HE pretends to Query, Not to Cavil, but to understand the Truth—and if Demonstrated—to be very willing to Sub­scribe to it, page 2.

But in Contradiction he saith, All I intend is, only th [...] Convicti­on and Recovery, p. 10. He pretends the Conviction of Others, whilst he wants it, and is to seek for a Right Understanding for himself.

Tho. Hicks saith, Notwithstanding thy most Diligent Attendance to the Light in thee: That which thou call'st the Light in thee, hath in many things Mis [...]guided thee, p. 3.

Tho. Hicks in Contradiction saith, I Appeal to the Light in thee —I grant it ought to be Obeyed, p. 7.

Animadversion, See how palpably he Contradicts himself; as much as to say, It is a Mis-Guiding Light; and yet, it is such (a True Rule) as to be Appealed to, and Obeyed.

T. H. That which any of you have said (viz. concerning the Light within every man) hath been no more then what the Apostle speaks of the Man of Sin, 2 Thes. 2.9. and what may as well prove Mahomet to be the True Christ, as the Light in you, p. 11, 12.

T. H. Contrad. How could you call the Light within Christ, if some Scriptures had not mention'd Christ in you, and that he is the Life and Light of Men? the Scriptures must be your Rule for this, pag 22.

Anim. Gross Contradiction: I [...]s Blasphemy to Compare Chri [...]t to th [...] M [...]n of [...]in, or Him, or his Life (which is the Light of Men) to Ma [...]o [...]et.

Th [...]t [...] Ob [...]y the Commands of the Living Ete [...]nal Word in, [Page 6] us. In Answer to this T. Hicks saith, Its no other then a meer My­stical Romance, p. 10.

T. H. Contrad. It will be our Wisdom, yea, our Duty, not only to attend to the Light Within, &c. p. 13.

Anim. Thou T. H. hast acted the Prophane Romancer, and Irreligious Miscreant against the Light of Christ Within; which yet thou art made to confess it (in part, at least) our Duty to at­tend to it.

T. H. The Scriptures are the Word of God, and the Rule of Faith, pag. 17.

T. H. Contrad. True; the Sayings of the Devil, and Wicked Men, are part of God's History—God hath, by the Holy Pen-Men, given us this Relation of the Words of the Devil and Wicked Men, p. 18.

Anim. The Word of God and the Words of the Devil are not the same, to be sure: Christ is the Word; the Scriptures are Writings, containing words of God and Holy Men.

T.H. The Word of God (the Scriptures are) the Sword of the Spi­rit, p. 18, & 87. the Rule of Faith and Practice, to Obliege your Faith and Practice—The Grounds of Faith and Hope, p. 19.

T. H. Contrad. This Rule must be the Will of God Revealed to us—for 'tis 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 Angels; therefore, as it is the Ground of their Being, it must be the Rule of their Acting, p. 31.

Anim. But the Scriptures were neither the Ground of the Creation, nor of the Being of either Men or Angels; but the E­ternal Powerful Will and Word of God, which Only and Ef­fectually Obligeth the Soul to Him.

T. H. I will suppose thee to be a Holy Man—The Best Thing in thee cannot be the Rule, p. 20.

Answ. A Gross Error: The Spirit of God can be the Rule, both in Power, and Living Instruction (and that Above the Scrip­tures) for it can both Lead into all Truth, and bring forth Li­ving Fruits, and Acceptable Duty to God.

[Page 7]T. H. All things necessary to be Believed and Practiced, with Re­spect to Eternal Life, is contained in these Holy Scriptures, and in no other Record in the World, either without, or within Men, p. 20.

Answ. Yet thou hast confest, Christ in you, and the Spirit of God, p. 21, 22. See how thou art in Confusion: Christ con­tains more then the Scriptures; for, in him are all the Hidden Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge. But this thy Underva­luing Christ, and his Light Within, and the Spirit's sufficiency, is plainly Contradicted in what follows.

T. H. Indeed, 'tis not to be Deny'd, 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, p. 31.

Answ. By MAN, must be understood, Mankind in general▪ or else thou Dissemblest: If then man was alwayes under such an Obligation, God hath afforded that Light or Rule to all Men (even to those Nations that have not the Scriptures) which is suffi­cient to Direct them to himself: and this Concession destroys much of thy Work.

T. H. That of God in my Conscience is not sufficient, meerly of it self▪ to Direct me in those things needful to be Known, Believed and Practiced, p. 21.

