Sect. I.

HE first insinuates, that my late Paper was not a Discussion of the Anabaptists Proposals; & to pursue his Charge, sayes further, That the whole of those Pages wherein I concern my self with the above named Proposals, gave the Lye to my Title Page.

For the Reason of his first, he sayes, I had not mentioned one Third of them: And for the Reason of his second, I did not mention what they were.

To which I say, In Case there is [Page 6]no answering of a Letter, without an entire Transcription in its Response (a Method of Writing this our Age useth not, nor does T. H. use it) I grant my self under a Mistake; but certainly, when in mine I acquainted T. Hicks and my Reader,

• 1. That the Proposals were the Ana­baptists.
• 2. I nominated the particular Sub­scribers.
• 3. Instanced the Time they boar Date.
• 4. And that they were by them printed and published.

• 1. I might be excus'd a Transcripti­on, and so T. H's Censure, my reference being sufficient to direct what Propo­sals I then discussed, and intended to surview.
• 2. As to his Allegation, that each Page gives the Lye to the Title-Page.

I answer, That if T. H. will please to review his and mine, he may know whether the Lye belongs to me. or himself; but sure I am he is [Page 7]grandly mistaken, and I fear, wilfully.

Sect. II.

He proceeds, next, to quarrel me for acquainting him of his Unwilling­ness to meet us in Publick to discuss our Charge of Forgeries against him; He would perswade me or his Reader, that I know to the contrary. To which I say, I never denyed but T. H. has been fre­quent in Boasting in Print, and behind our Backs, how ready he would be to abide a Publick Hearing; but I must ever affirm my Belief, that he intends nothing less, witness one Meeting at Barbican the 9th of the 8th Moneth, where he strove to avoid our Charge against him, by charging us; and we being Earnest in our Charge, he hastily left the Pulpet and Assembly: And another Meeting at Wheeler-Street, the 16th of the same Month, he came no nearer then a Neighbouring Ale­House, though the Meeting was ap­pointed, and he was expected six or [Page 8]seaven Hours: So till his Words and Actions correspond, he must excuse me, if I (with many more) hear his Words, and measure him by his Actions.

Sect. III.

His next Quarrel is, that I alledg'd that the Anabaptists proposed fifty or sixty, excluding all others, as Wit­nesses to hear the Debate; whereas, sayes T. H. It was fifty or sixty of a Siae.

To which I answer, If he had not mistaken or abused my Words, he had wanted his Objection: What I dis­coursed of, as to Number of fifty or sixty related to his Party only, whom he called at the first Barbican Meeting and not to us at all; and that but fifty or sixty of a Side are allowed in the printed Proposals is very clear: And as to any Consent of a Hundred, or a Hundred and fifty of a Side, if the former Number were too few, sure I am there was no such Provision in the [Page 9] Proposals, nor Consent of larger Num­ber (as I ever heard of) when I pub­lished mine; if any Thing to that Ef­fect has since passed in Private I, que­stian its Performance; for all I have observed from T. H. is, that 1. We had a Publick Meeting, and then but a few Hours with him. And 2dly, a second Assembly where he met us not at; thence from Publick proposed a Private, and at the Closewould shuffle us from ha­ving either publick or private.

Sect. IIII.

Then he insinuates as if I had not answer'd the Proposals at all, alledging I passed them over in deep Silence, not in the least taking notice of my gene­ral Answer, yet comprehensive, viz. ‘The Proposals for private, &c. with small Amendment might pass as fit Mediums for an Orderly Dispute’—But to the 9th Proposition, I had Just Reason to make my Objection against [Page 10]it, which is the next Particular he quarrels me for.

Sect. V.

