<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-06-30</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Simon Charles</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="B21656">
<STC T="W">E621</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]11081425</BIBNO>
<VID>204828</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>FORGERY NO Chri&s;tianity: Or, a Brief EXAMEN Of a late Book, publi&s;hed by one <HI>T. Plant,</HI> a <HI>Bapti&s;t-Teacher,</HI> under the Title of <HI>A Conte&s;t for Chri&s;tianity,</HI> or, <HI>A Faithful Relation of Two late Meetings, &amp;c.</HI> As al&s;o, Some Animadver&s;ions on <HI>J. Ives</HI>'s POSTSCRIPT. And an Expo&s;tulatory Po&s;t&s;cript to the BAPTISTS.</P>
<P>By <HI>Thomas Ellwood.</HI></P>
<Q><BIBL>Jer. 9.5.</BIBL>
<P><HI>They will deceive every one his Neigh|bour, and will not &s;peak the Truth: they have taught their Tongues to &s;peak Lyes, and weary them&s;elves to commit Iniquity.</HI></P></Q>
<Q><BIBL>I&s;a. 54.17.</BIBL>
<P><HI>No Weapon that is formed again&s;t thee &s;hall pro&s;per; &amp; every tongue that &s;hal ri&s;e again&s;t thee in Judgment, thou &s;halt condemn.</HI></P></Q>
<P>Printed in the Year 1674.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="3" REF="2">
<HEAD>TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<P>THat which I here pre&s;ent unto thy view, is a brief Examen of a late Book, publi&s;h|ed by one <HI>Thomas Plant,</HI> under the &s;pecious Ti|tle of a <HI>Conte&s;t for Chri&s;tianity;</HI> wherein he pretends to give a Faithful Relation of Two late Meetings, between the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> and the <HI>Quakers:</HI> And that his Title might end as plau&s;ibly as it begun, it is <HI>&s;ubmitted to the Judgment of all Judicious and Impartial Men;</HI> with this Addition, <HI>Read, Con&s;ider, Examine and then Judge.</HI></P>
<P>Three Parts of Four, of the Liberty given, I have taken; to <HI>read, con&s;ider, examine,</HI> and there &s;topt, re&s;erving the judicial part to thee. Had my Opponent done &s;o too (as well as &s;aid it) thou had&s;t had a fuller Account, and we fairer Dea|ling from him. But I have no De&s;ign to pre|occupy thy Judgment, which by how much the freer it is, and le&s;s &s;u&s;ceptible of private Im|pre&s;&s;es,
<PB N="4" REF="3"> by &s;o much the more capable it is of pro|nouncing a ju&s;t and even Sentence, which is all I de&s;ire at thy Hand: yet two or three Particu|lars I am willing to give thee a &s;hort Hint of, and that rather in this place then in the follow|ing Treati&s;e it &s;elf.</P>
<P N="1">1<HI>&s;t,</HI> Concerning the Title of my Opponent's Book, viz. <HI>A Conte&s;t for Chri&s;tianity.</HI> A very fair and glittering Title, &s;et out, as it were on purpo&s;e to draw in Gue&s;ts. But as <HI>Good Wine</HI> (according to the Proverb) <HI>needs no Bu&s;h;</HI> and <HI>the Be&s;t Accommodations are not alwayes found in tho&s;e Inns which hang out the faire&s;t Signs;</HI> &s;o neither wilt thou find any thing in his Book which may bear proportion to his lofty Ti|tle. The Book it &s;elf begins with a Charge, exhibited by the <HI>Quakers</HI> again&s;t one of the <HI>Bapti&s;ts,</HI> containing Matter of <HI>Forgery, Per|ver&s;ions, Lyes</HI> and <HI>Slanders:</HI> This was the proper Subject of tho&s;e Meetings; but this they would not come to the Te&s;t of, but thru&s;t us by with a rude Clamour that we are <HI>No Chri&s;ti|ans:</HI> Of this he pretends to give a Relation, and mi&s;-calls it, <HI>A Conte&s;t for Chri&s;tianity:</HI> How much more truly and aptly might he have called it, <HI>A Cover for Forgery,</HI> &s;ince their chief De&s;ign and Aim was, to divert us
<PB N="5" REF="3"> from the Proof of that Charge, whereof <HI>For|gery</HI> was the greate&s;t part: To &s;hew him there|fore his Mi&s;take, in thinking he contended for <HI>Chri&s;tianity,</HI> I chu&s;e to let the following Trea|ti&s;e bear this Title, <HI>Forgery No Chri&s;tianity.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Concerning the Time of its Publication; it was about Two Moneths after the la&s;t of tho&s;e Meetings, before their <HI>Relation</HI> was made publick; which (if I apprehend aright) con|duces not at all to its Reputation, but rather gives Ground to &s;u&s;pect the Truth of it, and call its Credit into Que&s;tion: For, if (as is pretended) it was taken in Short-Hand at the Meeting, what need &s;o long an Interval for the tran&s;cribing of Half a Dozen Sheets. I leave it therefore to thy Con&s;ideration, Whether the Rea&s;on of this needle&s;s Delay was not, that they might have time to Cabal about it, to lay their heads together, &amp; con&s;ult how they might model it mo&s;t to their Advantage; and by comparing it with tho&s;e which we had before publi&s;hed, to ob|&s;erve what to alter, what to add, what wholely to expunge, and what to tran&s;po&s;e or tran&s;place, that thereby they might be &s;ure to thwart the Accounts we had given, and make their own &s;peak as loud for them&s;elves as they plea&s;ed.</P>
<PB N="6" REF="4">
<P N="3">3. Concerning my pre&s;ent &V;ndertaking; I am not ignorant, that to invalidate another's Relation, is a Work of &s;ome Difficulty; &s;ince it is not enough that I my &s;elf know it to be Fal&s;e, unle&s;s I am al&s;o able to di&s;prove it: To urge my own Per&s;onal Knowledge, would be but (with <HI>T. Plant</HI>) to make my &s;elf Judge: To compare it with our own Relation, and from the Di&s;parity infer it Fal&s;e, I judge not fair nor rea&s;onable, but blame our Adver&s;aries for dea|ling &s;o with us: To produce Te&s;timonies of Per|&s;ons then pre&s;ent, would be uncertain and inde|ci&s;ive, &s;ince it might either be que&s;tioned, whe|ther the Per&s;ons were impartial; or doubted, whether their Memories were &s;ufficiently re|tentive: I have taken that way which I con|ceive to be cleare&s;t and free&s;t from Objection, viz. <HI>To Oppo&s;e the Relation to it &s;elf, and by &s;uch In&s;tances as I could gather from it &s;elf, to manife&s;t and demon&s;trate to thy Under|&s;tanding, that it is Imperfect, Partial and Fal&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>Now, as I have cho&s;en to &s;teer this Cour&s;e in a mode&s;t Re&s;pect to thee, that I might not, without &s;ome kind of Demon&s;tration, obtrude my Sence upon thy Belief (as my Adver&s;ary too confidently and frequently doth his) &s;o I mu&s;t
<PB N="7" REF="4"> reque&s;t of thee, That thou wilt not think, much le&s;s conclude, that the Exceptions which I &s;hall now offer thee, are all I can ju&s;tly make again&s;t their <HI>Relation;</HI> or that I allow tho&s;e parts of it as True, again&s;t which I have not here par|ticularly excepted: but that I therefore offer thee the&s;e Exceptions (not becau&s;e the&s;e are the only, nor perhaps the mo&s;t weighty, that might be given, but) becau&s;e the&s;e are the mo&s;t obvi|ous and ea&s;ie to be evidenced: For, I &s;peak con&s;iderately, I do really think there are not many Pages in the whole, which, in one re&s;pect or other, either for Adding, Dimini&s;hing, Tran&s;po&s;ing or Perverting, may not ju&s;tly be excepted again&s;t.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>T. E.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB N="8" REF="5">
<P>BEfore I enter upon the Book it &s;elf, I judge it nece&s;&s;ary to premi&s;e the Method I in|tend to ob&s;erve therein, which is this:
<LIST>
<ITEM>I. A brief Account of the Occa&s;ion and Subject of the&s;e Meetings.</ITEM>
<ITEM>II. My Exceptions again&s;t <HI>Tho. Plant</HI>'s <HI>Re|lation</HI> of them, as being not faithfully, but imperfectly, partially and fal&s;ly given.</ITEM>
<ITEM>III. Some Ob&s;ervations on the mo&s;t material Pa&s;&s;ages in his Relation, including al&s;o his Marginal Notes.</ITEM>
<ITEM>IV. Some Animadver&s;ions upon <HI>Jer. Ives</HI>'s <HI>Po&s;t&s;cript.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>V. A Po&s;t&s;cript to all Con&s;cientious <HI>Bapti&s;ts.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB N="9" REF="5">
<HEAD>Forgery No Chri&s;tianity.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I. A brief Account of the Occa&s;ion and Subject of the&s;e Meetings.</HEAD>
<P>THe Occa&s;ion of the&s;e Meetings, o|riginally, I take to be tho&s;e <HI>Dia|logues,</HI> which were written and publi&s;hed by <HI>Thomas Hicks,</HI> to <HI>traduce and defame our Principles and &V;s:</HI> of which <HI>Inju|ry</HI> we being &s;en&s;ible, complained to the <HI>Bap|ti&s;ts</HI> again&s;t their Brother, and called upon them <HI>to do us Ju&s;tice.</HI> They thereupon, in a Meeting of <HI>their own</HI> appointing at <HI>Barbican,</HI> took an Opportunity, <HI>in our Ab&s;ence,</HI> to call <HI>T. Hicks</HI> to an Account, as they pretended, and (as far as in them lay) <HI>acquitted</HI> him of tho&s;e <HI>Crimes</HI> which we had <HI>ju&s;tly</HI> charged up|on him. This gave us Cau&s;e of new <HI>Com|plaint,</HI> not only again&s;t him, but them, by whom we had been thus <HI>&s;urprized.</HI> And
<PB N="10" REF="6"> hereupon we demanded of them a Publick Meeting, to be appointed by mutual Agree|ment, wherein we might per&s;onally exhibit and make good our Charge again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> and he per&s;onally make his Defence.</P>
<P>This, in &s;hort, concerning the Occa&s;ion. Now as briefly al&s;o as well I can, concerning the Subject of the&s;e Meetings.</P>
<P>In the <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> before their <HI>Relation, T. Plant</HI> tells his Reader, That <HI>In Pur&s;uance of</HI> W. P<HI>'s Offer for a Publick Meeting, &s;everal of our Friends and theirs met to di&s;cour&s;e thereabout; but they could not agree touching the Matter to be in&s;i&s;ted on.</HI> Whereupon he &s;ayes, <HI>A Paper was delivered to our Friends to be communicated to</HI> W. P. <HI>and</HI> G. W. which &s;ayes he, is as fol|loweth.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Whereas there are divers things charged by <HI>W. Penn</HI> &amp; <HI>G. Whitehead</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks</HI> in two Books, one intituled, <HI>Rea&s;on again&s;t Railing;</HI> the other, <HI>The Counterfeit Chri&s;tian detected;</HI> intimating, as if the &s;aid <HI>T. Hicks had wrong'd the People call'd</HI> Quakers, <HI>by For|gery, Lying and fal&s;e Quotations.</HI> And where as the &s;aid <HI>W. P.</HI> and <HI>G.W.</HI> or &s;ome other of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> did appeal to &s;ober People, but e&s;pecially to the <HI>Bapti&s;ts,</HI> to hear and examine whether the &s;aid T. H. <HI>was guilty of the &s;aid
<PB N="11" REF="6"> Accu&s;ations or not.</HI> And a Meting being therupon appointed, wherein the <HI>&s;aid Charge</HI> was examined; we are fully &s;atisfied that in all the&s;e material Things, then in&s;i&s;ted upon, <HI>T. H.</HI> hath done them no Wrong, &amp;c.</Q></P>
<P>This Paper is &s;ub&s;cribed by
<Q><LIST>
<ITEM>W. Kiffin,</ITEM>
<ITEM>T. Paul,</ITEM>
<ITEM>D. Dike,</ITEM>
<ITEM>T. Plant.</ITEM>
</LIST></Q></P>
<P>The Rea&s;on (Reader) why I have tran&s;cri|bed &s;o much of this Paper of theirs, is, That thou may&s;t &s;ee and under&s;tand <HI>from their own Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> what <HI>they them&s;elves</HI> under&s;tood to be the <HI>Ground</HI> and <HI>Occa&s;ion</HI> of <HI>our Appeal; what</HI> it was <HI>they</HI> appointed <HI>their</HI> Meeting for, and <HI>what</HI> it was <HI>they took upon them</HI> to hear and examine, viz. FORGERY, LYING <HI>and</HI> FALSE QUOTATIONS. FORGERY then <HI>by their own Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> was that <HI>we complained</HI> of, and demanded <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> of them for: FOR|GERY then, <HI>by their own Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> was that they <HI>appointed</HI> their <HI>Meeting</HI> to <HI>Examine:</HI> FORGERY then, <HI>by their own Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> was the <HI>Bu&s;ine&s;s</HI> depending between <HI>them and us.</HI> By this, Reader, thou mu&s;t here take notice, that FORGERY was indeed the <HI>proper Sub|ject</HI> to have been <HI>di&s;cour&s;ed</HI> between <HI>them</HI> and <HI>us,</HI> at tho&s;e late <HI>Meetings,</HI> which we have had together: What Shifting and Shuffling? what
<PB N="12" REF="7"> Twi&s;ting and Twining? what Tricks and De|vices were u&s;ed by them to avoid this <HI>Theam,</HI> thou &s;halt al&s;o &s;ee anon.</P>
<P>Let this &s;uffice to be &s;poken in this Place, of the Occa&s;ion and Subject of the&s;e Meetings. Let me now &s;hew <HI>T. Plant</HI> one of his Mi&s;takes, and &s;o proceed to the next Head.</P>
<P>In his <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> he tells his Reader, That <HI>The An&s;wer to the</HI> Quakers Appeal <HI>being publi&s;ht,</HI> W. Penn <HI>thereupon publi&s;hed a Complaint a|gain&s;t it, in which he was plea&s;ed to make an Of|fer for another Publick Meeting.</HI></P>
<P>Here I mu&s;t de&s;ire <HI>T.P.</HI> to <HI>recollect</HI> his <HI>Me|mory,</HI> &amp; then I doubt not but he will find <HI>him &s;elf under</HI> a very great <HI>mi&s;take.</HI> He makes their publi&s;hing of their <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to the <HI>Quakers Appeal,</HI> to be not only before <HI>W. Penn</HI>'s <HI>Com|plaint</HI> and <HI>Offer</HI> of a Publick Meeting, but al&s;o to be the Ground and Occa&s;ion of that <HI>Complaint</HI> and <HI>Offer, which is indeed utterly un|true;</HI> for it was, I think, well nigh a <HI>Month</HI> after their fir&s;t Meeting at <HI>Barbican,</HI> before their Book call'd <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>Appeal an&s;wered,</HI> came forth; whereas <HI>W. P</HI>'s <HI>Complaint</HI> again&s;t them, and <HI>Offer</HI> of a Publick Meeting, was publi&s;hed within <HI>eight</HI> Dayes after that Meet|ing, as by the Date of each will appear, the one being the 28th of <HI>Augu&s;t,</HI> the other the 5th of <HI>September.</HI> Be&s;ides, in that very Book
<PB N="13" REF="7"> of theirs, call'd <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>Appeal an&s;wer'd,</HI> they take notice of this Complaint of <HI>W. P</HI>'s, <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> p. 9. in the&s;e Words: <Q REND="inline"><HI>And whereas there is a late Paper printed by Way of Com|plaint of &s;everal &s;candalous Reports in City and Country again&s;t <HI>W. P.</HI> and <HI>G. W.</HI> as if they purpo&s;ely neglected to meet the Day afore|&s;aid, &amp;c.</HI></Q> Again in the Po&s;t&s;cript, p. 32. thus, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Having &s;een <HI>W.P</HI>'s Complaint, where|in&mdash;he is plea&s;ed to propo&s;e for a Publick Meet|ing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q> This puts it beyond all Doubt, that <HI>W. Penn</HI>'s Complaint and Offer of a Pub|lick Meeting, was publi&s;hed before their Book call'd <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>Appeal an&s;wered;</HI> and con&s;equently, That <HI>T. Plant mi&s;took his Notes,</HI> in making their Book antecedent to the Com|plaint, and to be the Ground and Cau&s;e of it. However, though I might here &s;ay of <HI>T. Plant, In ip&s;o limine cadit, he &s;tumbles,</HI> as it were, <HI>at the very Entrance:</HI> Yet I will not extend it further, then to a <HI>Weakne&s;s</HI> of his Memory, or his <HI>Inadvertency</HI> in Writing.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="14" REF="8">
<HEAD>CHAP. II. My Exceptions again&s;t <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Relation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Having in the former Chapter briefly hint|ed the Occa&s;ion and Subject of tho&s;e <HI>Meetings,</HI> of which <HI>T. Plant</HI> pretends to give <HI>A Relation;</HI> my next Work is, to exhibit my <HI>Exceptions</HI> again&s;t the Relation which he hath given; in which I &s;hall endeavour to demon|&s;trate to the Reader, that <HI>THAT Relation</HI> (though pretended to be <HI>Faithful</HI>) is indeed <HI>Partial, Defective &amp; Fal&s;e:</HI> In Order where|unto I premi&s;e this, That, <HI>Who&s;oever under|taketh to give a faithful Relation of a mutual Di&s;cour&s;e or Conference, ought indifferently &amp; equally to deliver the Speeches and Sayings of each Party, according as they them&s;elves &s;pake them, not de&s;ignedly adding to the one, nor &s;ub|&s;tracting from the other, much le&s;s concealing or perverting the An&s;wers of either; otherwi&s;e his Relation cannot be faithful and true:</HI> But that <HI>Tho. Plant</HI> in the Relation which he hath pub|li&s;hed, hath <HI>not indifferently and equally</HI> deli|vered the Speeches and Sayings of each Party, according as they &s;pake them, but hath <HI>con|ceal'd</HI>
<PB N="15" REF="8"> many of their <HI>An&s;wers;</HI> and con&s;equent|ly, that <HI>his Relation is not faithful and true,</HI> let the following <HI>Exceptions</HI> be throughly con&s;i|dered.</P>
<P>After <HI>Tho. Plant</HI> hath brought his Brother <HI>Hicks</HI> no le&s;s then 7. <HI>pages</HI> on his way in one entire &amp; uninterrupted An&s;wer, and was lead|ing him on, how much further, I know not: He tells his Reader <HI>pag.</HI> 21. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Here <HI>W. Penn,</HI> and others of his Friends interrupted, and took up much Time about other matters, running from this fir&s;t unto the third Charge, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 1.</LABEL> In this I except again&s;t the Re|lation as <HI>Defective,</HI> and tax the Relator with <HI>Partiality:</HI> for he ought to have faithfully &s;et down the particular Di&s;cour&s;e, as it pa&s;&s;ed, whether to him it &s;eem'd pertinent or not, that his Reader (to whom of Right it belong'd) might him&s;elf have been Judge of the matter, and not be oblieged to take it upon tru&s;t from him, who in all Probability did therefore omit it, becau&s;e his Account was imperfect and faulty; or finding that it made again&s;t him and his Party, cho&s;e rather (which is wor&s;e) to conceal it. Could he find in his Heart to en|tertain his Reader with &s;o <HI>prolix a Di&s;cour&s;e</HI> again&s;t us, and yet think much to give him <HI>one Line</HI> of what we replied thereto? He &s;ayes, <HI>We took up much Time:</HI> from whence may be
<PB N="16" REF="9"> inferr'd, that <HI>much was &s;poaken.</HI> Now whether his be a true Relation, which of that <HI>Much</HI> re|lates <HI>Nothing,</HI> I leave, <HI>Reader,</HI> to thy Con&s;i|deration; and trace him further.</P>
<P>He goes on thus, <HI>p.</HI> 22. <Q REND="inline"><HI>But W. Penn &s;ee|ing that no An&s;wer would be given to tho&s;e things till the fir&s;t Article was concluded, He then with others of his A&s;&s;i&s;tents, for a con&s;ide|rable time in&s;i&s;ted upon the Form of Writing, pretending, as if this were their chief Quarrel with <HI>T. Hicks</HI> under this fir&s;t Head.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 2.</LABEL> Herein the Relator hath been greatly to blame: <HI>He promi&s;eth fair, performs nothing le&s;s.</HI> In his Title page he propo&s;eth a <HI>faithful</HI> Relation; in his Preface, a <HI>faithful</HI> Ac|count, &amp; that <HI>&s;ubmitted</HI> to the Judgment of all Judicious and Impartial Men: But what is here for &s;uch to Judge? <HI>He him&s;elf has before hand judged, concluded and determined the Matter: We in&s;isted</HI> (he &s;ayes) <HI>on the Form of Wri|ting, pretending as if that were our chief Quar|rel against</HI> T. Hicks: But <HI>in what Manner</HI> was this in&s;i&s;ted on? What <HI>Objections</HI> were offered <HI>against</HI> that Form of Writing? What Rea&s;ons or Arguments to <HI>confirm</HI> tho&s;e Obje|ctions? <HI>Not a Word of this;</HI> and yet he calls his Relation <HI>faithful.</HI> Surely, if we in&s;i&s;ted on it, as <HI>our chief Quarrel,</HI> and that too (as he &s;aith) for a <HI>con&s;iderable time, &s;omething</HI> mu&s;t
<PB N="17" REF="9"> needs have been &s;poaken of it; how then can his Relation be <HI>faithful,</HI> which gives the Rea|der <HI>not one Word</HI> of what we &s;pake concerning it? Will he &s;ay, It was Impertinent; <HI>Who made him Judge?</HI> Was it not enough for him to be a <HI>partial</HI> Relator, unle&s;s he were al&s;o an <HI>&V;nju&s;t</HI> Judge? Did he affect Brevity; What made him then &s;o <HI>Tedious</HI> but ju&s;t before in relating at large <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s long winded Ora|tion again&s;t us?</P>
<P>He goes on thus: <Q REND="inline"><HI>But this being fully an|&s;wer'd, at lea&s;t to the Satisfaction of all the im|partial Hearers, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 3.</LABEL> Here again the Relation is <HI>De|fective,</HI> and the Relator extreamly <HI>partial.</HI> The one defective, in <HI>omitting</HI> this full An|&s;wer; the other partial, in undertaking to <HI>de|termine,</HI> that the An&s;wer was full; and much more &s;o, in affirming, That it was <HI>&s;atisfactory to all the Impartial Hearers:</HI> What room, I pray, hath he here left for any judicious man <HI>to exerci&s;e his Judgment</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> how &s;hall the Rea|der be able to judge, whether what we in&s;i&s;ted on was <HI>fully</HI> an&s;wer'd, when he neither knows what the An&s;wers were; nor, whether indeed there were any, or no? But how knows <HI>Tho. Plant</HI> that <HI>the An&s;wers were &s;atisfactory to all the impartial Hearers?</HI> Did <HI>All</HI> that were im|partial expre&s;s their Satisfaction? And is he
<PB N="18" REF="10"> well a&s;&s;ured, that <HI>All</HI> they who did &s;o expre&s;s, were in very deed impartial? Why did he not in&s;ert the&s;e An&s;wers in his Relation, that they might have been as &s;atisfactory to <HI>All</HI> impar|tial Readers, as he &s;aith, <HI>they were to</HI> All <HI>impar|tial Hearers?</HI> What Rea&s;on can be &s;uppos'd for this Omi&s;&s;ion? Doubtle&s;s, he will not &s;ay, <HI>The&s;e An&s;wers were impertinent both as they were given by</HI> his own Party, <HI>and as him&s;elf here declares them full and &s;atisfactory.</HI> But, ha&s;t thou not Cau&s;e, <HI>Reader,</HI> to &s;u&s;pect, that he was really <HI>con&s;cious</HI> of the <HI>Weakne&s;s and In|validity</HI> of the&s;e An&s;wers, and therefore would not venture to <HI>&s;ubmit</HI> them to thy Judgment, but cho&s;e rather to pa&s;s them <HI>ha&s;tily</HI> over, and <HI>obtrude his Sence</HI> upon thy Belief? However, this is obvious, that <HI>&s;ome</HI> An&s;wers he <HI>confe&s;&s;es</HI> were given, yet his Relation gives <HI>None;</HI> but in&s;tead thereof, he takes upon him to <HI>deter|mine,</HI> that tho&s;e An&s;wers were <HI>full</HI> and <HI>&s;atis|factory.</HI> Whether this be <HI>con&s;i&s;tent</HI> with a faith|ful and impartial Relation, I leave to the Rea|der's Judgment, and proceed.</P>
<P>In <HI>pag.</HI> 24, 25. <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> propo&s;eth a Que|&s;tion, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Whether the Human Nature be a part of the true Chri&s;t of God now in Heaven ma|king Interce&s;&s;ion for us? <HI>whereunto &s;ays</HI> T.P. We could gain no direct An&s;wer.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 4.</LABEL> Hence I again except again&s;t the
<PB N="19" REF="10"> Relation as unfairly, unfaithfully and partially written. <HI>T. Plant</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, an <HI>An&s;wer</HI> was given; but &s;aith, it was not <HI>direct</HI> to the Que|&s;tion: Why did not he (as became a Relator) give that An&s;wer, whatever it was, to his Rea|der, that his Reader might judge how direct and proper the An&s;wer was to the Que&s;tion? How fain would he lead his Reader blindfold, or per&s;wade him to &s;ee with his Eyes, not with his own! But, Oh faithle&s;s, O &s;hamele&s;s Man! With what Face can&s;t thou call this a faithful Relation, which thy own Con&s;cience knows to be &s;o fal&s;e and faulty? How could&s;t thou judge it fair, that thy &s;elf, <HI>being a Party,</HI> and &s;o immediately concern'd as thou art, &s;hould&s;t <HI>conceal</HI> our An&s;wer from the Reader, and take upon thee to tell him, it was <HI>not direct?</HI> Much better might&s;t thou have &s;ubmitted thy Rela|tion to the <HI>Belief</HI> of the <HI>Credulous,</HI> then to the <HI>Judgment</HI> of the <HI>Judicious;</HI> &s;ince the fir&s;t Sort might perhaps have <HI>Implicitely acquie&s;ced</HI> in thy Judgment, and have taken thy Report <HI>upon Tru&s;t;</HI> whereas the latter have no Sub|ject to <HI>exerci&s;e</HI> their Judgments on, unle&s;s it be to <HI>cen&s;ure thy &V;nju&s;t Dealings.</HI></P>
<P>The Sum of my Exceptions again&s;t this Part of the Relation is, That it's very <HI>defe|ctive and imperfect,</HI> and the Relator therein mo&s;t <HI>&V;nfaithful</HI> to us, and <HI>Abu&s;ive</HI> of his
<PB N="20" REF="11"> Reader; for he hath dropt well nigh <HI>a Dozen</HI> Pages together of the Di&s;cour&s;e that pa&s;&s;ed between them &amp; us, and in&s;tead thereof hath, in about <HI>&s;o many</HI> Lines, given the Reader an Account in <HI>general,</HI> what in his Judgment was the I&s;&s;ue of it. But let the Relator remember, and the Reader con&s;ider well that Maxim, <HI>&s;ub generalibus latet dolus.</HI></P>
<P>Three <HI>In&s;tances</HI> more, by way of <HI>Exception,</HI> I offer to the Reader's Con&s;ideration.</P>
<P N="1">1. That of all the Di&s;cour&s;e that pa&s;&s;ed that Day between them and us, the An&s;wers that they have given in <HI>our</HI> Names (if they were all put together) will amount to but about 16 Lines, whereas the Relation it&s;elf containeth in the whole about 12 pages, of which no le&s;s then 7 are &s;pent in one An&s;wer of <HI>T. Hicks:</HI> Let the Reader, I &s;ay, but ob&s;erve this, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>T. Hicks &s;ingly</HI> takes up of their Relati|on, 7 <HI>pages</HI> in one An&s;wer, and that the An|&s;wers of <HI>All</HI> the <HI>Quakers</HI> that &s;poak there (as they are &s;et down in that Relation) being <HI>All</HI> put together, will hardly make up 16 Lines; and then let him judge whether that be a fair, an hone&s;t, a faithful Relation, as <HI>T. Plant</HI> calls it.</P>
<P N="2">2. That &s;uch Pa&s;&s;ages as were &s;poaken by any of them&s;elves, and proved offen&s;ive to the Auditors, are wholy left out of their Re|lation,
<PB N="21" REF="11"> as if there had been no &s;uch Thing &s;poa|ken; particularly, that un&s;eemly Expre&s;&s;ion of <HI>J. Ives,</HI> when he call'd the <HI>dead Body of Chri&s;t a Carca&s;s;</HI> which, becau&s;e it was ill re&s;ented by the Auditory, is not to be found in their Relation.</P>