T. H. Contrad. Some Scriptures mentioned, Christ in you, p. 22.

Anim. Is not Christ Sufficient? What Blasphemous Opposi­tion against Christ is this man guilty of?

He varies from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and Pra­ctice unto Christians, p. 17▪ 19. The Grounds of our Faith and Hope, p. 19. (which the Scriptures do no where assert)▪ To the Scriptures, being a Rule, p. 17, 21, 24. And then to go round again, The Mind of God contain'd therein, p. 20. The Will of God manifest in this Written Word, p 38, 39. And then in Flat Con­tradiction [Page 8] to the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith, he sayes, This Rule must be the Will of God, which was the Ground of the Crea­tion and Being of Men and Angels, p. 31.

Reader, What Harmony can be found in this Man's Scri­bling?

T. H. There is an utter Insufficiency in this meer Light Within, to Direct us the Right Way of Worshipping the True God—This is manifest from the great Loss, that the Wisest amongst the Heathen have been, and still are under, about this very thing, p. 35, 36.

T.H. Contrad. Christ is the Life and Light of Men, p. 22. Man was alwayes under the Obligation of a Rule; that God's Soveraignity, and his Inferiority unto God, might be Acknowledged, page 31. as before.

Anim. What thinkst thou, Will. Kiffin? Doth thy Brother Hicks credit your Cause in these manifest Contradictions? One while, to charge such utter Insufficiency upon the Light Within; another while Christ is the Life, and Light of men (this I urge the oftener upon him, that he and his Brethren may see his Self-contradiction) Is not Christ [...]ufficient? And why must the Wisest of the Heathen be Excluded from the Sufficiency of such an Obligation or Rule, as Man was always under? Are they No Men? and have they no Souls to be Saved? or, Must they all be Damned for Want of the Scriptures (who have them not) if they improve so much Light as God hath given them? (see Acts 10.34. Rom. 2.10, 11.) This is not yet Answer'd by you: Though the Cru [...]l Partiality that is in your Electionary Opinion appears plainly against the Uni­ve [...]sal Light or Grace of God to Mankind? I cannot but believe, that div [...]s of the Heathen (who were Sincere to God) were both more Morral, and more Pious, (and therefore, more in the Life of Christianity) then many of you Baptist Preachers are. Did Christ Dye for all men? or, Is he a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World? And hath not God afforded that Light or Grace to all that's able to convey or discover the Vertue of his Blood, and Spiritual Effects of his Sacrifice to Mankind? How Narrow and Partial are they who Deny this?

[Page 9]T. H. What Intollerable Pride and Arrogancy have you arived to? and all this, thy following the Light Within; improving it to the Subver­ting and Annihilating the Covenant of Grace, p. 38.

H. Grigg, I really believe, That the Lord Jesus, as the Eternal Word, hath given Light, or Enlightened all Men and Women that come into the World, pag. 8. of his Book, stiled, Light from the Sun ▪

Anim. See here how plainly one Brother Contradicts ano­ther: Can it be less then Blasphemy, to judge, That following the Light of the Eternal Word doth either produce such Pride, Subvert or Annihilate the Covenant of Grace? Is not this to make the Light of Christ Oppose Christ?

T. H. Surely this Light, instead of Directing what you do in a way of Subserviency to the Ends of this Covenant, doth directly Oppose it, is in that so far from being a Sufficient Rule, that it ought to be Rejected, pag. 38.

T. H. Contrad. Yet all this is no Disparagement to the Light Within, to say, That God doth make any thing more known of his Will, then is, or can be known by this meer Light Within: for it is but to say, that Each Degree of Light is Serviceable to its End, p. 36.

Anim. By this then the Difference is only about the Degrees of the Light, and not about the Nature and Property of it; and then, if each Degree be Serviceable to its End (as no Doubt it is) what Blasphemous Contradiction is it to say, That any Degree of this Light of Christ (as the Eternal Word) either doth di­rectly Oppose this Covenant, which is Christ, or is to be Reje­cted? Doth the Light of Christ Oppose Christ? What thinkest thou, William Kiffin? Hath not thy Brother Hicks shewn In­tollerable Pride, Madness, and his Gross Darkness against this Light Within? Canst not see his Self-Confutation herein? Why wouldst thou suffer such a Contradictory Pamphlet, as this thy Brother's Dialogue, to be divulged?

H. Grigg, The great Darkness of these Men, who cry up Light and Power Within, this Wile of Satan, and Cheat of Antichrist, p. 31.

