THE Counterfeit Christian DETECTED; And the REAL QUAKER JUSTIFIED.  
Of God and Scripture, Reason & Antiquity. against The Vile Forgeries, Gross Perversions, Black Slanders, Plain Contradictions & Scurrilous Language of T. HICKS an Anabaptist Preacher, in his Third DIALOGUE between a Christian and a Quaker, called, The Quaker Condemned, etc.  
By way of Appeal to all sober People, especially those called Anabaptists in and about the City of London.  
By a Lover of Truth and Peace W. P.  
The Vile Person will speak Villainy, and his Heart will work Iniquity, to practise Hypocrisy, and to utter Error against the Lord,  Isa. 32.6. 
But ye are Forgers of Lies, ye are all Physicians of no value,  Job 13.4. 
Printed in the Year 1674.   

Reader,  
IT was about a Mon●th after the Publication of T. Hicks' last Dialogue, ere I knew there w●s such a Pamphlet in the World; I took gr●at Care to ge● it, and then used no less Diligence to peruse it, which having done, I shall briefly and faithfully give thee my Sense, both of the Man and his Work, and, I hope, sufficient Proof to justify that Account.  
Some were of the mind, our full and so●er Answer to his other disingen●ous Dialogues, with that Remembrance we gave him of his own former Dislike and Reprehension of that unfair way of writing Controversy, to some of his own Profession in Wiltshire, would have had some place with him, and influence upon him, towards a more just Proceed with us for the f●ture; That instead of a Man of Straw, and a Fool and a Knave of his own creating (and therefore called by him a Quaker, that he might the better entitle us to his invented Error, Blasphemy and Immoralities, and bring us under the Odium that follows) we should have seen, if not a real Contrition for the Wrong done us at least, if in the Wrong ourselves, some Arguments more fairly given, and tenderly pressed, in order to reclaim us: But in lieu of a solid & edifying Confutation (were we in the Wrong) the Man is become resolved and desperate; without all regard to God, Reason, Scripture, his own Credit, and the Repute of his Party (not a little weakened by his Carriage) for it seems no matter with him how black the Stratagem be, provided it r●nders but the Quakers and their Faith detestabl●. And so remote is he from the least Acknowledgement of his former Miscarriages, to wit, Forgeries, Perversions, Evasions, Lies, Slanders and Rail, that with regret I speak it, he has presumtuously continued & advanced in that Ungodly Practice, as if he would maintain on● Iniquity by the doubled Confidence of another; increasing, with the number of his Dialogues, the number of those Impieties, for which his other two were so frequently rejected of sober and well-disposed People. Now if the man be so bad, and that in his Book too, how his Book can be good, is beyond the Skill of any man to tell us. That he deserves no better Character at any good man's ●and, and that I write but the very Truth of the Matter, I shall proceed to manifest by such Instances and Evidences, as I think cannot be justly questioned of either Reason or Sense.  
Reader, be but intent and impartial in thy perusal, and I desire no more at thy hands to our Vindication and our Adversary's utter Shame. Farewell.   

THE Counterfeit Christian DETECTED;  
NOt long after Tho. Hicks had brought forth his first piece of Fiction, being charged by several, as well those that were not of our Way, as our own Friends, with having made a Quaker of his own (and no wonder then that he should confute him) he, as one concerned to buoy up his Credit above those Assaults, writes the Continuation, or Second Part, endeavouring to make appear, that he had not wronged us in his first. I undertook to consider them, and that in a Spirit of Moderation, to the people of his Profession, and to him, at most, but in a Way of grave Rebuke of his Unchristian Practice. In this I represented his Forgery, with many other of his Unrighteous Dealings towards our Persons and Profession. At this he fumed and raged; and where he might safely do it, in City and Country, I was a Knave, and I know not how many more Hard Names, that both suit his Envy, predominant Passions and sordid Practice, to t●e Disgrace of his Religious Pretences. But it has so happened, that about ● Year's time after, he has thought it requisite to give us six Sheets, which are to advocate his Cause, and prove to the World that I am an arrogant, Abusive, Profane, Impertinent Man, with abundance of the like Dirt, out of his foul Pit, which he loads almost every Page withal.  
The Intent of this last Undertaking, is to condemn us out of our ow● Mouth, and show to the World, that we verify what before he had charged upon us, and we so confidently denied: But if upon Examination, it shall appear, that my Charges against him remain firm, and that by the Assistance of this last Dialogue itself, I hope, notwithstanding his high Rants, mighty Confidence, most positive and dogmatical Sayso's, and hard and scornful Names, with which he endeavours to over-bear us, he sh●ll be reputed the man we have described him, and therefore unworthy of the Name of Christian, which he untruly gives himself in his Dialogues.  

§. 1. Tho. Hicks proved guilty of Forgery.  
I Shall begin with an Account of his Title-Page, and what he promises his Reader there; The Quaker Condemned out of his own Mouth, or an Answer to W. Penn's Book, entitled, Reason against Railing, and Truth against Fiction; wherein W. P. hath confessed, That if those things objected against the Quakers in two former Dialogues be true, that then a Quak●r is quite another thing then a Christian. That those Matt●rs heretofore objected w●re and are real T●uths, and no Fictions is fully cleared and evinced in this Third Dialogue between a Christian and a Q●aker, by THOMAS HICKS, Tit. Pag.  
That a Quak●r is Condemned out of Tho. Hicks' Mouth, is no Wonder to me; but that he should be Condemned out of his own, would be strange, ●nd is, we hope, a Task too difficult for him to surmount. However, he tells us, that what things he objected against us in his former Dialogues, called Fictions by us, are cleared and evinced to be no Fictions, but real Tr●ths by him: This is either true or false; if true, we are wrong; if false, T. Hicks is still to be reputed a Forger.  
He that would clear himself from any Charge, must be sure to take into his Answer the Matter of that Charge, or he shuffles with his Adversary, and maketh no allowable Defence for himself. That this is T. Hick's Case, instead of Condemning the Quaker out of his own Mouth, and consequently that he is worthy to be condemned himself for his Enterprise, I shall briefly show.  
I charged him at the Entrance into my former Book, with having answered his own knottiest Questions in our Name, with the most weak and impertinent Returns he could well invent; and in many Pages there was not so much as a Quotation to be seen (a Practice to be detested of any that have learned but the very Alphabet of Common Honesty) to which the man says nothing, yet would be thought a fair Disputant, yea, a Christian too, if any Body will believe him.  
Next I charged him with having given some Answers, we could acknowledge ours, joined to their proper ●uestions, unto such Questions, as they were never returned to, therefore guilty of Forgery, though not in making them Answers at all; yet in giving them for Answers to those Questions unto which they never related, which is a manifest Misapplication of them; But of this neither do we hear one word.  
Again, though what he has said in his Title-Page, be enough for u●, and we shall anon descend to use it, yet does not that contain or reach my Question, as in Honesty it ought to have done, which was this; Whether those Doctrines and Expressions charged up●n the People called Quakers, by Tho. Hicks in both his Dialogues, be really the Doctrines and Sayings of that People, or not? And afterwards, Whether what we own, and is by him charged with Error, is sufficiently opposed or proved such? Reason against Railing, p. 6. which, Reader, takes in not only what T. H. objects against the Quakers, but what he invents and answers for them, and under their Name, whether it be about Doctrine or Practi●e. Nor is this all that may be learned of T. Hicks in his Title-Page; For, to complete his Baseness in that very Passage, observe, that as he only renders us concerned at his Objections, so does he confine these words [are real Truths and no Fictions] unto them. Whereas it is notorious to all that have but turned over my Answer, that it was not only, nor indeed so much his Objections ●gainst us, as those Answers he gave for us, that I charged with Fiction. But T. Hicks' Policy in this Contrivance is not unworthy of our notice, though always of our Approbation; for this is the plain Language of it, If I use not these Stratagems to cloud the Question, and vary the Charge, I am a Forger, etc. there's no Help for it; and that discards me with all men, even those of my ●wn Party; wherefore I will so order the Matter, that I will only bring myself upon the 
* Not that I allow him to have rightly charged us in every thing in that Sense neither.  Proof of my own Objections, and overlook theirs. But though this goes a great way, yet this alone will not do; For I query, Dost thou intend by Objections, which thou sayest I call Fictions, all or some; if but some of them, thou shouldst in Honesty have said so; if all, as thy words imply, than ha●● thou further abused us; for my state of the Question includes a grant of some of them in point of Citation, though none as Errors.  
But, Reader, this is T. Hicks'● Fetch (for without them he can do nothing against us) If I can extend th● word Forgery or Fiction, as w●ll to things they do grant, a● those they deny, by some such general words, as Matters objected against the Quakers, etc. Then by proving they acknowledge I have rightly quoted and charged them in some three or four Particulars, I will clear myself from the foul Imputation of Forgery in all the rest.  
That this is the very Truth itself, and therefore Forgery in the Abstract, let the Reader know, that this has been his Practice, to wit, Where we have never charged Forgery upon him, he has taken his Opportunity, and th●● with the Confidence of an Innocent to cry out, Is this candid to call me a Forgery, when you confess the thing— Then I am not guilty of Forgery— this clears me from being a Forger— Examine these Pages in his 3d Dialogue, viz. p. 4, 5, 6, 9, 29, 36, 39 and mine to which he there refers, and which he pretends to answer, and thou wilt have such Evidence of the Truth of what I s●y to thy very Sense, as must needs render my Adversary's Carriage worthy of thy severe Censure.  
But as he hath attempted the Proof of his Innocency in this Matter, by ●●aces that never reflected any such sort of Gild upon him (therefore still the man once charged to be) so has he wholly declined meddling with that very Head of Forgery, under which I ranked near Twenty Answers, set down by him in our Name, that were ●ever given by us, in either Matter or Form, to those or any other Questions, as a Demonstration of the Truth of my Accusation; some of which are so very gross, that had not his Envy overpowered his Wits, Credit with his sober Neighbours would have dissuaded him, if the Apprehension of God's Judgements could not have deterred him.  
Before I produce Particulars, I shall recite a Passage in his second Dialogue, p. 2. as a Proof of the immeasurable Confidence, as well as Folly and Wickedness of the Man. Quak. Thou hast presented the World with a Quaker of thine own framing, making him to speak those Impertinencies and Falsehoods that were never uttered by any real Q●●aker; Therefore it is a Forgery. G. W. Epistle to D. P●. Anab. You had done well▪ if you had produced some I●st●nc●s wherein I made them speak what was never uttered by a real Quaker: But if I can prove that what is spoken under that Name is the Language of a real Quaker; then thou hast confessed that such may be guilty of Impertinencies and Falsehoods.  
But T. Hicks has made them speak what was never uttered by a Real Quak●●, and has not so much as attempted to prove the contrary; Therefore T. Hick● by his own Argument is guilty of Impertinencies and Falsehoods. This I made appear in my Answer to his former Dialogues; and therein did well by his own Confession; For I produced several Passages to make good my Charge of Forgery, unto which he is wholly silent. I shall instance in three or four of t●●m, that my Reader may both perceive the Spirit of the man, and see at what rate he has cleared himself from my Imputations.  Anabapt. 
Is it honest in you to deny the Scripture to be a Rule to others, when at the same time you make it a Rule ●o yourselves? Dial. 1. pa●. 24, 52.  Quake. 
Thou mistakest u●; when we make us● of the Scriptures, it is only to quiet and stop their Clamours, that plead for it as their Rule.  Anab. 
D● you believe the Scriptures to be the true Sayings of God, ibid. p. 25, 2.  Quak. 
Yea, so far a● they agree with the Light within.  Anab. 
May I not conclude, that the Reason why you so freely rail against and reproach your Oppos●rs, is only to secure your Credit with your Proselytes, ibid. p. 72, 73.  Quake. 
I cannot deny but that there may be something of that in it.  Anab. 
Will this convince me or any other of your Perfection? ibid.  Quak. 
Though it do not, yet thereby we shall render you so Odious to our Friends, that they will believe nothing that is spoken by you against us.  Anab. 
Will you be so liberal of your Revile, whether your Adversary's give occasion or no? ibid.  Quak. 
It concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can, and to make our Fri●nds believe, they do nothing but contradict themselves: And if this fail, we will insinuate something by way of Question, that may be Reproachful to them.  Anab. 
But doth not this signify a very Dishonest and Malicious Mind? ibid.  Quak. 
We ●are not what you think, provided our Friends think not so. We will give it out, that we have both answered and confuted our Adversaries, and our Friends will believe u●, which is enough to us.  
What a Wicked and False Quaker this counterfeit Christian hath made to abuse true ones? If this be not Forgery, palpable Forgery, and that not only against some one Person, but the People in general, personated by his own mad● Quak●r, there is no such thing as Forgery in the World. Oh you that seriously profess Religion, can you away with this?  
But hath he vindicated himself from these base Courses, or honestly confessed them? Neither. How then can he justly call himself a Christian, or be thought to have answered my Book, that hath thus basely declined that part of it, which stood him most upon to disprove? But how grossly soever he hath represented us, and how silently overlookt our Charges, he wants not Confidence to write after this Strain; I do affirm in seriousness, that the Account I have now, and heretofore given of the Quakers, is no other than the very Truth, Epist. p. 5. How serious is this Man in his Lying? Forge first, and then Lie to prop it: Impudence in Grain!  
For what he hath said heretofore relating to this particular, I have here briefly considered it. Let us see if he be any better now; In order to it, I have already shown you the Shuffle of his Title-page: I will now proceed to give you an Account of his Progress in this Black Art of Forgery and base Abuse.  Anabapt. 
I am not conscious of having objected any thing against you in my former Dialogues, but what I am certainly persuaded to be true, p. 1.  
But is not T. Hicks conscious of first making us say that we never said, & then calling it, A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker? That T. Hicks was a Forger, I have evidenced: That he is one still, his own words show; for instead of retracting, he pleads Innocency in being so: No wonder this man can write against the Light within; whose Conscience, if we will believe him, is so seared, that it feels no Risings against the foulest Forgeries. But let's hear him a little further.  Anabapt. 
I am so confid●nt of the Truth of those Allegations, that I doubt not to avouch them, to all impartial men, Ibid.  
We never doubted his Confidence, but Honesty. His Allegations must either respect those Passages, which he booked, & paged, or else all that he alleges under the Name of Quaker: If the former, he is a Forger still; for more than Three Hundred in his first Dialogue were neither booked nor paged: If the latter, he tells a plain Untruth; for he has not so much as attempted to avouch them, unless it is to be understood of his Confidence's.  