The Proposition was in these words, And when your Paper is answered, that G. W. & W. P. be oblieged to give their Answers to such Charges as T. H. shall exhibit against them. This Proposition I fully and largely discust; withall telling him, that it was both against the Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical to be oblieg'd to answer, before they know their Charge, before they understand whether the Charge would relate to Civil or Reli­gious Concerns to Matters proper for their Debate, or Things Inquisitory inconsistent to their present Contest. T. H. with this is so fum'd & fretted, that he engages all the Forces of his unclean Genius to bespatter me with the Terms of Talk­ing Idly, Dishonesty, Want of Wit, and such like Epithetes, which his Rage can vent against me, which as much hurt me as if he had said nothing: [Page 11]with no less Incivility he alike treats G. W. and W. P. insinuating (from my Demand of the Matters charged, or to be charged) That they are certainly Tardy and Conscious to themselves of Guilt, as well in Civil as Religious Concerns, and therefore (sayes T. H.) demand the Charge aforehand. It were tedious, else I might also write the many conceited Ex­pressions and borrowed Phrases, he has vented upon this Subject, which are as suitably applyed as the former: But surely in my Apprehension he might have better spared his Proposition, then by abusive and shuffling Reflect seek to maintain it: Sayes T. H. They are afraid to engage before they know what it is, let the Reader judge whether Innocency would talk at this Rate. Could more quaint Expressions come from a Master of Inquisition, or the Chair-Man of an Ecclesiastick or high Commission Court? He can prognosticate Guilt from a just Defence, and insinuate that Innocen­cy needs no prudent Guard: what [Page 12]sayes T. H? Does not your Pleading to hear your Charge first argue Guilt? and would Innocency talk at this Rate? No­table Doctrine in Spain, but not in En­gland, where (Nemo tenetur prodere se ipsum) no Man is bound to betray himself; but according to the Com­mand of our Lord Christ, to be as wise as Serpents, and harmless as Doves. And to close his Paragraph with his Abuse on this Subject, T. H. falsly insinuates, That if T. Rudyard had either the Wit or Honesty, to have taken Notice of it, a Copy of their Charge was promised, upon Con­dition they would be obliged to answer; When there not such a Word, or any Thing of that Tendency in the prin­ted Proposals.

But that we may see how correspon­dent his late Impositions upon us, are to those Propositions he & his Brethren, made in his own behalf, upon our de­mands against him, take these two Instances:

1. In their pretended Answer to our [Page 13]Appeal W. Kiffin, D. Dike, &c. in their Epistle say, If W. P. or G. W. or any other Leading Quaker, have any New Matter to object against T. Hicks— if they please to signifie the Particulars to us in writing with their Hands to it, we shall return such Answer thereto, either by a publick Meet­ing or otherwise, as to us may seem just. Again in the same Persons Letter, the 25th of the 7th Month, 1674. — or any New Matter to be objected against T. H. we are ready to give them such a Meeting for the Examination thereof, provided they give us an Accompt of those Particulars in writing before hand: A Particular of which was accordingly deliver'd.

Now Reader, compare but the Terms made for himself, and Propositions made to us, and make the genuine Applica­tion.

Sect. VI.

His next Exception was occasion'd upon my Distinguishing 'twixt writing a Discourse or Dialogue, and writing Di­alogue-wise; [Page 14]which I thus briefly ex­prest: viz.

• 1. That a Dialogue is nothing else but a Discourse between Two, Three, or more, which a Stander-by may write for others Information.
• 2. But to write Dialogue-wise is, to inform that there was no such real Dis­course, but only my own Sentiments of the Persons and Things I would represent.
• 3. Tho. Hicks's Books were really his own Sentiments; yet he represents them to the World as a Real Discourse, pag. 9.

This we complain'd of as an Abuse, which T. H. is pleas'd to term a meer Ca­vil, and for Demonstration, thus speaks for himself: for (saith he) I do assure him that it was not so understood, or intended by me in the publishing of it.

1. To this then I say, that our first Article or Charge exhibited against T. Hicks (viz. A Dialogue betwixt a Chri­stian and a Quaker, and yet made by T. H. therefore but a meer Fiction) It is now determin'd by his own frank Con­cession; [Page 15]and we accept of his Condemna­tion from his own Mouth: Herein hath he made good our first Charge against him; It was not (saith T. H.) so inten­ded by me, it was not intended a real or true Dialogue; if not, then False and Fictiti­ous, as we affirm, and not True or Real.

2. But to mend the matter, or cover his Unreconcilable Contradiction, he tells us, that (though it was not a Real Dialogue) it was as True and Real, as if it had been a verbal Discourse.

Answ. A strange Assertion! I have not before met with the like: What! a Fiction as true as a Reality it self? A man's own Sentiments of Persons or Things as true and real as the Persons and Things are in themselves? After this rate of T. H's Logick, 'twere not uneasie to affirm Pictures to be Real, Living Creatures; and Images or Representatives to be Real, Living Men and Women.

