of a Common Thief, Contin. p 4.

And our asserting the Sufficiency of the Light of Christ-within to bring to eternal Life proves neither: nor doth his Inference follow or amount to any Proof against us, vizt. where he saith, Then the Shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross was need­less, Contin. p. 4. which is as good an Argument as to say, If God makes manifest any thing in Man that's Saving, then all the outward Testimonies of his Love to Man were needless: and thus he might as well ar­gue against the Sufficiency of his Spirit, Ingrafted Word, Life or Light of his Son in Man (in what Age soever) and tell us, the shedding of Christs Blood on the Cross (which was an Act of his Persecutors and Murderers) supplies the Defect of all Inward Manifestations, how Spiritual and Di­vine soever. O what profund Divinity and ex­quisite Logick is this!

His other Proofs (as charged upon the Quakers) are but Additions to his Slander and Forgery be­fore, vizt. 1 That the Sufferings of Christ were only Exemplary. 2 That the Mystery of Iniquity lies in the Blood of Christ.

To the first I say [only] is added, yet Christ left us an Example of perfect Obedience and Holiness, that we should follow his Steps.

[Page 32]To the second; 'tis gross and blasphemous to say, the Mystery of Iniquity lyes in the Blood of Christ, and [...] of the Quakers Assertion; but that it lyes in the corrupt Mind, that carnally and falsly applies it, to [...]se and cover it self in Sin and Iniquity: For we affirm, viz.

1st, That Jesus Christ in the Flesh was more th [...] a meet Exemple of Holiness.

2dly, And his Blood was of peculiar Value and Estimation with God.

Thomas Hicks Proceeds in his Envy and Falshood sti [...] [...] bring our Sufferings into Dis-esteem, viz. [...] People, that ever boasted so vainly of their Sufferings [...] you do, that scarce a Pamphlet can come out from yo [...] [...] but the World must hear of your Brags of this kind, Contin. p. 6.

A manifest and two-fold Falshood: for,

1st, We do not vainly boast of our Sufferings, but have rej [...]yced in Christ Jesus that we have been counted worthy to suffer for his Name, when you, who now enjoy our Prosperity, durst not shew your Heads in publick for your Profession or Wor­ship, but fled into Corners and Obscurities, and your publick Meetings were deserted, and put by. For thy part T.H. I do not think thou hast much Suffering for Conscience (or any for Christ) to boast of.

2. [Scarce a Pamphlet] Is also false; for many of our Bookes and Papers relate not our Sufferings (but other Subjects) much less vainly boast or brag thereof: But it seems, that it both judges and vex­es thee and such Creeping, Envious Spirits to hear of our deep Sufferings, since they have had such a blessed Effect in the Nation, as the inclining the [Page 33] Hearts of many to the Living Truth, and the Increase of our Number in it.

Thou T.H. and such Envious Spirits are most quiet towards us, when you see us under Persecuti­on; and appear most outragious against us, when we have Liberty, as if you were discontented and perplexed at our Liberties, and as desirous of Per­secution and Ruin upon us.

3. I am not sorry that I was made Instrumental in obtaining the Liberty of some of thy Brethren the Baptists out of Prison the last Som [...]er, who a­mong a great Number of our Friends were relea­sed; though I am but sorrily and badly requited by thee: but thou art one of them who art more ready to persecute and scandalize our Sufferings, then to suffer or sympathize with them that suffer for Conscience sake: but have not some of thy Bre­thren both commended of our Sufferings, and the Service thereof both to themselves and other Dis­senters? why then dost thou insinuate, as if Carnal Interest, Wills and Lusts were our chief Motive to suf­fer? God, and his Witness in many Consciences will judge thee for this gross Abuse.

Again T.H. did most falsly insinuate (though by way of Query) That our Sufferings were only to satisfie our Wills and Lusts, and for Carnal Advantage; which to excuse he now saith; In this I only queried, what it should be, that doth influence you to suffer; forasmuch as you deny that this Body shall rise? And G.F. main­tains, that the Soul is part of God's Being. Contin. p. 6.

1. To the first I answer, that every Seed shall have its own Body as it pleaseth God, and every Man shall be reserved spiritually in his own proper Being, [Page 34] though not in the gross fleshly Form: Is this either to deny the Resurrection, or an Eternal Advantage?

