or in any case He now to vinâ—icate himself from such Injustice hath given us a Second Part wherein he hopes to make good what he charged upon us in his First by Quotations out of our owâ— Books which if faithfully done I shall freely acknowledge that a Quaker is quite another thing than a Christian And as this may suffice all but such as are resolved never to be satisfied with any thing that comes from us of the Reason of deferring our further Answer so having now that Ground to proceed upon which we never had before I shall with God's Assistance make the best of it I can in Defence of the Truth and the Innocency of them that profess it only give me leave to hint at a few Things which may not be improper to the Matter in hand because they do not a little discriminate and give to relish the Spirit of our Adversary CHAP. II. Something of the manner of his Dealing with us FIrst then he has taken a very unequal Way to represent our Faith Doctrine and Practice to the World in that he hath rather delivered his own Fury then a true Quaker and shews to the World rather what he would have us to be then what we are Can it be fairly done to propose the most knotty Questions for himself and give the weakest Answers for us Had he but had the Generosity of a Roman he would have given us fair Dealing for our Reputations To make a Fool and an Heretick both and then call him a Quaker is no less then a Rape because a violent Robbery committed upon those that go under that Name The best of Men can never escape let their Adversaries have but the Characterizing of them It had become T. Hicks if he would have shown himself a Christian and a Champion too first to have set down our Principles and Arguments as delivered and urged by us and then have enervated both by his pretended greater Strength of Scripture and Reason before he had made so many Trophies of Conquest But because had we been in the wrong this had been the Practice of a true Christian and that this has not been his Practice we are taught to infer that T. Hicks is thus far Antichristian Secondly He has not only made us Weak and Ridiculous by Answers no wayes to the Purpose but to belye our very Consciences and Principles For when he asks us Do you believe the Scriptures to be true Sayings of God he makes us to answer So far as they agree to the Light in me An Answer never so delivered by us And when he queries Will you be so liberal of your Revilings whether your Adversary gives Occasion or not He answereth for us It concerns us to render them as Ridiculous as we can and to make our Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themselves which is enough to us Certainly these things shew such premeditated and wilful Obstinacy to be wicked that were we what he represents us to be in this very Matter the severest Plagues and Judgments of the Eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion forever I fear T. Hicks measures us by himself and that the Answer he feigns to the Second part of his Dialogue will be his Lot as truly as he has there feignedly said it It would take up too much time to enlarge only thus much let me say That Man is hard put to it and Unjust with a Witness who not only invents Answers to dis-repute a Man or People but such as are very Lyes too against their Faith and Practice Thirdly Nor is this all but he hath managed the whole of his Dialogues in a Spirit of Prophanation by a tanting and inapplicable Use of many serious Words that have at one time or other been seasonably uttered by Sober Simple and Religious People to the insnaring Questions of such Trapanners as himself As for instance Thou manifests thy Darkness that thou art still in thy Imagination What dost thou witness in thy self I see thou art a poor dark Creature as by thy Talking is manifest yea it is manifest in the Light yea verily Alas for thee I bear witness against thee We are dead to Distinctions Thou manifestest a Perverse Spirit These Reader with the like Expressions doth this Ungodly Scoffer give to the World in the Name of a true Quaker as some of his best Answers and that to such Questions whose Matter hath been effectually considered and answered in many of our Books however his Spirit shows to whomsoever those Answers are improper in one sense they are not so to him But above all that a Man pretending to Religion himself and such a one too as next to us stands fairest for Reproach should give our serious Language in a Jeer as if we were fitter to be Derided than Informed is horridly wicked Can his Conscience be so seared as to handle holy Things without Fear Is Singularity grown so odious to an Anabaptist Preacher that he should make it a Subject for his Scorn and Drollery However this may resemble T. Hicks he does not herein answer the First Love of the People who go under that Name while he shews so much implacable Hatred to his Conscientious Neighbour thereby not discountenancing the prophane Rabble in their frequent Scoffs at us but furnishing them with such a Work of Darkness as excites them further to it making us to inherit those cruel Mockings which were once the Portion of his own Profession We know what answers not God's Witness shall never be able to abide the Tryal and therefore we are the less concerned in his Comical Abuses of us more becoming a Morefield or a Smithfield Stage-Play than a Christian Treatise Thus much and no more of the Spirit of the Man in general because more largely handled else-where CHAP. III. The Question Stated and accordingly Pursued Our Adversary proved false and weak WE shall now descend to the main Question and that which is the Ground of his Second Dialogue and without which there can be no Defence of his First viz. Whether those Doctrines and Expressions charged upon the People called Quakers by Tho. Hicks in both his Dialogues be really the Doctrines and Sayings of that People or not And afterwards Whether what we do own and is by him charged with Error is sufficiently opposed or proved such He affirms they are and undertakes to prove his Assertions out of their own Works which naturally leads me to consider what are those Doctrines and Expressions he hath charged upon us to be ours and what are those Proofs by which he endeavours to make good that Charge I shall first of all treat upon the more weighty Parts of Doctrine and reserve the more trivial Matters to the latter end The first considerable thing he endeavours to suggest against us is Our making the Light in every Man to be God which he undertakes to prove from G. Whitehead's Discourse upon John 1.4 In him
but they that are subject and are led by the Spirit of God they are the Children of God and Heirs according to the Promise Most Ungodly then must T. Hicks's Consequences be that because we say Christ enlightens every Man Saul persecuted the Church and the Heathens multiplied their False Gods by the Light within Like unto which is his Arguing p. 14. where he thus pretends to answer his feigned Quaker If indeed thou knowest not what I aim at in this Question then thy Light cannot be God as thou sayst it is for God knows the Hearts and Intentions of all Men thereby confounding the Light and Creature together and concluding Imbecillity Insufficiency and Ignorance in the Light which are the Imperfections of the Creature Was there ever any thing more Scoffing Prophane and Dark then this might not the Gentiles have treated the Christians after this manner that if they knew not all things whether it concerned them to know them or not the Christ and Spirit they pretended to be led by were not God This is so far from proving the Light not to be God that admitting of it it were to prove every Man a God Is every Master as ignorant as his Schollar because his Schollar knows not as much as his Master T. Hicks knows not all truth nay T. Hicks may be led into many Mistakes Is his Bible which he calls his Rule therefore the Cause Certainly by his way of Arguing against the Light if he be not Perfect Infallible the Scriptures must needs be Insufficient and Errable But if it be an Evil to make the Scripture accessory to T. H's Mistakes of equal Reason is it Impious in him to charge Men's Infirmities upon the Light and repute that Insufficient because they are Rebellious Education Prejudice Interest Self-Righteousness Evil Living bring Vails over the Understanding that though the Light shine in Darkness they comprehend it not When Saul's Formality and Pharisaical Righteousness became shaken by the Law of Light in the Conscience then and not till then he cries out Oh wretched Man that I am Whilst Saul gave more heed to his Outward Religion then the Light in his Conscience he did Persecute and thought it a Duty 't was when the Light struck him that he became awâ—kened But if he persecuted the Church by the Light within why not by the Spirit too since God gave the Jews his good Spirit If T. Hicks will say But he resisted that so say I as to the Light Formality Tradition and many Superstitions attended with an Ignorant and