A Serious SEARCH INTO Jeremy Ives ' s Questions TO THE QUAKERS: Who are herein cleared from his Scornful Abuses, And Jer. Ives himself manifest to be NO CHRISTIAN from his own Observations, Reviling, Ostentation, etc.  
By a Witness for Christianity in Faith and Life, George Whitehead.  
His Mischief shall return upon his own Head,  Psal. 7. 16. 
Printed in the Year 1674.   

A Serious Search INTO Jeremy Ives ' s Questions to the Quakers.  
SInce Jeremy Ives his late Daring Challenge under Pretext of a Sober Request, and his attempting to prove the Quakers no Christians, is now changed into Questions for the Quakers, which he saith, are grounded upon some Observations made upon the Papers lately published by Thomas Rudyard and one W. P. which are pretended Replies to Jeremy Ives his sober Request to the Quakers, but will appear by the Light of the ensuing Observations (he says) to be but Idle Shifts and Evasions.  
Seeing he begins at this contemning Rate against us, and vilifying and slighting our Friends Answers, and pretends such Light in his own Observations; it is needful they should be inspected and seriously examined, however he reckon his Questions and Obserservations so very clear and lightsome Proofs against us, I will assure him, we find no such Validity in them to unchristian us.  
I observe two general Accusations on which his Matter much depends to render the Quakers no Christians.  
First, Condemning that in others, which they allow in themselves.  
Secondly, Disdaining, Huffing, Slandering and Reviling.  
Both which I grant with him, are so far from being either Characters of a Christian, or Infallible Marks of a Disciple of Christ, that they are wholly inconsistent with Christianity.  
The first Position is thus to be considered.  
For Men to condemn that in others which they allow in them elves, is an Inconsistency and a self Condemnation, where the Matter is the same in every Respect, both as to the Nature and Circumstance; though that which is an Evil in itself is condemnable, and not to be allowed either in one's self or in another; much more is his Condemnation aggravated, who allows that Evil in himself which he condemns in others: Other things that are Lawful in themselves become accidentally Evil, through the Abuse or Evilmind that brings them forth.  
But to the second Position; it's granted, that Disdaining, Huffing, Slandering and Reviling are evil in themselves, if by Huffing he means a fierce Despising & scornful Slighting those that are good, or that deserve it not; and by Reviling, a making a worthy Man base, or calling a Man all to naught: The Truth of it is, Jeremy, thou wouldst appear in these Matters a very grave, sober Christian, and a Man only for solid and savoury Expressions: But whether thou hast not played the Hypocrite in these Pretences of Seriousness and Christianity, and brought thyself under the Gild, both of condemning that in others which thou allowest in thyself, and of Disdaining, Slandering and Reviling, will further appear in the following Examination.  
Thou sayest, that these Papers, like all the rest of the Quakers Writings, are stuffed with vain and frothy Expressions; and what those are thou instances W. P's saying, that the Product of many day's Travail was but a sorry Mouse [the Product of Jeremy ' s great Mountain.] Which was with Reference to thy daring and vapouring Challenge, falsely termed by thee, A sober Request to the Quakers: But it disgusts thee to use such a Comparison as that of a sorry Mouse, and why so? Is it because of the Impropriety of the Speech, or that it is too Ironical for such a grave, sober Christian as Jeremy Ives would be accounted? But I tell thee, Jeremy, thou art one of them that strains at a Gnat, and swallows a Camel, whether thou thinkest these Expressions proper or not.  
And secondly, to prove us guilty of thy second Position, thou sayest that Our Friends Papers abound with Rail and bitter Invectives, thinking to raise thereby a Dust (a plain Falsehood) to darken the Understanding of the unwary Reader; and what are these? In calling thee Audacious, Privateer, Bravado, Hector, Senacherib, Impudent, etc.  
And further (to show thyself a very moderate and sober Christian) thou sayest, That these Papers abound with Untruths, thou wilt not break the Laws of good Manners, as they do, to call them LIES and FORGFRIES; And so that here thy Modesty & Seriousness is such, as when thou hast insinuated, that the Quakers are No Christians, nor yet Followers of the Laws of Good Manners, for Charging their Adversaries (such as thou and thy Brother T. Hicks) with Lies & Forgeries; but thou wouldst not be thought so to Unchristian and Unmanner thyself, as to use such Expressions, as Audacious, Privateer, Impudent, Impudent, Lies and Forgeries: Oh demure Jeremy! Hypocrita cupit se videri justum.  
But first, If he be No Christian that condemns that in others which he allows in himself, then is Jeremy Ives No Christian.  
Secondly, If he be No Christian that is guilty of such Language as he himself accounts Disdaining, Huffing, Reviling, Railing, and bitter Invectives, as namely, Audacious, Impudent, Lies, etc. and thus to charge another, be Unchristian and Unmannerly, then is Jer. Ives NO Christian, by his own Observation; But that Jer. Ives is herein both Self-condemned & Guilty, take a View of his Language against us in his Pamphlet, viz. Mcn of Lying Spirits, gross Equivocations, idle Shifts and Evasions, Bedlam-man, audacious and ridiculous, daring Prophets, your Baseness, wilful Baseness, pretended Impulses and Enthusiastic Necessities, Lawyer's Logic, Figments of thy Fancy, little Wtticisms to please thy simple beguiled Clients, this Empiric of the Law Thomas Rudyard, what Impostors, they pretend the Spirit to be the Rule, when they can give no more Evidence of it then Mahomet or Muggleton, the sad Shifts the poor Men are put to, their Enthusiastic Principles, such idle Enthusiasts. Thus Jeremy Ives through his Observations.  
Judge Serious Reader; Is not here both Huffing, Disdaining and Reviling, and what he himself hath accounted such? But if Jeremy think this not enough to prove himself condemned, and guilty of both Disdaining, Huffing, Reviling and Vaunting, let his Salutation to Arthur Cook upon the Exchange be added, viz. Thou Pitiful, Fool, thou Knave, thou Loggerhead; And if to call any Man's Papers Lies, and Forgeries, be a breaking the Laws of good Manners, and to call a Man Audacious or Impudent, bewray an Unchristian Spirit, and be corrupt Communication, as he implies, then has Jeremy Ives both bewrayed an Unchristian Spirit, & hath broken the Laws of good Manners, and condemned that in others which he hath plainly allowed in himself; for in his Book entitled, Innocency above Impudence, he doth not only charge his Opposer with Impudence, but he gives him the Lie near thirty Times; and likewise in his Quakers Quaking, he has shown his Envy and Ill-Language sufficiently. Where art thou now Jeremy Ives? Art thou not here found guilty, and allowing that in thyself, which thou hast condemned others for, as Unchristian? And also thy Brother T. Hicks, whose Quarrel thou hast espoused, hath used such Language to some of us, as Knave, Impudent Fellow, Audacius Fellow, Coxcomb, etc. which is much like thy Pitiful Fool, Knave, Loggerhead, etc. See now Jeremy, how thy own Observation and Charge is deservedly retorted upon thyself. Art not thou found a Huffer (yea and a Puffer too) a Railer, a Scorner and Disdainer, and thinks it a great Disparagement to be accounted short of an Honest Heathen; but I must tell thee, that there are many Heathens that are a great deal more sober, serious and fearing God then thou art, as thy Lightness and frothy Deportment at the late Meetings did evince: However, thou braggest of thy being able, by the Grace of God, to approve thyself as Honest in all thy Correspondencies in the World as the best of them, and challengest us to produce the Person or Persons that shall say otherwise of thee. How thou art able to approve thyself, and how thou hast approved thyself, have a different Sense: But however, I must tell thee, It had been more proper and more credible for others to have thus commended thy Honesty, then to have done it so highly thyself; but as for these Things, it is not my present Business to seek or inquire out Occasions against thee in the Concerns of this World; let those speak that are offended, if they have Occasion given them, or have complained of thee, I have enough against thee of other Concerns.  
Whereas Jer. Ives untruly chargeth our Friend's Papers too abound with Untruths, pretending himself so much obliged by the Laws of Good Manners, as that he will not call them Lies and Forgeries, of which he shall mention but Two, which are,  
1. That he pretended to be delegated by T. Hicks, but was not.  
2. That in the Dispute, when he was to prove us No Christians, instead thereof he put us to prove ourselves Christians.  
To prove the first, an Untruth, he says, he was concerned by their Consent, else how came we to direct our Letters to him with Mr. Kiffin and others.  
Jeremy, thou art besides the Business here, for thy pretending to be delegated, was in T. Hicks' Cause at the Meeting near Wheeler Street; and that he might be concluded by thee as personating him: Did not this concern those Matters whereof we charged him? for thou may'st remember this was urged at the Dispute; The Letters to thee and the rest, did not concern thee to personate T. H. in his Absence there; but only as an Assister of him in his Presence amongst the rest; but that thou wast not so delegated, to personate Thomas Hicks, nor that he gave up his Cause to be concluded in Jer. Ives, seems evident,  
1. In that Jeremy and those then with him durst not enter upon the Particulars charged against T. Hicks, as Forgeries, nor would suffer them to be read.  
2. In that we have a Certificate to the contrary under Tho. Chamberlain's hand, signifying, that John Gladman told him, that T. Hicks said, That Jeremy Ives was not deputed by him.  
