asking them 1. If the Son of God was not in Being in the Beginning and from Everlasting 2. If he was not truly the Christ of God being the Son of God before he took Flesh upon him or was born of the Virgin Mary 3. If Carnal Eyes could see him simply as the Eternal Son of God or his Glory as of the only begotten of the Father 4. Where doth the Scripture say that the Human Nature is the Christ 5. Or that Christ is a Person or Personal Being consisting of Human Flesh and Blood without us 6. Or that his Glorious Body in Heaven is a human Body 7. Whether the Man Christ Jesus the Mediator be really separate and remote from his Church or Members so as not to be present in his Church here on Earth 8. If Christ be separate remote or divided from his Church how is he the Head thereof or his Church a living Body without or divided from the Head If you profess you know Christ do not impose your implicite Notions unscriptural and uncouth Terms about him but declare your Experience of him Farther as to what we hold concerning the Christ of God in Answer to his 20th Page 1. Christ who was the Word in the Beginning in due Time came in the Flesh. 2. That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the entire Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ. 3. That God was in Christ and the Father and Son are inseparable 4. That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only-begotten of the Father and also known as Co-Workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery 5. The Man 's accusing the Quakers with this Doctrine That the Father is the Son and the Son the Father and so God the Christ of himself and Christ the God of himself Somewhat like as Muggleton does in this Particular p. 20. Though these are none of our Words yet this favours of meer Ignorance and Envy we do not own any such Separation between God and Christ as these Words The Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like but that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the Son is the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace see how plain it is Isa. 9.6 6. That Christ is not a Person without us p. 21. is not our Doctrine or Phrase that I know of or remember only that the Title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many Men having Gross Apprehensions about the Phrase PERSON WITHOUT But Christ is confest by us both as without us and within us 7. We are charged that we must hold That Christ dyed not but only the Body that he assumed that was prepared for him p. 21. Now you Promoters of this Q. Quibbles for an Ingenuous Pamphlet I ask you if any more of Christ properly dyed then the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or his Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly if you do then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have blaâ—phemously said that Christ's Soul and Godhead-Life dyed When as Christ's dying and being buried 1 Cor. 15. was properly that the Body dyed and was buried to wit the Body of Jesus See Mat. 27.58 Mark 15.43 45. Luke 23.52 46. and 24.3 John 20.21 As to what we say about seeing the Son of God spiritually and not carnally Or between the seeing him savingly and not so seeing him c. The Man is hugely taken with J. Ives's Answer to our Distinction That he cannot but own it to be very good and pertinent Jeremy ' s Words were saith he That then I or any man might say by the same Reason that W. Penn or G. Whitehead was never seen with bodily or carnal Eyes because the Excellency better Part of them viz. their Souls was never seen though their Bodies be seen which is not the Man p. 23. To which I reply It 's not improbable that if we had made such a Comparison you Baptists would have cryed out O Blasphemy 1. To compare the Names W. Penn and G. Whitehead with the Name Christ. 2. To compare the seeing G.W. W.P. with the seeing the Christ of God 3. It implies the Name of Christ to be no more excellent then the Name George or William Oh Ignorance in the Abstract 4. Did not the Name of Christ as well concern the more excellent Part or Divine Nature as the Manhood and far Excell those fleshly or outward Names of Distinction given to us as meer Men and Creatures and that by Earthly Parents or Relations and not from a Spirit of Prophecy as to respect some divine Qualification or new Nature for that must have a new Name therefore I must look upon J. Ives's Answer and Similitude to be both impertinent and irrational Sect. III. Our Opposer self-condemned his irreverent Quibbling about Christ and their Ignorance of the Spirit 's Evidence who seek for Signs c. AS for your standing Gaping well nigh an Hour for an Answer p. 24. If many of you had not gaped and hidiously bawled often to hinder our Answers but had been civil you had been more answer'd then you were His Charge That we are fit for no man to dispute with except some of Mugleton's Disciples p. 25. is far enough from approving himself an indifferent Penn But will the Baptists own this that they are such as Muggleton's Disciples when they propose for or admit of Disputation with us As for W. Penn's using the Words Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger in his Books against Thomas Hicks this the Man accounts gros Language that will hardâ—y stand with good Manners nor suit with a civiliz'd man much less with a good Christian and to say it is a Lye is Billings-gate Rhetorick more fit for Scoulds that are duck'd c. p. 25. This is made a very capital Crime with this Author who bids us speak Evil of no man but be gentle shewing all Meekness c. And yet he himself calls W.P. the Author of a Lye a Fool unjust p. 13. and calls us Fools Obstinate c. and so hath condemned himself both as a partial and a self-contradictory Pen. But why is W.P. the Author of a Lye The Pretence is for taking the Words out of T.H. 