But the Case is briefly thus 'twixt Us and him: [Page 16]

• 1. T. Hicks promulgeth his Pam­phlets as Real Discourses, terms them, Dialogues between a Christian and a Quaker.
• 2. Alledgeth, That therein is Faith­fully represented some of their chief, &c. Opinions.
• 3. Their Method of Reasoning.
• 4. No other Answers then what the Quakers give.
• 5. But now tells us, That it was not so intended or understood (as a Real Dis­course or Dialogue) by him, when he published it. And yet to cover himself again, saith he, It is as True and Real, as if it had been a verbal Discourse. So that according to the Sense of his Discourse Falsity may cope with Verity, and Ficti­on out-brave Reality; and in his Sense also have the Preheminency, or at least, an Equal Authority.

Not far unlike unto this, is T. H's after Argumentation, in Response to these Words of his Brother W. Lodding­ton, viz. ‘There is a Vast Difference [Page 17]betwixt a Dialogue composed for In­formaties, and one for Disputation: In the first I write my own Judgment, in the other an Adversaries.’ To this T. H. responds thus, Then my Title-Page is innocent, and their Quarrel is a needless Cavil, for asmuch as the Dialogue was writ altogether for Information, &c.

To which I reply and pursue the Argument: In Case thy Books were writ for Information (and not for Disputation) as thou affirmest; then (as before) thou writest thy own Judg­ment, and not thine Adversaries; yet notwithstanding hast thou frequently insinuated and affirmed therein, That thou hast faithfully represented their Opi­nions, Practice, Reasonings, Defences, &c. And faithfully to do this (with­out Abuse or Injury to thy self or Ad­versary) in writing thy own Judgment only, and not thy Adversaries Judg­ment, is such a Piece of confused Contradiction & Non. Consequence, that it exceeds my Reason of Recon­ciliation: [Page 18]And in short, it has been T. H's Work, Labour and Practice to make & feign a Quaker, with Doctrines, Principles, & Reasonings in behalf of himself, and all called by that Name; and this, sayes he, now for Information Only, and so his own Judgment, and not ours; for this Fact we desire to have a Publick and Free Auditory, to manifest his Abuse, and clear our selves of the many Forgeries, Lyes and Slan­ders, which by writing his own, and not our Judgment, he has unworthily aspersed us withal, and unjustly impo­sed upon us and our Religion.

Sect. VII.

But T. H. is very hot upon me for telling him, that W. K. and J. I. in Principles (although now Confede­rates) differ more then a Real Christi­an and a Quaker: This accounts T. H. so great a Crime, that it's the filling up of my Measure, I suppose he means of Iniquity: And tells me for Answer, [Page 19] My Dictate is notoriously false, and then gives in his Reason; For, sayes T. H. they differ not in these Essential Points [...] Christianity, as that Jesus Christ is a distinct Person without us; that the H [...]ly Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Pra­ctice unto Christians; and of the Resur­rection of the dead Body, and the Life to come; they are in Unity in these, wherein the discriminating Difference between a Christian and a Quaker lyes.

I reply; Thus we have T. H's De­finition of Essential Principles, or (as his Words will bear) only Essential; for my Charge was, ‘That W. K. & J. I. differed more in Principles then a Real Christian and Quaker:’ This, he tells me, is notoriously false, and offers for Reason thereof, they agree in those; and therefore if there be more Principles Essential then these afore nam'd, they may differ in them, and so my Dictate not notoriously false, though in these they agree: but there are many more Principles then these afore named, [Page 20]wherein they may differ, so my Di­ctate not notoriously false (for all T. H. his Reason, that in these they agree) I need not search far for Proof, but the Anabaptists several Sistems of Faith, wherein they have many more pre­tended Essential Articles of Faith, then these afore-named, will evidence their far greater Number of Princi­ples, and their Difference therein; particularly, about the Death of Christ, one, affirming him an Universal Sacrifice for all Mankind, the other Denying it, &c. one, that he came to save All, the other, but to save a Few; but as to the before mention'd particular Essential Principles, as T. H. terms them, they have been often answered by our Friends, and his Abuses often by them refelled.