2. To the second, G.F. doth not so speak of the Soul or Spirit of Man (nor are his Words direct­ly and truly cited) but of the Immediate Inspira­tion of God (or original Life or Soul of Man's Soul) by which Man became Living, a Living Soul; in this he queries, Is not that of God which came out from God?

3. Its an absurd and most abusive Insinuation, that our Sufferings either were or could be for any carnal Advantage or Interest, seeing we freely have often offered up our Lives and our All in this World therein.

4. Its still a manifest Slander, that we deny any E­ternal Advantage to Persons after Death; neither is it any (much less direct) Consequence of our saying, Not that Body which thou sowest, shall be; and Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God; or That the Body which God giveth, shall not be in a Fleshly, but in a Spiritual Form, as Tho. Collier confesseth; dare he say, this is to deny any Eternal Advantage? But with T.H. This is no more then the Genuine and a direct Con­sequence of denying the Resurrection of this Body; Is it not? then the reaping Eternal Advantage must be placed upon this Earthly Tabernacle or Carnal Bo­dy, though it must be dissolved, and no New one to be created, according to his former Doctrine Dial. p. 58. O wonderful Philosophy! Eternal Advantage placed upon these same Earthly Bodies, yet they not to be renewed by Creation, after dissolved and turn­ed to Dust! and how contrary to the Apostles Testi­mony is his so much placing Eternal Advantage [Page 25] upon this Earthly disolvable Body? see the 2. Cor. 5, 1 2, 8. Phil. 1.21.23. Our experiencing Christ's se­cond Appearance without Sin unto Salvation in An­swer to our Hope, and testifying to Eternal Life and Felicity as Inwardly and Spiritually receiv'd by those that now suffer for Christ, can be no Denyal of any Future or Eternal Advantage (according to his Instance against me p. 7.) seeing we know, that to live is Christ, and to dy is Gain unto us; they that walk up to his Light in them here, cannot miss of an Eternal Advantage hereafter: Our light Affliction, which is but for a moment worketh for is a far more exceeding weight of Glory, see 2, Cor. 4, 10, 11. to the end of the Chapter.

Concerning Justification, Imputation and Sanctifi­cation p. 50, 51, 52▪ 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 58 wherein we differ, he is fully answered in our Books, viz. Divin. Chr. Serious Apol.

But where he saith, viz. I know of none, that hold Justification of Persons in their Ʋngodliness p. 55. Are there not those, that hold Justification before San­ctification? or in a sinful Estate by a meer Imputa­tation? And those that thus argue for it by the Rule of Contraries, As Christ was made to be Sin for us, who knew no Sin: (i.e. by an inherent Guilt or Operations of Sin in him) so we are made the Righteousness of God in him? they adding [as and so; as he, so we] i.e. we are not actually made Righteous by any inherent Righteousness or Holiness of Christ wrought in us any more then Christ was made Sin; but reckened Righteous only from his active and passive Obedience without us; This Doctrine we have not only opposed, but refuted▪ Divin. Christ. Ser. Apol. The wicked Slander he calls upon us in this, is [Page 36] his own. T.H. we plead not for a Righteousness Im­puted to overthrow a Righteousness Inherent, or the Exercise of Christian Virtue p. 55. But do you not oppose a Righteousness inherent, as to Justi­fication? or deny, that those Christian Virtues within are reckoned or esteemed of God unto Justification?


'Tis you would separate and divide them, not we. p. 55. False; we make no such Separation be­tween Christ's Righteousness Inherent in us, and Ju­stification on the Imputation as ours, we experien­cing a Participation thereof, Christ being made unto us both Righteousness, Sanctification & Redemption.


Doth not this import, that a Man must be formally Just, before he be Justified; for nothing is imputed or reckoned to us (according to your Reasoning) but what is inherent in us? p. 55.


[Your Reasoning] It seems 'tis not his then, would he not here separate and divide between a Righteousness imputed, and a Righteousness inherent, or the Exercise of Christian Virtues? if so be that a man must be justified (i.e. in his Sense) imputed, or accoun­ted Righteous, before he be formally just? how agrees this with his Concession before, viz. that they would not sepa­rate & divide between Imputed & Inherent Righteousness?