Seven Instances I shall give of his Continuance in FORGERY.  
I. T. Hicks' first Forgery begins with his Title-page, and in that very Passage, where he promiseth an Evincement of his own Objections to be no Fictions, but real Truths; to wit, that he doth not only content himself in making the Evincement of his own Objections against us (unfairly overlooking ours) to be all he is concerned in, but in so many words tells the World, That I confess, if those things objected against the Quakers in th● two former Dialogues be true, that then a Quaker is quit● another thing then a Christian; who never said or confessed any such thing in all my Life: For I well knew, that the Controversy rise higher, and went further than his mere Objections; I mean, ●o all he gave under our Name; as both the Question stated, and my Pursuit of it do evidently prove. So that he, to make the clearing of his own Objections enough (yet more than he can e●er do) brings me in with a Confession of a thing I never thought on, much less ever writ; what shall I call this but Forgery upon Forgery?  
II. His Second Forgery brings me in thus:  Qu. 
If thy Quotations be true, I do freely acknowledge, that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian, Reas. against Rail. p. 2.  
There is no Passage so laid down by me; my words are these, T. Hicks hath given us a Second Part, wherein he hopes to make good, what he charged upon us in his first by Quotations out of our own Books; If faithfully done, I shall freely acknowledge that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian. Where it is observable, that I do not lay the Hazard of a Quaker's being a Christian, merely upon the Truth of his Quotations, but the Use of and Application of them, if they be faithfully done; that is, if he can make those Quotations and his Charges meet against us, I shall concede; for a Quotation implies an Agreement. He hoped to creep out at a few right Citing, and to be over looked all false Applying and Perverting by unnatural Consequences to his Crooked Purpose. Though had I said, as he sets me down, I should have no Cause to fear the Issue; since if Naming us may go for quoting, he has done it an Hundred times, where he has directed to no particular Way of knowing the Truth thereof, consequently a Forger; and where he has been more punctual, I dare abide by every such one he ever made, well knowing he cannot get one Letter to speak for him, but by his mere Sophistry and customary Wrists.  
III. His Third Forgery in this 3d Dialogue is thus laid down by him. He begins with an Answer to the last Passage he quoted for mine.  Anabapt. 
Art thou well advised in what thou sayest? p. 1, 2.  Quak. 
Were we as thou representest us, the severest Plagues and Judgements of the Eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, Reas. against Rail. pag. 4.  
The Stress lies here, Whether this Answer were ever given by me to the Question 'tis now made an Answer to? I say, No; Therefore a Forger. Next, let us see if it was ever given to a Question of the like Tendency? No; therefore the greater Forger. I will set down the two Passages unto which this hath been given twice for Answer, that my Reader may be helped to a clearer Sight of the Man.  
In this third Dialogue he queries of me:  Anab. 
Art thou well advised in what thou sayest, in saying, If my Quotations be ●rue, thou dost freely acknowledge that a Quaker is quite another thing th●n a Christian, Dial. 3. p. 1.  Quak. 
Were we as thou representest us, the severest Plagues and Judgements of the eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, R. against R. p. 4.  
Thus T. H. lays it down: But let us see how it is in my Book.  T. ●. 
queries, Will you be so liberal of your Revile, whether your Adversary give occasion or not? He answereth for us: Quak. It concerns u● to render them as ridiculous as we can, and to make our Friends believe, They do nothing but contradict themselves, which is enough to us. Upon which Reader, I made this Reflection: Certainly these things show such premeditated and wilful Obstinacy, to be Wicked, that w●re we what he represents us to be IN THIS VERY MATTER▪ the severest Plagues and Judgements of the eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion, etc. p. 4. If any said IN THIS VERY MATTER, than not in every Matter T. Hicks pleaseth to wrest or twist it to: Oh gross Abuse! Shall this Man go for a Christian? But his Evil is greatly heightened, when we consider, that these Words were spoken of such a Passage, as to this Minute he never so much a● attempted to clear from the Imputation of Forgery, though so charged upon him, pag. 67. of my Answer; because there was no Quotation for it, nor in sense can be expected for so plain a Fiction: And yet he makes i● a formal Answer to ● Question about right and wrong Quotations, which were not there in Question; as if it were one and the same thing, to say, the Plagues and Judgements of God we might expect, etc. if so morally Evil as h● brought us in spe●king ourselves to be, for which he directed us to no particular Proof, neither could: And to say, We might justly expect the Plagues a●d Judgements of God, etc. if he represented us right, as to Quotations about Doctrines out of our own Books, which was never th● Question. He that can thus invent, add, diminish, and transpose, both Words and Sentence●, may write Dialogues at Pleasure, and as easily abuse the Prophets and Apostles, yea, Christ Jesus himself, as the People called Quakers.  
FOUR His fourth Forgery he makes, and that I think ●t ●o re●●●k, is this▪  Anab. 
But dost thou indeed believe, that those Quotations in the former Dialogues are Forgeries?  Quak. 
I do so, Dial. 3. p. 2.  
This is all false: I never thought so, much less writ so; nor was that the Question, taking Quotations for places cited, as to Book and Page. And if generally accepted by him, he brings me in denying all, which was as much beside my Thoughts.  
Thus he shuffles with me, and endeavours to delude simple People by the word Quotation (which taken strictly, does not reach the one half of those Answers he made us to give) by getting a few Passages acknowledged, which he has punctually made (though miserably perverted) to make them believe, all given under our Name, not so cited, are also allowed under the same Term [Quotations.]  
Besides, he has not referred us for any such Answer in any Book I ever wrote. This, Reader, is so far from proving and evincing former Charges against us, that it is to multiply more Fictions, and add to his other Score.  
V. His Fifth Forgery is in page 59 and consists of two Parts: The first is, The foisting in of the Word only, The second of mis-placing and applying my Answer, that he may the better have his Ends upon me, which is but one of his many unruly reigning Sins. Observe, because I told him, that E. B. in saying, That was not a Command to him, which was a Command to another, respected not those universal and eternal Precepts of fearing God, and working Righteousness (as T. H. untruly inferred) But more extraordinary and particular Injunctions; such as the Going of Moses to Pharaoh, with many more. And because I explain an other Passage out of E. B. by him cited and wrested, viz. You are not dead with Christ, who are yet subject to Ordinances; after this manner, E. B. pleads ONLY against such Ordinances, as were but Shadowy, and to pass off; He puts the Adverb Only, by me mentioned, in what I said to this last Citation out of E. B. in my Explanation of the first Citation, where I never mentioned it. And that he might fasten a Contradiction upon me, he omits this last Citation out of E. B. mentioned in his second Dialogue, and makes the Answer I gave to his Use of it, to belong to that which I gave to the former about Commands, as if they had been but one entire Answer to one and the same Passage, which were really two.  
The Advantage he hoped to gain, was this, that I should say, E. B. intended by Commands, only extraordinary Ones, as Mos●s's going to Pharaoh, etc. and yet say, That E. B. only meant such Ordinances as are Shadowy; if only such extraordinary, than not only such Shadowy; if only such shadowy, than not only such extraordinary; as if they had been said of the same Passage, and on the same Occasion; whereas the first was in page 47. of E. B's Works, and the other in page 105. as T. Hicks himself quotes them, in his second Dialogue, p. 59, 61.  
But that which yet adds Blackness to this Forgery, is first, that, at what time he foisted into my Explanation of the first Passage, he basely left out these three Words [with many more] which were on Purpose to show I did not stint E. B's Use of the Word Command, to the extraordinary Ca●es, instanced in my Answer. And next that, after all that premeditated Injustice, he flings these stinking Interrogatories at me, Dost thou consult thy Credit in multiplying such Instances of thy Inadvertency and Folly? What Reason hath any Man to believe thee, either in what thou affirmest or deniest, that dost so apparently contradict thy s●lf? This is not only to be bad, but brazen withal. To contradict a Man's self is reprovable; but to make Contradictions in another Man's Name, is detestable: To commit Injuries against any is ill done; but to brave the wronged with insolent Reflections must needs be a great Aggravation. What think the more sober among the Bap●●sts of the●e Things?  
VI The Sixth Forgery I shall now mention is the Answer T. H. makes G. W. to give in his second Dialogue, pag. 1. The Question and Answer I will recite.  Anab. 
I have formerly detected you of several pernicious Errors, concerning the Scriptures, Light within, Person of Christ and Resurrection, etc. What say you thereunto?  Quak. 
I say, The Plagues and Judgements of God will follow thee.  G. W. 
denies that this was ever his Answer to that Question, Appendix, p. 13. Though he at the same time tells T. H. he no way's doubts the Thing. T. H. that he may not lie under the Charge of Forgery, so fixed upon him by G. W. has by his Legerdemain, p. 69. trapped in Joh. Gladman, to cloak his Fiction, thus; Whereas G. W. denies that he said, The Plagues and Judgements of God would follow T. Hicks, th●se may certify, that G. W. and myself being in Discourse about the Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, he said, The Plagues and Judgements of God would follow T. Hicks, and all that had a Hand in that Dialogue, or that dispersed it. J. Gladman, Dial. p. 85.  
But the Meaness of the Shift aggravates the Forgery: Did G. W. ever deny that he had said so to J. G. or was that the Question? Vain Man! or tell us, Does J. Gladman certify, that G. W. said so to T. H. at what time he controversially asked him that Question? Which is to come close to the Question: Or does he say, there ever was any such Question asked him? Clear 'tis, G. W. never denied that he had spoken those words, or to the same Effects, to any Body at any time, or upon any Occasion (Therefore hath J. G. also manifestly wronged him in saying, whereas G. W. denies that he said, etc. this is an Untruth, as is evident by G. W's own Answer, Appendix p. 13.) and as evident it is, that the Substance of this Certificate goes no further than to testify that which was never yet denied; Therefore no Certificate to clear the Matter objected against T.H. to wit, That he never received by Word or Writing any such Question from T. H. much less did he ever return him any such Answer; consequently T. H. a Forger still.  
I will briefly parallel the Case: Let us suppose a Dispute between T. Hicks a Predestinarian, and J. Ives an Vniversalist, both Anabaptists, about Election and Reprobation; And J. Ives using his Wits to depaint T. H's Opinion to greatest Disadvantage; which T. H. looking upon as Unfair, and thinking himself not to have been doctrinally, gravely and justly dealt with, as by the Law of Sober Disputation should have been, falls upon J. Ives with this Rebuke, Thou art an Ungodly; Vain and Ca●tious Man; the Judgements of God will overtake thee, if thou Repent not, for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel, and unfair Dealing with me J. Ives immediately writes a Dialogue; the first Question suppose to be this.  J. Ives. 
What dost thou say, T. H. to those gross and blasphemous Absurdities I charged thy Narrow and Illnatured Opinion with; of damning men unconditionally from all Eternity to glorify God, thereby rendering God more Cruel than M●n and Beasts, that naturally take care of their Offspring representing him partial and double-minded, as having a revealed Will that speaks of his Desire that all should be saved, and a secret Will notwithstanding that damns far the greatest part, whether they Obey or Rebel? with much more of the like cruel and black Aspect. I suppose, thou hast considered them well; hast thou any Reasons to offer in Countenance and Defence of this horrid Opinion? What sayest thou?  
T. Hicks is made by J. Ives to answer thus:  T. H. 
I say, thou art an ungodly, Vain an● Captious Man; The Judgements of God will overtake thee, if thou Repent not, for thy daring Opposition to the Gospel, and unfair Dealing with me.  
Now, I would ask T. Hicks, if he thinks this Reflection, by him given upon the supposed disingenuous Carriage of J. Ives, to be a proper and suitable Answer for J. Iv●s to give in his Name to a doctrinal Question, unto which, it was never given as an Answer? If not, how injuriously has he dealt with G. W? Are our Rebukes of T. Hicks' Unrighteous and Profane Carriage in his Dialogues, the only Reasons we are able to render in Defence of our Belief, or against his doctrinal Objections? Or may a man honestly take fewer Answer, and give it to his own Question, however impertinent, and that in the other man's Name, with design to render him so? If not, then certainly T. H. has not acted the Christian, but the Counterfeit with us: And God will require this Wickedness at the Church's Hand to which he relates, if they indulge or connive at it.  
VII. His Seventh Forgery, and the last which I will now stand to mention, is ●●is, and I entreat my Readers Attention; for He or I must needs be very Guilty.  
In his second Dialogue pag. 5. he thus brings me in:  Anab. 
Be free and plain with me, how and in what respect is Christ said to fulfil the Law, and to DIE for Sinners.  Quak. 
He fulfilled the Law Only as our Pattern or Example. Christ is so far from telling us of ●uch a Way of being Justified, as that he informs us the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love, was his Obedience: He is so far from telling us of being Justified by Virtue of his Obedience imputed, that unless we keep his Commands and obey for ourselves; in all which Christ is but our Example, Pen. Sand. Found. shakebag. pag. 26.  
To this, Reader, I returned two Pages of Answer, in Defence of my Book, and to detect his Forgery, some of which he hath ventured to give, but with his wont Disingenuity perverted: Let us hear him patiently.  Anab. 
But for as much as thou seemest to grant that Christ's Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice, how will this a●ree with what thou hast formerly asserted? viz. That Christ fulfilled the Law, Only as our Pattern or Example, Dial 3. pag. 74.  Qu●k. 
In this Quotation thou hast done exactly like thyself; for if thou canst find the word Only there, or such an Answer to such a Question, thou hast not wronged me; But sure I am, there is no such Question, and as sure, the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on, and very certain, the word Only was not there; Therefore thou art a Forger. That which I said, with the Scripture on which it was grounded, was this: If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my Love, etc. Reas. against Rail. pag. 78. Sand. Fou●d. p. 26.  Anab. 
H●re it is hard to say, whether thy Dishonesty or Impudenc● be the greater; for in this Answer thou are guilty of no l●ss than three notorious Untruths: First thou insinuatest, as if the Text above named were the only Text from which thou didst argue in thy Sand. Found. pag. 26. 2dly, Thou art sure, the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there. 3dly, Thou art very certain, the word Only is not there: Thus hast thou aggravated thy Wickedness in adding Lie unto Lie, and all this knowingly, Dial. 3. p. 74, 75.  
'Tis now Time for me to speak; and I beseech thee, Reader, hear me; for it is of great moment to determine who is the Forger, who is the Liar; T. H. or W. P.  
First, he suggests by this Question, Is Christ's Death was in the Nature of a Sacrifice, as thou sayest, how will this agree with thy former Assertion, That Christ fulfilled the Law, only as our Pattern, as if the Death and Sufferings of Christ, as a Propitiation to declare God's Righteousness for the Forgiveness of Sins that are past, upon Repentance, had been part of that Doctrine in that part of my Book, unto which those W●●●s relate, viz. Christ fulfilled the Law as our Pattern, ●●ich really was no part of that Doctrine, as may be seen pag. 24, 26.  
For because we assert him to have been our Example in Fulfilling the Righteousness of the moral Law, T. H. would conclude from my words, That he was only our Example in ending Types, Shadows, Sacrifices, Propitiations, etc. of the Law; Therefore great Forgery in him, to make me answer two Questions, the one in pag. 52. of his second Dialogue; the other in in pag. 74 of his last Dialogue, which take in the Death & Sufferings of Christ, that wholly related to but some part of the personal Obedience of his Life.  
I cannot forbear one Instance more of his foul Miscarriage in this particular, viz.  Anab. 
Are we no further concerned in the Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord Jesus without us, then only as our Example or Patttern?  Quack. 
What more wouldst thou have? I have told thee, that Christ fulfilled the Law; but Only as our Example.  
Where there is nothing clearer than that he thrusts the Sufferings of Christ into the Question, which was no part of the Question, making me to deny the Benefit thereof, because I assert him to be only our Example in that which is our daily Duty unto Acceptance with God; not in being a Sacrifice for Sin. Is this not to be Guilty of Fiction? Or is this to describe a real Quaker, and act the part of a true Christian? Oh hateful Injuries!  
But 2dly, In his Quotation of my Answer he hath omitted two Passages; for when I said, If he can find such an Answer to such a Question he has not wronged me, I placed the●e words between, which he dropped, viz. or the M●●ter strictly contained in that Question, which I knew he could never compass, because his Question was, in what Respect Christ died for Sinners; and the Answer he made me give, truly related to the fulfilling filling of the Righteousness of the Law in ourselves. Oh Injurious Man! Is this the Christian?  
His next Omission is this part of my Answer, which followed from my Argument (by him cited for Proof of his Charge) upon John 15.10. If you keep my Commandments, etc. Now (●aid I) that this concerned not the whole Law Christ came to fulfil; the whole Law he fulfilled, the plac● of Scripture quoted, the Nature and Mat●er of the Argument clearly prove. Again, He was our Example in Holiness, ●hough not in his Ending of Types & Shadows, Reas. against Rail. pag. 79. Which Passages R●ader, plainly evidence, that if ever those words were spoken by me, they never extended to Christ's being but our Example in the Fulfilling of the whole Law, which T. Hicks by his Sophistry would insinuate.  
For Answer to his Three notorious Untruths he chargeth on me, take what follows. 1. He says I insinuate as if John 15.10. were the only Text from whence I argued in my Sand. Found, pag. 26. which, Reader, is so far from Truth, that I only charged him with having argued from that Text in which no such word or matter was to be found, which he denies. 2dly, He says, That I am sure the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on there; and that I know therein I have spoken falsely.  
But sure I am he hath told two Tales in charging one upon me: For first, How could the Law, as he understands it, to wit, the Whole Law that Christ came to fulfil, be intended, when the very Text & Argument upon it, show, that it was the Keeping of Christ's Commandments, that they might abide in his Love, and without which they could not be accepted; that was insisted on.  
2dly, He tells an Untruth in charging me with th● Knowledge of that which was not: But as he declined ●his Scripture, so the Arguments by which I proved the Impossibility of Christ's keeping his own Commandments in our stead, with which I made good my Conclusion, viz. The Necessity of Keeping his Commandments as he kept his Father's, in order to Acceptance with him.  
3dly, He says, I am certain, the Word Only is not there, and so add Lie unto Lie knowingly; which, Reader, makes other Two Untruths on my Adversary's part: For first, there is no such Word in all that Argument and Paragraph out of which he made his Citation, as may appear Sand. Found. Shak. pag. 26. Argum. 5. Dial. 2. pag. 52. Reas. against Rail. pag. 79. 2dly, His saying, I should know of a thing that never was, makes up his other Falsehood: But to the end he may acquaint all men with my Folly and Madness, as he is pleased to term his own horrible Fiction, he tells me, that he referred in his Citation not to John 15.10. but Rom. 2.13. Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be justified. But do men use to refer to Places they never cite, either as to Words, Chapter or Verse; for they are not mentioned in his former Dialogues: How then did he refer to them?  
If he says, It was to my Argument, I make the same Demand. Do men refer to Arguments they never mention? If to those they do mention, than I can easily prove, it was not this Scripture or Argument upon it, that T. Hicks referred to▪ Reader, peruse Sand, Found. p. 26. Arg. 5. Dial 2. p. 52. Reas. against Rail. p. 78, 79. and thou shalt see his palpable Untruth.  
But because he builds here upon this Argument, l●t's bear it: Unless we be Doers of the Law, which Chri●t came not to destroy, but as our Example, to fulfil, we can never be just before God: Let not any fancy, that Christ hath SO fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their Obedience, from being requisite to their Acceptance, but Only as their Pattern. Here Only is mentioned: But first, this was not the Place cited, but another that had it not, as before expressed; Therefore I no Liar, but T. Hicks a Forger. 2dly, This Law mentioned Rom. 2.13. was the Moral & Eternal Law of God, & not that Shadowy Law containing Ceremonies, Sacrifices, Propitiatories, Meats, Drinks, and d●vers Washings, etc. which Christ by his Life, Death and Sufferings fulfilled and ended, in which T. H. would make me say, That Christ was Only our Example: That it was not the whole Jewish Law, the two next verses prove; For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do the Things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves, which show the Work of the Law written in their Hearts: Therefore not the whole Jewish Law, for that they had not; consequently, I do not contradict or make void the Benefit of Christ's Death and Sufferings, by saying, He was only our Example in keeping that Law which the best Jews and Gentiles were to keep and kept, and the Righteousness of which is to be fulfilled in us. Thus hath he unworthily added, diminished, mis-rendred, transposed, etc. from time to time. Certainly, the People called Anabaptists, are deeply concerned to reckon with him for this great Scandal to their Profession.  
But suppose I meant the whole Law of God in that place, I see no worse Consequence from my words then this, That so far as man's Obedience to God's Law is requisite to his Acceptance, so far only Christ became our Example: For as he was not our Pattern in things that more peculiarly related to him to perform and finish; so was he no more than our Pattern in that which is our constant Duty to do. Now let T. H. snap and catch what he can, with all his Leg●rdemains, pag. 69. only take this along with him, That by his Reflection upon that Argument, viz. That Christ hath not SO fulfilled the Law for us, as to exclude our Obedience from being requisite to our Acceptance, he implies a Denial of the Necessity of Obeying the Law of God to Acceptance with God; A Doctrine suited to his Practice, contrived and continued to the Ease of Hypocrites▪ no wonder he struggles so hard for it; for without it nothing but Horror would surround him, though at this rate he must not always expect to escape the Blow (I mean not, assassinating of him) a Trick that lives nearer his Complexion than mine, but that Vengeance Which is the Recompense of every Soul that loveth and maketh a Lye.  
With you▪ the People called Anabaptists, I leave this Section; Right us, Right yourselves; Right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary, and yourselves of so Scandalous an Advocate.    