Sect. VIII.

He then quarrels against my Enqui­ry, what Sort of Christian the Quaker was not? And wholy waving my [Page 21] prior Expostulation, he most abusively answereth me: But I must tell him, that the Reason for my Enquiry justi­fies my Question, and returns his In­quisition, &c. upon himself, as I may hereafter shew: My Just Complaint and Enquiry in pag. 13. was thus, ‘But suppose we are no Christians in your sense, or of your Dipping, are we therefore none? But suppose none at all, according to your present Sentiments of us, but Jews, pro­fest Turks or Heathens (as you would have us) shall not your Brother answer for his Forgeries, Lyes and Slanders? It is your Belief that an Heretick deser­veth no Law, no Justice, no Equity from or against men of your Cast; ye should do well to explain, for I assure you it smelleth of your Predecessors:’ To this T. Hicks returns not a Word in Answer, but standeth as a condemned Mute, being loath to come to a fair Tryal, whether Innocent or Guilty.

But I further argued, That if no Ar­gument will induce you to do us that com­mon [Page 22]Right, that equal Justice that a Hea­then would not deny us; But you still di­vert our Charge, and interpose such Dis­course as may tire the Auditory, and cover your Infamous Brother, and consequently his Abettors; ‘If instead of Hearing our Charge, and Answering our reasonable Demands, you would prove Us NO Christians, and bid us take that for An­swer, I propose as necessary in order therio, that you tell us, what sort of Christian the Quaker is not? explain your selves to the World, What and Who is a True Chri­stian?’ These were the Grounds and Reasons of my Question (the Particu­lars whereof follow after) and I pre­sume not impertinent to our present Business, and no more then the Nature of the Contest, & the Anabaptist Man­nagement thereof, directly call'd for from our hands; But how correspon­dent his Answer is to my Question, will be evident by due Comparison of them together. But inasmuch as his is general, and not answering my [Page 23]particular queries, to know a True and False, a Real or Counterfit Christian; I shall first in sert his Confession, being but an evasive Response to my particular Question, and then again give him mine as really it is, for which I yet count him my Debtor for a more di­stinct Answer; but first take his Defi­nition of a Christian: Said T. Hicks, For the Christian, I do hereby acquaint him that I do account such (by whatever Name they may be distinguished amongst men) who as Disciples of Christ being re­deem'd by his Blood, profess themselves oblieged in order to their Eternal Salva­tion, to learn and believe the Doctrine, Obey the Precepts revealed in the Scrip­tures, and follow the holy Life of the Christ of God, that is, that Person who only is and is known by that Name, and is call'd the Christ of God by God the Father, by himself, by his Holy & Inspired Penmen and Apo­stles, by men of all Nations, as being the only Person accompted and ordained by God to be the Lord, Master and Saviour of men, [Page 24]who was the Seed of Abraham & David, born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, crucified to Death at Jerusalem, rose from the Dead the third Day, and was afterward seen of the Apostles and many hundred of his Disciples, with whom he personally talked and conversed, and before whose Eyes he ascended into the Heavens, where he liveth to make Intercession, and governeth as Lord and Head over all, and whence he shall come to judge the World in Righteousness with an Eternal Judgment, and render to eve­ry man according to his Works.

It seems this is T. Hicks's Christian! Now, I have four things to remark:

1. He hath calculated his Confession to the Socinian Creed, in that he leaveth out Christ's Divinity as any part or Ar­ticle of his Faith; either because he is a Socinian, or to do them a good Turn at this juncture for their Hearty Endea­vours for his Cause. This very Article once distinguisht Hereticks from Ortho­dox: See Eusebius. But T. Hicks is not of that mind.

2. He hath not distinguisht about Precepts, between Shadowy and Substan­tial, Temporary and Eternal, Legal and Gospel.

3. That He is NOT this Christian, because He doth Not obey all those Precepts: He doth Not as he would be done by: He walks Not by the Rule of the New Creature; He doth More then an Eye for an Eye; He washeth Not Feet; anointeth Not with Oyl; sings Not Psalms: He confesseth and holds, That no man can keep those Precepts.