<P N="3">3. That they have not only <HI>left out</HI> our Part of the Di&s;cour&s;e, but that they might &s;o do, have al&s;o <HI>dropt one of their own Di&s;putants,</HI> namely, <HI>R. Forgu&s;on,</HI> a <HI>Presbyterian,</HI> who in that Part of the Di&s;pute, which they have <HI>O|mitted,</HI> be&s;tir'd him&s;elf in <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s Defence. And truly, though his Endeavours proved in|&s;ucce&s;sful, they have no Rea&s;on to be a&s;hamed of the Man (though of either craving or ac|cepting his Help, they have) who&s;e Unhap|pine&s;s it was to e&s;pou&s;e <HI>a bad Cau&s;e,</HI> being much more able in Point of Learning, to have defended it, then them&s;elves, <HI>if it had been de|fen&s;ible.</HI> But leaving them to give the World an Account of their engaging <HI>&s;o many contrary Interests</HI> again&s;t us, I &s;hall only here de&s;ire the Reader &s;eriou&s;ly to con&s;ider, whether in rela|ting a mutual Di&s;cour&s;e or Di&s;pute, the <HI>leaving out</HI> a great Part of what was &s;poaken, and <HI>con|cealing</HI> withall the Names of the Per&s;ons &s;peaking, be the <HI>Property</HI> of an <HI>Impartial</HI> Re|lator, or <HI>con&s;istent</HI> with a <HI>faithful</HI> Account, as <HI>T. Plant,</HI> notwith&s;tanding all the&s;e <HI>Omi&s;&s;ions,</HI> hath the <HI>Confidence</HI> to call his.</P>
<PB N="22" REF="12">
<P>Let the&s;e Exceptions &s;uffice again&s;t the Re|lation of the fir&s;t Meeting; and let us now Reader, a little examine the Account that is gi|ven of the &s;econd, which, though it be &s;aid to be written by one <HI>T. Jennings</HI> (a Per&s;on I have no Knowledge of) yet ina&s;much as this is pub|li&s;hed, as well as the former by <HI>T. Plant,</HI> and by him recommended as faithful, I hope he will have no Cau&s;e, to think I deal hardly with him, if I place the Defects and Errors of this to his Accompt al&s;o. To begin therefore.</P>
<P>In p. 74. <HI>J. Ives</HI> &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>I will prove out of &s;everal of your Writings that call your &s;elves <HI>Quakers,</HI> that you are no <HI>Chri&s;tians.</HI></HI></Q> To this they make <HI>G. Whitehead</HI> an&s;wer thus, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Be|cau&s;e &s;ome of our Friends have writ &s;o, is it rea&s;onable that we &s;hould all be concluded by them, becau&s;e &s;ome of us have writ &s;o? there|fore to conclude all are no <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> This is not fair.</HI></Q> So again, <HI>pag.</HI> 75. In <HI>Jer. Ives</HI>'s Re|&s;umption of the An&s;wer, he reports <HI>G. White|head</HI> to have &s;aid, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Mu&s;t all be concluded to be <HI>No Chri&s;tians,</HI> becau&s;e &s;ome have written re|pugnant to <HI>Chri&s;tianity?</HI></HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 1.</LABEL> In this In&s;tance I charge the Relation with <HI>Fal&s;hood,</HI> for repre&s;enting <HI>G. Whitehead,</HI> as &s;peaking that which he neither did, nor in Rea&s;on can be &s;uppo&s;ed to &s;peak;
<PB N="23" REF="12"> for it makes <HI>G. W. ab&s;olutely grant</HI> what he neither did nor could grant, but only <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed</HI> for Argument &s;ake. That the De&s;ign of the Relation was to render him as <HI>granting</HI> that &s;ome of our Friends, &s;ome of Us, &s;ome <HI>Quakers</HI> have written repugnant to <HI>Chri&s;tia|nity,</HI> is plain and obvious; and <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> from this forged Conce&s;&s;ion forthwith infers this Con&s;equence, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Doth not this &s;trongly and vio|lently follow, that &s;ome <HI>Quakers</HI> have been, or are No<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> Chri&s;tians?</HI></Q> But that <HI>G. W.</HI> did not &s;o expre&s;s him&s;elf, not only <HI>cogent Rea&s;on evinces,</HI> but even <HI>their own</HI> Relation doth al|&s;o evidence, pag. 76. where he thus &s;peaks, <HI>I argued from a particular to a general, and drew a Conclu&s;ion from the whole; Suppo&s;ing</HI> [this is not Granting] <HI>&s;ome</HI> Quakers <HI>did &s;peak and write tho&s;e things that we cannot generally &s;tand by; I have brought them to this, that the</HI> Bapti&s;ts <HI>them&s;elves would not be &s;o dealt by, though I do not know</HI> (I &s;peak con&s;cientiou&s;ly) <HI>of any known real</HI> Quaker <HI>among us that has written &amp; laid down that as the</HI> Quakers <HI>Belief, that we cannot &s;tand by; and therefore I am far enough from making any &s;uch</HI> Hypothe&s;is, <HI>&amp;c. But it was to awaken them, &amp; bring them to this Con&s;ideration, to do as they would be done unto. Suppo&s;e the&s;e Per&s;ons &s;hould produce &s;ome parti|cular
<PB N="24" REF="13"> things out of &s;ome Books that we cannot &s;tand by</HI> (though I know not one) <HI>would the&s;e Per&s;ons be &s;o dealt with? &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Ob&s;erve now Reader, I entreat thee, where the <HI>Stre&s;s</HI> of my Exception lies: <HI>G. W.</HI> ex|pre&s;t him&s;elf by Suppo&s;ition only <HI>(Suppo&s;e any &s;hould have written &s;o or &s;o)</HI> and &s;olemn|ly and con&s;cientiou&s;ly affirmed, that he did <HI>not know of any one</HI> real <HI>Quaker</HI> that had &s;o written, and that therefore he was <HI>far from</HI> making any &s;uch <HI>Hypothe&s;is,</HI> from whence might be inferred, that he did <HI>grant</HI> any real <HI>Quaker</HI> had &s;o written; yet their Relation <HI>turns this Suppo&s;ition into a down-right Conce&s;|&s;ion,</HI> and repre&s;ents G. W. as <HI>plainly and ab|&s;olutely granting, that &s;ome of the</HI> Quakers <HI>had written repugnant to</HI> Chri&s;tianity. A|gain&s;t this I <HI>except&punc;</HI> and herein charge the Relation with being <HI>notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e;</HI> and whether my Exception be rightly grounded (the Premi&s;es con&s;idered) I willingly &s;ubmit to thy Judgment.</P>
<P>Again&punc; It appears, that this Relation of theirs was <HI>not Really and truly taken from the Mouthes of the Di&s;putants</HI> in the time of the Di&s;pute (but rather patcht up &s;ince, according as they were able and willing to remember) in that it makes them &s;peak in <HI>other</HI> Terms,
<PB N="25" REF="13"> then tho&s;e by which they expre&s;t them&s;elves. For in&s;tance:</P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 2.</LABEL> In pag. 79. <HI>J. Ives</HI> having for|med an Argument, the Relation &s;ayes <HI>Geo. Keith</HI> cryed out, <HI>He denyed both Major and Minor;</HI> whereas it is mo&s;t notorious that <HI>G. K.</HI> waved tho&s;e Terms, and in&s;tead thereof u&s;ed the 1&s;t and 2d Propo&s;ition, that he might the better accommodate his Speech to the Ca|pacity of the vulgar Auditors.</P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 3.</LABEL> The Relation makes <HI>W. Penn</HI> and <HI>G. Keith</HI> frequently deliver them&s;elves to <HI>J. Ives &s;ingly,</HI> in the plural Particle, <HI>You</HI> and <HI>Your;</HI> which is &s;o generally known not to be the <HI>Quakers Dialect,</HI> that this alone were &s;ufficient to evince that <HI>the Relation was writ by rote.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 4.</LABEL> In page 83. of their Relation, <HI>G. K.</HI> is made to &s;ay, <HI>I deny that Mr.</HI> Penn <HI>is no</HI> Chri&s;tian. This al&s;o I refer to the Rea|der's Con&s;ideration, whether there be any the lea&s;t Probability, that <HI>G. K.</HI> who is a <HI>Quaker,</HI> &s;hould in a publick Auditory call <HI>William Penn by the Title of Mr. Penn</HI> This plainly enough di&s;covers that the <HI>Penman exerci&s;ed his Fancy more then his Ears.</HI></P>
<P>If it &s;hall be objected that the&s;e are but <HI>trivial</HI> Circum&s;tances, not <HI>material</HI> Pa&s;&s;ages; I an&s;wer, That though they are not material
<PB N="26" REF="14"> to evidence the Strength or Weakne&s;s of Ar|guments on either &s;ide; yet they are <HI>material enough</HI> to evince, that the Account it &s;elf, which <HI>T. Plant</HI> has publi&s;ht of the &s;econd Di&s;pute was <HI>not really and truly taken there,</HI> as the Di&s;cour&s;e dropt from the Mouthes of the Di&s;putants, but <HI>written &s;ince by Rote,</HI> not as it really was, but as he and others thought fit to repre&s;ent it. And &s;eeing they have &s;o ap|parently mi&s;reported us in things of <HI>le&s;&s;er moment,</HI> why &s;hould the Reader que&s;tion <HI>their Propen&s;ity to do the like in Matters more &s;ub&s;tantial?</HI> But this al&s;o I &s;ubject to the Reader's Cen&s;ure.</P>
<P>Again, pag. 72. A Stranger having ex|pre&s;t his De&s;ire, that our Charge might be read and pro&s;ecuted, was thereupon &s;u&s;pect|ed by one of the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> to be a <HI>Prie&s;t</HI> or a <HI>Romani&s;t</HI> at lea&s;t; whereof the Stranger com|plaining, <HI>J. Ives</HI> puts him upon his Purgati|on: He an&s;wers, <HI>I am no Roman Catholick.</HI> Whereupon <HI>Jeremy</HI> replies, <HI>But are you not a</HI> Hobbi&s;t? <HI>for you talk as if you were.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL><HI>Except.</HI> 5.</LABEL> Here again the Relation <HI>be|trayes it &s;elf,</HI> for thinking it <HI>too bald</HI> for <HI>Jere|my</HI> to put &s;uch a Que&s;tion upon an already-abu&s;ed Stranger, without &s;hewing &s;ome Rea|&s;on for it, they add this as the Ground of his Que&s;tion <HI>[for you talk as if you were]</HI>
<PB N="27" REF="14"> Now if this was not then &s;poaken, but &s;ince added (as I object) then it follows, that the Relation is not faithful. If they will in&s;i&s;t, that it was then &s;poaken by <HI>J. Ives,</HI> then I de&s;ire the Reader to con&s;ider from <HI>what part</HI> of this Stranger's <HI>Talk</HI> he had Ground to &s;ugge&s;t him an <HI>Hobbi&s;t;</HI> which, that the Reader may the better do, I will not think much to &s;etdown the whole of what they re|port him to have &s;poaken, ju&s;t as I find it in their Relation, which begins thus:</P>
<P><HI>Gentlemen, I am neutral, and do &s;peak what is equal: they are willing to prove</HI> T. Hicks <HI>a Forger, and &s;ay, it is the fir&s;t Article agreed to be di&s;cour&s;ed this day, therefore it is rea&s;onable they &s;hould go on to prove it; for if I am Plantiff, you are to an&s;wer my Accu&s;ati|on,</HI> p. 70.</P>
<P>His next words are the&s;e; <HI>Hear the Ar|ticles of the Charge read, that we may under|&s;tand them,</HI> p. 71.</P>
<P>His next words are the&s;e; <HI>I am charged, and de&s;ire to be heard.</HI></P>
<P>His next words are the&s;e; <HI>I am no Roman-Catholick,</HI> that is, <HI>I am not of that Church,</HI> pag. 72.</P>
<P>This is to a Tittle what they relate him to have &s;aid before this &s;econd Sugge&s;tion of an <HI>Hobbi&s;t,</HI> which is grounded <HI>upon his Talk,</HI> from
<PB N="28" REF="15"> whence what Ground <HI>J. I.</HI> could have to &s;u&s;|pect the Man an <HI>Hobbi&s;t</HI> (which in plainer <HI>En|gli&s;h,</HI> is an <HI>Athei&s;t</HI>) I leave to thee (Reader) to con&s;ider, while I pur&s;ue my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, which is, <HI>to prove the Relation fal&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>One of the&s;e three Inconveniencies will, I think, inevitably befal the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> in this ca&s;e. If they acknowledge, that this Clau&s;e was not then &s;poaken, but &s;ince added by them to countenance and <HI>flouri&s;h over</HI> the Sugge&s;tion, it will follow, <HI>that the Relation is Fal&s;e:</HI> If they will affirm, that it was then &s;poaken, ac|cording as it is there &s;et down, the Danger &s;till will be as great; for, ina&s;much as what|&s;oever they have related, as &s;poaken by this Stranger, cannot po&s;&s;ibly admini&s;ter the lea&s;t Colour or Pretence for &s;uch a Sugge&s;tion, it mu&s;t needs be, that either he &s;pake &s;ome|thing el&s;e, which they have <HI>not related, but concealed,</HI> and <HI>then the Relation is Fal&s;e &s;till;</HI> or el&s;e, that the Sugge&s;tion was <HI>wholely ground|le&s;s,</HI> and the Rea&s;on given for it, <HI>fal&s;e;</HI> and then <HI>J. Ives</HI> may fall under the Cen&s;ure of his Brother <HI>Ru&s;&s;ell,</HI> as his Brother <HI>Ru&s;&s;el</HI> did un|der his.</P>
<P>Thus, Reader, I have given thee a few In&s;tances, yet enough (I hope) to &s;atisfie thy Judgment of the <HI>Fal&s;hood</HI> and <HI>Partiality</HI> of their Relation. Many other parts of it I can
<PB N="29" REF="15"> except again&s;t as <HI>fal&s;e,</HI> upon my own Know|ledge; but I would not, <HI>like them,</HI> impo&s;e upon thy Belief, and therefore in&s;i&s;t on &s;uch Particulars, as (even from their own Relati|on) are plainly demon&s;trable to thy Under|&s;tanding; by which, <HI>as of the Lyon by his Paw,</HI> thou maye&s;t take a mea&s;ure of the re&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III. Some Ob&s;ervations on the mo&s;t Material Pa&s;|&s;ages in his Relation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Although, <HI>Reader,</HI> having already enerva|ted the force of the <HI>Relation,</HI> by &s;hew|ing, that <HI>it is imperfectly and partially written,</HI> I might well excu&s;e my &s;elf from taking any further notice of it; yet a little to manife&s;t the <HI>Weakne&s;s</HI> of their <HI>Di&s;putant,</HI> and the <HI>Folly</HI> of their <HI>Relator,</HI> as well as altogether the <HI>Fal&s;i|ty</HI> of the <HI>Relation</HI> it &s;elf, I pre&s;ent thee here a few <HI>Ob&s;ervations</HI> on the mo&s;t material Pa&s;|&s;ages in it.</P>
<P>In the Relation of the fir&s;t Meeting, <HI>p.</HI> 15. <HI>T. Hicks</HI> is &s;aid to an&s;wer thus; <Q REND="inline"><HI>Concerning that Charge wherein they accu&s;e me for fal&s;e Reflections upon <HI>Stephen Cri&s;p,</HI> I cannot own this Charge; for I have &s;aid no more of him
<PB N="30" REF="16"> then what I am able to prove <HI>(viz.)</HI> that he af|firmed to me, that he knew the Beginning and Date of my Chri&s;t &amp;c.</HI></Q> Upon the&s;e la&s;t words <HI>T. Plant</HI> hath a marginal Note, in the&s;e words, <Q REND="inline"><HI>This they omitted to read publickly, though all the re&s;t were read at length.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> By this he would &s;eem to hint, that we endeavoured to conceal this Pa&s;&s;age from the People. In this he is guilty, fir&s;t of a <HI>groundle&s;s In&s;inuation;</HI> and next, of a <HI>down-right Fal&s;hood,</HI> to colour it. That the In&s;inua|tion is not only <HI>groundle&s;s,</HI> but <HI>ridiculous</HI> al&s;o, let it be con&s;ider'd, 1&s;t, That it was <HI>we our &s;elves</HI> that in&s;erted this particular in the <HI>Charge.</HI> 2. That we did it <HI>voluntarily</HI> and of Choice, being under no Con&s;traint thereto. 3. That we did it to this End and Purpo&s;e, that it might be <HI>publickly</HI> examin'd &amp; di&s;cu&s;t. With what Shew of Rea&s;on can any one then imagine, that we de&s;ign'd to <HI>conceal</HI> it? That <HI>T. Plant</HI> hath added an <HI>&V;ntruth,</HI> to colour o|ver his In&s;inuation, in &s;aying <HI>All the re&s;t were read at length,</HI> will appear plainly to the Rea|der, if he plea&s;e but to ca&s;t an Eye either on our Copy of the Charge as it was that Day read, and &s;ince printed with our <HI>Account</HI> of that Meeting, <HI>pag.</HI> 38. or on their own Rela|tion, <HI>pag.</HI> 6, 7. In both which he may find, that this was not the <HI>only</HI> Pa&s;&s;age in the <HI>Charg,</HI> that was abbreviated; but that <HI>his &s;everal A|bu&s;es
<PB N="31" REF="16"> of W. Penn</HI> under one Head, and the <HI>Con|tradictions</HI> charg'd upon <HI>T. Hicks</HI> under ano|ther Head, were in like manner abbreviated al&s;o; though <HI>T. Plant</HI> hath the <HI>Confidence</HI> to affirm, that <HI>All the re&s;t</HI> were read at length.</P>
<P>In <HI>pag.</HI> 23. It being objected, that &s;ome of the <HI>Quakers</HI> had affirm'd, that <HI>Chri&s;t was ne|ver &s;een with carnal Eyes;</HI> G. Keith an&s;wer'd, I di&s;tingui&s;h: <HI>Chri&s;t, as God, was never &s;een with carnal Eyes; but as Man, he was.</HI> To this <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> replies, <HI>He was Chri&s;t, as he was Man.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Herein <HI>Jeremy</HI> contradicts his Bro|ther <HI>Hicks:</HI> for he &s;ayes po&s;itively (<HI>Dial.</HI> 1. pag. 44.) <HI>Not the meer God-head of the Son, nor the meer Manhood; but God and Man uni|ted in one Per&s;on, that is the Chri&s;t.</HI> See the Difference: <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>He is Chri&s;t</HI> (not as he is Man, but) <HI>as he is God and Man, J. Ives</HI> &s;aith, <HI>He was Chri&s;t, as he was Man.</HI></P>
<P>Pag. 24. <HI>W. Penn</HI> &s;aith, <HI>When our Friend &s;ayes, Chri&s;t was never &s;een with Carnal Eyes, it is meant of the Divine Nature, which is the more excellent and better Part.</HI> To this <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> replyes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>By the &s;ame Rule, if I &s;hould write a Book, and publi&s;h to the World, That I had never &s;een <HI>W. P.</HI> and <HI>G.K.</HI> in all my Life, and they &s;hould tell me I lyed, becau&s;e I &s;aw them at this Meeting; May I not an|&s;wer
<PB N="32" REF="17"> them with this Di&s;tinction, as they do me, and &s;ay, That <HI>W. P.</HI> and <HI>G. K.</HI> con|&s;i&s;t of Soul and Body, and becau&s;e I never &s;aw their Souls, which is the more excellent Part, therefore I never &s;aw them.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> This Compari&s;on is very un&s;uita|ble, and <HI>&s;mells &s;trongly of Sociniani&s;m,</HI> as tending to prove that <HI>Chri&s;t was but a meer Man,</HI> and therefore <HI>as obvious to Sight</HI> as <HI>W. P.</HI> and <HI>G. K.</HI> For he makes <HI>no more</HI> of &s;eeing Chri&s;t, then he does of &s;eeing either of the&s;e two men: Whereas Chri&s;t is called in Scripture, The <HI>Mighty God,</HI> I&s;a. 9.6. <HI>King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,</HI> Rev. 19.16. <HI>whom no man hath &s;een,</HI> NOR CAN SEE, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6.16.</P>
<P>Upon this Pa&s;&s;age <HI>T. Plant</HI> makes a Mar|ginal Note in the&s;e words; <Q REND="inline"><HI><HI>Note,</HI> That this Opinion of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> that Chri&s;t was not &s;een with Carnal Eyes, is laid down by them in Oppo&s;ition to the Prie&s;ts &amp; fal&s;e Mini&s;ters, as they call them</HI></Q> [Do ye <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> then own the Prie&s;ts to be True Mini&s;ters now? Sure I am ye did not u&s;e to do &s;o formerly. Or do ye only <HI>fawn</HI> on them, that they may <HI>a&s;&s;ist</HI> you in your <HI>War</HI> again&s;t us?] <Q REND="inline"><HI>But <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> if <HI>W. P's</HI> and <HI>G. K</HI>'s Di&s;tinction be good, then they make their Friends to fight with the Air: For who doth he oppo&s;e? &s;ince
<PB N="33" REF="17"> never any was &s;o idle us to preach that the Di|vine Nature was ever &s;een with Carnal Eyes: So that either they make their Friends write vainly, or el&s;e their Di&s;tinction is here im|pertinent.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Here I ob&s;erve, that the &s;ame time, while the <HI>Bapti&s;t's</HI> contend that <HI>Chri&s;t was &s;een with Carnal Eyes;</HI> they al&s;o &s;ay, that the <HI>Divine Nature was never &s;een with Carnal Eyes;</HI> thereby <HI>dive&s;ting Chri&s;t of the Divine Nature,</HI> and repre&s;enting him no other then <HI>a meer Man.</HI> That thou may'&s;t &s;ee, Reader, that this is indeed the Con|&s;equence of their A&s;&s;ertion, let me ca&s;t it into the Form of an Argument thus:
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>If the Divine Nature was not &s;een with Carnal Eyes, then the Manhood only was &s;een with Carnal Eyes:</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the Divine Nature was not &s;een with Carnal Eyes;</ITEM>
<ITEM>Therefore the Manhood only was &s;een with Carnal Eyes.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>I do not &s;ee that the Con&s;equence of the fir&s;t Propo&s;ition can be excepted again&s;t: The &s;econd is their own A&s;&s;ertion, and the Conclu&s;ion natural. Let us &s;ee what the I&s;&s;ue will be.
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>If the Manhood only was &s;een with Car|nal Eyes, and yet Chri&s;t was &s;een with
<PB N="34" REF="18"> Carnal Eyes, then the Manhood was only Chri&s;t:</ITEM>
<ITEM>But the Manhood only was &s;een with Car|nal Eyes, and yet Chri&s;t was &s;een with Carnal Eyes;</ITEM>
<ITEM>Therefore the Manhood only was Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The Con&s;equence of the fir&s;t Propo&s;ition I take to be undeniable: The &s;econd is partly the Con&s;equence of the former Argument, and partly their own A&s;&s;ertion: The Conclu|&s;ion fair and genuine. By this, Reader, thou may&s;t &s;ee what this A&s;&s;ertion of theirs, <HI>That Chri&s;t was &s;een with Carnal Eyes,</HI> leads unto and i&s;&s;ues in, viz. <HI>The Denyal of his Divinity or God-head,</HI> and making him but <HI>a meer Man.</HI></P>
<P>Here for an Account of our Carriage that Day, he refers his Reader to a Book, entitu|led, <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>Quibbles, publi&s;h'd</HI> (he &s;ayes) <HI>by an Ingenuous Indifferent Per&s;on.</HI></P>
<P>I will not &s;ay much to it, enough having been &s;aid already by another. But if thou thy &s;elf, Reader, art an Ingenuous or Indifferent Per&s;on, this Ju&s;tice I de&s;ire of thee, that thou wilt conclude nothing again&s;t us from that Book, till thou ha&s;t read our An&s;wer to it, which bears this Title, <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>Plaine&s;s detect|ing Fallacy.</HI> Remember that prudent Saying of a Ju&s;t <HI>Heathen.</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="18">
<Q><BIBL>Sen. <HI>in Medea.</HI></BIBL>
<L><HI>Qui &s;tatuit aliquid, parte inaudita altera,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Equum licet &s;tatuerit, haud aquus fuit.</HI></L></Q> Which may bear this <HI>Engli&s;h.</HI>
<Q><L>He that, but one Part heard, &s;hall undertake</L>
<L>An ha&s;ty Judgment on the whole to make,</L>
<L>Although his Judgment &s;hould prove true, yet he</L>
<L>An Unju&s;t Judge &s;hall &s;till reputed be.</L></Q></P>
<P>But I proceed.</P>
<P>In p. 24. <HI>J. Ives</HI> propo&s;ed a Que&s;tion, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Whe|ther the Human Nature be a Part of the true Chri&s;t of God, now in Heaven making Inter|ce&s;&s;ion for us?</HI></Q> Upon which <HI>T. Plant</HI> takes an Occa&s;ion to abu&s;e us thus:</P>
<P><Q REND="inline"><HI>Here <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> they all &s;ate down as men a&s;toni&s;ht for a Con&s;iderable Time: an An|&s;wer was called for again and again, but the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ate &s;peechle&s;s.</HI> So p. 25. <HI>Which was a Wonder to behold Men of their Confi|dence to be &s;o gravely mute for &s;o long a time together, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> In this they have <HI>gro&s;ly abu&s;ed us,</HI> and manife&s;tly <HI>di&s;covered their own Weakne&s;s;</HI> for here they would in&s;inuate that we were <HI>not able to an&s;wer,</HI> but &s;ate down like Men, a&s;to|ni&s;ht,
<PB N="36" REF="19"> <HI>&s;peechle&s;s</HI> for a con&s;iderable Time, <HI>mute</HI> for a long Time, &amp;c. And yet <HI>J. Ives</HI> in his <HI>Que&s;tions for the Quakers,</HI> p. 10. tells his Rea|der, that <HI>We spake mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">, &amp; &s;pake la&s;t.</HI> How well the&s;e will hang together let the Reader judge. But be&s;ides, the Author of the <HI>Quakers Quib|bles,</HI> whom they highly applaud for Ingenuity &amp; Indifferency, tells us upon this very Subject, p. 17. <HI>He believes</HI> W.P. <HI>&s;pake above a Thou|&s;and Words</HI> (which was far enough from being mute and &s;peechle&s;s) and p. 11. he confe&s;&s;es, <HI>We cryed out to be heard.</HI> And not without Cau&s;e: For indeed <HI>J. Ives</HI> had cunningly rai|&s;ed &s;uch a Noi&s;e and Clamour, that it was im|po&s;&s;ible for us, while that remained, to be di|&s;tinctly heard; but &s;o &s;oon as our Importuni|ty had obtained Silence, we plainly and fully confe&s;t to, and acknowledged the Holy Man|hood of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>After the Relation of the fir&s;t Meeting is ended, <HI>T. Plant</HI> goes on, to give his <HI>Reader</HI> an Account of &s;ome Letters that pa&s;t between them and us, in Order to a &s;econd, Introducto|ry to which he writes thus, <HI>After this (not hearing from them</HI> (i. e. the <HI>Quakers</HI>) <HI>and con&s;idering the &V;nlikelyhood of ever coming to a right &V;nder&s;tanding each of other,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Hence, <HI>Reader,</HI> ob&s;erve the <HI>hor|rible
<PB N="37" REF="19"> Inju&s;tice</HI> of the&s;e Men towards us. <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> had long before, in three Books &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ively charged us, That <HI>We render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Autority then the Fa|bles of</HI> E&s;op: That <HI>the Blood of Chri&s;t in our E|&s;teem, is wor&s;e then the Blood of a common Thief:</HI> That <HI>the</HI> Quakers <HI>have di&s;covered them&s;elves to be no other but the Spawn of that wicked Brood the</HI> Ranters, <HI>having licked up their Vomit:</HI> That <HI>the</HI> Quakers <HI>owning Je&s;us Chri&s;t is indeed no other then a meer My&s;tical Romance:</HI> That <HI>the Tendency of all the</HI> Quakers <HI>Rea&s;oning about In&s;tituted Religion, is to debauch Mankind:</HI> That <HI>our Principles improved, are de&s;tructive to all human Society:</HI> That <HI>we are Cheats, Im|po&s;tors, Lyar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">, influenced by the Devil, the Devils Slaves, inspired by that grand Impo&s;tor, the Devil, implacable Enemies to the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>Religion, as vile Impo&s;tors as ever were,</HI> and much more of the &s;ame Nature. The <HI>Bap|ti&s;ts</HI> being appealed to for <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> herein, ac|quit him. Being drawn <HI>(with much ado)</HI> to debate it in a publick A&s;&s;embly, <HI>T. Hicks</HI> there al&s;o &s;ayes, I do not yet &s;ee Rea&s;on to <HI>abate them one Word:</HI> And both he and <HI>J. Ives</HI> there affirm, That <HI>the</HI> Quakers <HI>are no</HI> Chri&s;tians. And yet after all this they are &s;o blind as to confe&s;s, <HI>They are not yet come to a Right &V;nder&s;tand|ing of us.</HI> Had they not a right Under&s;tand|ing
<PB N="38" REF="20"> of us, and yet would at a Venture thus repre&s;ent us! <HI>O di&s;hone&s;t and malicious Minds!</HI> And indeed that this was their De&s;ign <HI>(viz.)</HI> to traduce, reproach, calumniate us at any <HI>rate how fal&s;e &s;oever</HI> (like tho&s;e of old com|plained of by the Prophet, <HI>Report,</HI> &s;ay they, <HI>and we will Report,</HI> Jer. 20.10.) take one In|&s;tance more out of this Book of their own, <HI>pag.</HI> 64. where at the la&s;t Meeting, which was on the 16th of <HI>October</HI> pa&s;t, <HI>J. Ives</HI> confe&s;&s;eth <HI>he had not read</HI> T. Hicks<HI>'s Books, nor</HI> W. Penn's, <HI>until the Night before,</HI> which was the 15th; and yet the &s;ame <HI>Jeremy</HI> appear'd publickly in Defence of <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> whom we had charg'd with <HI>Forgeries</HI>) and to prove us <HI>No Chri&s;ti|ans,</HI> on the 9th of <HI>October,</HI> which was about a Week before: So that <HI>he fir&s;t charg'd us to be</HI> No Chri&s;tians, <HI>and then a Week after read our Books, to &s;ee whether we were &s;o, or no.</HI> By the&s;e In&s;tances, <HI>Reader,</HI> thou may'&s;t judge, how <HI>Hone&s;tly</HI> we have been dealt with by them.</P>