And to the second; I wonder that thou canst call this an Untruth, that when thou hadst said, Thou wouldst prove us no Christians, instead thereof thou calld'st for an Evidence of our Christianity, or put us to prove ourselves Christians, and W. Penn to produce Evidence to distinguish himself as a true Minister (that hath Immediate Inspiration for his Rule) from an Impostor; See the Narrative of that Day's Meeting, from page 52 to page 56. in the taking of which Discourse we had both Careful and Ready Writers; and I am sure that Jeremy's Attempts, to prove us No Christians, and W. Penn an Impostor, did amount to that miserable Shift of calling for an Evidence on our parts as before, and he now confesseth, That he did require an Evidence for the Rule of our Faith and Practice by Inspiration, pag. 6. And was not this then for an Evidence of our Christianity, while we do not profess any real Christianity without Faith and Practice by Inspiration? An Evidence of our being Divinely inspired must be an Evidence of our Christianity; for none are true Christians, who deny Divine and Immediate Inspiration: And I do not understand what Jeremy Ives scoffs at us as Idle Enthusiasts & for Enthusiastic Principles; but for holding this of Immediate Inspiration, nor do I see but that his Charge of Untruth (in those two things before) is justly to be turned upon himself as an Untruth against us.  
He concludes, That he might by all Laws of Dispute require Evidence of Inspiration, being the Rule of Faith and Practice, he would make the World believe that he is very expert in all the Rules of Dispute; but I tell him, It had been more proper and reasonable for him to have required Evidence of our being Divinely inspired, as a Man in an enquiring unsatisfied Condition that wants Information, then as one that had given and promised before to prove his positive Charge of the Quakers being no Christians. It was his Part to prove this, or else to have acknowledged his Confident Rashness & Folly; for could he with any Seriousness demand an Evidence of our being inspired of God (when before he had concluded us no Christians, and promised Proof thereof) and saith, At this turn we could do no more than Muggleton, which is a Reviling Aspersion: But we are sure it was a sorry Shift in him, instead of proving the Quakers no Christians, to put W. P. upon either proving himself a Minister of Christ, or to produce an Evidence for the Rule of his Faith by Inspiration; and what that Evidence was he would have besides the Spirit's own self-Evidence, concurring with a Holy Conversation, he did not show us, but this is like the rest of his uncertain Work against us, to make a Buz and a Noise in the World, to render such Odious as are more Righteous than himself, as in his Hypocritical, Audacious, Daring Challenge he most falsely accuseth us.  
1. Where he saith, That W. Penn' s Confession of his Faith, though in Scripture-Expressions, was but a mere Equivocation.  
2. That though our Discourses and Confessions of Faith be clothed with Scripture-Language now more than formerly, they are but gross Equivocations.  
3. That our former Opinions [I suppose, since we were a People] were Vile, Absurd and Nonsensical, and that he proved to our Faces to make Void all Rules of Faith and Christian Practice.  
4. That by Force of Argument he drove us to that straight, that we could make no Reply.  
5. He chargeth us with base and insolent Behaviour in hic Absence.  
These are notorious Falsehoods, and to these two last many Hundreds that were present can testify the contrary, and that Jeremy Ives herein is a most false and ridiculous Boaster.  
These Falsehoods together with his daringly challenging & grossly reviling us in his Paper, are notwithstanding entitled by him, A sober Request; but now since we find upon the same Challenge another Title put before this, which is [Quakers no Christians] Judge Reader, was this proper to such a Paper, requesting a Meeting to prove us no Christians? He and his Bookseller might very well have spared this Title until such Proof had been made, as it might have been proper to, and not thus to cover their beggarly Shifts with notorious Untruths, do but see how Jeremy's Work hangs together, viz.  
Quakers no Christians.  
A sober Request to the Quakers.  
If you dare appoint a Time and Place, etc.  
I earnestly request a Meeting with you, to prove, That you are no Christians.  
I require an Evidence for the Rule of your Faith, by Inspiration.  
I know no farther Proof we have as yet from him of his Charge that the Quakers are no Christians. Is it not easy to see the Absurdity and Folly of these men, and how they make Lies their Refuge, and cover themselves with Falsehoods?  
For his daring us to appoint Time & Place, he querieth, If this Phrase signifies any more than if you are not afraid to appoint Time and Place? As if we could have no other Reason, but being afraid of Jeremy Ives to forbear appointing Time and Place to meet him: Oh Insolent, Vainglorious Boaster! dost thou not know in thy own Conscience and by sufficient Experience, that we have not been afraid of thee? I am ashamed to see such Proud, Insolent and Popular Ostentation and Falsehood, and Groundless Insinuations against us under the Profession of Christianity.  
After the same rate he further cracks thus, viz. Whether I had not good Reason to think, you were afraid to hear yourselves proved No Christians, when all your Wits and Time were chiefly exhausted in two public Meetings to divert us from the Proof thereof, as Thousands can testify, pag. 7.  
A most notorious Untruth & gross Abuse, as thousands can testify; For,  
1. The Baptists Wits & Work was chiefly, to divert us from the pursuit of our charge against their Brother T. Hicks, contrary to the Agreement upon which the first Meeting was appointed.  
2. Hath Jer. Ives and his Brethren so far forgot themselves, as not to remember how their Wits and Time were taken up at both Meetings, especially his in the Latter, to prove the Quakers no Christians, and yet after Jeremy is fain both to Dare us, and earnestly Request a Meeting with us, to prove us no Christians; which if he had so rarely done at either Meeting before, he needed not thus have Dared and Requested a Meeting, but only have shown the World, How he had done it; instead whereof he hath given them Ground to believe, that he is baffled in his Attempts, which makes him so swell and bel●●h out Daring and Reviling afterwards.  
But he takes it for granted, that the right spirited Christians were more animated and provoked by the Daring of their Adversaries to vindicate the Honour of their Religion; But this is only employed in Jeremy's Question instead of any general Proof: It is a Wonder that he and his Brethren were not more provoaked to vindicate the Honour of their Religion in Behalf of their Brother T. Hicks. in whom their Religion is so much concerned, as he is set up as an eminent Agent of the Anabaptists, and Teacher among them; for was not the Honour of the Baptists Religion at all concerned in this Person? J. Ives will concern the Honour of our Religion in any particular Book of any one among us that he thinks he hath something against; but Jeremy let me tell thee, that thy Daring hath no such Impression upon ourSpirits, as to provoak us, either to meet thee only as Jer. Ives, or upon thy own Terms: Nor do we at all reckon the Honour of our Religion impaired, either by thy Daring, Huffing, Reviling or Deriding; but rather we count it Matter of Rejoicing, when such as thou art, revile and speak all Manner of Evil of us, while we know you do it falsely, and that we suffer it for his Name sake, who hath upheld us through Sufferings and Reproaches unto this Day.  
Jeremy Ives, for Proof of his daring Challenge, and to stop T. Rudyard, quotes Edw. Burrough's Invitation and Challenge to the whole Church of Rome, daring them to suffer a certain Number of Quakers to come among them; and likewise, that he challengeth all the Priests of Dublin to meet him to try their God, their Ministry and Worship.  
It seems this daring Champion J. I. who would be accounted an eminent Warrior for Christianity, must be beholding to such as he counts No Christians for Proof of his Challenge, though if his and Edw. Burroughs be seriously compared, a vast Difference and Disparity will appear between them, both as to the Nature and Manner of them, and their different Spirits; for E. B. did in both plainly and seriously design to oppose the Spirit of Persecution, both at Rome and Dublin: As to [Daring] 'tis only a Proposition by Way of Question to the Church of Rome, thus, And dare you suffer a certain Number of us to come among you and preach what we hold, and a certain Number of you shall freely come among us, and preach what you hold without Persecution or any Violence, as we would expect and have the same from you? And this to try which would convert 
‖ E. B. being really satisfied th●y could convert no real Quaker to the Church of Rome.  the most, and which had the Power and Spirit of God with them, etc. E. B 's Works, fol. 470.  
Now let any Reasonable Man judge whether this Proposition for a mutual Liberty to preach without Persecution, and to see or try the Effect of each One's Ministry, was not more serious and of another kind than Jeremy Ives' Daring Challenge, mixed with Untruths and Abuses, favouring of a Boasting Scornful Spirit.  
And 2dly, for E. B' s Challenge to the Priests of Dublin to meet him and F. Howgil, to try their God, their Ministry and Worship: This was when these two were Prisoners in Dublin proposed to those of the persecuting Spirit; the Reason whereof is plainly given, They being under Afflictions and Sufferings, abundantly reproached, and the Lord's Truth greatly infamed by many Backbiting and Slanderous Tongues, especially by professed Ministers in the Ears of their People, slandering them, as being Jesuits, Seducers, Deceivers, Heretics, Blasphemers and Witches, Fol. 90 of E. B's Works. See here, was it not reasonable that these Sufferers should call out for a Meeting to clear themselves from such Infamies and Reproaches in the Presence of their Accusers: Haddit Jer. Ives been under such Suffering by the Quakers, and made such a Proposition to them, he might have made this his Instance; but he and his Brethren have not been willing thankfully to enjoy their own Liberties quietly in a Time of Peace, but have endeavoured to render us (who have been a suffering People) as Odious and Obnoxious as they can, wherein their Design seems most tending to stir up Persecution against us, like Ungrateful Men.  