Harsh Zeal darkened him that he could not behold it But it is a gross Contradiction in T.H. to say The Light ought to be obeyed and yet say That it led Saul to persecute the Christians And he abuses many of the Heathen-Philosophers as well as the Light in saying That the Light within reproved them not for multiplying their Deities For all Learned Men must needs know as I have else-where at large proved that by the Light within they have decryed the Heathen-Gods maintained the Doctrine of the One only Wise God and for their Faith and Perseverance they have been Taken Imprisoned Arraigned Condemned and Executed though it went for justice upon the Enemies of the Gods Who knows not this is a Stranger to Story But hear T. Hicks I demand an Instance among the many Thousands of Mankind that hath been convinced or reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ by the meer Light within before any Revelation was brought unto them though I grant that the Light in them may reprove for those Sins the Common Light in all Mankind will not because thou hast borrowed much Light from the Scriptures which all have not Answ I may well suppose that as many have been reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ by the Light within as by the Scriptures and my Reasons are First Because those who crucified him were Admirers of the Scripture and pretended to prove out of their own Law that it was both lawful and necessary he should be put to Death whereas had they brought that Deed to the Light the Light would have shown it not to have been wrought in God which the Scriptures without that Light could not so effectually do 2 ly Those who by Scripture came to any Convincement originally received it from the Revelation of the Light within which both opened the Scriptures and their Understandings 3 ly Peter Andrew Matthew Nathanael the Centurion Ruler Diseased Woman c. confess'd him from the Illumination and Operation of the Light within since whatever makes Manifest or works Conviction is Light They were not Disobeyers and Rebellers against it who most readily received and followed Christ They who waited for Israel's Consolation lived in the Just Man's Path a shining Light which shined brighter and brighter to the leading such as walked in it to the great Light of Israel when he appeared Further To say that the Light we have being much of it borrowed from Scripture Reproves for those Sins the Common Light in all Men will not is great Wickedness for it is to say that the Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned all Men will not Reprove for all Sin thereby placing the Defect manifestly upon the Light as before and not upon the thick and gross Darkness through Disobedience of the People as well as that he attributes to the Scripture that Conviction which is chiefly due to the Light For by what Way can Mankind arrive at true Sight Discerning and Knowledge in the Understanding part but by the Light and that as it shines into the Understanding is it not the Light to whom every Deed should be brought to see if it be wrought in God or no What can any Man solidly and beneficially learn by the Scriptures but through the Discoveries of that Inward Light Are they not dark Sayings or rather Man dark to those Sayings if the holy Light arise not to shine forth and give to understand their Scope and Tendency All Scripture but Prophecy which was given forth by Inspiration as Reproof Exhortation Doctrine c. were first experienced or witnessed at whom Tho. Hicks may equally cavil and scoff What 's your Witnessing to me that through walking in the Light of the Lord the Just Man's Path and were written for the sake of others that they might be asisted and helpt to the same Experience but not another Way then through the same Steps they had trodden so that the Ground of the holy Ancients Experiences now written and of the true Knowledge of the Scriptures and Comfort from them as an outward Mean and whatever is to be obtained and enjoyed within is originally and chiefly ascribable to the Discoveries Convictions and Leadings of the blessed Light of Christ within through every Generation however variously the Principle may have been denominated as the Word of God nigh Wisdom Light Spirit c. under the Old Testament and Light Grace Truth
Thirty Copies and all differing in fine there are many Thousands of various Readings Now let 's Dialogue a little upon Supposition only Quaker If by Interpretation who shall interpret Meer Man Anabaptist No. Q. The Light within A. No. Q. The Spirit A. No. Q. The Church A. What Church Q. Shall Right Reason interpret A. Yes sayes T.H. Q. I Query Which of them is the Rule And when that 's found out and determined then let T. Hicks prove that it is unquestionably true and has remained Uncorrupted through every Generation And by that time he has done all this he shall have done a great deal towards our Satisfaction But what is this Right Reason A. 'T is a Faculty in Man rectified Q. Very well But who has this rectified Faculty A. Thomas Hicks say Q. Has none it but he A. Yes Q. Have none Right Reason but such A. It was an old Saying Dip or Damn but Interest has taught us more Discretion Q. Well then Others may have Right Reason that are not dipped A. We say so whatever we think among our selves Q. What 's the peculiar benefit of Dipping A. Much every way Q. But which way A. We are brought into Church-Fellowship Q. Are you brought into Fellowship with God by it A. No I cannot say so Q. No! what 's your Fellowship worth then the Saints Fellowship was in the Light and the true Church-Fellowship was in Spirit What do you receive when you are dipt A. Nothing Q Are you no better A. No. Q Why I once thought you received the Holy Ghost out of hand A. I thought so too but was Mistaken Q. Why wert thou dipt then A. To fulfil the Scripture Q. But what led thee to it A My own desire Q. Is not that Will-Worship A. What to do as the Scripture exhorts Q. How knowest thou it exhorted to it A. I thought so Q. Is that enough Where 's your being lead by God's Spirit But to our Business Q. How shall I know Tho. Hicks has this Reason before mention'd A. He loftily sayes so Q. But is that sufficient Well but where is this Right Reason A. In Men. Q. Is it so Then it seems that which gives the true Knowledge of the Scripture is in Man But tell me honestly Do ye believe this Right Reason may Err A. No For then it were not Right Reason if it could be Wrong Q. Well argued But if a Man Errs is it not the Fault of Right Reason A. By no means Q. Thou speakest honestly But why then does T. Hicks charge the Light the Quakers profess with every short-sighted imperfect Saying or Action of this or any other Generation A. Does he Q. Yes it is the great Drift of his Books A. Truly that 's not fair Q. Honestly said But if this Right Reason cannot Err then Man cannot Err A. No that does not follow for Man may not submit to it Q. Why may Man have something in him that cannot Err and he not be Unerrable A. Yes Q Rightly said But why then does T. Hicks conclude so of â—â— A. It is unfairly done Q. Very well But you say that this Right Reason is part of Man's Soul or I am mistaken see Dial. pag. 32. If so then Man's Soul must be Infallible A. Oh Infallible that word affrights us What Infallible Pray what 's Infallible Q. Poor Man I see it scares thee indeed Why Unerrable and Infallible are all one Yea Right Reason is Infallible by the same Reason that it cannot be Wrong A. But the Popes talk of being Infallible are not you like them Q. Never the more like them for that Talking and Being so are Two Things Men should not deny the true Christ because of an Imposture nor any fear Infallibility because the Pope makes Market with such Pretences If thou art not certain of what thou believest thou hast not that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints for that was Certain and therefore Infallible A. Why Is Certain and Infallible all one Q. Yes Certainty and Infallibility is the same But what think'st thou of the Light in this Case under Debate for either it is the Rule or it is given to understand use the Rule or else it s given for nothing A. 