4. If this be a true Christian in Tho. Hicks's Account, the Quaker must needs be a Christian, since he ever held and maintained on Occasion, That Christ came of Abraham's Seed; and more, to wit, that he is God over all; that Redemption is in his Blood; that he dyed, rose and ascended into Heaven, is there at God's right Hand, the Mediator and Intercessor; that the Scripture contains Godly Precepts that ought to be believed & [...]beyed; yea, that the Fundamental Do­ctrines [Page 26]of the Gospel are therein exprest; & that there shall be a great Day of general Judgment to Eternal Felicity or Misery, according to the Deeds done in the Body.

This I say, the true Quaker ever owned and believed, and therefore a Christian by T. Hicks's Concession: But T. Hicks, this is not the Chrisiian thou hast printed in Opposition to the Quaker; for he is an arrant Counter­feit. Forger, Perverter and Slanderer, which is far from keeping the Pre­cepts contained in Holy Scripture; that falsly said, Our Christ was a My­stical Romance; that our Religion was cal­culated to the Service of the Devil and our own Lusts; that we were as grand Impostors as ever were; that we refase Just Debts on Revelation; that we hold the Soul to be God; that me were as perfect as ever; that there is no Resurrection or Eternal Rewards; that we should confess, We rail on our Adversaries, on purpose to make our Friends believe we have the better, &c. This was thy printed Christian; [Page 27]see how thy Christians contradict each other; but Thomas, if all thy Duties be Sin (as it is one general Maxim a­mong you) thy Christian Confession is one among the rest.

I shall now assume my former Query, That you tell us what Sort of Chri­stian ye mean, the Quaker is not? explain your selves to the World, and not, who is a true Christian? 'And you (denying Inward Evidence and Re­velation) tell us, whether Faith and Works, or Principle and Practice, or Pretended Faith and Principles without Works or Practice, make a Real Chri­stian? which may serve for a Look­ing Glass, as well for your selves as for us: I speak particularly to you, who are many Heads confede­rated this Day against us; Each Sort claims the Name, but who has the Nature in your Sense? Therefore answer plainly, without Equivoca­tion or Evasion, what you mean by Christian?

But T. H. to close the Discourse, thus vents himself against me, Where­as T. R. hath made so great an Out-cry a­gainst Forgery, I would only acquaint him, That if he knows the Quaker as well as he knows himself that did publish in Print the Attestation of several Persons without their Knowledge or Consent, meerly to serv [...] the Quakers Interest, then I count it n [...] Wonder that either my self or any other Per­son should be abused by T. R. or a Quaker.

To which I answer: It is much [...] man of T. H's Circumstances would not speak directly as well as thus insi­nuatingly (or with an If) to fix a Scan­dal upon me; were it true, why should he fear to tell me, I counterfited som [...] Persons hands, as the thing he write [...] may probably bear amongst man who may have a good Share of Ho­nesty, though not sufficient Craft [...] espye the Promulger's Subtilty? B [...] briesly I shall answer both as to th [...] supposed Attestation it self, and Ca [...] of it. It was thus; In the Year 167 [...] [Page 31]One R. James, an Anabaptist Preacher, publisht in print a Pamphlet, term'd A true and impartial Narrative of the emi­nent Hand of God that befel a Quaker & his Family at the Town of Panton in Lin­coln-shire, who (saith the Pamphlet) affirm'd he was commanded of God to pro­nounce Mr R. James, Preacher of the Go­spel, a Leaper from the Crown of the Head to the Soal of the Foot; the same Judgment of Leprosie shortly after falling upon one of his Children, himself, Wife, and the rest of his Children being also afflicted with a pain­ful Distemper, attested under the Hand of several credible Persons, Eye & Ear Wit­nesses: This Leprose Child and sore af­flicted Family, the Anabaptists pretend that they Cured, or were presently cur'd by their Prayers on purpose made for them, as their Pamphlet affirmeth; (but as for producing any Eye or Ear-Witnesses, that this Man or his Child was so really Afflicted or Heal'd by them, they fail'd in) This coming to London, was entertain'd with great Ac­clamation [Page 32]amongst the Anabaptists and other Professors, and prest upon us and the Reader, as a Decision of the Con­troversie 'twixt Us & the Anabaptists, A Land-mark of Providence and Finger of God, as their Pamphlet boasted: And truly when it came to my hands, I judg'd it a very strange Prodigy, if true, and a Miracle exceding all I have read of in the holy Scriptures, done by the Prophets, Christ or his Apostles; and more especially, that when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, could not do many Wonderous Works in his own Country because of Unbelief, That the Anabaptists, whose Belief is that Miracles are absolutly ceas'd, should work such a miraculous Cure upon a leprous & afflicted Family, and that upon a Qua­kers, who still continued a Quaker (as they insinuated) Men whom they who­lely conclude in Unbelief, was such a mighty Miracle, that I had not Faith to believe it, and therefore question'd its Verity; and upon Inquiry it was [Page 33]found a Deceitful piece of Imposture, and a most abominable Forgery, and the Forger of it to be the aforesaid R. James.