His other Instance is that of Solomon Eccles his Challenge, to fast seven Days and seven Nights, etc. made to Papists and Protestants of divers Sorts, as Presbyters, Independents, Baptists, Fifth-Monarchy Men, etc.  
Though Jeremy is pleased to render him like a Hector or S●ager, or rather a Bedlam-man: He hath herein condemned him before a Trial, which he might have forborn until himself or some of his Brethren, had made Trial; but it is not likely that they would expose themselves, their Bellies, or their God, to such a Jeopardy: However, as to the Ground of S. Is Confidence, and how he might have been born up in such a Case, it seems not reasonable that either Jeremy Ives or I should determine to the World (whatever we think) while none of them dare adventure upon such a Trial with him: I must confess, the Prophets of Baal were rather to be commended 
1 Kings 18.  for their Confidence in adventuring the Trial of their God upon Elijah's Challenge, than Jer. and his Brethren, though those Prophets of Baal had but ill Success: But if J. Ives objects that S. E. had no Scripture Instance for such a Challenge, but only an Impulse by Inspiration without Evidence: I reply, neither hath Jeremy Scripture to control him herein, nor durst he adventure upon Trial for the Proof or Evidence of such an Impulse (Yet Fasting is more easily proved in Scripture then Jeremy's Challenge) However, it is not reasonable we should send S. E. to Bedlam before Trial, or that he be found so fit for it as Jeremy Ives has rendered him.  
Another Instance is, G. Fox calling the Doctors in Europe to come forth, and meet him in the open Field, and to answer him if they dare; and for this he quotes A Primer for the Scholars and Doctors in Europe, in the Epistle, p. 4. and in the Book, p. 40 & 41. Wherein J. 1 hath unfairly cited the Matter, which is not at all of the Nature of his Challenge; for this Primer chiefly consists of Queries upon their seven Arts & Terms, used in the Universities and Schools of Learning: In the Place cited the Words are truly thus, viz. These Queries are to call them out into the Field, that every one may see their Garment, that they may give Answer to every one of these Words, Names & Things; let them come out now to little Children; thus in Epist. p. 4. And after divers hard terms about Theology, in p. 40. he queries thus, Whether or no they are the Words that the Holy Ghost hath taught? answer me, if you can, or da●e venture, what every Particular of these Words is, and what Centre and Ground they come from.  
But here are not the Words, Come forth and meet me in the open Field, and answer me if you dare, according to Jeremy's Citation.  
Now consider what Parallel there can be between G. F's calling the Scholars and Doctors to come out to little Children, to explain their Terms of Art; and Jeremy's Insulting, Scornful and Reviling Challenge hypocritically named A Sober Request; and surely, the Scholars and Doctors might have given a sober Answer unto G. F's Queries, and explained their hard Words and Terms of Art, as publicly in Print, in the open Field or Face of the World, without during them to appointing such a Meeting as J. Ives dares and begs for in his Challenge, to prove the Quakers No Christians, after he had several Opportunities, and made divers Attempts to do it before: G. F. used no such Uncertainty nor Hypocrisy or Envy in his calling out the Doctors, as J. Ives had done against the Quakers, as appears in comparing G. F's Primer (to the Doctors and Scholars of Europe) with J. Ives ' s Sober Request to the Quakers: We value not his Outcry of Baseness, Railing, and Clamoring, and wilful Baseness; herein he shows but his fretful Huffing against us, & himself guilty thereof.  
As for our own Prophets outdoing of him twenty Times, as he saith, their outdoing is neither of the Nature of his doings, nor attended with those Circumstances; for his (as hath been told him) is False, Impertinent and Impudent: He by daring us rendering us afraid to meet him, which is a gross Untruth, & Reviling us, endeavours to make us Odious before Trial, and to vaunt and insult over us in a frothy light Spirit, which hath evidently appeared in him.  
In short: Further to show the Disparity of Jer. Ives his insolent frothy Challenge to the Quakers, and our Friends serious Challenge and Propositions to the Pope, Cardinals, and other Persecutors, as T. Rudyard, in his Book, entitled, The Anabaptists Printed Prop●osas, p. 18, 19 answers Jeremy thus, viz. If he means by Sober Request, that Expression of his, If you dare appoint Time and Place, etc. it is passed my Skill to find the Correspondency of the Body of his Sheet to its Head or Title; but if Daring to appoint be the best Terms the Anabaptists can invite us to a Religious Discourse, I must declare his Language is so far from being scriptural, that it comes short of the common Hectors or Swordmen of our Time, etc.  
Now Jeremy's Daring Challenge shows itself not to be on a Serious Religious Account, nor in the best Terms of Invitation thereto; but rather in this somewhat like the common Hector's or Swordmen of the Times, that confide in their own Strength and Art (as he doth in his pedantic Knack of sophistical Twisting and Turning in his Arguings) he provides, That none be admitted to speak (as the Disputants) but himself and another, whom we shall appoint; as also, that a certain Hour be agreed on for the Beginning, and another for the Ending of the Disputation for that day, and that neither Party shall exceed that Time, unless by mutual Consent: wherein he has very carefully contrived his Matter, that he may not be spent, or beaten out of Breath; and as a man that has no supernatural Aid to trust to, being Doubtful that his Natural Strength should fail (in case his single Opposer should not be stinted to a few Hours) which is quite contrary to the Nature of S. Is Challenge to Fast; for Jeremy provides more carefully for his Carcase in this Case, then S. E. doth to be sure.  
And our Friends E. B. or G. F's proposing to many Persecutors, both Papists and others, to answer or meet them without such a Stint or Limitation of single Person or ●ours (as Jeremy would bargain aforehand) ●rgues to me, that they did rather confide in ●●e Power and Aid of God to assist them in ●●eir Testimony against their Adversaries; ●●d not in their own Strength or Wisdom of ●●e Flesh, as Jeremy's does, which makes ●●m be so careful that both the Time and single Person be stinted and pitched upon: for otherwise he has Cause to be doubtful, that his God would fail him. I will conclude, that the true God did not call him to give forth such a Challenge as his is; for he hath no Rule nor Authority from the Scriptures for it, nor any Example from Christ's Ministers for such a Daring Vapouring Challenge; nor can he Evidence any special Command for it by immediate Inspiration or Revelation from Heaven (as our Friends profess) for that's inconsistent with his Religion: Therefore his own presumptuous Will is his Rule and Law for his Challenge, both as to the Matter and Manner of it, as having no footing either in the Holy Scriptures or Power of God.  
Whereas from his Daring us to appoint Time and Place to prove the Quakers No Christians, it was told him, that then it seems they are not yet proved No Christians; upon which he demands, Whether a Truth may not be oftener proved then once, especially where some stop their Ears, as the Deaf Adder?  
Hereupon I ask him, if he had before proved us No Christians, or really judged he did so, Was it proper for him to dare and beg for another Meeting merely to prove us No Christians, which is not again to prove us none? or did he expect to open our Ears by going over his Matter again? But if he reckoned us such Deaf Adders, that would not hear him before, his Business had been rather to let the World know how rarely he had proved his Charge against us, and not to trouble the World, or alarm City and Country with his Cracking and Boasting what he would do in his daring Vaunts, which favour of mere Pride, Vanity and Impudence, and not of any Seriousness, or goodwill towards us; nor as a man that would really seek our Conversion to Christianity, supposing us none; for did ever the Apostles or Ministers of Christ thus dare vilify, reproach or insult over the poor Ethnics or moral Heathen (as we are counted) in the sight of their Enemies, or open View of the World in order to their Conversion) as Jer. Ives has dealt by the despised Quakers?  
As touching the Question T. R. put to him, Whether this be that Jeremy, that was cast into Newgate upon a Religious Account, and for his Testimony against Swearing, in the year 1660. To this he answereth, I am not that Jeremy that was committed to Newgate for a Religious Refusing the Oath of Allegiance, etc.  
On which I ask, if it was not for some kind of refusing the Oath? and whether if a Conscientious Refusing, it was not Religious?  
But that Jeremy got out of Prison by Swearing, this he denyeth not; for he saith, I am that Jeremy, that took the Oath of Allegiance, and writ a Book to prove that some Oaths were Lawful, though all were not.  
Well, I'll not press him, whether he did not once reckon the Oath of Allegiance Unlawful (when he was committed to Newgate) but tell him, that methinks he doth a little like a Temporizer, colour over and construe the Business of his Letter to his Brother Pittman and Brother Sewel.  
1. First, in saying, I am not that Jeremy that ever writ against the Oath of Allegiance, either privately or publicly.  
2. In saying, I am that Jeremy, that did in a Letter blame a Friend for saying, He had rather have given Fifty Pound then have took the Oath of Allegiance, and yet swore he took it Freely and Willingly, etc.  
By which, Jeremy, thou seemest only to strike at thy Brother's Hesitation, Scruple and Dissimulation about the taking the Oath, and not at the mere taking it, or Matter of Fact.  
But methinks thy severe Letter to them sounds otherwise, as that it was for taking the Oath, as well as their Scruple or Dissatisfaction in doing it; else, what mean these Passages in thy Letter? viz.  