<P>In their Letter of <HI>October</HI> 21. pag. 26. They write thus, <HI>But fora&s;much that in publick Meet|ings, Tumults and Noi&s;es happen,</HI> AND WE KNOW NOT WHERE TO LAY THE BLAME, &amp;c. yet in their very next Letter, dated <HI>October</HI> 14. pag. 30. they write thus, <HI>All which is drown'd and lo&s;t in the Acclamati|ons
<PB N="39" REF="20"> and Exclamations of &s;uch a populous &amp; nu|merous A&s;&s;embly, as by the late In&s;tance of</HI> Bar|bican <HI>too much appears,</HI> ESPECIALLY ON YOUR PART TOO APPARENTLY.</P>
<P>And pag. 36. they write thus, <HI>Again they</HI> (meaning the <HI>Quakers</HI>) <HI>are troubled that the Rudene&s;s of the</HI> Barbican <HI>Meeting &s;hould be re|flected on them:</HI> DID THEY NOT DE|SERVE IT? <HI>Yea, was it not</HI> APPARENT <HI>to every impartial Per&s;on there pre&s;ent?</HI></P>
<P>Ob&s;erve, <HI>Reader,</HI> how they can <HI>Say and &V;n-&s;ay, Blow Hot and Cold with the &s;ame Breath:</HI> Yer now <HI>they knew not where to lay the Blame;</HI> Now all on a &s;uddain, 'tis <HI>We de&s;erve it,</HI> 'twas <HI>too apparently on our part,</HI> yea <HI>'twas apparent to every impartial Per&s;on pre&s;ent.</HI> How chance then it was <HI>not apparent</HI> to tho&s;e <HI>five</HI> wi&s;e Men that &s;ub&s;cribed that Letter, wherein they &s;ay, <HI>The knew not where to lay it?</HI> Was it, becau&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">ey were Partial? Thou &s;ee&s;t, <HI>Reader,</HI> ho<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> the&s;e Men <HI>play fa&s;t and loo&s;e.</HI> Surely, if they regarded to &s;peak the plain and naked Truth of things, they could not thus <HI>thwart and contradict them&s;elves;</HI> but having <HI>devoted</HI> them&s;elves, to <HI>Defame us</HI> Right or Wrong, they are <HI>ju&s;tly</HI> left to <HI>di&s;cover their own Folly.</HI></P>
<P>Their Propo&s;itions to avoid a Publick Mee|ting, were dated <HI>Octob.</HI> 12. We return'd them
<PB N="40" REF="21"> an An&s;wer dated the 13th. On the 14th they write us another, wherein they complain thus, <HI>In&s;tead of an&s;wering our Propo&s;als, you &s;end to us, without taking the</HI> LEAST NOTICE <HI>of ours; but</HI> WHOLELY WAVING <HI>&s;o much as the</HI> MENTION <HI>of them.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> To manife&s;t the Fal&s;ne&s;s of this Re|flection, I will de&s;ire the Reader but to ca&s;t his Eye on the very fir&s;t Period of our Letter, as they have printed it, <HI>p.</HI> 28. which begins thus,</P>
<P><HI>We</HI> RECEIV'D <HI>your</HI> PROPOSALS dated <HI>Octob.</HI> 12. <HI>which admit of &s;o much Delay, for the Pro&s;ecution of our Charges again&s;t</HI> T. Hicks, <HI>as we cannot yield unto, nor will our Occa&s;ions permit &s;uch a tedious Attendence; as al&s;o we do not perceive, that you intend Ju&s;tice again&s;t</HI> Th. Hicks <HI>in your new Propo&s;itions</HI> (a private Mee|ting not being an&s;werable to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">s publick Inju|ries) <HI>however, there remains a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">y for it.</HI></P>
<P>Judge now, Reader, whether this was <HI>not taking the lea&s;t notice of their Propo&s;als,</HI> but <HI>wholy waving &s;o much as the mention of them;</HI> whenas, in this very Letter, we tell them, <HI>we re|ceived their Propo&s;als,</HI> and except again&s;t them in general, as <HI>too dilatory;</HI> in particular, as offering a <HI>private</HI> Meeting in&s;tead of a <HI>pub|lick;</HI> and yet they have the Confidence here to tell us, that <HI>we took not the lea&s;t Notice of them,</HI> but <HI>wholely waved &s;o much as the men|tion
<PB N="41" REF="21"> of them.</HI> Who could have believed the&s;e men would have dealt &s;o <HI>di&s;hone&s;tly,</HI> if they had not given it us under their own hands? (for the Letter is &s;ub&s;cribed by <HI>Tho. Paul, Tho. Plant, Jer. Ives, Jo&s;. Morton</HI>) And <HI>Jer. Ives,</HI> with no le&s;s Confidence, then if he had really believed it to be true, <HI>affir|med the &s;ame thing</HI> over and over at the la&s;t Meeting (viz.) That <HI>we took No Notice of their Propo&s;als, nor of their Letter wherein the Propo&s;als were,</HI> pag. 41, 42. What men, I &s;ay, not of Worthy Minds <HI>(for that I ne|ver expected in them)</HI> but of <HI>Common Ho|ne&s;ty</HI> among men, would deal thus ba&s;ely with their Adver&s;aries! Surely, one would think, that <HI>an Habit of &s;peaking Fal&s;ly, had made them forget at all to &s;peak True.</HI></P>
<P>Their Animadver&s;ions upon our Letter de|&s;erve not much Con&s;ideration; therefore I will but cur&s;orily run over them, and here and there touch &s;ome particular Pa&s;&s;ages.</P>
<P>They &s;ay, p. 35. <HI>Our Denying the Lord's Chri&s;t will be proved, when we are free to &s;ub|mit to an Orderly Meeting.</HI> (And this is &s;poaken in Oppo&s;ition to a Publick Meeting.)</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> But if Meetings are Di&s;orderly <HI>becau&s;e</HI> Publick, then <HI>them&s;elves are guilty</HI> of having appointed the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> Di&s;orderly Mee|ting
<PB N="42" REF="22"> at <HI>Barbican:</HI> They did not think that Meeting at all <HI>too publick</HI> or di&s;orderly, to <HI>Traduce, Slander</HI> and <HI>Rail</HI> again&s;t us in; but when we <HI>call them to an Account</HI> for their <HI>Im|pieties,</HI> O then, <HI>Let that be private,</HI> cry they; for Publick Meetings are Di&s;orderly.</P>
<P>But that they might ca&s;t the Rudene&s;s of the <HI>Barbican.</HI> Meeting upon the <HI>Quakers,</HI> they &s;ay, pag. 36. <HI>Was there not a deep Si|lence when any of them &s;pake; whereas on the other &s;ide, if any were &s;peaking, what a Noi&s;e and Clamour was there?</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Though this In&s;inuation be <HI>malici|ou&s;ly de&s;igned,</HI> yet it is too <HI>weakly</HI> and <HI>&s;hallow|ly</HI> laid to do us any harm; for it is ob&s;ervable, that for all the <HI>deep Silence</HI> when the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;pake, <HI>Tho. Plant</HI>'s Relation of that Meet|ing gives but <HI>about Sixteen Lines in all</HI> of what all the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;aid there; and yet, notwith&s;tanding the <HI>Noi&s;e and Clamour,</HI> that he &s;ayes, was made when any of the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> &s;poak, he gives us <HI>no le&s;s then Seven Pages</HI> of one entire continued Di&s;cour&s;e made by <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> (who yet they &s;ay, had but a Weak Voice) Surely, one would think their No|tary had <HI>long Ears,</HI> which he prickt up at|tentively when <HI>T. Hicks</HI> &s;pake (el&s;e could it hardly have been po&s;&s;ible, from <HI>a Low Voice,</HI>
<PB N="43" REF="22"> &s;o punctually to have pen'd &s;o <HI>large a Sermon</HI> amid&s;t &s;o <HI>great Rudene&s;s, Tumults, Noi&s;es, Clamours, Acclamations</HI> and <HI>Exclamations,</HI> as <HI>T. Plant</HI> &s;ayes, were there made) but that he &s;topt his Ears, or was fallen into a <HI>deep Sleep,</HI> when any of the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;pake, el&s;e que&s;ti|onle&s;s he might have pickt up <HI>above Sixteen Lines</HI> in &s;o <HI>deep a Silence,</HI> as is &s;aid to attend their Speech.</P>
<P><HI>Tho. Plant</HI> goes on, pag. 35. <HI>Further, they are plea&s;ed to &s;ay, They were Treache|rou&s;ly Betrayed into a Multitude, without equal Place. If</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>by Them, they mean them that &s;ub&s;cribed the Letter now under Con|&s;ideration, then what they &s;ay, is manife&s;tly un|true, fora&s;much as they had the be&s;t Place in that Meeting.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> This is <HI>artificially</HI> and <HI>colourably</HI> &s;poaken, to <HI>beguile</HI> an <HI>unwary</HI> Reader; but it mu&s;t not pa&s;s &s;o. Our Complaint con&s;i&s;t|ed of two parts; one, <HI>That we were betrayed into a Multitude;</HI> the other, That <HI>we had not Equal Place and Fair Treatment</HI> (though this latter part he hath dropt, as being per|haps con&s;cious to him&s;elf, that we were not fairly treated by them) He concludes the <HI>whole untrue,</HI> and grounds his <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> on &s;uch a <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> as, if it &s;elf were true, could yet at mo&s;t <HI>extend but to a part.</HI> This Con|clu&s;ion
<PB N="44" REF="23"> I reject, as <HI>fallacious;</HI> for, &s;uppo&s;ing <HI>(not granting)</HI> what he &s;ayes to be true, that we had the be&s;t Place, yet it will not thence follow, that we were <HI>not betrayed</HI> into a Mul|titude, <HI>before</HI> we po&s;&s;e&s;t that Place. If there|fore it appear, that <HI>we were &s;o Betrayed,</HI> then what he is plea&s;ed to call manife&s;tly untrue, will (I hope) be granted to be <HI>manife&s;tly true.</HI> That we were indeed &s;o Betrayed, and <HI>that by</HI> Tho. Plant <HI>him&s;elf, on who&s;e &s;olemn Word we relyed,</HI> I offer this &s;hort Account of that Tran&s;action to the Reader's Con&s;ideration.</P>
<P>A little before the Hour appointed for the Meeting to begin, tho&s;e Friends of ours, who were more particularly concerned in that Day's Bu&s;ine&s;s, were met together at <HI>George Watt</HI>'s Hou&s;e, being as near the Meeting-Place as conveniently they could, and under|&s;tanding that the Throng in the Streets and Alleys was great, it was judged advi&s;able to &s;end &s;ome to the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> (who were al&s;o at a Friends Hou&s;e of theirs not far off) to de&s;ire them, That <HI>ina&s;much as the Meeting-Place was their own, and con&s;equently the Command of the Doors in their Power, we might not be &s;urprized by their &s;udden opening of the Doors without Warning, and thereby be expo&s;ed to the Labour and Difficulty of Pre&s;&s;ing through the Croud to the Place which they a&s;&s;igned for us.</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="23"> Three of our Friends, namely, <HI>William Mead, John O&s;good</HI> and <HI>Theophilus Green,</HI> went unto them with this Me&s;&s;age, and deli|vered it among&s;t divers of them: Whereun|to <HI>Thomas Plant him&s;elf</HI> returned an An&s;wer to this purpo&s;e; <HI>Tell your Friends, I my &s;elf will come to them, and will bring them in at the Back-Door of the Meeting-Hou&s;e, and will &s;ee them &s;eated in the Gallery that is appointed for them, before the People are let in.</HI> Upon this <HI>Promi&s;e of his</HI> we relied, thinking that in a Matter of no greater Moment, <HI>we</HI> might have been <HI>&s;ecure</HI> in <HI>Tho. Plant</HI>'s <HI>Word:</HI> But <HI>it proved far otherwi&s;e;</HI> for, <HI>before</HI> he gave us Notice, the Doors were <HI>&s;et open,</HI> and the People <HI>let in;</HI> &s;o that when we came there, we found not only the Galleries round about <HI>filled,</HI> but the <HI>Room</HI> it &s;elf below &s;o <HI>thronged,</HI> that we had much ado to <HI>pre&s;s in</HI> &s;o far as the Bottom of tho&s;e Stairs that led up to the Gal|lery; and the Stairs them&s;elves were &s;o be|&s;et, that it was not without very great Diffi|culty (and &s;ome Danger) that we <HI>at length</HI> obtained the Place.</P>
<P>Judge now (Reader) whether we were not <HI>Betrayed into a Multitude;</HI> and whether <HI>Thomas Plant,</HI> of all men, had any Rea&s;on to <HI>quarrel with us,</HI> for mode&s;tly and privately
<PB N="46" REF="24"> complaining of this <HI>Treachery,</HI> when he him|&s;elf was the man by whom we were <HI>Betray|ed.</HI></P>
<P>Now as to the &s;econd part of our Com|plaint, which concerns Equal Place, &amp;c. that is al&s;o true: For be&s;ide their Gallery (which &s;eem|ed much larger then that which was a&s;&s;igned for us) they had a <HI>&s;pacious Pulpit</HI> al&s;o (capa|ble of receiving Three of their Speakers at a time) from whence their Voices might much better reach the Auditory, and where they &s;tood <HI>undi&s;turbed</HI> (till their Fear of its falling made them <HI>flye out of it</HI>) and &s;ecured from the <HI>Croudings and Pre&s;&s;ings</HI> of others: Whereas the Gallery allotted us, was a very Straight and Narrow Place, &s;carce capable (I judge) of receiving Twenty Per&s;ons, though extreamly thronged, and as it were, wedged together.</P>
<P>Again. pag. 36. <HI>Tho. Plant</HI> goes on thus, <HI>But they adventure unju&s;t too, in declining the Subject to be proved. Herein</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>they Err; for whatever of Fault there was of this kind, it mo&s;t properly reflects on them&s;elves; for we would have kept to it, but they declin'd it.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> In this (Reader) <HI>we are greatly abu&s;ed,</HI> which that I may fully demon&s;trate, I beg thy Patience, if hereupon I a little <HI>dilate</HI> my Di&s;cour&s;e, becau&s;e the true <HI>opening</HI>
<PB N="47" REF="24"> and right <HI>&s;tating</HI> of this <HI>Particular</HI> will con|duce much to the Di&s;covery of their Shuffl|ing, and <HI>unfair Dealing with us,</HI> in the Man|nagement of this Controver&s;ie; this being indeed the very <HI>Hinge</HI> whereon they play and turn, and whereby they have endeavoured to turn us off, and <HI>divert us from pur&s;uing our Charge of FORGERY again&s;t their Brother</HI> Hicks.</P>
<P><HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> writ a Book under the Title of <HI>A Dialogue;</HI> in which he repre&s;ents two Per&s;ons di&s;cour&s;ing together, to one of which <HI>he gives</HI> the Name <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> to the other the Name <HI>Quaker:</HI> In this Dialogue he &s;ayes, is <HI>faithfully repre&s;ented &s;ome of the Chief and Mo&s;t Concerning Opinions of the</HI> Quakers; <HI>together with their Method and Manner of Rea&s;oning in Defence thereof:</HI> and this was not &s;aid to be <HI>compo&s;ed</HI> or <HI>written,</HI> but only <HI>pub|li&s;ht</HI> by <HI>T. H.</HI> By which <HI>Artifice</HI> the <HI>unwary</HI> Reader was to be <HI>beguiled</HI> (and many were) into a Per&s;wa&s;ion, that this Dialogue <HI>was</HI> (not a meer Fiction of <HI>T. H</HI>'s own devi&s;ing, but) <HI>a real and true Di&s;cour&s;e, that had actu|ally pa&s;&s;ed between two &s;uch Per&s;ons, in the hearing of</HI> T. H. <HI>and that what they had real|ly &s;poaken he had only publi&s;hed.</HI> And indeed, what Reader, that did not well weigh the <HI>Incon&s;i&s;tency</HI> of the <HI>An&s;wers</HI> to the <HI>Principle</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="25"> of the <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> but might ea&s;ily have been <HI>deceived</HI> by &s;uch a <HI>Stratagem. T. H.</HI> finding that this took with &s;ome, &s;hortly after <HI>emits a &s;econd</HI> of the &s;ame import: Both the&s;e were an&s;wered by <HI>William Penn,</HI> in a Book called, <HI>Rea&s;on again&s;t Railing;</HI> and <HI>Thomas Hicks</HI> therein <HI>detected</HI> of <HI>Forgery, Perver&s;ion, Ly|ing, Slandering, &amp;c.</HI> He (as one of tho&s;e whom the Apo&s;tle &s;aid, <HI>would wax wor&s;e and wor&s;e,</HI> 2 Tim. 3.13.) adds to his former Two a Third, wherein he attempts to ju&s;tifie his former (for <HI>Scelere velandum e&s;t &s;celus,</HI> &s;aid the <HI>Tragaedian</HI> of old) This al&s;o was an&s;wer|ed by <HI>William Penn</HI> in another Book, called, <HI>The Counterfeit Chri&s;tian Detected;</HI> where|in T. H's former <HI>Forgeries</HI> and <HI>Perver&s;ions</HI> were <HI>fixt</HI> a little <HI>fa&s;ter</HI> on him, and divers of his <HI>new ones</HI> added: In this Book an <HI>Ap|peal</HI> was made to the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> for <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> a|gain&s;t T. H. and it was expre&s;t <HI>particularly</HI> under tho&s;e <HI>two Heads</HI> of <HI>Forgery</HI> and <HI>Per|ver&s;ions;</HI> the words are the&s;e, pag. 28. <HI>With you the People called</HI> Anabapti&s;ts, <HI>I leave this Section</HI> (which is the Section of Forgery) <HI>Right us, Right your &s;elves; Right our Pro|fe&s;&s;ion of &s;uch an &V;nfair Adver&s;ary, and your &s;elves of &s;o &s;candalous an Advocate.</HI> Then again, in pag. 40. <HI>Thus have I fini&s;hed my Ob&s;ervations on his Perver&s;ions, leaving them
<PB N="49" REF="25"> al&s;o with the People called</HI> Anabapti&s;ts, <HI>upon whom I cannot chu&s;e but frequently call for Ju&s;tice again&s;t this their &V;nju&s;t Member.</HI></P>
<P>Upon this <HI>Appeal,</HI> the Bapti&s;ts <HI>take an Op|portunity</HI> to call <HI>T. Hicks</HI> to an Account (as they &s;ay) <HI>tho&s;e Friends of ours who were mo&s;t immediately concern'd being ab&s;ent.</HI> They pro|cure a Meeting <HI>as publick as they could:</HI> There <HI>T. Hicks</HI> is &s;et forth to <HI>Traduce, Reproach</HI> and <HI>Mi&s;repre&s;ent us</HI> to the People, which done the <HI>Bapti&s;ts acquit</HI> him. We complain of this <HI>unfair</HI> and <HI>unju&s;t Proceeding,</HI> demand a <HI>Pub|lick Meeting,</HI> where <HI>we al&s;o may be pre&s;ent</HI> to exhibit and make good <HI>our Charge of For|gery, &amp;c.</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks.</HI> We are <HI>long de|lay'd;</HI> at length <HI>with Difficulty</HI> prevail. We meet; our <HI>Charge</HI> is read, the fir&s;t <HI>Article</HI> whereof is this, <HI>A Dialogue between a Chri&s;ti|an and a Quaker</HI> [yet made by <HI>T. Hicks</HI>] viz. <HI>wherein</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is faithfully repre&s;ented &s;ome of the chief and mo&s;t concerning Opinions of the</HI> Quakers, <HI>together with their Method and Manner of Rea&s;oning in Defence thereof; publi&s;ht for common Benefit.</HI></P>
<P>In this Article we <HI>charge</HI> Tho. Hicks <HI>with Forgery:</HI> 1. <HI>In calling that a Dialogue,</HI> which is <HI>not a real Dialogue,</HI> but a Fiction of his own devi&s;ing 2. <HI>In calling that a</HI> Quaker, <HI>which is not a</HI> Quaker. 3. <HI>In calling that a</HI> Chri&s;tian,
<PB N="50" REF="26"> <HI>which is not a</HI> Chri&s;tian. 4. <HI>In affirming that &s;ome of the chief and mo&s;t concerning Opinions of the</HI> Quakers, <HI>together with their Method and Manner of Rea&s;oning in Defence thereof is, faihfully repre&s;ented, whenas they are mo&s;t fal&s;ly and abu&s;ively repre&s;ented.</HI> This <HI>pinches</HI> them hard, <HI>perplexes</HI> them much, and they mu&s;t &s;eek about for &s;ome <HI>Meu&s;e to e&s;cape through,</HI> el&s;e here they are &s;ure to <HI>be caught;</HI> for all the <HI>Art and Strength</HI> they have, can <HI>never defend</HI> this Po&s;ition. Fir&s;t then they <HI>triffle a while</HI> about the <HI>Nature</HI> of a <HI>Dialogue;</HI> but finding <HI>no Safety</HI> for them there, they betake them&s;elves to <HI>an|other Refuge:</HI> For, &s;ayes <HI>T. Hicks</HI> in his long An&s;wer, <HI>p.</HI> 18. <HI>If it be, that I have oppo&s;ed the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>to the</HI> Quaker, <HI>&amp;c. I</HI> SUPPOSE <HI>'tis this they account mo&s;t Criminal.</HI> Well, but admit <HI>T. Hicks</HI> had <HI>forgot the Maxim,</HI> That <HI>Suppo&s;ition proves nothing;</HI> yet, what Rea&s;on can be offer'd why he &s;hould <HI>in&s;i&s;t on this Sup|po&s;ition</HI> (much le&s;s, why we &s;hould be <HI>concluded</HI> by it) when we plainly tell him, <HI>he is under a Mi&s;take,</HI> and <HI>his Suppo&s;ition is fal&s;e:</HI> for though his naming a <HI>Quaker</HI> in Oppo&s;ition to a <HI>Chri|&s;tian,</HI> be a <HI>&s;ufficient Indication of his malicious Mind;</HI> yet we tell him, we do not account that <HI>his greate&s;t Crime,</HI> ina&s;much as we know, that neither the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> nor the <HI>Quaker</HI> whom he hath oppos'd, are <HI>Realities,</HI> but <HI>Phanta&s;ms of his
<PB N="51" REF="26"> own Imagination.</HI> But this we tell him, is that which we account <HI>mo&s;t Criminal,</HI> viz. his <HI>Forgeries, Perver&s;ions, Lyes, Slanders,</HI> &amp;c. by which he hath <HI>abu&s;ed,</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>di&s;hone&s;tly mi&s;|repre&s;ented our Faith and Principles</HI> to the World.</P>
<P>But &s;ay they, <HI>This Oppo&s;ing the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>to the</HI> Quaker, <HI>is the fir&s;t Article of your Charge.</HI> So &s;aith <HI>J. Ives</HI> in the Relation of the la&s;t Mee|ting <HI>frequently,</HI> and in <HI>pag.</HI> 49. <HI>e&s;pecially,</HI> where <HI>T. Plant</HI> al&s;o a&s;&s;erts the &s;ame, and takes upon him thus to prove it; <HI>This</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>being the fir&s;t Article of his Charge, for is not this the fir&s;t Article of his Charge,</HI> &amp;c? <HI>Was not this</HI> (by the way) <HI>learnedly argued?</HI> However, it was <HI>as learnedly an&s;wer'd;</HI> for he makes the People cry, <HI>Yes, Yes:</HI> not con&s;idering the Perplexity he puts his Reader into, to bethink, <HI>how the People &s;hould come to know it,</HI> whenas <HI>the</HI> Bap|ti&s;ts <HI>would not &s;uffer it to be read,</HI> as them|&s;elves confe&s;s, <HI>pag.</HI> 62, 71.</P>
<P>But <HI>we deny that this is the fir&s;t Article of the Charge.</HI> Who now, judicious Reader, ought to have the <HI>Examination,</HI> the <HI>Expla|nation,</HI> the <HI>Stating,</HI> the <HI>Opening</HI> of our <HI>Charge, we that made it,</HI> or he and they <HI>again&s;t whom it was made?</HI> One would think, in Rea&s;on they might give us Leave <HI>to be &s;o far Ma&s;ters of our own Charge,</HI> as to <HI>in&s;i&s;t on what part of it we plea&s;e,</HI> &amp; to lay the Stre&s;s <HI>where we &s;ee good.</HI>
<PB N="52" REF="27"> But, <HI>if they will not be</HI> (as indeed we &s;eldom find they are) <HI>ruled by Rea&s;on,</HI> let us yet &s;ee <HI>if they will &s;tand to their own Agreement,</HI> accor|ding as they them&s;elves have &s;et it down, <HI>pag.</HI> 11. of their Relation. In the &s;econd Provi&s;o it is thus expre&s;t, <HI>That upon</HI> OUR <HI>Examina|tion of each Particular</HI> T. Hicks <HI>be permitted to give his direct An&s;wer, &amp;c.</HI> This they acknow|ledge they con&s;ented to, <HI>pag.</HI> 13. Judge now, indifferent Reader, whether <HI>by their own A|greement</HI> (as well as in Rea&s;on &amp; Ju&s;tice) it did not <HI>belong to us to determine</HI> what the fir&s;t Article of the Charge was, and where the Stre&s;s of it &s;hould ly.</P>
<P>Thus far, <HI>Reader,</HI> I have ravelled back|ward, to help thee to a right Under&s;tanding what was the <HI>Ground</HI> and <HI>Occa&s;ion</HI> of our <HI>Ap|pealing</HI> to the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> for <HI>Ju&s;tice,</HI> what the <HI>prime Intention</HI> (at lea&s;t on our parts) of tho&s;e publick <HI>Meetings</HI> between them and us, and what was indeed and in Truth <HI>the propper Sub|ject</HI> to have been there <HI>debated</HI> and <HI>di&s;cu&s;t,</HI> viz. The <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Forgery, Lying</HI> and <HI>fal&s;e Quotations</HI> they them&s;elvs in <HI>pag 4</HI> of <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Re+lation do acknowledge to be that which be complan'd of, that which we appeal'd to the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> about, and that which they appointed their Meeting to hear and examine.</NOTE> <HI>Forgeries, Per|ver&s;ions, Lyes, Slan|ders, &amp;c.</HI> which had been <HI>written and pub|li&s;ht by</HI> T. Hicks to <HI>defame our Principles,
<PB N="53" REF="27"> Practices and Per&s;ons.</HI> Now, that thou may'&s;t be fully &s;atisfied that it was <HI>They</HI> declined this Subject, not We, I refer thee to their own Relation, <HI>pag.</HI> 49, 56, 60. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which abun|dantly prove it again&s;t them; but e&s;pecially tho&s;e words of <HI>J. Ives</HI> in the Po&s;t&s;cript, p. 110. <HI>It is ob&s;ervable</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that mo&s;t of the Time &s;pent in the two Dayes Conference was, to prevail upon them to hear our Arguments, to prove, they were no</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>&amp; that their Mini&s;ters were Cheats and Impo&s;tors</HI> (which was not the Sub|ject to be proved) This is &s;o <HI>clear</HI> an Evi|dence <HI>again&s;t them,</HI> and <HI>for us,</HI> that we could not have wi&s;ht a <HI>clearer,</HI> to manife&s;t how <HI>in|du&s;triou&s;ly</HI> they <HI>declined</HI> the Subject, how <HI>clo&s;e|ly</HI> we <HI>adher'd</HI> to it, and how <HI>hardly</HI> we were <HI>drawn</HI> from it.</P>
<P>I &s;hould now have done with this Particu|lar, but for a Pa&s;&s;age or two relating to it, which I am not willing wholely to pretermit, nor can &s;o properly &s;peak to in any other place. The <HI>fir&s;t</HI> is in <HI>p.</HI> 70. of their Relation, where <HI>T. Plant</HI> doth with &s;o <HI>high a Confidence,</HI> maintain a <HI>manifest Fal&s;hood,</HI> that it makes me fear, the man <HI>(as well as his Cau&s;e)</HI> is grown <HI>De&s;perate.</HI> The Occa&s;ion of his Speech was this, <HI>W. Penn pre&s;t hard</HI> to come to the <HI>Proof</HI> of our <HI>Charge</HI> of <HI>Forgery;</HI> whereupon <HI>T. Plant</HI> an&s;wer'd him thus, <HI>Do not thus abu&s;e the
<PB N="54" REF="28"> Auditory; for I will &s;hew you here out of your own Book, that the fir&s;t Complaint again&s;t</HI> T. Hicks <HI>is for this thing,</HI> viz. <HI>for writing a Dia|logue, and oppo&s;ing the</HI> Quaker <HI>to a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>and therefore do not &s;tudy Eva&s;ions; it is not only, becau&s;e under the Dialogue is couched Forgery</HI> (Oh! Is there &s;o? how then dare ye <HI>protect, him in it?</HI> Why &s;tudy ye the&s;e Shifts &amp; Eva&s;ions to <HI>&s;helter</HI> him from a <HI>ju&s;t</HI> Stroke?) <HI>but al&s;o, becau&s;e he oppo&s;eth a</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>to a</HI> Quaker, <HI>and therefore you call it one of his &s;currilous Invectives, that</HI> T. Hicks <HI>&s;hould be the Man of all other, that &s;hould take upon him to un</HI>-Chri&s;tian <HI>you, who is not only (as you &s;ay) &V;nju&s;t in doing &s;o, but exce&s;&s;ively Imbitter'd a|gain&s;t you, and that leads the Ran of the Charge</HI> (viz.) <HI>for writing a Dialogue between a</HI> Chri&s;ti|an <HI>and a</HI> Quaker, <HI>and your great Complaint a|gain&s;t</HI> T. Hicks <HI>is, for that he oppo&s;eth a</HI> Chri&s;ti|an <HI>to a</HI> Quaker. <HI>This is the fir&s;t, both in your Book, and the Charge exhibited again&s;t him, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Now, <HI>Reader,</HI> I de&s;ire thee to ob&s;erve, that <HI>T. P.</HI> doth here <HI>po&s;itively</HI> affirm, that T.H's <HI>Oppo&s;ing the</HI> Quaker <HI>to the</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>is the fir&s;t Complaint in</HI> W. Penn's <HI>Book again&s;t</HI> T. Hicks. That this is mo&s;t notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, I refer thee, <HI>Reader,</HI> to that very Book of <HI>W. Penn</HI>'s, call'd, <HI>Rea&s;on again&s;t Railing,</HI> where in <HI>pag.</HI> 170.
