the Old Fancies of Sabellius revived and new vampt not heard of till long after Christ and then quickly exploded the Church about 1400. Years ago pag. 36. I must needs say that as this Accuser's smiting at us is in the dark herein for he does not lay down these old exploded Fancies of Sabellius or tell us particularly what they are but thus in dark general Terms is smiting and squibbing at us and abusing his Readers as if they were all bound to believe his Accusations on his bare Word But what were those Fancies or Opinions of Sabellius and such others that were exploded as Heterodox or Heretical It 's reported That their Books contain many Blasphemies against the Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and withal much Incredulity touching his only-begotten Son and First begotten of all Creatures and the word Incarnate and senseless Ignorance of the Holy Ghost Euseb. lib. 7. fol. 125. ch 5. As also those that denyed Christ to have been God from Everlasting and affirm'd that by Nature he was but only a bare Man as it is said the Followers of Paulus Samosatenus did Such disapprov'd the Essence and Divinity of Christ which hath been before all Worlds and such as confound the Father the Son and Holy Ghost imagining Three Names in One Thing and in One Person Soc. Schol. l. 2. ch 15. But we are sure that we are clear from all such Opinions as Denying the Deity or Divinity of the Son of God or his being that Word that became Flesh and so from affirming him to be butonly a bare Man As also we never went about to confound the Father and Son truly conâ—â—der'd according to Scripture-Testimony or to deny either the Property Relation Manifestation or Operation of Father or Son though the one Divine Being of Father Son and Holy Spirit from Everlasting we have and must confess Let it suffice that as we confess to the Father's bringing or sending forth the Son both from his own Being and Substance as also to his taking Flesh and the perfect Manhood upon him in due time and that we really believe his Sonship and all this according to Scripture so that he was and is the Christ of God the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore to compare us with Sabellius or such as before mention'd is very Envious and Unjust But that Baptists have done no less then denyed the Deity of the Son of God or Divinity of Christ appears in what follows John Newman's Argument If Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning then Christ was not the Word from â—he Beginning But Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning Therefore Christ was not the Word from the Beginning pag. 52. of his Book entitul'd The Light Within Mark here Though he grants Christ and the Word to be one and the same yet this Argument denyes him to be either Christ or the Word from the Beginning What was he then He tells us not Doth not this oppose the Divinity of Christ or Deity of the Son of God to affirm that He was neither as Christ nor the Word from the Beginning for The Word was with God and the Word was God And T. Hicks among much more of his idle Quibbling and Opposition thus queries viz. I ask thee if Christ signifie Anointed and God be Christ as thou Quaker affirmest Whether God himself e anointed Dial. 3. pag. 32. Mark here who is the Quibbler irreverently reflecting upon Scripture-Language But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God! is for ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows Hebr. 1.8 9. Psal. 45.6 7. But these Baptists are willing to throw off God being Christ with as thou affirmest which is not as they affirm them I ask then If they own that Christ is God Or that as the Son who is God he be anointed as he is the Son And If He was the Son of God and so Christ before his Incarnation or assuming Flesh However these men appear Socinianized now and boggle at this Pre-Existence of Christ and seem to define or limit him only as a Person without us in Flesh yet formerly some of their Brethren have confessed That Christ is God That Christ is call'd the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.17 yea that The Father hath put his Name upon him Exod. 23.21 And that it is the Christ that is there spoaken of is manifest That the Father hath put his Name upon him so far as He is call'd the Father Isa. 9.6 See their Book entitul'd A Way to Zion p. 102. I pass by several Falshoods traducing and canting Language in the said Qu. Quibbles and grant that at length that the Author hath shewn himself more ingenious then in all the Book besides where he concludes thus viz. If I have mistaken thee or any of thy Friends it is not willingly and if thou shewst me honestly wherein I will beg thy Excuse I not pretending to Infallibility my Opinion being still so long as we are men in this Condition Humanum est errare But he should have consider'd this at the Beginning of his Book and have been more submissive and gentle in his Work beeing so subject to Mistake THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forgers Compurgators Are IMPEACHED In a strict Examination of divers Citations and Doctrinal Matters in their Book entituled The Quakers Appeal answered or a full Relation of the Occasion