§ II. That T. Hicks has grossly Perverted our Writings.  
TO Forge is bad, but to Pervert may in a Sen●e be worse; since it is to mis-use true words, and by Disguise twist them to a Sense never intended, when many times that which is false it undiscernably swallowed for the sake of something that's true.  
This was another Charge I exhibited against T. Hicks, and an Argument by which I proved him no Christian. I frequently in my Book took Occasion to detect him of this Unworthy Practice and more especially by 26 instances under a distinct Head, containing ten page●, our Principles in one Column, and his Perversions, in another; but he seems dumb to the Charge. Shall I enter him mute? that may alter, but not excuse the Punishment (Assassinating always excepted.) I shall, Reader, for thy sake and the Truth's, produce some of them, that those to whom this may come, may have some Account of his Carriage in his former Dialogues.  
I. From our Belief of the Light's Sufficiency to save, he infers, That all other Means are needless, Dial. 1. p. 36, 37. not considering it was not the Light's Insufficiency, but man's Weakness, that occasioned them. He might object Insufficiency as well against God, Christ, Spirit, Grace, etc.  
II. From our making the Illumination in man to be a natural Emanation or Product of the divine Word which made all things, he wickedly turns it to An Effect of God's Power, and so says, we would make Beasts and Trees, etc. also divine, Ibid. p. 4.  
III. From our asserting that the Light of Christ shineth within the Hearts of Wicked as well as Good Men, He tells People (in our Name) that he is in the Heart of every Wicked Man, as he is in his Saints, Cont. p. 45, 46. Though through Rebellion they partake not of his Life, Power, etc.  
IV. From our affirming, that God is the Teacher of his people, He infers, That we deny all Ministry and Visible Worship, though they stand in God's Power and Spirit, 1 Dial. p. 42, 43.  
V. From our believing Christ to be in his People, according to express Scripture, and that as such he is crucified by Wicked Men, He infers, That we deny Christ to be as well without as within; or that he was ever crucified in the Flesh, 1 Dial. p. 44. Contin. pag. 37, 40, 42.  
VI From our denying of their rigid Satisfaction, that is, that Christ was punished by his Father for our Sin; and that Sins past, present and to come, are answered for: And that men may be Holy by Virtue thereof, though not new, but old Creatures, and so unholy in themselves, He unworthily concludes, That We disown Christ's Death and Sufferings, as a Propitiation, that it carried away Sins past, and sealed Remission in his Blood to as many as believe: And that we expect to be both forgiven and accepted, not for Christ's sake, nor in his Sacrifice & Righteoussness, but our own Works, 1 Dial. p. 9, 10. Contin. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53.  
VII. From our pleading for a Perfection from Sin, and the Duty of growing to the Fullness of the Measure, etc. He infers, Our Denial of Perfection in Degrees, and our Belief of as high a Degree of Perfection in this World, as hereafter, Dial. 1 pag. 48, 49, 50, 51.  
VIII. Because we say, that such Works as are wrought by the Holy Spirit in us, are necessary to Eternal Life, and may in a sense be said to obtain it, since the Lord hath ●o freely offered it upon the Condition of believing and obeing, which are the Fruits of the Spirit of God in man; T. Hicks suggests in our Name, That we expect to merit ●ternal Life by our good Works, and those of our own Working, as the Spider weaves his Webb out of his own Bowels, Dial. pag. 38. Contin. pag. 51, 52.  
IX. Because we say, All Spiritual Liberty stands in God's Power (that redeems from Satan's Snares) He inferreth, That who are not of our Way, should have no Liberty, Cont. pag. 85.  
X. Because we say, The Scriptures are not the great Gospel- Rule, but the Spirit; The Dispensation of the Spirit being that of the Gospel more peculiarly; and that without it we cannot understand, or savingly believe any thing declared of in the Scripture, and therefore that it is our Rule for believing the Scriptures themselves; He basely suggests, That the Quakers cast off al● Precepts in the Scriptures; and so will not bring their Cheats and Impostures to the Test thereof, counting them of no more Authority than Esop's Fables, Dial. 1. p. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. Contin. Epist. to the Reader. Behold your Anabaptist-Preacher!  
XI. From our preaching men to a lost God and Christ, that is, to God and Christ whom they have lost Fellowship with, He perverts it to our believing, That God and Christ were in a lost or undone Condition, Cont. p. 49.  
XII. From our asserting, that what was a Command to any Servant of God in old time, is not so to us, because so to them, that is, such as Moses' going to Pharaoh, the Performance of Types, Shadows and Figure's appointed for a Season, and to pass off, unless required by the same Spirit anew, He falsely infers, That those Moral and Eternal Precepts, Thou shalt have no other God but me, Thou shalt not Murder, Commit Adultery, Steal, Bare False Witness, etc. are not binding upon us, but that we give ourselves the Liberty of such horrid Principles, as the contrary to those Principles, and are therefore incosistent with Government, Contin. pag. 59, 60. Who would have expected this from a professed Baptist and Preacher too?  
XIII. From our denying the Resurrection of the natural corruptible Body, leaving it with the Lord to give us a Body as pleaseth him, as 1 Cor. 15.36, 37, 38.  
This Caviller endeavours to possess People with our Denial of the Resurrection of any Body to Life eternal, however spiritual or glorified, Dial. 1. p. 56. to 62.  
And lastly, from our asserting the Unity of God and the Soul, and Denial of his carnal Resurrection; he concludes, That the Soul is Part of God, a●d that no future Rewards or Punishments are to be expected, Dial. 1. p. 16, 17.  
These Reader, are some of the many Perversions this Ungodly Man is guilty of against our Principles. Is this to condemn the Quaker out of his own Mouth, and to evince his Objections against him to be real Truths? Is not Counterfeit a Name good enough for him that has thus counterfeited a Quaker an● a Christian too? Will this bring Honour to his Brethren? Or can it be consistent with their Credit, to encourage such base Attempts, when but a middling Heathen would have abhorred to have been the Actor of half that Injury T. H. hath not only committed, but continues in, and boasts of.  
And that he has betaken himself to no better Refuge from the Pursuit of our Arguments, notwithstanding the Cautions of our former Book, I shall in a few Instances make evidently appear to all that dare trust, and will but impartially use their Eyes?  
1. From my saying, That those that crucified Christ were Admirers of the Scriptures, and pretended out of their own Law, that it was both lawful and necessary he should be put to Death: Whereas, had they brought that Deed to the Light, the Light would have shown it not to have been wrought in God; which the Scriptures without the Light could not effectually do: He makes no Conscience of inferring, That I intimate an Insufficiency in the Scriptures to convince the Jews that Murder was a Sin, Dial. 3. p. 13. Whereas the Question was not, whether Murder was a Sin; but whether the Jews thought that Murder, by the Scripture: if they did, give us an Instance; if they did not, than I have the End of my Allusion, to wit, If the Scriptures are not therefore insufficient in T. H's Account, because the Jews were not convinced by them of Murder; neither ought the Light within to be reputed insufficient, because Men were not convinced of their Unbelief in Christ by it. I will answer him in setting down his own Words to me: O Impious Man! says he: The Defect was not in the Scriptures, but in themselves, in not attending what was therein delivered, wherein Murder is peremptorily forbidden. Right; But, O Impious Man! say I, the Defect was not in the Light, but themselves, in not attending to it, whereby Murder is also forbidden. How much more sufficient now, T. H. is the Scripture than the Light? Vain Shuffler!  
But this is not all his Perversion; for he further infers in my Name, That the Scriptures did rather countenance and justify, then condemn them in that Fact, Dial. 3. p. 13. Which, Reader, in plain Terms, is as much as to say, because the Scriptures do not so effectually discover evil Conceptions as the Light within; therefore the Scriptures rather countenance and justify them: Monstrous Baseness! The Truth is, were his Endeavours against us but well weighed of all that see them, there were little need of our Labour in his Discovery, or our own Defence. But that which aggravates his Sin, is the hard Words he gives me after all; I know not why, unless to cover his own Gild, or make his credulous Reader think me as hateful as he would have me.  
2. The second Perversion I shall instance, is this: Because I told him (in Answer to his Objection about the Light's Insufficiency, for it's not discovering to the Heathen-Philosophers how Sin came into the World) If he meant by that Discovery, a clear and distinct Account and particular History, how Adam and Eve were beguiled by the Serpent, it was nowayes to his Purpose (unless he can prove the Knowledge of it absolutely necessary to Salvation) He, according to his usual Baseness, makes me to say, The Penning of that History was to no Purpose, Dial. 3. p. 41. thus interrogating of me, Wilt thou dare to say, the Knowledge of this is to no Purpose? Why then did sacred Penmen give such full Account thereof? As if it were one and the same Thing for me to say, the Penning of that History is to No Purpose, and to say, It is not to T. Hicks 's Purpose. Is this the Way to prove the Quaker no Christian? But since this full Account is made such a great Instance by T. H. for the Sufficiency of the Scripture, and Insufficiency of the Light, let him tell me, What Paradise Adam was put in; and where it was? What was that Serpent that tempted Eve; a fallen Spirit, or a Beast of the Field? And what was that Fruit and Tree God forbade, and the Serpent tempted the Woman to eat of? And what was the Voice Adam heard in the Garden? What were those Fig-Leaves he covered himself withal? And what was that Death that he died? And what were those Cherubims and the flaming Sword and the Tree of Lif●, all mentioned in that History? If he takes the Account Literally, let him say so; but let him take this with him, that then Adam bodily died, before he begot his Sons and Daughters; and the History gives us no Account of his corporal Resurrection: But if he take the Account in whole or in Part mystically, then how is it full, clear and distinct, not distinguishing Literal & Natural from Mystical and Spiritual Things? Is this the Way to prove the Insufficiency of the Light within, that sends all People to the Light within for a sufficient Account, which says Dr. Henry Moor of Cambridge, spoke in and reproved Adam for his Lapse from God, Philosoph. Cab. p. 27.  
However it be, this lies at T H's Door, that because I said, his Instance of Moses' Writing was nothing to his Purpose, he makes me to conclude, They were writ to no Purpose. If he loved his Soul, he would hate these Courses, that need no Aggravation, their own Infamy is enough.  
3. Again, from my acknowledging that the Scripture furnisheth me with the Knowledge ●f Christ's visible Transactions; he infers thus, which is as if thou shouldst say, God manifeste● 〈◊〉 lesh c●uld not have been known by thee, were it not revealed in the Scriptures, intimating, thou couldst NEVER have known it, but by the mere Light in thee, Dial. 3. p. 44, 48.  
Which intimates, that Thomas Hicks is an arrant Perverter of my Sen●e. Is there no Difference between saying, I was informed of a certain Passage by A. B. and saying, It was impossible I should have known it any other Way then by A. B. But why all this wre●●ing? Is it to conclude, therefore the Light within is insufficient? which may as well be inferred against God, Christ and the Holy Spirit; for he makes me to exclude all other Ways of Discovery, the● what is made by Scripture. If an Account be wanting, the Light of Christ is as sufficient now, as it was in the Time of Moses and the Prophets, who wrote both of Things past and to come: But a Relation being with us, the Light of Christ doth n●thing unnecessarily. But 'tis like T. H. degenerates not from his Ancestors; he can cry, Come down and save thyself, etc.  
4. From our asserting the Works of the Spirit in us necessary to our complete Justification or Acceptance with God, he insinuates, Our making those Works the meritorious Cause of our Salvation, Dial. 3. p. 69. which is manifestly denied and rejected by me, in my Answer, p. 72, 73, 82, 83, 86. whi●h he no more regards, then if it never were: The Trick of an unfair and shuffling Adversary.  
5. From my asserting the Necessity of an inward Work of Righteousness, by the Power of Christ in these Words of the Apostles to the Galatians, Let every Man prove his own Work, & then shall he have Rejoicing in himself, and not in another: He, to make his Ends upon me, infers, That the Doctrine of Christ dying for Sinners, hath nothing in it, as the Ground of our Rejoicing: For our Rejoicing must be in ourselves, not in another, Dial. 3. p. 69, 70.  
That, Reader, which aggravates this wretched Consequence by him, charged upon me, is first, that he says, it is plainly deducible, which is so plain a Wrest: And next, that they are the Apostle's Words, and not mine, of which he makes so ill an Use.  
Is this to make the Scripture his Rule, that is so unruly in his Abuse of them? I am sure, a lying and an abusive Spirit has been his Rule throughout his three Dialogues, which God rebuke.  
6. The sixth Perversion is as follows: Being formerly assaulted by T. Hicks, Cont. p. 50. for having said in a Book entitled, The Serious Apology, etc. p. 148. That Justification by a Righteousness wholly without us, is a Doctrine of Devils; I undertook my Defence, and performed it in my Answer to his other Dialogues, from p. 68 to p. 98. I distinguished upon the Word Justification, first as it might be taken barely for the Remission of Si●s, or the acquitting Men of the Gild and Punishment due to Sin, which was the free Love and Mercy of God upon Repentance (declared in Christ's Death, as a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World) and therefore not to be merited by the best Works we can perform, 2dly, As it imported a being made inwardly just by the bringing in of Christ's Everlasting Righteousness to the Soul. To leave out this latter, and make the former only sufficient (whereby Men are left in an unjust and unrighteous State) I affirmed to be a Doctrine of Devils. But notwithstanding this plain and scriptural Distinction to satisfy T. Hicks (would he but be satisfied) what I meant by Justification; He is so unjust to me, as to infer in my Name, That I account the Doctrine of Christ's Death in the Nature of a Sacrifice, to declare the Righteousness of God, for the Remission of Sins that are past (because transacted without us) a Doctrine of Devils, Dial. 3. p. 72, 73, 74.  
Canst thou, Reader, in earnest think, this Man makes Conscience of his Endeavours against us, who commits these frequent Abuses against our Books, Persons and Principles? As if because I acknowledged Christ's Death to be in the Nature of a Sacrifice, to declare God's Righteousness, in the Remission of Sins that are past, unto them that believe, etc. to be one Part of Justification; & that this Transaction was confessedly, without us, even while we were Sinners, etc. that therefore, I should call this the Doctrine of Devils, because without us, though the Word wholly be not there, upon which lay the Stress, and which was only said by me of a Justification, that wholly excludes Christ's Righteousness revealed within, to the making Man Just; unworthily applying that Reflection to the beginning of Justification, that I have so expressly owned, which was made against a Doctrine no ways concerned in this true and Gospel-Justification. In short, If Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us, be the same, with being justified by Christ's Righteousness wholly without us; then T. H. is not so bad a man, as I have represented him: But if there be any Difference, as undeniably there is, a●d a material One too; then T. H's Inference and Con●lu●ion in my Name, make a foul Perversion.  
7. The last Perversion I at this time think fit to mention, is his last, both in his Epistle and Book, to wit, from my saying, upon a sad Consideration of his many Miscarriages towards us, That his Head should not go down into the Grave in P●ace; he thus interprets my Words: I must take them either as a Prediction, or as a Menace of some Mischief, he himself, or s●me influenced by him intend to perpetrate upon me: The former I fear not, the latter is most Probable; as if Reader, his not fearing a Prediction, implies my not meaning a Prediction. But why is the former not feared, & the latt●● more probabl●? because he would render me a Murderer, as his following Words sufficiently evidence. Wherefore, says he, I desire all to whom this Book may come, that if at any time they hear of any Violence offered me, or that I be ASSASSINATED, they would remember these Words of W. Penn. that my Head shall not go down to the Grave in Peace, Epist. Book End. Now though this miserable Construction be ridiculous with wise Men, and rejected of several of his own Way, and so unlikely a Thing in itself, that I should proclaim that to be my Design that leads to t●e Gibbit, viz. Murder; yet I was unwilling to pass it by, since first, it rather renders him to be the M●n he suggests me to be: And secondly, It aggravates the Sin of his false Construction; because to insinuate it the better, he has left out all these Words going before an● after, that had they been mentione●, wo●ld have detected his Malice, viz. Though thou hast bestowed much Time to abuse our Friends in general, a●d myself in particular, a Stranger to thee, yet I can forgive thee: Oh, that these heavy Things might not be laid to thy Charge! God will visit for these Unrighteous Dealings, if thou desist not. Now, Reader, if I forgive, how can I Assassinate? and if it be God's visiting Hand, how can it be mine, or any influenced by me? Again, these following Words were the next to those by him cited, viz. Yea the Light within will bear Witness to the Truth of these Things on thy DYING-BED, and then remember me. How comes this T. H. to be omitted? Dying-Beds do not use to be unnatural Deaths; Nor will the Light within bear Witness for Murder: Was all this left out to evince, that the Fictions I charged upon thee, were real Truths & no Fictions; & that a Quaker is quite another thing then a Christian? because it is his Honour to be quite another Thing than such a Christian as thou art, that is, a very Counterfeit.  
Reader, Does not thy Soul rise against these abominable Practices? Falseness was ever hateful to Truth, and Baseness to an honest Mind, which T. H. being proved thus guilty of, I must conclude him quite another Thing than a Christian.  
Thus have I finished my Observations on his Perversions, leaving them also with the People called Anabaptists, upon whom I cannot choose, but frequently call for Justice against this their unjust Member; concluding my Complaint in this Section, in honest John Husse's against the like Adversaries, on the same Occasion: Some of these Propositions I did write and publish, other some mine Enemy did feign, now adding, then diminishing and taking away, now falsely ascribing and imputing the whole Proposition unto me.   

§ III. T. H. proved guilty of Lies and Slanders.  
REader, In my Answer to his former Dialogues, I charged him with Eighten Lies and Slanders under a distinct Head, pag. 154, 155, 156. of which I find not that he hath taken any notice, saving two by way of further Affirmation, but no Proof. A few I shall mention to his utter Shame with all men loving Religion.  
1st, That the Quakers owning of Christ Jesus, and the Christ they own, are a mere mystical Romance, Dial. p. 10. Cont. pag. 9 A profane Untruth!  
2. That the Light in the Quakers see● no Necessity of a Mediator, 1 Dial. p. 35. when, God knows, we feel the daily Benefit of him.  
3. That the Quakers account the Blood of Christ no more than they do the Blood of a common Thief, Ibid. p. 38. An ungodly Aspersion.  
4. That we deny his Visible Coming and Appearance in the World, Cont. p. 37. This he contradicts elsewhere.  
5. That the Quakers dissemble when they tell People they own the Scriptures; and that they render them of no more Authority than Esop's Fables, Cont. Epist. Both abominable Untruths.  
6. That a Quaker should say, The Thing that troubles t●ee is thy Puzzling thyself in that Book the Bible, Thou wilt never be settled till thou throw that Book away, Cont. pag. 76. An arrant Slander.  
7. That a Quaker should say to one I Nobbs; What d●est thou tell me of the Scriptures, They are no more to me t●en an OLD AIMANAK [whereas J. Nobbs, if he be alive, and have but a little more Honesty then T. H can't but confess that he was no Quaker; nor that there was one so called in that Country, when any thing like those words were spoken] As T. Holbrow, the Person charged by J. N. related it to me the last Summer, Dial.  
8. That the Quakers appoint their Ministers to speak in such a Place, and at such a Time: And they go to Meetings only to DECOY, TRAPAN & INVIEGLE, Cont. pag. 66.  
9 That a Woman-Quaker should bid her Husband take another Woman, Ibid. pag. 63.  
10. That the Motions of God's Spirit are pretended by Quakers, at least one of them, to REFUSE just Debts, Cont. pag. 69.  
What Man that makes Conscience of Lying, would have told so many gross Untruths; and that cared for his own Reputation, would have passed over their Proof in such Silence?  
Either he thinks it no Sin to render men Heretics & Knaves at Pleasure; or that there is no Obligation upon him to maintain ●is foul Imputations. But let see how much better he is grown since his second Dialogue.  
1. The first Great Lie he tells in his New Book, is the very first Sentence that is writ in it, viz. The Quaker Condemned out of his own Mouth: For it is His foul Mouth that hath both Accused and Condemned him; as we have already proved, and shall yet have further occasion to do.  
2. His second Untruth is in the fourth Page of his Epistle, viz. That there was a Person esteemed by the Quakers a Friend, of whom W. Penn gave this Character, That he might be trust●d with one's Life (not withstanding W. Penn 's Infallible Judgement) counterfeited (like an Ungrateful and Unworthy Wretch) W. Penn 's Hand, took up a considerable Sum of Money in his Name (pretending for his use) which W. Penn in a little time found (though to his Cost) to be a mere Cheat.  
Reader, He hath put the Quaker in this man's Livery, that he might have the fairer Plea for abusing him. Ungrateful and Unworthy Wretch, are Words not so much flung at the Fact or the Man, as the Quaker: For, were it the Temper of Thomas Hicks to be grateful and worthy to them that oblige him, he would never be Injurious to them, that never hurt him. But, be that as it will, I have three things to say to T. Hicks: 1st, That this Man was never a Quaker, unless such as sometimes come to T. Hicks' Meeting are to be reputed Anabaptists, having never come under any of those external Significations, by which they are differed from other People; and I think I ought to be believed before T. H. that knew him, and perhaps he never saw him. 2dly, If he were an Unworthy Wretch for counterfeiting my Hand in Money matters; how much more Unworthy a Wretch is T. Hicks who hath counterfeited the Faith, Doctrine and Practice of a great Body of People to the rendering them Infamous with all men, were that Work as Really Believed, as it was Enviously Contrived. 3dly, But for all my Infallible Judgement, I was cheated, says T. H. How plentiful, Reader, are the Instances T. H. gives us, to detect him: For besides the Baseness of his Taunt, he inferreth from our Asserting an Infallibility in the Principle, our arrogating an Infallibility to all our Persons, as well in Civil as Religious Concerns, whether we obey it, or no. But to turn it back upon himself: Have no Anabaptists been cheated, notwithstanding they pretend the Scriptures to be their Infallible Rule? If they have, shall I make one of T. H's Conclusions? viz. That they are Infallible, because they have an Infallible Rule; Or that the Rule is Fall●ble, because they are Fallible themselves? Or in Case of being cheated, should we tauntingly say, Where is your Infallble Judgement, because you say, You have an infallible Rule?  
3. I charge him with slandering our Friends, in saying, That when it hath been demonstrated ●o them wherein (he thinks) I have erred, What dost thou tell us of W. Penn; He is an Heady, Rash Youngman, we take no notice what he saith— Yet acquaint them with the like Extravagancies in the Writings of the former, G. F. etc. They will either peremptorily deny them so written, or else tell us, We understand not their Meaning, Epist. pag. 5. This let him prove if he can.  
4. That the Quakers excuse some of of their Villainies, by Pretences to the Innocent Life. This we esteem an abominable Falsehood, 3 Dial. Epist.  
5. The next Slander is, That the Quakers warn their Proselytes against reading their Adversaries Books, lest their Wickedness should be detected, p. 76. A very Falsehood.  
6. That W. Penn by the Sense of the Eternal Spirit doth declare, that Cursing, Railing and Lying were the only fit Answers to be given to the Priests trapanning Questions, pag. 10, 80, 81, 82. Oh Ungodly Slanderer! The Lord rebuke thy foul Spirit  
.7 That the Quakers have discovered themselves to be no other than the Spawn of that wicked Brood, the Ranters, having licked up their Vomit, pag. 80. What say the Baptists to this? It is known, none so opposed them.  
8. The Quakers say, They witness Innocent and Sober Enquirers after their Faith and Religion to be Beasts, Sots, in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, pag. 85. which manifest Slander I suppo●e, proceeds from certain Names, E●w. Burrough gave to a Priest that by subtle Queries endeavoured to trapan some of our Friends, as they of old, our Lord & Master, under the censure of Blasphemy, and as was attempted upon some about that very time: So that he was an Innocent, and Sober Enquirer, by the same Figure that T. Hicks hath been an Innocent and Sober Dialoguer, who first invents Lies, and then kicks them up and down for our Principles and Practices.  
9 Another notorious Falsehood committed by T. H. against us, is in pag. 88 to wit, That some Overtures have of late been offered to the Quakers, in order to a public Meeting, to debate the chief Things in Difference betwixt them and others; which the Q●akers refused, under Pretence of being cautious not to run themselves voluntarily into Jeopardies, and therefore think it their best Way to Rail at their Adversaries'. It is to be hoped T. H. by this time hath sufficiently showed and vented his Falsehoods and Slanders by the Frequency of them; and that for the future they will less need our Animadversion. That this is one, and a Great One too, take what follows.  
W. Hayworth, an Empty, but hotheaded Preacher among the Professors at Hartford, often making a kind of Challenge to some of our Friends to meet with any of their Teachers; and being answered that they would not refuse him a Meeting, he proceeded thereon, and proposed Ware for the Place; against which the Scruple was made, and not about a Meeting, as T. H. falsely relates: This our Friends Answers to W. Hayworth prove. In Th. Prior's first Answer to W. H. it is said, I perceive they (the Quakers) are not intended to refuse thee a Meeting, at a convenient Time and Place agreed on by both Parties; and it is expected and intended, the Book authorized by thee, styled, The Quaker Converted, be th● Subject of the Dispute. And in the second Paper to W. Hayworth, it is proposed, That the Meeting be at Theobald 's; and that after the said Book be fully discoursed, if he had not Disputing enough, such other Questions as tend to Edification be propounded, and a further time taken to discourse them: But he would nowayes con●ent that his Book should be the Subject; saying in his Letter, That to undertake it would narrow the Debate.  
Judge now Reader, who evaded the Meeting; and if T. Hicks hath not falsely accused the Quak●r with refusing it: yet doth he Rant, Revile & add Lie unto Lie in that very Page where he told this, that he might make the most of his fancied Advantage against us, to our Disgrace, and his own Triumph. But he shall fail in his Endeavours, and God will advocate our Cause among Men, against these foul and provoking Imputatio●s. One Slander more, and we end this Section.  
10. That the Tendency of all the Quakers Reasoning about instituted Religion, is to DEBAUCH MANKIND, to teach them how to live in Rebellion against God. Their Religion is a mere Cheat, calculated only to the Service of the Devil and their own Lusts, and inconsistent with Government, Dial. 1. pag. 62. Dial. 3. p. 65.  
Here is a great deal in a little; all at once: This shows what the Man would be at, and makes good what elsewhere he saith, That we are inconsistent with Government, Cont. pag. 69. The Consequence is plain; A New-England Antidote, to rid Old-England of the Epidemical Disease of Quakerism: For it is a Maxim in Law, That whosoever is inconsistent with Government, deserves not the Protection of Government.  
But that this Language should drop from the Pen of an Anabaptist to a Quaker, is justly surprising; since a Multitude of his Profession stand charged on record with so many gross Immoralities, erroneous Doctrines, and rebellious Practices, as have rendered them and their Profession, the Suspicion of the Weak, the Abhorrence of the Multitude▪ and at best the Dislike of many good men: But though T. H. hath invented Crimes to blacken us, I shall not so much, as recriminate the People that go under t●at Name, having abundance more of Charity for them then the softest Passage in T. H's Dialogue can afford us. I am well satisfied, that I have thus far honestly represented him in his Inventions, Perversions, Slanders and Aggravations; so inconsistent with the Spirit, Language and Carriage of a true Christian; and therefore his Pretence of being such, renders him b●t the geater COUNTERFEIT.   