's Mouth before he had made an End of his Sentence as when he said most of the Particulars he would prove W.P. then saying most of them then not all which was upon a Stop that T.H. made there as he and many others apprehended Howbeit when T.H. added The rest he would prove by Consequence W.P. insisted not on the first Words but refused to admit of his Consequences be having told the World in
his Dialogue that they were the Quakers Answers c. but this Writer against us carps and traduces on every slight Occasions Would the Baptists think it fair to be publisht in Print for Lyars Fools and unjust on such an Account But for W.P. his accusing T. Hicks with being both a Lyar and Forger he hath both proved him such an one in his Books and further urged to prove his Charge against him publickly since his Abettors have endeavoured to cover and uphold him But it seems it is the Language Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger that is found Fault with here and not the Application thereof when as the Scriptures prove such Language as Thou lovest Lying rather then to speak Righteousness ye are Forgers of Lyes c. See Psal. 52.3 Job 13.4 Joh. 8.55 Rev. 2.2 3.9 21.8 Tit. 1.12 His accusing some of the Quakers with quibling as much about the Word Body as about the Word Christ I look upon it as no better then quibbling against us instead of proving us guilty by plain Scripture for to say the Church of Christ is his Body and that there is one Body and one Spirit and that they that are joyn'd to Christ are Members of his Body this is according to Scripture-Language as also that the Body is one and hath may Members so also is Christ and are not the Saints spiritually united into Christ and unto his spiritual and glorious Body Is Christ Head of his Church in any other Body then that whereof they are Members and united to him And will this admit of Christ's being Head of two separate Bodies or of Three Christs as his stating the Distinction upon G. Keith That Christ was most properly taken for the Divine Nature less properly for the human Nature least properly for the Carkasâ— pag. 28. whereas this is so far from G. Keith's proving Three Christs that the words Human Nature and Carkass were J. Ives's not G. K's as the first is herein granted though G. Keith owns the words Divine Nature Manhood and Body of Christ and confess'd the Name Christ to be given to the Body when crucified and dead though less properly then to the Divine Nature and intire Manhood since that the Son of God was the Christ of God before he took upon him the Body prepared for him as J.I. hath granted in his Book Inocency above Impudency p. 37. By his Argument That Christ is the Son of God Ergo the Son of God is Christ as I answer'd though I could not be heard that the Name Christ was mutually and reciprocally given in Scripture to the Body and Spiâ—it of Christ as Christ dyed and was buried when it was properly the Body of Jesus for his Soul or Spirit was immortal did not dye but was in Paradyse when his Body was buried and that Spiritual Rock which â—ll Israel drank of was Christ. Doth the Scripture herein make Two Christs No sure No more will G.K. his Distinction bear Three Christs in Three dâ—stinct Persons as the Man unscripturally and quibblingly words it pag. 28. And further It is very strange that W. P. in correcting the Baptists and others to set up his own as the True Church must be impos'd upon to produce some of those Gifts or Visible Demonstrations or Eminent Signs as were in the Church in the Apostles Dayes pag. 29. and 9. when as he never made that a Reason or Ground to correct others for want of such Signs as the Gift of Tongues Miracles c. but for some Un-Christian Principle or Practice however in this Case our present Opposers do argue as exactly like the Jesuits Papists against the Protestants for correcting them as if they had serv'd seaven Years at Rome But let it be remember'd how the Baptists themselves were in this manner excepted against after their first Separation from other Churches and gathering into a Church of their own It was objected against them If the Lord be with us where be all those Miracles which our Fathers told us of Where be the Gifts of working Miracles which were in the primitive time c And what Defence did the Baptists make for themselves herein but that the seeking after and Working Miracles in that outward way that is sometimes in Scripture spoaken of and that these men intend is not essential to a Believer and so not to a Church nor an Administrator See p. 69. of their Book entitul'd A Way to Sion by D. King printed at London reprinted at Edinburgh 1656. Also That Miracles did not prove them Disciples That Miracles do not now distinguish a true Church from a false