FORGERY NO Christianity: Or, a Brief EXAMEN Of a late Book, published by one T. Plant, a Baptist-Teacher, under the Title of A Contest for Christianity, or, A Faithful Relation of Two late Meetings, &c. As also, Some Animadversions on J. Ives's POSTSCRIPT. And an Expostulatory Postscript to the BAPTISTS.  
By Thomas Ellwood.  Jer. 9.5. 
They will deceive every one his Neighbour, and will not speak the Truth: they have taught their Tongues to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit Iniquity.  Isa. 54.17. 
No Weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper;& every tongue that shal rise against thee in judgement, thou shalt condemn.  
Printed in the Year 1674.   

TO THE READER.  
THat which I here present unto thy view, is a brief Examen of a late Book, published by one Thomas Plant, under the specious Title of a Contest for Christianity; wherein he pretends to give a Faithful Relation of Two late Meetings, between the Baptists and the Quakers: And that his Title might end as plausibly as it begun, it is submitted to the judgement of all Judicious and Impartial Men; with this Addition, red, Consider, Examine and then Judge.  
Three Parts of Four, of the Liberty given, I have taken; to red, consider, examine, and there stopped, reserving the judicial part to thee. Had my Opponent done so too( as well as said it) thou hadst had a fuller Account, and we fairer Dealing from him. But I have no Design to preoccupy thy judgement, which by how much the freer it is, and less susceptible of private Impresses, by so much the more capable it is of pronouncing a just and even Sentence, which is all I desire at thy Hand: yet two or three Particulars I am willing to give thee a short Hint of, and that rather in this place then in the following Treatise itself.  
1st, Concerning the Title of my Opponent's Book, viz. A Contest for Christianity. A very fair and glittering Title, set out, as it were on purpose to draw in Guests. But as Good Wine( according to the Proverb) needs no Bush; and the Best Accommodations are not always found in those Inns which hang out the fairest Signs; so neither wilt thou find any thing in his Book which may bear proportion to his lofty Title. The Book itself begins with a Charge, exhibited by the Quakers against one of the Baptists, containing Matter of Forgery, Perversions, lies and Slanders: This was the proper Subject of those Meetings; but this they would not come to the Test of, but thrust us by with a rude Clamour that we are No Christians: Of this he pretends to give a Relation, and mis-calls it, A Contest for Christianity: How much more truly and aptly might he have called it, A Cover for Forgery, since their chief Design and Aim was, to divert us from the Proof of that Charge, whereof Forgery was the greatest part: To show him therefore his Mistake, in thinking he contended for Christianity, I choose to let the following Treatise bear this Title, Forgery No Christianity.  
2. Concerning the Time of its Publication; it was about Two Moneths after the last of those Meetings, before their Relation was made public; which( if I apprehended aright) conduces not at all to its Reputation, but rather gives Ground to suspect the Truth of it, and call its Credit into Question: For, if( as is pretended) it was taken in Short-Hand at the Meeting, what need so long an Interval for the transcribing of Half a Dozen Sheets. I leave it therefore to thy Consideration, Whether the Reason of this needless Delay was not, that they might have time to Cabal about it, to lay their heads together,& consult how they might model it most to their Advantage; and by comparing it with those which we had before published, to observe what to alter, what to add, what wholly to expunge, and what to transpose or transplace, that thereby they might be sure to thwart the Accounts we had given, and make their own speak as loud for themselves as they pleased.  
3. Concerning my present Undertaking; I am not ignorant, that to invalidate another's Relation, is a Work of some Difficulty; since it is not enough that I myself know it to be False, unless I am also able to disprove it: To urge my own Personal Knowledge, would be but( with T. Plant) to make myself Judge: To compare it with our own Relation, and from the Disparity infer it False, I judge not fair nor reasonable, but blame our Adversaries for dealing so with us: To produce Testimonies of Persons then present, would be uncertain and indecisive, since it might either be questioned, whether the Persons were impartial; or doubted, whether their Memories were sufficiently retentive: I have taken that way which I conceive to be clearest and freest from Objection, viz. To Oppose the Relation to itself, and by such Instances as I could gather from itself, to manifest and demonstrate to thy Understanding, that it is Imperfect, Partial and False.  
Now, as I have chosen to steer this Course in a modest Respect to thee, that I might not, without some kind of Demonstration, obtrude my sense upon thy Belief( as my Adversary too confidently and frequently doth his) so I must request of thee, That thou wilt not think, much less conclude, that the Exceptions which I shall now offer thee, are all I can justly make against their Relation; or that I allow those parts of it as True, against which I have not here particularly excepted: but that I therefore offer thee these Exceptions( not because these are the only, nor perhaps the most weighty, that might be given, but) because these are the most obvious and easy to be evidenced: For, I speak considerately, I do really think there are not many Pages in the whole, which, in one respect or other, either for Adding, Diminishing, Transposing or Perverting, may not justly be excepted against.  
T. E.   

BEfore I enter upon the Book itself, I judge it necessary to premise the Method I intend to observe therein, which is this: 

I. A brief Account of the Occasion and Subject of these Meetings.  
II. My Exceptions against Tho. Plant's Relation of them, as being not faithfully, but imperfectly, partially and falsely given.  
III. Some Observations on the most material Passages in his Relation, including also his Marginal Notes.  
IV. Some Animadversions upon Jer. Ives's Postscript.  
V. A Postscript to all Conscientious Baptists.     

Forgery No Christianity.  

CHAP. I. A brief Account of the Occasion and Subject of these Meetings.  
THe Occasion of these Meetings, originally, I take to be those Dialogues, which were written and published by Thomas Hicks, to traduce and defame our Principles and Us: of which Injury we being sensible, complained to the Baptists against their Brother, and called upon them to do us Justice. They thereupon, in a Meeting of their own appointing at Barbican, took an Opportunity, in our Absence, to call T. Hicks to an Account, as they pretended, and( as far as in them lay) acquitted him of those Crimes which we had justly charged upon him. This gave us Cause of new Complaint, not only against him, but them, by whom we had been thus surprised. And hereupon we demanded of them a public Meeting, to be appointed by mutual Agreement, wherein we might personally exhibit and make good our Charge against T. Hicks, and he personally make his Defence.  
This, in short, concerning the Occasion. Now as briefly also as well I can, concerning the Subject of these Meetings.  
In the Epistle before their Relation, T. Plant tells his Reader, That In Pursuance of W. P's Offer for a public Meeting, several of our Friends and theirs met to discourse thereabout; but they could not agree touching the Matter to be insisted on. Whereupon he says, A Paper was delivered to our Friends to be communicated to W. P. and G. W. which says he, is as followeth.  
Whereas there are divers things charged by W. pen& G. Whitehead against T. Hicks in two Books, one entitled, Reason against Railing; the other, The Counterfeit Christian detected; intimating, as if the said T. Hicks had wronged the People called Quakers, by Forgery, Lying and false Quotations. And where as the said W. P. and G.W. or some other of the Quakers, did appeal to sober People, but especially to the Baptists, to hear and examine whether the said T. H. was guilty of the said Accusations or not. And a meeting being thereupon appointed, wherein the said Charge was examined; we are fully satisfied that in all these material Things, then insisted upon, T. H. hath done them no Wrong, &c.  
This Paper is subscribed by 

W. Kiffin,  
T. Paul,  
D. Dike,  
T. Plant.    
The Reason( Reader) why I have transcribed so much of this Paper of theirs, is, That thou mayst see and understand from their own Confession, what they themselves understood to be the Ground and Occasion of our Appeal; what it was they appointed their Meeting for, and what it was they took upon them to hear and examine, viz. FORGERY, LYING and FALSE QUOTATIONS. FORGERY then by their own Confession, was that we complained of, and demanded Justice of them for: FORGERY then, by their own Confession, was that they appointed their Meeting to Examine: FORGERY then, by their own Confession, was the Business depending between them and us. By this, Reader, thou must here take notice, that FORGERY was indeed the proper Subject to have been discoursed between them and us, at those late Meetings, which we have had together: What Shifting and Shuffling? what Twisting and Twining? what Tricks and Devices were used by them to avoid this theme, thou shalt also see anon.  
Let this suffice to be spoken in this Place, of the Occasion and Subject of these Meetings. Let me now show T. Plant one of his Mistakes, and so proceed to the next Head.  
In his Epistle he tells his Reader, That The Answer to the Quakers Appeal being published, W. pen thereupon published a Complaint against it, in which he was pleased to make an Offer for another public Meeting.  
Here I must desire T.P. to recollect his Memory,& then I doubt not but he will find himself under a very great mistake. He makes their publishing of their Answer to the Quakers Appeal, to be not only before W. Penn's Complaint and Offer of a public Meeting, but also to be the Ground and Occasion of that Complaint and Offer, which is indeed utterly untrue; for it was, I think, well nigh a Month after their first Meeting at Barbican, before their Book called The Quakers Appeal answered, came forth; whereas W. P's Complaint against them, and Offer of a public Meeting, was published within eight Dayes after that Meeting, as by the Date of each will appear, the one being the 28th of August, the other the 5th of September. Besides, in that very Book of theirs, called The Quakers Appeal answered, they take notice of this Complaint of W. P's, Epist. p. 9. in these Words: And whereas there is a late Paper printed by Way of Complaint of several scandalous Reports in City and Country against W. P. and G. W. as if they purposely neglected to meet the Day aforesaid, &c. Again in the Postscript, p. 32. thus, Having seen w. P's Complaint, wherein— he is pleased to propose for a public Meeting, &c. This puts it beyond all Doubt, that W. Penn's Complaint and Offer of a public Meeting, was published before their Book called The Quakers Appeal answered; and consequently, That T. Plant mistook his Notes, in making their Book antecedent to the Complaint, and to be the Ground and Cause of it. However, though I might here say of T. Plant, In ipso limine cadit, he stumbles, as it were, at the very Entrance: Yet I will not extend it further, then to a Weakness of his Memory, or his Inadvertency in Writing.   

CHAP. II. My Exceptions against T. Plant's Relation, &c.  
Having in the former Chapter briefly hinted the Occasion and Subject of those Meetings, of which T. Plant pretends to give A Relation; my next Work is, to exhibit my Exceptions against the Relation which he hath given; in which I shall endeavour to demonstrate to the Reader, that THAT Relation( though pretended to be Faithful) is indeed Partial, Defective& False: In Order whereunto I premise this, That, Whosoever undertaketh to give a faithful Relation of a mutual Discourse or Conference, ought indifferently& equally to deliver the Speeches and Sayings of each Party, according as they themselves spake them, not designedly adding to the one, nor substracting from the other, much less concealing or perverting the Answers of either; otherwise his Relation cannot be faithful and true: But that Tho. Plant in the Relation which he hath published, hath not indifferently and equally delivered the Speeches and Sayings of each Party, according as they spake them, but hath concealed many of their Answers; and consequently, that his Relation is not faithful and true, let the following Exceptions be thoroughly considered.  
After Tho. Plant hath brought his Brother Hicks no less then 7. pages on his way in one entire& uninterrupted Answer, and was leading him on, how much further, I know not: He tells his Reader pag. 21. Here W. pen, and others of his Friends interrupted, and took up much Time about other matters, running from this first unto the third Charge, &c.  
Except. 1. In this I except against the Relation as Defective, and tax the Relator with Partiality: for he ought to have faithfully set down the particular Discourse, as it passed, whether to him it seemed pertinent or not, that his Reader( to whom of Right it belonged) might himself have been Judge of the matter, and not be obliged to take it upon trust from him, who in all Probability did therefore omit it, because his Account was imperfect and faulty; or finding that it made against him and his Party, choose rather( which is worse) to conceal it. Could he find in his Heart to entertain his Reader with so prolix a Discourse against us, and yet think much to give him one Line of what we replied thereto? He says, We took up much Time: from whence may be inferred, that much was spoken. Now whether his be a true Relation, which of that Much relates Nothing, I leave, Reader, to thy Consideration; and trace him further.  
He goes on thus, p. 22. But W. pen seeing that no Answer would be given to those things till the first Article was concluded, He then with others of his assistants, for a considerable time insisted upon the Form of Writing, pretending, as if this were their chief Quarrel with T. Hicks under this first Head.  
Except. 2. Herein the Relator hath been greatly to blame: He promiseth fair, performs nothing less. In his Title page. he proposeth a faithful Relation; in his Preface, a faithful Account,& that submitted to the judgement of all Judicious and Impartial Men: But what is here for such to Judge? He himself has before hand judged, concluded and determined the Matter: We insisted( he says) on the Form of Writing, pretending as if that were our chief Quarrel against T. Hicks: But in what Manner was this insisted on? What Objections were offered against that Form of Writing? What Reasons or Arguments to confirm those Objections? Not a Word of this; and yet he calls his Relation faithful. Surely, if we insisted on it, as our chief Quarrel, and that too( as he saith) for a considerable time, something must needs have been spoken of it; how then can his Relation be faithful, which gives the Reader not one Word of what we spake concerning it? Will he say, It was Impertinent; Who made him Judge? Was it not enough for him to be a partial Relator, unless he were also an Unjust Judge? Did he affect Brevity; What made him then so Tedious but just before in relating at large T. Hicks's long winded Oration against us?  
He goes on thus: But this being fully answered, at least to the Satisfaction of all the impartial Hearers, &c.  
Except. 3. Here again the Relation is Defective, and the Relator extremely partial. The one defective, in omitting this full Answer; the other partial, in undertaking to determine, that the Answer was full; and much more so, in affirming, That it was satisfactory to all the Impartial Hearers: What room, I pray, hath he here left for any judicious man to exercise his judgement 〈◇〉 how shall the Reader be able to judge, whether what we insisted on was fully answered, when he neither knows what the Answers were; nor, whether indeed there were any, or no? But how knows Tho. Plant that the Answers were satisfactory to all the impartial Hearers? Did All that were impartial express their Satisfaction? And is he well assured, that All they who did so express, were in very dead impartial? Why did he not insert these Answers in his Relation, that they might have been as satisfactory to All impartial Readers, as he saith, they were to All impartial Hearers? What Reason can be supposed for this Omission? Doubtless, he will not say, These Answers were impertinent both as they were given by his own Party, and as himself here declares them full and satisfactory. But, hast thou not Cause, Reader, to suspect, that he was really conscious of the Weakness and Invalidity of these Answers, and therefore would not venture to submit them to thy judgement, but choose rather to pass them hastily over, and obtrude his sense upon thy Belief? However, this is obvious, that some Answers he confesses were given, yet his Relation gives None; but instead thereof, he takes upon him to determine, that those Answers were full and satisfactory. Whether this be consistent with a faithful and impartial Relation, I leave to the Reader's judgement, and proceed.  
In pag. 24, 25. Jer. Ives proposeth a Question, Whether the Human Nature be a part of the true Christ of God now in Heaven making Intercession for us? whereunto says T.P. We could gain no direct Answer.  
Except. 4. Hence I again except against the Relation as unfairly, unfaithfully and partially written. T. Plant confesseth, an Answer was given; but saith, it was not direct to the Question: Why did not he( as became a Relator) give that Answer, whatever it was, to his Reader, that his Reader might judge how direct and proper the Answer was to the Question? How fain would he led his Reader blindfold, or persuade him to see with his Eyes, not with his own! But, Oh faithless, O shameless Man! With what Face canst thou call this a faithful Relation, which thy own Conscience knows to be so false and faulty? How couldst thou judge it fair, that thyself, being a Party, and so immediately concerned as thou art, shouldst conceal our Answer from the Reader, and take upon thee to tell him, it was not direct? Much better mightst thou have submitted thy Relation to the Belief of the Credulous, then to the judgement of the Judicious; since the first Sort might perhaps have implicitly acquiesced in thy judgement, and have taken thy Report upon Trust; whereas the latter have no Subject to exercise their Judgments on, unless it be to censure thy Unjust Dealings.  