Progress and Issue of a Meeting held in Barbican the 28th of August last past as their Style is Which Meeting was held by the Baptists to clear T. Hicks to charge and insult over the Quakers in their Absence as the Mannagement and Issue thereof hath manifested This is published not only for want of Justice from them but because of the Injustice of those Baptists so deeply concerned for their Brother Tho. Hicks against the People of God called Quakers George Whitehead He looked for Iudgment but behold Oppression for Righteousness but behold a Cry Under Falshood have they hid themselves THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forger's Compurgators are Impeached A Brief Introduction THat these Men who have undertaken to answer our Appeal against Tho. Hicks have pretended very fair in Words is undeniable but how they have performed and answered is already manifest and will further appear in divers Particulars wherein I do complain against them both of their Injustice Partiality and false Testimony and affirm that they have neither approv'd themselves Just Judges nor faithful Witnesses in matters plain and obvious nor yet clear'd T. Hicks In their Title-Page they say Wherein the Allegations of William Penn in two Books lately published by him against T. Hicks were answer'd and disproved This is a manifest Vntruth as any Impartial Eye may see who is willing but to compare this their Barbican Relation styl'd The Quakers Appeal
supposed that nighan hundred of the Anabaptists would clamor together and make a hideous Noise and Bawling to stop him that was about to speak and in such wise were we Beset Interrupted and Hector'd by their Companies in the Galleries and near us upon their Leaders Example insomuch that we must wait a considerable time ere we could be heard The Charge of Shuffling and Bogling at one single Question being afraid c. pag. 12. is unjust and scornfully aggravated for though there was some Intermission before an Answer was given it was not at all out of any Fear or to Shuffle about it but because 1 st It was not W. P's place then to Answer Interrogatories and unscriptural Questions when his Adversaries had given a Charge that we were no Christians and upon the Proof as they pretended instead whereof they fell to Catechising us 2 dly And if we had not at that Time answered one Word to the Question but held them to the Proof of their Charge judicious Auditors would have held us excusable To that of T. H's saying Most of the Particulars he would prove from our Principles and the rest by Testimonies p. 13. he said the rest by Consequence Though here T. H. made a Stop yet W. P. is charged with an Interruption a Lye a Fool and Vnjust when he did not insist on the Matter see their disingenuous Carping and Reviling Whereas many gross things were instanc'd and laid against him wherein he had most falsly and abusively personated us as so speaking and being our own Answers and VVords and our Method and Manner of Reasoning even in many Particulars which he had neither Testimony for nor are they deducible either from our Words or Principles However if he say He will prove them by Consequence this bewrayes his own Falseness in saying They were the Quakers Answers when they were but T. Hicks's Forgeries staâ—â—d in our Name and Person Sect. II. Of the Christ of God c. THat we have denyed Distinctions p. 15. is false for true and reasonable ones we deny not But if our Friends Words have not deceived this Man he saith we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ p. 16. Where proves he these Words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ Yet we must own that if he was the Son of God before he took Flesh he was Christ with respect to his Divine Nature as proceeding from the Father and that he was the Son of God before is not denyed that we know of in which Respect he was not seen with Carnal Eyes but with Respect to the Body which he took upon him in Time And as for two Natures viz. the Divine and Human united in one Person being the Christ p. 16. Then how consistent with this is it to say that the Human Nature or Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood is Christ p. 17 18. Which is all one as one while to say that Christ is made up of a Divine and Human Nature another while of a Human Nature or Body and yet that Body the Body of Christ. I must confess that if you impose upon us a Creed in such Impropriety of Speech and besides Scripture-Language and Phrase or otherwise unchristian us we must tell you that untill you bring us plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ which Phrase some do conscientiously Scruple at least as being too low to entitle to the Christ of God we must rather patiently bear your Censure or Damnation then deviate from Scripture-Language in our Creed which is that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh that he is God Man the Son of God yea and God manifest in Flesh that as Mediator betwixt God and Man he is THE MAN Christ Jesus that Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered was crucified dyed and rose again the Third Day is called The Body of Jesus this Temple and a Body hast thou prepared me was not this