§. IV. That T. Hicks, is guilty of Plain Contradictions.  
IT is inconsistent with the Credit of any man that writes, to contradict himself: But for one who pretends himself a Christian, so to do, and that in Matters of Religion, is shamefully to make void his own Pretences. That T. Hicks is the man, I produced several in my Answer to his former Dialogues; But they were equally disregarded with the rest, not having so much as attempted the reconciling of them.  
I will briefly repeat some of them, and add more out of all three Dialogues.  I. Contradiction. 
First, I, T. Hicks do acknowledge, that the Light within checketh for many Evils, and excites to many good things; and that I ought to shun those Evils, and do that Good, 1 Dial. p. 8. Yet in direct Contradiction he dares to tell us, That this Light in us directing to its best Actions, swelleth men but with proud Conceits; and that it doth deceive and misguide such as follow it, 1 Dial. p. 3, 37, 38.  2 Contr. 
ay, Thomas Hicks do and must bear Witness against thy Erroneous Opinion, if true to the Light in me, Dial. p. 8. I am to do what the Light in myself directs me, and herein is my Comfort, p. 91. I grant i● ought to be obeyed, p. 7.— Yet in direct Contradiction, and to unsay this, he tells us, That the Light i● uncertain; in one man it teacheth one thing, and in another the directly contrary, so that, saith he, there can be no Certainty of Truth or Error, Sin or Duty by this, Dial. p. 42.  3 Contr. 
Again, T. Hicks says, That it is no Disparagement to the Light within, to say, That God doth make any Thing more known of his Will, then is or can be known by it; For it is but to say, that EACH DEGREE of Light is serviceable to its End, 1 Dial. p. 36.— Yet in direct Contradiction to, and Undervalue of this, he says within two Pages after, The Improvement of the Light within subverts the Covenant of Grace, the only Way God hath revealed for Salvation; and that it directly Opposeth itself to the Ends of the Covenant, and aught to be rejected, p. 38.  
My Animadversion contracted upon these Contradictions I will give: If this be to argue safely, prudently and like a Disputant, I am greatly mistaken; sure I am, there is nothing of Truth or Christianity in such Confusion: For that a Man should be obliged to obey a Light that doth misguide, or that T. Hicks should talk of acting according to the Light in him, making his Appeal to it in others; and yet say, that it may deceive, and oppose the very Ends of the Covenant of Grace, is with 〈◊〉 the Top of all Impudence and Self-Contradiction.  
All this, Reader, he passed with his usual Silence.  
How concerned he was to consider it, I shall leave with thee to judge, having hereby so manifestly forfeited his Reputation, both as a Christian and a Disputant. But I will not leave him here; I shall greaten his Score ere we part, and yet evidence, that he hath said little against us, wherein he hath not said a great deal in Contradiction to himself.  Contr. I. 
ay, T. Hicks, appeal to the Light in thee, Steph. Crisp, whether this be not an insufficient Proof; for I grant the Light ought to be obeyed; It checks for Evil, and excites to good things, Dial. 1. pag. 7, 8.  
Yet in Contradiction to this, hear what he says:  
I deny not a Light to be in every man; for the Understanding and Conscience being Parts of the Reasonable Soul, these do remain still in the Worst of Men, though the RECTITUDE BE LOST, Dial. 1. pag. 32.  Observe. 
Is it not Madness in T. Hicks to appeal to a Light that hath lost its Rectitude (that is Reader, which through Depravity is become Darkness) for an Evidence about matters of the greatest concern in Religion? Can such a Light check for Evil, and excite to Good, that T. H. says, hath lost its Rectitude? And is it a Crooked and Depraved Light that he grants, is to be obeyed and followed? Is this man fit to reprove the Quakers for turning men to a sufficient Light, who himself confessedly follows a Crooked & Depraved Light? No Wonder if he cannot see the Truth and Straightness of our Light, who judgeth of it by a Light that hath lost its Rectitude: For, saith he, I do and must bear witness against thy Opinion of the Sufficiency of the Light in every man, if I be true to the Light in me, that hath lost its Rectitude, 1 Dial. pag. 8, 32.  Contr. II. 
It will be our Wisdom, yea our Duty (also) to attend to the Light within, 1 Dial. pag. 13. as the Place imports.  
Yet in direct Contradiction he says pag. 38.  
What intolerable Pride and Arrogancy have you Quakers' arrived to, and all this in following the Conduct of the Light within?  
What sayest thou to this, Reader? Is this Man like to make the Quaker No Christian? Is it not a Shame for those called Anabaptists to suffer this man as well in his manifest Weakness, as great Dishonesty to manage the Controversy against us?  Contr: III. 
That which any of you Quakers have said of the Light within, hath been no more than what the Apostle speaks of the Man of Sin. And what may as well prove Mahomet to be the True Christ, as the Light in you. Again, If thou sayest that the Light in every man is Christ, I charge it with Blasphemy, 1 Dial. pag. 3, 11, 12.  
Yet in direct Contradiction T. H. saith:  
How could you (Quakers) call the Light within Christ, if ●ome Scriptures had not mentioned Christ in you, and that he is the the Light and Life of men, 1 Dialog. pag. 22.  Observe. 
D●e● Joh. 1.4, 9 chap. 14.20. 2 Cor. 4, 6. chap. 13.5. Gal. 1.16. which we are wont to offer as well prove the Man of Sin, & Mahomet, to be Christ as the Light which T. H. acknowledgeth to check for Evil, to excite to Good things; and confesseth, as before, That the Scriptures have given us to call the Light within Christ, and Christ the Life and Light of men? Were't thou aware of these things, T. H. when thou wrotest them? Art thou fit to accuse me of Inadvertency, that committest it thy sell; f. I will not say that any of thy Friends, being charged with thy Follies, replied, What dost thou tell us of T. Hicks? He is a Heady, Rash Man, we take no notice what he saith: But that thou hast proved thyself Rash and Heady, and that they ought to take no further notice of thee then to check thee, thy wretched Management of the Controversy against us, sufficiently proveth: But let us proceed.  IV. Contr. 
You Quakers, since you have reprobated the Scriptures from being your Rule, and given up yourselves to the immediate Motions and Government of the Light within, have arrived to this Degree of Wickedness, to deny Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without you, 3 Dial. pag. 15, 16.  
Yet in plain Contradiction he says, That every Man hath a Light within him, is not denied; and that it ought to be obeyed is granted, Ibid. pag. 8.  Observe. 
The Consequence, Reader, which is this, That Men ought to obey that Light, the Government of which leads to deny Jesus Christ, etc. and to persist in a Reprobation of the Scriptures. Is this Doctrine like to Christian the Anabaptist, and unchristian the Quaker?  Contr. V. 
Verily, I much doubt, that you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that as concerning the Flesh he was put to Death at Jerusalem, 1 Dial. Pag. 43, 44.  
Again, The Quaker denies That Christ was over Visible to Wicked men; and consequently that Person, called in the Scripture by this Name, who conversed in the World and suffered Death openly and visibly at Jerusalem, to be the Christ; So that a Personal Coming in any respect is manifestly denied by you, Contin. pag. 37, 45.  
Yet to un-say and contradict all this, he says, I never charged you Quakers for denying that bodily Appearance, 3 Dial. p. 26. I no where accuse you for denying Christ's Bodily Appearance, Ibid. pag. 33. Ye have confessed to Chris●'s Bodily Appearance, Ibid. pg. 31. Which is to say,  Observe. 
The Quakers do own Christ's Visible Appearance; The Quakers do not own Christ's Visible Appearance: yet I doubt whether they own Christ's Visible Appearance or no. Is this Man fit to write Controversy that is of three or four Minds in the writing it? T●e End of all this Confusion will be, not our Confutation, but Vindication in the minds of all impartial Men.  VI Contr. 
His sixth Contradiction is this: That the Religion of the Quakers is a Cheat, calculated only to th● Service of the Devil & their own Lusts, 1 Dial. p. 62. yet confesseth to us, T●●● every man is enlightened, that this Light checks for Evil, and exciteth to Good; That it ought to be obeyed, Dial. 1. pag. 7, 8. Dial. 3. pag. 8. And that this is the Quakers first and grand Principle, Di●●. ● Pa●. 6.  Observe. 
Now, Reader, how our Religion can be calculated to the Service of the Devil, and our own Lusts; & yet the first & grand Principle of that Religion be unconcerned in that Hellish Service, is more than I can tell.  
The plain English of his gross Contradiction is this: Th●● the Light within, which checks for Evil, and excites to Good, and aught to be tended upon and obeyed, is the f●rst and grand Principle of that Religion, which is calculated to the Service of the Devil, and their Lusts that receive it. For which detestable Blasphemy, with more Reason may I use T. H's Exclamation, Blush O Heaven! and be astonished O Earth! Was ever such a thing as this heard of before? I must tell the People called Anabaptists, that the Attempts of T. Hicks will prove as great a Reproach to their Profession, and bring the Endeavours of our Adversaries into as utter Abhorrence with all honest-minded People, as any Opposition ever made against us.  Contr. VII. 
The seventh Contradiction, and the last I shall here mention, is very well worth the notice of my Reader; since it doth at once invalidate his whole Enterprise with Persons of Understanding: And that is this.  
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, wherein are faithfully represented some of the chief & most concerning Opinions of the Quakers, 1 Dial. Title page. Again,  
A further Account of their perilous Errors, clearly and plainly represented, Contin. Title-page. Again,  
The Things objected against the Quakers in the form●r Dialogues are fully cleared & evinced, 3 Dial. Title-pag. Yet as a man infatuated with a Spirit of Contradiction, thus gives the Lie to his three Title-Pages, and in t●em to his Three Dialogues.  
The Doctrines delivered (by the Quakers) are such, as neither themselves, nor any for them can give us a distinct and intelligible Account of: And that the Tendency of all their Writings and Declaring, doth but lead People into the Thicket of Absurd, Inexplicable and unintelligible Dotages, Contin. Epist. p. 3.  Observe. 
Now, Reader, if no man can understand them, how can T. Hicks represent and evince them? Are they inexplicable by every Body, and yet explicated by him? Be they unintelligible to all People, and yet not only pretended to be understood by him, but by him made intelligible to others? How can he with Honesty or Sense pretend to give an Account of our Doctrines to the World, who confesseth not only that he has not, but he cannot have from us or any other a distinct and intelligible Account of them? Has he not then shot his Bow at Random? Is this the way to evince and confute them? Never, certainly Reader, did any man, thought to be in his Wits, give greater Ground for People to believe him out of them: We have no Cause to fear what a Thousand such Adversaries can do against us, who thus manifestly help us against themselves, and fall by their own Weapons: Which leads me to conclude this part of this Discourse; and that I shall do in this Argument:  
He that pretends to be a Christian, and yet commits Forgery, useth Perversion, tells Lies, publisheth Slanders, and in his Endeavours contradicts himself, and that materially, must be a Counterfeit, and no Christian: But such a Man we have evidently proved Thomas Hicks to be; Therefore, I think I may be held excusable in concluding that Tho. Hicks is a Counterfeit, and no Christian.    

THE REAL QUAKER JUSTIFIED, In a defence of the Doctrines held by him, against the Mean Sophistry and Shuffling Opposition of Tho. Hicks the COUNTERFEIT.  

§ I. Of the Light within.  
THough it matters not much what so Ill a man says of any Religion, yet lest some should be so weak as to conclude from our Silence, our Doctrines indefensible; and that in having the last Word, he has the best Cause. I shall briefly consider his Opposition.  Counterfeit. 
I do say, that the Quakers affirm the Light in every man to be God: And W. Penn ask●, Who of us did ever say, that the Light within is the whole entire God? Reas. against Rail. p. 7. when I no where express those words, 3 Dial. p. 4.  Quaker. 
Nor do I, T. H. in the manner delivered, nor to any such Charge, as thou now makest them to answer: What I said, with the Ground of it, was this: G. W. inferring from Joh. 1.4. That if the Life was of the Divine Being, the Light must be the same; (which was against T. H's calling it an Effect) for as is the Cause, the Effect must be 
* Which was only admitted with respect to its Illumination or Measure of its Appearance in man; It was never G. W's Principle or Words, t●a● the Life which is the Light of men, Joh. 14. is but in it se●f a me●r Effect, for he owns it in its o●n Being to be no other than God himself, and values not the Counterfeits Quarrel.  thou madest this unreasonable Conclusion, th●t not only the Light within, but every Creature, as Beasts and Trees are good, because the Effects of God's Power and Wisdom. I than charged thee with insinuating, that every Measure of Light in man is whole God: So that thy not expressing those words will not acquit thee from not insinuating them; since thou dost insinuate upon what G. W. said, not only every measure of Light, but every Tree and every Beast, because an Effect of his Power, to be God.  C. 
Thou saist the Light within is not a potential, but a natural Effect, which thou illustratest thus; Men are the natural Off spring and Product of men etc. Though this be true, yet a Son is a distinct Person from his Father: Is the Light within such an Effect? Is it another God? ibid. p. 5.  Q. 
I will answer thee in the Language of thy own Creed: The Son of God is the natural Offspring of God, is he therefore another God? The holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, is he therefore another God? Her● is Off spring and Production; what sayst thou T. H. to this?  C. 
If the Light within be a natural Effect, than it is a necessary Effect, and that from Eternity: But were Men from Eternity, in whom God had thus naturally shined? if not, how is the Light within a natural Effect? It is in vain to pretend to Infallibility, whilst thou talkest thus idly, Ibid.  Q. 
Both thy silly Sophistry and Reflection are too weak for the Business. If the Light within had taken its Beginning with Men, as thou asserts, Dial. 1. p. 32. It were a good Consequence, That the Light were not Eternal, and therefore not God; or if the Light had necessarily been within from Eternity, that Men were from Eternity: But that Men were from Eternity, because the Light which shines in Men was from Eternity, is to say, the Word, as manifested in the Flesh, was from Eternity, because the Word was from Eternity, or that Immanuel, God with men, was not from Eternity, because he was not with Men, nor Men with him from Eternity. In short, thy Sophistry plays upon the Word within; we speak of the Eternity of the Light's Nature, and thou turnest it to an Eternity of Manifestation; as if because we say the Light within is Eternal, that therefore it must needs have been Eternally within. This is not to act the Christian, but play the Jew against the Son of God. For the Term Effect, it is variously spoken and taken among Men: The Light of the Sun is called an Effect of the Sun and yet the Light of the Sun, is not another Sun. Howbeit, the Scripture holds forth the the Life of the Word to be the Light of Men; Consequently, The Life and Light are one.  C. 
Though thou wilt not affirm every Measure of the Light within to be the Eternal Being; yet thou wilt not deny, but that it is God. This clears me from Forgery.  Q. 
Thy saying so, makes thee but the more guilty, because the Passage thou pretendest to answer, has no such Charge in it; besides, thou hast perverted my words as thyself hast given them, viz. Though every Measure of Light distinctly is not that entire Eternal Being, yet we are bold to assert, that it is no other than God, the Fullness of all Light, who searcheth the Heart, etc. that doth shine into the inward Parts of Man, and doth convince, reprove, etc. These latter Words were omitted by thee, on Purpose to make the Word God, relate to the Measure of Light, which is joined by me to the Fullness. But this is frequent with thee; proceed.  C. 
Either the Light within, in the least Measure, is God, a Creature, or nothing: Thou wilt not say it is the entire God; thou darest not say it is a Creature; it must then be nothing; Might not thy Time and Abilities have been better improved, then in contending for that, which is neither God nor a Creature.  Q. 
This Reflection as well reaches thee for contending against nothing, as me in contending for nothing: But (Argumentum ad hominem) consider this; either the Spirit in the least Measure of it is God, a Creature or ●othing: I suppose T. H. will not say, that in the least Measure it is the entire God; T. H. dares not say it is a Creature; shall W. P. then say in T. Hick's Name, it must be nothing? Thus through Inadvertency, do Men entangle themselves in their own Net; we speak of a Measure of the Light and Spirit of God in Man, T. H. presently profanely takes God into Parts and Pieces, as pag. 4, 5, 6. and then charges it upon us, as the Consequence of our Doctrine: Are not Measures and Degrees Scripture-Terms? Does it strike at God's Immensity, because he measures forth himself, in his inward Discoveries, according to Man's Capacity; It is called Measure, with Respect to Man, and not that God is divisible.  
But the Truth is T. H. Thou hast made it thy Business not soberly to argue, but vainly to quibble, manifestly aiming to take frothy Minds: A small Share of such Sophistry might easily obscure the clearest Truths, and seem to lead in Triumph the strongest Arguments given in its Defence; but the best of it is, such Attempts are short-lived and, so are thine? not, I promise thee, that I intent to have thee assassinated. But let us hear what further thou hast to say upon this Passage.  C. 
For the other Part of thy Discourse, viz. That God searcheth the Heart, who denies it? But what is this to the main Point? Because God searcheth the Heart; is therefore the Common Light in every Man God? ●urely, no Man, except under the Power of Delusion would thus reason, p. 6.  Q. 
The Word Common is neither ours, nor the Scriptures, yet if that be the main point, it will not be hard to prove, provided, by Common, thou meanest that which shines in all Men; for if God be the Searcher of all men's Hearts, & he that shows unto man his Thought● (as we must believe, till T. H. can groundedly assign us some other more common Searcher of the Heart, etc. then God) and if God doth this, as he is Light, who is Light, 1 Joh. 1.5. & Ephes. 5.13. Then this Light which T. H. calls Common, and which we from Scripture say, enlightens all Men, is God, as Joh. 1.4. In him was Life, and that Life was the Light of Men. And here is thy main Poi●t concluded against thee. I shall add, Reader, to this, another Instance of his evasive Carriage, which, I entreat thee to take particular notice of, that thou mayest see at what rate he shuffles with us.  
In his first Dialogue, pag. 7. he quotes Stephen Crisp thus, If the Light be obeyed, than it must be sufficient; and answers, I grant it ought to be obeyed, so ought the lawful Commands of Masters, etc. Yet who will thence infer, that they are a sufficient Rule to Salvation?  
To this I replied, as he quotes me, Dial. 3. p. 8. By the same Reason, that such as obey the lawful Commands of Masters, are reputed good Servants, those who obey the Light, are good Servants to God: And if those who so keep the Commandments of Masters, obtain their Favour and Recompense; then those who obey the Light, by T. H's Allusion, obtain God's Favour and Reward of Righteousness; unto which he makes this Return:  C. 
This concludes not the Question in Controversy, therefore it can be no Prejudice to me.  Q. 
No, T. Hicks? Is it nothing to the Purpose, that those who obey the Light, are saved from the Wrath, and receive the Favour and Reward of God; as Servants which obey their Master's Commands, are saved from the Wrath, and receive the Favour and Recompense of their Masters? Let the Reader judge how much this concerns the Question.  C. 
I confess, the Light within aught to be obeyed, and so ought the lawful Commands of Masters, from whence thou boldly, like thyself, concludes to the Sufficiency of the mere Light within: S●ch Extravagancies as th●se, do ordinarily attend thy peculiar Genius, Dial 3. p. 9  Q. 
Soft a little! If the Light ought to be obeyed, it is a sufficient Rule for that Obedience: To keep to thy ●wn Parallel of a Master and a Servant: How can a Servant be condemned of his Master for not answering his Command, whilst the Master's Command is not a sufficient Rule for the Servant's Obedience. The Command implies a sufficient Rule to the Performance of the thing commanded.  C. 
'Ttrue, that God approves of Servants that do sincerely obey the Commands of their Superiors; will it therefore follow, that their Commands are sufficient to g●ide us to Salvation, p. 9  Q. 
What a wretched Shuffle is this? Was it ever the Question, Whether the Commands of Masters were sufficient to guide us to Salvation? Or are the Commands of the Light about the Things of God, no more sufficient to Salvation, than the Commands of Masters (be they about what they will) are sufficient to Salvation? Is not this a taking away the Comparison, by putting the Subject of it in the Room of that for which it was brought? making Salvation to be as natural a Consequence of following the Commands of Masters, as of following the Requirings of the Light. But we are not so to be shifted off; for by the same Reason, that the civil Commands of a Master, obeyed, are sufficient to the obtaining of a civil Salvation from Man's Wrath; The spiritual Commands of the Light obeyed, are sufficient to the obtaining of a spiritual Salvation, that is, a being saved from the Wrath to come, which is and shall be further revealed against all the Workers of Iniquity. Let me use thy own words, T. H. falsely reflected upon me in this very matter; Where Proof is defective, thou beggest the Question (nay, I may say, changest it) and triumphest in thy o●n Confidenc●, which a modest Man would not do: Away with these poor Shuffles for shame! Is this to evince the Matters objected to be real Truths?  
But what sayest thou to my Argument p. 15. grounded on Jo. 1.4? If God be Divine and sufficient to Salvation, and the Word be God, and the Life of the Word, one with the Word, and that Life the Light of men; then the Light of men is Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.  C. 
Oh, what profound Divinity and exquisite Logic is this! I perceive thy Mind abounds with Ignorance, from the Arguments that spring thence. Thou hudlest the Principal Agent and Ordinary Means together, p. 18.  Q. 
A rare Excuse for thine— or something worse. Ought they not to be together in an Argument designed to prove them one? Ordinary Means are thy own words, and not mine. A mere Shift for an Answer. But to go on.  C. 
How can God himself be called a Means? p. 18.  Q. 
After the same manner that his Power saveth us, and his Spirit sanctifieth us, and that he becomes the Teacher of his People; such a Means, if thou wilt call it so, my Argument was offered to prove the Light to be. Is this to act either the Divine or Logician after all thy conceited high Rants, thus pitifully to beg the Question? But what follows?  C. 
Thy Argument is fallacious, because that which is spoken in the first should exactly be the Subject of the second Proposition, p. 18.  Q. 
And so it is. See Reas. against Rail. p, 14.  C. 
If the Proposition were right, yet thy Conclusion doth not reach the plain Terms of the Question, viz. Therefore the common Light in every man is God, and sufficient to Salvation.  Q. 
Though I told thee before, that the word common is none of ours, yet I am not offended with it: For the Love of God is never the worse for being common, whatever thy Reprobation-Faith thinks of it. But art thou willing in earnest this should be the Question between us? For I perceive, when thou art put to a Pinch, it is frequent with thee to turn me off with such Expressions as these, Prove this to be the Common Light within; What is thi● to the Common Light within men? Mere Evasions; and most times attended with hard words to cover them, as in pag. 9, 14, 15, 17, 39, 42, 43, 52, 53, etc.  C. 
This is the Controversy between us, whether the Common Light in every man be God, Christ, and sufficient to lead to Salvation, p. 8. If thou couldst demonstrate this, it would put an Issue to a great part of the Controversy between us, Ibid. p. 17.  Q. 
Very well; Thou hast granted, that in the Word was Life, and that Life the Light of men, as Joh. 1.4. on which I grounded my Argument; and that the Life and Light there mentioned, are one with the Word (or of its own Being) consequently God, and sufficient to Salvation. But that such a Conclusion reacheth not the Terms of the Question, to wit, the Common Light in Men; which thou deniest to be one with the Life of the Word, and therefore Insufficient to Salvation. Upon this I thus argue; for the bringing of the Controversy to an Issue.  
If the Light of men, John 1.4. be the Light of All men, then is it a Light common to all men. Thou must deny one of these two, either that Light of Men is the Light of all Men; or, that the Light of All men is common to all men; The latter I should think in Point of Reputation thou wilt not be so unreasonable as to deny: The former than I must suppose thee to reject, viz. That the Light of men, is the Light of all men. This I shall maintain by the general Phrase of Scripture, Eccles. 1.13.— This sore Travail hath God given to the Sons OF MEN, chap. 2.3, 8. the same chap. 3.10. I have seen the Travail God hath given ●o the Sons OF MEN, vers. 18, 19 That which befall●th the Sons OF MEN befalleth Beasts; as the one dyeth so ●y●th the other, Jer. 32.19. Thine Eyes are upon all the Ways of the Sons OF MEN, to give every one according to his Ways. Which prove, that OF MEN is mea●t OF ALL MEN. I will add two Places more out of Prov. 8.4. Unto you, O Men! I (Wisdom) call, and my Voice is to the Sons OF MEN. And ver. 31. My Delight is with the Sons OF MEN. This proves Matter and Phrase: For both Of Men, signifieth of all Men; and this Voice cometh from him, in whom are hid all t●e Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, even the Eternal Word, in whom is Life, and that Lif● the Light of Men. From all which I conclude, that the Light of men, is the Light of all Men, yea, Every Man that cometh into the World, Joh. 1.9. And that the Light of all men, is a Light Common to all men; and that the Light that is common to all men, is a Common Light. Now T. H. thou hadst done something, if thou hadst given us as plain Reason and Scripture for thy Two Lights within, Common and Special; and made good that Distinction between Light and Light, in Job. 24.13. John 1.4, 9 chap. 3.20, 21. Ephes. 5.13. 1 John 1.5, 7. chap. 2.8, 9, 10. and have told us, if thou couldst, Where the common Light endeth, and the sp●cial Light begins: And if the Special reprove for Eull as well as the Common (which tho● sayest, reveals much, and aught to be attended to) thou shouldst have let us know how the Discoveries, Motions, Reproofs & Commands of ●he one might be discerned and distinguished from the other: For we own but one real Spiritual-Light to the Sons of men, though divers Manifestations and Operations of that one Light, suited to the Capacities of all Persons and Ages; and not to shuffle me off with ask me, How canst thou infer with such presumptuous Confidence, wilt thou dare stand by this Consequence? after thou T. H. hast made it as Ugly as thy Malice and Dishonesty could well contrive. Mean Artifices to bear thy weak Reader in hand; thou hast hit the Mark, when thou hast all along shot quite beside it; Practices, unworthy of any fair Disputant, much more a Man of thy Pretences to Religion. Hadst thou truly regarded that Light of which thou hast writ so many slight things, we should not have seen that Envy, Passion, base Shuffling, Insolence, etc. that thy Writings now abound withal. Therefore under all thy higher Conceits thou standest condemned of the Light: Be exhorted first to obey it, before thou undertakest to write of things tho● vainly thinkst beyond it.  