[Page 10]T. Hicks Contrad. I acknowledge there is something Within, that Checks for many Evils, and Excites to many Good Things; and that I ought to Shun those Evils, and do that Good, p. 8.

Anim. See here again the Contradiction that's between these two Brothers: Can that be a Wile of Satan which thus Checks for Evil and Excites to Good? Oh! that these men would Obey it, that they might be better composed in their Minds, and not remain in this Bedlam frame of spirit; for, as yet, one acts the Bedlam the one while, and the other another while.

T. H. This Light Within directs not our Actions to those Holy and Spiritual Ends, which the Scripture doth: Alas! whereto doth the Best of Men's Actions naturally tend, but to Swell them with Pride and Con­ceit of themselves? p. 37.

T. H. Contrad. The Heathen in many things, with Respect to Morral Goodness, there was something Commendable in them—The Jews had a Light in them, by which they might acknowledge God ought to be Worshipped (contradicted again) yet that Light could not di­rect them how that Worship should be performed, so as to Please Him, pag. 36, 37.

Anim. In the first, he puts Corrupt Proud Nature for the Light; in the next Contradiction, the Light is Commendable for Morral Goodness; in the last, he Opposeth the Sufficiency of the Living Word, Good Spirit, or Light, which was given to the Jews: and this accuseth Moses, and the Prophets, with di­recting them to an Insufficient Light. See Deut. 30.14. Neb. 9.20. Isa. 2.5. & chap. 63.10.

T. H. We Oppose not the Scriptures to the Holy Spirit, but to the Light Within p. 39. (which Opposing of theirs is thus explained, The Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Practice, the Light With­in to be Rejected.)

T. H. Contrad. Neither will this Common Light rise above its Source, Nature, Vse and End; wherefore Affront no more the Grace and Wisdom of God in Superadding more, p. 37.

Anim. See how this Man's Plung'd! One while he is setting the Scriptures in Opposition to the Light Within; another while, [Page 11] the Degree of it is so far from being to be Rejected, that 'tis to have more Added to: which granting, it follows, that the Ad­dition of more must come through the Improvement of the Less Degree; and Degrees do not vary the Nature or Kind.

T. H. We see, that the Light in one man teacheth one thing, and the Light in another a direct Contrary; so that there can be no certainty of Truth or Error, Sin or Duty by this: for, that which is Sin to one man, is and may be Duty to another; and consequently, Sin is nothing, page 42.

Answ. Now he renders the Light within Men (so commended before) as no Real Light, but as Corrupt and Variable as the Erroneous Minds of Men; and so Blasphemously p [...]ts Dark [...]ess for Light: But how agrees this with his saying, Christ is the Life and Light of Men, p. 22. no Disparagement to the Light Within—each Degree of Light is Serviceable to its End, p. 36. we being Accountable for every Dispensation of Light, accor­ding to its kind, p. 13. But if there be no such thing, as a Real Light, to Distinguish between Sin and Duty, what should they be Accountable for? What Atheistical Bedlam Work has this T. Hicks made against the Light Within!

H. Grigg, I affirm, That Jesus Christ is a Man, consisting of Flesh and Bone, p. 30, 31. Humane, p. 33.

T. Hicks Contrad. The Son took Flesh upon him, p. 35. The Word took Flesh, p. 47. The Father did prepare Him a Body, p. 83.

Anim. There's no small difference between Consisting of Hu­mane Flesh and Bone, and his T [...]king Flesh, or having a Body Prepared for him: As for the Son of God to consist of such a Body, implies. He was not before that Body; but to say, the Father did prepare him a Body, implies, That he was before, and so he was, and is Ascended Up, where he was before Glori­fied with the Father, &c. John 6.62. chap. 17.5.

Whilst T. H. expects to be Perfectly Freed from Sin in Heaven after Death, p. 50. and yet questions, Whether it shall be the Pri­viledge of any on this side Death? p. 55. He is very Uncertain in [Page 12] his Opposing the Doctrine of Perfection, as Attainable in this Life; to be sure, his Sinful Course here is not the Way to Hea­ven hereafter; neither doth his Rehearsal of Personal Mistakes, and Failings in Motions or Actions (if granted against several Persons, divers of whom I believe he wrongeth, p. 26, 27, 28, 29, 52.) overthrow immediate Revelation, or the Doctrine of Per­fection; nor yet prove the Light of Christ within so Uncertain, as to teach one man one thing, and another a direct contrary; nor yet to shew no certainty of Truth or Error, Sin or Duty, as Erroneously he represents it, p. 42. As it is his Iniquity to Reflect upon a People in general from the Failings of some, so he sheweth himself a Silly Logition to Reflect upon Principles by Personal Weaknesses; though this is his kind of Logick, whilst he sleights Revelation, and for an Instance against it, tells us of a Revelation that came from Paul Hobson, who, on purpose to try them, spake through a Trunk yet could they not distinguish his Voice from the Immediate Voice of God, p. 27.