I do well to be angry with you.  
That you would be as easily persuaded to part with, as unwilling to suffer for your spiritual Liberties.  
How unlike the Christians in former Times are you, whose Zeal was so hot for God that their Eyes prevented the Morning, that thereby they might prevent the Rage of the Adversary.  
I always did conclude, that those that would quit the Cause of Righteousness, would quit the Ways of Holiness, as yesterday sad Experience hath taught, to the perpetual Joy of your Adversaries, and the sadning the Hearts, and adding Afflictions to the Bonds of the Prisoners of he Lord. Thus far Jeremy.  
See here, was it only the Scruple of these Men in taking the Oath that is opposed or reproved, and not their taking it? Or was it the Regret they had upon them in the taking it, that would be such a perpetual Joy to the Adversaries; or rather the Matter of Fact, as it appeared to them, namely, the taking the Oath, and therein acting contrary to the Testimony of others that suffered, to the sadning their Hearts, and adding to their Afflictions? Besides, saith Jeremy, My Bonds are my Crown, but your Cowardly Spirit is my great Cross: But it seems he kept this Crown but a little while, if he in a few Days after got himself out of Prison by Swearing: And wherein did their Cowardly Spirit appear, but in their Swearing, contrary t● their Consciences, as Jeremy in his chiding Letter saith?  
Now God is proving to see if you will obey him or no; and did not yesterday Work witness that you are willing to prefer the Fear of a Man that must die, before the Fear of the great God; and the Fear of them that can kill the Body, before the Fear of the Lord that can cast both Body and Soul into Hell? I have no more to say but this, that your Cowardly Temporising and Complying with the PRECEPTS OF MEN, makes me jealous, that your Fear towards the Lord is taught by the Precepts of Men. Thus far Jeremy again.  
Now the Question is, did J. I. in all these Words bear upon their Hesua●●on or Scruple in taking the Oath, or only reprove their Swearing they took it freely, when they could not really do it? Methinks, if this had been the Thing, and that Jeremy had really allowed of the Matter of Fact itself, as the taking the Oath, he should have writ in another Strain than he did unto his Brethren for taking it; he should not have charged them for quitting the Cause of Righteousness to the Perpetual Joy of the Adversaries; nor with adding Afflictions to the Bonds of the Lord's Prisoners; nor with yesterday Work, witnessing their Willingness to prefer the Fear of a Man that must die; nor of Cowardly Temporising and Complying with the PRECEPTS of Men: for surely, here is the Matter of Fact concerned; but if he had approved of the Oath itself, and only disapproved of their Weakness in scrupling and taking it in an unsatisfied Conscience or doubtful Mind, he should then have endeavoured to have removed their Scruples, and to have pacified their weak Consciences with urging the Lawfulness of what they did, by demonstrating it to them; but the Thing appears otherwise, and that Jeremy did fall under the Judgement that he gave against his Brethren, as namely, that of Cowardly Temporising and Complying with the Precepts of Men; as may be suspected from his saying,  
What if I had been once against the Oath, & afterward had took it, must this needs make me an Impostor?  
Surely this doth not clear him, nor render him a Stable Christian.  
His implying or insinuating Tho. Rudyard guilty of Forgery, for putting men's Names to own the Matter in a Book without their Consent or Privacy, p. 7. & 11.  
I suppose Tho. Rudyard hath answered for himself to this Matter elsewhere, viz. to a Paper of T. Hicks that charged him with the same Fact: And for my Part I do not understand that he his chargeable with Forgery herein, though he had not their Consent or Privacy, seeing their Names were sent up Inhabitants then present (with divers others) at the Examination of the Anabaptists Lying Wonder in Lincolnshire, that Richard Anderson (untruly insinuated to be a Quaker) whose Child was falsely alleged to be cured of a Leprosy by Means of the Baptists Prayers; and the Certificate being sent up to him with the Names of those then present and Ear-Witnesses of that Account, and others that subscribed their Hands, as further Witnesses thereto; whether they consented to the publishing of their Names to the Man's Account or not, was not material, so long as they knew the Thing was true; & what Reason had T. R. or any others, to think that they would scruple their Names being printed (as Persons present) at such Examination or Account when they were present Ear-Witnesses, and then Assenters to the Credit thereof; all this doth not render them No Witnesses, much less T. R. a Forger for giving the World a true Account of the Matter, as it was sent up to him (and not contrived by him) by publishing amongst other Testimonies that Certificate that detected the Baptists Forgery from the Hands of several Witnesses, who really subscribed thereto, who withal certified and sent the Names of those Inhabitants present. The Baptists Boasts (about the said Lying Wonder) are sufficiently detected in our Friends Answers thereto.  
But Jeremy thinks he pays us off in several Passages we are now coming to, as in ask, Whether it be not very Uncharitable for W. P. to Violate the Laws of God and the Laws of the King, in remembering any thing against those whom the King had graciously pardoned; else, that he would not have told Mr. Faldo in his rejoinder, pag. 406. of the Nonconformists preaching up Blood and Treason, and Garments rolled in the Blood of Kings, & c?  
I must tell Jeremy, That he hath herein dealt unfairly by W. P. and aggravated his Words by adding BLOOD and TREASON] Whenas his Words are, They are true Gospel-Ministers, and their Feet truly Beautiful, whose Gospel is, Peace on Earth, and goodwill towards Men; and not Garments rolled in the Blood of Kings and Princes, Rulers and People: No Worldly Armies, Battles, Spoils, Sequestrations, etc. Though its true, that John Faldo and his Brethren are retorted upon by W. P. for their Preaching up the former War; but this was not to violate the King's Favour in pardoning them, but to give them a Check for their being so busy against us in a Persecuting Spirit; and particularly, for john Faldo's Abuse of William Penn, and meddling with his deceased Father; about which I refer the Reader to W. P's own Answer to speak for himself, in his rejoinder to john Faldo) pag 405, 406. And so W. P's Design might be rather to Humble them, and to reclaim them from that old bitter Spirit, wherein they were formerly Incendiaries, and yet bring forth their Invectives, tending to stir up Persecution against the People of the Lord [And have not both the Holy Prophets and Christ also reminded such a persecuting Generation, both of their own and their Father's former Iniquities, seeing them continuing therein in the same Spirit of Envy?] But I doubt not but W. P. desires their Repentance, that they may be converted from their Persecuting Spirit, that they may receive Pardon from God as well as from the King.  
But jeremy, thou that wouldst seem so Zealous against Uncharitableness, and Violating the Laws of God and the King; hast thou dealt charitably by E. Burroughs, in saying, He d●th justify the late Wars against the King? and not only so, but thou art pleased to tell the World twice or thrice over, that we justify the late Wars against the King. How now, jeremy! Is this thy Charity and Respect to the Laws of God and the King? Hast thou not herein shown a persecuting Spirit to render us obnoxious? And why so? Because E. B. in severely Warning the late Powers of their Down-fall, did by way of Reproof tell Oliver what God had done for him, even in the same Letter to him wherein he plainly also telleth him of the Great Oppressions which the People of God suffered under him, both in their Persons and Estates; Saying also to Oliver, If I perish I must speak the Truth; most of the Prisons this day in all thy jurisdictions do testify the Unjust Judgements and Great Oppressions and Cruelties; yea, and further conditionally threatens Oliver, That God would confound and him; see E. B's Works, from pag. 551. to pag. 583. how plainly and faithfully he did warn Oliver, and those men then in Power, of their Overthrow. To be sure E. B. was no Temporizer; neither have we forborn in dealing plainly with those in Power, when we have had Cause, as the Lord hath moved and authorized us.  
And further to clear E. B. and the Reprinter or Publisher of his Books, as to their Freeness from being either a Factions Party, or Seditious to the Government that now is, and to manifest what a True Prophet he was (and that never man dealt more plainly) against the former Power and Government, particularly in his Message to the then Rulers of England, fol. 594. viz. If you of the Army be always Treacherous and Disobedient towards the Lord, and abuse your Power, and trifle away your Hour about Places of Honour, and such Selfseeking Matters, and the Cause of God be neglected by you, and his People continued Oppressed Sufferers under you, as they have long been; even than shall you be cast aside with shameful Disgrace, and the Heavy Hand of the Lord shall be upon you in Judgement, and you shall be smitten more than any before you; your Estates shall not be spared from the Spoiler, nor your Souls from the Pit, nor your Persons from the Violence of Men, no, nor your Necks from the Axe; for if you be Unfaithful, and continually Treacherous to the Cause of God, then shall you be left to the Will of your Enemies, and they shall charge Treachery and Treason upon you, etc.  