Testimonies concerning the Light Within.  
Munsterius, Castalio, Vatablus, Drusius, Clarius, Co●ureus, upon Job 24.13. & chap. 25.3. They are of those who Rebel against the Light. Upon whom doth not his Light arise? say, that this Light is of the Divine Wisdom and Fountain of Light, alluding to the Psalmist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Mat. 4.19. The People that sa●e in Darkness saw great Light. Also see ●●ese Men, Erasmus and Camero upon John 1.4, 9  
I shall for a further Defence of the Light, produce some Testimonies from several Gentiles some Hundreds of Years before Christ.  
Orpheus, His Hand reaches to the End of the Sea, his Right Hand is every where (●hen within) of him alone are all things, Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 5.  
Thales thus, There is but one God; he is Glorious forever; he knows Hearts and tells Thoughts. He makes the Teller of his Thoughts God, as in Amos 4.13.  
Pythagoras thus, God resembleth LIGHT and TRUTH; he is one; he is not OUT of the World; he is the SALT of all Ages, ONE HEAVENLY LIGHT, and Father of all things, only Wise, Invisible, yet Intelligible. The very Language of the Apostle, Jambl. Just. Mart.  
Heraclitus thus, God is not made with Hands.  
Pythagoras, What things are agreeable to God cannot be known, unless a man HEAR God himself.  
Again, Having overcome thy Rebellious Appetite, thou shalt know the COHABITATION of the Immortal God and Mortal Men; whose Work is Immortality, Eternal Life, Tim. de Anim. Mund.  
Sophocles, speaking of the Precepts written in man's Heart, saith, God is their Father, not Mortal Nature. Neither shall they ever be abrogated; for there is in them a great God that never waxeth old. Again, saith he, This is with respect to man's Conscience, a Divine, a Sacred Good, God the Overseer. Oedip. Tyr. Cl. Alex. Str. l. 5.  
Socrates had the Guide of his Life within him, and preached as he was moved by it, even in ●he Streets; And died for Reproving the Corruptions of the Athenians in Manners and Religion.  
Plo●in taught, That man had a Divine Principle in 〈◊〉, which maketh a True and Good Man.  
Hi●ron called it, A Domestic God.  
They held Victory over their Sins by the Power of it; witness Chilon, Socrates, Plato, Zeno, Antipater and others; which Doctrine of Perfection, thou T. H. with all thy pretended superadded Light, can't tell how to swallow. As they pressed Perfect Living, so they clearly laid down Eternal Rewards, the Pure to God● the Impure to Chains, said Pythago●as, as if he had read that Scripture writ Six Hundred Years after him, The Pure in Heart shall see God.  
The Good, sa●d Socrates, shall be united to God in an inaccessible Place; the Wicked in convenient Places suffer due Punishment.  
And though they might not have the Jewish History and Chronicle, yet they had a sufficient Law and Light within to Salvation; and such as trusted in it, came to Salvation by it: and so much the Apostle says, Rom. 2.  
And for the Fathers, that they confirm the Testimonies of the Gentiles, and speak not of another Eternal Law and Light; briefly thus.  
Justin Martyr in his Apology saith, God has built to himself a natural Temple in the Consciences of men, as the place wherein he would be worshipped, and there men ought to look for his Appearance.  
Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. It is the Voice of Truth that Light will shine out of Darkness. Therefore does it shine in the hidden part of Mankind.  
Strom. l. 5. Man cannot be void of Divine Knowledge, who naturally, or as he comes into the World, partakes of Divine Inspiration.  
Lactant. de Cult. ver The Law of God is made known unto us, whose Light clearly discovers the Path of Wisdom. That Law is pure and unspotted Reason, diffused through all the World.  
A●hanas. contr. Gent. The Way to attain to the Knowledge of God, is Within us; which is proved from Moses, who saith, The Word of God is within thy Heart; and from this saying of Christ, The Faith and Kingdom of God is within you.    

§. II. Concerning the Soul of Man.  Counterfeit. 
I affirm that G. Fox says, the Soul of Man is Part of God's being without Beginning, and infinite, which is to say, The Soul is God, Dial. 3. pag. 19  Quaker. 
I have two things to say: First, That in case G. F. so holds, thou hast done unworthily to conclude generally against the Quakers: In thy former Dialogues thou chargedst it upon the Quakers; and now thou layest it directly upon G. F. Are such Shift & Run from Generals to Particulars allowable in Disputation? Is this equal Dealing? But 2dly, I deny that G. F. so holds: what sayest thou to that?  C. 
G. Fox in his Great Mystery, p. 90. in Answer to one that said, There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul; yet it cannot be Infiniteness in itself, speaks thus: Is not the Soul without Beginning, coming from God, returning into God again? Hath this Beginning or Ending? and is not this Infinite in itself? Can anything be clearer than that G. F. mak●s the Soul the Subject, and not the Divine Life? Ibid. pag. 20, 21.  Q. 
Yes, that there may: For it is clear enough that G. F. intends by the Soul and Breath coming out from God, the Divine Breath, or Soul of the Soul, as Augustine calls it; and as Mach, Neshemah, Pneunia, Anemos and Spiritus signify. 'Twas this made Adam a living Soul to God [Thou dealest unfairly with G. F. and us in making his Questions about this, both his and our Affirmation. That the Soul (or Spirit) of Man is God. A manifest Falsehood and Abuse.] And was not the Death threathned Adam upon Disobedience, the Loss of this? They that read G. F's Books with a more impartial mind than thou dost, may see that sometimes he speaketh of the Soul, as of the Man, pag. 91. where he says, That such as receive the Light, receive Redemption, where by their Spirits, Bodies & Souls are sanctified; and sometimes he speaks of the Soul, as respecting that Breath of Life, by which it became a living Soul to God, which is Man in the Heavenly Image. He that reads page 90, 91, 100 may discern the Truth of this But why art thou not angry with the PRIEST, for talking of a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul? 'Tis at the Quaker and not the Principle, thy Gall is stirred: For a kind of Infiniteness ●ust be Infiniteness, and not a Finiteness. Did G. F's words at most rise higher? What further dost thou object?  C. 
But G. F. saith pag. 100 God breathed into man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul; and is not this which cometh out from God, part of God? which Soul Christ is the Bishop of. Can Fox here intent, that Christ is the Bishop of the Divine Life, & c.? Yet is he as absurd in calling Christ the Bishop of the Soul: For if the Soul be part of God's Being, and Christ be God, th●n one part of God must be B●sh●p over another, Ibid, p. 21, 22.  Q. 
Suppose this Cavil had any t●ing in it, and that thou hadst herein faithfully represented our Belief, might not I retort upon thy own Creed, that God is the Father of God: And when Christ prayed, God prayed to God; since the One Nature could not pray without the other, and the Spirit makes Intercession, that is, God intercedes with God: What thinkst thou of this T. Hicks? Besides I told thee then, that God inspired man with something of his own Substance in the Name of R. Nahmanni, Hiskuni, and P. Fagius, That God contributed something to him, and bestowed something of his own Divinity upon him, and that thou didst manifest thyself an ungodly Person, for inferring that what is vulgarly called the Soul of Man, to wit, the mere Creature, is part of God's own Substance, because we asserted, that the Life, Breath or Soul, as it may very well be termed, which God breathed into man, was of his own Being and Substance: what sayest thou to his?  C. 
If G. F. be understood to speak with Reverence to the Soul, than my Inference is natural & proper, viz. That the Soul is of God's Substance, and part of God's Being, p. 22.  Q. 
Are all thy Brags come to this? Take Soul as before expressed, and it is granted without any Damage to our Doctrine: For the Scriptures that testify, God communicated of his own Breath or Life unto Man, whereby he became a living Soul, do not confound man and that Divine Life; no more doth G. F. he never affirmed Man to be God, his own words distinguish them, viz. God breathed into man, etc. and consequently, that Man is not that Breath of God which he inspired Man with. Again, G. F. in many of his Writings, speaks of the Fallen and Degenerated State of Men, the great Pollution and Wickedness th●y lie and live in; and that heavy Wrath and Vengeance which will follow: all which concerns Man, and not that Divine Life God hath breathed into Man; It was not That, but Adam which was beguiled: Had Adam lived in That Life, he had been preserved. But suppose what I said granted the Question, as it did not, Many Great and Learned Men have run in the same Line, and they escaped the Cries of Blasphemy, Absurdity, and the rest of thy Exclamatory Terms from Millions: What makest thou keep such a Barking at us? Is it that thou ha●t more Authority, or less Candour?  
Before I conclude this Section, I would put thee in mind of a double Injustice thou hast committed: The one was in making this false & Profane Consequence, That God sets up a Light in himself, which he himself is to obey, and in so doing God shall be saved, to follow from G. F's words forecited. The second is in thy giving this sharp Rebuke for this Passage, as an Answer in thy Dialogue, without so much as inserting one word of it, that thou mightst cover thy own Unrighteousness, and render me severe. These Tricks, T. H. will never compass thy End, but greatly contribute to frustrate it.   

§. III. Concerning the Redemption of the Seed.  Counterfeit, 
FOrasmuch as Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, I did query, who or what was that which was lost? Ibid. p. 34.  Quaker, 
I know thou didst; and that thou madest G. Keith answer, That which is lost is still in man, that Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached People to this, A lost God, a lost Christ, etc. Upon which thou madest this Exclamation, Blush Oh Heavens, and be Astonished O Earth, & c.! Did J●sus Christ come to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ's was ever God and Christ in a LOST CONDITION? I told thee then, and do still, that the Heavens and the Earth might blush at thy base Dealings with G. K. I also told thee, as thou hast cited me, that he intended no other than that Christ came to seek and to save, by turning People to inquire after a lost God and a lost Christ.  
What sayst thou to this?  C. 
If by Lost we must not understand man's lost Condition; what less can be understood, but that Jesus came to seek and to save a lost God. 'Tis true, G. K, speaks of People's FINDING a lost God, whom they had lost, Ibid. p. 35.  Q. 
If this be true, that G. K. so speaks, to wit, that by lost God, he understood People's losing of God, what's become of thy Blush O Heavens, etc. Is God and Christ in a lost Condition? It is well thou art drawn to confess this against thyself.  C. 
But still, if Lost be meant only of God and Christ, how can Christ be said to seek and save a lost God? Ibid.  Q. 
No such words ever fell from G. K. to any such Question, as thou makest them an Answer to. Thou hast unworthily perverted both his Words and Sense. Though lost be said of God, yet the Loss is Man's; For every man who hath lost God is truly in a lost Condition: But to apply that lost Condition to God, and not man, because man hath lost God, and is admonished to seek after a lost God, is to commit great Injury against us, as thou hast attempted with thy silly Insinuation, viz. If Lost he meant ONLY of God and Christ, etc. What poor begging Shifts art thou put to?  C. 
But to put the Reader out of Doubt, that what I infer is indeed your very Opinion, G. F. and J. N. tell us, that the Seed wants Redemption, and the Seed is Christ either then there must be more Christ's then one, or Christ came to redeem himself, Ibid.  Q. 
Is it to put us out of Doubt, to leave it in Doubt whether G. F. and J. N. ever said any such thing, or these words, as laid down together? for tho● referrest to no Book.  
But suppose it be true; will it bear thy Inference; therefore God and Christ are in a lost Condition? Is it all one to say, that Christ is brui●ed and oppressed, and crucified afresh by wicked Men, and put to open Shame; and to say, That Christ is in a lost Condition? If it be not, as every ordinary Capacity may easily see; how needless, as well as how false is this Rant of thine? p. 36. viz. Wilt thou assert the very thing which I infer from your Words, and yet say, I pervert them; May we not justly esteem of thee, as a heady, rash and inconsiderate young Man, etc. Thus T. H where it is impossible for thee to make good thy Conclusions, thou tellest me of granting the Charge, and then fallest into thy usual Insults, the better to insinuate a Credence of thy Ability and Honesty with thy Reader.  C. 
But is it not absurd, yea, blasphemous, to talk of God's redeeming the Seed? Ibid.  Q. 
No more Blasphemy than is in the Scripture, which says, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, a Place of Burdens. But I the less wonder at thy Ignorance in these Heavenly Things, who never yet drunk of his Cup, nor was baptised with his Baptism, nor knew the true Fellowship of his Death and Sufferings; but art now adding to them by as provoaking Impieties, as any man of this Age hath committed against him.  
Give me thy Judgement of these Scriptures, and my Consequence from them. And God saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor; therefore his Arm brought Salvation to him, and Righteousness it sustained him, Isaiah 59.16. Again, The Year of my Redeemed is come, and I looked, and there was none to help, and I wondered that there was none to uphold; therefore mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me, and my Fury it uph●ld me, Chap. 53.4, 5. Whence it is no Contradiction to say, That God did rid himself of the Enemies of his own precious Life, or that he brought Salvation to himself.  C. 
I infer from your Words this horrid Absurdity, that God redeems himself, p. 37. This is thy Truth against Fiction.  Q. 
It is not from our Words, but the Words of Scripture; and but that thou art become shameless, I should wonder that any Man pretending the Scriptures to be his Rule, should charge plain Scripture with Absurdity and Blasphemy.  C. 
Thus Christ is at one and the same time at Liberty and in Bondage, redeeming and redeemed, conquering and yet pressed down: And though this kind of Language be Folly and Madness, yet thou tellest us, thou art content to use it, p. 38.  Q. 
And it were well if thou wouldst be contented, not to abuse it: Is this thy Religion, to vilify the Language of other People's Religion; nay, of holy Scripture itself?  
But how dark art thou T Hicks, to make b●th a Wonder and a Scoff at Christ's conquering and yet being pressed down at the same Time; when the Scripture so plainly holds forth, that he is crucified by such counterfeit Christians as thou art, at what Time he reigns in the Hearts of his Children? And is not the Spirit said to be quenched by some, at what Time it lives in others? And is he not grieved by the Rebellions of some, whilst he is delighted in others? Was not God at Liberty at what Time he said, They made him s●rve with their Sins? And was he not whole, at what Time he said, He was broken, Ezek. 6.9. 
* T. H. takes that literally, which is metaphorically spoken, both in Scripture and our Books, and makes li●eral Consequences upon metaphorical Premises, as if ●od had Hands, Eyes, Head, Arms, could be embondaged, broken, etc. after a Worldly Manner, or in ● strict and proper Sense, and ●ot rather in a more hidde●●; c Metaphorical Signification; He is herein e●ther very blind or very malicious.  Canst thou reasonably infer, because of these Expressions, used after the manner of men, that it is Absurdity and Blasphemy, that God heals himself, delivers, himself, and eases himself of his Enemies; Words of equal Import? Methinks thy unsavoury Carriage should reflect Shame upon W. Kiffin, with his Elders, etc. to suffer such irreverent Trash to come out of their Congregation; if they value their Credit, they will not suffer thee any longer thus upon the Ramble. But before I leave thee in this Section, I have one thing more to charge thee with, and that is, not only the Abuse of our words, by concluding from Man's being turned to seek after a lost God and Christ, that God and Christ are in a lost Condition, but that they only want Redemption, and that Men and Women are not the Objects of Redemption, as in 3 Dial. p. 37. Then which nothing can be more false, and consequently, injurious to a People. But I have left wondering, that thou shouldst be base.   