The Sum of my Exceptions against this Part of the Relation is, That it's very defective and imperfect, and the Relator therein most Unfaithful to us, and Abusive of his Reader; for he hath dropped well nigh a Dozen Pages together of the Discourse that passed between them& us, and instead thereof hath, in about so many Lines, given the Reader an Account in general, what in his judgement was the Issue of it. But let the Relator remember, and the Reader consider well that Maxim, sub generalibus latet dolus.  
Three Instances more, by way of Exception, I offer to the Reader's Consideration.  
1. That of all the Discourse that passed that Day between them and us, the Answers that they have given in our Names( if they were all put together) will amount to but about 16 Lines, whereas the Relation itself containeth in the whole about 12 pages, of which no less then 7 are spent in one Answer of T. Hicks: Let the Reader, I say, but observe this, viz. That T. Hicks singly takes up of their Relation, 7 pages in one Answer, and that the Answers of All the Quakers that spoke there( as they are set down in that Relation) being All put together, will hardly make up 16 Lines; and then let him judge whether that be a fair, an honest, a faithful Relation, as T. Plant calls it.  
2. That such Passages as were spoken by any of themselves, and proved offensive to the Auditors, are wholly left out of their Relation, as if there had been no such Thing spoken; particularly, that unseemly Expression of J. Ives, when he called the dead Body of Christ a carcase; which, because it was ill resented by the Auditory, is not to be found in their Relation.  
3. That they have not only left out our Part of the Discourse, but that they might so do, have also dropped one of their own Disputants, namely, R. Forguson, a Presbyterian, who in that Part of the Dispute, which they have Omitted, bestirred himself in T. Hicks's Defence. And truly, though his Endeavours proved insuccessful, they have no Reason to be ashamed of the Man( though of either craving or accepting his Help, they have) whose Unhappiness it was to espouse a bad Cause, being much more able in Point of Learning, to have defended it, then themselves, if it had been defensible. But leaving them to give the World an Account of their engaging so many contrary Interests against us, I shall only here desire the Reader seriously to consider, whether in relating a mutual Discourse or Dispute, the leaving out a great Part of what was spoken, and concealing withall the Names of the Persons speaking, be the Property of an Impartial Relator, or consistent with a faithful Account, as T. Plant, notwithstanding all these Omissions, hath the Confidence to call his.  
Let these Exceptions suffice against the Relation of the first Meeting; and let us now Reader, a little examine the Account that is given of the second, which, though it be said to be written by one T. Jennings( a Person I have no Knowledge of) yet inasmuch as this is published, as well as the former by T. Plant, and by him recommended as faithful, I hope he will have no Cause, to think I deal hardly with him, if I place the Defects and Errors of this to his account also. To begin therefore.  
In p. 74. J. Ives says, I will prove out of several of your Writings that call yourselves Quakers, that you are no Christians. To this they make G. Whitehead answer thus, Because some of our Friends have writ so, is it reasonable that we should all be concluded by them, because some of us have writ so? therefore to conclude all are no Christians, This is not fair. So again, pag. 75. In Jer. Ives's Resumption of the Answer, he reports G. Whitehead to have said, Must all be concluded to be No Christians, because some have written repugnant to Christianity?  
Except. 1. In this Instance I charge the Relation with falsehood, for representing G. Whitehead, as speaking that which he neither did, nor in Reason can be supposed to speak; for it makes G. W. absolutely grant what he neither did nor could grant, but only supposed for Argument sake. That the Design of the Relation was to render him as granting that some of our Friends, some of Us, some Quakers have written repugnant to Christianity, is plain and obvious; and Jer. Ives from this forged Concession forthwith infers this Consequence, Doth not this strongly and violently follow, that some Quakers have been, or are No● Christians? But that G. W. did not so express himself, not only cogent Reason evinces, but even their own Relation doth also evidence, pag. 76. where he thus speaks, I argued from a particular to a general, and drew a Conclusion from the whole; Supposing[ this is not Granting] some Quakers did speak and writ those things that we cannot generally stand by; I have brought them to this, that the Baptists themselves would not be so dealt by, though I do not know( I speak conscientiously) of any known real Quaker among us that has written& laid down that as the Quakers Belief, that we cannot stand by; and therefore I am far enough from making any such Hypothesis, &c. But it was to awaken them,& bring them to this Consideration, to do as they would be done unto. Suppose these Persons should produce some particular things out of some Books that we cannot stand by( though I know not one) would these Persons be so dealt with? &c.  
Observe now Reader, I entreat thee, where the Stress of my Exception lies: G. W. expressed himself by Supposition only ( Suppose any should have written so or so) and solemnly and conscientiously affirmed, that he did not know of any one real Quaker that had so written, and that therefore he was far from making any such Hypothesis, from whence might be inferred, that he did grant any real Quaker had so written; yet their Relation turns this Supposition into a down-right Concession, and represents G. W. as plainly and absolutely granting, that some of the Quakers had written repugnant to Christianity. Against this I except▪ and herein charge the Relation with being notoriously false; and whether my Exception be rightly grounded( the Premises considered) I willingly submit to thy judgement.  
Again▪ It appears, that this Relation of theirs was not Really and truly taken from the mouths of the Disputants in the time of the Dispute( but rather patched up since, according as they were able and willing to remember) in that it makes them speak in other Terms, then those by which they expressed themselves. For instance:  
Except. 2. In pag. 79. J. Ives having formed an Argument, the Relation says Geo. Keith cried out, He denied both mayor and Minor; whereas it is most notorious that G. K. waved those Terms, and instead thereof used the 1st and 2d Proposition, that he might the better accommodate his Speech to the Capacity of the vulgar Auditors.  
Except. 3. The Relation makes W. pen and G. Keith frequently deliver themselves to J. Ives singly, in the plural Particle, You and Your; which is so generally known not to be the Quakers Dialect, that this alone were sufficient to evince that the Relation was writ by root.  
Except. 4. In page. 83. of their Relation, G. K. is made to say, I deny that Mr. pen is no Christian. This also I refer to the Reader's Consideration, whether there be any the least Probability, that G. K. who is a Quaker, should in a public Auditory call William pen by the Title of Mr. pen This plainly enough discovers that the Penman exercised his Fancy more then his Ears.  
If it shall be objected that these are but trivial Circumstances, not material Passages; I answer, That though they are not material to evidence the Strength or Weakness of Arguments on either side; yet they are material enough to evince, that the Account itself, which T. Plant has published of the second Dispute was not really and truly taken there, as the Discourse dropped from the mouths of the Disputants, but written since by root, not as it really was, but as he and others thought fit to represent it. And seeing they have so apparently misreported us in things of lesser moment, why should the Reader question their Propensity to do the like in Matters more substantial? But this also I subject to the Reader's Censure.  
Again, pag. 72. A Stranger having expressed his Desire, that our Charge might be red and prosecuted, was thereupon suspected by one of the Baptists to be a Priest or a Romanist at least; whereof the Stranger complaining, J. Ives puts him upon his Purgation: He answers, I am no Roman catholic. Whereupon Jeremy replies, But are you not a Hobbist? for you talk as if you were.  
Except. 5. Here again the Relation betrays itself, for thinking it too bald for Jeremy to put such a Question upon an already-abused Stranger, without showing some Reason for it, they add this as the Ground of his Question [ for you talk as if you were] Now if this was not then spoken, but since added( as I object) then it follows, that the Relation is not faithful. If they will insist, that it was then spoken by J. Ives, then I desire the Reader to consider from what part of this Stranger's Talk he had Ground to suggest him an Hobbist; which, that the Reader may the better do, I will not think much to setdown the whole of what they report him to have spoken, just as I find it in their Relation, which begins thus:  
Gentlemen, I am neutral, and do speak what is equal: they are willing to prove T. Hicks a Forger, and say, it is the first Article agreed to be discoursed this day, therefore it is reasonable they should go on to prove it; for if I am plaintiff, you are to answer my Accusation, p. 70.  
His next words are these; Hear the Articles of the Charge red, that we may understand them, p. 71.  
His next words are these; I am charged, and desire to be heard.  
His next words are these; I am no Roman-Catholick, that is, I am not of that Church, pag. 72.  
This is to a Tittle what they relate him to have said before this second Suggestion of an Hobbist, which is grounded upon his Talk, from whence what Ground J. I. could have to suspect the Man an Hobbist( which in plainer English, is an Atheist) I leave to thee( Reader) to consider, while I pursue my present purpose, which is, to prove the Relation false.  
One of these three Inconveniencies will, I think, inevitably befall the Baptists in this case. If they aclowledge, that this Clause was not then spoken, but since added by them to countenance and flourish over the Suggestion, it will follow, that the Relation is False: If they will affirm, that it was then spoken, according as it is there set down, the Danger still will be as great; for, inasmuch as whatsoever they have related, as spoken by this Stranger, cannot possibly administer the least Colour or Pretence for such a Suggestion, it must needs be, that either he spake something else, which they have not related, but concealed, and then the Relation is False still; or else, that the Suggestion was wholly groundless, and the Reason given for it, false; and then J. Ives may fall under the Censure of his Brother russel, as his Brother Russel did under his.  
Thus, Reader, I have given thee a few Instances, yet enough( I hope) to satisfy thy judgement of the falsehood and Partiality of their Relation. Many other parts of it I can except against as false, upon my own Knowledge; but I would not, like them, impose upon thy Belief, and therefore insist on such Particulars, as( even from their own Relation) are plainly demonstrable to thy Understanding; by which, as of the lion by his Paw, thou mayest take a measure of the rest.   

CHAP. III. Some Observations on the most Material Passages in his Relation, &c.  
Although, Reader, having already enervated the force of the Relation, by showing, that it is imperfectly and partially written, I might well excuse myself from taking any further notice of it; yet a little to manifest the Weakness of their Disputant, and the Folly of their Relator, as well as altogether the Falsity of the Relation itself, I present thee here a few Observations on the most material Passages in it.  
In the Relation of the first Meeting, p. 15. T. Hicks is said to answer thus; Concerning that Charge wherein they accuse me for false Reflections upon Stephen Crisp, I cannot own this Charge; for I have said no more of him then what I am able to prove ( viz.) that he affirmed to me, that he knew the Beginning and Date of my Christ &c. Upon these last words T. Plant hath a marginal Note, in these words, This they omitted to red publicly, though all the rest were red at length.  
observe. By this he would seem to hint, that we endeavoured to conceal this Passage from the People. In this he is guilty, first of a groundless Insinuation; and next, of a down-right falsehood, to colour it. That the Insinuation is not only groundless, but ridiculous also, let it be considered, 1st, That it was we ourselves that inserted this particular in the Charge. 2. That we did it voluntarily and of Choice, being under no Constraint thereto. 3. That we did it to this End and Purpose, that it might be publicly examined& discussed. With what show of Reason can any one then imagine, that we designed to conceal it? That T. Plant hath added an Untruth, to colour over his Insinuation, in saying All the rest were red at length, will appear plainly to the Reader, if he please but to cast an Eye either on our Copy of the Charge as it was that Day red, and since printed with our Account of that Meeting, pag. 38. or on their own Relation, pag. 6, 7. In both which he may find, that this was not the only Passage in the charge, that was abbreviated; but that his several Abuses of W. pen under one Head, and the Contradictions charged upon T. Hicks under another Head, were in like manner abbreviated also; though T. Plant hath the Confidence to affirm, that All the rest were red at length.  
In pag. 23. It being objected, that some of the Quakers had affirmed, that Christ was never seen with carnal Eyes; G. Keith answered, I distinguish: Christ, as God, was never seen with carnal Eyes; but as Man, he was. To this Jer. Ives replies, He was Christ, as he was Man.  
observe. Herein Jeremy contradicts his Brother Hicks: for he says positively( Dial. 1. pag. 44.) Not the mere God-head of the Son, nor the mere Manhood; but God and Man united in one Person, that is the Christ. See the Difference: Tho. Hicks says, He is Christ( not as he is Man, but) as he is God and Man, J. Ives saith, He was Christ, as he was Man.  
Pag. 24. W. pen saith, When our Friend says, Christ was never seen with Carnal Eyes, it is meant of the Divine Nature, which is the more excellent and better Part. To this Jer. Ives replies, By the same Rule, if I should writ a Book, and publish to the World, That I had never seen W. P. and G.K. in all my Life, and they should tell me I lied, because I saw them at this Meeting; May I not answer them with this Distinction, as they do me, and say, That W. P. and G. K. consist of Soul and Body, and because I never saw their Souls, which is the more excellent Part, therefore I never saw them.  
observe. This Comparison is very unsuitable, and smells strongly of Socinianism, as tending to prove that Christ was but a mere Man, and therefore as obvious to Sight as W. P. and G. K. For he makes no more of seeing Christ, then he does of seeing either of these two men: Whereas Christ is called in Scripture, The Mighty God, Isa. 9.6. King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Rev. 19.16. whom no man hath seen, NOR CAN SEE, 1 Tim. 6.16.  
Upon this Passage T. Plant makes a Marginal Note in these words; Note, That this Opinion of the Quakers, that Christ was not seen with Carnal Eyes, is laid down by them in Opposition to the Priests& false Ministers, as they call them[ Do ye Baptists then own the Priests to be True Ministers now? Sure I am ye did not use to do so formerly. Or do ye only fawn on them, that they may assist you in your War against us?] But ( says he) if W. P's and G. K's Distinction be good, then they make their Friends to fight with the Air: For who doth he oppose? since never any was so idle us to preach that the Divine Nature was ever seen with Carnal Eyes: So that either they make their Friends writ vainly, or else their Distinction is here impertinent.  
observe. Here I observe, that the same time, while the Baptist's contend that Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes; they also say, that the Divine Nature was never seen with Carnal Eyes; thereby divesting Christ of the Divine Nature, and representing him no other then a mere Man. That thou mayst see, Reader, that this is indeed the Consequence of their Assertion, let me cast it into the Form of an Argument thus: 

If the Divine Nature was not seen with Carnal Eyes, then the Manhood only was seen with Carnal Eyes:  
But the Divine Nature was not seen with Carnal Eyes;  
Therefore the Manhood only was seen with Carnal Eyes.    
I do not see that the Consequence of the first Proposition can be excepted against: The second is their own Assertion, and the Conclusion natural. Let us see what the Issue will be. 

If the Manhood only was seen with Carnal Eyes, and yet Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes, then the Manhood was only Christ:  
But the Manhood only was seen with Carnal Eyes, and yet Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes;  
Therefore the Manhood only was Christ.    
The Consequence of the first Proposition I take to be undeniable: The second is partly the Consequence of the former Argument, and partly their own Assertion: The Conclusion fair and genuine. By this, Reader, thou mayst see what this Assertion of theirs, That Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes, leads unto and issues in, viz. The denial of his Divinity or God-head, and making him but a mere Man.  
Here for an Account of our Carriage that Day, he refers his Reader to a Book, entitled, The Quakers Quibbles, published( he says) by an Ingenuous Indifferent Person.  
I will not say much to it, enough having been said already by another. But if thou thyself, Reader, art an Ingenuous or Indifferent Person, this Justice I desire of thee, that thou wilt conclude nothing against us from that Book, till thou hast red our Answer to it, which bears this Title, The Quakers sauciness detecting Fallacy. Remember that prudent Saying of a Just Heathen. Sen. in Medea. 
Qui statuit aliquid, parte inaudita altera,  
Equum licet statuerit, haud aquus fuit.  Which may bear this English. 
He that, but one Part heard, shall undertake  
An hasty judgement on the whole to make,  
Although his judgement should prove true, yet he  
An Unjust Judge shall still reputed be.   
But I proceed.  