'T is not the Rule we are taught to say and yet we cannot conclude it to be given for nothing Q. Very well then it must be given in order to understand and use the Rule Now supposing the Scriptures be the Rule that which informs me of my Rule and teaches me how to use it must be greater then my Rule in that it teaches me to know and do that my Rule cannot do of it self I query then If this Light be not my Rule how and which Way I come to understand and use this Rule So that it is eminently the Rule because of its Present Immediate and Certain Direction and Knowledge and the Scripture at most but a kind of Declaratory and Secondary Rule and therefore subject to the Holy Spirit in the Apostles and primitive Christians who took not Measures by it when it distinguisht the Ceremonial from the Moral Precepts so intermixed in the 19th of Leviticus and other places but their Minds being exercised and guided by that Holy Living Rule they left off or continued for a time several Jewish Observations as there might be a Service therein signified to them from that Living Rule The Light and Spirit of God then is both THE Rule of Faith and Guide of Life superior to the Scriptures and That by which only they can be rightly known believed and fulfilled A Doctrine Evangelical and not disowned by those first Protestants who testified that no Man could understand the Scriptures given forth by Inspiration but by a measure of the same Spirit To conclude Historical Faith Scripture is a Rule of but Doctrinal and Saving Faith the Light and Spirit of God can only be the Rule of for that which giveth Faith is only that which rules Faith 3 But says he how could you have known that Swearing in any Case were Vnlawful if it had not been written Swear not at all Is not then that Scripture your Rule in this Case But this shews both the Ignorance of T. Hicks in the Writings of the best Gentiles and his Acknowledgment of the Light 's Sufficiency in case we are able to prove Swearing disallowed and dispractâ—ised before Christ's Coming in the Flesh The Seven Wise Men famous among the Greeks and Contemporaries above five hundred years before Christ came in the Flesh esteemed Swearing but a Remedy against Corruption in Evidence To be sure they both believ'd and exhorted People to that State which needed it not Socrates plainly sayes that there is a Life more firm and unquestionable then an Oath Consequently Swearing not the best State And Xenocrates was had in that Veneration in Athens for his exceeding Virtue that the Magistrates thought it a questioning of his Honesty to offer
's Defence pag 101. But the truth of the matter I will relate out of that Book it self which has been most partially and basely represented by him The Priest's Query lies thus Whether the Scripture being Carnal and the Letter Killing as you say we may read them without Danger Answ The Letter which killeth 2 Cor. 3.6 is Dangerous for thou takest it here to war withal against the Saints with thy Carnal Mind giving out thy Carnal Expositions upon it And the Ministers of the Lâ—tter are Ministers of Death which is to Condemnation and you take it to make a Trade with it and with what the Prophets Christ and the Apostles said so that some have Sixty some an Hundred pound a Year But Christ cryed Wo unto such Whited Walls And here you read with Danger who speak of them and speak a Lye because you speak of your selves and you wrest the Scriptures to your own Destruction and to you it is Dangerous to read or speak of it who know not the Liâ—e of it as the Pharisees who were learned in the Letter but knew not Châ—ist But I say Blessed is he that doth read and doth understand This is the true Account in brief â—f their Answer to the Priâ—st's Quâ—ry And I appeal to God's Witness in the Reader 's Conscience if any thing of whâ—t that Vile Man would suggest is to be found in these Mâ—ns Words who by Letter evidently mean the Legal State of Condemnation by Dangerous not what Edification was to be got with respect to reading but that Aggravation of Punishment which would be the Recompence of those who make a Trade of them and oppose them Pharisee like to the Life and Spirit of Christ Jesus wresting them to their own Destruction Reading to such End and Purpose will prove Dangerous with a Witness And that it was at such a sort of Reading they struck consider this Passage But I say Blessed is he that doth read and doth understand Let this Forgery so obvious ring through the Streets and Towns where-ever his Book or Name is known however this is little to what 's behind For my part I speak my Conscience in Sincerity I had rather perish off the Earth then live so great a Burden of foul Dishonesty as I doubt not but a little time will manifest him to be That the Baseness of his Intentions in this kind of Arguing may yet further appear let this gross Inference directly charged by him upon our Principle of the Light 's being our Rule be diligently considered From our Asserting the Light Within to be our Rule he tells the World That we mean the holy Qualification that is in us Which were it true he would hit the Mark when he sayes that Holiness being a Conformity to the Rule it cannot be the Rule But never yet certainly did any but Thomas Hicks so mis-represent the poor Quaker Nay he Confounds and Contradicts himself How can we be said to make our Holiness the Rule when we affirm it only to be a walking up to the Light within which is Holy He sayes that we assert the Light to be the Rule how then is our Obedience to it the Rule for that is true Holiness Is there no difference between a Rule and Obedience to it Holy Life and that which gives it or makes it so What a Meeting here is of Ignorance Malice and Lying Any thing to spoil the Quakers but God will break the Bow and Spear of their Enemies Again From his Quaker's telling him Thou takest up the Saints Words but if thou hast not the same Spirit what are the Words to thee he dares to suggest that our Opinion of the Light 's Sufficiency in every Man cannot be true And all the Reason he gives us for his strange Collusion is this That those Words imply that the Spirit or Light of God is not in all Men. Now what is more evident then first That it is not our Answer 2. That it concerns not the Sufficiency so much as the Universallity of it 3. By not having the Spirit or Light is not meant that we believe that God has not given a Measure of his Good Spirit unto all to profit with or that there be some whom he never enlightened but that they so have not the Spirit as to walk by it be benefitted by it or come to enjoy it as their Teacher and Comforter and that some may be said not to be Enlightened who are not through Faith in and Obedience to the Light come to be advantaged and made Children of Light by it Let this suffice at present to shew the Man's Ignorance of our Principles or his great Unrighteousness to pervert them I shall now attend the next Point by him handled and that is Christ's Person and our Faith in him which he sayes we deny and indeed he does but say it CHAP. VI. Of our Faith in Christ HIs next Cavil is at our Belief in Christ and which is worse he would be thought a Christian in doing so The great Stress lies here Tho. Hicks would have the World think we Equivocate about our Faith in That Christ which after the Flesh appeared and dyed at Jerusalem The Reason of all this Clamour and Injustice on the part of our angry and restless Adversary is this if I wrong him let him shew me The Quakers say that Christ is in them Christ is God is God Man in them Again The Quakers say that Christ is in them But since there is but One Christ who was born of a Virgin and that he suffered at Jerusalem being there crucified can that Christ be in Man The false Doctrine or Absurdity he would run us upon is one of these two Either that we deny Christ's Manhood or that He is actually in our Bodies with that Body he appeared in at Jerusalem which is Impossible witness this one Passage If God be Christ as Penn saith or If the Light within you be the Christ as Naylor and Hubberthorn affirm is it proper or safe to say God was Slain or the Light in you was Crucified To which I answer That as in other things so in this our Adversary has shewn his great Ignorance or Malice For is it reasonable to infer from our Affirming in Scripture Language Christ is in the Saints that we deny him as to his Visible and Bodily Appearance in the World and that because he is God therefore he was never Man or that the Word took not Flesh Is this to understand us right or give the World a true measure of our Belief who is it confesseth Christ to be every where and if so then in his People see Cont. p. 34. Ah God the Righteous Judge shall plead with thee in a Day that thou shalt not be able to escape his Terrible Recompence if thou repentest not Let it suffice to the sober Reader for of him I have little Hopes that we do believe that Christ who is God over all blessed