But the Anabaptists confident attest­ing the Verity thereof, stirred such a Tumultuous Spirit with Uproars and Out-cries against our Friends, that se­veral of them from far distant Places travell'd to Panton in Lincoln-shire, to enquire out the Verity thereof, and with some diligent search they found the Person (viz. R. Anderton) upon whom and his Family, the An baptists pretended they had wrought this great Miracle, or in truth had acted a [...]i [...]ce of Cheat and Imposture: where­upon this said R. Anderton in the Pre­sence of Dr. Lincoln, the Parish Par­son, and above twenty of his Neigh­bours, declared that he never was a Qua­ker, or known by them, and ne­ver at their Meetings, except about a Quarter of an Hour at the Castle of Lincoln (when Ral [...]h James, the Forger of the Story was with him) [Page 34]and affirm'd, he never had any Leprous Child, which his Neighbours with him then unanimously confirmed, and shewed the Child alive, whom the Anabaptist affirmed to be Dead; and further affirmed, that neither himself nor any of his Family was troubled with any such Painful Distemper, as the Baptist say they had: The Tenor of which Account, with other mate­rial Circumstances that confirm'd the Truth thereof, was committed in Writing by the Persons who travailed thither, to certifie us at London and else-where, how the Case really stood, and what the Persons and Inhabitants declared, concerning the Matter: And at the Close of their Testimonial they declared, these Things were affirmed by the said R. A. and confirmed by the Inhabitants of the Town, whose Names (not Hands) thereto subscri­bed; and under the Title Inhabitants, the said Person writ down the Inhabi­tants Names; and at the Close of [Page 35]the Writing subscribed their own [...]ands, as further Witnesses thereto; [...]his or a Copy thereof, being sent to [...]ondon, as pertinent to detect their [...]buse, and undeceive the World of [...]uch a Piece of Imposture and abomi­ [...]ible Fraud, that they had forged, I [...]serted in a small Pamphlet, titul'd, [...]he Anabaptist Preacher Unmaskt, in a [...]rther Discovery of his lying Wonder out of [...]incoln-shire, to which I further refer [...]e Reader for Satisfaction: This is [...]e naked Truth, and the State of that [...]ase, as well to the Matter it self, as [...]inner of its Detection; and had [...]ose Persons declared that such Dis­ [...]urse and Circumstances had been [...], and passed before the Judges of [...] Land (admitting it had been done their Presence) and given an Ac­ [...]pt thereof; I know not why T. H. [...]uld cavil, so long as the Fact was [...], as well to Circumstance as Sub­ [...]ce, or reflect on T. R. for publish­ [...]g the Certificate or Account thereof [Page 36]sent him, and imputed that as a Piece of Crime, which was really an Act of Justice.