Ibid. p. 135 136. Yet as if they had quite forgotten these things and the Oppositions and Sufferings which they formerly met withal they bring their Adversaries Objections against us And seeing if we should only tell men We are in the Truth the Light within them will testifie to our Way it is demonstrable by the Effects that we have the Spirit and are in the Power of God and that it is within while the Baptists so say they have it as he saith p. 31 32. and that all this will not decide the Controversie or manifest to our Opposer a real Discrimination between us to demonstrate us to be in the Truth Now as we have not this way imposed a Faith upon our Opposers so we shall not thus impose upon either this man or the Baptists but desire he and they may without Prejudice seek and try further and Try all things and hold fast that which is Good and we doubt not but where or in whom the Spirit of Christ lives and rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is Self-Evidencing and will discover who are the Lord 's peculiar People and who not But this Quibbler imposeth upon W. P. to bring something for Proof of his Church which the Baptists nor no False Church can pretend to and produce pag. 30. Though this seems to be a hard Task especially as to what may be pretended yet it is no difficult mater for W. P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such Effects of that Living Testimony Presence and Power of God among us as no false Church can produce although herein neither W. P. nor any of us will admit of Prejudiced Envious Spirits to be our Judges or Witnesses in these matters but we have a Record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power and Presence of God with us amongst us Turning many from Darkness to Light and from Satan's Power to God And many there are among us gathered out from Baptists and other Churches and Peoples who are Living Witnesses both of the blessed Operation and Effects of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus among us which yet if the Baptists should object and say They see no such thing I answer That is because they have not Honestly made Tryal but stood in Prejudice and Gainsaying
as many did against Christ the Apostles and Primitive Church of old However it is very Uncharitable for them to conclude us No Christians Either because They will not see us to be such or because that at their faithless Demands We do not produce such mighty Signs as they call for in their own Wills and Times But a Foolish Adulterous Generation seeks a Sign being in the Unbelief not acknowledging the Sufficiency of the Spirit 's Teaching and Evidence in that they own not the SPIRIT to be their RULE Sect. IV. The Quakers clear from L. Muggleton's Principles and the Baptists Agent 's comparing them together proved Scandalous and Wicked c. TOuching the Comparison that is made between the Quakers and Muggletonians it 's both Idle Quibbling and Envious Canting to traduce and scandalize us what if W. P. does not pretend to more then Muggleton does nor to so much in some things does it therefore follow the Quakers are Impostors or like him who holds apparent Blasphemies in many Things wherein W. P. and others of us have given publick Testimonies against him The Baptists may be ashamed of such gross and abusive Insinuations as this comparing the Quakers and Muggletonians yea and that in some Things wherein the Baptists and Muggletonians might as well yea and more truly be compared As where it is said Muggleton sayes He is one of the two Witnesses spoaken of in Rev. 11. that God hath given Power to prophesie and the Quakers say they are the true VVitnesses to the Light and have received Power to preach the Everlasting Gospel c. And I may as well add do not the Baptists profess themselves both to be true Witnesses of the Christ of God and Preachers of him too Muggleton hath several Disciples and Followers that believe him and so have the Baptists Muggleton curses and damns the Quakers and what do Baptists less to Quakers and all others that will not be dipt by them or do oppose them But 1. Muggleton sayes He has received Commission from Heaven 2. That he had it by divine Revelation 3. That he is inspired by the Spirit of God 4. That he pretends to Infallibility And what if Quakers pretend to these as led by the Spirit of Truth The Apostles and true Church did not only pretend to but experience the same does it therefore follow that they must be compared with the Muggletonians and be deemed Impostors And the Baptists the true Ministry and Church and yet have no Commission from Heaven either to dip or damn People but deny divine Revelation immediate Inspiration and Infallibility Let them answer for themselves It 's said Muggleton denyes that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons And have not the Baptists done as much in these Words Jesus Christ God Man a Person without you See Dial. 1. p. 9. wherein they imply the Father and the Son or God and the Man Christ to be but one Person without us whereas we tell them 't is not a Scripture-Phrase But seeing Muggleton pretends some Things that both the Baptists and Quakers hold would the Baptists be therefore included in the Comparison with the Muggletonians Might they not at this rate as well make all Protestants to be