how knows he that the Scriptures were writ by Inspiration If he sayes he was told so I ask how they knew it If they say they were told so too and so upwards I ask what Assurance can any Man 's Say-so or Hear-say be in a Matter of such Importance Nay Suppose I should grant them a True Tradition from the Apostles times I ask how knew they to whom they were writ that they were the Fruits of Divine Inspiration In short take away all Inward Testimony or the Certainty and Sufficiency of it and Farewell to all Right Belief of the Scriptures themselves Behold the Strait he is run into But if at last T.H. shall desire a little more room and acknowledge the Spirit must give the Discerning and Relish and most Convincing Testimony will it not follow that he believeth the Scriptures and performeth what may be his Duty therein upon that Conviction and not meerly because written or recommended by any Man whatever But he proceeds to prove E.B. as he thinks an Enemy to God's Commandments and a very Lyar. The thing he Wickedly but in vain aims at He quotes him thus Quak. You are not dead with Christ who are yet subject to Ordinances E.B. p. 105. To which hear him Christ The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us that they who are subject to and keep the Commandments of God are the Children of God and they who do not are Lyars See the first Epistle of John 2.3 4. and Chap. 5.2 3. Yet this Wicked Man saith That they who are subject to Ordinances are not Dead with Christ Edw. Burroughs's Words are those of the Scriptures of Truth therefore true Words in themselves But how does E.B. abolish what God perpetuates I am sure I can plainly perceive that Tho. Hicks does call a Conscientious Departed Sufferer and Prisoner unto Death for the Testimony of Jesus Wicked Man because he dared not be guilty of Will-Worship by going into any Practice of Worship without the Leading of God's Spirit Six Particulars comprehend my Answer in brief First That Edw. Burroughs only pleaded against such Performances under the Name of Ordinances as were but Shadowy Elementary and Perishable Things and which they were not led to by God's Spirit but took up unwarrantably and by meer Imitation and therefore Will-Worship 2. That Thomas Hicks implies by calling him Wicked Man that it is a Wickedness not to take up any Outward or Visible Part of Worship in a Man 's own Will ' and Time But to stay God's Time and wait for the Leadings of God's Spirit From whence I infer â—e is no Child of God for every such one is led by the Spirit of God therefore no better then an Ape or Imitator of the Out-sides of Religion In short a Will-worshipper and not a Worshipper of God in the Spirit and in the Truth 3. Let it be observed that there is not so much as the least mention made in all the Epistles of that Beloved Disciple of any of those Ordinances which stood in Visible and Corruptible Elements but the Scope and Tendency of them is the most Inward and Spiritual of any of the Apostolical Writings So that to bring in things of a Temporary Shadowy Nature among the Spiritual and Durable Commands of Christ under the New Covenant State without keeping of which Men incur Eternal Wrath is an Abuse both of the Apostle's Words and E. B's which he intended by them to confute 4. T. Hicks does as good as tell us That the Commandments of God may be kept without the Spirit of God since he opposes the Necessity of our Doing God's Commandments to our doing them in the Time and Will and by the Assistance of God's Spirit O Irreligious Man and Enemy to God's Spirit 5. It plainly tells us that Tho. Hicks has no Command in himself for doing what he does that the bare Authority of the Scripture is all he has to induce him which raizes to the Ground that old Protestant Doctrine of Believing the Scriptures from an Inward Testimony and Worshipping God in Spirit and Truth 6. Lastly If all are Lyars that keep not God's Commandments and therefore none of his Children as saith the Place as asserts T. Hicks then either T.H. keeps God's Commandments and so is perfect or he must be a Lyar and so no Child of God That he keeps not God's Commands I prove If such as say that Man cannot fulfil obey or keep the Law nor the Gospel pray preach dip eat Bread and drink Wine nor live without Sin keeps not God's Commandments but so doth T.H. expresly or implicitely therefore he keeps not God's Commandments and consequently is a Lyar and no Child of God For the Lyar is for the Lake To say we deny Obedience to God's Commands because we deny the present Necessity or Use of their Water Bread and Wine will never hurt us For First we know and they confess that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more Hidden and Spiritual Substance 2. That they were to endure no longer then till the Substance was come Now the time of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost Christ's only Baptism therefore called the One Baptism has been long since come Consequently the other which was John's was fulfilled and as becomes a Fore-runner ought to cease The like may be said of the Bread and Wine for as there is but One Baptism so is there but One Bread The Least in the Kingdom was Greater then John 's Water-Baptism He was to Decrease Christ to Increase Jesus Baptized not with Water 'T is true he bid his Apostles Go Teach Baptizing c. but no Water is mentioned But Luke in the 1st of the Acts sayes that before Christ gave that Commission mention'd by Matthew said John Baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence and then comes the Commission in Force Go Teach Baptizing c. How With the Holy Ghost turning People from Darkness to Light and from the Power of Satan unto God 3. They were but the more Noble among the Meats and Drinks and divers Washings that the Apostle said were but Shadows of the Good Things to come For I would not that any should be so Sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish those Shadows of the Jews and institute other in their room by no means He came to remove change and abolish the very Nature of such Ordinances and noâ— the particular Ordinances only to wit an Outward Shadowy or Figurative Worship and Religion For it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks and divers Washings but because they were Meats Drinks and divers outward Washings at all which never could nor can cleanse the Conscience from dead Works nor give Eternal Life to the Soul else wherein would the Change be I affirm by that one Scripture Circumcision is as much in force as Water-Baptism and the Paschal Lamb as
this Seed That to the Carnal Mind which rules in any the Commands of Christ are not given And that the Spirit not only manifesteth the Promises but exerciseth Faith in and fulfils them out of E.B. G.K. G.W. p. 106. â—m Rev. p 77 78. Chr. Asc p. 10. Query Is â—othiâ—g else taught but this Seed then your Minâ—stry is only God Preaching to Himself c. Will you 〈◊〉 of Infallibility and Talk like Mad-Men YOU ARE IMPLACABLE ENEMIES TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION MEN INSPIRED BY SATAN AND AS VILE IMPOSTORS AS EVER WERE Here stop a while Certainly Reader No Man was ever given up to a Spirit of greater Injustice Dishonesty and bitter Rage against any People then T. Hicks seems to be against us He does not so much prove us Bad as he would make us so that he may cover his Wickedness against us What false Doctrine is it to preach People to the Seed God has sown in which is Virtue Life and Power to bring forth blessed Fruits to God To suggest from thence that there is nothing to be taught but the Seed is great Darkness and Prejudice For the Ministry is not to teach the Seed but to bring down and humble the Mind of Man to it that the Mind may be taught and the Seed delivered from under the Pressure of Sin and Ignorance Strange Contradiction that the Seed should be sown in Man for its own Salvation and not for Man's What but Wickedness it self could thus write of us And that the Carnal Mind receives not the Things of God because it perceives them not is according to Scripture if not according to Tho. Hicks But it is not the first time by many that Scripture in a Quaker's Book has been given under that Name for gross Error and Delusion That the Spirit manifests the Promises exerciseth Faith in and fulfils them cannot be False Doctrine if it be allowed to give a true Understanding of them and if it gives to exercise Faith in them and finally to accomplish or fulfil them But his Insinuation lies here that the Spirit of God is that which believes in God and exercises Faith for it self in God which was never G. W's Intent But as I have said the Spirit is that only which gives us Faith and exerciseth that Faith it gives in the Promises of God which are Yea and Amen in that Seed the Quakers preach People to believe and grow in for which T. Hicks is pleased to call us Praters Canters Enthusiasts Mad Men Idle Non-sensical Blasphemous Inspired of Satan and as Vile Impostors as ever were c. For which God Almighty rebuke his Envious Enraged and Unclean Spirit CHAP. XII Of Resurrection and Rewards THe last great Doctrine he insinuates our Denial of is that of the Resurrection from the Dead That which he brings under the Quaker's Name as a sufficient Proof for that Suggestion I shall relate that every Impartial Reader may be satisfied of the Man's Inconsistency with sound Doctrine as well as the Common Justice of Doing as he would be done by In Answer to his Questions about the Resurrection of the same Carnal Body that Dyes he brings in G. Whitehead thus Q. Is it not written Thou Fool that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be but God gives a Body as pleaseth him Thus saith Tho. Hicks Whitehead replied and G. Fox the Younger speaks to the same purpose Two Fools that say This Body of Natural Flesh and Bones shall rise I say The Body which is sown is not the Body which shall be I query saith he