I would ask you, Whether Remission of Sins be not one part of Justification?


yes: 'tis a Degreee of it, the next Step to an absolute Justification; Remission is of Sins past, receiv'd upon true Repentance, and Conversion from [...]in to newness of Life; Justification and Acceptance with God in Christ is enjoyed in the Newness of Life by such as continue in sincere Obedience to Christ.

This Remission, Pardon or Justification from Sins past, [Page 37] though not inherent in the Natural Fallen or Sinful Man, yet 'tis inwardly received through Faith in the Name of Christ, by such as truly depart from Sin and Evil, and give up to serve the Living God.


Certainly he that's pardon'd must be a Sinner, p. 56.


No, He must be one that ceaseth from Sin; for, if I sin, then thou markest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine Iniquity, Job 10.14. And certainly, he that's not acquited, is not pardon'd nor justify'd. But I must confess, [...]e somewhat mends the Matter in ad­ding, viz. That is such that were so (viz. Sinners) till Justified, not such as remain so being Justified, p. 56. At length we agree in this, 1st, That such as are pardo­ned, were sometimes Sinners, & Disobedient before. 2. But being pardoned and justified by the Grace of God in his beloved Son, they do not remain Disobe­dient; therefore they that remain Sinners and Diso­bedient, are not in a Justified State.

I had writ something against T. Hicks's gross Abuse of our Reputation as we are Men, Contin. p. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. as well as Christians, by his most false and Unjust Consequences he draws from our Owning the Light within as the Rule, & Immediate Motions & Directions of the Spirit of Christ within (especially in Matters of Wor­ship) & T.H. his Persecuting Spirit, in his falsly Ac­cusing us with Disrespect to Parents, Magistrates &c. being destructive to all Humane Society; But W.P. ha­ving reprehended him in these things in his part be­fore, I forbear to publish mine at present; for I have in this endeavoured Brevity.


THE Present Controversie Drawing to an End.

Or those Doctrines and Principles, which have been chiefly Controverted be­tween us, Granted and Confest to by our present Opposer Thomas Hicks, and his Brethren.

Here the Reader may see, how like to us called Quakers, divers of the Baptist-Teachers have been made some times to speak and hold forth Truth in Words; which I would have them seriously to re­view, and lay aside all Envy and Prejudice, which hath caused so much Contradiction and Gain-say­ing on their parts, both to themselves, and the Truth professed by us.

Our Principles and their Concessions truly Stated and Compared.

1. Quaker.

THat God is, and that he is Light, the Eternal Word of Life and Power, (which was with God, &c was God) was that, in which [Page 39] was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men; and that was the True Light, that enlightens every Man coming into the World, John 1.1, 4, 9.


Christ in you, and he is the Life and Light of Men, Dial. p. 22. And Jesus Christ is God, the most high God, of the same Substance and Essence, H.G. Light from the Sun, p. 83, 84, &c.

II. Qua.

The Light of Christ, or, the Eternal Word in Man is Divine and Increated.


The Lord Jesus Christ, as the Eternal Word en­lightens all Men and Women, that come into the World, Light from the Sun of Righteousness, p. 8.

III. Qua.

God is Infinite and Omni-present, and his Presence doth both afford Life, Virtue and Light to Man: and Jesus Christ as God over all in respect of his Divinity, or Divine Nature is there­fore in all, through all, and over all, though not revealedly nor unitedly.


Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is in all places, Contin. pag. 34. How could you call the Light Within Christ, if some Scriptures had not mentioned Christ in you, and that he is the Life and Light of Men, Dial. p. 22.

IV. Qua.

The Light of Christ in Man is a cer­tain Rule and Guide to direct Man out of Sin and Death into the Way of Life and Peace; and for that End ought to be obeyed.


I grant, it ought to be Obeyed: I acknowledge, there is something within, that checks for many Evils, and excites to many Good Things, and that I ought to shun those [Page 40] Evils, and do that Good. It will be our Wisdom, yea our Duty to attend to the Light Within, we being accountable to God for every Dispensation of Light, Dial. p. 7, 8, 13.