I might now enumerate the many palpable Untruths despersively mixt in T. H's Rebuke of T. R. such as his changing, Not only the Pages, but that the whole of them (wherein I concern'd my self with the above-nam'd Proposal) gives the Lye to my Title-Page;—And his charging me in passing over eight Proposals with deep Silence: These I am bold to say, T. H. if in his Wits or to­lerable Understanding, knows are untrue Impositions, & nothing else the Roman-like flourishes to adorn his abu­sive Discourse, as too frequently the Wild Gallants in our Age mix their with prophane Oathes; an ill Patter [...] to imitate: But that he may pre­sent himself an apt Schollar in that [...] the like School, he gives us a preg­nant Instance of his Proficiency, ins [...] ­nuating, That one in the Name of an [...] Friend of ours had given us Counsel to be [...] [Page 37] [...] out with Huffing, to affirm or deny any [...]hing, and that with the Highest Confi­ [...]ence, &c. Who was it T. H. that [...]ave this Counsel? Was it any other [...]hen a nameless Libeller? and the [...]retended Friend of ours, Was it [...]ot a feigned Jesuit? A Piece patcht [...]p and promulged by your selves, to [...]raduce us here and throughout this City and Nation? Was this Work Christian? Thy Brother Loddington [...]old you, with much more, That the [...]heet it self smelt of the Spirit of Perse­ [...]ution, which was the very worst Part of Popery; and gave you a due Rebuke [...]or introducing us into your Meeting [...]ith such first Entertainment: — Therefore as to the Advice of thy Confederate, and not our Friend, and [...]ou who wouldst thus traduce us, [...] answer with the Honest Moralist, [...]rpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit [...]sum.

Thus having acquitted my self and Friends from T. H. and his abusive Pa­per, [Page 38]I can do no less then briefly to acquaint him and the Reader, That ou [...] Contest and Controversie at this Day against him, and with his Confede­rates, is not,

• 1. For opposing his Christian and Quaker; but making a Counterfeit Chri­stian and a False Quaker.
• 2. Not for Truly stating our Princi­ples, and attempting to refel them But for feigning and forging Principle that are not ours, thereby traducing us.
• 3. Not for his not having Confi­dence in Press and Pulpit, and in othe [...] Assemblies in our Absence, to charg [...] us with holding Doctrines and Opi­nions inconsistent with Christian Rel [...] ­gion; But not having Courage to mee [...] us in Publick to debate the Matters [...] Controversie betwixt us in a Free an [...] Open Assembly.
• 4. Not for his not pretending to b [...] ready to meet us in Publick; But his re [...] avoiding to appear answerable to hi [...] [Page 39]Pretences, of which we have had a pregnant Instance.

What shall I say? His Promises and Performances, his Words and Actions, are as correspondent as his and his Confederates have usually been, when they have been brought to Publick Tryal, as most Parts of this Nation can plentifully witness; like those of old, Who were strong to draw the Bow, but turned their Backs in the Day of Battle.

But surely, were T. H's Diatogues and Discourses as True and Real as if they had been a Verbal Discourse, and his Authorities taken from our Books and Writings, as he not only in Words, but in Print has confidently, though falsly affirmed, what need he fear to give us a Publick Meeting, to make an Open Disquisition of those Contro­versies? I must tell him, let him evade and shuffle as long as he can, we look upon it as our Right to have a fair and open Discussion of those Instances of Forgeries, Lyes, Standers and Perversions, [Page 40]we have in Print exhibited against him: And I must say, were he really Innocent (according to the English Laws) his flying a Fair Tryal will breed (and not without good Cause) great Suspicion of his Guilt.

I with many more discern with what Artifice the Confederates would di­vert our present Pursuit from T. Hicks, viz. with Forging, venting, promulging renewed scurrilous and abusive Eibels, nameless Pamphlets; and others, with forged or unknown Authors, Lampoons, Ballads and such like Weapons; how Man­ly, Spiritual or Christian the Generous Minds abroad, as well as the Honest and Simple-hearted amongst them­selves, can discern, some to Derision, others to Sorrow of Hearts and Spirits: And to compleat T. H's Defence, J. I. a Confederate, must single out & dare us to Battel with him, that the while T. H. might escape our Pursuit, or whilst the Eyes of the People are up­on some new Encounter, T. H. might [Page 41]slip out of a Back Door: And truly, if the Night were come upon our Un­derstandings, or our Eyes Purblind, we might gaze at these Cords of light Matches, and so divert our Battel to encounter a Cheat. Alas! In all that is written against us, I desire no more of the Unprejudiced Reader then to compare the Citations (observing the prior and subsequent Discourse) to con­sider the Author's Circumstances and Ends, and his Judgment I will abide; but as to him or any other, although (Articulariter) they might be answer'd on that or other Subject, his and their Ends being discover'd: I shall (not abridging the Freedom of any other) renew my former Resolve, ‘That if J. Ives will still appear as a Privateer against us, thinking by his Brawling Outcries to still the Noise of our Charge of Forgery, &c. exhibited against T. H. & stiffle our Just Complaints against W. K. &c. by my Consent he shall rail on, Rabshekah-like, &c. till the [Page 42]Just Hand of the Lord overtake him:’ This is still my Mind, and other An­swer I design him not; but expect, and cannot but press T. Hicks to give us a Publick Meeting, and in a Free and Open Assembly answer our Charge exhibited against him; he knows, and so many of his Brethren, that our Request in this case is but reasonable: And that the Reader may know it is not without good Cause that we press to publick Hearing and Discussion of the Controversies betwixt us & T. H. I shall instance some of the many abo­minable wretched, and as I may say, Hellish Doctrines, Opinions and Practi­ces, which he feign'd and forg'd, falsly imposed, and malitiously insinuated to be ours.