Papists yea Jews Mahometans c. because all agree in some Truths But the Comparison-Maker was not so honest as to shew wherein the Quakers differ with and oppose Muggleton as a Blasphemer and Impostor As Muggleton holds these false and Blasphemous Doctrines which the Quakers utterly deny 1. That the Breath of Life God breathed into Adam which made his Soul to live is mortal and doth dye 2. That Adam ' s Soul did dye viz. with the Body 3. That the Soul of Man is mortal Do not some of the Baptists hold the same 4. That to say the Soul departs from or slips out of the Body when it dyes is an ignorant dark Opinion of most People contrary to Sense Reason or Faith 5. That Death took Christ's Soul into it 6. That Lazarus his Soul was dead in the Grave where his Body was those four Dayes 7. That not only Adam ' s Soul did dye but also that the Soul of Christ did dye 8. That all mens Souls ever since are dead being mortal Thus far all the Baptists who hold the Mortality of the Soul agree with Muggleton 9. That Solomon was ignorant in this Point in saying the Body to the Dust and the Spirit returns to God that gave it 10. That God was born of Mary 11. That God is not an Infinite Spirit filling all Places 12. That the Godhead Life dyed that when Christ dyed God dyed 13. That Christ being God embodyed with Flesh and Bone one Person without us cannot be in the Quakers 14. That there are many vast Places in the Earth where God is not at all 15. That God himself is a single Person in Form of a Man and no bigger in Compass and Bulk and was so from Eternity then a Man even of the same Stature as the first Adam was 16. That Reason is the Devil 17. That all Men have received the Seed or Spirit of Reason from the Devil or raprobate Angel 18. That the Devil became Flesh Blood and Bone 19. That Cain was none of Adam ' s Son or Begetting but the first Devil in Flesh. 20. That Eve was with Child of Cain by the Serpent-Angel before Adam knew her 21. That then the Condition of Eve was much like the Condition of Mary the Virgin being with Child by the Holy Ghost before Joseph knew her 22. That the Devil that tempted Christ was a Man Thus far of Muggleton in his Looking-Glass for G. Fox and other Books of his and John Reeve's are replenisht with such absurd and blasphemous Stuff which we never were guilty of but alwayes abhorred and often testified against as we have had Occasion therefore let the World judge how grosly and wickedly we are dealt with and scandalized in the Baptists or their Abettors comparing us with Muggleton between whom there is as much Distance and Opposition as betwixt Heaven and Hell Light and Darkness Sect. V. The Quakers furher unjustly compared and Baptists proved to Deny the Divinity of Christ. Pag. 36. BUt we are further catechised If our Ministers ought to be believed on easier Terms then Christ and â—is Ministers were that is on such Signs and Wonders and Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost as God did bear them witness with Acts 2.22 Heb. 2.3 4. And why must we be put upon this Proof or else be judg'd not only No Christians but Impostors but because we bring New Doctrines and New Revelations as we are accused But what these New ones are and wherein contrary to the ancient Christian Apostolical Doctrines we are not yet convinc'd by all the Oppositions we have met withal It is further added That some of which are not such New Discoveries from Heaven manifest by the Light within as pretended being in Truth but
of his principal Allegations for Proof is that their Opinion is That the Soul is God or part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite which perversly and darkly he hath drawn from G. F's meer Question as plainly appears before we had need to look the more strictly into the matter Upon which I ask If to put this Question Is not THAT of God and of his Being which came out from God by which Man became a living Soul be an Opinion sufficient to prove Us No Christians Then Whether or no they are Christians who say that the Soul of Man is a Spirit of the NATURE of God which returns to God that gave it And whether this be not as high an Assertion of the Soul of Man as can be supposed G. F. ever asserted And that some Baptists have thus asserted of the Soul see what they say in their own Instances and Words viz. That this is a known Truth that every thing at its Dissolution dissolveth into its first Principles 1. The Springs Rivers run into the Sea from whence they came out Eccles. 1.7 2. The Ice Snow Hail that are congeal'd of Water dissolve into Water and out of Water they are congeal'd again 3. The Light centereth into the Sun which is the Fountain of Light therefore in the Night time it is dark and Moon and Stars give Light as they are aspected to the Sun 4. For Man at his Dissolution 1. The SOUL being a Spirit of the NATURE of God is said to return to him that gave it and the Body being made of the Dust returns to the Dust again Eccle. 