V. Qua.

Though this Divine Life or Light of the Son of God be manifest by Degrees in Man, yet the Degrees alter not the Property of it; and it ought to be obeyed with respect to God, and Man's own Salvation.


No Disparagement to the Light Within— Each Degree of Light is Serviceable to its End, Dial. p. 36.

VI. Qua.

This Light Within is that General Rule extending to Man alwayes, or throughout A­ges; and that is the Will of God, that Man should alwayes be under the Obligation of this Rule, that he might acknowledg God's Soveraignity and Pow­er, and be in Subjection to him, as having the sole right to Rule in the Creation, that Man may truly discharge the Duty he owes to his Maker, in true O­bedience and Worship.


Indeed 'tis not to be denyed, but that Man was alwayes under an Obligation of a Rule, that God's Sove­raignity over him, and his Inferiority unto God might be acknowledged—This Rule must be the Will of God revea­led to us—for it is the Will of God, which is the Formal Reason of the Obligation. The Will of God being the Ground of the Creation of Men and Ange [...]s; therefore as it is the Ground of their Being, it must be the Rule of their Acting, Dial. pag. 31. There was something com­mendable in the Heathens, p. 36. That Light in every Man, that doth convince of Sin, and reprove him for Sin, [Page 41] Christ, as he was the Wo [...] with G [...]d so he was the Light of the World, &c. W. Burnet's Capit [...] p [...]in. p. 8, 10, 16, 17.

VII. Qua.

That the Holy Spirit, Unction or Living Word within (which is received by them that wait in, and obey the Light thereof) is to be preferred as a more Eminent and Universal Rule, then the Scriptures; and it opens them, and brings Man to the true Understanding of them, and leads him into all Truth as he obeyes it.


Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, &c. had a Sufficient Rule before the Scriptures were writ­ten (viz.) the Spirit's Rule, God's Speaking and Dire­ctions from his own Mouth—and that they had a more In­fallible Word to wa [...]k by, then now is to us. For 'tis pos­sible, that some Scriptures may be corrupted, having been in the hands of corrupted Men. The Scriptures may be and is corrupted by Man—This may be gra [...]ted, that the Spirit is the Rule—Of more Efficacy then the Letter— The Spirit is greater then the Letter, Jo. Newman's Light Within, page 19, 20, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112.

VIII. Qua.

'Tis possible for True Believers, through the Power and Help of Jesus Christ, to at­tain to such a Perfection in this Life, as the keep­ing the Commandments of God.


The Spirit of God assures us, that they who are subject to, and keep the Commandments of God, are the Children of God; and they who do not, are Lyars, 1 John 2.3, 4. cap. 5.2, 3. Contin. p. 61.

IX. Qua.
[Page 42]

That Remission, and Pardon of Sins past thr [...]ugh the Blood & Righteousness of Christ Jesus, & t [...]e Justification of Persons (whether it import the ma­king; or declaring them Righteous in Christ by a Li­ving Faith) are neither imputed, nor reckon'd of God t [...] th [...]m in an Unconverted, Unsanctified, Disobe­dient or Ungodly State, but to the truly Repentant, Converted, Believing and Obedient Souls.


I know of none, that hold Justification of Per­sons in their Ʋngodliness. We plead not for a Righte­ousness Imputed to overthrow a Righteousness Inherent, or the Exercise of Christian Vertues — He that is par­doned, were a Sinner till justified; not such that remain so being sati [...]fied, Contin. p. 55, 56. The Saints are made the Righteousness of God; that is, God now, as in Christ, d [...]'s and [...]s in the Saints h [...] h [...] [...]pirit, writes his Law in their Hearts, makes them Partakers of his own Nature, and so goes o [...] in Fulfilling his own Righteousness in th [...]. For the Righteousness of the Law in the Spirit is fulfilled in us, Marrow Christian. p. 38.

X. Qua.

Though the Soul and Spirit of Man be not of God's Divine and Infinite Being, but re­lated [...]o the Being of Man, and (as Corruptible) hath a mut [...]bl [...] Habit; yet as we are his Off-spring, and Man is the Image and Glory of God, the Ori­ginal [...]ife, o [...] Soul of the Soul, that came from God, and is immutable, is of his own Being. In short, God (in whom we live, move and have our Being) is the Life of Lives, and Great Soul of Son's and the Soul th [...]t is Saved and United to God, doth partake of his Divine Nature; [Page 43] and he that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit.