Whether both these Persons do not tacitly deny the Resurrection of the Body Now that T.H. hath shown himself at once Dishonest and Erroneous too Let it be observed 1. That from our Denyal of the Resurrection of the same Natural Fleshly Body he absolutely infers and concludes our Denyal of the Resurrection of the Body in any Sense which is great Injustice to any Adversary 2. Let it be well observed that he makes the Scripture it self to deny the Resurrection and so Heterodox by Accounting G. Whitehead and G. Fox their Answers in Scripture-Language to be a Denyal of the Resurrection For if Thomas Hicks does not intend by his Arguing That the same Body that dyed without any Mutation shall rise again what makes him to quarrel the Apostle Paul's saying Thou Fool that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be and repute us Hereticks for believing him Certainly his gross Belief of the Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture Reason and the Belief of all Men right in their Wits in the Point Who can have the Confidence to call the Scripture his Rule and yet Contradict it so egregiously as when the Apostle tells us It is not the same Body that is sown that shall be to assert that it is the same Body and that who sayes the Contrary denies the Resurrection of the Dead and Eternal Recompence In short We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to Eternal Recompence and that every Seed shall have its own Body and rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What so must we forever deny the gross Conceits of T.H. and his Adherents concerning the Resurrection But Tho. Hicks would have us believe that the Apostle said Thou Fool to him that denyed and not him that owned the Resurrection But he must excuse us if we refuse to Credit him for it was not Whether every Seed should rise with its own Body or that Bodies should rise but as taking that for granted the Question was What Bodies they should be So that Tâ—ou Fool is most due to T. Hicks and his Associates who are not with us satisfied to leave all with the Lord but intrude and query What Bodies shall rise Wherefore no Answer can be more proper to him then Thou Fool Thomas Hicks That which thou sowest is nâ—t the Body that shall be But he thinks he is not without Reason For sayes he If the It in the Text be not the same Body how can that be called a Resurrection for that supposeth the same I Answer If a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for Shame let us never make so much Stir against the Doctrine of Transsubstantiation for the Absurdity of that is rather out-done then equalled by this Carnal Resurrection The Papists say That the Bread and Wine after Consecration are very Christ though the Accidents remain Tho. Hicks and abundance of that sort of Men hold That Man's Body in the Resurrection is the same with that Carnal Body buried and yet that it is changed to a Spiritual Body How it is possible that It should be the same and not the same How that Body and yet as the Apostle sayes Thou sowest not that Body that shall be is very hard to reconcile And truly that which yet is very strange Those Three Scriptures peculiarly
cited in Defence of his gross Conceit of the Râ—surrection are either relative of another Matter or directly opposite to and inconsistent with his Assertion 1. And this Mortal shall put on Immortality this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption 1 Cor 15.53 I grant that this implies a Change but I deny that it so much as intimates that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried No the Apostle not only tells us that the Body sown is not the Body that shall be but that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God vers 50. If the Flesh and Blood be transmuted or changed into no Flesh and Blood I query and I think I may do it safely too Whether It be the same Flesh and Blood that is changed into no Flesh and Blood that is the Body raised O Absurd Dark and Carnal Man Nor am I afraid to tell him that the Scripture cannot rationally be taken strictly as translated neither ought many more for there are certain Figures Modes and Wayes proper to that Language in which this Epistle was written which are to be understood with Allowances for how can the Mortal taken for Mortality and not him who in part is Mortal put on Immortality It is Impossible Can Mortality be cloathed with Immortality then it seems that Mortality is the Person and Immortality the Garment If Thomas Hicks should tell me No it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Interpretation as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body If so it is as Lawful for me and more if in the Right to construe It thus That we who are Mortals respecting our Bodies put off the Mortal Part and put on instead thereof Immortality suitable to that weighty Passage of the Apostle Paul For We know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in Heavens which as directly concludes the Charge not of Accidents but Bodies from an Earthly House or Tabernacle to an Heavenly House or Building as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels To conclude Since Mortality can not properly put on Immortality but Man that is cloathed with Mortality may put off or exchange Mortality for Immortality because otherwise Mortality would have Immortality for its Garment a thing impossible and absurd I do infer that this place yields no Strength at all to Thomas Hicks's gross Apprehension of the Resurrection 2. His next Scripture is that in the Romans But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead dwell in you he that rais'd up Christ from the Dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you But this is nothing to T. H's Purpose in the least For the Apostle treats not here of the Resurrection of Dead Carnal Bodies in our Adversary's Sence as the whole Chapter seriously read proves but of the Inward Work of the Spirit in order to the making Man's Body a fit Temple for the holy Ghost to dwell in as he writ to the Corrinthians 3. The third place he brings is out of the Epistle Paul writ to the Philippians He shall change our Vile Bodies Upon which he sayâ—s This cannot be meant of a New-created Bodâ— because such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed But what makes this for his Conceit Surely nothing For if the Vile Body he changed then it is not that Vile Body therefore not the same Body Again to say that Scripture can't be meant of a New-Created Body because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed makes much against him For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be is Vile else what means his Saying Because such a Body cannot be said TO BE not to have been either Vile or Changed 2. Though the Body That shall be may not be said to be either Vile or Changed yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body and so the Vile Body Changed for one that is Glorious It was either Ignorantly or Sophistically done in Thomas Hicks to imply That Body that shall be could not be said to be Changed since the Change lies on the side of the Vile Body that is exchanged for a more Glorious Body Therefore all along we must conclude it is not the same but another Body But how Disingenuous is Tho Hicks to repute G. W's Answer in the Apostle's Words a pressing the Metaphor too far and yet by so doing runs himself into this Dark Imagination of a Fleshly Resurrection But Tho. Hicks thinks The Joyes of Heaven Imperfect else I Answer Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glory Imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halfes If it be so Unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joyes Celestial Is it not in measure Unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul held by many Baptists or I am mistaken But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Widdow and so in a State of Mourning and Disconsolateness to be without its Beloved Body which State is but a better sort of Purgatory See T.V. and T.D. What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body that he might be present with the Lord if such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy as our Adversaries in the Point of the Resurrection suggest if not boldly affirm In short If the compleat Happiness of the Soul rests in a Re-union to a Carnal Body for such it is sown then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran for such a Heaven and the Joyes of it suite admirably well with such a Resurrection The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit I thus Contract 1. Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dissolution and no Resurrection of that which is dissolved being Earthly and Unfit for a Celestial Paradice and therefore holds forth a Building of God and House Eternal in the Heavens 2. If the Body be the same it must have the same Nature otherwise not the same Body But if it have the same Nature it will be Corruptible still Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures not Immortal Neither can Mortal be Immortal and yet the same Nature as before for that Change made tell me What remains of the Old Earthly Body 3. It makes the Soul Uncapable of Compleat Happiness without a Fleshly Body as if Heaven were an Earthly Place to see walk in and all our Outward Senses to be enjoyed and exercised as in this World though in an higher Degree which I call Mahometism For what Spiritual Happiness the Body now can have