<PB N="55" REF="28"> thou &s;halt find tho&s;e words which <HI>T. Plant</HI> hath refer'd to, viz. <HI>Scurrilous Invectives, ex|ce&s;&s;ively imbitter'd, &amp;c.</HI> (though <HI>he hath ba&s;ely mi&s;reported them</HI> to &s;erve his De&s;ign) and then turn back to <HI>p.</HI> 143. thou &s;halt find <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s <HI>Perver&s;ions complain'd of.</HI> Then <HI>p.</HI> 154. <HI>A Collection of his great Lyes.</HI> And in <HI>p.</HI> 158. <HI>His Forgeries detected.</HI> So that <HI>the Complaint again&s;t</HI> T. Hicks<HI>'s Perver&s;ions is no le&s;s then</HI> 27 pages <HI>before tho&s;e &s;currilous Invectives men|tion'd by</HI> T. Plant, <HI>where</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>the</HI> Quaker <HI>is oppo&s;ed to the</HI> Chri&s;tian; and yet the man is <HI>&s;o pa&s;t all Shame,</HI> as to <HI>affirm</HI> (and that too pub|lickly in Print) <HI>that this Oppo&s;ing the</HI> Quaker <HI>to the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>is the fir&s;t Complaint in the Book.</HI> Oh! what is not that Man lyable to, who hath pro&s;tituted his Con&s;cience and Under&s;tanding to his Intere&s;t.</P>
<P>The next thing, <HI>Reader,</HI> that I would brief|ly touch is this, The <HI>Appeal</HI> made to them, <HI>re|lated only to matter of Fact.</HI> This <HI>they them|&s;elves confe&s;s</HI> in their Letter to <HI>J. O&s;good,</HI> dated 23. <HI>Aug.</HI> 174. and printed in a Book of theirs, call'd, <HI>The Quakers Appeal an&s;wer'd,</HI> Epi&s;t. <HI>pag.</HI> 7. Their words are the&s;e: <HI>How|ever, &s;ince the Matter depending before us, is</HI> ONLY <HI>matter of Fact, and</HI> NOT <HI>of Di&s;pute, &amp;c.</HI> This I hope, is <HI>plain enough.</HI> But when, up|on our meeting them at <HI>Barbican,</HI> they found
<PB N="56" REF="29"> them&s;elves <HI>unable to defend matter af Fact,</HI> (though before they had publickly <HI>approv'd it,</HI> and <HI>ju&s;tified</HI> T. Hicks <HI>therein,</HI> which they not only tell the World in the <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> before mention'd, but al&s;o confe&s;s as much in a <HI>Let|ter</HI> prefixt to <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Relation, <HI>pag.</HI> 4. where they &s;ay, <HI>We are fully &s;atisfied, that in all tho&s;e</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">This leaves room enough to count all his other <HI>For|geries</HI> and Wrongs (couch'd under the <HI>Dialogue</HI>) <HI>Imma|terial</HI> or &s;mall things.</NOTE> <HI>material things then in&s;i&s;ted upon,</HI> T. H. <HI>has done them no Wrong:</HI> then I &s;ay, in their <HI>Letter</HI> of the 14th <HI>Octob.</HI> in An&s;wer to ours concer|ning another <HI>Meeting,</HI> they expre&s;s them|&s;elves thus, <HI>p.</HI> 29. <HI>We gave you a &s;ufficient Proof, and are ready to evidence it to all men, of our Forwardne&s;s to proceed in the full Examination and Tryal of what&s;oever you have charg'd on</HI> T. H. <HI>about the matter contain'd in his</HI> Dialogues; <HI>and there withal an exact Tryal &amp; Di&s;qui&s;ition of your Tenets, whether con&s;i&s;tent with the true</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>Religion, or not.</HI> I might very well ask them, <HI>By what Authority they would take this upon them?</HI> and <HI>why we may not,</HI> with as good Rea&s;on, <HI>examine and try theirs?</HI> But my Aim is more particularly here to &s;hew, That finding <HI>them&s;elvs pincht,</HI> and <HI>hard be &s;et</HI> to <HI>defend</HI> T. H. (and them&s;elves as his Abettors) <HI>in matter of Fact</HI> (which them&s;elves confe&s;s,
<PB N="57" REF="29"> was the <HI>ONLY</HI> thing depending before them) they de&s;ignedly and <HI>craftily</HI> interweave and <HI>twi&s;t in</HI> Matters of <HI>Di&s;pute</HI> (which they al&s;o confe&s;s, did <HI>NOT</HI> depend before them) that thereby, if it were po&s;&s;ible, they might <HI>twi&s;t them&s;elves out of tho&s;e Perplexities,</HI> wherein they found them&s;elves <HI>entangled,</HI> about mat|ter of <HI>Fact.</HI></P>
<P>I come now to make &s;ome few <HI>Ob&s;ervati|ons</HI> on their <HI>Relation</HI> of the 2d <HI>Meeting,</HI> wherein though I find <HI>many</HI> things <HI>fal&s;e,</HI> and <HI>many</HI> things <HI>frivolous;</HI> yet I think it not worth either my own or my Reader's While, to take notice of every <HI>Impertinency</HI> and <HI>triffling Con|ceit,</HI> wherewith they have endeavour'd <HI>to varni&s;h over their Relation:</HI> Some few Pa&s;|&s;ages however, of tho&s;e that &s;eem <HI>mo&s;t mate|rial,</HI> I will give the Reader a &s;hort view of, <HI>by which he may take a mea&s;ure of the re&s;t.</HI> And I will begin with <HI>J. Ives</HI>'s Definition of a <HI>Chri|&s;tian, pag</HI> 58. His words are the&s;e:</P>
<P><HI>All men that &s;eriou&s;ly believe in the Lord</HI> Chri&s;t, <HI>that was crucified for the Sins of men, and is now a&s;cended into Glory; They that believe this, and conform to his Laws, where ever they live; we &s;ay, they are good</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>what&s;oever Names or Appellations are given to them in this unhappy Age we live in.</HI></P>
<PB N="58" REF="30">
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> This Definition of a <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> hath two parts: The one contains <HI>certain Articles to be believ'd;</HI> the other, <HI>A Conformity to</HI> Chri&s;t's <HI>Laws.</HI> By the fir&s;t, <HI>The</HI> Pope <HI>may be as good a</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>as</HI> Jeremy <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> for ought I &s;ee; for <HI>he believes as much</HI> concer|ning the Lord Chri&s;t, <HI>as</HI> Jeremy <HI>here expre&s;|&s;eth:</HI> And if by the &s;econd, viz. <HI>Conformity to</HI> Chri&s;t's <HI>Laws,</HI> he re&s;pect the <HI>Manner</HI> of Conforming, as well as the <HI>Matter</HI> to be con|form'd to, then <HI>Jeremy</HI> plainly <HI>equivocats,</HI> while he &s;eems to <HI>admit others</HI> to be <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> be|&s;ides the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts;</HI> for no other People agree with them in the Manner of Conformi|ty, <HI>nor they indeed one with another:</HI> So that then, not only <HI>all others are excluded</HI> from any Share in <HI>Chri&s;tianity</HI> but even <HI>them&s;elves too.</HI> But if on the other hand he re&s;pect the <HI>Matter</HI> conform'd to, and not the <HI>Manner</HI> of Conforming, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> then will be <HI>his good Chri&s;tians</HI> &s;till; &s;ith they omit nothing which even he accounts Duty, but perform it in a different Mode.</P>
<P>He goes on, <HI>p.</HI> 61. thus: <HI>If</HI> T. Hicks <HI>or I can prove, that you are no</HI> Chri&s;tians,&mdash;<HI>then is there very good Rea&s;on to believe that your Pro|fe&s;&s;ing Religion and</HI> Chri&s;tianity, <HI>and owning the Scriptures, is all but out of &s;ini&s;ter Ends, and all your Sufferings are idle and vain; and
<PB N="59" REF="30"> this may be the Rea&s;on, why you deny a future State; for all the&s;e are the Con&s;equences of this antecedent Propo&s;ition, that you are no</HI> Chri&s;ti|ans.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Two things I ob&s;erve here: <HI>A foul In&s;inuation, and a fal&s;e Conclu&s;ion.</HI> The In|&s;inuation is, <HI>That we deny a future State. This,</HI> Jeremy, <HI>I charge upon thee as a notorious Fal&s;hood and malicious Slander; and I put thee upon the Proof thereof,</HI> acquit thy &s;elf as thou can&s;t.</P>
<P>The Conclu&s;ion is, That, <HI>If</HI> T. Hicks <HI>or</HI> J. Ives <HI>can prove, that we are no</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>then there is</HI> very good Rea&s;on <HI>to believe that our profe&s;&s;ing Religion and</HI> Chri&s;tianity, <HI>and own|ing the Scriptures,</HI> is all but out of &s;ini&s;ter Ends, &amp;c. <HI>This is fal&s;e Logick, Jeremy!</HI> Thy Conclu&s;ion is <HI>Inconclu&s;ive;</HI> thy Con&s;e|quence, a <HI>Non &s;equitur.</HI> If it were <HI>po&s;&s;ible</HI> for T.H. or thee, to prove us no <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> (which all the Subtilty of the Serpent <HI>can never do</HI>) yet would it <HI>not</HI> thence follow, <HI>That our</HI> pro|fe&s;&s;ing Religion and <HI>Chri&s;tianity,</HI> and owning the Scriptures, <HI>is all but out of &s;ini&s;ter Ends.</HI> There is no <HI>Good Rea&s;on,</HI> much le&s;s <HI>Charity,</HI> &s;o to believe. How many at this Day do <HI>zea|lou&s;ly</HI> profe&s;s Religion and <HI>Chri&s;tianity,</HI> and own the Scriptures, and that too <HI>without any &s;ini&s;ter Ends,</HI> who yet <HI>(alas!)</HI> are far enough
<PB N="60" REF="31"> from being <HI>true Chri&s;tians!</HI> What <HI>&s;ini&s;ter Ends</HI> had tho&s;e ignorant <HI>Athenians,</HI> who wor|&s;hipped the <HI>&V;nknown God,</HI> yet were no <HI>true Wor&s;hippers?</HI> But if all the&s;e be the <HI>Con&s;e|quences</HI> of this <HI>Antecedent</HI> (as thou &s;ay'&s;t) then &s;urely thy <HI>Brother</HI> Hicks <HI>hath &s;et the Cart before the Hor&s;e</HI> (as the Proverb is) for he makes that the <HI>Antecedent,</HI> which thou make&s;t the <HI>Con&s;equence;</HI> and that the <HI>Con&s;e|quent,</HI> which thou make&s;t the <HI>Antecedent.</HI> I hope you'l &s;ee that one of you <HI>at lea&s;t,</HI> is be|&s;ide the Mark <HI>(though I &s;ee you are both)</HI> and endeavour to <HI>under&s;tand your &s;elves,</HI> before you fall upon others.</P>
<P>Had <HI>Jeremy</HI> lookt but a few Lines lower, he might have &s;een him&s;elf confuting an Ar|gument, <HI>as like this as may be.</HI> They make <HI>W. P</HI> to &s;ay, <HI>I will prove the Book fictitious, and if I do &s;o, then you are no</HI> Chri&s;tians; <HI>and con&s;e|quently, We are</HI> Chri&s;tians. <HI>Jeremy</HI> &s;trait re|plies, <HI>That's fal&s;e Logick; for that Book may be fictitious, and yet you may be no</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>for all that.</HI> 'Tis fal&s;e Logick indeed (<HI>and a fal&s;e Relation too;</HI> for <HI>W. Penn</HI> never &s;o ar|gued) but yet it is <HI>as good Logick</HI> as that which <HI>Jeremy</HI> offer'd but now. Would one not wonder his Wits &s;hould be &s;o quick and acute all on a &s;udden, which were &s;o obtu&s;e and dull but ju&s;t before!</P>
<PB N="61" REF="31">
<P>In p. 88. <HI>T. Plant</HI> in&s;erts a Marginal Note, wherein his Ignorance is worth our noting. <HI>Mark Reader,</HI> &s;ayes he, <HI>here</HI> G. K. <HI>gives away the Cau&s;e; for he &s;aith,</HI> W. P. <HI>doth not impo&s;e it upon others, nor hath a Call from the Lord to impo&s;e it upon others, or require others to believe that he is a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>and hath immediate In|&s;piration,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Surely</HI> (adds he) <HI>if this be true, it is no Crime for Mr.</HI> Ives <HI>to &s;ay, he is no</HI> Chri|&s;tian, &amp;c.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> It &s;eems then (in <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Sen&s;e) if a Man <HI>profe&s;s him&s;elf a Chri&s;tian,</HI> and doth <HI>not impo&s;e the Belief thereof</HI> upon others, nor hath <HI>a Call from the Lord to require others to believe</HI> that he is a <HI>Chri&s;tian, he gives away his Cau&s;e,</HI> and it is <HI>no Crime to &s;ay he is no</HI> Chri|&s;tian: What think&s;t thou, Reader, <HI>is not this fine arguing?</HI> May I take the Liberty to form &s;uch an Argument as this of <HI>T. Plant</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Plant</HI> him&s;elf, after this Manner? <HI>If</HI> T. Plant <HI>doth not impo&s;e upon others, nor hath a Command from the Lord to require others to be|lieve that he is a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>then it is no Crime for me to &s;ay, that</HI> T. Plant <HI>is no</HI> Chri&s;tian: <HI>But</HI> T. Plant <HI>doth not impo&s;e upon others, nor hath a Command from the Lord to require others to believe that he is a</HI> Chri&s;tian; <HI>Therefore it is no Crime for me to &s;ay that</HI> T. Plant <HI>is no</HI> Chri&s;tian. How will T. Plant <HI>reli&s;h</HI> this? will
<PB N="62" REF="32"> he &s;it down now <HI>contentedly</HI> under his own Con&s;equence? If not, let him thank him|&s;elf for giving the Occa&s;ion for it, and learn to deal <HI>more di&s;creetly and hone&s;tly</HI> with his Ad|ver&s;aries hereafter.</P>
<P>But he goes on; <HI>And may not &s;uch Men be rejected as idle Impo&s;tors, out of their own Mouths? For</HI> (I de&s;ire thee Reader, to mark his Argument well) <HI>if he hath no Call from the Lord, to require Men to believe he is a</HI> Chri|&s;tian, <HI>as</HI> G. K. <HI>&s;aith; then &s;urely he hath no Call from the Lord to require Men to believe he is a Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t: But</HI> G. K. <HI>&s;aith,</HI> W. P. <HI>hath no Call from the Lord to require Men to believe he is a</HI> Chri&s;tian; Ergo, <HI>it followeth he hath no Call from the Lord to require any to be|lieve he is a Mini&s;ter, and therefore without Sin may be rejected as an idle Impo&s;tor.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;.</LABEL> Here is Ergo <HI>upon</HI> Ergo, Con&s;equence <HI>upon</HI> Con&s;equence, Conclu&s;ion <HI>upon</HI> Conclu&s;ion <HI>(fal&s;e Heraldry)</HI> Surely, <HI>this Logick is worth looking into.</HI> Ergo, <HI>it follows he hath no Call from the Lord, to require any to believe he is a Mini&s;ter</HI> (what then!) <HI>And therefore</HI> [that is, becau&s;e he hath no Call from the Lord to re|quire any to believe he is a Mini&s;ter; <HI>There|fore] without Sin he may be rejected as an idle Impo&s;tor:</HI> May he &s;o? what &s;ayes <HI>Jeremy</HI> to this? <HI>Is not this fal&s;e Logick?</HI> (for I doubt
<PB N="63" REF="32"> <HI>T. Plant</HI> is &s;o <HI>young a Logician,</HI> that he does not yet <HI>know fal&s;e from true</HI>) But con&s;ider Reader, how nimbly might <HI>T. Plant, at this rate of arguing,</HI> have concluded again&s;t any of the Holy Apo&s;tles, and have <HI>turn'd them off</HI> as idle Impo&s;tors? For which of them all did <HI>take upon him</HI> to <HI>impo&s;e</HI> upon his Oppo&s;ers, or <HI>require &s;uch</HI> to believe that he was a Mi|ni&s;ter of Chri&s;t; but commended them&s;elves to every Man's Con&s;cience in the Sight of God: But I would not in&s;i&s;t too long on this Weak|ne&s;s; I will therefore <HI>invert T. Plant</HI>'s Argu|ment <HI>upon him&s;elf and his own Party,</HI> and that not as my own Judgment, but <HI>Argumentum ad hominem</HI> only, whereby both he and they may &s;ee, how <HI>unfairly</HI> they have dealt with us. Take it thus, <HI>If the</HI> Bapti&s;t-<HI>Teachers in gene|ral have no Call from the Lord to require others to believe that they are Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, then the</HI> Bapti&s;t-<HI>Teachers in general may without Sin be rejected as idle Impo&s;tors: But the</HI> Bap|ti&s;t-<HI>Teachers in general have no Call from the Lord to require others to believe that they are Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t; Therefore the</HI> Bapti&s;t-<HI>Teachers in general may without Sin be reje|cted as Idle Impo&s;tors.</HI> If this Conclu&s;ion &s;eem <HI>over hard</HI> to any of the <HI>Bapti&s;ts,</HI> let them con|&s;ider, that the Argument is <HI>not mine,</HI> but <HI>for|med for Mi&s;chief</HI> by one of their own, and that
<PB N="64" REF="33"> I have only <HI>turned back the Point</HI> of it upon them&s;elves: If therefore <HI>they are wounded by their own Weapon,</HI> let them not blame me, but remember that of the Poet.
<Q><L>&mdash;<HI>Nec lex e&s;t ju&s;tior ulla,</HI></L>
<L><HI>Quam necis Artifices arte perire &s;uae.</HI></L></Q> Which I will adventure thus to <HI>Engli&s;h:</HI>
<Q><L>Nor can a ju&s;ter Law then this be made,</L>
<L>That the Betrayer be him&s;elf betray'd;</L>
<L>And they that for their Neighbors lay a <HI>&s;nare</HI></L>
<L>Be taken in the Gin them&s;elves prepare.</L></Q></P>
<P>His next Pa&s;&s;age affords another Note, and that denotes his <HI>notorious Folly;</HI> It is made upon the Maxim, <HI>De non apparentibus &amp; non exi&s;tentibus eadem e&s;t ratio;</HI> which <HI>G. K.</HI> de|nyed to hold <HI>true in all Ca&s;es,</HI> and illu&s;trated his Exception by an Example; whereupon <HI>T. Plant</HI> in his Note &s;ayes, <HI>But it might fur|ther be an&s;wered, that the Maxim is true in all Ca&s;es in matter of Evidence, about which the Maxim in Law is u&s;ed; for it doth not appear who had the be&s;t, the</HI> French <HI>or the</HI> Dutch; <HI>therefore, it is not evident.</HI> [O profound Igno|rance! as much as if he had &s;aid, <HI>It doth not appear, therefore it doth not appear] In like manner</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>it appears not that you have a Rule for your Faith and Practice by In&s;pi|ration, therefore it is not; that is, it is not evidenced.</HI> But prithee Reader, ha&s;t thou e|ver
<PB N="65" REF="33"> <HI>till now</HI> learnt a Di&s;tinction between, <HI>it ap|pears not,</HI> &amp; <HI>it is not evidenc'd?</HI> Let us then read him in plain <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> thus, <HI>It appears not that you have a Rule for your Faith and Practice by In&s;piration, therefore it is not; that is, it ap|pears not.</HI> It &s;eems then by this he doth not conclude that we have <HI>No Rule,</HI> but only that our Rule doth <HI>not appear;</HI> for when he &s;ayes, it is not, he means only, it is not evidenced; that is, it appears not: So that <HI>this doth not at all oppugn our having a Rule;</HI> though it abun|dantly di&s;covers the Weakne&s;s of him that writ it; who <HI>bu&s;ily</HI> undertaking to explain the Maxim, <HI>that which appears not, is not,</HI> hath at length <HI>mo&s;t ridiculou&s;ly</HI> brought it to this i&s;&s;ue, that the Meaning of it is, <HI>that which appears not, appears not;</HI> for he makes the Compari&s;on or Parallel to lie <HI>between not ap|pearing, and not being evidenced</HI> (which are Terms importing the &s;ame thing) whereas in|deed it ought to lie <HI>between not appearing and not exi&s;ting or being at all.</HI> And in this &s;en&s;e it is <HI>G. K.</HI> denyes the Maxim to hold <HI>uni|ver&s;ally true:</HI> But enough of this.</P>
<P>In pag. 92. <HI>J. Ives</HI> asks this Que&s;tion, <HI>How can any thing be a Rule for a</HI> Chri&s;tian<HI>'s Faith and Practice, that is evident to no Body but only to him that &s;aith &s;o?</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> This Que&s;tion is grounded upon a
<PB N="66" REF="34"> <HI>Mi&s;take</HI> at be&s;t, &s;uppo&s;ing us to affirm, that the Rule of every Individual Per&s;on is evi|dent to that individual Per&s;on only; <HI>which Suppo&s;ition is fal&s;e:</HI> for we affirm, That the Rule of our Faith and Practice <HI>is evident to every one,</HI> who hath received and lives by the &s;ame holy Faith, which we have received and live by. But the Que&s;tion rightly &s;tated is this, <HI>Whether every</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>is bound (under the Penalty of Forfeiting his</HI> Chri&s;tianity, <HI>and of being reputed an Heathen, Cheat, Impo|&s;tor) to give an Evidence (&s;uch as no Impo|&s;tor can imitate) of the Rule of his Faith to tho&s;e who are Strangers to his Faith, or profe&s;t Enemies of it?</HI> This Que&s;tion reaches the Ca&s;e; and <HI>I put it clo&s;ely to</HI> Jer. Ives, Tho. Plant, <HI>and all the re&s;t of them, to an&s;wer plainly and fully;</HI> which if they &s;hall do in the <HI>Affirmative,</HI> I expect their <HI>Proof.</HI></P>
<P>After all the <HI>Bu&s;le</HI> that <HI>J. Ives</HI> hath made, and all his <HI>loud Clamours</HI> again&s;t us, for an In&s;tance, an In&s;tance, an Evidence, an E|vidence, whereby we might prove we have a Rule for our Faith and Practice, and <HI>con&s;equently that we are</HI> Chri&s;tians,</P>
<P>He now tells us, pag. 101. That <HI>the De|&s;ign of his Argument was not to prove, that men could not be</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>without extraordinary external Evidence.</HI></P>
<PB N="67" REF="34">
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> What a <HI>Noi&s;e</HI> and <HI>Stir</HI> has he made all this while to prove, that he that <HI>can|not give an Extraordinary External Evidence</HI> (<HI>&s;uch</HI> too as no <HI>Impo&s;tor</HI> can <HI>imitate</HI>) <HI>is No Chri&s;tian!</HI> And yet he now plainly grants, that <HI>men may be</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>without any Extra|ordinary External Evidence.</HI> Thus, <HI>like</HI> A DRUNKEN MAN, <HI>he</HI> REELS <HI>to and fro, in and out, up and down,</HI> one while <HI>affir|ming one thing,</HI> another while <HI>quite the con|trary.</HI></P>
<P>And indeed, he that will take the Pains to <HI>trace Jeremy</HI> but through that very Relation, which <HI>them&s;elves</HI> have publi&s;hed, will find him frequently <HI>tripping in his Talk,</HI> his Di&s;|cour&s;e <HI>Contradictory</HI> and <HI>Incon&s;i&s;tent</HI> with it &s;elf; his An&s;wers <HI>interfering</HI> and <HI>thwarting one another:</HI> for in&s;tance, pag. 49. <HI>Jeremy</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>We &s;ay it again, that his fir&s;t Charge is for writing a Dialogue, and Oppo&s;ing a</HI> Chri|&s;tian <HI>to a</HI> Quaker; <HI>and his fir&s;t Charge is</HI> NOT <HI>for Forgery:</HI> So pag. 56. <HI>W.P.</HI> &s;ayes <HI>The fir&s;t Article is for Forgery;</HI> J. Ives &s;ayes, <HI>It is</HI> NOT; <HI>but for writing a Dialogue, and Oppo&s;ing the</HI> Quaker <HI>to the</HI> Chri&s;tian: Again, pag. 60. <HI>W. P.</HI> offers <HI>to prove T. Hicks a Forger;</HI> J. Ives an&s;wers, <HI>This is</HI> NO PART <HI>of your Charge.</HI> In the&s;e three In&s;tances <HI>Je|remy &s;toutly</HI> and <HI>boldly</HI> affirms, that <HI>Forgery is</HI>
<PB N="68" REF="35"> NO PART <HI>of the Charge;</HI> but that the <HI>fir&s;t Charge is for Oppo&s;ing a</HI> Quaker <HI>to a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>and</HI> NOT <HI>for Forgery.</HI> Let us now &s;ee what he &s;ayes, pag. 68. his words are the&s;e: <HI>I &s;ay, this is</HI> ONE PART <HI>or piece of the</HI> FORGERY <HI>that they accu&s;e him of, to &s;up|po&s;e and &s;ugge&s;t that the</HI> Quakers <HI>are no</HI> Chri|&s;tians. Here he has <HI>overturn'd all</HI> he &s;aid be|fore. Now <HI>he confe&s;&s;es</HI> Forgery <HI>is not only in the Charge, but in the fir&s;t Article too.</HI> Thus, Reader, thou ha&s;t heard him <HI>&s;ay,</HI> and <HI>&s;ay,</HI> and <HI>&s;ay again;</HI> and pre&s;ently after <HI>un&s;ay it all.</HI> Now thou &s;halt hear him <HI>un&s;ay this too,</HI> and return to his <HI>former Note</HI> again; pag. 71. A Stranger pre&s;t that we might have <HI>Liberty to prove our Charge of Forgery; Jer. Ives</HI> takes him up thus, <HI>Forgery,</HI> Sir, <HI>is</HI> NOT <HI>the fir&s;t Article, as you have heard once and again.</HI> Judge now, Reader, whether this man ei|ther <HI>con&s;iders, remembers, under&s;tands</HI> or <HI>re|gards what he &s;ayes,</HI> who &s;o <HI>palpably and fre|quently contradicts him&s;elf.</HI></P>
<P>Nor doth this befal him in the more <HI>loo&s;e part</HI> of his Di&s;cour&s;e only, but in the <HI>argu|mentative part</HI> al&s;o, which &s;trictly to examine, and particularly to in&s;i&s;t on, might of it &s;elf fill a larger Treati&s;e then I de&s;ign this to be; &s;o <HI>fal&s;e are</HI> Jeremy<HI>'s Arguments, &s;o lame and unconcluding his Conclu&s;ions:</HI> One while <HI>he
<PB N="69" REF="35"> alters the State of the Que&s;tion;</HI> another while <HI>he changes the Terms of his Argument:</HI> Sometimes what is <HI>praedicated in his fir&s;t Pro|po&s;ition,</HI> is either <HI>wholely omitted,</HI> or <HI>otherwi&s;e repeated in his &s;econd.</HI> Of this enough may be &s;een in pag. 87, 88. where fir&s;t <HI>the Term praedicated is,</HI> CAN (If <HI>W.P.</HI> hath any Rule, &amp;c. he CAN give &s;ome Evidence, &amp;c.) By and by an Occa&s;ion is taken to repeat his Argument, and then <HI>from</HI> CAN <HI>'tis drawn to</HI> OUGHT; anon OUGHT <HI>is &s;lipt a&s;ide,</HI> and MUST <HI>is thru&s;t in in the room of.</HI> One while the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> runs thus: If <HI>W. P.</HI> hath any immediate In&s;piration, &amp;c. then he hath &s;ome|thing by which he Can evidence to him&s;elf AND to us, &amp;c. and then the <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> is thus; But he hath nothing by which he can evidence this to him&s;elf NOR to us. Here in&s;tead of the <HI>Copulative</HI> [AND] they have put in the <HI>Disjunctive</HI> [NOR] which not on|ly marrs the Argument; but renders <HI>Jeremy</HI>'s Bu&s;ine&s;s <HI>harder,</HI> which was but <HI>too hard for him before:</HI> for by the <HI>Minor</HI> of this Argu|ment, he undertakes to prove, <HI>that W. P. hath nothing by which he can evidence to him&s;elf that he is no Impo&s;tor,</HI> &amp;c. But I doubt in this par|ticular, the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> have <HI>dealt hardly</HI> with their Champion, to <HI>involve him</HI> in &s;uch an <HI>inextri|cable Difficulty,</HI> after they had &s;pent near <HI>two
<PB N="70" REF="36"> Months time,</HI> in <HI>licking</HI> their <HI>Relation</HI> into its pre&s;ent Form. But of this part of it, let this &s;uffice, to give the Reader <HI>a Ta&s;te only of</HI> Je|remy<HI>'s Arguments;</HI> for I de&s;ign not here a particular Examination of them, both as that is be&s;ide the <HI>Intention</HI> of this Treati&s;e, and as it would be in &s;ome re&s;pects, a &s;upervacaneous Work; this Manner of Arguing being <HI>&s;ome degrees,</HI> beyond the ordinary Under&s;tanding of the Vulgar, and to them that are skill'd and exerci&s;ed in it, the Defects will of them&s;elves be obvious enough, without any Animadver|&s;ion: Wherefore leaving this, I proceed to take notice of another of <HI>Tho. Plant</HI>'s Notes, which I find in <HI>p.</HI> 101. thus expre&s;t, <HI>And this Rule ought to be evidenced to be from Heaven Antecedaneou&s;ly to the Ob&s;ervation of it, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Herein our Annotator falls &s;hort (in my Judgment) of expre&s;&s;ing him&s;elf <HI>intel|ligibly:</HI> I enquire therefore of him, <HI>To whom this Rule ought thus to be evidenced; Whether it ought to be evidenced to them that Ob&s;erve it, or to them that de&s;pi&s;e or reject it?</HI> If he will &s;ay, It ought to be evidenc'd <HI>to them that ob|&s;erve it</HI> antecedaneou&s;ly to <HI>their</HI> Ob&s;ervation of it, we herein agree; for we affirm, it is <HI>&s;o</HI> evidenced to us: But if he will &s;ay, It ought to be evidenced <HI>to them that de&s;pi&s;e and reject it,</HI> antecedaneou&s;ly to <HI>his Ob&s;ervation who
<PB N="71" REF="36"> doth receive it, ob&s;erve it,</HI> and <HI>is to give that Evidence</HI> of it, then he <HI>plunges</HI> him&s;elf into as <HI>fond</HI> an <HI>Ab&s;urdity,</HI> as he could ea&s;ily have run into; for his Sen&s;e will be plainly this, <HI>That if I profe&s;s to have a Rule for my Faith and Practice, by Immediate In&s;piration, I ought to evidence to him who denies and rejects it, that this Rule of mine is from Heaven, before I my &s;elf have walked by it,</HI> or <HI>made any Ob&s;ervation of it.</HI> A Po&s;ition &s;o <HI>ridiculous,</HI> that it was &s;it on|ly for <HI>T. Plant</HI> to publi&s;h, <HI>who has the wor&s;t luck in writing Notes,</HI> of any Man that I have read.</P>
<P>But &s;ayes <HI>J. Ives</HI> p. 100. <Q REND="inline"><HI>You may &s;oon have as much Evidence as we for Immediate In&s;pi|ration; for we never pretended to it, as a Rule for our Faith and Practice, in the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Religion.</HI></Q></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> If by WE he intends the whole People call'd <HI>Bapti&s;ts, he &s;peaks untruly;</HI> for ma|ny of them did <HI>formerly</HI> own the <HI>Teachings and Guidance of the Spirit,</HI> and a&s;&s;erted it in their Writings: But if he re&s;train his WE to tho&s;e of them who are concern'd in the pre&s;ent Con|trover&s;ie with us, I mu&s;t then &s;ay unto him and them, O <HI>how are ye degenerated from your An|ce&s;tors in Religion!</HI> How different is a <HI>Bapti&s;t</HI> now, from what a <HI>Bapti&s;t</HI> then was! Were not your Predece&s;&s;ors called in Deri&s;ion <HI>En|thu&s;iasts</HI>
<PB N="72" REF="37"> (as ye now call us) <HI>becau&s;e they then contended for</HI> (that which you now deny, <HI>viz.</HI>) <HI>The Divine Teachings and Immediate A&s;&s;i|stance of the Holy Spirit, in their Preaching and ex tempore Praying?</HI> Were they not called <HI>Gifted Brethren,</HI> from their affirming, <HI>they had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost?</HI> Look back into Dr. <HI>Featly</HI>'s Book, called, DIPPERS DIPT, printed in the Year, 1645. Turn over <HI>R. Capenter</HI>'s Book, entituled THE ANABAPTIST WASHT AND WASHT, AND SHRUNK IN THE WASHING, and &s;ee if the&s;e Things were not &s;o: But the&s;e perhaps you will &s;ay, were your Adver&s;a|ries; therefore I will put you in Mind of &s;ome of your Brethren: Read <HI>Edward Barber</HI>'s DISCOVERY OF THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL (printed <HI>Anno</HI> 1645. Look into <HI>Daniel King</HI>'s WAY TO SION, where|in he affirms, That <Q REND="inline"><HI>by the MOTION OF THE SPIRIT he that is call'd to be a Mi|ni&s;ter, may and ought to Baptize as well as Preach,</HI> p. 89.</Q> Examine <HI>T. Collier</HI>'s Works, particularly his MARROW OF CHRISTI|ANITY, and his EPISTLE TO ALL THE SAINTS; in which la&s;t he &s;ayes (chap. 12. p. 52.) <Q REND="inline"><HI>The Spirit of God, who is God, is the ALONE R&V;LE of a &s;piritual Chri&s;tian.</HI></Q> Peru&s;e <HI>Samuel How</HI>'s Treati&s;e, entitul'd, THE