The Condescension of God and Christ into the Hearts of his People to wo [...]k up his Saints into the s [...] Nature with himself, &c. God a [...]d Christ i [...] Holy; so his Word is Hol [...]; and through Faith in t [...]is [...] Christians are wrought up into the Nature of it self, and into God. J. Newman's Book. Light Within, p 78, 84, 87, 88. There were the Prope [...]ties o [...] G [...] i [...] some measure imparted to Adam. Adam was in the Image of God, in respect of Eternity he h [...]d given h [...]m an Everlasting Being, Marrow of Christianity, pag. 4, 5. Christ was both the Power and Wi [...]dom [...]f God: and as Christ, so all the Saints are [...] one i [...] th [...]s Wisdom. Christ is made unto us Wisdom, n [...]t on­ly by w [...]y of Imputation, but by the Operati [...]n of the same [...]pirit, who dwells as truly in every Believer, as in Christ, ibid. pag. 34, 35. (And have not s [...]me of their Brethren conf [...]st, That there is a kind [...]f Infiniteness in the Soul?)

XI. Qua.

The Children of the Resurrection shall be equal unto the Angels of God in Heaven, and their Bodies not Natural, Earthly, and [...] the very Gross M [...]tt [...]r, that n [...]w they are [...] Celestial, Spiritual, like u [...]to Chri [...]' [...] [...] Body. God giveth a Body, as it pl [...]as [...]th [...] in Subjection to whose Good Pleasure we [...] quiesce, till it be effected, as he se [...]th [...] own Praise.


That there shall be a Resurrection of the [...]o­dy at the Last Day, is Evident, John 5▪ [...] 11. with 1 Cor. 15. Rev. 20. although [...] some denyed, and by others too ca [...]lly looke [...] [...] [Page 44] Some thinking, that our Bodies of Flesh shall be Raised in the same Form, in which it Dyed, &c. The Form in which they shall be raised, that is a Spiritual Form, not in a Fleshly—It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a Spiritual Body—When Christ, who is our Life, shall p [...]e [...]r we shall appear with him in Glory; all Flesh shall he sw [...]llowed up in [...]pirit, and our Bodies shall be changed, and made like unto his Glorious Body, Mar­row of Christianity, by T.C. pag. 93, 94, 95. And those Saints who are alive at the Coming of Christ shall be changed in a Moment, in the Twink­ling of an E [...]e 1 Cor. 15.51▪ 52. and so shall be caught up in the Spirit to meet the Lord in the Air, 1 Thes. 4.17. Ibid. p. 92.

XII. Qua.

The Son of God doth not consist (or is not made up) of a Humane Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones: For he was the Word, and One in Being with the Father from Everlasting. But in the Fulness of Time, he took upon him Flesh, or that Body prepared for him; and being Ascended into Glory, his Body is a Glorious Body, sur­passing all Humane, Earthly, Carnal and Corrup­tible Bodies.


Christ was a Son by a Spiritual Proceeding and Coming from the Father, who was Eternally One in the Father, Marrow of Ch [...]. p. 30. Our Bodies shall be changed and made like his Glorious Body, Ibid. p. 95. The [...] shall be raised in a Spiritual Form, not in a Fleshly, p. 94. The [...]on took Flesh upon him, the Word took Fle [...]h, the Father did prepare him a Body, Dialogue, p. [...]5, 4 [...], and 83.

XIII. Qua.
[Page 45]

Christ being so highly exalted, and Glorified as it God's Right Hand, as he is, can be neither Proof nor Argument, that he is not i [...] any Man; nor that either Christ or God's Right Hand is limited and circumscribed to such Remot [...]ness, as not to be in the True Believers to save and uphold their Souls.