§. IV. Concerning our Belief in Christ.  Quaker. 
ANother Instance by which thou undertakest to prove the Quaker no Christian, is, his Denial of Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without him: Is this true, or no?  Counterfeit. 
I accuse you for denying Jesus Christ to be a distinct Person without you, p. 25.  Q. 
I say that thou hast varied thy Charge, and given thyself an Answer to it out of my Book, which was never an Answer to any such Matter, viz. Herein thou hast shown thy Ignorance and Malice; nor is it so in my Book, but Ignorance or Malice: Thou also omitteth the Ground of my so speaking, which is not fair, viz, The Quakers say, that Christ is in them, Christ is God-man; is God-man in them? Again, there is but one Christ, born of ● Virgin, that suffered at Jerusalem: Can that Christ be in Man? In Defence of which strange Construction of our Belief, thou hast offered nothing to what I opposed. Howbeit, I desire my Reader to take notice, that since thou pretendest to own but one Christ, and sayst, that it is impossible that Christ should be in Man, that thou both deniest the Scripture, and contradictest thyself; there is not any Doctrine clearer in holy Record, then that of Christ's indwelling with his Saints, Joh. 14.20, 23. Chap. 15.4, 5. Chap. 17.23. Rom. 8.10. 2 Cor. 13.5. Cal. 1.16. Col. 1.27. Revel. 3.20.  
The same Objection thou makest against us, holds good against them, as thus, Christ is God-man; can God-man be in the Corinthians? What might not a T. Hicks have cavilled against Christ and his Disciples, ●s well as against us? Is this the Way to prove the Quaker no Christian, that makes that Thing Error, which can only constitute Men right Christians: For if Christ be not there, no Anointing can be there, which John says, leads into all Truth: Besides, thou contradictest thyself, as thou mayest see, Dial. p. 22, 23. But to thy present Charge.  C. 
This I object against you, your denying Christ to be a distinct Person without you; to which thou speakest nothing, signifying thereby, that y●u are pinched, Ibid. p. 26.  Q. 
I told thee under the Head of Perversions, that this was not all thou madest us to deny; for thou didst untruly infer Our Denial of Christ's Bodily Appearance, concerning which thou speakest nothing, signifying thereby, that thou art pinched, unless it be to deny thou ever saidst so, as p. 26, 31. thereby adding a Lie to the Shuffile. But why are we pinched, because we say nothing to a Doctrine the Scripture says nothing of: Give me one Place that mentions Christ to be a distinct People without us; art thou so destitute of common Sense, as to think of proving the Quaker no Christian, because he denies a Doctrine, not expressed in Scripture; and yet at that Instance to magnify the Scripture, as thy sole Rule: Verily, thou makest thyself a Derision to all wise Men. But go on, make the best of thy Charge.  C. 
G. F. in his Great Mystery, p. 16. writes thus, Thou art deceived, who sayest Christ is distinct from the Saints: Can any Man eat the Flesh of Christ, if his Flesh be not in them?  Q. 
This probably thou mayst have found in thy Brother Faldo 's Book, and thou mightst have found it defended in mine. Wh●re is Distinct among G. F's Words, which are these, But God and Christ is in his Saints, and dwell 〈◊〉 them, and walk in them; and he, the Priest, is Reprobate, and out of the Apostles Doctrine: which plainly shows that G. F. only opposeth Christ's being as a Distance, as divided from the Saints, because they who know not Christ to be in them the Apostle terms Reprobates; and not that Christ and his Saints are in distinct Being's. That Christ's Flesh must be in People if they eat it, is so far from being either Matter of Error, or any Proof for thee, that, till thou canst prove, how a Man may eat his Victuals without him, thou wilt but render thyself ridiculous in talking at such an idle rate. What else hast thou to offer?  C. 
G. Whitehead saith, Jesus Christ a Person without us, is not Scripture-Language, Dip. pl. p. 13.— We cannot own your Limitations and unscriptural Notions concerning Christ's Being, R. against R. 1. p. 22.  Q. 
But (why dost thou leave out the Word God-man, which thou usedst at first, and was repeated by G. W.) what of all this T. H?  C. 
If these be your Words, wherein is my Ignorance or Malice manifest, in giving the World an Account of your Belief? Ibid. p. 26.  Q. 
Thou mightst as well have said of our Disbelief of thy unscriptural Belief: Canst thou upon second Thoughts persuade thyself, that this is the way to prove the Quaker no Christian, condemn him out of his own Mouth and evince his Errors to the World, that wanderest from sound Doctrine and wholesome Words, to effect it. Howbeit, not so much for thy sake, who makest it thy Business to render us a Scorn and Reproach among Men, by the most injurious Practices upon our Persons and Principles; as for theirs in whom there is some Tenderness and sober Enquiry, I shall endeavour to take away all Occasion of Stumbling, by this short and sesrious Account of our Belief.  
'Tis granted, that Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever, is a distinct Being (though not at a Distance) from the Saints; Otherwise, it would be all one indeed to ay, as thou, T. H. wickedly concludest, p. 30. from thy own Invention of Man's being the Seed, which is God, that it is all one, whether we call God by the Name of W. Penn or call W. Penn God and Christ; a Blasphemous Absurdity indeed, as thou sayeth! But then, what art thou that madest it? Next, we never said, that Christ was not as well without us, as within us; for we cannot comprehend him, but are comprehended of him: We never set any Limitations to Christ's Presence; they are the false and hateful Inferences of our Enemies; And let the Reader beware, that he be not abused by them. For the Word Person (as thou usest it, in telling us of Christ, God-man, a distinct Person without thee) it is no Scripture-Phrase; for in Heb. 1.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hypostasis signifies Substance; and in 2 Cor. 2.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies in Christ's Stead, Name, Sight or Authority, or for his sake, as ●rotius, Erasmus and the Ancient Fathers have it. However, I hope for our Tenderness in this particular, considering that T. H.'s Charge is no Scripture-Phrase, and that such like Expressions occasion People to retain mean and dark Apprehensions of God, and Christ, and his Place of Residence; we shall not suffer in the Mind of our sober Reader, as Men undeserving the Name of Christians. Hast thou T. H. any more to offer upon this Head?  C. 
If the Light be Jesus Christ, and a Measure of it in all Men, but more eminently in yourselves; whether W. P. and G. W. may not as properly be called Jesus Christ, as well as that Bodily Appearance or Outward Person? And why may not divine Worship be given as well to you as to him?  Q. 
That Jesus Christ is the Light of Men, the Scripture holds forth; but that W. P. or G. W. should be the Proper Body prepared of God, for himself to be manifested in (as was that in which God was manifested in the Flesh: in whom dwelled the Fullness of the Godhead) is not scriptural, nor a Consequence from our Opinion; but a blasphemous Inference of thy making, to be abhorred of just Men. Are we Christ's Body, as that was? Did we ever say, that the Fullness of the Godhead dwelled bodily in us? He is manifested in us measurably, to save us: But was he so manifested in that Manhood to save it? Or is either G. W. or W. P. as properly and peculiarly the Manhood of the Saviour as that he took to manifest himself Saviour in? Thou shalt see whither thy Sophistry will lead thee: The Son of God appeared bodily and visibly at Jerusalem: The Son of God was revealed in Paul; therefore Paul might as well be called Jesus Christ as he, in that Appearance. Again, Divine Worship is to be given to Christ: but Christ was in Paul; therefore divine Worship was to be given to Paul. Again, T. H. doubtless, at least many of the Baptists, believe they have the Spirit of God, and that the Spirit of God is God, and therefore to be worshipped; will it be a good Consequence, That T. H. or those Baptists are to be worshipped? These vain Cavils and Sophisms thou undertakest to entertain thy Reader with, and to abuse us by; are great Instances of a weak Cause and an evil Mind.  C. 
Be not angry if again I ask thee, if Christ signify Anointed, and God be Christ, as thou affirmest; whether God himself be Anointed, Ibid. p. 32.  Q. 
It seems then, Socinian-like, thou dost not affirm that God is Christ; and yet it is but two Pages before that thou sayst, The Godhead of the Son, and the Manhood conjunct is the Christ. And Dial. p. 44, Thou callest God manifest in the Fl●sh, Christ. Is not God then Christ by thy own words? But what Answer did I give thee to thy Question about Anointing?  C. 
Thou sayest, Christ was not anointed by Halves but entirely; herein thou contradictest thyself, and overthrowest thy own Distinction between Chr●st and the Bod● of Christ.  Q. 
No such matter; for the Distinction came from thy insinuating, that the Man hood of Christ was the the Christ, because that only could be Anointed, upon which, knowing it was lately thy Opinion, that Christ was God as well as Man, I said, that he could not be anointed by Halves; and therefore Christ was anointed as God as well as Man: What sayst thou to this?  C. 
The Difficulty still remains: If God alone was that which was anointed, the Question returns upon thee, whether God did anoint himself, and with what, and to what End?  Q. 
Thou art mistaken, and miserably beg'st the Question, and sendest it back again: For when thou (to prove the mere Manhood to be the Christ or Anointed) didst insinuate the Impossibility of Christ to be God as well as Man, and that God manifest in the Flesh, makes the true Christ or Anointed, and that it is absurd to think he should be anointed by Halfs: Is not God or the divine Nature also anointed? if so, T. H. who is it that anointed the Godhead, and with what, and to what End? These are thy own Words, and they belong to thy own Doctrine. Thou didst object against our Principle, and happened to contradict thy own Principle in it: I sent thee the Objection home again, for thee to disengage thy own Principle of it, First, Thou growest angry, tellest me of contradicting myself, and returnest me the Objection never considered; but back it must go; and when thou hast found the way to clear thy own, that shall serve for thine and mine too. And thus I leave thee and thy Cavils in this Section.   

§. V. Concerning the Gospel-Rule.  
LEt us hear what thou hast to say to the Arguments I gave about the Rule.  C. 
You deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice u●to Christians, p. 38.  ●. 
Thou would 't here insinuate, as if our Faith and Practice ●ere not according to Scripture, because we do not assert them, but the Spirit that gave them forth, to b● the ●ule, especially, in new Covenant Times: I grant the Scriptures are to be fulfilled, and that many Heavenly Exhortations, Reproofs & Instructions therein contained, are to be regarded by us; but that which is my Rule to direct my Understanding, what is fit for me to embrace, and what to reject, and how to understand that which is to be received, m●st be the Spirit of Truth, which alone g●ves true Discerning: Therefore let us hear what thou sayest to my Argument, Reas. against Rail. p. 25. as thou they self has cited it, Dial. 3. p. 38. viz. That which is more Ancient, more universal, and more able to inform, rule and guide, that must more eminently be the Rule: But that hath been, and is, the Light within; therefore that hath been, and aught to be the Rule of ●aith and Practice: What dost thou offer to invalidate this Argument?  C. 
Then her●in I have not misrepresented your Belief, p. 39  Q. 
But is this the Way to confute our Belief? Or did we charge thee with misrepresenting it in this particular? Dost thou think thus to evince the Truth of thy Objections, to grant us the Matter objected: It seems, we are to take this for thy Answer; and consequently, that the Light within is eminently the Rul●, for aught thou hast said against it. Proceed.  C. 
●ut forasmuch as you often say, you own the Scriptures, and the holy Rules therein contained: In what Sense do you acknowledge them to be your Rule?  Q. 
Thou makest me to answer this Question thus, The Scripture is the Rule of Historical Faith; the Spirit can only be the Rule of saving Faith, Reas. ag. Rail. p. 40. But can any Man that hath the least Draghm of Honesty or Justice, think this the Way to confute me, to skip over near 15. Pages, containing several Arguments made to evidence and confirm the Truth of the fir●t?  
Hadst thou not a Conscience that dares do and say any thing, thou couldst never have given me such an unhandsome Slip. But let us hear what thou sayst to that which thou hast cited.  C. 
If the Light within be more able to inf●rm, rule and guide, and therefore more eminently the Rule; What need is there of an historical Rule? p. 39  Q. 
Did ever any Man pretending to be in his Wits, talk so idly? what is it but to say, If the Spirit of God was always more able than the Scripture; what need is there of having Scripture? Is not this to infer from God's Condescension to Man's Imbecility, that the Light and Spirit of God are Imbecil: Is not this to reprobate all external Means, and to conclude God, Christ, the Light and Spirit insufficient, because that any were ever used: Is it a good Argument, because the Light does not reveal such a thing, therefore the Light cannot reveal such a thing, which is the utmost Strength of thy Opposition. I further told thee, that those who gave forth the Scripture, came by the Enjoyment of those Things through the Light and Spirit of God, or they could never have writ them; therefore the Light and Spirit, and not the Scriptures, were the Rule of their Faith. But of this and abundance more to the same Purpose, thou takest no notice: I further told thee, that the Prophets saw him with this Light, unless they saw him without Light, and that those that believed him, when come, could not have received him, had they not beheld him with an inward Eye. Thus thou quotest me: What Reply makest thou to this?  C. 
That the Prophets saw him by the Light of divine Revelation, I grant: And that none do believe in him, what do not know him is true; but that this Light or inward Eye is the common Light in every Man, that thou must prove. p. 42.  Q. 
It was formerly, and is again proved to be the same Light, though not the same in Manifestations. Every one had th● same Light; but not the same Prohecies, nor the same Sights: When thou hast proved two Lights, it will be Time for thee to talk at this Rate: Nothing did then, nor can now, lead truly to know and confess to the Word that took Flesh, in which Word was Life, and that Life the Light of Men; but ●; such Discoveries as proceed from a Measure of the same Light, as hath been already proved. And should I admit of thy Construction, that the Light by which such as had a true Sight of Christ before, and at his Coming was not the common Light, as thou callest it; but that which thou thyself allowest to be divine; yet wilt thou give me Leave to infer in thy Name, that the divine Light was insufficient, before such time as it revealed those Things to the Prophets, and gave tho●e that were alive at Christ's Spiritual Coming, a Knowledge and a Sense of them, because they did no● know them before they knew them: For at this Rate thou ●reate●●●s abo●t the Light within; the Light within doth not do this, 〈…〉 the Light within cannot do it, presumptuously concluding it insufficient to discover those things, that either do not need a Discovery, because they are already known, or that it seemeth good to God in his Wisdom to conceal.  C. 
If the Scriptures tell thee ●here was such ● Man as Moses, David and Matthew, etc. without which thou couldst not have known any such ●●ing; so the Scripture tells thee what they spoke and wro● of; therefore the Scriptures must be the Rule of thy Belief, both concerning those Men and their Sayings, p. 45.  Q. 
I grant that the Scriptures tell me, there were such Men, as Moses, D●●id and Matth●w, and that they wrote: But what is it that gives me to believe the things they wrote to be true? The Rule of ●aving Faith is that we speak of, and not that which is historical? It is impossible for me to understand the Truth of those Things, till I come to that Spirit of Truth that gave them forth; for no Man can know the Things of God, save the Spirit of God. The want of which hath been the Cause why so many have been bewildered about the things there declared: 
I would ask him how he knows the Scriptures extant are perfect, both as to Number, and Copy and Translations? Several Books are ●oft, that is certain; does the Scripture tell us what they contained? if not, the Rule is imperfect by T. H s Consequence. The Copies are above Thirty in Number, at least, in which there are Thousands of different Readins; the Translators greatly differ, and have greatly corrupted. Also T. H is to look to prove the present Collection Canonical. If he pleads the Testimony of ●od within, his Cause is gone; if Tradition, I ask how? Is he assured the first Canon was rightly made? The Council as either Fa●●ible or Infallible; If the First, what Assurance ha● he? If the last, it grants Infallibility, since the Apostles 360. Years; but begets the Question, How does T. H. know they were in the right? And if in one Thing, why not in al●? But those councils contradicted; and none ever gave the Catalogue, as now it is; nor can T. H. give a Canon for it. And if he cannot assure us, that it is e●●ct with the Original, free from Variation, Corruption, Mistranslation, etc. as it is not; he can never prove it the Rule, as he endeavour, in Opposition to the Spirit; for tha● i● always p●in and perfect. But more of thi● in the Christ●an Q●aker; not to lessen Scripture, but to con●ound such Cavillers.  Spiritual and heavenly Things are not discernible by carnal Men, they are hid from their Eyes; & till the Light shine out of Darkness, to give them the Knowledge of the Scriptures; they are as a sealed Book, and they labour in a Labyrinth of Uncertainties. I do say again, The Light in all Ages hath made known Doctrines, fit to be obeyed, though not the Histories and Narratives of other men's Actions; which is thy silly Objection against the Light's Sufficiency. But one thing I must not forget, on which thou didst not depend a little, as an Instance to prove thy Conceit, viz. How could we have known, that Swearing in any Case were unlawful, if it had not been written in the 5th of Matthew Swear not at all, Dial. 1. p. 22. But this I proved to thee, to have been revealed above 400. Years before that was written; but what is the Reason thou overlookest that Answer? Clinias was taught by it rather to suffer a great Fine, then swear; the Essaeaens had rather die than swear, which was long before Christ came in the Flesh: Was not the Light then a sufficient Rule for their practising of an Evangelical Doctrine by thy own Argument? But T. H. art thou not greatly ashamed, that because I supposed upon thy Principle, thy Light and Rule to be two, Reas. against Rail. p. 39 That therefore I contradict myself, and overthrow mine own Opinion, saying, If Light be given to understand the Rule, than itself is not the Rule, much less greater than the Rule; and as if thou hadst come rightly by this Consequence, falling into thy customary Insults, telling me, T●is is so far from being Truth against Fiction, that it discovers me to be a rash, heady, confident and ignorant Man, one that neither cares what he says or affirms. Hadst thou any Regard to God, thy own Conscience, thy Neighbour, or thy own Reputation, thou wouldst never commit, much less continue to practise, these horrid Wrongs against me. However, as I said before, so again: I affirm, that supposing the Scriptures were the Rule, that which informs me of the Rule, and teaches me how to use it, must be greater than the Rule, in that it teaches me to know and do what the Rule cannot do of itself: I query then, if t●is Light be not the Rule, how and which way I come to understand and use the Scriptures? etc. therefore eminently the Rule, the Terms of my Argument; for the Question lay not upon particular Rules.  C. 
The Primitive Christians took not their Measures from the Light within, but from the Will of God revealed to them, p. 46.  Q. 
This is Confusion itself: Are the Light within and the Will of God revealed inconsistent things? Who was it revealed to them (Paul turned from Darkness to (Light the Will of God, but the Light? And what was it taught them the Truth, when John said, They had received an Anointing, which abode in them, and taught them all things; unto which he directed, and with which he left them, John 1. 2, 27. And doth not the same Apostle tell us, If we walk in the Light, we have Fellowship one with another, & c? Was not the Light then the Rule of their Obedience, and the Way in which they were to walk? for the Accomplishment of that Prophetic Speech, Isa. 2.5. Oh ye House of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the Light of the Lord.  
And is there any thing plainer, then that the Apostle Paul describes the Children of God, to be such as are led by the Spirit of God, Rom. 8.14. and that he exhorts the Galatians to walk in the Spirit, chap. 5.16 and the Ephesians to walk circumspectly, which was, according to the Manifestations of the Light, chap. 5.14, 15, 16. Finally does not the same Apostle pronounce Peace on as many as walk according to the Rule of the N●w Creature, Gal. 6.16.  
I further told thee that the Waldonses, Lutherans, Protestant's, ●alvinists, etc. made the Testimony of God in their Consciences the chief Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures, Reas. against Rail. pag. 48.  C. 
That the Waldenses, etc. made the Testimony of their Consciences the chief Ground of the Belief of th● Scriptures, is confidently said, but more than ever W. Penn is able to prove.  Q. 
But if W. Penn is able to prove that the Waldenses, Lutherans, Protestant's, Calvinists, yea and Independents, and Anabaptists too, have made the Testimony of God in their Consciences, the Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures, wilt not thou then appear to have told a confident Untruth? Let us hear what they say.  
That the Waldenses held so thou mayst inform thyself if thou pleasest, out of their History, penned by John Paul Perin of Lions, lib. 1. cap. 1, cap. 11, cap. 13.  
Luther taught, That the Spirit is required to the Understanding of the whole Scripture and of every part thereof Again, The Scriptures are not to be understood, but by that very Spirit by which they were wrote, Tom. 3. fol. 169.  
John Bradford, a worthy Martyr, thus answered the Arch Bishop of York, who catechised him how he came to know the Scriptures? We do believe and know, said he, the Scriptures, as Christ's Sheep, not because the Church saith they are the Scriptures, but because they be so, being thereof assured by the same Spirit that wrote and spoke them, Book Mart. vol. 3. p. 298.  
William Tindal, another faithful Martyr in Hen. 8 his time, writes thus; It is impossible to understand the Scriptures more than a Turk, for him that hath not the Law of God written in his Heart to fulfil it. Again, Without the Spirit it is impossible to understand them, W. Tind. Work. p. 319. & p. 80.  
B. Jewel against the Papists hath this Passages; F●esh and Blood is not able to understand the holy Will of God, without special Revelation, therefore Christ gave Thanks unto his Father; and likewise opened the Hearts of his Disciples, that they might understand the Scriptures: Without this special Help and Prompting of God's holy Spirit, the Scriptures are unto the Reader, be he never so wise or well learned, as the Vision of a sealed Book.  
Calvin saith, It is necessary that the same Spirit that spoke by the Mouth of the Prophets should pierce into our Hearts, to persuade us of the Truth of what they delivered, Instit. lib. 1. cap 8  
Beza saith, That the understanding of the Scriptures should be fetched from the same Spirit that dictated them, Bez in Nou. Test. 2 Pet. 1.19.  
Pet. Martyr taught, That it is the Spirit of God, that reveals the Truth in the holy Scriptures, Com. loc. p. 2 cap. 18.  
H. Bullinger asserted in his 4 Decad. & 8 Serm. dedicated to K. Edw. 6. That men fetch the Understanding of heavenly things and Knowledge of the Holy Ghost from no where else then from the same Spirit.  
What sayest thou to this T. H? Can the Holy Ghost be this Discoverer and Instructor, and yet not eminently the Rule?  
But in as much as thou chargest me with denying the Scriptures Authority, and then railest, p. 61. because I place it upon the Te●●timony of the Light and Spirit of God In the Conscience; Hear what D. John Owen says, The only Public Authentic and Infallible Interpreter of the holy Scripture, is He who is the Author of them, from the Breathing of whose Spirit it derives all its VERITY, PERSPICUITY and AUTHORITY, Exerc. 2.7, 9 What would have become of me, T. H. if I had spoken so broad as this? This makes the Spirit Interpreter, Judge and Rule of our Knowledge, therefore eminently the Rule.  
T. Collier, an ancient and considerable Baptist, shall be my last instance here; There is the Law and Testimony in the Spirit, saith he, as well as in the Letter.  
The Law of God is in the Heart, there it is written; and there it testifies the Truth of God: And if any man speak not according to this Rule, it is because there is no Light or Morning risen in him. See his Works, pag. 249. Again,  
Others know no other Touchstone nor Trial, no other Light by which they judge of Truth than Scripture; thus putting it in the room of the Spirit, which is Light, and the Greater Light: For they say, they cannot know Truth till they bring it to the Letter for Trial; thus making an Idol of the Letter, setting it up in the room of God, Ibid. pag. 248.  
I could produce a great Cloud of more Witnesses, both of Fathers and other Authors; But I hope I have discharged myself of my Engagement, and made appears, That what I asserted was not too hard for me to prove, and therefore thou T. H. wert too confident in saying so: but thy notorious Ignorance in these things may a little excuse thee.  
But thou chargest us with undervaluing the Scriptures, a Fault I abhor to be guilty of; Let me hear in what.  C. 
You contemptibly call the Scriptures the Letter, whilst you entitle some of your own Pamphlets, The Voice of Wisdom, A Message, &c, wherein you manifestly prefer your own Writings before the Holy Scriptures, pag 55.  Q. 
This Cavil has been answered again and again, I told thee before, and thou hast cited me thus, If at any time we call the Scriptures Letter, it is not that we mean our Books are the Spirit, or that we irreverently set them (the Scriptures) below our own Writings, but upon a Comparison only between the Scriptures and the Spirit that gave them forth. What Return dost thou give to this?  C. 
It is aggravate, not to excuse your Error.  Q. 
It is an Error to call the Scriptures the Letter in a Comparison with the Spirit? And an Aggravation of that Error, to prefer the Spirit before the Letter? But as this all thou hast to say to the Matter?  C. 
Why have you not respect to this Comparison when you entitle your own Books? But that you would have us to believe that your Writings are more eminently from the Spirit than the Scriptures? p. 56.  Q. 
How do we prefer our Writings above the Scriptures, which we prove by the Scriptures? I perceive it is become almost impossible with thee to make any other Constructions, than what rather show thine own Envy then our Sense. Was there ever the same Reason for a Comparison between our Writings and the Spirit? Did we ever set them up for the only Rule of Faith and Obedience, and that in Opposition to the Spirit, as the New Covenant Rule, and those that maintain that Plea? If there were the same Occasion, thou shouldst quickly hear of the same Distinction and Comparison. But go on.  C. 
Hence it is, That when both stand in Competition you thus distinguish them, Letter, yea, Dead Letter, as the proper Term for the Scriptures; but The Voice of Wisdom to your Books: Art thou not ashamed of this Bas●ness and Profaneness? pag. 56  Q. 
Whatever I am, I perceive thou art not ashamed of making me base and profane too, and printing a most horrid Untruth to render me so: There is not a Sentence in thy Book gives a clearer Testimony of the Injustice of thy Carriage then this in hand. For nothing is more frequent with thee throughout thy Dialogues, than first to invent something odious in our Name, and then, as if none so Modest and Righteous as thyself, cry out, Who would not be astonished at this Blasphemous Absurdity? p. 30. Art thou not ashamed of this Profaneness and Baseness? p. 59 O Impious Man, etc. p. 13. But let this determine this Point between us. Produce but one of our Friends, that ever brought his Write in Competition with the Scriptures, calling the Scriptures the Dead Letter, & his own Books the Voice of Wisdom, etc. and I will yield thee to have written Truth: If thou canst not, thou hast but fastened Baseness, Profaneness and Lying upon thyself: with thee I leave them; for there thou ought est to rest, till thou canst better clear thyself of them.  
I charged thee with having wronged Geo. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorn, in making them to say, It is Dangerous for ignorant People to read the Scriptures; and then fixing the Name of Jesuit and Romanish upon us; producing their words at large, which thou hast basely contracted to thy own Ends, leaving out what might most make for their Innocency, and the evincen●●ent of thy own Forgery.  
Thou givest the words thus, The Letter killeth, is Dangerous: In my Quotation, and in their own Book, thus, The Letter which killeth, 2 Cor. 3.6. is D●ngerous [for thou (Priest) takest in h●re to war withal against the Saints, with thy carnal Mind, giving out thy carnal Expositions upon it.] All this, T. H. thou hast unworthily left out, that thou mightest the better fasten thy Fiction upon G. F. and R. H. I ask, Is it not Dangerous to read the Scriptures to these Ends? And the Ministers of the Letter are the Ministers of Death; here thou leavest out again [which is to Condemnation, and you take it to make a Trade with it, and with what the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles said, so that some have 60 and some 100 l. a year; but Christ cried Woe unto such Whited Walls] having left out this part, that concerned the Hireling thou puttest in again; And here you read with Danger who speak of them and speak a Lie, because you speak of yourselves: Here again thou lettest drop [and you wr●st the Scriptures to your own Destruction] (as the Unlearned and Unstable do; and is not this Dangerous in them?) Then thou bringest in this, And to you it is Dangerous to read or speak of them; omitting all that here follows by me cited to clear them of thy Charge, viz. [who know not the Life of them as the Pharisees, who were learned in the Letter, but knew not Christ: But I say, Blessed is he that readeth & doth understand] All this so necessary to give the Undertstanding of their true Meaning thou hast designedly overlookt: However, let us hear what Defence thou hast made for thyself.  C. 
The Question respects the whole Scripture, which you say, is Dangerous and Killing; The Ministers of the Scriptures are Ministers of Death, and it is Dangerous for such to read them: What a shameless Man art thou, thus to confess what I accuse you of, and yet condemn me as a Forger? pag. 57  Q. 
These foul and confident Questions thou usest to ask me with which thou wouldst insinuate thy Innocency, do but aggravate thy Forgery. For first, How do I confess what thou accusest us of, when it is neither to be found in my words, nor theirs upon whom thou chargest them, viz. It is Dangerous for Ignorant People to read the Scriptures. 2dly, I told thee they meant by Ministers of the Letter, Ministers of the Law and Death, because of Transgression, and thou makest it Dangerous for such to read the Scriptures; whereas G. F. and R. H. said, It was Dangerous for Hirelings and whi●e Walls to use them against the Saints with their carnal Expositions, opposing them Pharisee- like, to the Life of them, wresting them to their own destruction. It is Dangerous for such to read them to such Uses and Purposes not in any Sense as thou untruly sayest: Of this thou takest no notice. So that here the Reader may plainly see thy first Forgery; since it was not the Man of no Letters, but the Men of Letters, such as the Scribes and Pharisees, who used them against the right Heirs of them, of whom G.F. and R.H. spoke. And thy second is not less visible, in that thou hast imposed upon the Reader my Confession of thy Accusation, who never confessed any such thing. These are some of thy wont Tricks, ever & anon employed to cover thy Nakedness with, and to get off unsuspected, from encountering the Difficulty of our Charge, Proof or Argument. I appeal to God's Witness in my Reader's Conscience, to right us against the many Injurious Practices against us: And shall conclude with this Acknowledgement and Argument concerning the Scriptures.  
We do receive and believe the Scriptures given forth by Holy Men of God, as they were moved of the Holy Ghost, and that they are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, and for Instruction in Righteousness; yet since they are Writings relating to the things of God, no man can understand them, or have an assured Testimony of them, but by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. which alone reveals the deep things of God: It was not the Scripture, but the Father that revealed Christ to Peter, Mat. 16.5.  
Further, The New Covenant Times are Times of Fulfilling of the Scriptures, by the pouring out of the Spirit, therefore People's regard should be to the inward Drawings and Leadings of the Holy Spirit. The Law outward was a Rule to the Jew, though not eminently unto them (for the Lord gave them also of his good Spirit; & what for, if not to rule them?) But the Law of the Spirit of Life promised to be revealed within, under the New & Everlasting Covenant, was certainly to be the Rule under that Covenant, being a time for the more immediate Flow forth of Spirit and Life. We do not say that every one hath hereunto attained: But we affirm, that God hath given a measure of his Spirit unto Men & Women, that they might receive the precious Promises, unto which we direct them for that End. I know that T. Hicks, according to his wont Baseness, pag. 49. interprets our saying, that we deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice in honour to the Divine Light, to be our denying & rejecting the revealed Will of God, thereby must hate their Parents, because they are to love Christ first, Mat. 10. This were to say, that Paul's regard to the Law of the Spirit of Life in him, as his Rule, was not to fulfil, but to deny & reject the Law without: If this Consequence be false against Paul; How can T. H.'s Consequence be good against us? Is it to reject and deny the Scriptures, to have the good things they declare of brought in by the Eternal Spirit? And since the Scriptures can not fulfil themselves in us, but the Spirit; is not the Spirit the Rule and Guide to our Divine Knowledge and Enjoyments. But from our asserting the Spirit to be the Rule, T.H. infers, That we deny to live according to the Scriptures, a Mistake he fell into before, which I offered to help him out of in my Answer; for to own the Scripture to be the Rule, and to live according to the Scriptures, are not one and the same thing: For the Gentiles did the things contained in the outward Law, and yet had not the outward Law for a Rule, Rom. 2.14.  
Nor is it to be doubted, but that Paul and the primitive Christians lived up to the outward Law (that is the inward Law outwarly declared) by the Law of the Spirit of Life, which was the Rule of their Obedience: Yet can any infer, that the outward Law and not the inward was the Rule of their so living? And I must tell thee, Th. Hicks, that thy Exalting of the Scriptures, is but an Endeavour to throw down the Spirit; which Sacrifice, be it known unto thee, the Lord of Heaven loathes. And I will say to thee, as G. F. and R. H. said to the Priest, They are Dangerous to be read and used for those Evil Purposes thou employest them upon: But as they said (though that also thou didst overlook) so say I, Blessed is He that doth read, and understands them.  