<PB N="73" REF="37"> SUFFICIENCY OF THE SPIRIT'S TEA|CHING, &amp;c. wherein he will tell you, <HI>p.</HI> 21. <Q REND="inline"><HI><HI>That</HI> the Glory of Chri&s;t's Doctrine is, that it is of the SPIRIT'S TEACHING: for when <HI>(adds he)</HI> we behold the Glory of the Lord in the mo&s;t perfect Mea&s;ure, &s;o as we are chang'd thereinto from Glory to Glory; yet ALL IS FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD, &s;eeing that he is the promi&s;ed Comforter, that is to TEACH &V;S ALL GOOD THINGS belonging to our Per|fection.</HI></Q></P>
<P>Examine the&s;e Quotations, &amp; call to mind the former Dayes, and then tell me, whether ye have not herein deny'd the Te&s;timonies of your Brethren, who &s;o hone&s;tly a&s;&s;erted, and zealou&s;ly contended for the <HI>inward Working, Teaching &amp; Guidance of the holy Spirit,</HI> which you now disdainfully and contemptuou&s;ly re|ject. Many other Te&s;timonies, of this kind, I could add; but I forbear, in Hopes of a future Opportunity to expo&s;tulate this Ca&s;e a little more fully with you: At this time therefore, I will only add the Judgment of <HI>William Kiffin,</HI> a Man of no mean Repute among&s;t you, and now living; He, in his <HI>Po&s;t&s;cript</HI> to <HI>Sam. How</HI>'s fore-mention'd Book, expre&s;t him&s;elf thus, <Q REND="inline"><HI>But my Intent in writing this Hard Word <HI>(which re&s;pected &s;ome Hard&s;hip &amp; Ignominy
<PB N="74" REF="38"> the Author had undergone)</HI> 'is not to commend the Author, but to tender to thy Review the matter of this foregoing Book, the Bent there|of is, to advance the TEACHINGS OF THE SPIRIT of Chri&s;t, in the &V;nfolding of the My&s;tery of the Go&s;pel to the Hearts of Men, as the CHOICE REVEALER of that Glory of Truth to the Soul, which will change from Glory to Glory into its own Like|ne&s;s, a TR&V;TH much oppo&s;ed by MEN OF CORR&V;PT MINDS in this Day.</HI></Q> Thus far <HI>W. Kiffin</HI> about 20 Years ago: From which, <HI>Reader,</HI> thou may'&s;t ob&s;erve, That they who <HI>oppo&s;ed the Teachings of the Spirit of Chri&s;t in the &V;nfolding of the My&s;tery of the Go&s;pel to the Hearts of men, as the choice Revea|ler of the Glory of Truth to the Soul,</HI> were by <HI>W. Kiffin</HI> accounted and called <HI>Men of corrupt Minds</HI> at that Day: What manner of Minds he and his Brethren now have, who &s;o confi|dently oppo&s;e and furiou&s;ly contend again&s;t this Truth at this Day, I leave to thee to infer.</P>
<P>In p. 102. <HI>W.P.</HI> tells them, <HI>That the Mar|tyrs in Q.</HI> Marys <HI>Dayes, had the Te&s;timony of the Lord within them, and though they could not di&s;pute for their Religion, yet they could burn and &s;uffer for it.</HI> To this <HI>J. Ives</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>But they were no</HI> Quakers (what if they were not call'd <HI>Quakers?</HI> He will grant they were <HI>Chri|&s;tians,</HI>
<PB N="75" REF="38"> and <HI>that is enough;</HI> for the Con&s;equence is plain, that <HI>they who have the Inward Te&s;ti|mony of the Lord within them, are true</HI> Chri|&s;tians, <HI>though they give no external Evidence of it</HI>) Here again <HI>T. Plant</HI> calls upon his Rea|der to note; <HI>Note, Reader</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>how the&s;e Men can own the Martyrs in Q.</HI> Marys <HI>Dayes for</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>and yet in the&s;e Dayes own none to be</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>but them&s;elves, is a Paradox.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I put him to prove who of us hath &s;aid, we own none to be <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> but our &s;elves. <HI>Next,</HI> I &s;ay, that if that &s;hould be &s;uppos'd, yet it would be <HI>no Paradox at all.</HI> And I ask <HI>T. Plant</HI> whether or no the <HI>Prote|&s;tants,</HI> when fir&s;t they prote&s;ted again&s;t the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> might not have &s;aid, <HI>that they owned the Apo&s;tles and primitive Church to be</HI> Chri&s;tians; <HI>but yet that they owned none in the Dayes wherein them&s;elves lived to be</HI> Chri&s;tians <HI>but them&s;elves, and this without any Paradox at all?</HI></P>
<P>He goes on thus, <HI>Did the Martyrs in Q.</HI> Marys <HI>Dayes pretend to Immediate In&s;piration for the Rule of their Faith and Practice? if not, what a grand Piece of Impertinency is it to name them upon this Occa&s;ion, who pretended to no other Rule for their Faith and Practice, then the Holy Scriptures?</HI></P>
<PB N="76" REF="39">
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> They did pretend to Immediate In&s;piration, and yet <HI>were no Impo&s;tors</HI> neither. <HI>John Bradford,</HI> a Man eminent among&s;t them, both for his Piety and Learning, in his An&s;wer to the Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>York,</HI> &s;ayes thus, Mar|tyrol. 3. Vol. 3. p. 296. <Q REND="inline"><HI>We do believe and know the Scriptures, as Chri&s;t's Sheep, not becau&s;e the Church &s;aith, they are the Scrip|tures, but becau&s;e they be &s;o, being thereof a&s;|&s;ur'd by the &s;ame Spirit that &s;pake them.</HI></Q> Hence it is evident, that the Holy Spirit, or <HI>Divine In&s;piration, was the Rule of this Godly Mar|tyr's Faith,</HI> even concerning the Scriptures them&s;elves And <HI>John Philpot</HI> another Godly and Learned Martyr, having in the Beginning of his Bible written this Sentence, <HI>Spiritus e&s;t vicarius Chri&s;ti in terris.</HI> i. e. <HI>The Spirit is Chri&s;t's Vicar</HI> (or in Chri&s;t's &s;tead) <HI>on Earth;</HI> gave this An&s;wer to <HI>B. Bonner</HI> enquiring the Rea&s;on of his &s;o Writing: <Q REND="inline"><HI>Chri&s;t &s;ince his A&s;|cen&s;ion worketh all things in us by his Spirit, and by his Spirit doth dwell in us, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q> Mar|tyrol. Vol. 3. p. 573. To the &s;ame Purpo&s;e writes <HI>William Tindal</HI> (another eminent and worthy Martyr) in his An&s;wer to <HI>More</HI>'s Di|alogue: <Q REND="inline"><HI>When <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> thou art asked, why thou believe&s;t thou &s;halt be &s;aved by Chri&s;t? an&s;wer, thou feele&s;t that it is true; <HI>and when he asketh, how thou knowe&s;t it is true? an|&s;wer,</HI>
<PB N="77" REF="39"> becau&s;e it is written in thy Heart; <HI>if he ask, who wrote it? an&s;wer,</HI> the Spirit of God; <HI>if he ask, how thou came&s;t fir&s;t by it? tell him,</HI> thou wa&s;t INWARDLY TA&V;GHT by the Spirit of God; <HI>and if he ask, whether thou believe&s;t it not, becau&s;e it is written in Books, or becau&s;e the Prie&s;ts &s;o preach? an&s;wer,</HI> No, not now, but only becau&s;e it is written in thy Heart, and becau&s;e the Spirit of God &s;o preacheth, and &s;o te&s;tifi|eth unto thy Soul, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HI></Q> Thus far <HI>Tindal,</HI> by which the Reader may &s;ee, how much this god|ly Martyr was for the immediate Teachings of the Holy Spirit in the Hearts of God's People, <HI>which is the very &s;ame Thing we contend for at this Day,</HI> and for which the&s;e quarelling <HI>Bap|ti&s;ts</HI> now revile us. To the&s;e let me add the Te&s;timony of <HI>John Jewel,</HI> that zealous and learned Defender of the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Religion, who though no Martyr, yet lived much about the &s;ame Time: He again&s;t <HI>Harding</HI> main|tains, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That without the SPECIAL Help, Prompting and REVELATION of God's Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are to the Reader, be he never &s;o wi&s;e or well-learned, as the Vi|&s;ion of a &s;ealed Book.</HI></Q> From the&s;e few In&s;tan|ces, let the Reader judge, whether the Mar|tyrs owned Immediate In&s;piration, or the In|ward
<PB N="78" REF="40"> Teachings, Promptings and Revelation of God's Spirit, or not.</P>
<P>But <HI>T. Plant</HI> adds, That <HI>the Con&s;ciences of the Martyrs were per&s;waded of the Authority of the Scriptures,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> I no way doubt it: But the Que|&s;tion is, <HI>What that was by which their Con&s;ci|ences were &s;o per&s;waded; whether it was divine In&s;piration, the Manifestation or Revelation of God's Holy Spirit or not?</HI> If, Reader, the Te&s;timonies of the Martyrs them&s;elves will be taken, tho&s;e before cited are plain and full. <HI>Tindal</HI> believed his Salvation by Chri&s;t, <HI>be|cau&s;e he felt the Truth and Certainty thereof, written in his Heart by the Spirit of God, be|ing inwardly taught by the &s;ame Spirit:</HI> He believed not becau&s;e it was writen in Books, or preacht by Man, but <HI>becau&s;e he found it written in his own Heart, and felt the Spirit of God &s;o preaching and testifying unto his Soul. Jewel</HI> denies the Scriptures to be intelligible <HI>without the ESPECIAL Help, Prompting and REVE|LATION of God's Holy Spirit.</HI> Bradford, <HI>in the Name of all the rest,</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>We do be|lieve and know the Scriptures, as Christ's Sheep, being thereof a&s;&s;ured by the &s;ame Spirit that &s;pake them.</HI></P>
<P>Thou &s;ee&s;t now Reader, that the Con&s;cien|ces
<PB N="79" REF="40"> of the godly Martyrs were per&s;waded, <HI>or rather a&s;&s;ured</HI> of the Verity and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, <HI>by immediate In&s;piration</HI> or the <HI>Revelation of the Divine Spirit in their own Hearts,</HI> wherein their Te&s;timony mo&s;t <HI>&s;weetly harmonizes</HI> with ours.</P>
<P>There is one Clau&s;e more in <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Note, which peradventure may de&s;erve the Reader's Notice: It is this, <HI>Had the Martyrs</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>lived in our Dayes, they would have run the &s;ame Hazard</HI> (to wit, of their Lives) <HI>if cal|led thereunto, to oppo&s;e</HI> Quakeri&s;m, <HI>as they did then to oppo&s;e</HI> Popery.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Two things herein &s;eem ob&s;ervable: One, that <HI>T. Plant</HI> &s;uppo&s;es <HI>they must have had a Call to it,</HI> before they had run &s;o great an Hazard, and thereby <HI>he lets in Revelation or immediate In&s;piration,</HI> before he is aware of it. The other is, <HI>That he who &s;o &s;cornfully denies Revelation, pretends here him&s;elf to understand what they that were dead above an Hundred Years ago, would have done, if they had been alive now.</HI> Here his Confidence hath betray'd him: He is a de&s;perate Enemy to Revelati|on, and yet <HI>takes upon him to tell Things, not otherwi&s;e knowable&punc; then by Revelation.</HI> Doth he &s;peak by Rote? <HI>Parrats</HI> do &s;o: Has he certain Knowledge of what he pake? <HI>How came he by it?</HI> Has he no certain Know|ledge,
<PB N="80" REF="41"> but only bare Conjecture, <HI>why then &s;o confident? why &s;o po&s;itive?</HI></P>
<P>The Relation of the Meeting being ended, <HI>T. Plant</HI> goes on to give his Reader an Account of &s;ome Letters that pa&s;&s;ed between them and us, in order to the appointing of another. In the&s;e Letters it was propo&s;ed, <HI>That five of ei|ther Side &s;hould meet, to con&s;ult of &s;uch Things as nece&s;&s;arily related thereunto: Accordingly,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>Mr.</HI> Kiffin, <HI>Mr.</HI> Dyke, <HI>Mr.</HI> Paul, <HI>Mr.</HI> Snelling, <HI>Mr.</HI> King <HI>and</HI> Mr. <HI>PLANT did meet,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> One would think <HI>T. Plant</HI> had an <HI>itching Humor</HI> to be called MASTER, el&s;e he would never call him&s;elf &s;o; and yet this is not the fir&s;t time (&s;ee <HI>p.</HI> 71. 74.) that he hath befool'd him&s;elf with that Title: But let him injoy his Humor, if he plea&s;e; I would not too &s;everely per&s;tringe him, but leave him to <HI>the Correction of his own Folly,</HI> and proceed.</P>
<P><HI>They met,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>with</HI> W. Mead, J. O&s;|good, W. Welch, <HI>and &s;everal others, and de|bated the Propo&s;als which they had &s;ent to us,</HI> and printed (which were New and different from tho&s;e that had been mutually agreed on between them and us before, &amp; upon which the former Meeting was held) and <HI>Mr. Kiffin,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>and the re&s;t did urge, that we &s;hould pro|ceed
<PB N="81" REF="41"> in that Method as is expre&s;t in the afore|&s;aid Propo&s;als: &V;pon this,</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>the</HI> Qua|kers <HI>manife&s;ted &s;ome Su&s;picion of the Propo&s;als, as they were worded, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> Had they not <HI>good Cau&s;e</HI> &s;o to do? Was it probable you would <HI>fly off from the old Propo&s;als,</HI> which you had &s;o freely and readily (as you intimate, <HI>p.</HI> 13.) con&s;ented to and em|braced, if he had not had <HI>Hopes,</HI> in obtruding New ones, to <HI>advantage</HI> your &s;elves, and <HI>in|jure</HI> us? If you thought, we took you for our <HI>Friends,</HI> you were very much <HI>mi&s;taken:</HI> and truly, not much le&s;s, if con&s;idering you as <HI>Ene|mies,</HI> and &s;uch too from whom, <HI>Experience had taught us,</HI> we were not to look for <HI>&s;incere and generous Dealing,</HI> ye expected we &s;hould treat you without that <HI>prudent Caution</HI> and Circum|&s;pection, which is requi&s;it in &s;uch Ca&s;es.</P>
<P>But <HI>W. Welch,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>produc'd a Paper, that cro&s;t all they had di&s;cour&s;ed before:</HI> And what was that? Why, <HI>It was an An&s;wer,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>to their Propo&s;als: Whereupon,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>W. Kiffin and tho&s;e with him, &s;eeing &s;uch di&s;in|genuous Dealing, did conclude, 'twas to no Pur|po&s;e to treat any longer with them, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Ob&s;erv.</LABEL> By this, Reader, thou may'&s;t &s;ee <HI>how hearty the&s;e men were in their Treaty for another Meeting,</HI> who could catch hold of &s;uch a <HI>trivial Occa&s;ion</HI> to break off, and treat no
<PB N="82" REF="42"> more. Doubtle&s;s the&s;e <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> are very <HI>touchy</HI> and <HI>petti&s;h</HI> (or el&s;e <HI>they were weary of the Bu|&s;ine&s;s</HI>) for I ob&s;erve in their Relation of the fir&s;t Meeting, <HI>pag.</HI> 25. They &s;ay, <HI>They could gain no direct An&s;wer,</HI> and that <HI>there-upon</HI> J. Ives <HI>and</HI> T. Hicks <HI>withdrew.</HI> It is a Sign they were <HI>in Ha&s;te to be gone,</HI> when the bare giving of an An&s;wer, which they judg'd not direct (had it been &s;o) would drive them away. Though when they &s;ay, <HI>the An&s;wer was</HI> not direct, <HI>to their De&s;ign</HI> is to be under&s;tood; for to the Que&s;tion it was direct and plain: But their Aim being to render us obnoxious to the People, as Per&s;ons denying the <HI>Man Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> our An&s;wer thwarting their Expecta|tion, fully and clearly proved that <HI>We own him;</HI> This, &s;ay they, <HI>is not direct</HI> (viz <HI>to their Pur|po&s;e</HI>) and this Di&s;appointment mu&s;t be &s;up|po&s;ed to give them &s;o great an Offence, that away they <HI>fling;</HI> no holding, no &s;topping them, no Per&s;wa&s;ion, nor Entreaty may prevail with them to tarry. One would think they might have &s;tay'd at lea&s;t &s;o long, as to have &s;hown the People the <HI>Indirectne&s;s</HI> of the An&s;wer: No, they were <HI>in too great Ha&s;te</HI> to &s;tay. They wanted &s;ome <HI>colourable</HI> Pretence for a <HI>Retreat;</HI> and though this was a very &s;orry one, yet better <HI>came off thus, then wor&s;e; for the Battle went &s;ore again&s;t them.</HI> And much after
<PB N="83" REF="42"> the &s;ame manner were <HI>W. Kiffin, T. Plant,</HI> and the re&s;t of them <HI>put to it,</HI> to get off from this Treaty for another Meeting. 'Tis worth thy ob&s;erving, <HI>Reader,</HI> how they were put to their <HI>Shifts</HI> for an <HI>Excu&s;e: W. Welch,</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>pro|duc'd a Paper, containing an An&s;wer to their Propo&s;als, and this,</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>cro&s;t all they had di&s;cour&s;ed before; whereupon</HI> W. Kiffin, <HI>and tho&s;e with him, &s;eeing &s;uch di&s;ingenuous Deal|ing, did conclude, it was to no Purpo&s;e to treat any longer with them.</HI> This was that they had <HI>a mind to be at;</HI> but could they have cho&s;en a wor&s;e <HI>Medium</HI> to have <HI>come off by?</HI> Would any but them&s;elves have broke off a Treaty, <HI>becau&s;e an An&s;wer was offer'd to their Propo|&s;als?</HI> Do ye <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> account it di&s;ingenuous Dealing <HI>to return an An&s;wer to your Propo&s;als?</HI> Why then, Oh di&s;ingenuo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Men! did you make &s;uch Propo&s;als as <HI>ye were not willing</HI> to receive an An&s;wer to? How truly may I re|tort upon your &s;elves that which <HI>J. Ives</HI> mo&s;t untruly reflects upon us, <HI>p.</HI> 113. Ye are re&s;ol|ved <HI>to find Fault with any thing, Right or Wrong, &amp;c.</HI> For ye refus'd before to treat with us, becau&s;e (as ye &s;ay, but fal&s;ly, <HI>p.</HI> 30, 41, 42.) <HI>we took no Notice of your Propo&s;als;</HI> and now, that ye might fly off from the pre&s;ent Treaty, ye <HI>pick a Quarrel</HI> with us, becau&s;e <HI>we offer you an An&s;wer to your Propo&s;als:</HI> What <HI>tickli&s;h
<PB N="84" REF="43"> People</HI> have we to deal with? How is it po&s;|&s;ible to &s;atisfie &s;uch men, who are <HI>never pleas'd full nor fa&s;ting?</HI> who, if they are <HI>not an&s;wer'd,</HI> will <HI>not treat</HI> at all; and if they <HI>are an&s;wer'd,</HI> will thereupon <HI>break off,</HI> and treat no more: But this I doubt not, will &s;atisfie all indifferent Readers, that you have hitherto but <HI>praevari|cated with us,</HI> and not acted <HI>&s;incerely</HI> and cordi|ally, &s;o far as ye have already treated. But to go on.</P>
<P>To our <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to their printed Propo&s;als they &s;ent us a <HI>Reply,</HI> and thereto we return'd them a <HI>Rejoynder:</HI> Their <HI>Reply</HI> T. Plant hath <HI>printed at large;</HI> but unfairly omitted our <HI>Re|joynder,</HI> giving his Reader but three or four Lines of the <HI>Clo&s;e</HI> of it, and <HI>concealing</HI> all the re&s;t, which was as followeth:</P>
<LETTER LANG="eng">
<OPENER><DATELINE><HI>London</HI> <DATE>the 24th 8th Month, 1674.</DATE></DATELINE></OPENER>
<P>Your's bearing <HI>Date</HI> the 22th In&s;tant, we have received and con&s;ider'd, and return you the&s;e Ob&s;ervations upon it: What you mean <HI>by antedating our Paper, and Jeering thereupon,</HI> you &s;hew us not, whatever you &s;ugge&s;t, it bears the <HI>Date</HI> of the <HI>&s;ame Day,</HI> on which it was fir&s;t drawn up, <HI>viz.</HI> the 17th In&s;tant, being <HI>the Day after the Meeting at</HI> Wheeler Street, though not delivered to you &s;o &s;oon, becau&s;e our Friends did not under&s;tand, that tho&s;e of
<PB N="85" REF="43"> you they treated with, either <HI>had Power, or were willing to conclude a Meeting without &s;ome more of your Friends or A&s;&s;i&s;tants:</HI> However, our Paper was in <HI>An&s;wer to your Printed Pro|po&s;als,</HI> and as we judged nece&s;&s;ary and rea&s;o|nable. Our &s;aying, <HI>We conde&s;cended to return you that An&s;wer to your Propo&s;als, was not to ex|alt our &s;elves as Superiors, or as Lofty, or Im|perious;</HI> but that it was a Conde&s;cen&s;ion to propo&s;e <HI>Terms for a private Meeting</HI> with you, &s;ince we reckoned and knew our &s;elves &s;o pub|lickly injur'd by you, in abetting or counte|nancing a <HI>Forger.</HI> As for your treating with us, as <HI>Per&s;ons departed from the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>Faith,</HI> you might have &s;u&s;pended that Judgment till we had come to a Tryal, &s;ince that <HI>your</HI> Charge <HI>therein is yet to prove</HI> (however you doubt not to do it) and <HI>T. Hicks</HI> his <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> for it are yet to be debated: As al&s;o your Purpo&s;e to prove us, <HI>whether we are Subverters of the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>Religion, or not,</HI> is but a profe&s;t <HI>Purpo&s;e,</HI> not yet performed nor accompli&s;ht; &s;o that how|ever, <HI>neither</HI> Tho. Hicks <HI>in his Dialogues, nor</HI> Jer. Ives <HI>in his Syllogi&s;tical Attempts</HI> have yet <HI>proved</HI> us &s;uch, although <HI>pretended</HI> by both; their Labour and Time hitherto is then mi&s;|&s;pent, and yet you will boa&s;t, <HI>as if we were pincht, apparently wor&s;ted, and u&s;ed &s;illy Shifts:</HI> This &s;avours of <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI>'s Spirit, with much
<PB N="86" REF="44"> more in your perver&s;e and peevi&s;h Letter, a your upbraiding us with &s;uch Words and Phra|&s;es as the&s;e, viz. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Palpable Equivocations, your Folly, manife&s;t Lyars, guilty Per&s;ons, your common Way of Triffling, Per&s;ons departed from the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Faith, <HI>and your In&s;inuation as if we were</HI> afraid of a fair Tryal, and &s;eem|ing to dread nothing more then that <HI>T. Hicks</HI> &s;hould &s;peak for him&s;elf,</HI></Q> which is as true as that 'tis not the Argument, but the Man we would deal with, whenas both our <HI>An&s;wers to</HI> Tho. Hicks <HI>and our Propo&s;als for a Meeting</HI> with him, to examine Matters, evidently &s;hew the contrary: Have we refu&s;ed him to give his <HI>Arguments</HI> in tho&s;e Matters we have char|ged again&s;t him? Or have we not manife&s;ted both our Willingne&s;s and De&s;ire therein? will &s;uch <HI>Fal&s;hoods</HI> gain you or him Credit in the Minds of the Unbya&s;&s;ed? We perceive <HI>you are not now fit, either for a further Treaty, or a private Meting:</HI> You appear &s;o perver&s;e, as Men leavened with your Agent <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> his Spirit, or that had &s;wallowed down &s;ome of his Cholerick, Humor or Pa&s;&s;ion (but there|in, neither he nor you will bring Honour to your Cau&s;e) And therefore 'tis nece&s;&s;ary that we con&s;ider of &s;ome other Way further to throw off his <HI>Dirt, Calumnies, Slanders</HI> and <HI>Forgeries,</HI> and therewithal to endeavour to
<PB N="87" REF="44"> manife&s;t your corrupt <HI>Partiality,</HI> in abetting &s;uch an Agent, if you will afford us no <HI>better Treating</HI> then is in this <HI>angry, &s;cornful, boa&s;ting and upraiding Letter of yours;</HI> however, if we &s;hould be mute, and &s;uffer all your <HI>Abu&s;es</HI> in &s;ilence, we doubt not but the Ju&s;t God will bring a Stroke upon you, for your <HI>Inju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Partiality.</HI></P>
<P>But to your <HI>Exceptions</HI> again&s;t our <HI>Propo&s;i|tions,</HI> in An&s;wer to yours.</P>
<P N="1">1. Where in our &s;econd we provide a <HI>Li|berty, that &s;uch as have a Nece&s;&s;ity on their Spi|rits to &s;peak briefly to the Bu&s;ine&s;s in hand,</HI> which Liberty we granted you as well as our &s;elves: This you &s;ay, <HI>You cannot admit of</HI> (neither can we admit of your <HI>Exception</HI> a|gain&s;t it) and al&s;o for your Rea&s;on, fal&s;ly ac|cu&s;ing us, as that <HI>you know it is ordinary with us (when pincht) to pretend a Motion to divert from the Point in hand;</HI> and al&s;o infer (though from a fal&s;e Surmi&s;e of your own, no waies con&s;equent to what we propo&s;e) <HI>that the &s;ame Nece&s;&s;ity might be pleaded to talk all the time as well as briefly to the Matter in hand.</HI> Say you &s;o? Then you will not believe what we &s;ay; if you mu&s;t be our <HI>Judges,</HI> no le&s;s then the Con|demnation due to <HI>Equivocators,</HI> is to be expe|cted from you: By this you have very much bewray'd your own <HI>covertly and feign'd Work,</HI>
<PB N="88" REF="45"> in endeavouring <HI>to bind us to Terms and Propo|&s;als,</HI> when now you render us no better then Per&s;ons not to be credited. We cannot under|take to purcha&s;e a <HI>Meeting</HI> with you at &s;uch a difficult Rate, as the <HI>Removal of your hard Thoughts fir&s;t:</HI> However, you would make a fair <HI>Shew</HI> to the World as if you were in <HI>Ear|ne&s;t</HI> to have Matters fairly tryed between us; but &s;uch <HI>Covers</HI> will prove too narrow.</P>
<P N="2">2. Though you could not comply with our An&s;wer to your <HI>&s;ixth Propo&s;al,</HI> with re&s;pect to the <HI>Day</HI> and <HI>Hour;</HI> yet with re&s;pect to the Conclu&s;ion <HI>to end with Con&s;ent,</HI> you might ve|ry well have comply'd with it, and not have prejudg'd our Intention, as if we <HI>de&s;ign'd to call you</HI> Fugitives <HI>&amp;</HI> Run-awayes, <HI>if you &s;hould depart in your time:</HI> The Lord knows, we de|&s;ign'd no &s;uch thing; but that after we had met a convenient Time, on a fair or &s;ea&s;onable Propo&s;al for a parting, it might be con&s;ented unto: However, your Cau&s;e is attended with many <HI>Di&s;tru&s;tful Thoughts, Jealou&s;ies</HI> and <HI>evil Surmi&s;es</HI> again&s;t us, which at lea&s;t would ren|der your Cau&s;e very <HI>&s;u&s;picious</HI> to us, if we had not that In&s;pection into it that we have.</P>
<P N="3">3. From our &s;aying (in An&s;wer to your 7th) <HI>That if we find by the fir&s;t Meeting that you de|&s;ign to do us Right in as publick a manner as</HI> T. Hicks <HI>hath done us Wrong, &amp;c. that then we
<PB N="89" REF="45"> will con&s;ider of another Meeting,</HI> you unju&s;tly infer from hence, that <HI>this is as much as to &s;ay, that if</HI> T. Hicks <HI>&s;hould acquit him&s;elf, and you publickly clear him, and condemn us as</HI> Slan|derers, &amp;c. <HI>then we will meet no more with you, le&s;t our Tenets &s;hould be too openly expo&s;ed and di&s;covered:</HI> This is like one of <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s Con&s;equences; whereas our An&s;wer implies no &s;uch Jealou&s;ie of our &s;elves as condemnable, nor any Doubt or Que&s;tion of making good our <HI>Charge</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> but the contrary, as not at all que&s;tioning but that we &s;hould make his <HI>fraudulent Dealing</HI> and <HI>Guilt</HI> appear obvious to your Under&s;tandings; only we had Rea&s;on to que&s;tion your <HI>De&s;ign</HI> towards us: However we were willing to make &s;ome Pro|gre&s;s in order to try you further, as is plain by what we have propo&s;ed.</P>
<P N="4">4. Our <HI>Exception</HI> again&s;t your 9th <HI>Propo|&s;al,</HI> as being unrea&s;onable, you are plea&s;ed to call <HI>ridiculous and impertinent Rea&s;oning;</HI> and why &s;o? Is it becau&s;e we might not be oblig'd <HI>aforehand to an&s;wer</HI> T. Hicks<HI>'s Charges again&s;t us,</HI> when they were never <HI>&s;pecified</HI> to us; nor <HI>He a competent Per&s;on</HI> to pro&s;ecute us, <HI>after our Charge is proved again&s;t him,</HI> which we no waies doubted to do, if we might but have Opportunity? But to excu&s;e your Agent as a <HI>competent Per&s;on to pro&s;ecute us,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>Were
<PB N="90" REF="46"> it &s;uppo&s;ed (though as yet you &s;ee no Rea&s;on to grant) that in &s;ome things</HI> T. Hicks <HI>might be mi&s;taken, it will not therefore-follow, that every thing he &s;aith, ought not to be credited:</HI> Though we grant this; yet herein you do but <HI>mince and cover,</HI> and are egregiou&s;ly <HI>be&s;ides our Charge</HI> and Provi&s;ion again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks;</HI> for it is not that he may be or is <HI>in &s;ome things</HI> meerly <HI>un|der &s;ome Mi&s;take,</HI> and therefore <HI>not competent,</HI> but that <HI>he is a vile Forger, Perverter &amp; Slan|derer,</HI> and that <HI>in many things:</HI> This is the <HI>Nature of our Charge</HI> already proved again&s;t him in two Books, <HI>Rea&s;on again&s;t Railing,</HI> and <HI>The Counterfeit</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>detected,</HI> which we are apt to think that you have not read over, or &s;eriou&s;ly peru&s;ed (for if you had, we think you would have better acquie&s;ced with our <HI>Charge</HI> again&s;t him, without giving us further Occa&s;ion to pur&s;ue it) You do &s;o mince and <HI>le&s;&s;en</HI> matters that are clo&s;ely laid and charg'd again&s;t <HI>T. H.</HI> From [<HI>a vile Forger,</HI> &amp;c.] you would have it turned to [<HI>were it &s;uppo&s;ed that in &s;ome things</HI> T. H. <HI>might be mi&s;taken, which as yet you &s;ee no Rea&s;on to grant</HI>] It &s;eems then that he is a very <HI>&V;nerring Per&s;on</HI> in your E|&s;teem; but we de&s;ire both <HI>J. Ives</HI> and the re&s;t of you, but &s;eriou&s;ly to read over the la&s;t Book of <HI>W. Penn</HI>'s, in An&s;wer to him intitul'd, <HI>The Counterfeit Chri&s;tian detected,</HI> and then con&s;i|der,