When a Soul is satisfied from its Ʋnion with God, and its Dwelling in God, that all the Admini­strations and makings forth of God is Love unto it, thus it dwells in Love, and from hence is filled with Joy: It causeth the Soul alwayes to dwell at the Right Hand of God, where is Joy and Pleasure for evermore. Marrow of Christian. p. 28. Christ the Son was Eternally one in the Father; & so in him all Believers are made by the same Spirit the Adopted Sons of God, being made Partakers of the same Divine Nature. Marrow of Christian. p. 30. Christ dwells Spiritually in all the Saints—If Christ be in you, you shall be sensible of it. Ibid p 31.32. T [...]is Indwelling of Christ in his People—God and Christ cannot be separate—Christ in them the Hope of Glory— Newman's Light within, p. 81, 82, 83, 86.

XIV. Qua.

That through Faith in the Power of Christ Perfection, that is, a Freedom from Sin, is attainable (and comes to be attained) in this Life by the Soul, that experienceth the Restaura­tion by Christ.


If God in his Son draw up the Soul to himself Jo. 6, 44. —The more Special and Spiritual Condition of Souls thus drawn up to God in Christ is not only a Re­stauration to the Condition of the first Adam, with re­lation [Page 46] to a Freedom from Sin; this every Believer enjoys by Christ a Freedom, a Justification from Sin: But secondly, every Soul drawn [...]p out of it self to God, is brought into the Condition of the second Adam, Marrow Christian. p. 29.

XV. Qua.

That Soul that's restored unto the New Covenant-Dispensation (and come to taste, how good he is, to partake of his Spiritual Wis­dom, and Counsel therein) doth own and follow this Spirit, and the Light thereof, as the Chief Rule of Faith, Obedience and Worship, above the Scrip­ture or Letter, and the Spiritual, Saving Know­ledge, of God and Christ therein, beyond all Li­teral Knowledge and Profession of him received from without.


This Wisdom (namely of the Spirit, which is spiritual and heavenly) sets the Creature out of him­self in the Power of God: that Wisdom (namely of the Flesh and first [...]dam, carried on the Creature to the Answering of God in the Letter (and yet in all this come s [...]o [...]t) This [...] (of the Spirit) carries on the Soul, where It [...] is n [...] [...]fter the Oldness of the Letter but after the Newness of the Spirit▪ In [...] w [...]rd, that Wis­dom could not hel [...] to the Knowledge of God in the Spirit; This doth. 1 C [...]r. 1. Marrow of Christian p. 35. Cer­tainl [...], that [...]oul who hath once tasted, how Good, and how Gracious the Lord is in the Spirit, [...] never be satis­f [...] with [...] Knowledge of him in the Letter. The Know­ledge of a Spiritual Ʋ [...]i [...] with God, produceth an acting [...], and [...]er the Spirit of God. How doth the Crea­ture [...] work, and [...]ls it self even in the Letter of the Gospel, as well as formerly in the Letter of the La [...] for [Page 47] want of Knowledge of the Ʋnion in the Spiritual Power of the Lord, Marrow, p. 44.

XVI. Qua.

Christ's Second Appearance, or Co­ming to the Salvation of them that truly wait and look for him is a Spiritual Appearance or Coming in Sp [...] to s [...]v [...] his People, and not (in Scripture) call [...] a P [...] [...]d or Fleshly Coming, nor his Reign a Personal Reign in his Kingdom; for 'tis a Spiri­tual Kingdom, and his Reign in it Spiritual.


Christ's Presence (and so his Kingdom) will be a Spiritual Presence, and not a Personal—His Reign in the Latter Dayes will not be Personal, but Spiritual. Jesus Christ is no more to be known of the Saints after the Flesh; therefore his Presence so; and his Kingdom will not be a Fleshly or Personal Presence and Kingdom, but a Spiritual; his Glory Spiritual; his Kingdom not of this World, &c. [See the Point argu'd at large, Mar­row Christian. p. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, to the end of the Section]

XVII. Qua.

That there is an Immortal and Incorruptible Seed (of the Nature of Christ Jesus) to be known in the Soul, whereof true Believers come to be born again, even by the Word of Life and Power, which liveth and abideth forever; and so comes Christ to be formed, and Spiritually born in them, and they to be renewed up into his Nature and Image.