But our Opposer, who under the Pretence of Christianity and Charitableness, shows himself void of both, tells us of a Quakers Book, entitled, The West answering to the North, hath much to this Purpose, which (saith he) I am not willing to write out, because I am not willing to expose you. I cannot but observe the Man's Dissimulation and base Insinuation in this implicit Kind of accusing us, hereby to render us more suspicious and obnoxious, then if he had dealt plainly, especially whilst he accuseth us over and over with justifying the late Wars against the King, whenas that very Book quoted by him, entitled, The West answering to the North printed 1657. doth in the whole Tenor of it severely reprehend those then in Power, to wit, Oliver and his Ministers for their Oppressions, Cruelties, and Arbitrary & Tyrannical Proceedings, which they pretended to condemnin those before them: though there might be some Words too harsh in the said Book as reflecting backward, but with an Intent to judge them then in Power; yet it is to be considered, as chiefly writ by two Officers or Captains of the old Army, being Common Wealths Men (as I understand) who had not as then wholly got over the Warring Spirit, however did sympathise with our Poor, Innocent Friends, when they beheld their deep Sufferings, as in some Degree sharing with them; though its probable, some Remainder of their former Sharpness of Spirit was left, wherein they had been animated by such Zealous Chaplains as Jeremy; yet those Books quoted by him were extant long before the King's Pardon, which he pretends so greatly to respect; but we have not gone about to serve him and his Brethren thus, as to rake up all the Baptists Books that concerned the former War and Matters of State before the Kings coming in, or Act of Indemnity: However, this we find Cause to believe, that, whatever Respect J. Ives & his Brethren may pretend, either to the King's Gracious Pardon or the Law of Charity, they would show little Mercy if they had Power to execute their Enmity, as well as to render us obnoxious to the Government; such as Jer. Ives and his Brother T. Hicks, would in all Probability be as busy Agents for our Ruin, as they are now to endeavour it by such an Indictment as this (that is made up of their present Accusations against us) viz. That you justify the late Wars against the King; that you are No Christians, nor worthy of so venerable a Name; that your Doctrines are Destructive both to Scripture and Christian Religion; that your Confessions are gross Equivocations; that your Opinions do make void all Rules of Christian Faith and Practice; that your Friends of the Ministry are Impostors, false Prophets and Men of Lying Spirits: Thus far J. Ives. And then T. Hicks in his Dialogues against the Quakers, viz. That you are Destructive to all Human Society, Inconsistent with Government; that you are as vile Impostors as ever were; that your Religion is a mere Cheat, calculated to the Service of the Devil and your own Lusts, horrid Blasphemies; that your chief Motive and Inducement to suffer, is the Satisfaction of your Wills and Lusts, or the promoting of your Carnal Interests; that you are the Spawn of the wicked Brood, the Ranters and have liked up their Vomit; Romish Emissaries; Heretics; Mad Men; Infatuated; such as esteem the Holy Scriptures of no more Authority than Aesop ' s Fables, and the Blood of Christ no more than an Unholy Thing, or the Blood of a Common Thief, yea worse; that you reprobate the Holy Scriptures and the Person of Christ; that you deny any future distinct Being's, Rewards or Eternal Advantages to Men after Death; that your owning Christ, and the Christ you own, is a mere Mystical Romance, and that your Meetings are to Inveigle and Trapan People; As also he recriminates the Quakers in General with the Enormities of some Particulars: These, with many more such like most bitter, false and absurd Invectives by Tho. Hicks the Baptist-Agent. O Persecuting Baptists! But God be thanked, that these men's Horns are shortened; for if they were not, it is not unlikely but they would push and persecute asc ruelly as their Invectives are Inveterate, and tend thereto; or as their New-England Brethren, whose Persecuting Spirits would not be satisfied without Innocent Blood.  
Again Jer. Ive, goes about to impeach us with an Inconsistency, and to exhibit a pregnant Proof by Retortion of our being No Christians; In that the Quakers refuse the Oath of Allegiance, because they are against all Swearing, as being Inconsistent with Christianity, or living in the Life and Power of Christ, or under his Government; and yet reckons that some among us swear, and for Instance he puts this Question, What think you of William Mead, who with Others took an Oath? And what think you of Gerrard Roberts, who together with John Osgood, who with others took their Oaths, as appears by their Answer to a Bill in Chancery. To all which I reply from what I think.  
1. I tell this Inquisitor, that I think they are all honest Men, fearing God, and Men conscientious towards him according to their Principle, and that they would not injure, or defraud or wrong any in their Properties or Rights; and for what they do they dare appear before and answer the great God in the great Day of Judgement. However, if they were Conscious, they are resolved they would not make this Inquisitor their Confessor; for they neither expect Mercy nor Absolution from him.  
2. I also think (and William Mead, John Osgood & Gerrard Roberts are satisfied) that they are able to give an honest Account of their Conscientious Tenderness in this Case, and that according to a good Conscience, if in Love desired, or out of an honest Intention, or for a good End, without any Design of Injury towards them or their Profession: But they have no Cause to think that jer. Ives doth inquire or accuse them to the World for any good End, or out of any Friendship to them, or Love to their Souls; but rather from a Design of Mischief or Injury, as the Tenor of his Discourse against them imports: Therefore they are resolved rather to suffer his Revile, and endure his Clamours, then gratify a mischievous Spirit, by giving him Account of their Affairs or Proceedings for their Properties & Rights, which only they seek for; and not to injure their Neighbours (or any Man else) in their Names, Persons or Estates.  
3. That if either jeremy, or any Baptists, or others for him, have made Search in Chancery, or do inquire of any Officers belonging thereto, whether any of the Quakers have given in their Answer upon Oath? I think that he and such his Enquirers are Busibodies in other men's Matters (while 'tis not their own Concernments) And whilst their Design and End therein is for Evil against our Friends, it might be suspected by those Officers in trust concerned, as not to be for Good towards them or us, in their Inquiry; and that therefore such busy Inquisitors might justly have met with a Repulse, and been rejected, and not answered in their captious Attempts.  
4. To his falsely accusing the Quakers with daily impleading People at Law, I say, That though some of them have Occasion sometimes to make use of the Law, they are necessitated thereto, to maintain their just Rights & Properties from such Unconscionable Men as would otherwise make a Prey upon them, to Ruin them and theirs, and not to injure others, or defraud any of their Rights; in such Cases the Law is used Lawfully, being for Justice and Right: It's probable that if the Quakers could neither make use of the Law, nor have their Answers accepted, for what's their own proper Rights, but be devoured by Unreasonable or Wicked Men, our Opposer would not be so offended, nor inquisitive as he is into our Friends Affairs; but he would think it ill to be so dealt by: If his Brethren should be asked, What think you of Jeremy Ives, who boasts that he is able to approve himself as Honest in all his Correspondencies in the World as the best of the Quakers? But hath he done so? hath he performed Promise and Covenant with all, and satisfied all his Creditors? have none of them had cause to complain of him in those Matters? It's not unlike but he would be very short at this, and give such an Answer as this, What's that to you? meddle with your own Business: I will not make you my Confessor; or, I have done what I can to satisfy all, or so far as I was able: And so our Friends can easily answer, What's their Concerns to jer. Ives? What has he to do to question or accuse them therein? They have endeavoured to keep their Consciences in-offensive towards God and Men, as those that must give an Account to God, and not unto their Adversaries, who hav● no Jurisdiction over them or their Consciences.  
5. I must take Leave further to inquire, seeing that Jer. Ives and Henry Don with divers others, have thus defined an Oath, viz. to say, God is my Witness, God is my Record; I speak the Truth in Christ, I lie not; my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit, etc. that these Expressions, with many more of the like Nature, are equivalent to an Oath; and these to evince, That the Apostle Paul himself swore; and that not only Christ, but the Apostle did both practice, enjoin and exact Swearing upon others; and to prove, that he charged others to swear, J. I. citys 2 Tim. 4. 1. & 1 Thes. 5. 27. [Also J. Tombs in his Supplement about Swearing, saith, That the using these Speeches, I affirm before God, or this we say in the Presence of him that shall judge the Quick and the Dead, etc. is plain Swearing.] Concerning which Definition and Plea for Swearing under the Gospel, these men are answered by that faithful Servant of the Lord, and Sufferer for the Cause of Christ, Samuel ●●sher, in his Antidote against Swearing, and his Supplementum Sublatum. Now suppose that any of our Friends find Freedom to use some such Expressions in their Testimonies before Authority, as, God is my Witness; I speak the Truth in the Presence of God; or I speak in the Fear of God; or God knows I lie not, and this without Regret or Scruple of Conscience; and suppose what they say, be believed and accepted of, as equivalent to an Oath; and that those Magistrates or Ministers in Trust are satisfied therewith, and do not think it prejudicial to their Consciences to accept thereof; what Instruction has Jeremy to give in such Cases? What has he to do to show himself a Busy Body in other Men's Matters? And why should he rake into his Neighbour's Affairs; either to find out Occasion against them, or to prejudice them in their Properties? Should not Jeremy's Business rather be, to convince the Quakers of the real Definition of an Oath, that they may not interfere with their Principle, rather than to seek to make them odious to the World, as Men perfidious therein? For (this is not the Way to persuade them to Jeremy's Christianity) they would not willingly or wittingly profess one Thing and practise another: Thus far I have signified what I really think, in Answer to Jeremy's Question.  
As for his high Charge, viz.  
1. How Impious then are the Quakers, who some of them swear themselves. and most of them take Pleasure in them that do so?  
2. Can Quakers be Men of Conscience and Integrity, that while they judge Swearing, will procure Men to swear?  
Both which are manifestly false; for they neither take Pleasure therein, nor procure Men to swear: if any of them have Occasion for Witnesses that do not scruple an Oath, it is the Magistrates, not the Quakers, that put them upon, or tender them an Oath; for if their Testimony without an Oath might be accepted, the Quakers would be better satisfied: Let the Magistrates enjoin them to speak Truth upon what Penalty they shall see meet; we have proposed this for ourselves as well as others.  