<PB N="91" REF="46"> whether all the&s;e things which he is chargd with, are only <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed</HI> Mi&s;takes. Your Retor|&s;ion upon <HI>G. Whitehead</HI> and <HI>W. Penn,</HI> as <HI>not competent Per&s;ons to pro&s;ecute</HI> T. H. <HI>for the like Rea&s;on that we have given again&s;t him,</HI> viz. <HI>That they do not only &s;tand accu&s;ed for, but in convenient time will be prov'd manife&s;t Lyars.</HI> It &s;eems <HI>T. Hicks</HI> has not yet <HI>prov'd them</HI> &s;uch; that is yet to do: but we ob&s;erve, he is much <HI>lowder</HI> and fiercer in his <HI>Charges,</HI> then in his <HI>Proofs.</HI> But do you really now judge <HI>G.W.</HI> and <HI>W. P.</HI> cannot be compleat <HI>Per&s;ons to pro&s;ecute our Charge</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks?</HI> If you do, you &s;hould have told us that at fir&s;t; why then did you admit of a <HI>Meeting</HI> with them at all on that account, in order <HI>to make good their Charg?</HI> Hath <HI>T. Hicks</HI> devi&s;ed this as <HI>a Hole to creep out at, and &s;ave his Head?</HI> But &s;uch retorting <HI>Shifts</HI> will not clear him, or you either. However, before either <HI>G. W.</HI> or <HI>W. P.</HI> be obliged to an|&s;wer to <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s Charges again&s;t them, they expect a <HI>Note</HI> from him <HI>of the Particulars that he grounds his Charge upon,</HI> as we have done by him, at &s;ome of your De&s;ires.</P>
<P N="5">5. Touching our <HI>A&s;&s;enting,</HI> that when we have done with <HI>T. H.</HI> about matters of <HI>Fact</HI> charg'd, and that you have done us <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> therein, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> we &s;hould be willing, if the Lord will, as con|venient Opportunity may be afforded to di&s;|cour&s;e
<PB N="92" REF="47"> matters of <HI>Doctrine</HI> with &s;ome others of you, &amp;c. you unrea&s;onably quarrel with the Words <HI>[as convenient Opportunity may be]</HI> as &s;ignifying our <HI>common way of Triffling,</HI> as you fal&s;ly and &s;cornfully &s;ay; whereas we &s;eri|ou&s;ly expre&s;&s;ed our real Intentions and De&s;ires therein, as not having Time and <HI>convenient Op|portunity</HI> in our own hands to command, that being in the Hand and Di&s;po&s;al of an omni&s;ci|ent God, whom we fear, and in Subjection to who&s;e Will we propo&s;e Matters that are not in our pre&s;ent Time and Will to be done.</P>
<P N="6">6. Touching our <HI>Willingne&s;s</HI> to di&s;cour&s;e matters of <HI>Doctrine</HI> with &s;ome <HI>more competent, &amp;c.</HI> you ask, <HI>Why not with you? Why not with T. Hicks?</HI> We think that we have offer'd &s;uffi|cient Rea&s;on, at lea&s;t, &s;uppo&s;ing if <HI>T.H.</HI> appear <HI>guilty of that Charge</HI> laid again&s;t him and you Abettors of him, being &s;uch a guilty Per&s;on, <HI>a vile Forger, &amp;c.</HI> this would render you all <HI>incompetent and unmeet to di&s;cour&s;e of the things of God's Kingdom;</HI> would it not, &s;uppo&s;e you?</P>
<P N="7">7. We now fully under&s;tand you (as we per|ceived your De&s;ign before) <HI>that as ye,</HI> &s;ay you, <HI>yielded that tho&s;e matters wherein</HI> G. Keith <HI>was concern'd &s;hould be &s;poaken unto, provided that afterwards the Paper of</HI> Charges <HI>be next &s;poa|ken unto; and de&s;ire that one Article may be i&s;&s;ued before any other be in&s;i&s;ted on;</HI> as namely,
<PB N="93" REF="47"> <HI>That you &s;hall not admit of any Di&s;cour&s;e upon other Particulars after</HI> G. Keith's <HI>Bu&s;ine&s;s is i&s;&s;ued till tho&s;e Rea&s;ons which</HI> T. Hicks <HI>hath given why he oppo&s;eth the</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>to the</HI> Qua|ker, <HI>be fully debated:</HI> We cannot but take it for granted, that &s;till you put us off with dila|tory <HI>Eva&s;ions,</HI> to keep us from pur&s;uing our <HI>Charge,</HI> contrary to what we have offer'd, and you in words pretended; and <HI>what Delay and Time</HI> this fully Debating of <HI>T. Hicks</HI>'s &s;aid Rea&s;ons <HI>will require,</HI> who knows? Thus you <HI>triffle</HI> with us: Have we not plainly propo&s;ed and offer'd to di&s;cour&s;e matters of <HI>Doctrine</HI> in their place, when matters of <HI>Fact</HI> are <HI>gone through:</HI> yea, and have openly declared our <HI>Willingne&s;s</HI> to di&s;cour&s;e tho&s;e <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> on which you pretend to prove us <HI>no Chri&s;tians,</HI> in their place; for the <HI>Stre&s;s</HI> of our fir&s;t Ar|ticle is <HI>not</HI> upon <HI>T.H</HI>'s oppo&s;ing the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> to the <HI>Quaker;</HI> but upon <HI>A Dialogue</HI> betwixt a Chri&s;tian and a Quaker, <HI>yet</HI> made by <HI>T. H.</HI> 1&s;t, <HI>Was it made and contrived by</HI> T. Hicks, <HI>Yea, or Nay?</HI> Or, <HI>Was it a</HI> real Dialogue <HI>be|tween a</HI> Quaker <HI>and any Body el&s;e?</HI> If not, <HI>then</HI> 2dly, <HI>Hath he &s;aid</HI> True, <HI>in po&s;itively</HI> calling it &s;o, <HI>and telling the World in his very Title-page, that</HI> therein is faithfully repre&s;ented <HI>the chief and mo&s;t concerning Opinions of the</HI> Qua|kers, <HI>together with their Method and Manner
<PB N="94" REF="48"> of Rea&s;oning in Defence thereof?</HI> We affirm this to be <HI>Fal&s;e,</HI> and would have produc'd ma|ny In&s;tances to have prov'd it &s;o, even out of <HI>T. H</HI>'s own <HI>Dialogues:</HI> But you will needs have him in the fir&s;t place give his <HI>Rea&s;ons, why he oppo&s;eth the</HI> Quaker <HI>to the</HI> Chri&s;tian, which is not the thing we in that place either com|plain of, or in that Article affirm that the <HI>Qua|ker</HI> is a <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> (though in its place we have confe&s;t it and &s;hall) but <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> the Con|triver and Maker of the Dialogue, <HI>makes him|&s;elf that</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>that dialogues with the</HI> Qua|ker (as he calls him) and he is both call'd and prov'd <HI>Counterfeit Chri&s;tian,</HI> or <HI>no Chri&s;tian;</HI> and it is our parts rather to <HI>prove him &s;o,</HI> then his to <HI>prove us none;</HI> when it is not the matter complained on by us in the fir&s;t place, but he is po&s;itively charg'd to be <HI>A vile Forger, &amp;c.</HI> neither doth the <HI>Stre&s;s</HI> of our Complaint lie upon the <HI>fir&s;t Article;</HI> that's placed but as an Introduction into the following matter, &amp; hath been of this &s;ervice, that many who thought they were <HI>real Dialogues,</HI> now under&s;tand they are but <HI>fictitious.</HI></P>
<P>To conclude; We do not only take it for granted that you are now further off from a Compliance then you &s;eem'd before; but al&s;o that you are afraid that your <HI>Brother T. Hicks</HI> &s;hould come to a <HI>plain Te&s;t</HI> or <HI>Tryal upon our
<PB N="95" REF="48"> direct Charge,</HI> le&s;t the Con&s;equence reflect on your &s;elves: We &s;ee that you except again&s;t &s;ix or &s;even material Pa&s;&s;ages in our Propo|&s;als, and we &s;ee no Rea&s;on why we &s;hould fur|ther conde&s;cend to your dilatory Work, but to con&s;ider &s;ome other Way or Expedient to clear our &s;elves, e&s;pecially &s;ince you have &s;o much prejudged us.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><LIST>
<ITEM>George Whitehead,</ITEM>
<ITEM>George Keith,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ja&s;per Batt.</ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</LETTER>
<P>This they return'd no An&s;wer to, nor have &s;ince made any Overture to re&s;ume the <HI>Trea|ty</HI> which in a <HI>petti&s;h Humor</HI> they had broken off; And yet they would fain make People believe, they are <HI>not unwilling to give us a Meeting:</HI> Yet when they &s;ay, <HI>p.</HI> 107. <HI>Could &s;uch a Meeting be peaceably obtain'd, we &s;hould gladly attend it,</HI> they &s;ufficiently di&s;cover e|ven to common Capacities, how <HI>Cold</HI> they are in their De&s;ires of it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="96" REF="49">
<HEAD>CHAP. IIII. Some Animadver&s;ions upon <HI>J. Ives</HI>'s Po&s;t&s;cript.</HEAD>
<P>THat which comes next under my Con&s;i|deration is, a Po&s;t&s;cript added to <HI>Tho. Plant</HI>'s Book, and &s;ub&s;cribed by <HI>Jer. Ives,</HI> in the Introduction to which he tells his Reader, That <Q REND="inline"><HI>the <HI>Quakers</HI> have no more Cau&s;e to glo|ry, then <HI>Caligula</HI>'s Souldiers, who had nothing but Cocle-&s;hells to &s;hew, for the Trophies and Spoils of their great Victories.</HI></Q> Hence fir&s;t I infer, that <HI>he grants the Victory may be great, though the Trophies and Spoils are but &s;mall.</HI> Next, I de&s;ire the Reader to con&s;ider, what <HI>Sort of People</HI> we had to war withal, to wit, <HI>Such as deny the immediate A&s;&s;i&s;tance of the holy Spirit,</HI> Such <HI>as &s;coff at divine In&s;pira|tion &amp; Revelation,</HI> Men <HI>who&s;e Religion &s;tands in outward Performances, who&s;e Trea&s;ure lies in External Shews and Out&s;ide Appearances, preferring the</HI> SHELL <HI>before the Sub&s;tance:</HI> If therefore our <HI>Spoiles</HI> con&s;i&s;t of <HI>SHELLS,</HI> wonder not, <HI>Reader,</HI> at it: but rather that <HI>&s;o many</HI> Knowing Men, &s;hould be grown <HI>Gray-Headed</HI> in a Profe&s;&s;ion of Religion, and yet
<PB N="97" REF="49"> <HI>have nothing but</HI> SHELLS <HI>to loo&s;e.</HI> But from this I attend him to his <HI>Ob&s;ervations.</HI></P>
<P>In the fir&s;t he &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>It is ob&s;ervable that mo&s;t of the Time &s;pent in the two Dayes Con|ferences, was to prevail upon them to hear our Arguments, to prove they were no <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> and that their Mini&s;ters were Cheats and Im|po&s;tors.</HI></Q></P>
<P>This from his own pen, doth us great Ser|vice: for having fully (as I conceive) demon|&s;trated before, that this was not the <HI>Subject</HI> agreed upon, nor the proper Bu&s;ine&s;s of tho&s;e two Dayes; but that it was <HI>our Charge</HI> again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> con&s;i&s;ting of FORGERY, PER|VERSIONS, FALSHOODS, SLANDERS, &amp;c. that was the proper Subject and Bu&s;ine&s;s of tho&s;e dayes, which it concern'd <HI>&V;s</HI> to prove <HI>again&s;t him,</HI> not <HI>he</HI> or they <HI>again&s;t us</HI> (for we were the Opponents, they the Re&s;pondents, and <HI>J. Ives</HI> him&s;elf will not admit <HI>that a Re|&s;pondent &s;hould offer to prove,</HI> &s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 81. of <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Relation) that, I &s;ay, being before hand &s;ufficiently demon&s;trated, this open con|fe&s;&s;ion of <HI>Jer. Ives,</HI> that <HI>mo&s;t of the Time in the two Dayes Conferences, was &s;pent to prevail up|on us, to hear their Arguments to prove us no</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> doth put it out of all Que&s;tion that it was <HI>They declined</HI> the Subject to be
<PB N="98" REF="50"> proved, <HI>not We;</HI> though <HI>T. Plant</HI> mo&s;t un|hand&s;omly, as well as fal&s;ly hath charged it upon us, <HI>pag.</HI> 36.</P>
<P>But this <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> &s;aith, <HI>They conceived rea|&s;onable;</HI> and he offers &s;ome Rea&s;ons for it: <Q REND="inline"><HI>Fir&s;t, <HI>&s;aith he,</HI> becau&s;e it was contained in the fir&s;t Article of their written Charge, &s;ent in again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> which was for writing a Dia|logue, and oppo&s;ing a <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> to a <HI>Quaker.</HI></HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>Reader,</HI> That thou may'&s;t &s;atisfie thy &s;elf, that in this In&s;tance <HI>Jer. Ives</HI> hath <HI>not dealt ho|ne&s;tly</HI> with us, nor fairly with thee, I refer thee to the <HI>Charge</HI> it &s;elf, as it &s;tands in their own Book, <HI>p.</HI> 5. where the fir&s;t Article is, <HI>A Dia|logue between a</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>and a</HI> Quaker, <HI>yet made by</HI> T. Hicks. Judge now, whether this Man de&s;erve <HI>Credit,</HI> who &s;o little regardeth what he &s;aith, that he boldly here affirms (and not only here, but in the Di&s;cour&s;e it &s;elf mo&s;t frequently) that <HI>the fir&s;t Article again&s;t</HI> Tho. Hicks <HI>is for Oppo&s;ing a</HI> Chri&s;tian <HI>to a</HI> Quaker, and yet it appears <HI>by their own Book,</HI> that there is no &s;uch Sentence in that <HI>Article,</HI> no, nor in all the <HI>Charge</HI> be&s;ides.</P>
<P>His next Rea&s;on is, <HI>Becau&s;e many of the things</HI> T. Hicks <HI>hath charg'd upon the</HI> Quakers, <HI>were no otherwi&s;e true, but as they were the Con|&s;equences of their being no</HI> Chri&s;tians. This, <HI>Reader,</HI> is well worthy of thy Ob&s;ervation:
<PB N="99" REF="50"> for by this thou may&s;t plainly &s;ee how <HI>unwor|thily</HI> the&s;e men have dealt with us, not caring what Way or Cour&s;e they took, <HI>direct or in|direct,</HI> &s;o they might thereby <HI>fa&s;ten Reproach</HI> and obloquie upon our <HI>Principles,</HI> Practices or Per&s;ons. <HI>Many of the Things charg'd upon us,</HI> he confe&s;&s;es, <HI>are no otherwi&s;e true, but as they are the Con&s;equences of our being no</HI> Chri&s;tians; yet the&s;e <HI>Con&s;equences,</HI> like their <HI>forlorn</HI> Hope, were ca&s;t off long <HI>before,</HI> and the <HI>Antecedent was to come behind.</HI> Oh infatuated Men, and de&s;perately Wicked! Could you <HI>without Re|mor&s;e</HI> thus load an innocent People with <HI>In|famy,</HI> and pour out Floods of Reproach upon us, and now a Year or two after tell, that <HI>many of the Things, &s;o charg'd upon us, are no otherwi&s;e true, but as they are the Con&s;equences of another Propo&s;ition</HI> that is <HI>not yet prov'd!</HI> what el&s;e is this but, according to the Proverb, <HI>Fir&s;t to hang men, and then to try them?</HI> I ap|peal, <HI>Reader,</HI> to thy impartial Judgment, whe|ther they have herein dealt with us <HI>as became Men,</HI> not to &s;ay <HI>Men of Religious Pretences.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, I would have <HI>Jeremy</HI> know, that as the <HI>De&s;ign</HI> was <HI>di&s;hone&s;t,</HI> &s;o <HI>his Logick is fal&s;e</HI> (as I have el&s;e where noted) and can be of no other U&s;e, then to prove the <HI>Ignorance</HI> or <HI>Malice</HI> of his <HI>Mind:</HI> for if it were <HI>po&s;&s;ible</HI> for him to prove his <HI>Antecedent,</HI> that we are
<PB N="100" REF="51"> no <HI>Chri&s;tians;</HI> yet his <HI>Con&s;equences</HI> (having <HI>&s;o long been accu&s;tomed to go before</HI>) will never <HI>by fair Means</HI> be brought <HI>to follow:</HI> But, if ei|ther fair or <HI>foul</HI> will do, 'tis much alike to him.</P>
<P>In his &s;econd <HI>Ob&s;ervation</HI> he tells the world, that <HI>we quibble about Words,</HI> and makes a Shew, as if he had gain'd &s;ome notable Advantage over us, in di&s;cour&s;ing the Nature of a Dia|logue&punc; <HI>We charged</HI> T. Hicks <HI>with</HI> FORGERY, <HI>in calling his Book a Dialogue or Di&s;cour&s;e be|tween two, which never was a real Di&s;cour&s;e be|tween any!</HI> But, &s;ay they, Here is one of your own hath written in the &s;ame manner. No, &s;ay we, <HI>It is not the &s;ame Manner;</HI> for he doth not call his Book <HI>a Dialogue, but</HI></P>
<P>By way of Dialogue: that's the &s;ame thing &s;ay they; the terms are equivalent, &s;aid <HI>Jer. Ives,</HI> pag. 50. We deny it to be the &s;ame, or that the Terms are equivalent; and therefore <HI>Jeremy</HI> does but beg the Que&s;tion, in &s;uppo&s;ing us to grant that which we do not. But that thou (Reader) may'&s;t be able to judge, whether the&s;e two Ca&s;es be both alike, give me leave to &s;tate them both to thee according as they really are: One man writes a Book, and calls it <HI>&s;imply A DIA|LOG&V;E:</HI> In it he repre&s;ents his <HI>own</HI> Prin|ciples <HI>as fair</HI> as he can, his <HI>Adver&s;aries as foully;</HI> makes <HI>An&s;wers in his Adver&s;aries
<PB N="101" REF="51"> Name,</HI> as <HI>weak, &s;illy, fooli&s;h, ab&s;urd, ridicu|lous, impertinent</HI> and <HI>impious</HI> as po&s;&s;ibly he can, <HI>conceals</HI> that this was <HI>written by him,</HI> and only &s;ayes it was <HI>publi&s;ht by him;</HI> and he <HI>contrives</HI> and mannages the <HI>whole De&s;ign</HI> &s;o, that his <HI>Reader</HI> may be <HI>per&s;waded,</HI> that he that pub|li&s;ht it, had <HI>no hand in the forming of it:</HI> but that tho&s;e very <HI>An&s;wers,</HI> how <HI>weak</HI> or <HI>wicked</HI> &s;oever they be, were <HI>really &s;o &s;poaken and ex|pre&s;t by that very Per&s;on,</HI> under who&s;e Name they are &s;et down: This is the State of the Ca&s;e on the one hand. Another man writes a Book, and therein repre&s;ents two or three Per&s;ons, <HI>as</HI> di&s;cour&s;ing together; but that he may, <HI>at the very Entrance, &s;ecure</HI> his <HI>Reader</HI> from all <HI>Danger</HI> of <HI>Mi&s;taking</HI> him, or thinking it to have been a <HI>Real</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e, he tells him, it is written <HI>by way of Dialogue</HI> (which is <HI>after the manner</HI> of a Dialogue, or <HI>in Imitation</HI> of a Dialogue) and that <HI>he him&s;elf writ it:</HI> And this is the State of the Ca&s;e on the other hand. The one of the&s;e doth but tell the World, <HI>what he thinks is my Opinion;</HI> the other intimates to the World, that <HI>I my &s;elf</HI> did <HI>&s;peak</HI> and <HI>a&s;&s;ert</HI> &s;uch or &s;uch a thing <HI>as my own Opinion,</HI> whenas I not only <HI>never &s;o &s;poak,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>in my Heart abhor</HI> and dete&s;t the thing pretended to be &s;o &s;poa|ken by me. Judge now impartial Reader, whether the&s;e two Ca&s;es be alike.</P>
<PB N="102" REF="52">
<P>But he adds, <HI>It is well known, that a Dia|logue or Dialogi&s;mus is a Figure of Speaking, &amp;c.</HI> This is another of his <HI>&s;ly Tricks,</HI> to &s;lip in <HI>Dialogi&s;mus</HI> in&s;tead of <HI>Dialogus,</HI> and then <HI>in&s;inuate</HI> as if a <HI>Dialogue</HI> and <HI>Dialogi&s;|mus</HI> were <HI>&s;ynonomous.</HI> But I will not &s;pend Time on this; for I &s;uppo&s;e no Reader that is <HI>capable</HI> of <HI>under&s;tanding Dialogi&s;mus,</HI> but will al&s;o be <HI>able to di&s;cern his Sophi&s;try.</HI></P>
<P>He goes on thus, <Q REND="inline"><HI>We told them, that <HI>Geo. Fox</HI> had writ a Di&s;cour&s;e between a <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> and a <HI>Quaker,</HI> and did not &s;ay by way of Dialogue, or by way of Di&s;cour&s;e, but a Di&s;cour&s;e, which <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> was never any real Di&s;cour&s;e, but a feigned thing; and we offered to prove over and above, that he had abu&s;ed and mi&s;repre&s;ented the Per&s;on he pre|&s;ents in his Di&s;cour&s;e, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>That thou may'&s;t the better under&s;tand this Pa&s;&s;age, I de&s;ire thee, Reader, to look back with me into <HI>T. Plant</HI>'s Relation, pag. 54. where this Particular is &s;et down by them|&s;elves: J. Ives <HI>offers the Book, urges that it is called a Di&s;cour&s;e. William Penn</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>I &s;ay it was a real Di&s;cour&s;e, &amp;c. Jeremy</HI> replyeth, <HI>Then I require of you to prove it, That,</HI> &s;ayes William Penn, <HI>I will do at ano|ther time, but not now.</HI> At this they make the <HI>People hoot,</HI> and cry out, <HI>Prove it, prove
<PB N="103" REF="52"> it.</HI> Sayes William Penn, <HI>This is not fair, that in&s;tead of An&s;wering our Charge again&s;t</HI> Thomas Hicks <HI>(the Cau&s;e of our Coming) you make a Charge extemporary again&s;t us, and give us no Time nor Paper of that Charge, and now call us to prove it, and the man is an Hun|dred Miles off.</HI> Could any thing be more <HI>ri|diculous</HI> then for <HI>the&s;e men to triumph in a Hoot of the People</HI> (had that been true) becau&s;e a thing that <HI>depended upon Per&s;onal Evidence,</HI> was not <HI>immediately</HI> proved, when we had <HI>not the lea&s;t Notice</HI> beforehand of their Inten|tion to urge it, and <HI>the Evidence was an Hun|dred Miles off:</HI> But he &s;ayes <HI>it was never any real Di&s;cour&s;e, but a feigned thing.</HI> Well, though we are &s;ufficiently <HI>able to prove it a real Di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> yet &s;eeing <HI>he is &s;o ra&s;h and incon&s;iderate,</HI> I'le put him upon the <HI>Proof</HI> of his <HI>Affirmation,</HI> and give him Time for the doing of it too; <HI>let him prove it a Feigned Thing if he can.</HI></P>
<P>But there is one Pa&s;&s;age more to be taken notice of, before I pa&s;s from this Particular; He &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>We offered to prove over and above, that he had abu&s;ed and mi&s;repre&s;ented the Per&s;on he pre&s;ented in his Di&s;cour&s;e.</HI></Q> How little doth this man <HI>con&s;ult</HI> the <HI>Credit</HI> of their <HI>Relation,</HI> or his own <HI>Reputation?</HI> I de&s;ire
<PB N="104" REF="53"> thee, Reader, to examine the place, pag. 54, 55. for I a&s;&s;ure, I can find <HI>no &s;uch Offer at all</HI> expre&s;t. Where lies the Fault <HI>Jeremy?</HI> Did <HI>&s;ome of you</HI> make this Offer, and yet is <HI>not</HI> in your Relation? <HI>Then your Relation is Fal&s;e in omitting it:</HI> Did <HI>none of you</HI> make this Offer, and yet ha&s;t thou <HI>affirmed</HI> you did? <HI>then thou art Fal&s;e in Affirming it.</HI> In &s;hort, <HI>Either</HI> (in this Particular) <HI>thou art True, and the Relation is Fal&s;e; or the Re|lation is True, and thou art Fal&s;e;</HI> grant which thou wilt.</P>
<P>In his third Ob&s;ervation he &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That the <HI>Quakers,</HI> throughout both their Accounts of the two Meetings, make u&s;e of the <HI>vox po|puli</HI> to credit their Crazy Cau&s;e; &s;ometimes telling the Reader, the People &s;houted, and other while hooted at the <HI>Bapti&s;ts.</HI></HI></Q> That this is the <HI>Fault</HI> them&s;elves are <HI>guilty</HI> of, and therefore by Complaining <HI>anticipate</HI> our Complaint, let the following pages of their own Relation witne&s;s, pag. 49, 55, 57, 62, 79, 81, 82, 86, 88, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 102. in &s;ome of which <HI>they tell</HI> the Reader, <HI>the People laughed and &s;houted;</HI> in others, <HI>they &s;houted and hooted;</HI> one while, that <HI>they &s;houted extraordinarily;</HI> another while, that <HI>their Shooting and Hollowing was &s;o extraor|dinary,
<PB N="105" REF="53"> that what was &s;aid could not be heard.</HI></P>
<P>If <HI>Jeremy appeals to the People</HI> to vindi|cate him&s;elf, <HI>he has them at his Beck;</HI> if he <HI>calls upon them</HI> to criminate us, <HI>they are forth|with at his Devotion.</HI> What could the man de&s;ire more? or what indeed can be &s;aid more then this? That <HI>as his Brother</HI> Hicks <HI>had</HI> FORGED <HI>a Dialogue, and</HI> FORGED <HI>a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>and</HI> FORGED <HI>a</HI> Quaker, <HI>and</HI> FORGED <HI>An&s;wers to his own Mind:</HI> So <HI>they have here framed a Relation,</HI> FORGED <HI>An|&s;wers, and feigned a People Laughing, Shout|ing, Hooting, Hollowing, when, how, and as often as they plea&s;e.</HI> Nay, &s;uch a <HI>Knack</HI> hath <HI>Thomas Plant,</HI> that when he askt (pag. 49.) <HI>Is not this the Fir&s;t Article of the Charge?</HI> He can make the People cry, <HI>Yes, yes;</HI> though <HI>the Charge was not read unto them.</HI></P>
<P>But this is not all; <Q REND="inline"><HI>Another time <HI>(&s;aith he)</HI> 'they tell the World, the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> made &s;uch a Noi&s;e with Laughing and Shouting, that they could not be heard. As if by this <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> 'they de&s;igned to make the World believe they Hear as well as Speak by In&s;pi|ration; otherwi&s;e how could they &s;o curiou&s;|ly di&s;tingui&s;h between the Voices of the <HI>Bap|ti&s;ts</HI> and others.</HI></Q></P>
<P>To pa&s;s by here <HI>his &V;ngodly Scoff at In&s;pi|ration,</HI>
<PB N="106" REF="54"> let me ask him, <HI>how he knows</HI> they were <HI>Quakers</HI> that &s;aid, <HI>he did, he did,</HI> as their Relation &s;ayes they were, pag. 50. and to the like purpo&s;e, pag. 57. It &s;eems <HI>they could curiou&s;ly di&s;tingui&s;h</HI> between the Voice of the <HI>Quakers</HI> and others. But <HI>what man|ner of Ears</HI> may <HI>Thomas Plant</HI> be thought to have, that could <HI>&s;o curiou&s;ly di&s;tingui&s;h Voices,</HI> as to <HI>di&s;cern</HI> the <HI>impartial</HI> from the <HI>partial</HI> Hearers, pag. 22. and not content to &s;top there, <HI>adventures</HI> al&s;o to tell the World, That <HI>the An&s;wer was &s;atisfactory to all the impartial Hearers?</HI> It &s;eems he was <HI>&s;o cu|rious and quick of Hearing,</HI> that he could not only <HI>di&s;tingui&s;h</HI> between the <HI>impartial</HI> and the <HI>partial,</HI> but <HI>could al&s;o tell</HI> (at lea&s;t pretend &s;o) <HI>when he had heard them all,</HI> though there were many Thou&s;ands of one &s;ort or other.</P>
<P>But he goes on thus, <HI>When one Mr.</HI> Nes|bat <HI>in St.</HI> Martins, <HI>&s;aid of</HI> William Penn [What a Coxcomb is that?] <HI>they in their Account, pag.</HI> 22. <HI>tell the World, it was a</HI> Bapti&s;t <HI>that &s;aid &s;o; which was both Fal&s;e and Malicious, as appeareth by a Certificate before re-cited, under the Per&s;on's Hand that &s;pake the words.</HI></P>
<P>This man is very apt to over-&s;hoot him&s;elf: He &s;ayes it was both Fal&s;e and Malicious, as
<PB N="107" REF="54"> appears by the Certificate, where the Certi|ficate &s;ayes nothing of Malice; but only de|clares, <HI>That the Sub&s;criber of it is the Per|&s;on who &s;pake tho&s;e words, that he is not, nor ever was a Bapti&s;t, and that the</HI> Quakers <HI>have lyed, in &s;aying it was a</HI> Bapti&s;t <HI>that &s;pake them:</HI> But as foul as they make him to fall upon the <HI>Quakers,</HI> yet he does not charge them with doing it Maliciou&s;ly; that's <HI>Jere|my</HI>'s own Inference, thinking the other not foul enough. But as to this Shoe-maker in <HI>Martins,</HI> whatever he has been or is, his Expre&s;&s;ion was very Uncivil and Rude; and if he had not been an Adherent to them, or Favourer of them, it would have be|come them to have rejected him then when the words were &s;poaken, and particularly taken Notice of: I de&s;ire the Reader there|fore to con&s;ider, 1. That this Shoe-maker was among&s;t them in their Gallery. 2. That he &s;poak the&s;e words in Defence of one of them. 3. That he &s;pake &s;o directly in <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI>'s Dialect, as if he had been his pecu|liar Di&s;ciple. 4. That when &s;ome of the People called out, <HI>take Notice of that Man,</HI> the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> were &s;ilent, and did not di&s;charge them&s;elves of him. The&s;e things con&s;ider'd, I leave it to the Reader's Judgment, whether
<PB N="108" REF="55"> we had not &s;ome Rea&s;on to &s;uppo&s;e the Per&s;on that &s;o &s;pake to be a <HI>Bapti&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>In his 4th Ob&s;ervation he &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>That (by way of Reproach and Di&s;grace) we bring him in as one called an <HI>Arminian-Anabapti&s;t,</HI> which by Interpretation is one that holds &V;niver&s;al Grace; and yet in the &s;econd Meeting we reckon it among the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> Errors, that they deny &V;niver&s;al Grace.</HI></Q></P>
<P>I grant that he was brought in as one called an <HI>Arminian-Bapti&s;t,</HI> but <HI>not by way of Re|proach or Di&s;grace to him</HI> (as he in&s;inuates) but to &s;hew how he, <HI>who holds &V;niver&s;al Grace,</HI> and his Brother Hicks, <HI>who denyes &V;|niver&s;al Grace,</HI> could (like <HI>Herod</HI> and <HI>Pi|late</HI>) agree together to <HI>war again&s;t the In|nocent;</HI> though <HI>their Judgments</HI> in that Point are as <HI>different</HI> as Light and Darkne&s;s, <HI>as op|po&s;ite as the two Poles.</HI> I al&s;o grant, That <HI>we reckon it among the Errors of &s;ome of the</HI> Anabapti&s;ts, <HI>that they deny &V;niver&s;al Grace:</HI> But what of all this? we not only reckon it as <HI>their Error,</HI> but as <HI>an Argument</HI> al&s;o of the <HI>Divi&s;ion that is among them;</HI> in that <HI>&s;ome of them</HI> (with Tho. Hicks) <HI>deny &V;niver&s;al Grace,</HI> while <HI>others of them a&s;&s;ert it,</HI> where|of <HI>Jeremy Ives</HI> is <HI>reputed</HI> one. But what doth <HI>Jeremy</HI> infer from his Ob&s;ervation?