the Son speaking to the Father As for J. Ives's great Question so much insisted on Whether Christ's Human Nature was a Part of Christ p 17. As it was not a Question in Scripture Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded begged instead of proving the Charge of our being no Christians As also thus to divine Christ into Parts is a Contradiction to the Human Nature being Christ. Pray you Baptists before you conclude a final Sentence upon us agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by if you will impose upon us to believe as you believe in Matter and Form upon Pain of Excommunication as Ethnicks or Heathens and finally of Damnation and then we may answer you further as we see Occasion you having already attempted to excommunicate us from among all Christians chiefly about Words wherein as yet you have not stated a plain and congruous Form among your selves And we need not think our selves oblieged further to answer you or defend our selves from your bare Charge of being no Christians until you have given us such a formal Creed and withal explain prove and reconcile these your Terms which you impose question and strive about some of you have endeavourd to tye us up to answer Aye or No unto as about your Expressions viz. Two Natures in one Person the Christ. Christ's Human Nature Part of Christ. The Body that was seen with carnal Eyes the Christ. Christ's Body of Flesh Blood to be Christ or Christ's Person The true Christ a Person without us or a Personal Being without us But let it be further observed that your Brother H. Grigg confesseth of Jesus Christ the Son of God thus viz. That he was of the same Essence or Substance with the Father the holy Spirit and that he had a PERSONAL EXISTENCE or Subsistence before he did assume our Nature c. See here they own a Personal Being of Christ before he assumed our Nature they should have agreed upon the Definition of Words Person and Personal Existence and Subsistence and clearly explain them to us in their Nature and Property as also the Nature and Extent of the Word Human both as they apply it to Body to Nature and as it relates to Man and not darkly and dubiously to impose them upon us in their â—uestions but rather be content with plain Scripture-Language and Words which the Holy Ghost hath taught which it seems these Men are not content with as also appears where W. Penn confest his Belief of Christ to be of the Seed of Abraham yet God over all blessed forever c. This was and is excepted against as not direct to the Question p. 18. Therefore upon their variable Terms about Christ I Propose these few plain Questions seriously
as we had been some Time remote from the City And although W. Kiffin left the Meeting before the End thereof he could both be Judge and Witness as well as the rest for him from the Perusal and comparing of his Proofs with the Quakers Books which the rest might have done privately as well now my present Business is to prove them both Vnfair False Witnesses as well as Vnjust Judges even as to Citations as will appear plainly although they would fain have had us acquiesced with their Judgments as being Infallible Judges because appealed to but here it s proved That the Quakers Books do not agree with what T.H. hath laid to their Charge and that all his Quotations are not truly recited out of their Books take these following Instances being compared out of their own Relation aforesaid with what is briefly noted thereupon Sect. I. About the Soul BEcause T. H. hath made a great a doe divers Times about the Soul as charging it as the Quakers Opinion one white that the Soul is God another while that the Soul is Part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite Dial. 1. p. 16. Dial. 3. p. 2. I shall begin with this where after he hath cited W.P. as charging T.H. with Perversion Iujustice Misciting and Abusing the true Meaning of what is truly cited he here breaks off W. P.'s Words and then faith to his Auditors You hear what W. Penn hath said touching this Charge p. 8. Whereas he hath but cited the Preamble of W. Penn's Answer and left out the very Substance thereof See Reas. ag Rail p. 65. Is this fair Dealing or true to say You have heard WHAT W.P. hath said when they have not heard the very Substance and chief Part of what he hath said in this Case which follows after T. H.'s Citation W. P. thus viz. G. Fox saith thus God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and is not this of God of his Being c. and is not This that came out from God Part of God and from God Where nothing can well be clearer then that G. F. intends that Divine Life Power and Virtue by which Adam in Soul and Body came to live to God with other Passages about the Words Breathed Inspired after which he addeth But this Ungodly Person would infer from our asserting That the Breath God breathed into Adam's Soul whereby it liv'd to God was of God's Divine Life That the Soul of Man as a meer Creature or created Capacity is of God's own Being and Substance c. See further Reas. against Rail pag. 66 67. And further let it be observed wherein T. Hicks hath dealt Unfairly by G. F. in this matter Though it be true that G. F. saith That