In p. 24. J. Ives proposed a Question, Whether the Human Nature be a Part of the true Christ of God, now in Heaven making Intercession for us? Upon which T. Plant takes an Occasion to abuse us thus:  
Here ( says he) they all sate down as men astonished for a Considerable Time: an Answer was called for again and again, but the Quakers sate speechless. So p. 25. Which was a Wonder to behold Men of their Confidence to be so gravely mute for so long a time together, &c.  
observe. In this they have grossly abused us, and manifestly discovered their own Weakness; for here they would insinuate that we were not able to answer, but sate down like Men, astonished, speechless for a considerable Time, mute for a long Time, &c. And yet J. Ives in his Questions for the Quakers, p. 10. tells his Reader, that We spake mo●…,& spake last. How well these will hang together let the Reader judge. But besides, the Author of the Quakers Quibbles, whom they highly applaud for Ingenuity& Indifferency, tells us upon this very Subject, p. 17. He believes W.P. spake above a Thousand Words( which was far enough from being mute and speechless) and p. 11. he confesses, We cried out to be heard. And not without Cause: For indeed J. Ives had cunningly raised such a Noise and Clamour, that it was impossible for us, while that remained, to be distinctly heard; but so soon as our Importunity had obtained Silence, we plainly and fully confessed to, and acknowledged the Holy Manhood of Christ.  
After the Relation of the first Meeting is ended, T. Plant goes on, to give his Reader an Account of some Letters that past between them and us, in Order to a second, Introductory to which he writes thus, After this( not hearing from them( i.e. the Quakers) and considering the Unlikelyhood of ever coming to a right Understanding each of other, &c.  
observe. Hence, Reader, observe the horrible Injustice of these Men towards us. Tho. Hicks had long before, in three Books successively charged us, That We render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more authority then the Fables of aesop: That the Blood of Christ in our Esteem, is worse then the Blood of a common Thief: That the Quakers have discovered themselves to be no other but the Spawn of that wicked Brood the Ranters, having licked up their Vomit: That the Quakers owning Jesus Christ is indeed no other then a mere Mystical Romance: That the Tendency of all the Quakers Reasoning about Instituted Religion, is to debauch Mankind: That our Principles improved, are destructive to all human Society: That we are Cheats, Impostors, Lyar●, influenced by the Devil, the Devils Slaves, inspired by that grand Impostor, the Devil, implacable Enemies to the Christian Religion, as vile Impostors as ever were, and much more of the same Nature. The Baptists being appealed to for Justice herein, acquit him. Being drawn ( with much ado) to debate it in a public Assembly, T. Hicks there also says, I do not yet see Reason to abate them one Word: And both he and J. Ives there affirm, That the Quakers are no Christians. And yet after all this they are so blind as to confess, They are not yet come to a Right Understanding of us. Had they not a right Understanding of us, and yet would at a Venture thus represent us! O dishonest and malicious Minds! And indeed that this was their Design ( viz.) to traduce, reproach, calumniate us at any rate how false soever( like those of old complained of by the Prophet, Report, say they, and we will Report, Jer. 20.10.) take one Instance more out of this Book of their own, pag. 64. where at the last Meeting, which was on the 16th of October past, J. Ives confesseth he had not red T. Hicks's Books, nor W. Penn's, until the Night before, which was the 15th; and yet the same Jeremy appeared publicly in Defence of T. Hicks, whom we had charged with Forgeries) and to prove us No Christians, on the 9th of October, which was about a Week before: So that he first charged us to be No Christians, and then a Week after red our Books, to see whether we were so, or no. By these Instances, Reader, thou mayst judge, how Honestly we have been dealt with by them.  
In their Letter of October 21. pag. 26. They writ thus, But forasmuch that in public Meetings, Tumults and Noises happen, AND WE KNOW NOT WHERE TO LAY THE BLAME, &c. yet in their very next Letter, dated October 14. pag. 30. they writ thus, All which is drowned and lost in the Acclamations and Exclamations of such a populous& numerous Assembly, as by the late Instance of Barbican too much appears, ESPECIALLY ON YOUR PART TOO APPARENTLY.  
And pag. 36. they writ thus, Again they( meaning the Quakers) are troubled that the Rudeness of the Barbican Meeting should be reflected on them: DID THEY NOT DESERVE IT? Yea, was it not APPARENT to every impartial Person there present?  
Observe, Reader, how they can Say and Un-say, Blow Hot and could with the same Breath: Yer now they knew not where to lay the Blame; Now all on a sudden, 'tis We deserve it, 'twas too apparently on our part, yea 'twas apparent to every impartial Person present. How chance then it was not apparent to those five wise Men that subscribed that Letter, wherein they say, The knew not where to lay it? Was it, because ●… ey were Partial? Thou seest, Reader, ho● these Men play fast and loose. Surely, if they regarded to speak the plain and naked Truth of things, they could not thus thwart and contradict themselves; but having devoted themselves, to Defame us Right or Wrong, they are justly left to discover their own Folly.  
Their Propositions to avoid a public Meeting, were dated Octob. 12. We return'd them an Answer dated the 13th. On the 14th they writ us another, wherein they complain thus, Instead of answering our Proposals, you sand to us, without taking the LEAST NOTICE of ours; but wholly WAVING so much as the MENTION of them.  
observe. To manifest the falseness of this Reflection, I will desire the Reader but to cast his Eye on the very first Period of our Letter, as they have printed it, p. 28. which begins thus,  
We received your PROPOSALS dated Octob. 12. which admit of so much Delay, for the Prosecution of our Charges against T. Hicks, as we cannot yield unto, nor will our Occasions permit such a tedious Attendence; as also we do not perceive, that you intend Justice against Th. Hicks in your new Propositions( a private Meeting not being answerable to ●… s public Injuries) however, there remains a ●… y for it.  
Judge now, Reader, whether this was not taking the least notice of their Proposals, but wholly waving so much as the mention of them; whenas, in this very Letter, we tell them, we received their Proposals, and except against them in general, as too dilatory; in particular, as offering a private Meeting instead of a public; and yet they have the Confidence here to tell us, that we took not the least Notice of them, but wholly waved so much as the mention of them. Who could have believed these men would have dealt so dishonestly, if they had not given it us under their own hands?( for the Letter is subscribed by Tho. Paul, Tho. Plant, Jer. Ives, Jos. Morton) And Jer. Ives, with no less Confidence, then if he had really believed it to be true, affirmed the same thing over and over at the last Meeting( viz.) That we took No Notice of their Proposals, nor of their Letter wherein the Proposals were, pag. 41, 42. What men, I say, not of Worthy Minds ( for that I never expected in them) but of Common Honesty among men, would deal thus basely with their Adversaries! Surely, one would think, that an Habit of speaking falsely, had made them forget at all to speak True.  
Their Animadversions upon our Letter deserve not much Consideration; therefore I will but cursorily run over them, and here and there touch some particular Passages.  
They say, p. 35. Our Denying the Lord's Christ will be proved, when we are free to submit to an Orderly Meeting.( And this is spoken in Opposition to a public Meeting.)  
observe. But if Meetings are Disorderly because public, then themselves are guilty of having appointed the first Disorderly Meeting at Barbican: They did not think that Meeting at all too public or disorderly, to Traduce, Slander and Rail against us in; but when we call them to an Account for their Impieties, O then, Let that be private, cry they; for public Meetings are Disorderly.  
But that they might cast the Rudeness of the Barbican. Meeting upon the Quakers, they say, pag. 36. Was there not a deep Silence when any of them spake; whereas on the other side, if any were speaking, what a Noise and Clamour was there?  
observe. Though this Insinuation be maliciously designed, yet it is too weakly and shallowly laid to do us any harm; for it is observable, that for all the deep Silence when the Quakers spake, Tho. Plant's Relation of that Meeting gives but about Sixteen Lines in all of what all the Quakers said there; and yet, notwithstanding the Noise and Clamour, that he says, was made when any of the Baptists spoke, he gives us no less then Seven Pages of one entire continued Discourse made by Tho. Hicks( who yet they say, had but a Weak Voice) Surely, one would think their Notary had long Ears, which he pricked up attentively when T. Hicks spake( else could it hardly have been possible, from a Low Voice, so punctually to have penned so large a Sermon amid so great Rudeness, Tumults, Noises, Clamours, Acclamations and Exclamations, as T. Plant says, were there made) but that he stopped his Ears, or was fallen into a deep Sleep, when any of the Quakers spake, else questionless he might have picked up above Sixteen Lines in so deep a Silence, as is said to attend their Speech.  
Tho. Plant goes on, pag. 35. Further, they are pleased to say, They were Treacherously Betrayed into a Multitude, without equal Place. If( says he) by Them, they mean them that subscribed the Letter now under Consideration, then what they say, is manifestly untrue, forasmuch as they had the best Place in that Meeting.  
observe. This is artificially and colourably spoken, to beguile an unwary Reader; but it must not pass so. Our Complaint consisted of two parts; one, That we were betrayed into a Multitude; the other, That we had not Equal Place and Fair Treatment( though this latter part he hath dropped, as being perhaps conscious to himself, that we were not fairly treated by them) He concludes the whole untrue, and grounds his Conclusion on such a Reason, as, if itself were true, could yet at most extend but to a part. This Conclusion I reject, as fallacious; for, supposing ( not granting) what he says to be true, that we had the best Place, yet it will not thence follow, that we were not betrayed into a Multitude, before we possessed that Place. If therefore it appear, that we were so Betrayed, then what he is pleased to call manifestly untrue, will( I hope) be granted to be manifestly true. That we were indeed so Betrayed, and that by Tho. Plant himself, on whose solemn Word we relied, I offer this short Account of that Transaction to the Reader's Consideration.  
A little before the Hour appointed for the Meeting to begin, those Friends of ours, who were more particularly concerned in that Day's Business, were met together at George Watt's House, being as near the Meeting-Place as conveniently they could, and understanding that the Throng in the Streets and Alleys was great, it was judged advisable to sand some to the Baptists( who were also at a Friends House of theirs not far off) to desire them, That inasmuch as the Meeting-Place was their own, and consequently the Command of the Doors in their Power, we might not be surprised by their sudden opening of the Doors without Warning, and thereby be exposed to the Labour and Difficulty of Pressing through the crowd to the Place which they assigned for us. Three of our Friends, namely, William Mead, John Osgood and Theophilus Green, went unto them with this Message, and delivered it amongst divers of them: Whereunto Thomas Plant himself returned an Answer to this purpose; Tell your Friends, I myself will come to them, and will bring them in at the Back-Door of the Meeting-House, and will see them seated in the Gallery that is appointed for them, before the People are let in. Upon this Promise of his we relied, thinking that in a Matter of no greater Moment, we might have been secure in Tho. Plant's Word: But it proved far otherwise; for, before he gave us Notice, the Doors were set open, and the People let in; so that when we came there, we found not only the Galleries round about filled, but the Room itself below so thronged, that we had much ado to press in so far as the Bottom of those Stairs that lead up to the Gallery; and the Stairs themselves were so beset, that it was not without very great Difficulty( and some Danger) that we at length obtained the Place.  
Judge now( Reader) whether we were not Betrayed into a Multitude; and whether Thomas Plant, of all men, had any Reason to quarrel with us, for modestly and privately complaining of this Treachery, when he himself was the man by whom we were Betrayed.  
Now as to the second part of our Complaint, which concerns Equal Place, &c. that is also true: For beside their Gallery( which seemed much larger then that which was assigned for us) they had a spacious Pulpit also( capable of receiving Three of their Speakers at a time) from whence their Voices might much better reach the Auditory, and where they stood undisturbed( till their Fear of its falling made them fly out of it) and secured from the Croudings and Pressings of others: Whereas the Gallery allotted us, was a very strait and Narrow Place, scarce capable( I judge) of receiving Twenty Persons, though extremely thronged, and as it were, wedged together.  
Again. pag. 36. Tho. Plant goes on thus, But they adventure unjust too, in declining the Subject to be proved. Herein( says he) they Err; for whatever of Fault there was of this kind, it most properly reflects on themselves; for we would have kept to it, but they declined it.  
observe. In this( Reader) we are greatly abused, which that I may fully demonstrate, I beg thy Patience, if hereupon I a little dilate my Discourse, because the true opening and right stating of this Particular will conduce much to the Discovery of their Shuffling, and unfair Dealing with us, in the management of this controversy; this being indeed the very Hinge whereon they play and turn, and whereby they have endeavoured to turn us off, and divert us from pursuing our Charge of FORGERY against their Brother Hicks.  
Tho. Hicks writ a Book under the Title of A Dialogue; in which he represents two Persons discoursing together, to one of which he gives the Name Christian, to the other the Name Quaker: In this Dialogue he says, is faithfully represented some of the Chief and Most Concerning Opinions of the Quakers; together with their Method and Manner of Reasoning in Defence thereof: and this was not said to be composed or written, but only published by T. H. By which Artifice the unwary Reader was to be beguiled( and many were) into a persuasion, that this Dialogue was( not a mere Fiction of T. H's own devising, but) a real and true Discourse, that had actually passed between two such Persons, in the hearing of T. H. and that what they had really spoken he had only published. And indeed, what Reader, that did not well weigh the Inconsistency of the Answers to the Principle of the Person, but might easily have been deceived by such a Stratagem. T. H. finding that this took with some, shortly after emits a second of the same import: Both these were answered by William pen, in a Book called, Reason against Railing; and Thomas Hicks therein detected of Forgery, Perversion, Lying, Slandering, &c. He( as one of those whom the Apostle said, would wax worse and worse, 2 Tim. 3.13.) adds to his former Two a Third, wherein he attempts to justify his former( for Scelere velandum est scelus, said the tragedian of old) This also was answered by William pen in another Book, called, The Counterfeit Christian Detected; wherein T. H's former Forgeries and Perversions were fixed a little faster on him, and divers of his new ones added: In this Book an Appeal was made to the Baptists for Justice against T. H. and it was expressed particularly under those two Heads of Forgery and Perversions; the words are these, pag. 28. With you the People called Anabaptists, I leave this Section( which is the Section of Forgery) Right us, Right yourselves; Right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary, and yourselves of so scandalous an Advocate. Then again, in pag. 40. 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.  
Upon this Appeal, the Baptists take an Opportunity to call T. Hicks to an Account( as they say) those Friends of ours who were most immediately concerned being absent. They procure a Meeting as public as they could: There T. Hicks is set forth to Traduce, Reproach and Misrepresent us to the People, which done the Baptists acquit him. We complain of this unfair and unjust Proceeding, demand a public Meeting, where we also may be present to exhibit and make good our Charge of Forgery, &c. against T. Hicks. We are long delayed; at length with Difficulty prevail. We meet; our Charge is red, the first Article whereof is this, A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker[ yet made by T. Hicks] viz. wherein( saith he) is faithfully represented some of the chief and most concerning Opinions of the Quakers, together with their Method and Manner of Reasoning in Defence thereof; published for common Benefit.  
In this Article we charge Tho. Hicks with Forgery: 1. In calling that a Dialogue, which is not a real Dialogue, but a Fiction of his own devising 2. In calling that a Quaker, which is not a Quaker. 3. In calling that a Christian, which is not a Christian. 4. In affirming that some of the chief and most concerning Opinions of the Quakers, together with their Method and Manner of Reasoning in Defence thereof is, faihfully represented, whenas they are most falsely and abusively represented. This pinches them hard, perplexes them much, and they must seek about for some Meuse to escape through, else here they are sure to be caught; for all the Art and Strength they have, can never defend this Position. First then they trifle a while about the Nature of a Dialogue; but finding no Safety for them there, they betake themselves to another Refuge: For, says T. Hicks in his long Answer, p. 18. If it be, that I have opposed the Christian to the Quaker, &c. I SUPPOSE 'tis this they account most Criminal. Well, but admit T. Hicks had forgot the Maxim, That Supposition proves nothing; yet, what Reason can be offered why he should insist on this Supposition( much less, why we should be concluded by it) when we plainly tell him, he is under a Mistake, and his Supposition is false: for though his naming a Quaker in Opposition to a Christian, be a sufficient Indication of his malicious Mind; yet we tell him, we do not account that his greatest Crime, inasmuch as we know, that neither the Christian nor the Quaker whom he hath opposed, are Realities, but Phantasms of his own Imagination. But this we tell him, is that which we account most Criminal, viz. his Forgeries, Perversions, lies, Slanders, &c. by which he hath abused, and most dishonestly misrepresented our Faith and Principles to the World.  