12.7 Gen. 3.19 saith God Thou shalt return to the Ground for out of it thou wast taken Thus far Dan. King in his Book entitul'd A way to Sion p. 92. printed at London reprinted at Edenburgh Anno 1656. and highly approved and commended by T. Patient J. Spilsbury W. Kiffin and J. Pierson who in their Epistle dedicatory give this Commendation viz. It hath pleased God to stir up the Spirit of our Brother Dan. King whom we judge a faithful and painful Minister of Jesus Christ to take this Work in hand before us and we judge that he hath been much assisted of God in the Work in which he hath been very painful Observe here how it is affirmed that the Soul is of the NATURE of God and that according to the Instances before of these things that return into their first Principles See now Baptists your own Doctrine about the Soul or Spirit of Man Were you well advised to suffer your Brother so highly to charge and taunt at us about the Soul because of G. F s Question which concern'd the Breath or Spirit of Life from God by which Man became a Living Soul when you tell us plainly that the Soul is a Spirit of the NATURE OF GOD You would take it ill if any should scornfully Dialogue upon you for this as your Brother Hicks hath done upon us for G. F's Question Is not That of God which came out from God c. to wit the Breath or Spirit of Life with whose Words also about the Soul agreeth Wisd. 15.11 Forasmuch as he knew not his Maker and him that â—NSPIRED unto him an active Soul and BREATHED in a Living Spirit See also VAVASOR POWEL'S Concordance about the Soul viz. The Soul is put for the whole Person Acts 2.41 7.14 it is put for Life Isa. 53.12 it is put for Breath Acts 20.10 marg it is put for a Reasonable Creature Gen. 2.7 it is put for GOD HIMSELF Prov. 6.16 marg Hebr. 10.38 I suppose these men are not ignorant both how this Concordance is approved and the Author of it esteemed by them Sect. I. About the Person of Christ. WHereas T.H. to prove the Quakers deny Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without us quotes these words viz. Jesus Christ a Person without us is not Scripture Language for it quotes Dip. Pl. p. 13. Whereas the Words there are Jesus Christ God-man a Person without thee as in his Dia. 1. p. 9. is not Scripture-Language c. Mark he hath left out the Words GOD MAN in the Citation and in his two last Dialogues likewise Dial. 2. p. 10. Dial. 3. p. 7. So that it appears these Witnesses have either taken this defective Citation upon trust from T. H. and not from their own Sight and Knowledge or else they have knowingly born Witness to this Abuse owned this defective false Citation for a Blind But how comes his Charge now to be so Low against us as only denying Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without us and he so hard put to it to prove this when before he charged us in these Words viz You reprobate the Scriptures and the Person of Jesus Christ without you Dial. 1. p. 62. O wonderful Impudence and Falshood The Reason of my Answer in this Case before to T.H. as also my owning the Man Christ Jesus as to his Being without us as well as within us is plainly shewn in my Appendix to Reas. against Rail p. 17. my Words being thus viz. Jesus Christ God-man a PERSON without thee which Phrase I did and do say is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphites who profess 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's 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 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 And its false that we deny Christ to be a Man His Exaltation and Glory into which he is ascended not only into the Heavens but far above all Heavens transcends that Degree attained in these suffering earthly Tabernacles his inaccessible Glory is above Men and Angels c. Again T. H. hath very unfairly cited but the Beginning of a Sentence of mine leaving out the latter and chief Part thereof viz. at 'T is a Design of Satan to keep Men in carnal Imaginations and dark Thoughts of a Human Personal Christ And here they break off leaving out the following Words of the same Sentence which are Consisting either of Flesh Blood and Bones LIKE THEIRS or of Flesh and Bones without Blood and so of God's right Hand as limited to that Remoteness That they neglect to wait for Christ's inward and spiritual
than that What Game do they almost scruple to play at which is so far from proving that the Question was askt meerly to slander him that it rather renders the Report credible or at least that we might suppose there was some Ground for it and to be sure this Instance is far enough from making good T. Hicks's Charge against the Quakers as before but sufficient to shew his great Malice Falsehood and these Coverings will not hide him It is his own Sin to insinuate by way of Question to slander us for thus he hath done by us and our Sufferings witness his base and Deceitful Questions insinuating that the Satisfaction of our Wills and Lusts the promoting our Carnal Interests is or may be our chief Motive or Inducement to suffer as we use to do Dial. 1. pag. 75. This he hath made no Scruple to insinuate by Way of Question against us and yet maketh it a great Crime to ask a Question that seem'd probable about a Report of a Parish Priest's Playing at Bowls And be it noted also that for a further Proof of his Charge against us he brings this Instance pag. 24. viz. If any Persons write or speak their Grief that the publick take notice of it they will represent them under such Terms as may render them Odious and the more effectually to weaken their Testimonies they will fix upon them scurrilous and contemptible