God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and askt Is not this which cometh out from God of God being without Beginning Infinis in itself c Gr. Myst. fol. 29 68 90 100. But then T. Hicks having left out those Passages that chiefly explain G. F's Sense in this matter takes it for granted without Distinction that it is our Opinion That the Soul is God as he hath charg'd us and this he hath made one main Reason for his accusing us with Denying all future distinct Beings or Rewards of Men after Death which must procede either from his Mistake or wilful Perversion he taking G. F's Question about the Soul to intend the meer Spirit of Man that God form'd in him or the Soul that is a Reasonable Creature which could not be intended in G. F's Question which concerns that Immediate Breath or Spirit of Life which came out from God by which Man became a living Soul wherein what is more evident then that G.F. doth not at all confound the Being of Man with the Being of his Maker though God may be truly said to be the Being of Beings the Life of Lives so the Soul or Life of Souls even of all Mankind with respect unto this G. F's words appear very plain where he saith God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul for that which came out from God was the Cause that MAN became ALIVE a living Soul and is not this of God Gr. Myst. pag. 68. See how plain and distinct these words are between That which came out from God and Man himself and whether it was not an Abuse in T. Hicks to leave out those G. F's explanatory words which are in the very same Page that he quotes and misconstrue his Question and Words to another Intention then they will bear while G. F's words relating to that which came out from God do not at all mention Man's Soul or Spirit that I do or can find Although T. H. and his Brethren take Soul in G. F's Question for the Spirit of Man or the Reasonable Creature so far as I can gather as W. Kiffin and the rest do in their Epistle entituled Heart-Bleedings for Professors Abominations and annext unto their Confession of Faith printed 1651. where they have these Phrases viz. The Spirit which God formeth in Man Our Spirit or Soul a Creature The reasonable Soul c. Here they grant man's Spirit or Soul to be the same whereas when G. F. speaks of the Soul in that sense he hath this Phrase The Soul being in Death in Transgression man's Spirit there is not sanctified Gr. Myst. p. 91. These plain words T. H. also hath left out though in the very next page to what he quotes What is more plain then that G.F. could not intend that Soul or Spirit of Man which could be in Death in Transgression to be either God his Divine Life Being or Part of God but of Man only for the Being of God can never be either in Transgression or Corrupted because God is Incorruptible And now from the Understanding that I have of G. F's words about the Soul as in divers places of his said Book He speaks of the Soul as under a two fold Consideration 1st with respect unto that Breath of Life which God breathed into man by which MAN became a living Soul 2 dly with the respect to Man himself as being thereby made a living Soul And of Man as under a three fold Consideration 1. As Man was in the Beginning before the Fall being made Alive a Living Soul by the Breath or Spirit of God 2. To Man faln and in the Fall from God wherein his Soul or Spirit is brought under Death in Sin and Transgression and so is polluted with Sin while Unsanctified 3. To Man as restored and his Soul quickned to God again by the Spirit of Life and so saved by and in Christ Jesus who is the Bishop of the Soul This I do understand and plainly gather from the Tenour of G. F's Words and Answers But sith Thomas Hicks's Charge against the Quakers was that they are No Christians and that one
Appearance and the Knowledge of God's right Hand near them to save and preserve them from Sin and Death See my Appendix to Reason against Railing p. 27. Now you that are T. H. his Compurgators Abettors and Witnesses See here how he and you have left out the very principal and explanative Part of the same Sentence is this your Care and Justice Would you be thus served both to wrong me and abuse the World or your Readers to tell them The Quotations are truly recited out of our Books But if you take this kind of unfair curtailing which destroyes the Sense to be significant to give the whole Sense of the Clause or Sentence before and all this to prove us No Christians Then it must be contrarywise given as your Opinion for Christianity That 't is not a Design of Satan to keep Men in carnal Imaginations of a human personal Christ consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones LIKE YOURS but a Christian Opinion so to think of Christ and of God's right Hand as limited to such Remoteness as that you thereupon neglect to wait for Christ's inward and spiritual Appearance or the Knowledge of God's right Hand near you to save you from Sin and Death but that you may be good Christians and yet guilty of such carnal Imaginations and sinful Neglect If this be your Christianity I hope through the Grace of God never to own it any more then your unjust and partial Proceedings against us to uphold and