reject their Lyes and lay their Slanders at their own Door they report us a sort of Foul-Mouth'd-People Censorious and Judging and which is most intollerable they account such Carriage towards us Gospel-Zeal Plain-Dealing which are only better Words for Reviling and Railing But whilst some have thus shewn themselves against us upon close Encounters with our Books Tho. Hicks that he may be Extraordinary though in Wickedness forges Ill Language under our Name that he may the better practise Railing against the Quakers and insinuate with the Vulgar for a Reality a very Fiction but since the Answers as they are he pretends to condemn as bad he is at once to be blamed for Forgery and forging that which is Reprovable too But that which deserves our notice is that Tho. Hicks should be the Man of all others that takes most upon him to rate the Quakers for their Sharp Dealing with their Adversaries who is not only Unjust in doing so but Excessive in his Bitterness against them witness thâ—se Scurrilous Invective Expressions A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker Their owning Christ and the Christ they own a meer Mystical Romance Cheats and Impostures Lyars Malignant Errors Their Hypocrisie Deceit Equivocations The way they arived to that Degree of Perfection was by Quaking Foaming at the Mouth with dreadfâ—l Roarings and Howlings and this he sayes the Devil Influenced us unto Again Delusions Impertinent Canting Non-sense Blasphemy The Devil's Slaves Paganism Satan's Snares Pernicious and Perilous Errors They are inspired and influenced by that grand Impostor the Devil Blasphemous and Ridiculous Canting Enthusiastical They decoy and trapan Your Idle Non-sensical and Blasphemous Prating Inspired by Satan You are as Vile Impostors as ever were Thus much of Us and our Way in general besides his Knaves Cox-combs Impudent and Audacious Fellows that he has called our Friends in Religious Conferences I think it not unseasonable to say something of that Entertainment I have had at his hand I am wholely a Stranger to him I ever had an Esteem and tender Regard to the Sober and Tender-hearted among that People with whom he walks I know not that ever I had to do with them in general and I am sure nothing at all with Tho. Hicks in particular as to Religious Controversie I may further say that some of them have known me long my Temper Education early Dissent from National Worships my Sufferings upon it and if they will be true to me they must say I have had the keeping of a Good Conscience above the one half of my Life in my Eye being now about twenty nine Years old Now that T. Hicks in the midst of his severe Rebukes of us as abusive to our Adversaries should treat me with such Unhandsome Reflections as Confident Dictates intoxicated with Pride Tinkling and Ridiculous Words Arrogant and Conceited Man Confident Dictator Rash Inconsiderate and Opinionated I appeal from W. Penn in his Rage and Fury His Talk beray'd his Arrogancy transported with Pride and Error Brazen'd with Impudence Rage and Folly Presipitate into Blasphemy I say that he should thus vent his Passion and Displeasure upon me who never had to do with him is certainly very Unchristian and altogether Unworthy of any Man that pretends to correct others But why Transported with Pride and Error only because I said in Defence of God's revealing his Will to Man that methinks this one Demonstration should satisfie all viz. when neither Man nor Scriptures are near us there continually attends us that Spirit that immediately informs us of our Words Thoughts and Deeds and gives us true Directions what to do and what to leave undone And this is the whole Provocation or Reason assigned by him for such Rude and Unhandsom Expressions and that to a Man that never had to do with him God's Witness in all Consciences judge betwixt us if so true an Expression deserves such Affronts and if such an Answer ought to pass for a Confutation Besides it is basely done of any Man to run down the Labours of any Man by Shreads and Scraps of Matter or to fall upon a Conclusion without so much as encountring one of those many Arguments that leads to it A Way T. Hicks of all Men has proved himself most Expert and most Unjust in But why Confident Dictator and brazened with Impudence Rage and Folly Because in my Second Part of the Apology in Answer to T. Jenner a Priest in Ireland who had publisht scores of Lyes Scandals and Personal Defamations against many of our Friends and particularly against my self that his Book seemed but an Epitome of Lyes and Abuse I did say O wretched Impudence Could any but a Priest brazn'd with Rage and Folly ever pronounce so great a Lye as that we should persecute the Truth and its Followers with bitter Revilings and Reproachings when yet sayes T. Hicks that to which Penn thus replyes is such a matter of Fact that Thousands can bear Witness to the Truth of it But herein has he done foolishly for it being yet disputable betwixt us what is Truth and what is Persecuting and what is Reviling Can he have so little Modesty in his Cryes against Impudence as to make our Accusers Parties either Judges or Witnesses We shall submit it to an Impartial Judgment but not to Tho. Hicks's Pride and Passion However this is most true that to call Christ's Light an Ignis Fatuus a dim Light the Spirit of the Devil that we are of the Devil that we are possest are Witches acted and mov'd by Satan Enemies to God Christ the Spirit Religion humane Societies with many Stories that we have offered to prove Lyes in the Sight of all Men and particularly what he charged upon my self viz. That Penn another of their Teachers did boldly affirm to a Friend of mine in Dublin that whosoever shall expect to be saved by that Jesus Christ that was born in Judea and suffered at Jerusalem shall be deceiv'd which I declare to be a Lye in the whole and every part of it I say this is certain that so much evil Treatment may well extort that sharp and just Rebuke from me But if it be Criminal I know in T. Hicks's account it is for me so to Character a Priest that had written an entire Book against us in which he had most wickedly belyed our Principles and abused our Friends and bespattered my self in particular What can He think of himself to say so much more of me who never writ against the Anabaptists in general nor Tho. Hicks in particular much less that I have vented or aggravated so many horrible Lyes against either them or him If his Conscience condemn him not of Baseness Passion and Partiality it is feared and if the Party he belongs to judge him not for such Unjust Procedure they will be condemn'd of God's Light that will bring every Unfruitfâ—l Word and Work into judgment His Insinuating that I entitule J. Nailors Blasphemy
and Railing wherewith he was charged at Bristol upon the Holy Spirit and that neither he had nor I have Words enough to signifie our Venom and Malignity because I said of James Nailors Book writ long before his being so charged That if he had treated that accursed Stock of Hirelings ten thousand times more sharply it had been but enough is like the rest of his Vngodly Perversions already noted For first I speak against Hirâ—lings and I have said nothing of them that the Holy Prophets have not exceeded who called them Dumb Dâ—gs Greedy Dogs Wolves and such like But T. Hicks's Concern for Hirelings shews both that he is one himself and indeed has been so a long time and next that he is fallen with many more from the fiâ—st Love and Principle of that People called Anabaptists 2. From my Justifying James Nailor's Sharpness in a particular Contrâ—vâ—â—sie â—gainst a Deceitful Lâ—ing Prâ—eâ—â— he infeâ—s thâ—t I dâ—fend him as to his pâ—blick Miscâ—riâ—gâ—s at Bristol Iâ— this thy Conscience hath all thy pretended Scâ—iptural Doctrines Knowledge â—tudy Preachmâ—nts c. brought thee no further God will bâ—â—â—t it all and bring thee to Judgmâ—nt for â— clerâ—â—â—gs Well may I return the third particular against thy self and Warn all People how they adhere to a Man fâ—â—'d with so much Vnâ—ruth Slander Perversion and Forgery who art alienâ—ted from Gâ—d's Light as near as it is to thee and that Heavenly Life that is felt therein of all those who believe and obey the Light Reader Let us not be esteemed Railers because we rebuke Railing Nor our Relâ—gious â—ensure of their Perversions Forgeries and Prophâ—ness be accounted Reviling 'T is Trouble enough to us to be thus conceâ—ned in Controversie We would find other Employment if such Envious Spirits