<PB N="109" REF="55"> Why, <HI>that we are re&s;olved to find Fault with any thing Right or Wrong.</HI> The&s;e are <HI>pittiful Shifts</HI> indeed! Dares he deny that there is <HI>this</HI> as well as <HI>other Divi&s;ions</HI> among them? Can he have the Face to &s;ay, There is not this <HI>plain Contrariety in their Creed!</HI> If not, to whom have we done Wrong? Why did he not tell his Reader where the Wrong lies? Is it in repre&s;enting him as one that holds Univer&s;al Grace? Or is it in accounting tho&s;e <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> Erroneous that deny Univer|&s;al Grace? I wi&s;h the man would once learn to <HI>deal plainly,</HI> and not thus <HI>abu&s;e his Reader.</HI></P>
<P>In his 5th Ob&s;ervation he &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>In their Account of the <HI>Barbican Meeting,</HI> they tell the World, That in all that great A&s;&s;embly there was &s;carce Breathing-Room allotted for above Twenty of them. This <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> is mo&s;t notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e; for they had a Gal|lery of the &s;ame Dimen&s;ions with ours, &amp;c.</HI></Q></P>
<P>This is the &s;ame in effect with what <HI>Thomas Plant</HI> had before ob&s;erved in his Animadver|&s;ions on our Letter, pag. 36. of his Rela|tion; to which, having &s;poaken before, I &s;hall not in&s;i&s;t on it now: Only the&s;e two Que&s;tions I de&s;ire <HI>Jeremy Ives</HI> to <HI>an&s;wer ho|ne&s;tly to; Fir&s;t,</HI> Whether in all that great A&s;&s;embly there was any more Room <HI>allotted
<PB N="110" REF="56"> for us,</HI> then that Gallery wherein we were? 2dly, Whether he him&s;elf does judge that Gallery capable of receiving above Twenty Men? And let the Reader then judge, whether we had not Cau&s;e to Complain; and whether our Complaint is not True.</P>
<P>In his 6th Ob&s;ervation he &s;ayes, <Q REND="inline"><HI>They &s;o|lemnly declare in their fir&s;t <HI>Account, pag. 28.</HI> That with Reverence they believe, and confe&s;s to Chri&s;t, both as he is the Man Je|&s;us, and God over all, ble&s;&s;ed forever, &amp;c. And yet <HI>(&s;ayes he)</HI> they tell us in the &s;ame Page, That they are jealous of expre&s;&s;ing their Faith in &V;n&s;criptural Terms, as God-man, a Di&s;tinct Per&s;on without us (which limits and confines him to Remotene&s;s) Hu|mane Nature of Chri&s;t in Heaven, &amp;c.</HI></Q> Upon this he <HI>Cracks</HI> and <HI>Vapours,</HI> as if he had won &s;ome great Prize: But (Reader) let us examine the Matter, and if there be a Fault, &s;ee where it lies.</P>
<P>We &s;olemnly declare, That <HI>with Reve|rence we believe and confe&s;s to Chri&s;t, both as he is the Man Je&s;us, and God over all, ble&s;&s;ed forever.</HI> Well, is there any Fault in this? Not, unle&s;s a <HI>Socinian,</HI> or &s;ome other pre|judiced Per&s;on be Judge. Where then lies the Fault? Let us &s;earch further: We are jealous of expre&s;&s;ing our Faith in Un&s;criptu|ral
<PB N="111" REF="56"> Terms: Will they blame us for that? Have we not good Rea&s;on &s;o to be? <HI>Of all men</HI> methinks <HI>they &s;hould not have cen&s;ured us, for being jealous of expre&s;&s;ing our Faith in &V;n&s;criptural Terms, who them&s;elves pretend the Scriptures to be the Only Rule of their own Faith.</HI> But what are the Terms we are jea|lous of? <HI>God-man, a di&s;tinct Per&s;on without us (which limits and confines him to Remote|ne&s;s) Human Nature of Chri&s;t in Heaven.</HI> Con&s;ider (&s;erious Reader) whether &s;uch an Expre&s;&s;ion as God-man, according to the common and gro&s;s Acception of it, doth not tend to beget dark Imaginations, and mean, low, carnal Conceptions and Apprehen&s;ions of God, in the minds of ignorant People, who from &s;uch un&s;criptural Expre&s;&s;ions have been too apt to fancy and repre&s;ent God (as the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> are &s;aid to paint him) an Old Man &s;itting in a Chair. Judge then who, de&s;erves the Blame; they that make u&s;e of and impo&s;e &s;uch Terms as both give and continue the Occa&s;ion of &s;uch gro&s;s and wrong Apprehen&s;ions of the Deity; or we, who to prevent tho&s;e wrong Apprehen&s;ions, chu&s;e to expre&s;s our Faith in the plain and Inoffen&s;ive Language of the Holy Scriptures.</P>
<P>So for the Term, <HI>A Di&s;tinct Per&s;on with|out us, which limits and confines him to Re|motene&s;s;</HI> we have very good Rea&s;on to be jea|lous
<PB N="112" REF="57"> of it and avoid it, not only as an Un&s;crip|tural, but as an Un&s;ound Expre&s;&s;ion; for, though we alwayes acknowledge, that Chri&s;t hath a Di&s;tinct Being without us, yet we can never yield that he is thereby limited and confined to a Remotene&s;s from us: And in|deed, how &s;hould we, when we daily feel him revealed and forming in us, to our un|&s;peakable Joy and Comfort? I intreat thee (Reader) to con&s;ider &s;eriou&s;ly; Doth not the Scripture &s;ay expre&s;ly, <HI>Chri&s;t in you the Hope of Glory?</HI> Would not they now, who endeavour to limit and confine him to a Re|motene&s;s, <HI>bereave both thee and me of this Hope,</HI> which is the <HI>Anchor of our Souls?</HI> And whither then &s;hall we be driven? Did not our Saviour Chri&s;t him&s;elf, in that mo&s;t Heavenly Prayer, which he offered to his Father, in behalf of his Di&s;ciples, a little before he &s;uffered, expre&s;s him&s;elf in the&s;e words: <HI>I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in One,</HI> Joh. 17.23. Was not this <HI>In-being &amp; In-dwelling of Chri&s;t in his Saints</HI> the <HI>Joy,</HI> the <HI>Crown,</HI> the <HI>Con&s;ola|tion</HI> of all <HI>true Chri&s;tians</HI> in all Ages? And mu&s;t we now be cen&s;ured and <HI>unchri&s;tian'd</HI> for refu&s;ing &s;uch Terms as <HI>would limit and confine him to a Remotene&s;s?</HI> Well, if the Ca&s;e mu&s;t needs be &s;o, <HI>I'le rather chu&s;e to in|joy his Living Pre&s;ence with me</HI> (in who&s;e
<PB N="113" REF="57"> Pre&s;ence is Fulne&s;s of Joy) <HI>though I &s;hould therefore by them be reputed an</HI> Heathen, <HI>then purcha&s;e from them the Title of a</HI> Chri&s;tian, <HI>at the Price of Confining him to a Remotene&s;s from me.</HI> He was <HI>Emanuel</HI> of Old (<HI>God with us,</HI> or, as &s;ome read, <HI>God in us</HI>) <HI>O let him be</HI> Emanuel <HI>&s;till!</HI></P>
<P>But, what is the matter? Why do they quarrel &s;o with us for avoiding <HI>&s;uch</HI> an Ex|pre&s;&s;ion as <HI>limits</HI> and <HI>confines Chri&s;t to a Re|motene&s;s from his People?</HI> Would they have him <HI>&s;o confined?</HI> Or, do they indeed think it <HI>po&s;&s;ible</HI> that <HI>He</HI> &s;hould be <HI>&s;o confined?</HI> Can they think &s;o, and not at the &s;ame time <HI>deny his Divinity?</HI> for, <HI>as God,</HI> he is <HI>omnipre&s;ent,</HI> fills Heaven and Earth, and is <HI>not &s;ubject</HI> to any <HI>Confinement.</HI> If they &s;ay, they do not u&s;e &s;uch Terms with re&s;pect to his <HI>God-head,</HI> but only to his <HI>Manhood;</HI> I ask, With whom then do they quarrel? for, which of us did ever affirm, <HI>that Chri&s;t, in re&s;pect of his Manhood, is omni|pre&s;ent; or that as Man</HI> (in a carnal &s;en&s;e) <HI>he dwells in his Saints?</HI> Are they not then fight|ing with their own Shadow?</P>
<P>But while they thus <HI>captiou&s;ly cavil</HI> at o|thers, they admini&s;ter <HI>no &s;mall Ground</HI> of Su&s;|pition, that they them&s;elves, while they <HI>&s;eem to confe&s;s</HI> the Divinity of Chri&s;t, do <HI>not really and cordially</HI> own it. For, let it be con&s;ider'd,
<PB N="114" REF="58"> 1. That <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> in his fir&s;t <HI>Dialogue, p.</HI> 44. &s;aith expre&s;ly thus, <Q REND="inline"><HI>I told him that the Chri&s;t I believed, was no other then that Per&s;on the Scriptures &s;peak of.</HI></Q> 2. That <HI>they</HI> here <HI>blame us,</HI> for not expre&s;&s;ing our Faith of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in &s;uch un&s;criptural Terms, as would limit and confine him to a Remotene&s;s, which is <HI>not prae|dicable of the Divinity.</HI> 3. That <HI>J. Ives</HI> &s;aith, (<HI>p.</HI> 23. of their Relation) that <HI>He was Chri&s;t as he was Man; not a Word of his Divinity.</HI> From the&s;e Premi&s;es let the judicious Reader judge what Conclu&s;ion may fairly be inferr'd.</P>
<P>In like manner for the Term <HI>Human Na|ture of Chri&s;t in Heaven,</HI> may we not rea&s;ona|bly be jealous of it? for if <HI>Humanus</HI> be deri|ved from <HI>Homo,</HI> and that from <HI>Humus,</HI> which &s;ignifieth <HI>Ground</HI> or <HI>Earth</HI> (as the Learned tell <HI>us</HI>) would <HI>they</HI> have us <HI>&s;ay,</HI> that <HI>Chri&s;t hath in Heaven an Earthly Nature,</HI> whenas the Scri|pture &s;aith &s;o plainly, that it is <HI>the fir&s;t Man that is of the Earth, earthly;</HI> but that <HI>the &s;econd Man is the Lord form Heaven,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.47. Let them therfore, before they &s;o <HI>pragmatical|ly cen&s;ure</HI> others, declare to the World, what it is that them&s;elves believe, <HI>if indeed them&s;elves know what they believe.</HI> But to proceed.</P>
<P>In his rambling Di&s;cour&s;e upon this &s;ixth Ob&s;ervation, he tells his Reader that we &s;ay, <HI>The Scriptures are not the Rule and Guide of
<PB N="115" REF="58"> Faith to the Saints;</HI> and for it he quotes <HI>Edw. Burrough</HI>'s Works, <HI>pag.</HI> 515. Reader, This is a Subject which hath of late been <HI>frequently controverted,</HI> between us and &s;everal of our Adver&s;aries: Wherefore that I may not too far <HI>&s;well</HI> this Treati&s;e, nor yet leave thee without <HI>&s;ome Means of Satisfaction</HI> how far, and in what re&s;pect we own the <HI>Scriptures</HI> to be a <HI>Rule, &amp;c.</HI> I refer thee to the following Books, <HI>Quakeri&s;m a new Nick-name for old Chri&s;tia|nity, The Invalidity of</HI> John Faldo<HI>'s Vindica|tion,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>A &s;erious Apology,</HI> &amp;c. in which this Subject is copiou&s;ly handled. And for <HI>J. Ives</HI> his other Cavils about the <HI>Divinity of Chri&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Trinity, &amp;c.</HI> I refer thee to two Books, the one call'd, <HI>The Divinity of</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>confe&s;t and vindicated:</HI> The other, <HI>The Light and Life of</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>within.</HI></P>
<P>Before I pa&s;s from this Particular, let me give thee, Reader, a brief Hint of <HI>Jeremy's</HI> unfair <HI>Dealing</HI> with us, in point of <HI>Quotation,</HI> which the Words la&s;t cited by him, out of <HI>Edw. Burrough</HI>'s Works, bring to my remem|brance. It is in a late <HI>Pamphlet</HI> of his call'd, <HI>Que&s;tions for the Quakers, p.</HI> 14. and the occa|&s;ion of it this: <HI>Geo. Keith</HI> in the Di&s;pute with <HI>Jer. Ives,</HI> a&s;&s;erted, that <HI>Divine In&s;piration</HI> is the <HI>primary</HI> (or chief) <HI>Rule,</HI> and that the <HI>Scri|ptures</HI> are a <HI>&s;econdary</HI> Rule. After this <HI>Jer.
<PB N="116" REF="59"> Ives</HI> printed his <HI>Que&s;tions,</HI> in which, <HI>that he might weaken</HI> Geo. Keith<HI>'s Te&s;timony to the Scriptures,</HI> he brings in <HI>E. Burrough</HI> to con|tradict <HI>G. Keith;</HI> and that he might <HI>make</HI> E.B. to contradict <HI>G. K.</HI> he <HI>mo&s;t di&s;hone&s;tly fal&s;ifieth</HI> E. Burrough<HI>'s Words.</HI> Having premi&s;ed this for thy better Under&s;tanding of the Pa&s;&s;age, I will now, Reader, give thee <HI>J. Ives</HI>'s words, ju&s;t as they lie in his own Book, thus; <Q REND="inline"><HI>For though <HI>G. Keith</HI> (to keep up your Credit) with the People, in our la&s;t Di&s;pute) &s;aid, the Scrip|tures were own'd by you as a &s;econdary Rule for your Faith and Practice; yet <HI>E. Burrough</HI> contradicts him, and tells us in <HI>SO MANY WORDS,</HI> that the Scriptures are <HI>NO RULE</HI> or Guide of Faith and Life to the Saints. See <HI>(&s;aith he)</HI> his Works, <HI>fol. 515.</HI> and reconcile your Prophets as well as you can.</HI></Q> Now, <HI>Reader,</HI> take al&s;o <HI>E. Burrough</HI>'s words, ju&s;t as they lie in the place forecited, thus: <Q REND="inline"><HI>And though the Scriptures are profitable, and were given forth to be read, and to be fulfilled, yet they are not <HI>THE RULE</HI> and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints; but the Spirit of God that gave forth the Scriptures, that is the Rule and Guide, the Teacher and Leader into all Truth.</HI></Q> Now compare the&s;e two to|gether: E.B. &s;aith, <HI>The Scriptures are not</HI> THE <HI>Rule,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>J. Ives</HI> affirms, that <HI>E. B. in</HI> SO
<PB N="117" REF="59"> MANY WORDS <HI>&s;aith, The Scriptures are NO Rule, &amp;c.</HI> and quotes this very place to prove it. <HI>O Impudent Man! O ba&s;e and di&s;|hone&s;t Dealing!</HI> Is not this FORGERY? yea, and PERVERSION too: for he hath not only chang'd <HI>E.B</HI>'s <HI>Words,</HI> but his <HI>Mea|ning</HI> al&s;o. What think&s;t thou, <HI>Reader?</HI> Is this Man <HI>worthy</HI> of any <HI>Credit,</HI> who <HI>(to &s;upport a tottering Cau&s;e)</HI> will not &s;tick to <HI>corrupt</HI> and <HI>fal&s;ifie another man's Words,</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>audaci|ou&s;ly</HI> tell the World, that that other man <HI>&s;aid &s;o</HI> in SO MANY WORDS? And <HI>O ye</HI> Bap|ti&s;ts, <HI>who have entertained and employ'd this</HI> Jer. Ives, <HI>as your Agent and Champion, to de|fend you from the Stroke of our heavy</HI> Charge, <HI>con&s;ider ye well this thing! Think you to gain</HI> Credit <HI>by &s;uch a</HI> &s;hamele&s;s Advocate, <HI>who, if he feared</HI> God, <HI>could not; and if he regarded</HI> Men, <HI>one would think he would not have publi&s;ht &s;o</HI> FOUL <HI>and</HI> NOTORIOUS A FALSE|HOOD <HI>to the World? Ah! Can you hope to &s;tand your Ground, who &s;o openly make</HI> Lyes <HI>your</HI> Refuge? <HI>The Lord will &s;weep away your Refuge, and where will you &s;helter then? Ve|rely your Skirts are di&s;covering apace, and your Nakedne&s;s appears already to many.</HI></P>
<P>But to return to <HI>Jeremy:</HI> Much after the &s;ame Rate that he hath &s;erved <HI>E. B.</HI> doth he deal with <HI>G.W.</HI> al&s;o: For in p. 116. &s;peaking
<PB N="118" REF="60"> of God and Chri&s;t, he &s;ayes, That <HI>Father and Son are in the</HI> Quakers <HI>Dialect but two Names or Manife&s;tations, as</HI> Geo. Whitehead <HI>calls them in his Defence of</HI> W. Penn <HI>again&s;t Dr.</HI> Owen <HI>and Mr.</HI> Vincent, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Herein he hath <HI>manife&s;tly wronged</HI> G.W. both <HI>fal&s;ly citing and perverting his Words</HI> (And the better to cover his Fal&s;hood, he has neither directly named the Book, nor quoted any Page) for <HI>G.W</HI>'s VVords are not, that the Father and Son are BUT two Names or Manife&s;tations; but thus, viz. That <Q REND="inline"><HI>the Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Fa|ther, the Word and the Spirit, or the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t, are one and in&s;eparable, no where in Scripture called three &s;eparate Per|&s;ons, nor finite in Per&s;onalities, though three in Manife&s;tation, and &s;o te&s;tified of, as three Witne&s;&s;es;</HI></Q> See <HI>Divinity of Chri&s;t confe&s;t,</HI> part 2. p. 94. And <Q REND="inline"><HI>the Manife&s;tation of the Father, of the Son and Holy Spirit we con|fe&s;s,</HI> part 1. p. 22.</Q> Now from <HI>G.W</HI>'s &s;aying, <HI>We confe&s;s the Manife&s;tation of the Father, of the Son and Holy Spirit,</HI> for <HI>J. Ives</HI> to infer that <HI>G.W.</HI> means the Father and the Son are BUT two Names or Manife&s;tations; what is, if this be not, <HI>Perverting</HI> another Man's VVords? Yet he is not content with this, but goes on to abu&s;e <HI>G. W.</HI> further; for &s;ayes he,</P>
<PB N="119" REF="60">
<P>Geo. VVhitehead <HI>tells</HI> Mr. Vincent, <HI>that it is a di&s;tracted and confu&s;ed Work to a&s;&s;ert, that the Generation of the Son of God mu&s;t be Eter|nal.</HI> This al&s;o is a <HI>notorious &V;ntruth</HI> and <HI>A|bu&s;e</HI> of <HI>G. Whitehead</HI>'s Words, as will plainly appear, if the Place be con&s;ulted: For upon Tho. Vincent<HI>'s &s;aying, it is improper to &s;ay, that either the Per&s;ons in Regard of the Per&s;onality or Sub&s;i&s;tence, are finite or infinite, yet that Chri&s;t is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation: G.W.</HI> made an Ob&s;ervation thus, viz. <HI>He is now the Eternal Son of God, before not infinite: But again, neither finite nor in|finite in his Per&s;onality, and yet the Eternal Son of God: What mad, di&s;tracted, bla&s;phemous Work is this,</HI> &amp;c? See <HI>Divinity of Chri&s;t confe&s;t,</HI> part 2. p. 74. This is no Denyal of the Son of God's being Eternal, but a Collection of <HI>T. Vincent</HI>'s Confu&s;ion about the &s;eparate Per|&s;onalities, as appears further in the &s;ame Book, <HI>part</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 24, 25. &amp; 34. Yet becau&s;e G.W. having here gathered together &s;ome of his Opponents <HI>confus'd &amp; contradictory Di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> did call <HI>it</HI> mad, di&s;tracted Work; <HI>J. Ives</HI> takes G.W<HI>'s</HI> VVords, and <HI>turns</HI> them quite to ano|ther Matter; G. W. called Tho. Vincent<HI>'s Manner of Rea&s;oning</HI> about the Per&s;onality, Sub&s;i&s;tence and Eternal Generation of the Son of God, <HI>mad and di&s;tracted Work; J. Ives</HI> reports <HI>G.W.</HI> to have &s;aid, <HI>That it's a di&s;tracted
<PB N="120" REF="61"> and confu&s;ed Work to a&s;&s;ert, that the Generation of the Son of God mu&s;t be Eternal;</HI> whenas no|thing can be more evident, then that G. W. condemned the <HI>Manner</HI> of a&s;&s;erting it, not the <HI>A&s;&s;ertion &s;imply it &s;elf:</HI> What can a Man do more injurious to another, then &s;o unfairly to mi&s;repre&s;ent him, &s;o fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">lly to pervert his Words and Meaning!</P>
<P>In his 7th Ob&s;ervation, he taxeth the Ac|counts that we have given of the two Meet|ings, and &s;ayes, <HI>We have therein tran&s;placed whole Paragraphs,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>to render his An|&s;wers Impertinent,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>But of this he gives</HI> us not one In&s;tance, and we may well &s;uppo&s;e the Rea&s;on to be, becau&s;e he had not one to give. Be&s;ides, what Rea&s;on, o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;o much as probable Conjecture, does he offer to his Reader, to induce him to believe this? None at all that I find: The mo&s;t he &s;ayes, is this, <HI>Whoever &s;hall compare their Account and ours to|gether, will find it.</HI> But how will he find it? He mu&s;t fir&s;t take for granted, that their Account is true, which I have already by &s;eve|ral In&s;tances <HI>proved to be fal&s;e,</HI> and could there|to add &s;everal more, but that I judge tho&s;e al|ready given &s;ufficient. Till therefore <HI>Jeremy</HI> &s;ayes more to the Purpo&s;e, I &s;hall not think this de&s;erves more of my Notice.</P>
<P>In his 8th Ob&s;ervation he tells his Reader, <HI>That in our Account we bring in many Things
<PB N="121" REF="61"> as &s;poken in their Pre&s;ence, which were not &s;poaken till after their Departure.</HI> But where's the <HI>Evidence</HI> of this? The Reader hath but his bare Word for it, which how little Credit it de&s;erveth I have &s;hew'd before. But that which he infers from this <HI>is, That the</HI> Quakers <HI>could talk fa&s;t enough, when none were there to oppo&s;e them, though they &s;tood like Mutes a little before, as having nothing to an&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P>This man is very frequent in his Sugge&s;tions, but it is rarely that he doth not <HI>contradict him|&s;elf</HI> in them. Let us &s;ee how he e&s;capes in this: Here he in&s;inuates, that <HI>we &s;tood like Mutes, while he was pre&s;ent, as having nothing to an|&s;wer;</HI> yet in <HI>p.</HI> 81. of their Relation, they &s;ay, <HI>Mr.</HI> Penn <HI>offer'd to interpo&s;e;</HI> and they com|plain of <HI>two or three</HI> Quakers <HI>interpo&s;ing to|gether.</HI> In <HI>p.</HI> 82. <HI>Jeremy</HI> cries out, <HI>What, two or three again&s;t one man! What! Half a Do|zen? You had be&s;t all &s;peak.</HI> Again, <HI>p.</HI> 96. he &s;aith, <HI>Pray Mr.</HI> Penn <HI>be &s;ilent; Pray Mr.</HI> Whitehead <HI>hold your Tongue, you are not to &s;peak; it is not your Turn, &amp;c.</HI> And <HI>p.</HI> 102. when <HI>Jeremy</HI> had re&s;olved to &s;ay no more, <HI>W. Penn</HI> calls upon <HI>Tho. Plant</HI> thus, <HI>Take</HI> J. Ives <HI>his place and I will proceed with thee.</HI> Ob&s;erve, <HI>Reader,</HI> from the&s;e Quotations, how <HI>hard a Task</HI> they would make <HI>Jeremy</HI> to have <HI>undergone,</HI> to keep the <HI>Quakers</HI> from <HI>&s;peaking
<PB N="122" REF="62"> too muh,</HI> &s;o apt (it &s;hould &s;eem) and <HI>forward</HI> they were to <HI>an&s;wer;</HI> and yet all on a &s;udden <HI>by a Figure peculiar to him&s;elf,</HI> he tells his Rea|der, <HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>&s;tood mute in his Pre&s;ence, as having nothing to an&s;wer.</HI> Thus, when men regard not <HI>Truth, Con&s;cience</HI> or <HI>Hone&s;ty,</HI> they ju&s;tly <HI>fall by their own Hands;</HI> and &s;o it fares with the&s;e men: For in their Relation, their <HI>De&s;ign</HI> was to repre&s;ent us <HI>clamorous, di&s;or|derly, talkative,</HI> &s;peaking <HI>more</HI> then came to our Share (&s;o in his <HI>Que&s;tions</HI> for the <HI>Quakers,</HI> p. 10. <HI>They talked mo&s;t and talked la&s;t</HI>) Now in the Po&s;t&s;cript <HI>the Scene is chang'd,</HI> and their Aim is now to repre&s;ent us <HI>mute, &s;ilent, not able to &s;ay any thing for our &s;elves;</HI> not con&s;i|dering (though <HI>they took Time enough for it</HI>) that the&s;e two Sugge&s;tions would not well hang together, and now that they come to be examin'd, Shame <HI>(if they were not pa&s;t it)</HI> would ju&s;tly cover their Faces.</P>
<P>In his 9th <HI>Ob&s;ervation,</HI> he quarrels at a Pa&s;|&s;age in the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Reader,</HI> prefixt to our Account of the 2d Meeting, which is this: <HI>We hope therefore thou wilt hold us excu&s;ed in our hone&s;t and peaceable Endeavours to vindi|cate our Faith and Per&s;ons again&s;t as black A|bu&s;es as have been ever practi&s;ed by Infidels,</HI> Jews <HI>or</HI> call'd <HI>Chri&s;tians:</HI> Here (according to his <HI>wonted Di&s;ingenuity</HI>) he <HI>quibbles</HI> upon the word <HI>Abu&s;es,</HI> which <HI>(that he might thereby yet
<PB N="123" REF="62"> further abu&s;e us)</HI> he would <HI>extend</HI> to the <HI>Suf|ferings</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> &amp; <HI>holy Martyrs,</HI> by which means he would <HI>hook in</HI> the <HI>Cruel|ties, Torments</HI> &amp; various kinds of <HI>Death</HI> which they <HI>underwent,</HI> and then <HI>in&s;inuate</HI> to his Rea|der, that we look upon the <HI>Abu&s;es</HI> we have received from the <HI>Bapti&s;ts</HI> to be <HI>blacker</HI> then the <HI>Sufferings</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> his <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and the <HI>Martyrs</HI> in Q. <HI>Mary's</HI> Dayes. In this his <HI>Ma|lice</HI> is &s;o <HI>apparent,</HI> that it needs no <HI>Detection:</HI> For what el&s;e but <HI>Malice,</HI> could &s;o <HI>notoriou&s;ly pervert</HI> our Sen&s;e and <HI>Meaning?</HI> which evi|dently related to <HI>&s;uch Abu&s;es</HI> as we had char|ged upon <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> viz. <HI>Forgeries, Perver&s;ions, Slanders, Lyes, Reproaches, Revilings, &amp;c.</HI> (of which <HI>J. Ives</HI> him&s;elf <HI>confe&s;&s;eth</HI> thus much, p. 45. That <HI>if our Charge again&s;t</HI> T. Hicks <HI>be true, he is the Prodigy of the Age for Lyes and Forgeries</HI>) not to <HI>corporal Sufferings, Torments, Death,</HI> as he would <HI>di&s;ingenuou&s;ly &s;tretch</HI> the word: Though we have too much Rea&s;on to <HI>&s;u&s;pect,</HI> that had they <HI>Power</HI> to their <HI>Will,</HI> we &s;hould quickly have as <HI>ju&s;t Cau&s;e</HI> to complain of them in <HI>this re&s;pect,</HI> as we <HI>already</HI> have in the other; for <HI>they</HI> who, at this time of the Day, will take the Liberty publickly to <HI>repre|&s;ent us</HI> not only as <HI>Bla&s;phemers, Cheats</HI> and the <HI>vile&s;t Impo&s;tors, Romi&s;h Emi&s;&s;aries,</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>implacable Enemies</HI> to the <HI>Chri&s;tian Religion;</HI>