cover a Forger to keep back Judgment from passing upon contrary to your fair Pretences before cited But T. H. hath declared That he no where accuseth us for denying Christ's bodily Appearance How then do we deny his Person What was his Person if not his Body Sect. III. About the Bible and Scriptures AGain you give this Passage as truly recited among the rest viz. G. W. accounts it Idolatry to call the Bible a Means of our knowing God for which you quote Dip. plung p. 13. Wherein is a manifest Untruth and Abuse for in Answer to T. Hicks affirming That the Bible is THE Means of our knowing God Dial. 1. p. 41. My Words were He idolatrously sets up the Bible in the Place of Christ for no man knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son reveals him Mat. 11.27 Dip. plung p. 13. Mark the Difference betwixt A Means and THE Means as between the BIBLE and CHRIST That may be A Means which is not THE Means Christ being the absolute Way and Means by Way of Eminency for Man to come to know God not the Bible though it may be a Means instrumentally as God bestows a Blessing upon or acpanies the serious Reading thereof as it directs to Christ Jesus or to his Light and Spirit which openeth the Understanding in the holy Scriptures Again about my owning the Speaking of the Spirit in any to be of greater Authority then the Scriptures or Chapters you unfairly leave out my following words which explain my Sense and Intention which are viz. as receiv'd and proceeding from that Spirit and spoaken in the Senee thereof as Christ's words were of greater Authority when he Spoak then the Pharisees Reading the Letter Ser. Apol. pag. 49. And we might farther add that the same words of the holy Scripture are of more Authority and Efficacy when the Spirit in any speaks them or sets them home to the Conscience then when any one Reads or Speaks them without the Spirit and this not at all to undervalue the Truth of what is written Nor did we ever prefer our Books before the Bible as unjustly we are charg'd but do prefer the Bible before all other Books extant in the World as we can sufficiently evince out of our Friends Writings And as for Titles given upon some of our Books which is alledged as Proof against us viz. Voice of Wisdom Breathings of True Love A Shield of Truth Light risen out of Darkness c. but saith T. Hicks The Scriptures are call'd Dead Letter Paper Ink and Writing Carnal Letter c. and all this to prove That we give the Preference to our own Books but he giveth us not any Quotation for all these Words or Titles nor shews us on what Occasion any of them were spoken however his Brethren undertake to be Witnesses for him in these Things with the rest But herein he hath grosly abused us and our Intention and Principle which never was to bring our Books in Comparison with the Scriptures nor have we given any such Titles so to prefer our Books but with respect unto the secret Breathings of True Love and the Arising of the Light or Signification of God's Voice in our Souls Such Titles therefore have been not strictly but figuratively placed upon some Books and the Letter only made mention of in the Sense of the Apostle in Distinction between the Law and the Gospel or as between the Letter and the Spirit Circumcision in the Letter Circumcision in the Spirit and so between Baptism in the Letter and Baptism in the Spirit and between Carnal Commands or Ordinances and Spiritual and this chiefly to those whose Minds have been too much in the Shadows and Letter thereof neglecting the Substance Power Spirit We knowing also that in the New Covenant we must serve the Lord in the Newness of the Spirit and not in the Oldness of the Letter But more over would T. Hicks and you his Witnesses take it well if you and the World should be told that the Baptists prefer their own Books before the Scriptures when they entitle their own Books Light from the Sun of Righteousness The Light within The Marrow of Christianity A Way to Sion Some Beams of Light c. But the Scriptures they have calld the Letter or the Oldness of the Letter Marrow of Christianity pag. 35.44 And say The Scriptures may be and is corrupted by Man having been in the hands of corrupted Men and the Spirit in the Rule of more Efficacy then the Letter St. John Newman's Light within p. 19 20 104 105 106 108 110 112. Judge Reader how these Baptists are faln into the Pit which they have dig'd for others and how they are more highly concern'd in the same thing that they alledge against us to prove us No Christians But should any hereupon make a Comparison between the Titles they give to their own Books and those they have given to the Scriptures and thereupon should positively charge them with giving their own Pamphlets the Preference they would take it very hardly But if they can find any reasonable Allegations to bring themselves off from this ensnaring Objection that is retorted upon them according to their own Method they might in Charity have reserved a better Construction for us in the Case Sect. IV. Of the Light within I May not well omit one Passage which is cast upon me as an Absurdity in their fourth Page viz. If the Life
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.