And who was this Paul Hobson? Was he not an Eminent Bap­tist Preacher, and Brother of these Men? 'Tis true, we have heard, that he served a Poor, Shatter'd, Whimsical Man, as his Brother T.H. relates, viz. That he Feigned a Voice, and called, as from God, through a Trunk; and so Deceived this Silly Man: Do you think that this adds any thing to the Credit of the Baptists Cause, thus to publish boastingly their Brother's Wickedness? And which was Worse, think you, Paul Hobson the Deceiver, or the Person whom he Deceived? Is this a Valid Argument against Re­velation? And would T.H. and his Brother Will. Kiffin, take it well, if I should make their Brethren's Miscarriages, and their Brother Hobson's said Wickedness, an Argument against them, as never Called of God either to Preach, Dip or Plunge people in Water? Judge, Reader, how Silly they are in these their Attempts and Work against Us.

T.H. I. That the Light in every man is a Creature, p. 6. No more then a meer Creature ▪ p. 46.

Answ. Contrary to plain Scripture, which saith, In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men, John 1.4. This Life and Light of Christ is Divine and Increated.

T. H. II. Jesus Christ, God, Man, a Person without thee, p. 9.

Answ. This is not Scripture Language; but the Anthropomor­phites and Muggletonians, who profess a Personal God, denying him to be an Infinite Spirit.

T.H. III. The Scriptures are the Word of God, the Rule of Faith, and Practice, p. 17.

Answ. Do not these men count the Scriptures the great Rule of Speaking also? Then by what Rule must we believe that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Practice, while they no where do call themselves so? But Christ, the Word, the Way, the Truth and the Life, &c. whose Divine Light being the Rule of the Understanding, is therefore the Rule of Faith and Sound Judgment, which only can truly open the Scriptures, and bring man to the right Use and End of them.

T. H. IV. The Bible is the Means of our Knowing God, p. 41.

Answ. He Idolatrously sets up the Bible in the place of Christ: For, no man knows the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son Reveals him, Mat. 11.27.

T. H. V. There is an utter insufficiency in this meer Light With­in to direct us the Right Way of Worshipping God; this is manifest from the Great Loss the Wisest among the Heathen have been, and still are under, p. 55, 56.

[Page 14] Answ. Contrary to plain Scripture, which saith, That which may be Known of God is Manifest in them; and even as they liked it not to retain God in their Knowledge, he gave them over to a Reprobate Mind, Rom. 1.19, 20, 21, 28. and see Rom. 2.10, 11, 14, 15, 16. Therefore had those Gentiles truly Obey'd and Follow'd that Light, and improved that Knowledge given them of God, they had been preserved in his Way and Worship from Reprobation and Idolatry.

T. H. VI. The Apostles, and all True Christians, say, This Bo­dy of Flesh and Bones shall Rise again, p. 59, 60.

Answ. Where do the Apostles say these words in Scripture? Let us have plain Scripture Proof; or else, let him not pretend the Scripture to be his Rule: The Apostle's words are, Thou Fool, thou sowest not that Body that shall be; but God giveth a Body as plea­seth him, unto every Seed his own (or proper) Body, 1 Cor. 15. vers. 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 46, 47, 48. And the Spiritual Glorious Body is not a Carnal or Natural Body, any more then the Bodies Cele­stial are Terrestial [I have more to say to this Point elsewhere] But T. H. is pleased to pass by my Question with silence, which was, Whether the Wheat, that is grown up in the Ear, be the very same that was sown?

T. H. VII. This cannot be meant of a New Created Body, be­cause such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed, p. 58.