But say they, This Opposing the Christian to the Quaker, is the first Article of your Charge. So saith J. Ives in the Relation of the last Meeting frequently, and in pag. 49. especially, where T. Plant also asserts the same, and takes upon him thus to prove it; This( saith he) being the first Article of his Charge, for is not this the first Article of his Charge,& c? Was not this( by the way) learnedly argued? However, it was as learnedly answered; for he makes the People cry, Yes, Yes: not considering the Perplexity he puts his Reader into, to bethink, how the People should come to know it, whenas the Baptists would not suffer it to be red, as themselves confess, pag. 62, 71.  
But we deny that this is the first Article of the Charge. Who now, judicious Reader, ought to have the Examination, the Explanation, the Stating, the Opening of our Charge, we that made it, or he and they against whom it was made? One would think, in Reason they might give us Leave to be so far Masters of our own Charge, as to insist on what part of it we please,& to lay the Stress where we see good. But, if they will not be( as indeed we seldom find they are) ruled by Reason, let us yet see if they will stand to their own Agreement, according as they themselves have set it down, pag. 11. of their Relation. In the second Proviso it is thus expressed, That upon OUR Examination of each Particular T. Hicks be permitted to give his direct Answer, &c. This they aclowledge they consented to, pag. 13. Judge now, indifferent Reader, whether by their own Agreement( as well as in Reason& Justice) it did not belong to us to determine what the first Article of the Charge was, and where the Stress of it should ly.  
Thus far, Reader, I have traveled backward, to help thee to a right Understanding what was the Ground and Occasion of our Appealing to the Baptists for Justice, what the prime Intention( at least on our parts) of those public Meetings between them and us, and what was indeed and in Truth the pro[er Subject to have been there debated and discussed, viz. The 
Forgery, Lying and false Quotations they themselves in pag 4 of T. Plant's Relation do aclowledge to be that which be complan'd of, that which we appealed to the Baptists about, and that which they appointed their Meeting to hear and examine.  Forgeries, Perversions, lies, Slanders, &c. which had been written and published by T. Hicks to defame our Principles, Practices and Persons. Now, that thou mayst be fully satisfied that it was They declined this Subject, not We, I refer thee to their own Relation, pag. 49, 56, 60. &c. which abundantly prove it against them; but especially those words of J. Ives in the Postscript, p. 110. It is observable( saith he) that most of the Time spent in the two Dayes Conference was, to prevail upon them to hear our Arguments, to prove, they were no Christians & that their Ministers were Cheats and Impostors( which was not the Subject to be proved) This is so clear an Evidence against them, and for us, that we could not have wished a clearer, to manifest how industriously they declined the Subject, how closely we adhered to it, and how hardly we were drawn from it.  
I should now have done with this Particular, but for a Passage or two relating to it, which I am not willing wholly to pretermit, nor can so properly speak to in any other place. The first is in p. 70. of their Relation, where T. Plant doth with so high a Confidence, maintain a manifest falsehood, that it makes me fear, the man ( as well as his Cause) is grown Desperate. The Occasion of his Speech was this, W. pen prest hard to come to the Proof of our Charge of Forgery; whereupon T. Plant answered him thus, Do not thus abuse the Auditory; for I will show you here out of your own Book, that the first Complaint against T. Hicks is for this thing, viz. for writing a Dialogue, and opposing the Quaker to a Christian, and therefore do not study Evasions; it is not only, because under the Dialogue is couched Forgery( Oh! Is there so? how then dare ye protect, him in it? Why study ye these Shifts& Evasions to shelter him from a just Stroke?) but also, because he opposeth a Christian to a Quaker, and therefore you call it one of his scurrilous Invectives, that T. Hicks should be the Man of all other, that should take upon him to un-Christian you, who is not only( as you say) Unjust in doing so, but excessively embittered against you, and that leads the Ran of the Charge( viz.) for writing a Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, and your great Complaint against T. Hicks is, for that he opposeth a Christian to a Quaker. This is the first, both in your Book, and the Charge exhibited against him, &c.  
Now, Reader, I desire thee to observe, that T. P. doth here positively affirm, that T. H's Opposing the Quaker to the Christian, is the first Complaint in W. Penn's Book against T. Hicks. That this is most notoriously false, I refer thee, Reader, to that very Book of W. Penn's, called, Reason against Railing, where in pag. 170. thou shalt find those words which T. Plant hath referred to, viz. Scurrilous Invectives, excessively embittered, &c.( though he hath basely misreported them to serve his Design) and then turn back to p. 143. thou shalt find T. Hicks's Perversions complained of. Then p. 154. A Collection of his great lies. And in p. 158. His Forgeries detected. So that the Complaint against T. Hicks's Perversions is no less then 27 pages before those scurrilous Invectives mentioned by T. Plant, where he says, the Quaker is opposed to the Christian; and yet the man is so past all shane, as to affirm( and that too publicly in Print) that this Opposing the Quaker to the Christian is the first Complaint in the Book. Oh! what is not that Man liable to, who hath prostituted his Conscience and Understanding to his Interest.  
The next thing, Reader, that I would briefly touch is this, The Appeal made to them, related only to matter of Fact. This they themselves confess in their Letter to J. Osgood, dated 23. Aug. 174. and printed in a Book of theirs, called, The Quakers Appeal answered, Epist. pag. 7. Their words are these: However, since the Matter depending before us, is ONLY matter of Fact, and NOT of Dispute, &c. This I hope, is plain enough. But when, upon our meeting them at Barbican, they found themselves unable to defend matter of Fact,( though before they had publicly approved it, and justified T. Hicks therein, which they not only tell the World in the Epistle before mentioned, but also confess as much in a Letter prefixed to T. Plant's Relation, pag. 4. where they say, We are fully satisfied, that in all those 
This leaves room enough to count all his other Forgeries and Wrongs( couched under the Dialogue) Immaterial or small things.  material things then insisted upon, T. H. has done them no Wrong: then I say, in their Letter of the 14th Octob. in Answer to ours concerning another Meeting, they express themselves thus, p. 29. We gave you a sufficient Proof, and are ready to evidence it to all men, of our Forwardness to proceed in the full Examination and trial of whatsoever you have charged on T. H. about the matter contained in his Dialogues; and there withal an exact trial& Disquisition of your Tenets, whether consistent with the true Christian Religion, or not. I might very well ask them, By what Authority they would take this upon them? and why we may not, with as good Reason, examine and try theirs? But my Aim is more particularly here to show, That finding themselves pinched, and hard be set to defend T. H.( and themselves as his Abettors) in matter of Fact( which themselves confess, was the ONLY thing depending before them) they designedly and craftily interweave and twist in Matters of Dispute( which they also confess, did NOT depend before them) that thereby, if it were possible, they might twist themselves out of those Perplexities, wherein they found themselves entangled, about matter of Fact.  
I come now to make some few Observations on their Relation of the 2d Meeting, wherein though I find many things false, and many things frivolous; yet I think it not worth either my own or my Reader's While, to take notice of every Impertinency and trifling Conceit, wherewith they have endeavoured to varnish over their Relation: Some few Passages however, of those that seem most material, I will give the Reader a short view of, by which he may take a measure of the rest. And I will begin with J. Ives's Definition of a Christian, pag 58. His words are these:  
All men that seriously believe in the Lord Christ, that was crucified for the Sins of men, and is now ascended into Glory; They that believe this, and comform to his Laws, where ever they live; we say, they are good Christians, whatsoever Names or Appellations are given to them in this unhappy Age we live in.  
observe. This Definition of a Christian hath two parts: The one contains certain Articles to be believed; the other, A Conformity to Christ's Laws. By the first, The Pope may be as good a Christian as Jeremy himself, for ought I see; for he believes as much concerning the Lord Christ, as Jeremy here expresseth: And if by the second, viz. Conformity to Christ's Laws, he respect the Manner of comforming, as well as the Matter to be conformed to, then Jeremy plainly equivocats, while he seems to admit others to be Christians besides the Anabaptists; for no other People agree with them in the Manner of Conformity, nor they indeed one with another: So that then, not only all others are excluded from any Share in Christianity but even themselves too. But if on the other hand he respect the Matter conformed to, and not the Manner of comforming, the Papists then will be his good Christians still; sith they omit nothing which even he accounts Duty, but perform it in a different Mode.  
He goes on, p. 61. thus: If T. Hicks or I can prove, that you are no Christians,— then is there very good Reason to believe that your Professing Religion and Christianity, and owning the Scriptures, is all but out of sinister Ends, and all your Sufferings are idle and vain; and this may be the Reason, why you deny a future State; for all these are the Consequences of this antecedent Proposition, that you are no Christians.  
observe. Two things I observe here: A foul Insinuation, and a false Conclusion. The Insinuation is, That we deny a future State. This, Jeremy, I charge upon thee as a notorious falsehood and malicious Slander; and I put thee upon the Proof thereof, acquit thyself as thou canst.  
The Conclusion is, That, If T. Hicks or J. Ives can prove, that we are no Christians, then there is very good Reason to believe that our professing Religion and Christianity, and owning the Scriptures, is all but out of sinister Ends, &c. This is false logic, Jeremy! Thy Conclusion is Inconclusive; thy Consequence, a Non sequitur. If it were possible for T.H. or thee, to prove us no Christians( which all the subtlety of the Serpent can never do) yet would it not thence follow, That our professing Religion and Christianity, and owning the Scriptures, is all but out of sinister Ends. There is no Good Reason, much less Charity, so to believe. How many at this Day do zealously profess Religion and Christianity, and own the Scriptures, and that too without any sinister Ends, who yet ( alas!) are far enough from being true Christians! What sinister Ends had those ignorant Athenians, who worshipped the Unknown God, yet were no true Worshippers? But if all these be the Consequences of this Antecedent( as thou sayst) then surely thy Brother Hicks hath set the Cart before the Horse( as the Proverb is) for he makes that the Antecedent, which thou makest the Consequence; and that the Consequent, which thou makest the Antecedent. I hope you'l see that one of you at least, is beside the Mark ( though I see you are both) and endeavour to understand yourselves, before you fall upon others.  
Had Jeremy looked but a few Lines lower, he might have seen himself confuting an Argument, as like this as may be. They make W. P to say, I will prove the Book fictitious, and if I do so, then you are no Christians; and consequently, We are Christians. Jeremy straight replies, That's false logic; for that Book may be fictitious, and yet you may be no Christians for all that. 'tis false logic indeed( and a false Relation too; for W. pen never so argued) but yet it is as good logic as that which Jeremy offered but now. Would one not wonder his Wits should be so quick and acute all on a sudden, which were so obtuse and dull but just before!  
In p. 88. T. Plant inserts a Marginal Note, wherein his Ignorance is worth our noting. Mark Reader, says he, here G. K. gives away the Cause; for he saith, W. P. doth not impose it upon others, nor hath a Call from the Lord to impose it upon others, or require others to believe that he is a Christian, and hath immediate Inspiration, &c. Surely( adds he) if this be true, it is no Crime for Mr. Ives to say, he is no Christian, &c.  
observe. It seems then( in T. Plant's Sense) if a Man profess himself a Christian, and doth not impose the Belief thereof upon others, nor hath a Call from the Lord to require others to believe that he is a Christian, he gives away his Cause, and it is no Crime to say he is no Christian: What thinkest thou, Reader, is not this fine arguing? May I take the Liberty to form such an Argument as this of T. Plant against T. Plant himself, after this Manner? If T. Plant doth not impose upon others, nor hath a Command from the Lord to require others to believe that he is a Christian, then it is no Crime for me to say, that T. Plant is no Christian: But T. Plant doth not impose upon others, nor hath a Command from the Lord to require others to believe that he is a Christian; Therefore it is no Crime for me to say that T. Plant is no Christian. How will T. Plant relish this? will he sit down now contentedly under his own Consequence? If not, let him thank himself for giving the Occasion for it, and learn to deal more discreetly and honestly with his Adversaries hereafter.  
But he goes on; And may not such Men be rejected as idle Impostors, out of their own Mouths? For( I desire thee Reader, to mark his Argument well) if he hath no Call from the Lord, to require Men to believe he is a Christian, as G. K. saith; then surely he hath no Call from the Lord to require Men to believe he is a Minister of Christ: But G. K. saith, W. P. hath no Call from the Lord to require Men to believe he is a Christian; Ergo, it followeth he hath no Call from the Lord to require any to believe he is a Minister, and therefore without Sin may be rejected as an idle Impostor.  
Obs. Here is Ergo upon Ergo, Consequence upon Consequence, Conclusion upon Conclusion ( false Heraldry) Surely, this logic is worth looking into. Ergo, it follows he hath no Call from the Lord, to require any to believe he is a Minister( what then!) And therefore[ that is, because he hath no Call from the Lord to require any to believe he is a Minister; Therefore] without Sin he may be rejected as an idle Impostor: May he so? what says Jeremy to this? Is not this false logic?( for I doubt T. Plant is so young a Logician, that he does not yet know false from true) But consider Reader, how nimbly might T. Plant, at this rate of arguing, have concluded against any of the Holy Apostles, and have turned them off as idle Impostors? For which of them all did take upon him to impose upon his Opposers, or require such to believe that he was a Minister of Christ; but commended themselves to every Man's Conscience in the Sight of God: But I would not insist too long on this Weakness; I will therefore invert T. Plant's Argument upon himself and his own Party, and that not as my own judgement, but Argumentum ad hominem only, whereby both he and they may see, how unfairly they have dealt with us. Take it thus, If the Baptist-Teachers in general have no Call from the Lord to require others to believe that they are Ministers of Christ, then the Baptist-Teachers in general may without Sin be rejected as idle Impostors: But the Baptist-Teachers in general have no Call from the Lord to require others to believe that they are Ministers of Christ; Therefore the Baptist-Teachers in general may without Sin be rejected as Idle Impostors. If this Conclusion seem over hard to any of the Baptists, let them consider, that the Argument is not mine, but formed for Mischief by one of their own, and that I have only turned back the Point of it upon themselves: If therefore they are wounded by their own Weapon, let them not blame me, but remember that of the Poet. 
— Nec lex est justior ulla,  
Quam necis Artifices arte perire suae.  Which I will adventure thus to English: 
Nor can a juster Law then this be made,  
That the Betrayer be himself betrayed;  
And they that for their Neighbors lay a snare  
Be taken in the Gin themselves prepare.   
His next Passage affords another Note, and that denotes his notorious Folly; It is made upon the Maxim, De non apparentibus& non existentibus eadem est ratio; which G. K. denied to hold true in all Cases, and illustrated his Exception by an Example; whereupon T. Plant in his Note says, But it might further be answered, that the Maxim is true in all Cases in matter of Evidence, about which the Maxim in Law is used; for it doth not appear who had the best, the French or the Dutch; therefore, it is not evident.[ O profound Ignorance! as much as if he had said, It doth not appear, therefore it doth not appear] In like manner( says he) it appears not that you have a Rule for your Faith and practise by Inspiration, therefore it is not; that is, it is not evidenced. But prithee Reader, hast thou ever till now learnt a Distinction between, it appears not,& it is not evidenced? Let us then red him in plain English thus, It appears not that you have a Rule for your Faith and practise by Inspiration, therefore it is not; that is, it appears not. It seems then by this he doth not conclude that we have No Rule, but only that our Rule doth not appear; for when he says, it is not, he means only, it is not evidenced; that is, it appears not: So that this doth not at all oppugn our having a Rule; though it abundantly discovers the Weakness of him that writ it; who busily undertaking to explain the Maxim, that which appears not, is not, hath at length most ridiculously brought it to this issue, that the Meaning of it is, that which appears not, appears not; for he makes the Comparison or Parallel to lye between not appearing, and not being evidenced( which are Terms importing the same thing) whereas indeed it ought to lye between not appearing and not existing or being at all. And in this sense it is G. K. denies the Maxim to hold universally true: But enough of this.  