1. That notwithstanding we have e­ver (since, & before we were reproach­fully call'd Quakers) declar'd & own'd the Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament, to be of Divine Authority, and that the Holy Men of [Page 43]God gave them forth as they were moved of the Holy Ghost; and that they are the Words of God, though Christ, according to the Holy Scrip­tures, is only called the Word of God, Joh. 1. it being his proper Name; as Rev. 19.13. Yet T. Hicks has maliti­ously insinuated and affirmed, that we render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Authority then Esop's Fables, and esteem them inferior to our own pamphlets.

2. That although we really and truly believe, and have ever in Words and Writing openly attested, and wit­nessed that the Blood of Christ only cleanses from Sins, and that his Blood was shed upon the Cross as an Univer­sal Sacrifice; yet T. H. wickedly affirmed, That the Blood of Christ in our Esteem is worse then the Blood of a common Thief.

3. That although we have ever de­clar'd, that by Faith In Christ and his Grace are we sav'd, & that there is no other Name given, by which Salva­tion [Page 44]is brought to our Souls; Yet T. H. has falsly and abusively affirmed, That the Quakers owning Jesus Christ, is indeed no other then a meer Mystical Romance.

4. And although the Lord by his mighty Hand and outstretched Arm, has redeem'd his Remnant from a vain Conversation, and separated us from the many and unfruitful Works of Darkness, which not only griev'd his Good Spirit, but kept us in Bondage to the Enemy of our Souls and Man­kind, and instead thereof hath rais'd and begotten in us a Desire, and ear­nest Breathing, that the whole Crea­tion may return to God, and come un­der the Government of that just, holy and equal Law, To do as they would be done unto; yet T. Hicks, to vilifie, scan­dalize and traduce us as well in our Civil as Religious Capacities in the Hearts and Spirits of the Generation in which we live, hath falsly and mali­tiously, and without just Cause insinu­ated and promulg'd these Wicked and [Page 45]Abominable Positions of and concer­ning us, viz.

1. That the Tendency of all the Quakers Reasoning about instituted Religion, is to debauch Mankind.

2. That their Meetings are only and principally to Decoy, Trapan and inviegle others.

3. That their Principles improv'd are Destructive to all Human Society.

4. That their Religion is a meer Cheat calculated only to the Service of the Divel and their own Lusts.

5. He falsly insinuates that they pretend Revelation, to excuse them the Paying of their just Debts; thereby presenting it Dangerous for Persons to deal with them. These, with many more, are the Mat­ters in Charge against him, already exhibited in Print, for which we can do no less then require a Free, Open and Publick Meeting and Auditory, that if we prove him not a Forger, Lyar and Slanderer, he may be fairly acquit­ted, else, that if upon a Disquisition [Page 46]of these and many others he be found Guilty, that he may bear the Weight and Burthen of his own Work, accor­ding to that just and equal Law, Deut. 19.16. If a False Witness rise up against any man to testifie against him that which is Wrong. Vers. 7. Then both the men between whom the Controver [...]e is, shall stand before the Lord, before the Friest and the Judges that shall be in those Dayes. Vers. 18. And the Judges shall make di­ligent Inquisition; and behold, if the Wit­ness be a False Witness, and hath testified falsly against his Brother. Vers. 19. Then shall you do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother, so shalt thou put the Evil away from among you. Vers. 20. And those which remain shall hear and fear, and shall henceforth no more commit any such Evil among you. Vers. 21. And thine Eye shall not pitty, but Life shall go for Life, Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Hand for Hand, Foot for Foot.