Testimonies concerning the Rule.  
Irenaeus, pag. 242, 384, 389. The Writing in the Heart is the Rule. Again, l. 5. c. 8. The Word giveth his Spirit to all, to some according to Condition. And, l. 4. c. 30. The Fathers justified by the Righteousness of the Law in them, therefore had no need of REPROVING LETTERS.  
W. Perkins Works, 3 Vol. pag. 220. The Light of Nature and Grace teacheth to do as we would be done to, pag. 221. It is the Fulfilling of the Law, the Rule to judge Scripture. That (of God) made the Rule, Something in the Conscience; Happy Times, if Men would follow it.  
Bp. R. Sanderson, De Obligat. Conscient. pag. 127. A Rule of Discerning without the Scriptures. Regula discernendi extra Scripturam.  
And T. C●llier in plain words saith, The Spirit of God, who is God, is the ALONE RULE of a Christian, Gen. Epist. to the Saints, chap. 12.— The Spiritual Man judgeth all things by the RULE OF THE SPIRIT, ibid. The Law of the New Testament is written in the Heart, ibid.  
But what need is there further of my maintaining this Point, concerning The Light being the Rule in all Ages; since thou hast made such ample Confession, That the Godly in all Ages before Christ in the Flesh, were turned from the Darkness to the Light, pag. 64. This Light must needs be within because the Darkness is there: And it must needs be sufficient, because thou sayest it was that which Paul was sent to turn People to, p. 63, 64. And what could this Light be for, if not to Guide, Rule and Led them in the Ways of Godliness, and consequently the Rule of the Godly in all Ages? Therefore the more General Rule, because the Scripture was not in all Ages, and suffi●●●nt; because it was of God appointed for the Godly Man's Way, unless thou wilt suppose, that they were turned to an insufficient Light.    

§. VI Of Commands and Ordinances; particularly Baptism and the Supper.  Quaker, 
I Have sufficiently shown under the Section of Forgeries the horrid Abuse thou hast committed in thy last Book against E. Burroughs, concerning Commands and Ordinances; I shall here further detect thy Miscarriage.  
The Matter charged upon E. B. I shall set down with his Name before it.  E. B. 
You are not yet dead with Christ, who are subject to Ordinances.  T. H. 
The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they that keep the Commandments of God are the Children of God, 1 John 2.3, 4. Yet this Wicked Man E. B. saith, That they who are Subject to Ordinances are not dead with Christ [Sec Colloss. 2.19, 21.]  Q. 
E. B. pleads o●●y against such Performances under the Name of Ordinances, as were but Shadowy, Elementary and Perishing things, appointed for a Season, and to pass off. Thus thou thyself hast quoted me, Dial. 3. p. 59 What sayest thou to this?  C. 
If thus E. B. did plead, why dost thou say I belied him? Ibid. p. 59  Q. 
Because in thy former Dialogue thou madest him as well deny to continue Obedience to such eternal Precepts of Righteousness, as thou thyself confessest the Light within dictate, as to Shadowy, Elementary and Perishing Things. For about his saying, That was not a Command to him, which was a Command to another, thou didst most unjustly infer, That the Law which forbids Adultery, Murder, Theft, and bearing False Witness, is no Law to us; breaking forth upon us with Impiously Horrid, ungodly, Irreverent, Patronizers of Blasphemy, Countenancers of Novices, Profane Scribbler, with abundance more; whereas p 47. of his Works, whence the Passage was taken, proves it to have been writ about extraordinary and particular Cases: as, Thy Running to Preach, because Peter preached; or, Plunging People in the Thames, or elsewhere, because John baptised many in Jordan: What sayest thou to this?  C 
Thou hast a strange Confidence! If thou hadst examined the place my Quotation refers to, thou must needs know I have not belied you: If thou hast not, how darest thou thus charge me? p. 58.  Q. 
My Confidence is grounded upon Examination: And this Ranting Answer will not clear thee. And the greatest Kindness that can be shown thee is, to believe thou tookst the Quotation first upon Trust. But in this Dialogue thou art left without Excuse: For had E. B. intended general Commands, it would not have cost thee much more Trouble to prove it, then to say it; doubtless it would have been a Pleasure to thee. But as a man guilty, thou art wilfully silent about those horrid Constructions made upon his words, as the genuine Sense of the place, and vainly thinkest to shift it off with accusing me of strange Confidence: But I return thee thy own Words, If thou, T. H. hast examined the Place thy Quotation refers to, thou must needs know, that thou hast belied us: if thou hast not, how darest thou thus (continue to) charge us? But what sayest thou concerning shadowy Ordinances?  C. 
Forasmuch as ●hou confessest, that E.B. did plead against-such Ordinances as were but Shadows, appointed only for a Season; and to pass off, that such Ordinances) are no Commands to us, how wilt thou prove this?  Q. 
This is to grant, that thou art for continuing Shadows under a Gospel-Dispensation: My Reason against it is this; Shadows are Members of the Ceremonial Law, the Substance of which is the Gospel: The bringing in of the Gospel is the ending of them; because Shadows give way to, and End in their Substance. But let me see how thou bringst me in to answer thy Question; Let it be observed, that there is not the least mention in all the Epistle of John of any of those Ordinances, that stood in visible and corruptible Elements, so that to bring in things of a shadowy and temporary Nature, amongst the Commands of christ, is to abuse the Apostle. What's thy Return to this?  C. 
Let it be observed what an arrogant, abusive, profane and impertinent Man this W.P. is. Suppose none of the positive Institutions of Christ be expressly mentioned in his Epistles; did he therefore deny them? p. 60.  Q. 
To pass over thy hard Names, thou dost suggest to the Reader, as if this were my whole Strength, in Answer to thy first Query, viz. How wilt thou prove shadowy Ordinances to be no Commands to us? whereas it was never given by me to any such Question; nor indeed would it have been Proper to do so: But since thou heardst so little Sense, as to quote John's Words, viz. They that love God keep his Commandments, in order to prove the Continuance of shadowy Ordinances, I had so much Sense in me, as to make use of thy own citation against thee, where no such Ordinances are mentioned, upon which thou foolishly queries, did he therefore deny t●em? which was not the Question. But whether that Place proves them: But this I am bold to infer, That it was not John 's Message to recommend and perpetuate them, as thou dost: And it is strange to me, that they should be of such Weight in the Christian Religion, and not one mention them in all their Epistles, save Paul once, in denying Baptism a Share in his Commission; and another Time in regulating the Corinthians about their disorderly Use of the Type. If bodily Exercise profits little in Religion, much less Shadows. If Men run into external Performances, without the Leadings and Preparings of the Spirit; such Duties cannot be acceptable with God, running into external Imitations without internal Qualifications, gives but to boast in another Man's Line: And such Oblations are so far from being accepted, that they are abominated. To this let us hear what T. Collier will say, a Man of greater Eminency and Antiquity that T. H. in the Baptist Way; I see, saith he, that external Actings according t● a Rule without, is nothing, if not flowing from a Principle of Love and Life within, Works p. 247. I perceive T. H. thou art not of that Mind, so far from it as to account it Error: But let us hear what else thou ha● to say, in Defence of thy formal unwarranted Practice  C. 
We are certain, that our Lord did walk in th● Observance of positive Institutions; and he that abideth ●● Christ, aught to walk as he walked, 1 Joh. 2.6. p. 61.  Q. 
What makest thou forge, pervert, lie, slander and abuse us then? If thou wouldst be a Chr●stian, thou shouldst walk as he walked: He was lovi●● thou art envious; he meek, thou passionate; he lo●● Suffering, thou froward; he was good to his Enemi●● thou base to thy Neighbours. Surely thou hast forg●● that if thou walkest, as he walked, thou must have do with that dangerous Doctrine of Perfection, as thou else where reputest it. But at thy Rate of quoting this Scripture, and following of Christ, thou mayst as well bring in Circumcision and the Passover, as Baptism and the Supper. Christ told his Disciples, The Spirit should lead them into all Truth, after his Ascension; and his beloved Disciple John referred the Churches to the Anointing.  C. 
You tell us these Ordinances were used as Figures and Shadows, no longer to endure, then till the Substance comes, viz. The Baptism of the holy Ghost. The Reason can be no other than the vain Conceit of a deluded mind; for they are no Figures of the Baptism of the Spirit; therefore this can be no Reason for the abolishing of them: Christ commands his Apostles to teach and baptise, promising to be with them to the End of the World.  Q. 
Who ever said, that Breaking of Bread was a Figure of the Spirit's Baptism? It's a mere Fiction of thy making, as p. 107. of Reas. against Rail. will show. But if Water-Baptism and Breaking of Bread are no Figures nor Shadows, they must be Substances▪ and what Difference then there is between thee and Popery in this Point, let the Reader judge. And for Christ's bidding his Disciples, Go, teach, baptising, Matth. 28. I told thee, That no Water was mentioned; and that Luke, in the first of the Acts, says, before the Commission mentioned by Matthew could be given, at least executed, John baptised with Water, but ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost, not many Days hence: And then comes the Commission in Force; Go, teach, baptising; how? with the holy Ghost, turning People from Darkness t● Light, from the Power of Satan unto God.  C. 
If the Baptism of the holy Ghost do put this Commission in Force, as thou sayest; then the Obligation to those Duties signified in the Commission cannot be taken off: If so, thy Argument falls.  Q. 
A poor Shuffle indeed! Does my Argument fall, because thou beggest the Question? which is, Whether their Baptism be with Water or the holy Ghost?  C. 
If Baptism of Water be not intended, than none: not the Baptism of Afflictions; for the Apostles were not to persecute: Not the Baptism of the holy Ghost; for that was a Promise, not a Commission, p. 63.  Q. 
Thou dost but trifle with us still: Though to be baptised was a Promise, yet to baptise was a Commission: To be baptised not many Days hence, was the Promise of Christ, but go and baptise all Nations, which followeth, was a Commission; and that it was with no other Baptism, Christ's Distinction sufficiently proves, viz. John indeed baptised with Water, but ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost not many Days hence; stay till then; and go, and teach, baptising all Nations, etc.  C. 
To baptise with the holy Ghost, was none of their Duty, it being properly Christ's Work, p. 63.  Q. 
It was both their Work and Duty, witness that Simon Magus would have bought that Gift of Peter: And that Paul baptised with the holy Ghost, Acts 19 Did he not therein do his Duty?  C. 
Is it proper to say, I baptise you with the Spirit into the Name of the Spirit?  Q. 
Yes, if thou hast the Spirit; unless thou wouldst make a counterfeit Christiaen of him, whom thou, without the Spirit baptizest into the Name of the Spirit: wouldst thou have a Man baptised into the Name, and not into the Nature of the Spirit? Can a Man baptise into Spirit and into Life, without Spirit and Life? God did convert, reconcile, baptise, beget and build up Thousands to himself by them; unto whom the Word of Reconciliation was committed, and who were Ambassadors in Christ's stead. Now, as for Water-Baptism, what Paul says of himself, I may say of his Commission, It was not behind any of the rest; yet he denies Water-Baptism to be any Part of it, and is as plainly rejected of him, in Point of Institution, as any Thing in Scripture. So that either Water-Baptism is none of Christ's Institutions; or else Paul had no Commission to perform Christ's Institutions, which were strange. T. Collier determines this, The Baptism of Christ is the Baptism of the Spirit.  
But if any of you can show a larger Commission than Paul had, let him produce it: if not, I must conclude they Run, and are not Sent.   

§. VII. Of the Doctrine of Justification  
I Perceive ●y what thou hast writ of Justification, thou intendest to end at the rate thou hast managed the Controversy all along; I mean with the same shuffles and injustice. I will set down thy Charge, the Answer thou makest me give, and thy Reply.  C. 
Thou hast holdly affirmed that Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, to be a Doctrine of Devils, Apol. pag. 148. What sayst thou is this?  Q. 
This Apology cited, was written against a malicious Priest in Ireland, Reas. ag. Rail. p. 68 If thy Position cannot be proved it will be no Excuse to say, It was given to a malicious Priest, yea, thy Folly and Rashness is the more aggravated, etc. p. 96.  Q. 
As if I had given that Answer, not to inform Persons against whom the Book was writ, and the Occasion of the Passage, but (as one unable to say any thing in my Defence) to extenuate the Fact, and Excuse my writing it. I perceive, rather than want Occasions to Abuse me, thou wilt make them. But what sayst thou concerning Justification?  C. 
Thou supposest the Doctrine of Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled wholly without us, to be a Sin-pleasing and dangerous Notion: What Reason hast thou so to esteem it? p. 67.  Q. 
I do so; taking my Words in my Sense, and my Reasons are, 1st, Because wholly without us, is an unscriptural phrase: 2dly, It takes away the necessity of all Inward Work. 3dly, No man is justified without Faith. No man hath Faith without Sanctification and Works; therefore the Works of Righteousness, by the Spirit, are necessary to complete Justification.  C. 
Whether a sincere Faith is necessary to our Justification, is one thing: But whether such a Faith be our sole Righteousness by which we are Justified, is another, p. 67.  Q. 
And whether T. H. be not a● idle Shifter is another thing. Was it the Question, Whether our Faith were the sole Righteousness to Justification; or whether Justification were by a Righteousness wholly without us and our Faith too? If a sncere Faith be necessary; then because Faith is not Faith without Work, Justification is not wrought wholly without. I told thee before, that this Doctrine of thine speaks Peace to the Wicked, whilst wicked. But there is no Peace to the Wicked, saith my God.  C. 
It is horrible wicked to conclude, that what Christ hath done and suffered without us, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilst such.  Q. 
R●g●t; but who is the Man? Not W. P. for opposing a Doctrine which leaves men as wicked as it found them; yea, encourages them in it. I appeal to the sober Reader, if it be all one, to say, that Justification by the Righteousness of Christ wholly without, which leaves the Conscience as polluted as ever, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilst Wicked, and to affirm, that what Christ hath done and suffered without us, is to speak Peace to the Wicked, whilst wicked. Thy indirect Consequences T. H. are to obvious and numerous to deceive any ordinary Reader. But what sayst thou to my Distinction about Justification? Christ's Work was twofold; 1st, to remit, forgive or justify from the imputation of sins past, such as truly repent and believe. 2dly, By his Power and Spirit working in the hearts of such, to destroy and remove the very Nature of Sin, to make an end of it, to finish Transgression present and to come: The first removes the Gild, the second, tne Cause of it: Me thinks this should a little allay thy Clamours.  C. 
This Distinction of the Work of Christ proves not what thou hast asserted: viz. That Justification is not by imputation of another's Righteousness; much less that such a Justification is a Doctrine of Devils. p. 72.  Q. 
This shows thee weary of the Work, or else ●hou wouldst not so soon after my Distinction continue in thy misconstruction of my Words, for the clearing of which, my Distinction was made: I grant, that such as Repent and Believe receive Remission, or a justifying from former Sins through the Righteousness of God declared in and by Jesus Christ. But is this Complete Justification? it is a making Inwardly Just, through a Purging out of Iniquity, and Mortifying of Corruption, and bringing in Christ's Everlasting Righteousness? If not, then to exclude this, and yet conclude men completely justified, by what Christ hath done wholly without, is a Doctrine of Devils; for it leaves men in an impure state, and allows the Devil's Kingdom to continue in being. In short, it is as much as to say, that W. Pen calls what Christ hath done for Men without, a Doctrine of Devils, because W. P. asserts that to be a Doctrine of Devils, which maketh all that is necessary for Man's complete Justification before God, to have been wrought by Christ wholly without, thereby excluding the necessity of the Just-working, or Just-making Power of Christ from Man to that Work. Well, but I also told thee of the necessity of Faith and Repentance, even to the first part of Justification; consequently, that men cannot be justified in any sense, without regard had to any inward Work, viz. Of Sanctification, without which there can be no true Believing.  C. 
Though this be more close to the point then any thing thou hast spoken, yet it is not close as to prove thy Position: For if Repentance be but a Condition, than it is not the sole Righteousness for which we are justified, p 73.  Q. 
Produce me but one Passage of ours that ever spoke that Language, and I will yet say thou hast not wronged us. Besides this Answer is wide from thy purpose, though it comes very close to mine: For from contending for Justification by a Righteousness wholly without (the Question) thou art come now to contend against, a Justification by a Righteousness wholly within, which was not the Question.  C. 
But thou sayst Abraham 's personal Obedience was the Ground of his being accounted Righteous: If so, Then we are not made Just by a Righteousness performed without us, but by a Righteousness performed by ourselves. But then, What wilt thou say to this Text; If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God? Rom. 4.2. p. 77, 78.  Q. 
The Apostle James bears me out in what I said; for if Abraham were justified by works, as said James, than his Obedience to God's Spirit, which makes up those Works, gave him acceptance in God's sight: and let T. H. say, if he dare, that Abraham was not justified in God's sight, in his resigning up Isaac for a Sacrifice; and if he were, how do I err?  
But that I might not be thought to oppose one Apostle to another, know, Reader, that the Apostle James speaks of such Works, as were not performed in Abraham's own strength, but through Faith and his Obedience to God's Spirit; and therefore Evangelical. And the Justification they lead to, was a daily Acceptance with God. The Works the Apostle Paul speaks of, were merely Abraham 's in his own power (as those of the Jews from the Law) therefore not justifying before God in any sense; least of all could they merit Remission, or purchase Abraham those great Blessings and peculiar Favours that it pleased Almighty God to bestow upon him above others. Works and Justification thus distinguished and allowed, prevent men's setting one in opposition to the other; and here Paul may come in without contradiction to James: If Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. The whole Chapter concerns a justifying by the Remission of Sins that are past, as the following Verses evidence: Even as David also describeth the Blessedness of the Man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works; saying, Blessed are they whose unrighteousness are forgiven, and whose Sins are covered. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin, Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. So that the Righteousness not obtainable by the Works of the Law, ver. 16. and the Justification (which Abraham's own works could not procure) which is obtained by Faith in the Love of God, is here explained to be, the Forgiving of Iniquity, and the covering of Sin. But this is far from maintaining th● Compleatness of Justification from a Righteousness wholly without.  

