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
THE Quakers Plainness DETECTING FALLACY IN Two Short Treatises I. The First in Answer to an Abusive Epistle styl'd The Quakers Quibbles and the Comparison therein between the Muggletonians and Quakers proved Absurd and Vnjust II. The Second being a brief Impeachment of the Forger's Compurgators in their Quakers Appeal Answered whose Injustice Partiality and false Glosses have given the chief Occasion of these late Contests By George Whitehead Ye have eaten the Fruit of Lyes Hos. 10.13 Printed in the Year 1674. Unprejudiced Reader IF the TRUTH could have been overcome by Falshood or buried under Reproaches or stopt with Popular Clamours or undermined by the secret Combinations of its Adversaries or supprest by Injustice and Partiality I confess these implacable and envious Men who are chiefly concerned against us would have the Day and their Iniquity been triumphant and remained uncontroulable But such their Weapons and Engines â—â—ve not prevailed nor ever shall effect the Enemies Designs against God's Cause or Heritage Had they been Men of Tender Conscience or respected the Honour of Religion more then Interest and Popular-Fame they would not have given us Occasion for these publick Contests neither by abetting a manifest Forger nor by lying Pamphlets or false Relations that they so frequently bring forth and cause to be spread against us But their hard Hearts their fretful striving Spirits vent forth their Envy and declare their Spleen and Ill-will towards us only that they want Power to effect their Revenge upon us to evince this I could give divers Instances that an Inveterate Persecuting Spirit hath long been and yet lives and works in divers of these Baptist-Teachers and Leaders such as cannot suffer Persecution themselves for their Religion but a little Storm or small Gust would blow them into their Holes and Obscurities again and yet they seem to envy the Liberty and grudge the Prosperity of others we have Cause to think that even Ours is as an Eye-Sore to them If they urge me herein I doubt not but I can particularly demonstrate it and in some Measure shew the Antiquity of their persecuting Envy and of late their Outrage is ominous of their Decrease Confusion and Ruin I am sensible the secret Hand of God hath been and is at Work against this Perverse Generation because of their Hypocrisie and Envy against us his People And how do they Revile Infamize Baite and Bark at that Sincere-hearted and Zealous Man William Penn What Libels Pamphlets Books Squibs Cantings Jeers Silly Drolls and Railing have his Adversaries Baptists and their Assistents let fly at him as Men full freight with Envy by all which both He and many more are but the more confirmed against them and their Way resolving if they were otherwise to seek they would never be Dipt by these Baptists into their Spirit Religion or Church Of late I have met with a very partial and scornful Pamphlet styled The Quakers Quibbles said to be set forth in an Expostulatory Epistle to W. Penn unto which I thought meet to write this following brief Tract though it be not directed to me I am concerned for the Truth and People of God being both abused through the Envy and Folly of their Confused Adversaries We find the said Pamphlet subscribed with the Name Thomas Thompson p. 26. And in Conclusion Thomas Thompson whether this be the Real Author's Name some question however some of the Baptists have commended and promoted his Work as an Ingenuous Piece who have pretended themselves ignorant of the Author of it but whatever he be he writes like a Confident Controuler of W. P. and the Quakers and would seem to be somebody but his Complement of Sir and thou Sir and thou c. as also Mountebank Fool c. with much more such Language to W. P. looks but oddly a strange Way of complementing from such a Person as would be thought a Moderator and Indifferent Pen But whoever the Author be his Work will further declare what dark Spirit it came from and that it much resembles that of a Prejudiced Angry Anabaptist only disguised and mixed with a little of different Style and silly Drollery However he and these Baptists that so much envy us and out of their Pride and Emulation would be smiting at W. Penn because of his Testimony for the Truth among us and his Zeal against Truth 's Adversaries they do but strive and quarrel in vain and I must tell them there was a Hand of the Lord in raising him up as also will appear in many more to bear Witness against such a stingy Generation of Hypocrites and Apostates as of late do busy themselves and take Counsel together like malicious Incendiaries against us and their Counsel God will bring to nought and scatter the Proud in their Imaginations yet I have a secret Sadness and Sorrow of Spirit because of the great Loss Declension Apostacy that divers even of these Baptists are fallen into On the former Zeal for Religion Tenderness of Conscience and Desires after an Experimental and Inward Knowledge of the Spirit Power and Work of God that were stirring in many when they were in a Low and Suffering Condition which now they have lost and the Zeal of several turned into Enmity and they grown Cold and Dead in the Earth and Spirit of the World yet there is a Remnant among them whom the Lord will visit and gather out as those other Sheep that desire to return to the great Shepherd and Sheepfold from off those Barren Hills and out of those Empty Professions and Dead Forms and Shadowy Observations under which the Souls of many yet lye starving and pining for want of the True and Heavenly Bread which is in the Father's House G. W. THE Quakers Plainness DETECTING FALLACY Section I. Of the Partiality and Confusion of the Pamphlet styled The Quakers Quibles and the Authors Hypocrisie and Envy WHereas the Author of the Pamphlet whoever he be styles himself an Indifferent Penn and would appear to be a very meek moderate man assuring us he is neither Baptist nor Quaker p. 37. implying that he is an Impartial Person between both But now let the serious Reader consider and judge of this Man's Moderation and Ingenuity who instead of impartially relating Matters of Fact for others to judge of all along bears upon the Quakers with hard Language Jeers Taunts and Canting Quibles comparing W.P. with a Jesuite in his Oration and to a Mountebank or Stage-Player accusing him with Shuffles Railing Clamour less Railing at Billingsgate the Author of a Lye not only a Fool his unjust and us his Friends with Foll Immoderation Rancor Malice Obstinacy Vnreasonableness not to say Madness Passion â—â—gling Refractoriness Ridiculous Fancâ—â—s Weakâ—â—ss Qâ—â—bling base old Way of Evasion and Shâ—fâ—ing perverse Generation obstinately confident and confidently obstinate without Order or Rule Rime or Reason Fools fit for nâ— Man to dispute with except some of Muggleton 's Discâ—ples Billingsgate Rhetorick misterious Subtitâ—â—es
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 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
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.