In pag. 92. J. Ives asks this Question, How can any thing be a Rule for a Christian's Faith and practise, that is evident to no Body but only to him that saith so?  
observe. This Question is grounded upon a Mistake at best, supposing us to affirm, that the Rule of every Individual Person is evident to that individual Person only; which Supposition is false: for we affirm, That the Rule of our Faith and practise is evident to every one, who hath received and lives by the same holy Faith, which we have received and live by. But the Question rightly stated is this, Whether every Christian is bound( under the Penalty of Forfeiting his Christianity, and of being reputed an Heathen, Cheat, Impostor) to give an Evidence( such as no Impostor can imitate) of the Rule of his Faith to those who are Strangers to his Faith, or professed Enemies of it? This Question reaches the Case; and I put it closely to Jer. Ives, Tho. Plant, and all the rest of them, to answer plainly and fully; which if they shall do in the Affirmative, I expect their Proof.  
After all the bustle that J. Ives hath made, and all his loud Clamours against us, for an Instance, an Instance, an Evidence, an Evidence, whereby we might prove we have a Rule for our Faith and practise, and consequently that we are Christians,  
He now tells us, pag. 101. That the Design of his Argument was not to prove, that men could not be Christians without extraordinary external Evidence.  
observe. What a Noise and Stir has he made all this while to prove, that he that cannot give an Extraordinary External Evidence( such too as no Impostor can imitate) is No Christian! And yet he now plainly grants, that men may be Christians without any Extraordinary External Evidence. Thus, like A DRUNKEN MAN, he REELS to and fro, in and out, up and down, one while affirming one thing, another while quiter the contrary.  
And indeed, he that will take the Pains to trace Jeremy but through that very Relation, which themselves have published, will find him frequently tripping in his Talk, his Discourse Contradictory and Inconsistent with itself; his Answers interfering and thwarting one another: for instance, pag. 49. Jeremy says, We say it again, that his first Charge is for writing a Dialogue, and Opposing a Christian to a Quaker; and his first Charge is NOT for Forgery: So pag. 56. W.P. says The first Article is for Forgery; J. Ives says, It is NOT; but for writing a Dialogue, and Opposing the Quaker to the Christian: Again, pag. 60. W. P. offers to prove T. Hicks a Forger; J. Ives answers, This is NO PART of your Charge. In these three Instances Jeremy stoutly and boldly affirms, that Forgery is NO PART of the Charge; but that the first Charge is for Opposing a Quaker to a Christian, and NOT for Forgery. Let us now see what he says, pag. 68. his words are these: I say, this is ONE PART or piece of the FORGERY that they accuse him of, to suppose and suggest that the Quakers are no Christians. Here he has overturned all he said before. Now he confesses Forgery is not only in the Charge, but in the first Article too. Thus, Reader, thou hast heard him say, and say, and say again; and presently after unsay it all. Now thou shalt hear him unsay this too, and return to his former Note again; pag. 71. A Stranger prest that we might have Liberty to prove our Charge of Forgery; Jer. Ives takes him up thus, Forgery, Sir, is NOT the first Article, as you have heard once and again. Judge now, Reader, whether this man either considers, remembers, understands or regards what he says, who so palpably and frequently contradicts himself.  
Nor doth this befall him in the more loose part of his Discourse only, but in the argumentative part also, which strictly to examine, and particularly to insist on, might of itself fill a larger Treatise then I design this to be; so false are Jeremy's Arguments, so lame and unconcluding his Conclusions: One while he alters the State of the Question; another while he changes the Terms of his Argument: Sometimes what is praedicated in his first Proposition, is either wholly omitted, or otherwise repeated in his second. Of this enough may be seen in pag. 87, 88. where first the Term praedicated is, CAN( If W.P. hath any Rule, &c. he CAN give some Evidence, &c.) By and by an Occasion is taken to repeat his Argument, and then from CAN 'tis drawn to OUGHT; anon OUGHT is slipped aside, and MUST is thrust in in the room of. One while the Proposition runs thus: If W. P. hath any immediate Inspiration, &c. then he hath something by which he Can evidence to himself AND to us, &c. and then the Assumption is thus; But he hath nothing by which he can evidence this to himself NOR to us. Here instead of the Copulative[ AND] they have put in the Disjunctive[ NOR] which not only mars the Argument; but renders Jeremy's Business harder, which was but too hard for him before: for by the Minor of this Argument, he undertakes to prove, that W. P. hath nothing by which he can evidence to himself that he is no Impostor, &c. But I doubt in this particular, the Baptists have dealt hardly with their Champion, to involve him in such an inextricable Difficulty, after they had spent near two Months time, in licking their Relation into its present Form. But of this part of it, let this suffice, to give the Reader a Taste only of Jeremy's Arguments; for I design not here a particular Examination of them, both as that is beside the Intention of this Treatise, and as it would be in some respects, a supervacaneous Work; this Manner of Arguing being some degrees, beyond the ordinary Understanding of the Vulgar, and to them that are skilled and exercised in it, the Defects will of themselves be obvious enough, without any Animadversion: Wherefore leaving this, I proceed to take notice of another of Tho. Plant's Notes, which I find in p. 101. thus expressed, And this Rule ought to be evidenced to be from Heaven Antecedaneously to the Observation of it, &c.  
observe. Herein our Annotator falls short( in my judgement) of expressing himself intelligibly: I inquire therefore of him, To whom this Rule ought thus to be evidenced; Whether it ought to be evidenced to them that Observe it, or to them that despise or reject it? If he will say, It ought to be evidenced to them that observe it antecedaneously to their Observation of it, we herein agree; for we affirm, it is so evidenced to us: But if he will say, It ought to be evidenced to them that despise and reject it, antecedaneously to his Observation who doth receive it, observe it, and is to give that Evidence of it, then he plunges himself into as fond an Absurdity, as he could easily have run into; for his Sense will be plainly this, That if I profess to have a Rule for my Faith and practise, by Immediate Inspiration, I ought to evidence to him who denies and rejects it, that this Rule of mine is from Heaven, before I myself have walked by it, or made any Observation of it. A Position so ridiculous, that it was sit only for T. Plant to publish, who has the worst luck in writing Notes, of any Man that I have red.  
But says J. Ives p. 100. You may soon have as much Evidence as we for Immediate Inspiration; for we never pretended to it, as a Rule for our Faith and practise, in the Christian Religion.  
observe. If by WE he intends the whole People called Baptists, he speaks untruly; for many of them did formerly own the Teachings and Guidance of the Spirit, and asserted it in their Writings: But if he restrain his WE to those of them who are concerned in the present controversy with us, I must then say unto him and them, O how are ye degenerated from your Ancestors in Religion! How different is a Baptist now, from what a Baptist then was! Were not your Predecessors called in Derision Enthusiasts ( as ye now call us) because they then contended for( that which you now deny, viz.) The Divine Teachings and Immediate Assistance of the Holy Spirit, in their Preaching and ex tempore Praying? Were they not called Gifted Brethren, from their affirming, they had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Look back into Dr. Featly's Book, called, DIPPERS dipped, printed in the Year, 1645. Turn over R. Capenter's Book, entitled THE ANABAPTIST washed AND washed, AND SHRUNK IN THE WASHING, and see if these Things were not so: But these perhaps you will say, were your Adversaries; therefore I will put you in Mind of some of your Brethren: red Edward Barber's DISCOVERY OF THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL( printed Anno 1645. Look into Daniel King's WAY TO SION, wherein he affirms, That by the MOTION OF THE SPIRIT he that is called to be a Minister, may and ought to Baptize as well as Preach, p. 89. Examine T. Collier's Works, particularly his MARROW OF CHRISTIANITY, and his EPISTLE TO ALL THE SAINTS; in which last he says( chap. 12. p. 52.) The Spirit of God, who is God, is the ALONE RULE of a spiritual Christian. Peruse Samuel How's Treatise, entitled, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SPIRIT'S TEACHING, &c. wherein he will tell you, p. 21. That the Glory of Christ's Doctrine is, that it is of the SPIRIT'S TEACHING: for when ( adds he) we behold the Glory of the Lord in the most perfect Measure, so as we are changed thereinto from Glory to Glory; yet ALL IS FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD, seeing that he is the promised Comforter, that is to TEACH US ALL GOOD THINGS belonging to our Perfection.  
Examine these Quotations,& call to mind the former Dayes, and then tell me, whether ye have not herein denied the Testimonies of your Brethren, who so honestly asserted, and zealously contended for the inward Working, Teaching& Guidance of the holy Spirit, which you now disdainfully and contemptuously reject. Many other Testimonies, of this kind, I could add; but I forbear, in Hopes of a future Opportunity to expostulate this Case a little more fully with you: At this time therefore, I will only add the judgement of William Kiffin, a Man of no mean Repute amongst you, and now living; He, in his Postscript to Sam. How's forementioned Book, expressed himself thus, But my Intent in writing this Hard Word ( which respected some Hardship& Ignominy the Author had undergone)' is not to commend the Author, but to tender to thy Review the matter of this foregoing Book, the Bent thereof is, to advance the TEACHINGS OF THE SPIRIT of Christ, in the Unfolding of the Mystery of the Gospel to the Hearts of Men, as the CHOICE REVEALER of that Glory of Truth to the Soul, which will change from Glory to Glory into its own Likeness, a TRUTH much opposed by MEN OF CORRUPT MINDS in this Day. Thus far W. Kiffin about 20 Years ago: From which, Reader, thou mayst observe, That they who opposed the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ in the Unfolding of the Mystery of the Gospel to the Hearts of men, as the choice Revealer of the Glory of Truth to the Soul, were by W. Kiffin accounted and called Men of corrupt Minds at that Day: What manner of Minds he and his Brethren now have, who so confidently oppose and furiously contend against this Truth at this Day, I leave to thee to infer.  
In p. 102. W.P. tells them, That the Martyrs in Q. Marys Dayes, had the Testimony of the Lord within them, and though they could not dispute for their Religion, yet they could burn and suffer for it. To this J. Ives answers, But they were no Quakers( what if they were not called Quakers? He will grant they were Christians, and that is enough; for the Consequence is plain, that they who have the Inward Testimony of the Lord within them, are true Christians, though they give no external Evidence of it) Here again T. Plant calls upon his Reader to note; Note, Reader( says he) how these Men can own the Martyrs in Q. Marys Dayes for Christians, and yet in these Dayes own none to be Christians but themselves, is a Paradox.  
observe. First, I put him to prove who of us hath said, we own none to be Christians, but ourselves. Next, I say, that if that should be supposed, yet it would be no Paradox at all. And I ask T. Plant whether or no the Protestants, when first they protested against the Church of Rome, might not have said, that they owned the Apostles and primitive Church to be Christians; but yet that they owned none in the Dayes wherein themselves lived to be Christians but themselves, and this without any Paradox at all?  
He goes on thus, Did the Martyrs in Q. Marys Dayes pretend to Immediate Inspiration for the Rule of their Faith and practise? if not, what a grand Piece of Impertinency is it to name them upon this Occasion, who pretended to no other Rule for their Faith and practise, then the Holy Scriptures?  
observe. They did pretend to Immediate Inspiration, and yet were no Impostors neither. John Bradford, a Man eminent amongst them, both for his Piety and Learning, in his Answer to the Arch-Bishop of York, says thus, Martyrol. 3. Vol. 3. p. 296. We do believe and know 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 spake them. Hence it is evident, that the Holy Spirit, or Divine Inspiration, was the Rule of this Godly Martyr's Faith, even concerning the Scriptures themselves And John Philpot another Godly and Learned Martyr, having in the Beginning of his Bible written this Sentence, Spiritus est vicarius Christi in terris. i. e. The Spirit is Christ's Vicar( or in Christ's stead) on Earth; gave this Answer to B. Bonner inquiring the Reason of his so Writing: Christ since his Ascension worketh all things in us by his Spirit, and by his Spirit doth dwell in us, &c. Martyrol. Vol. 3. p. 573. To the same Purpose writes William Tindal( another eminent and worthy Martyr) in his Answer to More's Dialogue: When ( says he) thou art asked, why thou believest thou shalt be saved by Christ? answer, thou feelest that it is true; and when he asketh, how thou knowest it is true? answer, because it is written in thy Heart; if he ask, who wrote it? answer, the Spirit of God; if he ask, how thou camest first by it? tell him, thou wast INWARDLY TAUGHT by the Spirit of God; and if he ask, whether thou believest it not, because it is written in Books, or because the Priests so preach? answer, No, not now, but only because it is written in thy Heart, and because the Spirit of God so preacheth, and so testifieth unto thy Soul, &c. Thus far Tindal, by which the Reader may see, how much this godly Martyr was for the immediate Teachings of the Holy Spirit in the Hearts of God's People, which is the very same Thing we contend for at this Day, and for which these quarreling Baptists now revile us. To these let me add the Testimony of John Jewel, that zealous and learned Defender of the Protestant Religion, who though no Martyr, yet lived much about the same Time: He against Harding maintains, That without the SPECIAL Help, Prompting and REVELATION of God's Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are to the Reader, be he never so wise or well-learned, as the Vision of a sealed Book. From these few Instances, let the Reader judge, whether the Martyrs owned Immediate Inspiration, or the Inward Teachings, Promptings and Revelation of God's Spirit, or not.  
But T. Plant adds, That the Consciences of the Martyrs were persuaded of the Authority of the Scriptures, &c.  
observe. I no way doubt it: But the Question is, What that was by which their Consciences were so persuaded; whether it was divine Inspiration, the Manifestation or Revelation of God's Holy Spirit or not? If, Reader, the Testimonies of the Martyrs themselves will be taken, those before cited are plain and full. Tindal believed his Salvation by Christ, because he felt the Truth and Certainty thereof, written in his Heart by the Spirit of God, being inwardly taught by the same Spirit: He believed not because it was written in Books, or preached by Man, but because he found it written in his own Heart, and felt the Spirit of God so preaching and testifying unto his Soul. Jewel denies the Scriptures to be intelligible without the ESPECIAL Help, Prompting and REVELATION of God's Holy Spirit. Bradford, in the Name of all the rest, says, We do believe and know the Scriptures, as Christ's Sheep, being thereof assured by the same Spirit that spake them.  
Thou seest now Reader, that the Consciences of the godly Martyrs were persuaded, or rather assured of the Verity and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, by immediate Inspiration or the Revelation of the Divine Spirit in their own Hearts, wherein their Testimony most sweetly harmonizes with ours.  
There is one Clause more in T. Plant's Note, which peradventure may deserve the Reader's Notice: It is this, Had the Martyrs( says he) lived in our Dayes, they would have run the same Hazard( to wit, of their Lives) if called thereunto, to oppose Quakerism, as they did then to oppose Popery.  
observe. Two things herein seem observable: One, that T. Plant supposes they must have had a Call to it, before they had run so great an Hazard, and thereby he lets in Revelation or immediate Inspiration, before he is ware of it. The other is, That he who so scornfully denies Revelation, pretends here himself to understand what they that were dead above an Hundred Years ago, would have done, if they had been alive now. Here his Confidence hath betrayed him: He is a desperate Enemy to Revelation, and yet takes upon him to tell Things, not otherwise knowable▪ then by Revelation. Doth he speak by root? Parrats do so: Has he certain Knowledge of what he pake? How came he by it? Has he no certain Knowledge, but only bare Conjecture, why then so confident? why so positive?  