which I presume by this time you have consider'd what say you thereunto To which he gives this Answer in the Quakers Name viz. I say tho Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee and to this subscribeth George Whitehead But T. Hicks's Abuse and Falshood herein was detected in W. P's Answer to his last Dialogue Counterf Christian pag. 19 20 21. As also his Forgery herein laid upon him in my Appendix to Reason ag Railing p. 13. Howbeit he is not ashamed in the Barbican Relation to say The Truth of this Answer see attested under Mr John Gladman ' s hand Dial. 3. pag. 85. I do not think that T. Hicks can be ignorant of his wittingly wronging both me and John Gladman in this case for observe doth Jo. Gladman in the place quoted attest that this was G. W's Answer to the Question to which it is annexed by T. H. in G. W's Name No. But that G.W. spoak the Words in Discourse with him that is with John Gladman Not to T. H. in Answer to his Question If J. Gladman speak his Conscience he dare not attest that this was G. W's Answer to this Question to which it is here adjoyned as his Answer or saying thereunto Therefore T.H. is a Forger and hath cheated his Witnesses and drawn in J. Gladman for a Cover to his Deceit which shews his Spirit and Work to be in the Dark like that of an Impostor and Jugler in these matters And Men fearing God would be ashamed either to be his Witnesses or to countenance or encourage him therein Although I deny not that I spake any such Words against T. H. at any time as J. G. hath unfairly represented me in telling the World That G. W. denyeth he said so against T. Hicks Dial. 3. pag. 85. for my Answer shows the contrary in my said Appendix p. 13. though still I deny that to be my Answer unto T. H's Question before however as I did not question as in my Appendix but that the Judgments of God would follow T. Hicks for his Forgeries Slanders so I am of the same mind still and my so speaking I neither did give nor do give for an Answer to his particular Questions But in his fictitiously placing it as my saying to that one Question before he might as well have made it serve to every Question in all his Dialogues which was never so intended nor spoaken by me but with reference to his Forgeries and Slanders in general There are divers other things in their Relation aforesaid which concern Geo. Keith W. Penn and others that we might justly except against but they are answered elsewhere and we could have wish'd that you who are T. H's Witnesses would have seriously perus'd our former Answers to T. H. wherein his Forgeries Slanders Perversions and plain self-Contradictions are laid open particularly in those Books entitul'd Reason against Railing and Counterfit Christian detected from page 6. to p. 54. this might both have prevented that Disgrace Trouble that is since befaln you by engaging for such an Agent and that you would be pleas'd yet seriously to view all the Controversies you may perceive many Particulars charg'd against T. Hicks which neither himself nor you have either answer'd or in the least clear'd him of And further consider those Particulars charg'd against him out of his fictitious Dialogues printed in our Friends late Account of the Meeting with you at Barbican the 9th of the 8th Month 1674. as in Pag. 8 9 10 11. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39. pages of the said Account also George Keith's late Vindication I hope you have consider'd that moderate Account which your Friend and Brother W. L. hath given in his Book entitul'd The Twelve Pagan Principles or Opinions c. and what a Serious Check it containeth to Thomas Hicks for his Immoderation and Unfair Dealing George Whitehead Page 17. Line 13. there should be a noted stop or this ‖ direction after Proved to which the Margent refers p 28 l. 25. for every read very p. 4◠l. 5. for for 1. so * Dial. p. 63. Title-Page Mat. 27.58 Joh. 2.19 20.12 Luke 24.3 Heb. 10.5 * Which having various Significations their being imposed hath caused Divisions and fruitless Contests * In his Book entit Light from the Sun of Righteousness p. 94. * when it is probable they had heard that before the Meeting Dial. 1. p. 62 75. Append. p. 17. Appendix p. 20 21 23. * See Hen. Grigg's Light from the Sun p. 30. 31 33 34. * See J. Newman's Light within p. 55 66 72. answered by me in my Book Christ ascended p. 18 19 20 21. Dial. 3. p. 33. P. 17. P. 26. Rom. 2.29 7.6 2 Cor. 3.6 Hebr. 9.10 Rom. 7.6 On Joh. 1.4