Testimonies concerning Justification.  
Erasmus. We grant to be justified by Faith, that is, Hearts to be purged, See Fascul. rerum expetend. p. 129. De amabili Eccles. concord.  
The Fathers were just by the Righteousness of the Law in them, Iren. l. 4. c. 30.  
Noah, Abraham, etc. were just by the Law natural (that is eternal) Tertullian Adu. Jud. p. 184.  
Clem. Alex. saith, That Abraham was justified by Faith, but that Faith he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a perfect purgation. lib. 1. praed.  
Justin. Martyr. Defence ad. Anton. saith, Socrates pved with the Word; and that he knew Christ in part, Defence. ad Senat. That was by the Light within: How could he know him otherwise?  
Scultetus p. 38. of his Medulla, saith, There are some at this day of his Opinion, and that do reckon Melchizedek, Abimelech, Ruth, Rachab, the Queen of Saba, Hiram, Naaman, etc. among Christians.  
H. Bullinger D●cad. 1. serm. 6. de Justif. To justify signifieth to ●●m●t offences, to cleanse to sanctify and to give utterance of Life Everlasting. Again, Justification is taken for Remission of Sins, for Sanctification and Adoption into the number of the Sons of God.    

§. VIII. Of Personal Reflections. T. H's Scurrilous Language. The Conclusion.  
THou accusest me with defending and justifying E. B. in Cursing, Railing and Lying, and that in the Name of the Lord, Dial. 3. p. 10, 82, 83. where it is to be observed, that thou dost not only esteem it so thyself, but supposest me both to confess it to be such, and that notwithstanding I warrant it from the Lord. These are thy black and odious Insinuations and Conclusions, as may at large be seen in the pages, before mentioned as if to deny them to be such, were to affirm them such; for I know not by what other Figure I allow them such. But because this cannot appear less than an absurd and incredible Lie, to all that have their senses, I shall the less heed it; But what Proof dost thou bring that E. B. curses, lies and rails? To call what he says by such hard Names, concludes no such thing. All I see is, that thou ry●'st to the words by him uttered, as if a Repetition were a Proof: Poor Man! This it is to be upon the Fret, Proud and Passionate: E. B. must curse, lie and rail, because thou sarst so. Is not this to act the Dictator with a witness? The Truth is I scarce think there ever was a fouler. But thou stomackst my saying that the Scripture allows those Names, and retor'st, it seems you can make the Scripture your Rule for Lying, Cursing and Railing. But this is as irreverently said of the Scripture as abusively of us, and absurdly in itself; can any man make them his Rule for that which is impious? I had thought that at what time any act wickedly, th●y cease to make them their Rule. Shall I make one of thy Conclusions now against thee? T. Hicks says, the Scripture may be a Rule for Lying, Cursing and Railing. But is every Example a Rule? a Rule always relat●s to Duty; a Precedent or Example not. Is it my Duty to call bad men by all the Names mentioned in Scripture, because there are such Examples? What then should I call Thee, that art as bad a man, every jot, as the worst of them? This shows that the Scripture cannot be a Rule in an hundred such Cases, but the particular measure of Wisdom from God, that is always present, and gives to understand and apply things suitably, and not upon mere Imitation, where thy Religion, such as it is, stands. I say, that our justifying our Practice by the Example of Scripture, does not conclude it our Rule, or any man's whatsoever, in so citing it: And therefore thy threadbare Answer, it seems you are forced to make Scripture your Rule to prove this or that, is out of doors and to be despised, as plausible as it looks: Again, ●f the Scriptures be our Rule in any particular cases (and I think we live up to it more than thou d●est, witness thy three impious Dialogues) yet this concludes not the matter in Question for thee; since it proves not the Scriptures to be eminently the Rule, or the most eminent or general Rule, etc. But T. H. why has E. B. transgressed more than either Prophets or Apostles, yea then Christ himself, when he (to such carn●l men as thyself) seemed so unkind and harsh in his Answer and Rebuke of Peter's Love and Care of him, as to say, Get thee behind me Satan? The Priest that E. B. gave those Names (no one of which was harder than Satan) was never half so kind to him, as Peter was to Christ; Nay, they were entrapping Questions; such as they used to assault Christ with, when they sought occasion against him, whom he called Children of the Devil. And we know that some of thy race T. H. in the former times when power was in your Hands, diligently sought matter against us: G. Fox was about the same time indicted for Blasphemy, and endeavours great in some of the old Pharisaical stock, thy Brethren, to take away his Life. E. B. knew whom and what he answered: And I do say, that by thy Argument about the Scriptures being the Rule, without, further Regard thou oughtest to stop thy Mouth, unless thou canst prove that E. B. had not the same Warrant the holy men of old had, to name thy Predecessors by; to do which, thou must come to the discerning of Spirits: And by what wilt thou perform that enquiry and Judgement? How canst thou tell, whether a man using Christ's Words to Peter, to a loving Dissuader of him from Sufferings, that only intends his Good, is well or ill done? The Scripture is no Rule for our discerning aright this case; nor is it his Duty, in case he be in the right, because Christ's words are there recorded, unless he be thereto prompted, of the same Power: Yet if he say so, and be reproved by any; 'tis and must be granted that there is an Example which shuts the Mouths, or should do, of all who respect the Scripture; which is our case with thee. Well, but Christ had no Provocation by Peter's words, but the Spirit that lurked in them, which savoured not the Work of God then doing; To relish the like case aright there must be the same Spirit; which T. H. rejecting for the Rule of right Judgement, to be sure he can be no right Judge of E. B. But upon his own Opinion ought to be silent from further Clamour against him, and repent of his scurrilous reproachful Language, with which he has so often run over his Grave.  
But thou chargest p. 86. Nicholas Lucas with saying, That if the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, and though he denies it, yet thou tell'st us, it is never the less a Lie for that; and that he knows his Accusers. But suppose it were true, had it not more become an Anabaptist, and a Preacher too, (especially, when one of the Scriptures in thy Title Page is, A Man that is an Heretic, after the 1 saint and 2 d Admonition reject, who never dealt so with either him or us, that thou so hast publicly writ against as such) first to have dealt with N L. about it; and granting he had been so obstinate in a wicked Saying, as thou Dialoguest him to be, had this been a sufficient Ground for thee to charge it upon the Persons and Principles of the People called Quakers? But now thou hast given the World a Saying to measure us by, that first is of several years standing, and but lately raked up, and might have been either at first misapprehended, or some word forgotten or misplaced. 2dly, That N. L. denies that he ever spoke it, by a serious Certificate in G. W's Append. confirmed by H. Stout, appealed to by thy Anabaptist Informers, which thou hast not so much as attempted to invalidate. 3dly, That he abhors the Matter contained in the Story, and that without all mental Reserves. And 4thly, That it's charged upon, and made to be the Measure of Us and our Principles and Motions, thereby making us to blaspheme God's Spirit, as well as reprobate Scripture, (and that with no small Aggravation) who are innocent, by never speaking the Words, by never countenancing such Words, & by not holding the Matter directly or indirectly contained in them; and we do utterly renounce and abhor both the one and the other. Well, T. Hicks! God will plead our Cause against the Malignity of thy Slanderous Spirit: No Justice, no Discretion could ever have led thee to this monstrous pitch of Abuse: thou showest how glad thou art to bedirt us, by making other Folks Lies thy Charges, and then insisting on them with as much Confidence, as if thou wert infallibly assured of every jot. But we have some cause to suspect thee more than ever; thy Tale wears so many Dresses: One while it is, Thou mayst burn thy Bible, and write as good an one thyself, Contin. p. 5. Another while, We may burn our Bible, and make as good an one ourselves, Dial. 3. pag. 3. And last of all, it is to go thus, If the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, ibid. p. 86. Now, T. H. answer; thou that pretendest to such punctuality, which of these are we to take? The first is unlikely, because what ever we think we could do, to be sure thou canst not think that a Quaker should have so good an Opinion of an Anabaptist Woman, as that she could write another Bible as good as this, that we are sure understands not this. If we must take thee in thy second Account, than the Woman is out in her first Story: If in the last Relation of this Fiction, than it concerns the Quakers no more than the Anabaptists. For suppose the World were under one Emperor, and he so impious as to enjoin the burning of all the Bibles, and all were burnt; I hope they are not so irreligious as to limit God's Power, who is Almighty, that he could not furnish us with one as good as this, especially, since Christians would else, as you must hold be without a Rule: for I would have thee take notice T. H. that thou hast so materially varied in thy Charge, that now it is not, whether, if the Bible were burnt, any Man could make as good an one; but whether if it were by such Impiety burnt, as good an one might not be writ, which words are general. Here, T. H. to give the— his due, thou hast helped thy Fiend Quaker, by bringing him in, saying, what T. H. unless he would question God's Omnipotency, dare not deny.  
But to conclude, either these Mistakes proceed from the first Authors, or from T. H. If from the first Authors, why should they be credited at all, who show such incertainty? if from T. Hicks; what Reason has he to be so infallibly sure of their Memories, who is not sure of his own Books, much less of his own Memory being found in such manifest Variations? But since every just Judge accounts that Accuser and Witness of little Credit, that are found divers and inconsistent in their Stories; I hope my sober Reader, who is made judge betwixt us, will in justice cashier T. Hicks from all Credit with him in these attempts. But as against N. L. so against S. Eccles T. H. has publish● a foul Slander, viz. That he should say, the Scriptures are a Lye. This G. W. Append p. 12. reflected upon thee, as an abusive and false Charge; To which I cannot find that thou sayst any more than this, that one of thy Witnesses against N. L. can testify that S. E. said, he used Scripture, only to satisfy him, Dial. 3. p. 86. Doubtless that Witness has long Ears, thou hangest so fast by them. But he can witness it. But why does he not? Is that Put-off like to confirm the Charge? But granting thy Witness remembers better against S. E. then N. L. Does S. E ' s. saying, that he used Scripture to satisfy his Opponent, prove, that he said, the Scriptures were a Lie? Do men use to prove Truths by Lies? Doth not this make S. E. imply the Lie to his own Principles, which he quoted Scripture to prove real Truths; What sayst thou T. H. Is this to evince the truth of thy Objections and Charges against the Quakers, and secure thy Credit with thy own and other People, that carries with it what merits the Detestation and Rebuke of every honest mind?  
But that thou mayst go out with the same braving Rant thou camest in with, and the like Honesty, thou tellest thy Reader, that W. P. is guilty of wilful Lying, in saving, that thou disingenuously slankedst from a public Meeting, and evadedst the offer made thee by G W to that purpose: It is not unlikely but thou takest thy old Way of proving, which is in the end to detect thyself of that thou chargest me w●th the Gild of. First thou sayst, that long before my Book was out, thou didst desire to meet with me, and I refused. But doth this prove me guilty of wilful Lying, in charging thee with evading the offer made for a public Disputation? Are the terms of a Meeting for a public Disputation in thy Answer? If not, How does thy Answer reach the Question? Well, But I refused; to do what? To meet a Man in private that had twice printed a Knave, a Fool, an Heretic▪ a Blasphemer● and I know not how much more, either in those Terms or in Circumlocution, to the World: No such matter, T. H. I never intent to release thee from the Burden and Shame of so many public and manifest Villainies as thou hast committed against me, a Stranger to thee in all respects, and my Friends in general, that it may be never heard of such a man. Besides, Let me tell thee, I look upon thee to be so base a Person, that as I shall always desire to have nothing to do with thee (for that cause, and not thy Abilities) so I never intent to trust myself in such private manner with any man, that is detected of such notorious Perversion, Lying and Forgery; there being no Security to any one in common conversing with thee; save that thou deservest no Credit against any man, who hast so publicly forfeited all Credit in thy numerous fictions against us. But to prove thou hast not evaded the public Meeting, thou tellest thy Reader, that thou didst send six Questions to G. W. to debate them upon notice in a convenient time and place; that he refused; therefore G. W. did both shuffle and lie; which is the great shuffle of thy 3d. Dial. in little, or the Evasion or thy whole Book Epitomised: For as thou hast pretended in thy 3d. Dial. that the Evincement of the own Objections, was all that we required or stood thee upon to do; so here thou makest as if the Discussing of those Objections (herein considered) had been all, there was any ground to dispute upon; which was for thee, who art the Abuser, to choose a Char●● for the abused to insist upon. But why didst thou no●●ell thy Reader, that G. W. first sent thee a Charge in writing; and that he offered in a public Auditory to prove thee guilty of Forgeries, Self-contradictions and gross Errors, from thy own Dialogues? Instead of yielding to the Test, even about matter of Fact, where thou hast grossly abused us, thou didst in plain terms shuffle by a fresh proposal of Question; as if thou wert to teach us where and what to charge our Enemies with; and then prescribe Rules (with many taunting Expressions, omitted in thy 3d Dial,) how to behave ourselves, on purpose to evade the Meeting. I would have thee know, it was our Right to make the Complaint; and hadst thou been a man of any Honesty, thou wouldst readily have considered it, and joined issue upon our Charge: This, in Reputation to thyself, as well as Justice to us, thou oughtest not to have declined; And yet to aggravate these shuffles G. W. proffered in his 4th paper to thee a note of the particulars charged as Forgeries etc. if thou desiredst it; so willing was he and others to have seen thee in a public Auditory. B●t seeing this would not do, he and I went to John Gladman's, desiring him to offer thee from us, we wou●d meet thee and who else to defend thee, in a public Auditory with thy Dialogue in one band and the Bible in the other; the fairest of tenders; to make thy own Book the Subject; and the Scriptures, (thou sayst we reprobate) A Rule. But this thou canst not but know was also rejected: So that to conceal these Shifts, nay, to say thou art Shuffler, and which is worse, to charge G. W. with both Shuffling and Lying at what time thou art so manifestly guilty of both, is to heighten thy unworthiness to a monstrous pitch.  
But as the Matter of thy Book is injurious, so thy Language insolent and scurrilous; intitling us Cheats, Impostors, a mad, arrogant, abusive, profane M●n, Knave, in discourse [Coxcomb] impious Cursers', Liars, Blasphemers, most implacable Enemies to the Christian Religion, as vile Impostors as ever were, influenced and inspired by the grand Impostor the Devil; calling our Religion, malignant Errors, a mystical Romance, Satan's Snar●s, Blasphemy, blasphemous Absurdities, I proclaim to the World, that your Religion is a mere Cheat, calculated only to the Service of the Devil, and your own Lusts: and abusing our religious Language with such like Expressions as these, Impertinent Canting; your idle nonsensical and blasphemous Prating; Terms that as much unbecome thy Pretences, as they resemble the rest of thy Practices. Canst thou with good Conscience upbraid E. B. with rebuking a Priest in Scripture Language, whilst thou hast taken the Liberty; throughout thy Dialogues, when and where thou we●t never provoked, of such foul and frothy Expressions, as becomes not any Man writing of Religion? Is this to make the Scripture thy Rule; or to act the Christian against the Quaker? and to prove the Quaker none? No such matter T. H. but much the contrary, and that in the minds of not a few, and those too, of thy own Way, though of a better Spirit, who have disowned them, Root and Branch. I would not, after thy Example, reprobate all with thee, God forbid: That God has turned these ill designed Attempts to our Advantage, remember what sort of Salute was lately given thee, by a Religious and Ingenious Person in Bristol (once a Preacher among the Independents) at thy reflecting upon his adhering to the Way we profess, viz That he read thy Dialogues before he ever read the Quakers Books (or Answers) and that the disingenuity of that Dealing (apprehending it to be no real Dialogue) was a FURTHERANCE of his INQUIRIES, and so of his CONVICTIONS, grounded upon thy ABUSES; an Argument never to be answered by thee, T. H. if thou shouldst write Three Dialogues more, unless they were as remote from these as thou wert from Honesty when thou writ'st them; who dost first Forge, and then Lie and Rail to maintain it.  
Think not with these Comical Courses to obtain thy Ends upon us, nor raze the Foundation of our Religion by thy abusive Interludes; in which thou hast not imitated Christ, but Aped the profane Stager; writing a sort of Mock Religion instead of solid Controversy; therein playing the Humourist with the Vulgar, like Aristophanes of old, (though with worse Malice, and less Wit) who sacrificed the Virtue and Gravity of Socrates and his Friends, to please their Enemies, and profit himself; the Hinges on which thy Dialogues turn. The First is manifest, and so is the Last to the value of 300 Books at an Impression [if some of thy Assistants do not wrong thee, as we suppose not] (ask the Bookseller else) besides ●erquisites; hereby proving thyself, one of those unruly Vain-Talkers, who writest things thou oughtest not for filthy Lucre sake, applied to us in thy Title-page but due to thyself.  
And however sweet these Courses may relish to thy worldly Palate, thou wilt find them deadly Poisonous in the End; at what time thy own Dialogues, and not I, nor any influenced by me, will prove so many ASSASSINATORS in thy own Bowels. God, if it please him, give thee Repentance, that thou mayst escape his fierce Wrath to come. Amen.  
Now sober Reader, I shall address myself to thee, and God's righteous Witness in thy Conscience, whether I have acquitted myself in this Controversy as becomes a Christian-man, against the Violent & Unfair Assaults of my Adversary? and if I may not with very good Reason conclude, that he has all this while but counterfeited the Christian, and abused the Quaker; and consequently, that he (and not the real Quaker) is quite another thing then a Christian? Let Righteous Judgement take place.  
23d 6th Mon. 1674. A true Lover, and hearty Wisher of thy Souls Felicity, W. P.  
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doth the Will of my Father which is in Heaven,  Mat. 7.21. 
For he is not a Jew which is one outward; neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the Flesh: But he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit; and not in the Letter, whose Praise is not of Men but of God,  Rom. 2.28, 29. 
But us than he that was born after the Flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now,  Gal. 4.29. 
But be of good cheer I have overcome the World,  Jo. 16. last.   

Pag. 13. line 7. read two first Dialogues. p. 34. l. 32. r. Dial. 3. p. 41. p. 35. l. 28. r. spoke. l. 31. r. was p. 41. l. 26. r. 76. p. 46. l. 14. r. of ●his.   

A Postscript by another Hand.  
WE expect to hear what the Baptists in and about London will say (as being appealed to) concerning their Brother Thomas Hick's Proceeding in his Three Dialogues, and whether they approve thereof, or of such Playbooks, or Romances about Religion, yea or nay; for they are highly concerned to give Judgement, and to be plain to the World herein, as they tender the Glory of God, and Reputation of Religion, etc.  
NOw, if you the Teachers and Elders, etc. among the Baptised People, do not publicly clear yourselves of Thomas Hicks, and these his unjust Proceedings against us; and hereafter he further persists therein. We may take it for granted, that you own his Work; and may justly deal with him, and pursue him, not only as Tho. Hicks, but as the Baptists great Champion, peculiar Agent, or Representative. But if you ingenuously clear yourselves of him and his Corrupt, Perverse Work, than his future Miscarriages will be chargeable only upon T. Hicks himself, and you will appear to the World, so far clear thereof; and approve yourselves the more honest and sincere towards, God, Truth and Religion.  
THE END.