found not this for us 'T is not our Choice but theirs They began and which is worse when the Powers left off Their Restlesâ— Spirit shows it must have its Vent some way Policy and Enmity together have turn'd it upon us so that our Peace from the Powers proves a Persecution from some of the Professors as the Experience of the base Cowardize of many among them gives us to remember that the Powers Peâ—secution was the time of their Peace who like Insects lay dead during those Winter Seasons We were then their made Walls to flat the Shot and Bulworks to resist the Assaults and the more Moderate prayed that we might be enabled to stand But no sooner were we come out of that Fiery Furnace then we were saluted with an Imposture from Lincoln and a Lâ—e from Dover both subscribed by Anabaptist â—reâ—chers with several Clamorâ—us Books since An Ill Recâ—mpencâ— indeed for our Love and Sufferings But frâ—m God is our Reward therefore we are not moved with whom we leave our Innocency and â—e will Effectually plead our Cause with our Adversaries His SCOFFS or slight ESTEEM of WITNESSING With a Word to Professors With a Conclusive Supplication to the Lord. Arg. VI. He that Slights and Scoffs at Witnessing is no True Christian but that doth Tho. Hicks therefore no true Christian It was the Way of the True Prophets Apostles and Churches of Christ to declare of what they had known Experimentally of God and his Work otherwise they must have been uncertain of the Truth of those Things they have recommended to us And since the Times of Reformation from the Thickness of Popery Experiences have been very Excellent Things I remember though very young to Thousands what a great Stir and Flockings there has been in my time after such Preachers who could by any Experiences approach the Consciences and tell People upon Tryal what God was and what Christ was and the Holy Spirit with respect to the Soul of Man as to Manifestation Operation Conviction Faith Temptation Victory over Sin Regeneration and the like Indeed it was the Want of this Preaching that gave such a Dis-relish to People of the National Priests and they suffered not a little for their Change Sure I am some Forms reputed less Phanatical then that in which T. Hicks is prest closely after such a Ministry and utterly decryed all other to be Beneficial in the Church of Christ But the Lord God having appeared in a more Immediate and Spiritual Manner some having taken up their Rest by the way therby losing their first Desire and Love and so the more Insensible of these further Breakin gs forth of God's Power amongst them under the more refined Form they have sat down in and where the Lord in some Measure might have appeared to them do they in this Day set themselves to War against the Light and Life of Christ within For indeed it is a State too Inward Self-less and Spiritual for their Carnal Minds that can only perform an Outward and Formal Worship to arrive at Now such being closely beset in their Fading and Dying Forms and many on all hands in whom there are any tender Desires after God's Invisible Presence falling from them like Men that seek themselves and not the Lord they are belabouring hard to prevent such a Separation from them and indeed they are grown so Dry Barren of all Good by their Opposition to the Lord's Truth as now revealed among us that they come to lose with their former good Desires their very Doctrine And that which above all things was once most desirable to the better Sort of them and applauded by all is become a Theam for Scorn and Derision I mean WITNESSING Thomas Hicks though an Anabaptist-Preacher cannot abide to hear of Witnessing He had as lieu meet with the Lye as Witnessing for an Answer He commonly bestows Ignorance Folly or such like upon It for a Companion And though another Return might be as easily found out by him yet because it may not so well suite the Scoffer and Prophane WE WITNESS IT is to go in its room To which kind of Answer he usually replies What is Thy Witnessing to Me Do not put us off with your Witnessings which signifie nothing to us Thy Commands and Witnessing are much alike to me with more of this kind My Friends In the Love of God that would have you redeemed and saved I beseech you turn away from such Blind Guides their Paths are Darkness and the End thereof Death If ever you will know and worship God aright you must come to the measure of his Spirit in you that is given to convince the World of Sin and you must know the Work thereof Experimentally in you or your Souls perish for ever My Friends I have a great Stress upon me concerning you would I could reach into every Soul of you that you might be toucht with this true Testimony for I know not more truly that God is then that I feel him to be a Rewarder of every Man according to his Works and such as Men sow they must reap And truly my Friends Time passeth away apace and the Day
Conscience to appeal to God as one not guilty of such vile Injustâ—ce as that of charging us with false things and refer the Reader to Examine the Quotations when here â—s not one Quotation nor the colour of one that the Quakers did ever thus speak of or render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Authority then the Fables of Aesop What will not Envy and Wickedness had this Man to say against us Doth this agree with â—is Pretence That all he intended was only our Conviction and Recovery Dial. p. 10. Is it not rather to do us what Injury and Mischief he can by Slanders and Forgeries Tho. Hicks's Charge against Nicolas Lucas viz. That N.L. a Real Quaker was moved to declare his Mind thus to one I know very well Thou mayst burn thy Bible and when that is done thou mayst serve God as well without it and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture thou mayst write as good a one thy self N. L's Answer follows These words whereof T. Hicks hath thus publickly and positively accused me and that divers times over in his Pamphlet were never spoken by me nor was it ever my Principle Way or Motion to Dis-esteem Undervalue or speak evil of the Holy Scriptures for I really believe that Holy Men of God spake them forth as moved by the Holy Spirit Therefore this Charge against me is an Abominable Lye and Wicked Slander And with a clear Consience I speak it I do neither know nor remember that ever any words past from me whereby Tho. Hicks could so much as colour this Lye and Slander against me And I cannot but look upon my self to be greatly Injur'd and Abus'd by T.H. until he oâ— his Brethren do me Right in this thing in as publick a Manner to the World as he hath done me Wrong Which iâ— they do not I commit my Cause to God to judge between us and clear my Innocency herein London the 29 th of the 3 d Moneth 1673. Nicolas Lucas Whereas Nicolas Lucas was referr'd to Owen Horton and his Wife for Proof of Tho. Hicks's Charge before to whom Nicolas spoke about it and she referr'd her self to Hen. Stout to witness the Charge to which Hen. Stout answers thus viz I Hen. Stout of Hertford never in all my dayes heard Nicolas Lucas speak the Words nor any of the like Import or Tendency as charged on him before nor any Man else before Tho. Hicks that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my Conscience that he hath most grosly Wronged Nicolas Lucas To which I subscribe H. Stout Another Accusation is viz. That S. Eccles discoursing with a Friend of his in London told him The Scriptures were a Lye But that this may appear a very likely Lye against S.E. he adds 'T was replyed Why then dost thou mention them that The Quaker answer'd To silence thee That he should say the Scriptures were a Lye or that he made use of a Lye to silence his Opposer appears a most absurd Slander and where is his Quotation the Reader must examine for Proof Hath he not here Abused his Reader But let S. Eccles's own Words clear him of this Lye and Slander In his Book Mus Lect. he often cites the Scriptures calls them The Holy Scriptures pag. 13. Thou that sayst the Quakers deny the Scriptures belyest the Innocent pag. 20. Do not belye the Scriptures nor the Spirit that gave it forth for Holy Men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost pag. 22 Whereas Tho. Hicks begins his Continuation thus Chr. I have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures the Light Within the Person of Christ and the Resurrection c. I presume by this time you have considered what say you thereunto To this he feigns the Answer thus viz. Quak. I say the Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee G. Whitehead Rep. I testifie against this as a Fiction for this was not my Answer neither has he referred us to any Quotations of mine though upon this he is pleased to accuse me with Passion Furious Replies and Sarcasms for his own Fiction to which he hath counterfeited my Name I question not but the Judgments of God will follow him and such Forgers and Spreaders of Lyes But that was not my Answer to the said Objection This Dialogue-Man's Liberty in these