Answ. A strange Inconsistency, that they shall not be New Created Bodies, and yet the same Carnal or Terrestial Bodies of all (how many Thousand soever be dissolved to Dust) should rise compleat without a New Creation! Man was formed of the Dust of the Earth; What, must the Dust of Dissolved Bodies be rais'd, without Creating a New? A strange Confusion and gross Imagi­nation. He tells us, The Apostles say, This Body of Flesh and Bones shall rise again: When the Apostle saith, Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God: Where proves he then that Flesh and Bones without Blood shall? But if it cannot be a New Crea­ted Body, it is not the same Carnal, Natural or Terrestial Body (of Flesh, Blood and B [...]ne) that is given to every Seed, as it pleaseth God (nor is that Body, the Seed spoken of, 1 Cor. 15.38. [Page 15] as some of these men have affirmed) or that shall inherit his Kingdom: but a Spiritual Glorious Body, such as is the Hea­venly, 1 Cor. 15.48. This is a Mystery hid from such Carnal Sensual Men as T. H. who cannot see any Eternal Advantage after Death, unless he enjoyes it in this his Carnal Body, or Earthly Tabernacle: What then, shall the Spiritual Existencies, or Sanctified Souls, reap no Benefit by the Dissolution of the Earthly Tabernacle? Or is he of the mind of some of his Bre­thren, that hold the Mortality of the Soul, that it Dyeth (or Sleepeth in the Dust) with the Body; and that it remains so till a future Day, expected for the raising up of both: But we are not of their Mind and Opinion in this, but that there is an Immediate Separation made between the Soul and Body upon Dissolution,

and that the Soul is Immortal, being made to subsist in Immortallity by an Unchangeable Power, either in a state of Felicity, or Misery according to the Image that it did bear in the World. But,Note: Gen. 2.7. Wisd. 15.11. unless you come (in the Light) to know the Original, Life or Seed in the Soul, which is Immutable: you can neither rightly know your own Souls,Note: Deut. 4.9. and 6.5. and 13.3. nor the two contra­ry Spirits, Natures and Images, in one of which every man will be found, to receive his due Reward. So that the Soul of Man is neither God, nor Christ, the Saviour or Redeemer (as falsly it is insinuated as our Princi­ple) for we have always distinguished between the Soul, and the Saviour of it; the Soul being inferior to that Eternal Word, or Power, that Saves it: see my Answer to R. Gourden, entituled, The Nature of Christianity, &c. p. 15, 16, & 73. in which T.H. his Cavil, and pretended Occasion against us is fully answered, and taken off.Note: Prov. 21.10. Isa. 66.3. And as Tribulation & An­guish will be upon every Soul of Man that doth Evil, Rom. 2.9. & Isa. 3.9. and God knows how to Reserve the Unjust unto the Day of Judgment, to be Punished and the Wicked unto the Day of Destruction. So they who tru­ly love the Lord God with all their Souls, and continue in the Way of Righteousness, shall not only Cease from their Labours [Page 16] and Travels, but receive and eternally possess this Advantage, even a being ever with the Lord in his Everlasting Kingdom of Glory and Triumph.

So we are still of the Apostles mind, expecting an Eternal Ad­vantage after Desolution; For we know, that if our Earthly House of this Tabernable were disolved, we have a Building of God, a House not made with Hands, Eternal, in the Heavens; for, in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our House, which is from Heaven, 2 Cor. 5.1, 2. For me to Live is Christ, and to Dye is Gain, Phil. 1.21.

Now whereas T. Hicks assumes the Confidence to Justifie his Work against us, call'd Quakers, as being Conscious to himself, that he has not in any thing Mis-represented us, p. 78. and that if the Quakers return him that Answer, that they are Lyes and Slanders, and that he is an Envious and Railing Man, he shall not think himself concerned to give any Reply, because he is fully satisfied, &c. p. 90.

To this I must tell him, Whether he will be pleased to Reply or no, he hath shewn himself very guilty of both Lyes and Slanders; and hath as plainly acted the Part of an Envious and Railing man, as ever any Opposers (have done against us) wh [...] profess Religion; and there are many Thousands, that can witness against him for these his Lyes and Slanders against us, among many more, as his Accusing us, viz.

1. That the Quakers account the Blood of Christ no more then an Vnholy Thing, p. 9.

2. That they account the Blood of Christ, which was shed, no more then the Blood of a Common Thief, p. 31.

3. He represents this as the Quakers words, viz. That we make use of the Scriptures only to quiet and stop their Clamors that plead for it as their Rule, p. 25.

4. That Fox, Dewsbury, Whitehead, Crisp and Penn, are ex­ceedingly Corrupt in Morrals, p. 43.

5. That the Quakers deny the Resurrection of the Body, and all fu­ture and distin [...]t Beings and Existences after Death, p. 53, 57, 62. Because they say, That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the King­dom of God, p. 56. see 1 Cor. 15.50.