Whereas jeremy takes the Grant, that W. P. gave to his Request for a Meeting to be upon Dishonourable or Impossible Conditions, and so worse than a Downright Denial; of which he first mentioneth that, If Mr. Kiffin, Mr. Plant, Mr. Dike and Mr. Hicks will give it under their Hands, that they will be bound to stand to what Jeremy shall Answer, Propose, Affirm or Deny.  
W. P's first Proposal runs thus: viz. 1st, Let Jeremy Ives make it appear to us, that he is deputed to this Work; for it is beneath US to engage against a single Person, as well as beside our Business, as the Case lieth, to think ourselves concerned in his Rodemontadoes and vapouring Challenges: He is Privateer but for himself, and stands upon no Body's Legs but his own, and some think, not always well on them neither.  
And why is this Impossible? I suppose he doth not count it Dishonourable to be Deputed: But if them Impossible, it argues, they have not so much Confidence in jeremy as he has in himself, and that they think not fit t● embark their Cause in that Bottom: And what Reason is there then for a whole Body of People to subject themselves to the imperious Daring and Examination of such a singular boasting Bravado, if his own Brethren cannot confide in, nor subject their Cause to him; and then is it reasonable We should meet him alone without a Deputation from them to this Work?  
Another Condition is, That all we have against T. H. may be first debated; and this is but reasonable, and J. I. unreasonable in interposing to divert our Prosecution of this: The Condition is thus laid down by W. P.  
2. That he (to wit, Jeremy Ives) pe●●sonate T. Hicks, as to the Matter charged by us against him, to wit, of writing Forgeries, Perversions and Slanders.  
3. That before he enters upon proving us No Christians, he would tell us what a True Christian is, or we go by no Standard.  
4. Prove to us that he is that Christian, or else he is unfit to prove another No Christian.  
5. That we are not such Christians, but Heretics and Impostors.  
To our proposing that what we have against T. H. may be first debated, Jer. tells us, that we will not vindicate the Honour of our Profession, till we have vindicated the Honour of our Personal Reputations, as being more zealous thereof then of the Honour of God and Religion. This is a gross and apparent Untruth; for both our Religion and Principles, as well as our Personal Reputations are concerned in our Charge against Tho. Hicks, as appears plainly both in his Forgeries, Perversions, and Slanders, which concern both Doctrine and Practice: but it seems Jeremy is very raw, and unversed in the Controversies between us, and yet his Confidence will serve him to engage in the Quarrel for Tho. Hicks.  
To the second; He counts this another of our poor Put-offs, and Unreasonable, that he should make good any more than he has charged against us: He counts it unreasonable then to personate T. H. in the Matter that we charge against him, was it not then Unreasonable he should so deeply engage for him before? But Jeremy says, He is ready to make good what he has charged against us, by the Grace of God, if we DARE meet him. But this is to be understood as a distinct Offer of itself, without Respect to the Matter about Tho. Hicks: However, it is but single Daring and Vapouring Jeremy still, whose Brags and Attempts we value not, but slight his Folly therein.  
To the third: He counts this impertinent, When, saith he, we tell them they are no Christians either of one sort or another; This he tells the Quakers, and it is but his own telling; and I do not think but he doth in this violate some better Persuasions and Convictions, that he has had in himself: And while he confesseth, that he is a good Christian, that hath a Rule for his Faith and Practice in the Christian-Religion, and endeavours to the uttermost of his Strength and Understanding to believe and live accordingly. He concludes, they are No Christians that have no Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian- Religion; and such are the Quakers, saith he, pag. 14. See what an Imperious and Censorious Judge this is: He says, we have No Rule, though we profess, believe and practically own the Guidance of the Spirit of Christ, and in Subjection thereto do own the Holy Scriptures: And for our Lives and Conversations, I hope he doth not conclude, that either the People called Quakers, in general are therein Unchristian, or that his own is more Christian then theirs; how comes he then to presume, that we have not the Spirit of Christ, or none of his Light in us for a Rule, in affirming, that the Quakers have No Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian- Religion?  
But this Presumption is not strange to us, since he could openly tell William Gibson and me, that We were not enlightened with the Light of Christ.  
I could not but then take notice of the Man's Insolency and Foolish Censoriousness; but how doth he prove that the Quakers have No Rule for their Faith and Practice in the Christian- Religion, and therefore are no Christians? He thus attempts it, viz.  
That though George Keith, to keep up your Credit with the People, said, The Scriptures were onned by you as a Seoundary Rule for your Faith and Practice; yet Edw. Burroughs contradicts him, and tells us in so many words, That the Scriptures are NO Rule or Guide of Faith and Life to the Saints; see his Works, fol. 515. and reconcile your Prophets as well as you can. Thus far Jeremy.  
He would make the World believe, that he has here given the Quakers a deadly Blow, in rendering their Prophet's irreconcilable; yea, and to fasten the Contradiction, he saith, that E. B. tells us in so many words, That the Scriptures are NO RULE or Guide of Faith, etc. for this he bids us see his Works, fol. 515.  
How now, bold Jeremy! I have seen the place quoted by thee, and thou hast manifestly belied Edw. Burroughs, to prove thy false Charge; for Edward's Words in the place are thus, viz. The Scriptures are profitable, and were given forth to be read and to be fulfilled; yet they are not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints; but the SPIRIT of God, that gave forth the Scriptures, that is THE RULE and Guide, Teacher and Leader into all Truth: See also his following words in the next Clause, affirming, That the Scriptures are the Words of God; that the Spirit of God is THE RULE of Faith and Life to the Saints; that men ought to search the Scriptures, and believe what is therein written, etc.  
See now Jeremy, that Edward Burroughs his words are not as thou citest them, that the Scriptures are NO RULE, but that they are not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints, but the Spirit; and yet the Scriptures to be Searched, Read and Fulfilled: so that he denies them not, but plainly implies them to be A RULE, but not THE RULE, that is, not the most Eminent or Highest Rule, but the Spirit: And how doth this contradict George Keith's saying, That we own the Scriptures as a Secundary Rule? which also implies a primary or Principal Rule, to wit, the Holy Spirit, as well as E. B. doth in his words before. For my part, I cannot understand any more Contradiction between saying, The Scriptures are a Secundary Rule, and yet not THE RULE and Guide of Faith and Life unto the Saints, than there is between saying, Jeremy Ives is a Baptist- Preacher, and yet not the principal Preacher among them; or between Jeremy Ives' being a Man, and yet not the Chief (or Best) of Men; though I confess this too mean an Instance for the Subject before, but only somewhat to illustrate the Distinction. I was unwilling to have charged Jeremy with Forgery (from the Place he quotes) in saying, that E. B. tells us in so many words, that the Scriptures are NO Rule: But now upon Enquiry and Search into his Falsehood herein, I am satisfied that I should do him no Wrong to charge It upon him, and let the Place quoted by him in E. B's Works determine it.  
Again, I find no Inconsistency between William Smith's confessing Christ and the Spirit of God to be the Rule 
* As in his Primer, pag. 10, 11, 12.  for trying Spirits, searching the Heart, and not the Scriptures (yet confessing them to be of great Service) and G. K.'s owning the Scriptures for a Secundary Rule, that Christ should be preferred before and above the Scriptures, both as to trying and discovering, and yet they serviceable in their place, as Christ opens the Understanding in them, can be no Opposition.  
But Jeremy objects, That the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice, comprehensive of the whole Duty of Man.  
1. That they are so comprehensive as declaring the whole Duty of Man, respecting Faith and Practice (as to the Sum and Substance thereof, respecting Man's Salvation) I know none of us deny: But that they are not that Manifesting Rule of every particular Act of Faith and Obedience that God may require respectively, I think this Opposer cannot deny; but that he hath granted thus much at sundry Discourses, as with respect to such Prophets and Messengers, as God might, for aught he knew, raise up in these days, and peculiarly commissionate and send forth with extraordinary Messages to particular Places and People's, in which God only (by his Spirit) is their great Rule and Guide. 2. And so God is in discovering to Man his inward Estate and Condition, even the Thoughts and Inclinations of his Heart, with all his Particular Actions.  
But says Jer. Ives, They pretend that the Spirit is the Rule, when they give no more Evidence of it then Mahomet or Muggleton.  
But this is manifest Reproach and Falshood: We give as much Evidence, both in Doctrine and Conversation, as is necessary to evince our Christianity; And as Jeremy cannot disprove, nor doth he appear to be a Man of that Spiritual Mind and Judgement, as to know what Evidence we have given, or what Evidence we can give, his Comparison is gross and impious; and Neither It, nor his bare Charge (nor yet his calling upon us to produce an Evidence of the Spirit) shall serve his turn to prove us either No Christians or Impostors.  
Another Condition for a Meeting is, That Jeremy prove himself that Christian, or else he is unfit to prove another No Christian: To this he saith, But is not this pretty? As they define a Christian, there is no Christian but themselves; and when I have proved myself a Christian, which by Interpretation is a Quaker, than I think the Question will be out of Question.  