<PB N="124" REF="63"> but al&s;o as <HI>Debauchers of Mankind, de&s;tructive to Government,</HI> and <HI>incon&s;i&s;tent with human So|ciety;</HI> and who are already entered <HI>a &s;olemn League,</HI> as it were, with <HI>Independents</HI> &amp; <HI>Pre&s;|byterians</HI> again&s;t us, need &s;ay no more to let us and the World know, <HI>what Kindne&s;s we might expect from them, if the Sword were in their Hands.</HI></P>
<P>In his 10th Ob&s;ervation he &s;aith, <HI>In many places in their la&s;t Book</HI> (e&s;pecially in <HI>p.</HI> 60.) <HI>they tell the World, that in&s;tead of my proving them no</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>I put them to prove they were</HI> Chri&s;tians, <HI>which</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, as the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of my Arguments will a|bundantly manife&s;t, if con&s;ider'd where the Re|&s;ult and I&s;&s;ue.</HI></P>
<P>For thy better Under&s;tanding of this Pa&s;|&s;age, I refer thee, <HI>Reader,</HI> to the place he hath cited, <HI>p.</HI> 59, 60. of our Accout of the la&s;t Mee|ting; where his Arguments i&s;&s;ue in this, <HI>If ye can give no Evidence of it, ye are</HI> no <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> (if he will deny this to be the I&s;&s;ue of his Ar|guments, I am able to <HI>prove it</HI> out of <HI>their own</HI> Relation) Now, doth not the Rule of Con|traries infer, But <HI>if you can</HI> give an Evidence of it, <HI>ye are Chri&s;tians?</HI> And doth not he o|ver and over <HI>call upon us to give this Evidence?</HI> What then can be more plain, then that <HI>he calls upon us to give an Evidence that we are
<PB N="125" REF="63"> Chri&s;tians;</HI> and is not this <HI>putting us to prove our &s;elves</HI> Chri&s;tians? Can he with all is <HI>Sub|tilty</HI> &s;pin a Di&s;tinction <HI>fine</HI> enough to h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1+ letters">d be|tween <HI>Giving an Evidence that we are</HI> Chri&s;ti|ans, and <HI>Proving that we are</HI> Chri&s;tians&punc; If by the <HI>Medium</HI> that he hath taken, he would have prov'd us <HI>No Chri&s;tians,</HI> he &s;hould not have <HI>put us upon giving an Evidence,</HI> but have <HI>prov'd</HI> we have <HI>No</HI> Evidence to give. If he &s;ay, he attempted to prove it by the <HI>Maxim</HI> in Law, <HI>That which appears not, is not:</HI> I an|&s;wer; 'Tis true indeed that he did &s;o <HI>attempt,</HI> but was <HI>pittifully foyl'd</HI> in his Undertaking: for it was &s;hew'd him, that <HI>that Maxim would not hold true in all Ca&s;es;</HI> and <HI>him&s;elf</HI> &s;oon af|ter proved it <HI>fal&s;e in this,</HI> when he acknow|ledged (<HI>p.</HI> 99.) <HI>that a dumb man may be a Chri&s;tian</HI> (and con&s;equently have the Evi|dence of it) <HI>yet not be able, becau&s;e Dumb, to make that Evidence appear.</HI> If he &s;ay, that it being a <HI>Negative,</HI> there is no other way to prove it; I an&s;wer, he &s;hould have con&s;ider'd that <HI>before,</HI> and not have <HI>cho&s;en</HI> &s;uch a medium, as he is <HI>not able to prove.</HI></P>
<P>But (Reader) that thou maye&s;t be a&s;&s;u|red, that that which <HI>Jeremy Ives &s;ayes</HI> is no|toriou&s;ly fal&s;e, is indeed mo&s;t <HI>certainly true, viz.</HI> That being <HI>unable</HI> to prove us <HI>No Chri|&s;tians,</HI> he did put us <HI>to prove our &s;elves Chri|&s;tians,</HI>
<PB N="126" REF="64"> and that too <HI>intentionally,</HI> take one In&s;tance for all out of their own Relation, pag. 93. where <HI>George Keith</HI> having &s;aid, <HI>My Work at this pre&s;ent is not to prove our &s;elves to be Chri&s;tians;</HI> Jer. Ives <HI>taking hold</HI> of tho&s;e words, replies pertly upon him, <HI>Why, what have we been di&s;puting all this while for?</HI> plainly implying, that that which <HI>he</HI> had been <HI>di&s;puting</HI> all this while <HI>for,</HI> was, <HI>to make us prove our &s;elves Chri&s;tians;</HI> and that if we did <HI>decline the proving our &s;elves Chri&s;tians,</HI> we did therein <HI>decline that</HI> which <HI>he</HI> had been all this while <HI>di&s;puting for.</HI> Reader, I &s;olemnly de|clare, I would not, and indeed I think I have not <HI>&s;trayn'd</HI> his words beyond their <HI>natural and proper Force:</HI> But whether I have or no, I leave to thy judicious Cen&s;ure.</P>
<P>In his 11th and la&s;t Ob&s;ervation, he &s;ayes, <HI>Whereas they in their</HI> 2d Account, <HI>pag.</HI> 9. <HI>bid their Reader Note, That</HI> T. Hicks <HI>had lodged him&s;elf &s;afely in an Ale-hou&s;e, and came not to them, but &s;tayed there till the Confede|rates departing called him away,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>This</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>is Maliciou&s;ly and Fal&s;ly &s;ugge|&s;ted,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>Wherein doth it appear to be <HI>Fal&s;e</HI> or <HI>Malicious?</HI> Was <HI>Thomas Hicks</HI> in the Ale-hou&s;e, or no? <HI>Yes, that he was: Jeremy</HI> grants it; but &s;ays, <HI>He was not Six Minutes
<PB N="127" REF="64"> there.</HI> I will not &s;tand with <HI>Jeremy</HI> for <HI>a Mi|nute or two;</HI> but I would have him take no|tice, that if <HI>Tho. Hicks</HI> had been but Three Minutes there, it had been enough to vindi|cate our Relation from <HI>Fal&s;hood:</HI> But how long or little &s;oever he was there, this is cer|tain, that <HI>there he was, and there he &s;tay'd, till &s;ome of them call'd him away:</HI> And how little it tends to his Reputation, to <HI>avoid the Meeting,</HI> and <HI>go to an Ale-hou&s;e,</HI> I leave to the Rea|der's Judgment. Yet in their Letter of <HI>Octob.</HI> 22. pag. 107. they would make the World believe, <HI>we &s;eem to dread nothing more,</HI> then that <HI>T. Hicks</HI> &s;hould <HI>speak for him&s;elf,</HI> whenas <HI>he</HI> was not only particularly <HI>invited to the Meeting,</HI> but a Friend of ours going to the Meeting overtook <HI>T. H.</HI> in the way, and perceiving that he did not know either the Place or the Way to it, acquainted him that he was then going thither, and <HI>invited him</HI> to go along with him, telling him al&s;o, that probably he might be Wanted there: But <HI>T. Hicks,</HI> that he might not give a flat Denyal, urged an Occa&s;ion to call by the Way, and &s;o <HI>declined</HI> the Offer. Judge now (Reader) whether their Sugge&s;tion be not <HI>fal&s;e</HI> (not to &s;ay <HI>malicious</HI>) in &s;aying, <HI>We &s;eem to dread nothing more, then that</HI> T. H.
<PB N="128" REF="65"> <HI>&s;hould &s;peak for him&s;elf,</HI> when a Meeting was appointed by us for <HI>that End,</HI> and &s;o much <HI>Endeavour</HI> u&s;ed, and Care taken to get him thither, and yet he would not be per&s;waded to come there, but cho&s;e <HI>rather to go to an Ale-hou&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>In his la&s;t page <HI>J. Ives</HI> gives his Reader a Li&s;t of One and Twenty Per&s;ons, whom he is plea&s;ed to call <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters,</HI> all who in an Epi&s;tle of theirs, jump in, and concur with him and his Brethren the <HI>Bapti&s;ts,</HI> in their <HI>Clamour</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Quakers:</HI> For An|&s;wer to their Epi&s;tle, I refer the Reader to a Book of <HI>William Penn</HI>'s, entituled, <HI>A Ju&s;t Rebuke to One and Twenty Learned and Re|verend Divines (&s;o called)</HI> wherein I doubt not he will find their Strength <HI>&s;ufficiently ener|vated.</HI> But I have not &s;o done with <HI>Jeremy;</HI> I mu&s;t take leave to <HI>expo&s;tulate</HI> the Ca&s;e a little with him.</P>
<P>How come&s;t thou <HI>(Jeremy)</HI> to make u&s;e of the <HI>Te&s;timony</HI> of the&s;e men, and dignifie them too with the Title of <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters?</HI> Ha&s;t thou forgot (or did&s;t thou never know) that &s;everal of the&s;e thy <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters</HI> (particularly <HI>John Sheffeild, Thomas Gouge, William Jenkyn</HI> and <HI>Thomas Wat&s;on</HI>) were &s;ome of tho&s;e <HI>Fifty Two London-Mini&s;ters,</HI>
<PB N="129" REF="65"> who in <HI>their Te&s;timony to the Truth of Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> and <HI>their Solemn League and Cove|nant,</HI> printed Anno 1648. <Q REND="inline"><HI>Do te&s;tifie not on|ly their great Di&s;like of <HI>Prelacy, Era&s;tiani&s;m, Browni&s;m</HI> and <HI>INDEPENDENCY;</HI> but al&s;o their utter Abhorrency of <HI>Anti-&s;criptu|ri&s;m, Popery, Arriani&s;m, Sociniani&s;m, Ar|miniani&s;m, ANABAPTISM, Libertini&s;m</HI> and <HI>Famili&s;m,</HI> with all &s;uch like, <HI>&amp;c. and that</HI> they Dete&s;t the Toleration &s;o much pur&s;ued and endeavoured in this Kingdom, accounting it &V;nlawful and Pernicious;</HI></Q> yea, calling it not only <HI>dete&s;table,</HI> but <HI>an hiddeous Mon&s;ter,</HI> &amp;c. p. 33, 34. Do&s;t thou ob&s;erve, <HI>Jeremy,</HI> with whom they <HI>link and couple thee and thy Brethren,</HI> viz. with <HI>Anti-&s;cripturi&s;ts, Pa|pi&s;ts, Arrians, Socinians, Libertines</HI> and <HI>Famili&s;ts,</HI> and <HI>abhor you all alike?</HI> Were they <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters</HI> when they did this? Or are they grown <HI>more Sober</HI> &s;ince? And ha&s;t thou never heard that the <HI>E&s;&s;ex-Mini|&s;ters,</HI> men of the &s;ame <HI>Circum&s;tances</HI> with the&s;e, dancing after their Pipe, did, in the &s;ame year, publi&s;h <HI>their Te&s;timony</HI> al&s;o under the &s;ame Title with the former; wherein they &s;ay, <Q REND="inline"><HI>From our Souls we utterly Detest and Abhor, as all former Cur&s;ed Doctrines of <HI>Popery, Arminiani&s;m</HI> and <HI>Sociniani&s;m;</HI>
<PB N="130" REF="66"> &s;o likewi&s;e all the Damnable Errors, Here|&s;ies and Bla&s;phemies of the&s;e pre&s;ent Evil Times, whether of <HI>Anti-&s;cripturi&s;ts, Fami|li&s;ts, Antinomians, Anti-Trinitarians, Ar|rians, ANABAPTISTS, or what&s;oever is found</HI> contrary to &s;ound Doctrine and the Power of Godline&s;s.</HI></Q> See&s;t thou here, <HI>Je|remy,</HI> how <HI>Thou</HI> and thy <HI>Brethren</HI> are <HI>rankt,</HI> and <HI>abhorred</HI> and <HI>dete&s;ted</HI> by &s;uch as thou cal|le&s;t <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters,</HI> for <HI>your Damnable Er|rors, Here&s;ies</HI> and <HI>Bla&s;phemies,</HI> as being <HI>con|trary to &s;ound Doctrine</HI> and the <HI>Power of God|line&s;s?</HI> Would any but an <HI>infatuated</HI> man, have given an Occa&s;ion to revive &s;uch Te&s;ti|monies? Did ye <HI>fawn</HI> &s;o on this &s;ort of men then, and call them <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters?</HI> Or did ye repute them <HI>Fal&s;e Prophets, Seducers, Mini&s;ters of Antichri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c? But how then came ye now &s;o well <HI>reconciled,</HI> that ye can <HI>Rejoyce</HI> &s;o in their Te&s;timony? Have ye &s;ince <HI>Retracted tho&s;e Damnable Errors, Here&s;ies and Bla&s;phemies,</HI> which they <HI>charged</HI> upon you, and for which they <HI>abhorred and dete|&s;ted you,</HI> and &s;ubmitted your &s;elves to their <HI>Correction,</HI> that ye might be received again into <HI>Favour?</HI> Or have thy <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters</HI> cry'd <HI>Peccavimus,</HI> askt you Forgivene&s;s, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">o ye have ki&s;t, and are Friends? I would
<PB N="131" REF="66"> fain know how ye came thus <HI>reconciled;</HI> for methinks ye are too much like <HI>Herod</HI> and <HI>Pilate,</HI> who can &s;o readily lay a&s;ide your <HI>mutual Grudges</HI> and <HI>Animo&s;ities,</HI> to bandy to|gether again&s;t the Innocent.</P>
<P>Or have ye learnt this <HI>Device</HI> of your One and Twenty <HI>Sober Mini&s;ters</HI> them&s;elves, who &s;o many of them as &s;ub&s;cribed the above|mentioned Te&s;timony, declaimed &s;harply a|gain&s;t, and expre&s;s their great Di&s;like of <HI>In|dependency</HI> as well as others; though now to wage War again&s;t an <HI>Innocent People,</HI> they not only fall in and imbody with <HI>Independents,</HI> but have engaged as <HI>Voluntiers</HI> in Defence of <HI>John Faldo,</HI> a reputed <HI>Independent:</HI> By all which the Reader may ob&s;erve how great a <HI>Confederacy</HI> and <HI>Combination</HI> is again&s;t us; and how they, who have formerly <HI>Anathe|matized</HI> each other, now hug and embrace, fawn upon and <HI>Cajol</HI> one another into a kind of <HI>Solemn League</HI> again&s;t us.</P>
<P>Now to let <HI>Jeremy</HI> and his Brethren &s;ee, how little Cau&s;e they have to <HI>boa&s;t</HI> of the Te|&s;timony of their One and Twenty <HI>Sober Mi|ni&s;ters,</HI> I will here &s;ubjoyn the Names of tho&s;e Fifty Two Prie&s;ts, who te&s;tifie their <HI>Abhor|rence
<PB N="132" REF="67"> of the</HI> Anabapti&s;ts <HI>Errors,</HI> &amp;c. and their <HI>Dete&s;tation</HI> of <HI>Toleration.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Jo. Downame,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Peter Witham,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Fran. Roberts,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Arth. Jackson,</ITEM>
<ITEM>W. Wickins,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Elidad Blackwel,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Charles Offspring,</ITEM>
<ITEM>* JO. SHEFFEILD,</ITEM>
<ITEM>John Wallis,</ITEM>
<ITEM>John Fathers,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ral. Robin&s;on,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Chri&s;. Love,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tho. Cawton,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Joh. Gla&s;cock,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Matt. Hariland,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Nath. Stanyforth,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tho. Whately,</ITEM>
<ITEM>* THO. WATSON,</ITEM>
<ITEM>John After,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Arth. Barham,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Jam. Cranford,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Andrew Janeway,</ITEM>
<ITEM>William Harri&s;on,</ITEM>
<ITEM>* WILL. JENKYN,</ITEM>
<ITEM>John Wall,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Francis Peck,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Fulk Bellers.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hen. Robrough,</ITEM>
<ITEM>* THO. GOUGE,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ro. Mercer,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Samuel Clark,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Will. Taylor,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Geo. Fawler,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ja. Nalton,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Will. Blackmore,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Geo. Walker,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dan. Cawdrey,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Nich. Profett,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Antho. Tuckney,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Edm. Calamy,</ITEM>
<PB N="133" REF="67">
<ITEM>John Stern,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Jo&s;. Thom&s;on,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Step. Watkins,</ITEM>
<ITEM>John Crodacott,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Will Gouge,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tho. Gataker,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sim. A&s;he,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tho. Ca&s;e,</ITEM>
<ITEM>La. Seaman,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Stanley Gower,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hen. Wilkin&s;on,</ITEM>
<ITEM>Anth. Burge&s;s.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>I could here name above as many more of the &s;ame Tribe out of <HI>E&s;&s;ex,</HI> who concurred with the&s;e in their Te&s;timony again&s;t the <HI>Bap|ti&s;ts;</HI> But I think the&s;e may be enough for one time.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="134" REF="68">
<HEAD>AN <HI>Expo&s;tulatory Po&s;t&s;cript</HI> TO THE BAPTISTS.</HEAD>
<P><HI>TO You the People called</HI> Anabapti&s;ts (of all Sorts) <HI>I direct the following Lines.</HI> How great a Controver&s;ie hath of late depen|ded (and yet doth) between us and &s;ome of the chief among&s;t you, I cannot &s;upo&s;e you altogether ignorant, ina&s;much as it hath not been debated in a Corner, but as publickly tran&s;acted as we could procure it, and made yet more publick by the Help of the Pre&s;s: But whether ye have a right Under&s;tanding of the Nature and Subject of the Controver&s;ie, is que&s;tionable; For your better and fuller Information therefore, I will briefly and &s;um|marily &s;tate it thus.</P>
<P>T. Hicks, <HI>a Teacher among &s;ome of you, in</HI> &s;everal Books, which he hath printed and cal|led Dialogues, <HI>hath mo&s;t abu&s;ively and fal&s;ly repre&s;ented our Principles and us to the World,
<PB N="135" REF="68"> perverted our Words and Meaning, publi&s;hed Lyes and Slanders again&s;t us, invented An|&s;wers in our Names, impertinent, ridiculous and impious, and &s;o contrived</HI> the whole Mat|ter, that he might make the World believe, that <HI>the&s;e were indeed our own Words,</HI> and <HI>An|&s;wers,</HI> and that they were <HI>really &s;o &s;poaken</HI> by &s;ome of us, &s;ome <HI>Quaker,</HI> accordingly as he had there related them: For this <HI>we charge him</HI> with <HI>Forgeries, Perver&s;ions, Lyes, Slan|ders,</HI> &amp;c. His An&s;wer is, <HI>You are no</HI> Chri|&s;tians; here he &s;ticks and &s;helters him&s;elf, and is herein protected and defended by &s;ome of the <HI>leading Men</HI> among&s;t you.</P>
<P>I demand now of tho&s;e of you, who are mo&s;t con&s;cientious and hone&s;t in your Way, do your Hearts <HI>Ju&s;tifie</HI> him &amp; them herein? Can you judge that he and they have dealt <HI>Righte|ou&s;ly</HI> and <HI>Equally</HI> with us? <HI>Would you be content to be &s;o dealt with your &s;elves?</HI> If I &s;hould write a Book again&s;t you, and therein <HI>abu&s;e</HI> you, and <HI>fal&s;ifie</HI> your <HI>Principles, as he hath done us and ours,</HI> and &s;hould tell the World, that you your &s;elves <HI>&s;aid</HI> this or that, or <HI>an&s;wered</HI> &s;o and &s;o, whenas indeed, you not only <HI>never &s;aid</HI> or <HI>thought</HI> &s;o, but even <HI>abhor</HI> &s;o to &s;peak, and then in&s;tead of <HI>confe&s;&s;ing</HI> my Fault, and ma|making you <HI>Satisfaction</HI> for the <HI>Injury,</HI> &s;hould only tell you, that <HI>ye are no</HI> Chri&s;tians, would
<PB N="136" REF="69"> ye not think your &s;elves <HI>highly wronged,</HI> and account me a very <HI>Wretch</HI> for doing it? Oh be <HI>ju&s;t,</HI> be <HI>ju&s;t,</HI> and &s;uffer not <HI>&s;o great a Blemi&s;h</HI> to lye upon your <HI>Profe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>Con&s;ider &s;eriou&s;ly, I intreat you, if what they &s;ay of us were true <HI>(then which nothing can be more fal&s;e)</HI> that we were not <HI>Chri&s;tians;</HI> would that <HI>extenuate</HI> his <HI>Crime,</HI> or any Way excu&s;e him for having &s;o gro&s;ly <HI>belied and abu|&s;ed</HI> us as he has? Does your Religion give you Liberty to <HI>invent</HI> and <HI>publi&s;h Forgeries, Lyes and Slanders</HI> again&s;t tho&s;e that you account No <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> and to <HI>pervert their Words and Meaning?</HI> How much <HI>better</HI> then is <HI>our Re|ligion</HI> then <HI>yours,</HI> which will not <HI>&s;uffer us</HI> to <HI>deal</HI> &s;o with a <HI>Jew,</HI> a <HI>Turk,</HI> an <HI>Infidel,</HI> no, nor the <HI>wor&s;t</HI> of Men? Surely if this be the <HI>La|titude</HI> of your Religion, it is high Time for all the <HI>hone&s;t-hearted</HI> among you, to <HI>quit it, quit it,</HI> as fa&s;t as they can.</P>
<P>We demand nothing of you but <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> again&s;t your <HI>unju&s;t Member;</HI> and will ye by <HI>denying</HI> us that, <HI>involve</HI> your &s;elves in his <HI>Guilt,</HI> and <HI>entitle</HI> your &s;elves to his <HI>Crimes?</HI> O <HI>be|ware, beware;</HI> will ye <HI>&s;helter</HI> a Man under the <HI>Wing</HI> of your <HI>Profe&s;&s;ion,</HI> who &s;tands charg'd with &s;uch <HI>foul</HI> and <HI>abominable Evils,</HI> and dares not <HI>adventure</HI> him&s;elf upon <HI>Tryal</HI> but &s;tudyeth <HI>Shifts</HI> and <HI>Tricks</HI> to <HI>avoid</HI> it? Let him fir&s;t,
<PB N="137" REF="69"> if he be able, <HI>acquit</HI> him&s;elf of the <HI>Forgeries, Perver&s;ions, Lyes</HI> and <HI>Slanders,</HI> which lye, as &s;o many <HI>Indictments</HI> again&s;t him; and when that is done, let him and his Adherents put forth their <HI>utmost Strength</HI> and <HI>Ability,</HI> to prove, us No <HI>Chri&s;tians;</HI> we are not fearful of a <HI>good I&s;&s;ue,</HI> but ready and willing, with an holy Confidence, to encounter them <HI>all,</HI> in Defence of our <HI>Chri&s;tianity;</HI> nay, have we not twice already <HI>conde&s;cended (though be&s;ide the Bu&s;ine&s;s, and out of its proper Sea&s;on)</HI> to hear them &s;ay the <HI>utmo&s;t</HI> they were <HI>able</HI> upon that Subject, until them&s;elves <HI>were weary of it, and withdrew?</HI> And what Advantage they have <HI>gain'd</HI> thereby, we are well content the World &s;hould judge.</P>
<P>But after all this, &s;hall we have <HI>no Right</HI> done us? mu&s;t we be <HI>continually</HI> calling upon you for <HI>Ju&s;tice?</HI> It is now much about two Moneths Time, &s;ince I &s;ent forth a <HI>&s;ingle Sheet</HI> under the Title of a FRESH PURSUIT, &amp;c. In which I gave a &s;uccinct Account of the Oc|ca&s;ion, Ri&s;e and Progre&s;s of this Controver&s;ie, briefly al&s;o touching (by the way) &s;ome of tho&s;e <HI>Devices, VViles</HI> and <HI>Artifices</HI> which our Adver&s;aries have u&s;ed to <HI>divert</HI> us from the <HI>Pro&s;ecution</HI> of our <HI>Charge,</HI> and <HI>turn the Con|trover&s;ie into another Channel:</HI> Which having done, I <HI>re-inforced</HI> our Charge again&s;t <HI>T. Hicks</HI>
<PB N="138" REF="70"> and his Abettors, and took upon me to <HI>make it good</HI> again&s;t them before a Publick and free Auditory: But ina&s;much as they have taken no Notice of it, I think fit to reprint that Pa|ragraph wherein our Charge is re-inforced; The Words are the&s;e:</P>
<P>In Pur&s;uance of which Re&s;olution, <HI>I,</HI> who am one of the People called <HI>Quakers, do here|by</HI> on the behalf of my Brethren and my &s;elf, <HI>publickly re-charge the &s;aid</HI> Thomas Hicks <HI>with many foul</HI> Forgeries, <HI>gro&s;s</HI> Perver&s;ions, <HI>notorious</HI> Fal&s;hoods, Slanders, <HI>and Defamatory</HI> Expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>by him publi&s;hed again&s;t the</HI> Qua|kers <HI>in his fore-mentioned Books; which</HI> Charge <HI>I take upon me to make good again&s;t him, before a Publick and free Auditory. And I do hereby al&s;o charge all tho&s;e his Brethren</HI> (who&s;e Names are &s;ub&s;cribed to a Book of theirs, call'd, <HI>The Quakers Appeal an&s;wered, together with their Champion</HI> J. Ives, <HI>with being acce&s;&s;ory to the &s;aid</HI> Forgeries, Perver&s;ions, Slanders, &amp;c. <HI>in favouring, countenancing, abetting or defen|ding the &s;aid</HI> Tho. Hicks <HI>therein:</HI> And <HI>this Charge I fix and leave upon all their Heads, un|til Ju&s;tice be publickly done us herein; which I do hereby &s;olemnly demand of the whole Body of the</HI> Bapti&s;ts <HI>throughout this Nation</HI> (many of whom, I am per&s;waded, own not &s;uch Inju|&s;tice) <HI>as they will an&s;wer it before the ju&s;t God,
<PB N="139" REF="70"> and in the Heart of every &V;pright Man.</HI></P>
<P>This <HI>Charge</HI> I now <HI>re-iterate,</HI> and the &s;ame <HI>Demand</HI> of <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> I now again <HI>&s;olemnly make,</HI> an earne&s;tly <HI>pre&s;s</HI> it upon <HI>all</HI> &s;uch among you, as are any whit <HI>tender</HI> and <HI>con&s;cientious</HI> in your Way, and <HI>at your Door I leave it.</HI> The Per|&s;ons charg'd are &s;ome of your own Members: <HI>Do us Ju&s;tice; do us Right;</HI> bring them to the <HI>Te&s;t;</HI> let them <HI>acquit</HI> them&s;elves if they can; if not, let them <HI>&s;ink</HI> under their own <HI>Bur|den;</HI> but do not you, by <HI>adhering</HI> to them, or endeavouring to <HI>protect</HI> them, <HI>draw their Iniquity upon your own Heads.</HI></P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>T. E</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<P>Page 11. Line 24. for <HI>mu&s;t</HI> read <HI>may'&s;t.</HI> p. 35. l. 3. f. <HI>Equum</HI> r. <HI>Aequum.</HI> p. 41. l. 12. dele <HI>the &s;top</HI> (,) after <HI>&s;ay.</HI> p. 46. l. 21. f. <HI>adven|ture</HI> r. <HI>add we were.</HI> p. 52. l. 5. of the Margi|nal Note, f. <HI>he</HI> r. <HI>we.</HI> p. 54. l. 16. f. <HI>Ran</HI> r. <HI>Van.</HI> p. 70 l. 23. f. <HI>or reject</HI> r. <HI>and reject.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