The Relation of the Meeting being ended, T. Plant goes on to give his Reader an Account of some Letters that passed between them and us, in order to the appointing of another. In these Letters it was proposed, That five of either Side should meet, to consult of such Things as necessary related thereunto: Accordingly,( saith he) Mr. Kiffin, Mr. Dyke, Mr. Paul, Mr. Snelling, Mr. King and Mr. PLANT did meet, &c.  
observe. One would think T. Plant had an itching humour to be called MASTER, else he would never call himself so; and yet this is not the first time( see p. 71. 74.) that he hath befooled himself with that Title: But let him enjoy his humour, if he please; I would not too severely perstringe him, but leave him to the Correction of his own Folly, and proceed.  
They met, he says, with W. Mead, J. Osgood, W. welsh, and several others, and debated the Proposals which they had sent to us, and printed( which were New and different from those that had been mutually agreed on between them and us before,& upon which the former Meeting was held) and Mr. Kiffin, he says, and the rest did urge, that we should proceed in that Method as is expressed in the aforesaid Proposals: Upon this, he saith, the Quakers manifested some Suspicion of the Proposals, as they were worded, &c.  
observe. Had they not good Cause so to do? Was it probable you would fly off from the old Proposals, which you had so freely and readily( as you intimate, p. 13.) consented to and embraced, if he had not had Hopes, in obtruding New ones, to advantage yourselves, and injure us? If you thought, we took you for our Friends, you were very much mistaken: and truly, not much less, if considering you as Enemies, and such too from whom, Experience had taught us, we were not to look for sincere and generous Dealing, ye expected we should treat you without that prudent Caution and Circumspection, which is requisite in such Cases.  
But W. welsh, he says, produced a Paper, that crost all they had discoursed before: And what was that? Why, It was an Answer, he says, to their Proposals: Whereupon, saith he, W. Kiffin and those with him, seeing such disingenuous Dealing, did conclude, 'twas to no Purpose to treat any longer with them, &c.  
observe. By this, Reader, thou mayst see how hearty these men were in their Treaty for another Meeting, who could catch hold of such a trivial Occasion to break off, and treat no more. Doubtless these Baptists are very touchy and pettish( or else they were weary of the Business) for I observe in their Relation of the first Meeting, pag. 25. They say, They could gain no direct Answer, and that there-upon J. Ives and T. Hicks withdrew. It is a Sign they were in hast to be gone, when the bare giving of an Answer, which they judged not direct( had it been so) would drive them away. Though when they say, the Answer was not direct, to their Design is to be understood; for to the Question it was direct and plain: But their Aim being to render us obnoxious to the People, as Persons denying the Man Christ Jesus, our Answer thwarting their Expectation, fully and clearly proved that We own him; This, say they, is not direct( viz to their Purpose) and this Disappointment must be supposed to give them so great an Offence, that away they fling; no holding, no stoping them, no persuasion, nor Entreaty may prevail with them to tarry. One would think they might have stayed at least so long, as to have shown the People the Indirectness of the Answer: No, they were in too great hast to stay. They wanted some colourable Pretence for a Retreat; and though this was a very sorry one, yet better came off thus, then worse; for the Battle went sore against them. And much after the same manner were W. Kiffin, T. Plant, and the rest of them put to it, to get off from this Treaty for another Meeting. 'tis worth thy observing, Reader, how they were put to their Shifts for an Excuse: W. welsh, they say, produced a Paper, containing an Answer to their Proposals, and this, they say, crost all they had discoursed before; whereupon W. Kiffin, and those with him, seeing such disingenuous Dealing, did conclude, it was to no Purpose to treat any longer with them. This was that they had a mind to be at; but could they have chosen a worse Medium to have come off by? Would any but themselves have broken off a Treaty, because an Answer was offered to their Proposals? Do ye Baptists account it disingenuous Dealing to return an Answer to your Proposals? Why then, Oh disingenuo●… Men! did you make such Proposals as ye were not willing to receive an Answer to? How truly may I retort upon yourselves that which J. Ives most untruly reflects upon us, p. 113. Ye are resolved to find Fault with any thing, Right or Wrong, &c. For ye refused before to treat with us, because( as ye say, but falsely, p. 30, 41, 42.) we took no Notice of your Proposals; and now, that ye might fly off from the present Treaty, ye pick a Quarrel with us, because we offer you an Answer to your Proposals: What ticklish People have we to deal with? How is it possible to satisfy such men, who are never pleased full nor fasting? who, if they are not answered, will not treat at all; and if they are answered, will thereupon break off, and treat no more: But this I doubt not, will satisfy all indifferent Readers, that you have hitherto but praevaricated with us, and not acted sincerely and cordially, so far as ye have already treated. But to go on.  
To our Answer to their printed Proposals they sent us a Reply, and thereto we return'd them a rejoinder: Their Reply T. Plant hath printed at large; but unfairly omitted our rejoinder, giving his Reader but three or four Lines of the Close of it, and concealing all the rest, which was as followeth:  
London the 24th 8th Month, 1674.  
yours bearing Date the 22th Instant, we have received and considered, and return you these Observations upon it: What you mean by antedating our Paper, and Jeering thereupon, you show us not, whatever you suggest, it bears the Date of the same Day, on which it was first drawn up, viz. the 17th Instant, being the Day after the Meeting at Wheeler Street, though not delivered to you so soon, because our Friends did not understand, that those of you they treated with, either had Power, or were willing to conclude a Meeting without some more of your Friends or Assistants: However, our Paper was in Answer to your Printed Proposals, and as we judged necessary and reasonable. Our saying, We condescended to return you that Answer to your Proposals, was not to exalt ourselves as Superiors, or as Lofty, or Imperious; but that it was a Condescension to propose Terms for a private Meeting with you, since we reckoned and knew ourselves so publicly injured by you, in abetting or countenancing a Forger. As for your treating with us, as Persons departed from the Christian Faith, you might have suspended that judgement till we had come to a trial, since that your Charge therein is yet to prove( however you doubt not to do it) and T. Hicks his Reasons for it are yet to be debated: As also your Purpose to prove us, whether we are Subverters of the Christian Religion, or not, is but a professed Purpose, not yet performed nor accomplished; so that however, neither Tho. Hicks in his Dialogues, nor Jer. Ives in his Syllogistical Attempts have yet proved us such, although pretended by both; their Labour and Time hitherto is then misspent, and yet you will boast, as if we were pinched, apparently worsted, and used silly Shifts: This savours of Tho. Hicks's Spirit, with much more in your perverse and peevish Letter, a your upbraiding us with such Words and Phrases as these, viz. Palpable Equivocations, your Folly, manifest liars, guilty Persons, your common Way of trifling, Persons departed from the Christian Faith, and your Insinuation as if we were afraid of a fair trial, and seeming to dread nothing more then that T. Hicks should speak for himself, which is as true as that 'tis not the Argument, but the Man we would deal with, whenas both our Answers to Tho. Hicks and our Proposals for a Meeting with him, to examine Matters, evidently show the contrary: Have we refused him to give his Arguments in those Matters we have charged against him? Or have we not manifested both our Willingness and Desire therein? will such Falshoods gain you or him Credit in the Minds of the unbiased? We perceive you are not now fit, either for a further Treaty, or a private meeting: You appear so perverse, as Men leavened with your Agent Tho. Hicks his Spirit, or that had swallowed down some of his choleric, humour or Passion( but therein, neither he nor you will bring Honour to your Cause) And therefore 'tis necessary that we consider of some other Way further to throw off his Dirt, Calumnies, Slanders and Forgeries, and therewith to endeavour to manifest your corrupt Partiality, in abetting such an Agent, if you will afford us no better Treating then is in this angry, scornful, boasting and upraiding Letter of yours; however, if we should be mute, and suffer all your Abuses in silence, we doubt not but the Just God will bring a Stroke upon you, for your Injustice and Partiality.  
But to your Exceptions against our Propositions, in Answer to yours.  
1. Where in our second we provide a Liberty, that such as have a Necessity on their Spirits to speak briefly to the Business in hand, which Liberty we granted you as well as ourselves: This you say, You cannot admit of( neither can we admit of your Exception against it) and also for your Reason, falsely accusing us, as that you know it is ordinary with us( when pinched) to pretend a Motion to divert from the Point in hand; and also infer( though from a false Surmise of your own, no ways consequent to what we propose) that the same Necessity might be pleaded to talk all the time as well as briefly to the Matter in hand. Say you so? Then you will not believe what we say; if you must be our Judges, no less then the Condemnation due to Equivocators, is to be expected from you: By this you have very much bewray'd your own covertly and feigned Work, in endeavouring to bind us to Terms and Proposals, when now you render us no better then Persons not to be credited. We cannot undertake to purchase a Meeting with you at such a difficult Rate, as the Removal of your hard Thoughts first: However, you would make a fair show to the World as if you were in Earnest to have Matters fairly tried between us; but such Covers will prove too narrow.  
2. Though you could not comply with our Answer to your sixth Proposal, with respect to the Day and Hour; yet with respect to the Conclusion to end with Consent, you might very well have complied with it, and not have prejudg'd our Intention, as if we designed to call you Fugitives& runaways, if you should depart in your time: The Lord knows, we designed no such thing; but that after we had met a convenient Time, on a fair or seasonable Proposal for a parting, it might be consented unto: However, your Cause is attended with many Distrustful Thoughts, Jealousies and evil Surmises against us, which at least would render your Cause very suspicious to us, if we had not that Inspection into it that we have.  
3. From our saying( in Answer to your 7th) That if we find by the first Meeting that you design to do us Right in as public a manner as T. Hicks hath done us Wrong, &c. that then we will consider of another Meeting, you unjustly infer from hence, that this is as much as to say, that if T. Hicks should acquit himself, and you publicly clear him, and condemn us as Slanderers, &c. then we will meet no more with you, lest our Tenets should be too openly exposed and discovered: This is like one of T. Hicks's Consequences; whereas our Answer implies no such jealousy of ourselves as condemnable, nor any Doubt or Question of making good our Charge against T. Hicks, but the contrary, as not at all questioning but that we should make his fraudulent Dealing and Guilt appear obvious to your Understandings; only we had Reason to question your Design towards us: However we were willing to make some Progress in order to try you further, as is plain by what we have proposed.  
4. Our Exception against your 9th Proposal, as being unreasonable, you are pleased to call ridiculous and impertinent Reasoning; and why so? Is it because we might not be obliged aforehand to answer T. Hicks's Charges against us, when they were never specified to us; nor He a competent Person to prosecute us, after our Charge is proved against him, which we no ways doubted to do, if we might but have Opportunity? But to excuse your Agent as a competent Person to prosecute us, you say, Were it supposed( though as yet you see no Reason to grant) that in some things T. Hicks might be mistaken, it will not therefore-follow, that every thing he saith, ought not to be credited: Though we grant this; yet herein you do but mince and cover, and are egregiously besides our Charge and Provision against T. Hicks; for it is not that he may be or is in some things merely under some Mistake, and therefore not competent, but that he is a vile Forger, Perverter& Slanderer, and that in many things: This is the Nature of our Charge already proved against him in two Books, Reason against Railing, and The Counterfeit Christian detected, which we are apt to think that you have not red over, or seriously perused( for if you had, we think you would have better acquiesced with our Charge against him, without giving us further Occasion to pursue it) You do so mince and lessen matters that are closely laid and charged against T. H. From[ a vile Forger, &c.] you would have it turned to[ were it supposed that in some things T. H. might be mistaken, which as yet you see no Reason to grant] It seems then that he is a very Unerring Person in your Esteem; but we desire both J. Ives and the rest of you, but seriously to red over the last Book of W. Penn's, in Answer to him entitled, The Counterfeit Christian detected, and then consider, whether all these things which he is charged with, are only supposed Mistakes. Your Retorsion upon G. Whitehead and W. pen, as not competent Persons to prosecute T. H. for the like Reason that we have given against him, viz. That they do not only stand accused for, but in convenient time will be proved manifest liars. It seems T. Hicks has not yet proved them such; that is yet to do: but we observe, he is much louder and fiercer in his Charges, then in his Proofs. But do you really now judge G.W. and W. P. cannot be complete Persons to prosecute our Charge against T. Hicks? If you do, you should have  told us that at first; why then did you admit of a Meeting with them at all on that account, in order to make good their charge? Hath T. Hicks devised this as a Hole to creep out at, and save his Head? But such retorting Shifts will not clear him, or you either. However, before either G. W. or W. P. be obliged to answer to T. Hicks's Charges against them, they expect a Note from him of the Particulars that he grounds his Charge upon, as we have done by him, at some of your Desires.  
5. Touching our Assenting, that when we have done with T. H. about matters of Fact charged, and that you have done us Justice therein, &c. we should be willing, if the Lord will, as convenient Opportunity may be afforded to discourse matters of Doctrine with some others of you, &c. you unreasonably quarrel with the Words [ as convenient Opportunity may be] as signifying our common way of trifling, as you falsely and scornfully say; whereas we seriously expressed our real Intentions and Desires therein, as not having Time and convenient Opportunity in our own hands to command, that being in the Hand and Disposal of an omniscient God, whom we fear, and in Subjection to whose Will we propose Matters that are not in our present Time and Will to be done.  
6. Touching our Willingness to discourse matters of Doctrine with some more competent, &c. you ask, Why not with you? Why not with T. Hicks? We think that we have offered sufficient Reason, at least, supposing if T.H. appear guilty of that Charge laid against him and you Abettors of him, being such a guilty Person, a vile Forger, &c. this would render you all incompetent and unmeet to discourse of the things of God's Kingdom; would it not, suppose you?  
7. We now fully understand you( as we perceived your Design before) that as ye, say you, yielded that those matters wherein G. Keith was concerned should be spoken unto, provided that afterwards the Paper of Charges be next spoken unto; and desire that one Article may be issued before any other be insisted on; as namely, That you shall not admit of any Discourse upon other Particulars after G. Keith's Business is issued till those Reasons which T. Hicks hath given why he opposeth the Christian to the Quaker, be fully debated: We cannot but take it for granted, that still you put us off with dilatory Evasions, to keep us from pursuing our Charge, contrary to what we have offered, and you in words pretended; and what Delay and Time this fully Debating of T. Hicks's said Reasons will require, who knows? Thus you trifle with us: Have we not plainly proposed and offered to discourse matters of Doctrine in their place, when matters of Fact are gone through: yea, and have openly declared our Willingness to discourse those Reasons on which you pretend to prove us no Christians, in their place; for the Stress of our first Article is not upon T. H's opposing the Christian to the Quaker; but upon A Dialogue betwixt a Christian and a Quaker, yet made by T. H. 1st, Was it made and contrived by T. Hicks, Yea, or Nay? Or, Was it a real Dialogue between a Quaker and any Body else? If not, then 2dly, Hath he said True, in positively calling it so, and telling the World in his very Title-page, that therein is faithfully represented the chief and most concerning Opinions of the Quakers, together with their Method and Manner of Reasoning in Defence thereof? We affirm this to be False, and would have produced many Instances to have proved it so, even out of T. H's own Dialogues: But you will needs have him in the first place give his Reasons, why he opposeth the Quaker to the Christian, which is not the thing we in that place either complain of, or in that Article affirm that the Quaker is a Christian( though in its place we have confessed it and shall) but T. Hicks, the Contriver and Maker of the Dialogue, makes himself that Christian that dialogues with the Quaker( as he calls him) and he is both called and proved Counterfeit Christian, or no Christian; and it is our parts rather to prove him so, then his to prove us none; when it is not the matter complained on by us in the first place, but he is positively charged to be A vile Forger, &c. neither doth the Stress of our Complaint lye upon the first Article; that's placed but as an Introduction into the following matter,& hath been of this service, that many who thought they were real Dialogues, now understand they are but fictitious.  