To this I reply: I must needs look upon this as a very sorry Shift; for, but in the very Condition before he is told, That before he enters upon proving us No Christians, he would tell us what a True Christian is, or we go by no Standard. See now here, how plainly this provides, first, for an Agreement upon the Definition of a True Christian, even such, as both jeremy and the Quakers might agree upon: Is it not reasonable, that the Terms of a Proposition, or Matter in Question, should be explained and agreed upon in all Controversies? and also reasonable, that when it is agreed what a True Christian is, that Jeremy should prove himself one before he be admitted to prove others none? And did the Quakers herein propose either to be the sole Judges, who is a True Christian? or have they hereby demerited this man's Sleight and Derision he thus taunteth them with? viz. Would it not make one smile to see the sad Shifts the Poor Men are put to? And what sad Shifts? What! to agree upon the Definition of a Christian, as a Standard to go by; and then for Jeremy to prove himself that Christian first? else, What Credit can his Attempts be of, while he doth not prosecute others as a Christian, or Partaker of Christianity himself; Seeing he has so hideously charged others with being no Christians?  
And further; It is not only the Quakers, but many others, that look upon Jer. Ives to be no True Christian, or worthy to bear that Name, or undertake in the Behalf of all Christians, to prove the Quakers none, as he promiseth, to produce a Deputation from the Baptists, if he can obtain it. Well, I'll assure him, if he doth, we will take it for granted, that the Baptists make him their great Agent, and we will look upon their Cause as highly concerned in him, and so far resigned to him; let him do what he can to maintain it, we are not at all doubtful on our parts of a good Issue for the Truth. And seeing Jeremy pretendeth his Endeavours for such a Deputation from the Baptists, shall be to leave us naked of all Excuse; we expect that it shall not be to evade those Conditions before proposed by William Penn, in his Paper against Jeremy Ives his Challenge; otherwise, if he should procure it to evade and shuffle off our Proceeding on those Conditions, we shall but look upon it as a Flame, and a vapouring Colour, and Diversion, like his Interposing and Vaunting Challenge, tending to Divert or keep us off from the Pursuance of our Charge against his Brother Tho. Hicks, whom with his Abettors we charge with being guilty of Forgery, Slanders, etc.  
He hath a Fling at S. Eccles, charging him, that he saith of G. Fox, That it may be said of him, as it was said of Christ, that the World was made by him, though the World knew him not; and then addeth, Is not this a rare Christian? p. 15.  
Unto which I must tell Jeremy, That in my Understanding he hath both unfairly cited and interpreted S. E. in this Matter; for if so be that he could say or intend, that The World was made by him, did relate to G. Fox as well as to Christ, than I must confess with Jeremy, that he was more fit for Bedlam then otherwise: But if he alludes only to The World knew him no: (which related to Christ) that so it may be said of this True Prophet, G. F. (as S. Is sense) than I cannot see why jeremy Ives should so deride him, although he might have better and more safely worded his Intention: yet it is Uncharitable to reflect upon a Man's Christianity for a little Failer in Syntax, 
* As [the World knew him not] should only be the Antecedent to [so it may be said of this true Prophet, G. F.] and not that the World was made by him.  which can only be imputed to S. E. in this Matter, according to the Law of Charity; let him speak for himself, see our Friend's Book, entitled, Judas and the Jews, p. 75. viz. I did not say, nor did I ever believe, that the World was made by G. F. but by Christ, who was in the World, and the World knew him not; so I say, it may be said of G. F. the World knows him not, though he be in the World, as was said of Christ, He was in the World, though not of the World, and the World knew him not; and he said of his Followers, Ye are not of the World, as I am not of the World, Jo. 17. 16. and I have chosen you out of the World, Jo. 15. 19 See here how plainly S. E. hath signified his Intention in this Matter: And what but Prejudice and Enmity can otherwise construe his words?  
Finally, be it remembered, that Ieremy's Charge, that makes such a Hideous Noise, viz. That our Ministers are Impostors, and Men of Lying Spirits, did proceed from his Uncharitableness, or at least, his Breach of the Laws of Good Manners, according to his own Observation, pag. 5. where he hath promised, Not to break the Laws of Good Manners, to call our Friends Papers Lies, and Forgeries: So that herein he standeth a Self condemned Person, not only breaking the Laws of Good Manners, according to his own Confession, but pursuing for a further Breach thereof; in which he also hath bespoken himself to be No Christian, condemning that in others which he allows in himself; as is fully proved before against him.  

To his POSTSCRIPT.  
First, For Idle and Ridiculous Opinions and Practices, as he would charge upon us in general: I do not yet find that he hath found them, in such Books and Persons as the Quakers declaredly own, as his words are; that Work is yet to do for aught I see.  
Secondly, Suppose there were any Absurd Opinions contained in any Book or Books, said to be published in the Quakers Names and Behalf, if they have not publicly declared against them, I deny that their Silence herein may reasonably pass for Consent and Approbation, as Jeremy concludes; for its possible there may be Books said to be published in the Quakers Names and Behalf, which few, if any of the Quakers have ever read; and it were Unreasonable to charge those things upon them, or upon the whole Body of them, which they have had no hand in, nor been made privy to; neither would Jeremy Ives or his Brethren be so served. Besides there may be Books writ on the Behalf of a People by indifferent Persons, which are not wholly to be condemned, or publicly declared against for some particular Faults or Escapes where the Intent of the Writer was honest, and the greatest Part or Substance of the Matter serious and true.  
Thirdly Our Adversary asks, Why do not the Body of the Quakers meet together and agree to publish an Index Expurgatorious, to clear themselves of such Books they do not own; otherwise it will not be their Private Apologizing for themselves, when their Credit lies at stake, to say, they do not own this and the other Book, that will pass for Excuses among Wise Men.  
1. I must confess, if he had good Ground for this Proposition, there seems to be some Reason in it more than he has shown before: But I would ask this Lawmaker, if he doth really look upon the Body of the Quakers to be attained to so much of sound Judgement and Understanding, as here he seems to imply, that is as able to clear themselves of such Books & Things, as they are liable to be called in question for, or as are unsound?  
2. His granting that there are such Books as we do not own (and which tend to the Hazard of our Credit, if we do not publish an Index to clear ourselves thereof: This implies, that we have a Judgement to clear ourselves, and that so far the Light or Truth is risen amongst us, as not to own those things which may endanger our Credit; and then he should not charge us with those things, unless we did own them.  
Again, As we do not reckon ourselves bound so far to take Cognizance of every Book or Paper, so as to read all over that hath been writ by all that have gone under the Name Quakers; so neither do we know Occasion to write such an Index as Ier●my prescribes, against any of our Friends Books that are declaredly owned by us.  
For those Opinions and Practices that are generally owned by us, we stand to maintain, as neither being Idle nor Ridiculous, but Serious and Sound, agreeable to the holy Scriptures, and consistent with Christianity, and value not all the Gainsaying of our Adversaries: But if any Practice or Signal Thing extraordinary be laid upon any one Particular among us, we impose it not upon others; and such must not stand or fall to Man's Judgement, but are accountable to God for what they do; For to Man's Judgement and Earthly Wisdom many things extraordinary or peculiar, which were required of God's Prophets, might seem both Idle & Ridiculous, and those Prophets themselves seem Fools and Mad Men, as they were accounted of old.  
But further, seeing jeremy Ives has before prescribed such a Method, as the Body of the Quakers to meet together, and agree to publish an Index Expurgatorious, etc. They that prescribe Rules, should be regular themselves; and they that make Laws should observe and keep Laws. Why do not the Baptists (who deem themselves Christians and Us none) begin, and show Us such an Example, as he hath prescribed? since there are divers Opinions Contradictory one to another in the Baptists Books, both whereof cannot be true; as between the Predestinarian▪ Principle and the Arminian (so called) or between an absolute Predestination of particular Persons to Salvation or Damnation from Eternity, and the General Grace of God, and Redemption in Christ for all men; And between the Impossibility of Believers falling from Grace, and the Possibility thereof, with divers other things, about which the Baptists differ among themselves. Why do not the Body of the Baptists meet together, & agree first about their own Principles, and then lish a Declaration against those Opinion▪ s which may appear inconsistent with Christianity, Truth and Reason, and an Index Expurgatorious to clear themselves of all such Baptists Books as are writ to maintain such an Exploded Opinion, that People may no longer be deceived thereby? otherwise, if they refuse this Proposition, begun by Jeremy, we may accordingly take the Baptists Silence herein, to pass for Consent and Approbation of all the Baptists Books, which the Body of Baptists have not publicly declared against: And then from hence I charge Jer. Ives and his Brethren, with giving their Consent and Approbation to their Brother Thomas Hicks his Three Fictitious Dialogues, and all the Absurdities, Contradictions, Forgeries and Abuses therein contained, so long as they are silent, and do not write an Index Expurgatorious, to clear themselves thereof; and so of all the rest of the Baptists Books, that contain in them both Idle, Ridiculous and Contradictory Opinions.  
Further, Jeremy accuseth us with Enthusiastick-Principles, and new Articles of Faith and Practice frequently enjoined by Immediate Inspiration.  