Appellations and to prevent any Inquisition into the Truth of the Matter they would make People believe that they are Envious Malicious Dirty Factious and Ranting Spirits And for these general Accusations which we may say are very Abusive and False he quotes Spir. of the Hat pag. 36 37. which is so far from being any of our Books or any one 's Eminent among us that it was an Envious Apostate's a Libellous Pamphlet yet promoted and spread by some Baptists against us who are beholding to Apostates and Back-sliders for their Engines to work against the People of God call'd Quakers who have retained their Integrity in the Truth But the said Lying Pamphlet styl'd The Spirit of the Hat was plainly opposed and seriously answer'd by our Friends in their Book entitul'd The Spirit of Alexander the Coppersmith c. yet these Baptists in their Preface would make the World believe That the Books produced and cited by T. Hicks for his Discharge from Forgery were the Books of such as have been and now are Chief Leaders among the Quakers but neither tell us Who nor What Chief Leader the Author of the Spirit of the Hat ever was or is among us Now you that have concern'd your selves for T. Hicks Do you think to acquit him from Forgery by such Proceding Have you approv'd your selves either Just or Impartial Men to admit of our Adversary's Accusations for Proof to Clear your Brother T. Hicks and Blemish us No No Such Work will neither clear you nor him while Justice and Truth is faln in your Streets and you have not suffer'd Equity to enter You are Witnesses on behalf of a Forger and your Confederacy therein is Impious and God will break it and bring you to Judgment Sect. VI. About our Ministers our owning the Scriptures ANd also Thomas Hicks having falsly accused us That we appoint our Ministers aforehand to speak in such a Place at such a Time Dial 2. p. 66. For Proof of this he again citeth that lying Pamphlet Spir. of Hat in these Words What meaneth saith he of the Quakers that certain Persons are appointed to spend the whole Time in speaking in every Meeting and all the rest to come as Hearers neglecting the Gift in themselves only waiting upon their Lips Spirit of the Hat p. 29. Which is also as arrant a Falshood as his Charge before for 1 st we do not so appoint our Ministers or certain Persons before hand to speak in such a Place and Time or to spend the whole Time in speaking 2 dly Neither do the rest of the Hearers neglect their Gift or only wait upon their Lips but upon the Lord and all are referred to the Guidance of God's free Spirit in themselves having a free Liberty therein to improve and make Use of their Gifts as God shall call there being both Gospel Liberty and Order among us and the Spirit of the Prophets subject to the Prophets and Gospel-Ministers have Unity in the Spirit and with one anothers Testimony which is not of Man nor by the Will of Man However these Baptists seek to clear their Brother by such false Stories as before scraped out of an Apostate and Enemies Pamphlet Another Charge falsly insinuating That we do not really or fully own the Holy Scriptures is this viz. That the Quakers own the Scripture as far as it agrees to the Light in them And for Proof of this T. Hicks saith This is proved in their asserting the Scriptures to be given forth from the Light within Whereas this is a Proof that we fully own the Scriptures without any such Exception or Reservation as is implyed in the Charge before for it is apparent that we fully own the Light within to be Infallible and therefore the Scriptures which came from it to be really true However the Dialogueman would be accounted a very exact Drawer of Consequences even such an one as would not abate a Word of his Dialogues but would have them be believed as Real Truths though they be no Real Discourses as he hath since confessed in Answer to T. R's Objection That the Dialogue is presented to the World as a Real Discourse to which he answers I do assure him it was not so understood or intended by me in the publishing of it he should then have told the World so but then he adds though it be as True and Real as though it had been a Verbal Discourse whenas much of his Dialogues is made up of Consequences of his own framing yet he hath sought to make the World believe that the Answers given are no other then what the Quakers give and that the Matters he had objected were Real Truths and no Factions But doth not his Charge and Consequence before imply such Untruth as this his unjust Charge That the Quakers undervalue or slight the Holy Scriptures or account them of no more Authority then Esop ' s Fables And that all this follows from their asserting the Scriptures to be given forth from the Light within which they so highly esteem of and own to be Infallible Yea and he has procurâ—d many Witnesses and Abettors also to subscribe his Work but they should more strictly have examined his Proofs and Consequences Sect. VII How T. H. begun his second Dialogue with a Forgery and his Deceitful Shift for it WHeareas T. Hicks in his second Dialogue begun with this Charge and Question viz. I have formerly detected you of several pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures the Light within the Person of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead c.