Although we have known Christ after the Flesh, yet know we him no more; why? If any Man be in Christ, he is a New Creature, Christ is formed in him af­ter the Spirit, and he comes now to [...] a Spiritual Christ [Page 48] within him, Marrow, p. 55. Faith may be acted not only on Christ's Dying [...] the Cross, but in Christ's Living in the Soul; that is my believing. That Christ is Spiritually formed in me, as well as that he dyed for me, Ibid, p. 56.


We are fully satisfied, that God is so far from having absolutely and particularly de­creed Men's Destruction from Eternity (or designing perpetual and meer voluntary Hatred to particular Persons, or with-holding his Saving Grace from them) that his Love is in the first place Universal to all Mankind; his Grace, which brings Salvation, hath appeared, and is free to all Men, till they reject it; the Appearance whereof is in, and by the Light of his Son in all, which is sufficient to leave all the Disobedient without Excuse, whereby Men are at sometimes put into such a Capacity, as that they may be saved; and so receive the Benefit, and good End of Christ's Coming, Suffering, Death, and becoming a Ransom for ALL, for a Testimony in due time of God's f [...]e Love and Grace. And with this the General Baptists agree, against the Con­trary, Partial and Pinching Opinion of the Parti­cular Electioners.

Bap. 1.

We believe, and are very confident, that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, who is the only begotten Son of God—whom God freely sent into the World (because of his great Love unto the World) who as freely gave himself a Ransom for all. 1 Tim. 2.5, 6. tasting Death for every Man, Heb. 2.9▪ a Propi­tiation for our Sins; and not for ours only, but also for the Sins of the whole World, 1. Jo. 2.2.

[Page 49]2. That God is not willing, that any should perish, but that all should come to Repentance, 2. Pet. 3.9. and the Knowledge of the Truth, that they might be saved, 1 Tim. 2.4. for which End Christ hath commanded, that the Gospel (to wit, the glad Tiding of Remission of Sins) should be preached to every Creature, Ma [...]k. 16.15. So that no Man shall eternally suffer in Hell for want of a Christ that dyed for them, but, as the Scripture saith, for denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. or be­cause they believe not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. Jo. 3 18. Ʋnbelief therefore being the Cause, why the Just and Righteous God will condemn the Children of Men▪ it follows against all Contradiction, that all Men at one time or other are put into such a Capacity, as that (through the Grace of God) they may be eternally saved, Joh. 1.7. Act. 17.30. Mark. 6.6. Heb. 3.10, 18.19. 1 Joh. 5 10. Joh. 3.17. See Art. 3.4. of Con­fession of Faith presented to the King, subscribed by 46 of them.

Serious Reader, I having diligently traversed the present Controversies between some of these Water-Baptists and us, called Quakers, have thus far la­boured for Quietness and Reconciliation by thus obviously laying down those Principles and Do­ctrines of ours, that have been chiefly struck at by the Dialogue-Man, and some others of them; to­gether with his, and his Brethren's own intermixt Concessions and Assenting to the Truth thereof in most things very nearly concurring in Matter and Substance; which while he or any of them other­whiles oppose, and contradict, and count us Impo­stors, [Page 50] Hereticks, &c. for these Matters, they oppose and contradict themselves like Wavering, Unsettled and Uncertain Persons, not to be credited in their Contentious Work. As for those Passages of Tho. Collier, they were Printed in the Year 1050. (which was before these Controversies happened between us, and so before their Enmity broke forth, as it doth [...] and therefore the more to be taken notice of, as being writ from an Unprejudiced Mind, and a Capacity more fit to receive Spiritual Sights and Openings, which divers of them heretofore have had: But now plain Prejudice. Darkness and an Apostacy is come over these Carnal Contenders, who have lost that former Sincerity, Tenderness and Spi­ritual Desires, that appeared in divers, and now with their Flesh, Darkness, Carnal Imaginations and Self­ish Spirits they are Raising up a Smoak, and Darkness against the Glory of this Dispensation of Spirit, Life, Light and Power revealed among us, which will out-live their Enmity, and wear-out their Sha­dows and Empty Profession; For this Spiritual, Transcending Dispensation shall Increase, their Sha­dows shall Decrease, grow into Disesteem, natural­ly Decay, and by Degrees Vanish thereupon.


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.