1st, What he means by the Word Enthusiastic or Enthusiasts, which disdainfully he casts upon us, he seems to intimate, that it●● such as pretend Revelation from Heaven, and Immediate Inspiration for their Rule: It seems he pretends to neither, but rather derides thereat, like the Scoffers of the Times: And how came he to get this word Enthusiast? He should withal have told us its proper Definition, and then it would have appeared more plainly in what Sense he useth it. But I would ask him, if the Baptists at their first coming forth were not counted Enthusiasts by their Persecutors, when they professed the Help of the Spirit, or Immediate In piration in their Praying and Preaching, and the Sufficiency of the Spirit's Teaching, as Samuel How, William Kiffin, and many others did formerly? And how many of them did preach up and esteem the Inward Work of the Spirit and Grace of God in the Heart? which, it seems Jeremy, thou hast either had very little Experience of, or else art greatly apostatised, and become a Hardhearted Mocker at the Acknowledgement of Immediate Inspiration, which Principle thou wilt not confute by calling us Idle Enthusiasts.  
2. It's an idle Untruth in thee to accuse us with frequently enjoining New Articles of Faith and Practice, either by Immediate Inspiration or Pretence thereof; neither haste thou shown us what those Articles are, that thou sayest are thus frequently enjoined?  
Again, I cannot but observe how Senselessly and Atheistically thou talkest, in concluding, That if a man pretends a Revelation from Heaven, or Immediate Inspiration for a Practice that's Absurd, the Quakers cannot Reprove him by Immediate Inspiration, because he pretends to that for his Practice as well as they.  
It seems Immediate Inspiration is of a very little Esteem with thee, and of as little Use with thee: If because some falsely pretend it for that which is Absurd, others cannot thereby Reprove him for it; at this rate of Arguing the True Prophet's Mouths should have been stopped from Reproving the False, because they pretended the same the True did, and could say, Thus saith the Lord, etc. And likewise the True Apostles should not have Reproved the False, because they pretended the same thing doubtless, when they transformed themselves as the Ministers of Christ.  
But if by Immediate Inspiration Absurd or Evil Actions cannot be reproved where the same is but pretended, then farewell all true Christianity, true Savour, true Sense and Judgement. But doth not the Spirit of God search all things, and the Spiritual Man judge all things? Surely if this man did really own that there's any such thing in being now, as either Revelation from Heaven, or Immediate Inspiration, or that there is a True God, and that He is Known, he durst not talk at this idle slighting rate, as he doth, about Immediate Inspiration, as not a sufficient Rule to reprove Absurdities, where It can but be pretended for them. But yet a little before he grants a supernatural Evidence, that if we can give some supernatural Evidence why we should be received, as namely, in writing against the absurd Opinions of such as pretend they are revealed to them; but what Supernatural Evidence this is that he means, he tells us not, while he does not own the Sufficiency of Immediate Inspiration to reprove absurd or evil Practices & Opinions by: for if a supernatural Evidence doth not attend Immediate Inspiration, or Revelation from Heaven, it is no where to be found; then it follows, the Spirit is insufficient to evidence itself, or it is not Self evidencing, and such Doctrine as this will at length lead some to be such Fools and Atheists as to say in their Hearts, There is No God: But I tell this Adversary to Immediate Inspiration, That the Spirit of God can no more be without a supernatural Evidence, than the Sun can be without its Light; God has given an Universal Evidence thereof by his Light in all men's Consciences, which answers to the Spirit's Testimony and Ministry in the Ministers of the Spirit, which men may evidently see, if they close not their Eyes, or harden not their Hearts to cause their own Stumbling and Overthrow.  
In order to a manifest Decision of the chief Matters in Controversy, I desire Jez. Ives, or any of his Brethren for him, to give a plain and ingenuous Answer to these Questions, distinctly.  
I. Whether Immediate Inspiration and Revelation from Heaven, are in Being in the True Church in these days, yea, or nay?  
II. Whether Immediate Inspiration be not necessary to the being of a True Christian or Jew inward?  
III. What supernatural Evidence or necessary Proof doth J. I. require of any one's having Immediate Inspiration from God?  
IV. Whether any one be fit to try (or judge of) a Supernatural Evidence, or Immediate Inspiration in another, but such a one as doth acknowledge and partake of immediate Inspiration in himself?  
V. Whether he that undertakes to prove others No Christians, ought not to be a True Christian, and first to approve himself such a one upon a true and undeniable Definition of a True Christian? [Thou Hypocrite, first cast out the Beam out of thine own Eye, etc.]  
VI What is the true and proper Signification and Discrimination of Enthusiast and Impostor? and so the real Derivation of Enthusiasm and Imposture? And whether there be not a plain Difference in the Nature of the Words? For Words and Terms, where either difficult or doubtful, must be explaind before Matters can be clearly discussed thereupon.  
VII. Whether it be not an Undervaluing of immediate Inspiration, for any to hold, That thereby men cannot Reprove an Absurd Opinion or Practice in such as pretend a Revelation from Heaven for it?  
VIII. Whether the Apostles and primitive Christians were obliged to produce an Evidence of their Faith and Practice by Inspiration at the Demand of their Enemies, or only when God called them thereunto?  
IX. Whether to require an Evidence for our Faith by immediate Inspiration be not all one as to put us upon proving ourselves Christians, or equivalent thereto?  
X. Whether it be proper or reasonable for one that has charged us with being Impostors and Men of Lying Spirits, and promised to prove it, instead thereof to require a Proof or Evidence from us of our being immediately or divinely inspired; and if we do not at his Demand produce such Evidence as he requireth, to conclude us Impostors?  
XI. And how does Jeremy Ives prove his Call to Dip or Plunge People in Water? Or what Evidence can he produce for His particular Call thereto?  
XII. And whether he does profess any Immediate Inspiration and Revelation from Heaven for his Dipping People? if he doth, what supper natural Evidence can he produce for it? if he doth not, whether he may not be deemed an Impostor therein?  
XIII. Whether divers of the Baptist-Preachers have not heretofore imposed their Water-Bapitsm as Gospel, or as a thing necessary to Salvation, and so to the being of a Christian and Church of Christ, threatening & affrighting many simple People into Water upon pain of Damnation or the Curse; some by telling them, They must Dip or Damn?  
XIV. Whether the Baptists are of the same Opinion still, That their Water-Baptism or Dipping is Gospel, necessary to Salvation, or to be practised upon pain of Damnation?  
XV. And how proves Jeremy Ives, that the One Baptism (spoken of Ephes. 4.) is that of Water? And whether his Instance of Lords many for divers Baptisms, as of Water, & Affliction, and the Holy Ghost, were a pertinent and meet Instance and Comparison, as between One Lord Jesus, and but One proper Baptism, to wit, that of Water, and between the Lords many & divers Baptisms, to wit, of Afflictions, and the Holy Ghost? see his Quakers Quaking, p. 38.  
XVI. And what Call, Gospel-Rule, or Precept, have Baptists for Night Dipping, and Fleeing or Absenting from Meetings in Times of Persecution? And whether their envious Invectives and abusive Pamphlets, now in Times of Peace against their Neighbours, do not proceed from the same cowardly Spirit, which acted them in Times of Suffering?  
XVII. After the Baptists have tried their Strength, made Enquiry of Apostates, and searched Books and Courts, to pick out Occasions against us, to render us as Vile as they can, and not only no Christians, but inconsistent with Government, and all this, if possible, to destroy us; May they not justly expect, that their Mischief will return upon their own Heads, and that they will fall into the Pit which they dig for others.  
XVIII. If they persist in this their course of Envy against us, whether they may not, as men conscious, justly expect a public Reprehension; we having Occasion sufficient out of their own Books and former Proceedings, to exhibit a History of Anabaptists, both with relation to Religion and Government? For our parts, we value not their Envy, nor the Worst they can do, but are at Defiance with it; knowing also that Christian-Life and Spirit, that shall outlive their inveterate Enmity, who are Confederates a 'gainst us; and we shall therein be further manifest, and Increase, but they shall Decrease.  
XIX. I would further ask, if Jer Ives and his Brethren do not own them to be Christians whom they Baptise?  
XX. And what Evidence of their Faith or Christianity do those their Baptised Believers produce? Answer these.  
I have taken Occasion of late Time to take Notice of Jeremy Ives' former Envy, Confusion, Ignorance and Abuse, that he has shown against the People called Quakers in his two Books; the one entitled, The Quakers Quaking, printed in the Year 1656. and the other entitled, janocency above Impudence, printed 1656. which I had a mind to have given the Reader some Hints of, but for Brevity's sake I reserve them to a further Opportunity, if Occasion be given me; Though I am rather desirous, that our Daring Opposer may by the Light of Christ consider his Ways, and Repent of his Evil, then be concerned in Contests with him: For, God knows, I contend not for Contention, but for Truth's sake.  
Reader, If that Passage in the 8th Page of this Treatise touching Jer. Ives his calling Arthur Cook, Pitiful Fool, and Knave, and Loggerhead, on the Exchange, should be doubted of; This may inform, that I have several Certificates thereof, under the hands of credible Persons.  
G. W.    

Pag. 12 lin 21. for of Faith read of our Faith. p. 16. l. 24. r. a Meeting again. pag. 23. l. 12. f. had 1. hath. p 30. l. 12 r. saith, that now God is. pag. 32. lin. 14. f his r is. p. 36. l. 7. r. confound and break.  
THE END.