Forgeries and silly Botcheries is neither Christian nor Civil As to what he sayes pag. 3. I answer 1. That the Life which is the Light of Men John 1. is not a Creature but Divine and of the very Being of God I still affirm and have else-where proved though the whole Essence or Being of God is not contained in Man yet enlightens all Men. And 2. That the Inward Speaking or Living Ministration of the Spirit of Truth is of greater Authority then the Scriptures or Writings in the Abstract 3. S. Crisp doth own the True and Real Christ the Son of the Living God in his Spiritual Divine Being to be without either Beginning Date or End This he hath fully answered else-where 4. That the Soul or Spirit of Man as it relates to the Creaturely Being is a distinct Being from the Infinite Being of God and is not properly a Part of God For he is not divided into Parts or Particles but with respect to its Original Life whereby it immortally subsists we are God's Off-spring and the Breath of Life or Immediate Inspiration of God by which Man became a Living Soul or the Original Life of Man's Soul Of this G.F. spoke when he said Is not that of God which cometh out from God viz. the Breath of Life His words are perverted and mis-cited by T.H. For in another Consideration and State he owns the Infinite Being of God and the Soul or Spirit of Man to be distinct Beings where he speaks of the Soul being in Death in Transgression Man's Spirit Vnsanctified the Soul being in Death Transgressing the Law see Great Myst p. 91. This he could never intend or speak of the Infinite Incorruptible Being of God for that never sinned 5. That G.W. denies the Resurrection of the Body that is of the Dead or any Body at all is false nor is this prov'd against G.W. from his Saying Thou sowest not the Body that shall be it 's raised a Spiritual Body and Flesh Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1. Cor. 15. And T.H. may as well charge it upon the Apostle and upon his Brother Tho. Collier who in his Marrow of Christianity p. 40 94 95. plainly saith The Form in which they shall be raised that is in a Spiritual Form not in a Fleshly c. All Flesh shall be swallowed up in Spirit and our Body shall be changed and made like his glorious Body But Tho. Hicks plainly contradicts him saying That the Apostles and all true Christians say This Body of Flesh and Bones shall rise again Dial. p. 59 60. which he could never yet
prove The Contradiction I placed upon T. Hicks was not between his Denying the Light within to be a Sufficient Rule and his Granting it ought to be obeyed as he falsly states it Contin p. 8. but between his Saying the Light within which we attend to hath in many things misguided thee and his granting it ought to be obeyed appealing to it See Dip. plung p. 5. Is that which ought to be obeyed or appealed to in things relating to Salvation a misguiding Light T.H. his Comparison between those Signs wrought by the Light within and what is spoken of the Man of Sin 2 Thess 2 9. or that what we have said thereof may as well prove Mahomet to be the true Christ as the Light within Dial. p. 11.12 I say still this is Blasphemy and contradicted by T.H. himself in his Saying that Christ is the Life and Light of Men Dial. p. 22. Of which Contradiction he takes no notice but abuseth and accuseth me with Deceit and Falshood His sleighting our Obeying the Commands of the Living Eternal Word in us and reflecting upon our owning Jesus Christ as being with such a mental and mystical Reservation as he falsly saith which that it is no other than a meer Mystical Romance Dial. p. 10. and now to mend the Matter that the Christ we own is no other then a Mystical Romance Herein I must still look upon him to have acted the Prophane Romancer and Irreligious Miscreant And the Condemnation and Deceit he would cast upon me falls on his own Head and not mine I speak my Conscience We attending upon the Light of Jesus Christ in us it naturally leads us to know and own Him who is our Life and Light whom to call a Mystical Romance is Horrible Blasphemy He puts me off at an easie Rate when he saith Thâ—se other things are so frivolous that I think â—hem not worth any Reply Contin p. 9. Will this reconcile his many Contradictions which I have jusâ—ly charged him with in his own words He hath only seemed to take notice of one before and that he has falsly stated as is hinted Why should he charge me with affirming the Light within to be the Divine Essence p. 10. though they are not my words when he himself has confessed Christ to be the Light and Life of Men And Philip Bennit whose Queries are cited and commended by him confesseth Query 17. That Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is in all Places p 34. What sayest thou T.H. to this Dost thou not believe this If not why didst thou cite it without opposing it It was never my Assertion that the Principle of Divine Light within is but an Effect of Power or Thing made as thou beggest the Question in calling the Light within but an Effect or meer Creature Dial. p. 3 4 46. but that God's Immediate Illumination or In-shining is a Natural Effect flowing from himself which therefore is Divine I never could intend much less affirm that all kinds of Effects were in every Respect such as the Cause though in some sense they are but God's Immediate Illumination or Shining in Man is Natural to himself and so Divine as the Effects of the Law written in the Gentiles Hearts were agreeable and natural to the Law it self which is Spiritual Holy Just and Good and so were the Effects His Proof that we deny the Person of Christ without us is veâ— lame being from something he would lay hold on since he did first so accuse us and that is Jesus Christ a Person without us is not Scripture-Language pag. 10. Mark here he vaâ—ies fâ—â—m the Person of Christ to Jesus Christ a Person without us wherein he has also vaâ—â—â— in his own words in â—is first Dialogue p. 9. Jesus Christ God-Man a Person without thee Which Phrase I did and do say is not Scripture-Language but the Anthropomorphites who prosest a Personal God denying him to be an Infinite Spirit Doth it therefore follow that I deny the Man Christ Jesus in his Being either without or within us But T.H. his words God-Man a Person without thee equally excluding God under the Limitation of Man and Person without us he is pleased now to leave out the word God-Man and to accuse us of Denying the Person of Christ without us he should have explained what he means by the Word PERSON for though we are not satisfied with the Words before being Unscriptural this is no Denying of Jesus Christ in his being either as without us or within us We confessing that he is ascended into Glory far above all Heavens and that he is at the Father's Right Hand of Power in his Glorious Being which yet doth not exclude or limit him from being within us Of Election T.H. saith viz. Why art thou so much concerned about Election who believes no such thing of Persons either absolute or Conditional That Election you generally hold is only of the Seed which is Christ himself p. 11. He sayes I do not know his Belief in this Matter but I am sure he mistakes our's If he counteth us in Error he should have informed and not reproacht us Though we own That God's Election or Choice is originally of and in the Seed Behold mine Elect. c. Isa 42. yet this also extends to Men and Women as chosen in him through Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief of the Truth I have chosen you out of the World saith Christ The Saints are a chosen Generation But an Eternal Absolute Personal Election or Reprobation as held by some Predestinarian Anabaptists and others I own not nor a Perpetual Hatred to particular Persons as absolutely and unchangeably designed of God fâ—om all Eternity but that in the first place God's Free Love and Saving Grace is free to all Mankind till Men rejâ—ct it He calls all Men to Repentance tenders Life and Salvation in his Son to all and condemns none upon meer Will and Pleasure but for Unbelief and Rebellion which God is not the Author of If T.H. deem us in Error herein he should have Informed and not Reviled and Abused us And seeing he often in his Continuation mentions Election without explaining his Belief therein if he have any settled Belief in the Point I ask him 1. First Whether doth he not intend it as absolutely designed and unchangeably decreed of God from Eternity to particular Persons 2. Whether this be not one main Ground of his and some others consining or limiting Saving Grace or Divine Light to such a narrow Compass as only afforded of God to a few particular Persons 3. How should I believe that God doth not afford a Divine or Saving Light to every Man but only to some few or that the Light within that is given to every Man is but a meer Creature Natural Vncertain Variable and no Sufficient Rule to direct to God unless it can be proved unto me Either that God hath from all Eternity particularly and absolutely designed and decreed