To conclude; We do not only take it for granted that you are now further off from a Compliance then you seemed before; but also that you are afraid that your Brother T. Hicks should come to a plain Test or trial upon our direct Charge, lest the Consequence reflect on yourselves: We see that you except against six or seven material Passages in our Proposals, and we see no Reason why we should further condescend to your dilatory Work, but to consider some other Way or Expedient to clear ourselves, especially since you have so much prejudged us.  


George Whitehead,  
George Keith,  
Jasper bat.    
This they return'd no Answer to, nor have since made any Overture to resume the Treaty which in a pettish humour they had broken off; And yet they would fain make People believe, they are not unwilling to give us a Meeting: Yet when they say, p. 107. Could such a Meeting be peaceably obtained, we should gladly attend it, they sufficiently discover even to common Capacities, how could they are in their Desires of it.   

CHAP. IIII. Some Animadversions upon J. Ives's Postscript.  
THat which comes next under my Consideration is, a Postscript added to Tho. Plant's Book, and subscribed by Jer. Ives, in the Introduction to which he tells his Reader, That the Quakers have no more Cause to glory, then Caligula's Souldiers, who had nothing but Cocle-shells to show, for the Trophies and Spoils of their great Victories. Hence first I infer, that he grants the Victory may be great, though the Trophies and Spoils are but small. Next, I desire the Reader to consider, what Sort of People we had to war withal, to wit, Such as deny the immediate Assistance of the holy Spirit, Such as scoff at divine Inspiration& Revelation, Men whose Religion stands in outward Performances, whose Treasure lies in External shows and Outside Appearances, preferring the SHELL before the Substance: If therefore our spoils consist of SHELLS, wonder not, Reader, at it: but rather that so many Knowing Men, should be grown Gray-Headed in a Profession of Religion, and yet have nothing but SHELLS to loose. But from this I attend him to his Observations.  
In the first he says, It is observable that most of the Time spent in the two Dayes Conferences, was to prevail upon them to hear our Arguments, to prove they were no Christians, and that their Ministers were Cheats and Impostors.  
This from his own pen, doth us great Service: for having fully( as I conceive) demonstrated before, that this was not the Subject agreed upon, nor the proper Business of those two Dayes; but that it was our Charge against T. Hicks, consisting of FORGERY, PERVERSIONS, FALSHOODS, SLANDERS, &c. that was the proper Subject and Business of those dayes, which it concerned Us to prove against him, not he or they against us( for we were the Opponents, they the Respondents, and J. Ives himself will not admit that a Respondent should offer to prove, see pag. 81. of T. Plant's Relation) that, I say, being before hand sufficiently demonstrated, this open confession of Jer. Ives, that most of the Time in the two Dayes Conferences, was spent to prevail upon us, to hear their Arguments to prove us no Christians, &c. doth put it out of all Question that it was They declined the Subject to be proved, not We; though T. Plant most unhandsomely, as well as falsely hath charged it upon us, pag. 36.  
But this Jer. Ives saith, They conceived reasonable; and he offers some Reasons for it: First, saith he, because it was contained in the first Article of their written Charge, sent in against T. Hicks, which was for writing a Dialogue, and opposing a Christian to a Quaker.  
Reader, That thou mayst satisfy thyself, that in this Instance Jer. Ives hath not dealt honestly with us, nor fairly with thee, I refer thee to the Charge itself, as it stands in their own Book, p. 5. where the first Article is, A Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker, yet made by T. Hicks. Judge now, whether this Man deserve Credit, who so little regardeth what he saith, that he boldly here affirms( and not only here, but in the Discourse itself most frequently) that the first Article against Tho. Hicks is for Opposing a Christian to a Quaker, and yet it appears by their own Book, that there is no such Sentence in that Article, no, nor in all the Charge besides.  
His next Reason is, Because many of the things T. Hicks hath charged upon the Quakers, were no otherwise true, but as they were the Consequences of their being no Christians. This, Reader, is well worthy of thy Observation: for by this thou mayst plainly see how unworthily these men have dealt with us, not caring what Way or Course they took, direct or indirect, so they might thereby fasten Reproach and obloquy upon our Principles, Practices or Persons. Many of the Things charged upon us, he confesses, are no otherwise true, but as they are the Consequences of our being no Christians; yet these Consequences, like their forlorn Hope, were cast off long before, and the Antecedent was to come behind. Oh infatuated Men, and desperately Wicked! Could you without Remorse thus load an innocent People with Infamy, and pour out Floods of Reproach upon us, and now a Year or two after tell, that many of the Things, so charged upon us, are no otherwise true, but as they are the Consequences of another Proposition that is not yet proved! what else is this but, according to the Proverb, First to hang men, and then to try them? I appeal, Reader, to thy impartial judgement, whether they have herein dealt with us as became Men, not to say Men of Religious Pretences.  
Besides, I would have Jeremy know, that as the Design was dishonest, so his logic is false( as I have else where noted) and can be of no other Use, then to prove the Ignorance or Malice of his Mind: for if it were possible for him to prove his Antecedent, that we are no Christians; yet his Consequences( having so long been accustomend to go before) will never by fair Means be brought to follow: But, if either fair or foul will do, 'tis much alike to him.  
In his second Observation he tells the world, that we quibble about Words, and makes a show, as if he had gained some notable Advantage over us, in discoursing the Nature of a Dialogue▪ We charged T. Hicks with FORGERY, in calling his Book a Dialogue or Discourse between two, which never was a real Discourse between any! But, say they, Here is one of your own hath written in the same manner. No, say we, It is not the same Manner; for he doth not call his Book a Dialogue, but  
By way of Dialogue: that's the same thing say they; the terms are equivalent, said Jer. Ives, pag. 50. We deny it to be the same, or that the Terms are equivalent; and therefore Jeremy does but beg the Question, in supposing us to grant that which we do not. But that thou( Reader) mayst be able to judge, whether these two Cases be both alike, give me leave to state them both to thee according as they really are: One man writes a Book, and calls it simply A DIALOGUE: In it he represents his own Principles as fair as he can, his Adversaries as foully; makes Answers in his Adversaries Name, as weak, silly, foolish, absurd, ridiculous, impertinent and impious as possibly he can, conceals that this was written by him, and only says it was published by him; and he contrives and mannages the whole Design so, that his Reader may be persuaded, that he that published it, had no hand in the forming of it: but that those very Answers, how weak or wicked soever they be, were really so spoken and expressed by that very Person, under whose Name they are set down: This is the State of the Case on the one hand. Another man writes a Book, and therein represents two or three Persons, as discoursing together; but that he may, at the very Entrance, secure his Reader from all Danger of Mistaking him, or thinking it to have been a Real Discourse, he tells him, it is written by way of Dialogue( which is after the manner of a Dialogue, or in Imitation of a Dialogue) and that he himself writ it: And this is the State of the Case on the other hand. The one of these doth but tell the World, what he thinks is my Opinion; the other intimates to the World, that I myself did speak and assert such or such a thing as my own Opinion, whenas I not only never so spoke, but also in my Heart abhor and detest the thing pretended to be so spoken by me. Judge now impartial Reader, whether these two Cases be alike.  
But he adds, It is well known, that a Dialogue or Dialogismus is a Figure of Speaking, &c. This is another of his sly Tricks, to slip in Dialogismus instead of Dialogus, and then insinuate as if a Dialogue and Dialogismus were synonomous. But I will not spend Time on this; for I suppose no Reader that is capable of understanding Dialogismus, but will also be able to discern his Sophistry.  
He goes on thus, We  told them, that Geo. Fox had writ a Discourse between a Papist and a Quaker, and did not say by way of Dialogue, or by way of Discourse, but a Discourse, which ( says he) was never any real Discourse, but a feigned thing; and we offered to prove over and above, that he had abused and misrepresented the Person he presents in his Discourse, &c.  
That thou mayst the better understand this Passage, I desire thee, Reader, to look back with me into T. Plant's Relation, pag. 54. where this Particular is set down by themselves: J. Ives offers the Book, urges that it is called a Discourse. William pen answers, I say it was a real Discourse, &c. Jeremy replieth, Then I require of you to prove it, That, says William pen, I will do at another time, but not now. At this they make the People hoot, and cry out, Prove it, prove it. says William pen, This is not fair, that instead of Answering our Charge against Thomas Hicks ( the Cause of our Coming) you make a Charge extemporary against us, and give us no Time nor Paper of that Charge, and now call us to prove it, and the man is an Hundred Miles off. Could any thing be more ridiculous then for these men to triumph in a Hoot of the People( had that been true) because a thing that depended upon Personal Evidence, was not immediately proved, when we had not the least Notice beforehand of their Intention to urge it, and the Evidence was an Hundred Miles off: But he says it was never any real Discourse, but a feigned thing. Well, though we are sufficiently able to prove it a real Discourse, yet seeing he is so rash and inconsiderate, I'll put him upon the Proof of his Affirmation, and give him Time for the doing of it too; let him prove it a Feigned Thing if he can.  
But there is one Passage more to be taken notice of, before I pass from this Particular; He says, We offered to prove over and above, that he had abused and misrepresented the Person he presented in his Discourse. How little doth this man consult the Credit of their Relation, or his own Reputation? I desire thee, Reader, to examine the place, pag. 54, 55. for I assure, I can find no such Offer at all expressed. Where lies the Fault Jeremy? Did some of you make this Offer, and yet is not in your Relation? Then your Relation is False in omitting it: Did none of you make this Offer, and yet hast thou affirmed you did? then thou art False in Affirming it. In short, Either( in this Particular) thou art True, and the Relation is False; or the Relation is True, and thou art False; grant which thou wilt.  
In his third Observation he says, That the Quakers, throughout both their Accounts of the two Meetings, make use of the vox populi to credit their Crazy Cause; sometimes telling the Reader, the People shouted, and other while hooted at the Baptists. That this is the Fault themselves are guilty of, and therefore by Complaining anticipate our Complaint, let the following pages of their own Relation witness, pag. 49, 55, 57, 62, 79, 81, 82, 86, 88, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 102. in some of which they tell the Reader, the People laughed and shouted; in others, they shouted and hooted; one while, that they shouted extraordinarily; another while, that their Shooting and Hollowing was so extraordinary, that what was said could not be heard.  
If Jeremy appeals to the People to vindicate himself, he has them at his Beck; if he calls upon them to criminate us, they are forthwith at his Devotion. What could the man desire more? or what indeed can be said more then this? That as his Brother Hicks had FORGED a Dialogue, and FORGED a Christian, and FORGED a Quaker, and FORGED Answers to his own Mind: So they have here framed a Relation, FORGED Answers, and feigned a People Laughing, Shouting, Hooting, Hollowing, when, how, and as often as they please. Nay, such a Knack hath Thomas Plant, that when he asked( pag. 49.) Is not this the First Article of the Charge? He can make the People cry, Yes, yes; though the Charge was not red unto them.  
But this is not all; Another time ( saith he)' they tell the World, the Baptists made such a Noise with Laughing and Shouting, that they could not be heard. As if by this ( says he)' they designed to make the World believe they Hear as well as Speak by Inspiration; otherwise how could they so curiously distinguish between the Voices of the Baptists and others.  
To pass by here his Ungodly Scoff at Inspiration, let me ask him, how he knows they were Quakers that said, he did, he did, as their Relation says they were, pag. 50. and to the like purpose, pag. 57. It seems they could curiously distinguish between the Voice of the Quakers and others. But what manner of Ears may Thomas Plant be thought to have, that could so curiously distinguish Voices, as to discern the impartial from the partial Hearers, pag. 22. and not content to stop there, adventures also to tell the World, That the Answer was satisfactory to all the impartial Hearers? It seems he was so curious and quick of Hearing, that he could not only distinguish between the impartial and the partial, but could also tell( at least pretend so) when he had heard them all, though there were many Thousands of one sort or other.  
But he goes on thus, When one Mr. Nesbat in St. Martins, said of William pen[ What a Coxcomb is that?] they in their Account, pag. 22. tell the World, it was a Baptist that said so; which was both False and Malicious, as appeareth by a Certificate before re-cited, under the Person's Hand that spake the words.  
This man is very apt to wept himself: He says it was both False and Malicious, as appears by the Certificate, where the Certificate says nothing of Malice; but only declares, That the Subscriber of it is the Person who spake those words, that he is not, nor ever was a Baptist, and that the Quakers have lied, in saying it was a Baptist that spake them: But as foul as they make him to fall upon the Quakers, yet he does not charge them with doing it Maliciously; that's Jeremy's own Inference, thinking the other not foul enough. But as to this Shoe-maker in Martins, whatever he has been or is, his Expression was very Uncivil and Rude; and if he had not been an Adherent to them, or Favourer of them, it would have become them to have rejected him then when the words were spoken, and particularly taken Notice of: I desire the Reader therefore to consider, 1. That this Shoe-maker was amongst them in their Gallery. 2. That he spoke these words in Defence of one of them. 3. That he spake so directly in Tho. Hicks's Dialect, as if he had been his peculiar Disciple. 4. That when some of the People called out, take Notice of that Man, the Baptists were silent, and did not discharge themselves of him. These things considered, I leave it to the Reader's judgement, whether we had not some Reason to suppose the Person that so spake to be a Baptist.  
In his 4th Observation he says, That( by way of Reproach and Disgrace) we bring him in as one called an Arminian-Anabaptist, which by Interpretation is one that holds Universal Grace; and yet in the second Meeting we reckon it among the Anabaptists Errors, that they deny Universal Grace.  
I grant that he was brought in as one called an Arminian-Baptist, but not by way of Reproach or Disgrace to him( as he insinuates) but to show how he, who holds Universal Grace, and his Brother Hicks, who denies Universal Grace, could( like Herod and Pilate) agree together to war against the Innocent; though their Judgments in that Point are as different as Light and Darkness, as opposite as the two Poles. I also grant, That we reckon it among the Errors of some of the Anabaptists, that they deny Universal Grace: But what of all this? we not only reckon it as their Error, but as an Argument also of the Division that is among them; in that some of them( with Tho. Hicks) deny Universal Grace, while others of them assert it, whereof Jeremy Ives is reputed one. But what doth Jeremy infer from his Observation? Why, that we are resolved to find Fault with any thing Right or Wrong. These are pitiful Shifts indeed! Dares he deny that there is this as well as other Divisions among them? Can he have the Face to say, There is not this plain Contrariety in their Creed! If not, to whom have we done Wrong? Why did he not tell his Reader where the Wrong lies? Is it in representing him as one that holds Universal Grace? Or is it in accounting those Baptists Erroneous that deny Universal Grace? I wish the man would once learn to deal plainly, and not thus abuse his Reader.  
In his 5th Observation he says, In their Account of the Barbican Meeting, they tell the World, That in all that great Assembly there was scarce Breathing-Room allotted for above Twenty of them. This ( says he) is most notoriously false; for they had a Gallery of the same Dimensions with ours, &c.  
This is the same in effect with what Thomas Plant had before observed in his Animadversions on our Letter, pag. 36. of his Relation; to which, having spoken before, I shall not insist on it now: Only these two Questions I desire Jeremy Ives to answer honestly to; First, Whether in all that great Assembly there was any more Room allotted for us, then that Gallery wherein we were? 2dly, Whether he himself does judge that Gallery capable of receiving above Twenty Men? And let the Reader then judge, whether we had not Cause to Complain; and whether our Complaint is not True.  
In his 6th Observation he says, They solemnly declare in their first Account, pag. 28. That with Reverence they believe, and confess to Christ, both as he is the Man Jesus, and God over all, blessed forever, &c. And yet ( says he) they tell us in the same page., That they are jealous of expressing their Faith in Unscriptural Terms, as God-man, a Distinct Person without us( which limits and confines him to Remoteness) human Nature of Christ in Heaven, &c. Upon this he Cracks and Vapours, as if he had won some great prise: But( Reader) let us examine the Matter, and if there be a Fault, see where it lies.  