[Page 17]6. That the Quakers Opinion denies any eternal Advantage after Death, p. 75.

7. He insinuates, That the Quakers chief Motive and Induce­ment to Suffer is, the Satisfaction of their Wills and Lusts, and the pro­moting their Carnal Interests, p. 75.

Answ. It doth very Ill become these Baptists, thus to Slander and Defame our Sufferings, to render us Obnoxious to the Powers (though they'll be of little Credit herein) knowing their own Cowardliness, Creeping and Sculking into Corners and Obscure Places in Suffering-Times: the Fruitlesness of Coertion hath not been manifest by these mens Valour; though now when they have gotten up into their Pulpits and Pews, they are not content with their own Liberties, but Envy us in ours; who have been Instru­mental to stand in the Gap, in deep Sufferings, with Resigna­tion of Estates and Lives, and yet must be Branded by T. Hicks, as Sufferers to satisfie Lusts, and to promote Carnal Interests: This his Malice and Slander is so apparent and gross, that I need not Paraphraise much upon it; but leave it to God, and his Witness in all to judge of.

For a further Answer to T. Hicks, I refer the Reader to these Books of mine, entituled as followeth, viz.

The Life of Christ Within, &c. in Answer to Will. Burnet, Baptist

Christ Ascended above the Clouds; in Answer to J. Newman, Bap.

The Nature of Christianity; in Answer to R. Gourdon.

The Principal Controversies, &c. in Answer to the Presbyterians of Scotland.

I would desire so much Reasonableness of Will. Kiffin, Tho. Hicks, Hen. Grigg, and the rest of their Fraternity; That when any of them are minded to write against the Quakers, about the Light of Christ Within, &c. that they would seriously peruse and exam [...]ne their Work, and endeavour better to compose their Matter, without Contradictions; that if they come ingeniously to signi­fie the good Use and End of it, and what shall be the End of all that improve it, whether they have the Scriptures or not; it may prevent much further Controversie: But if they are still minded [Page 18] to invalidate and deprave the Light that's in all men: let's have their Work consistent to deal withal; otherwayes, by their Con­traditions they shew themselves uncertain and dubious, as T Hicks and H.G. do; one while affirming, that the Light within every man is a Creature, and Mis-guiding; another while, Christ is the Life and Light of men: One while, the Light within is so uncertain, that there can be no certainty of Truth or Error, Sin or Duty by it; another while, It Checks for Evils, and Excites to Good: One while, It Opposeth the End of the Covenant of Grace, and is to be Rejected; another while, It ought to be improved and attended upon, every Degree of the Light being serviceable to its End, and we being accountable to God for every Dispensation thereof: One while they count it, A Cheat of Antichrist, and Wile of Satan; another while, It is the Light of Jesus Christ, as the Eternal Word, Enlightening every man that cometh into the World. Thus you Baptists are in ap­parent Confusion; and whilst you come forth thus Contradicto­ry to your selves, you are not worthy to be regarded, otherwise then men in Babylon, confounded (which may be lookt upon as a Just Judgment upon you, for your Perversness and Malice a­gainst the Truth, and its Children) you being Opposing, Con­futing and Warring against your selves, while you think to Con­fute and render others Odious.

I do at present pass by divers of Tho. Hicks's Personal Refle­ctions and Abuses, as to my own Particular (having a fuller Re­serve against him, and others more eminent among them and their Work, for a further Occasion) being more concerned for Truth and Righteousness, then any Personal or Private Interest whatsoever; knowing also, that Tho. Hicks's Morosity, Passion and Cholerick Humor (wherein his Tongue is at Liberty) ren­ders him no Potent Antagonist; being therein apt to break out in such Reviling Language, and Tinker's Rhetorick, against his Opposers, as, You'r a Knave; You are an Impudent Fellow; You are an Audacious Fellow; A Deceitful Fellow; You'r a Cock's-Comb, and thus to divers of us; which some of his Brethren have excused as his zeal & manner of speaking; though this Hypocritical Covering (as also his pretended Christianity) is too narrow to hide a manifest Woolf, however sometimes Disguized, [Page 19] as in Sheep's Habbit. I would have T. H. to consider, That his Belief of being an Elect Person, will not secure him from the End of Railers and Revilers, who shall not inherit God's King­dom, 1 Cor. 6.10. Nor from the Reward of all Lyars, which is the Lake that Burneth, &c. Rev. 21.8.