We solemnly declare, That with Reverence we believe and confess to Christ, both as he is the Man Jesus, and God over all, blessed forever. Well, is there any Fault in this? Not, unless a Socinian, or some other prejudiced Person be Judge. Where then lies the Fault? Let us search further: We are jealous of expressing our Faith in Unscriptural Terms: Will they blame us for that? Have we not good Reason so to be? Of all men methinks they should not have censured us, for being jealous of expressing our Faith in Unscriptural Terms, who themselves pretend the Scriptures to be the Only Rule of their own Faith. But what are the Terms we are jealous of? God-man, a distinct Person without us( which limits and confines him to Remoteness) Human Nature of Christ in Heaven. Consider( serious Reader) whether such an Expression as God-man, according to the common and gross Acception of it, doth not tend to beget dark Imaginations, and mean, low, carnal Conceptions and Apprehensions of God, in the minds of ignorant People, who from such unscriptural Expressions have been too apt to fancy and represent God( as the Papists are said to paint him) an Old Man sitting in a Chair. Judge then who, deserves the Blame; they that make use of and impose such Terms as both give and continue the Occasion of such gross and wrong Apprehensions of the Deity; or we, who to prevent those wrong Apprehensions, choose to express our Faith in the plain and Inoffensive Language of the Holy Scriptures.  
So for the Term, A Distinct Person without us, which limits and confines him to Remoteness; we have very good Reason to be jealous of it and avoid it, not only as an Unscriptural, but as an Unsound Expression; for, though we always aclowledge, that Christ hath a Distinct Being without us, yet we can never yield that he is thereby limited and confined to a Remoteness from us: And indeed, how should we, when we daily feel him revealed and forming in us, to our unspeakable Joy and Comfort? I entreat thee( Reader) to consider seriously; Doth not the Scripture say expressly, Christ in you the Hope of Glory? Would not they now, who endeavour to limit and confine him to a Remoteness, bereave both thee and me of this Hope, which is the Anchor of our Souls? And whither then shall we be driven? Did not our Saviour Christ himself, in that most Heavenly Prayer, which he offered to his Father, in behalf of his Disciples, a little before he suffered, express himself in these words: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in One, Joh. 17.23. Was not this In-being& In-dwelling of Christ in his Saints the Joy, the Crown, the Consolation of all true Christians in all Ages? And must we now be censured and unchristian'd for refusing such Terms as would limit and confine him to a Remoteness? Well, if the Case must needs be so, I'll rather choose to enjoy his Living Presence with me( in whose Presence is fullness of Joy) though I should therefore by them be reputed an Heathen, then purchase from them the Title of a Christian, at the Price of Confining him to a Remoteness from me. He was Emanuel of Old( God with us, or, as some red, God in us) O let him be Emanuel still!  
But, what is the matter? Why do they quarrel so with us for avoiding such an Expression as limits and confines Christ to a Remoteness from his People? Would they have him so confined? Or, do they indeed think it possible that He should be so confined? Can they think so, and not at the same time deny his Divinity? for, as God, he is omnipresent, fills Heaven and Earth, and is not subject to any Confinement. If they say, they do not use such Terms with respect to his God-head, but only to his Manhood; I ask, With whom then do they quarrel? for, which of us did ever affirm, that Christ, in respect of his Manhood, is omnipresent; or that as Man( in a carnal sense) he dwells in his Saints? Are they not then fighting with their own Shadow?  
But while they thus captiously cavil at others, they administer no small Ground of suspicion, that they themselves, while they seem to confess the Divinity of Christ, do not really and cordially own it. For, let it be considered, 1. That T. Hicks, in his first Dialogue, p. 44. saith expressly thus, I  told him that the Christ I believed, was no other then that Person the Scriptures speak of. 2. That they here blame us, for not expressing our Faith of Christ in such unscriptural Terms, as would limit and confine him to a Remoteness, which is not praedicable of the Divinity. 3. That J. Ives saith,( p. 23. of their Relation) that He was Christ as he was Man; not a Word of his Divinity. From these Premises let the judicious Reader judge what Conclusion may fairly be inferred.  
In like manner for the Term Human Nature of Christ in Heaven, may we not reasonably be jealous of it? for if Humanus be derived from Homo, and that from Humus, which signifieth Ground or Earth( as the Learned tell us) would they have us say, that Christ hath in Heaven an Earthly Nature, whenas the Scripture saith so plainly, that it is the first Man that is of the Earth, earthly; but that the second Man is the Lord form Heaven, 1 Cor. 15.47. Let them therfore, before they so pragmatically censure others, declare to the World, what it is that themselves believe, if indeed themselves know what they believe. But to proceed.  
In his rambling Discourse upon this sixth Observation, he tells his Reader that we say, The Scriptures are not the Rule and Guide of Faith to the Saints; and for it he quotes Edw. Burrough's Works, pag. 515. Reader, This is a Subject which hath of late been frequently controverted, between us and several of our Adversaries: Wherefore that I may not too far swell this Treatise, nor yet leave thee without some Means of Satisfaction how far, and in what respect we own the Scriptures to be a Rule, &c. I refer thee to the following Books, Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Christianity, The Invalidity of John Faldo's Vindication, &c. A serious Apology, &c. in which this Subject is copiously handled. And for J. Ives his other Cavils about the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, &c. I refer thee to two Books, the one called, The Divinity of Christ confessed and vindicated: The other, The Light and Life of Christ within.  
Before I pass from this Particular, let me give thee, Reader, a brief Hint of Jeremy's unfair Dealing with us, in point of Quotation, which the Words last cited by him, out of Edw. Burrough's Works, bring to my remembrance. It is in a late Pamphlet of his called, Questions for the Quakers, p. 14. and the occasion of it this: Geo. Keith in the Dispute with Jer. Ives, asserted, that Divine Inspiration is the primary( or chief) Rule, and that the Scriptures are a secondary Rule. After this Jer. Ives printed his Questions, in which, that he might weaken Geo. Keith's Testimony to the Scriptures, he brings in E. burrow to contradict G. Keith; and that he might make E.B. to contradict G. K. he most dishonestly falsifieth E. Burrough's Words. Having premised this for thy better Understanding of the Passage, I will now, Reader, give thee J. Ives's words, just as they lye in his own Book, thus; For though G. Keith( to keep up your Credit) with the People, in our last Dispute) said, the Scriptures were owned by you as a secondary Rule for your Faith and practise; yet E. burrow 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 ( saith he) his Works, fol. 515. and reconcile your Prophets as well as you can. Now, Reader, take also E. Burrough's words, just as they lye in the place forecited, thus: And though the Scriptures are profitable, and were given forth to be red, 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, the Teacher and Leader into all Truth. Now compare these two together: E.B. saith, The Scriptures are not THE Rule, &c. J. Ives affirms, that E. B. in SO MANY WORDS saith, The Scriptures are NO Rule, &c. and quotes this very place to prove it. O Impudent Man! O base and dishonest Dealing! Is not this FORGERY? yea, and PERVERSION too: for he hath not only changed E. B's Words, but his Meaning also. What thinkest thou, Reader? Is this Man worthy of any Credit, who ( to support a tottering Cause) will not stick to corrupt and falsify another man's Words, and most audaciously tell the World, that that other man said so in SO MANY WORDS? And O ye Baptists, who have entertained and employed this Jer. Ives, as your Agent and Champion, to defend you from the Stroke of our heavy Charge, consider ye well this thing! Think you to gain Credit by such a shameless Advocate, who, if he feared God, could not; and if he regarded Men, one would think he would not have published so FOUL and NOTORIOUS A FALSEHOOD to the World? Ah! Can you hope to stand your Ground, who so openly make lies your Refuge? The Lord will sweep away your Refuge, and where will you shelter then? verily your Skirts are discovering apace, and your Nakedness appears already to many.  
But to return to Jeremy: Much after the same Rate that he hath served E. B. doth he deal with G.W. also: For in p. 116. speaking of God and Christ, he says, That Father and Son are in the Quakers Dialect but two Names or Manifestations, as Geo. Whitehead calls them in his Defence of W. pen against Dr. own and Mr. Vincent, &c.  
Herein he hath manifestly wronged G.W. both falsely citing and perverting his Words( And the better to cover his falsehood, he has neither directly name the Book, nor quoted any page.) for G. W's Words are not, that the Father and Son are BUT two Names or Manifestations; but thus, viz. That the Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, or the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are one and inseparable, no where in Scripture called three separate Persons, nor finite in Personalities, though three in Manifestation, and so testified of, as three Witnesses; See Divinity of Christ confessed, part 2. p. 94. And the Manifestation of the Father, of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess, part 1. p. 22. Now from G. W's saying, We confess the Manifestation of the Father, of the Son and Holy Spirit, for J. Ives to infer that G.W. means the Father and the Son are BUT two Names or Manifestations; what is, if this be not, Perverting another Man's Words? Yet he is not content with this, but goes on to abuse G. W. further; for says he,  
Geo. Whitehead tells Mr. Vincent, that it is a distracted and confused Work to assert, that the Generation of the Son of God must be Eternal. This also is a notorious Untruth and Abuse of G. Whitehead's Words, as will plainly appear, if the Place be consulted: For upon Tho. Vincent's saying, it is improper to say, that either the Persons in Regard of the Personality or Subsistence, are finite or infinite, yet that Christ is the Eternal Son of God by Eternal Generation: G.W. made an Observation thus, viz. He is now the Eternal Son of God, before not infinite: But again, neither finite nor infinite in his Personality, and yet the Eternal Son of God: What mad, distracted, blasphemous Work is this,& c? See Divinity of Christ confessed, part 2. p. 74. This is no denial of the Son of God's being Eternal, but a Collection of T. Vincent's Confusion about the separate Personalities, as appears further in the same Book, part 1. p. 24, 25.& 34. Yet because G.W. having here gathered together some of his Opponents confused& contradictory Discourse, did call it mad, distracted Work; J. Ives takes G. W's Words, and turns them quiter to another Matter; G. W. called Tho. Vincent's Manner of Reasoning about the Personality, Subsistence and Eternal Generation of the Son of God, mad and distracted Work; J. Ives reports G.W. to have said, That it's a distracted and confused Work to assert, that the Generation of the Son of God must be Eternal; whenas nothing can be more evident, then that G. W. condemned the Manner of asserting it, not the Assertion simply itself: What can a Man do more injurious to another, then so unfairly to misrepresent him, so fo●… lly to pervert his Words and Meaning!  
In his 7th Observation, he taxeth the Accounts that we have given of the two Meetings, and says, We have therein transplaced whole Paragraphs, &c. to render his Answers Impertinent, &c. But of this he gives us not one Instance, and we may well suppose the Reason to be, because he had not one to give. Besides, what Reason, o● so much as probable Conjecture, does he offer to his Reader, to induce him to believe this? None at all that I find: The most he says, is this, Whoever shall compare their Account and ours together, will find it. But how will he find it? He must first take for granted, that their Account is true, which I have already by several Instances proved to be false, and could thereto add several more, but that I judge those already given sufficient. Till therefore Jeremy says more to the Purpose, I shall not think this deserves more of my Notice.  
In his 8th Observation he tells his Reader, That in our Account we bring in many Things as spoken in their Presence, which were not spoken till after their Departure. But where's the Evidence of this? The Reader hath but his bare Word for it, which how little Credit it deserveth I have shew'd before. But that which he infers from this is, That the Quakers could talk fast enough, when none were there to oppose them, though they stood like Mutes a little before, as having nothing to answer.  
This man is very frequent in his Suggestions, but it is rarely that he doth not contradict himself in them. Let us see how he escapes in this: Here he insinuates, that we stood like Mutes, while he was present, as having nothing to answer; yet in p. 81. of their Relation, they say, Mr. pen offered to interpose; and they complain of two or three Quakers interposing together. In p. 82. Jeremy cries out, What, two or three against one man! What! Half a Dozen? You had best all speak. Again, p. 96. he saith, Pray Mr. pen be silent; Pray Mr. Whitehead hold your Tongue, you are not to speak; it is not your Turn, &c. And p. 102. when Jeremy had resolved to say no more, W. pen calls upon Tho. Plant thus, Take J. Ives his place and I will proceed with thee. Observe, Reader, from these Quotations, how hard a Task they would make Jeremy to have undergone, to keep the Quakers from speaking too muh, so apt( it should seem) and forward they were to answer; and yet all on a sudden by a Figure peculiar to himself, he tells his Reader, The Quakers stood mute in his Presence, as having nothing to answer. Thus, when men regard not Truth, Conscience or Honesty, they justly fall by their own Hands; and so it fares with these men: For in their Relation, their Design was to represent us clamorous, disorderly, talkative, speaking more then came to our Share( so in his Questions for the Quakers, p. 10. They talked most and talked last) Now in the Postscript the Scene is changed, and their Aim is now to represent us mute, silent, not able to say any thing for ourselves; not considering( though they took Time enough for it) that these two Suggestions would not well hang together, and now that they come to be examined, shane ( if they were not past it) would justly cover their Faces.  
In his 9th Observation, he quarrels at a Passage in the Epistle to the Reader, prefixed to our Account of the 2d Meeting, which is this: We hope therefore thou wilt hold us excused in our honest and peaceable Endeavours to vindicate our Faith and Persons against as black Abuses as have been ever practised by Infidels, Jews or called Christians: Here( according to his wonted Disingenuity) he quibbles upon the word Abuses, which ( that he might thereby yet further abuse us) he would extend to the Sufferings of Christ, the Apostles& holy Martyrs, by which means he would hook in the Cruelties, Torments& various kinds of Death which they underwent, and then insinuate to his Reader, that we look upon the Abuses we have received from the Baptists to be blacker then the Sufferings of Christ, his Apostles and the Martyrs in Q. Mary's Dayes. In this his Malice is so apparent, that it needs no Detection: For what else but Malice, could so notoriously pervert our Sense and Meaning? which evidently related to such Abuses as we had charged upon T. Hicks, viz. Forgeries, Perversions, Slanders, lies, Reproaches, Revilings, &c.( of which J. Ives himself confesseth thus much, p. 45. That if our Charge against T. Hicks be true, he is the Prodigy of the Age for lies and Forgeries) not to corporal Sufferings, Torments, Death, as he would disingenuously stretch the word: Though we have too much Reason to suspect, that had they Power to their Will, we should quickly have as just Cause to complain of them in this respect, as we already have in the other; for they who, at this time of the Day, will take the Liberty publicly to represent us not only as Blasphemers, Cheats and the vilest Impostors, Romish Emissaries, and most implacable Enemies to the Christian Religion; but also as Debauchers of Mankind, destructive to Government, and inconsistent with human Society; and who are already entered a solemn League, as it were, with Independents& Presbyterians against us, need say no more to let us and the World know, what Kindness we might expect from them, if the Sword were in their Hands.  
In his 10th Observation he saith, In many places in their last Book( especially in p. 60.) they tell the World, that instead of my proving them no Christians, I put them to prove they were Christians, which( saith he) is notoriously false, as the succession of my Arguments will abundantly manifest, if considered where the Result and Issue.  
For thy better Understanding of this Passage, I refer thee, Reader, to the place he hath cited, p. 59, 60. of our Accout of the last Meeting; where his Arguments issue in this, If ye can give no Evidence of it, ye are no Christians( if he will deny this to be the Issue of his Arguments, I am able to prove it out of their own Relation) Now, doth not the Rule of Contraries infer, But if you can give an Evidence of it, ye are Christians? And doth not he over and over call upon us to give this Evidence? What then can be more plain, then that he calls upon us to give an Evidence that we are Christians; and is not this putting us to prove ourselves Christians? Can he with all is subtlety spin a Distinction fine enough to h●… d between Giving an Evidence that we are Christians, and Proving that we are Christians▪ If by the Medium that he hath taken, he would have proved us No Christians, he should not have put us upon giving an Evidence, but have proved we have No Evidence to give. If he say, he attempted to prove it by the Maxim in Law, That which appears not, is not: I answer; 'tis true indeed that he did so attempt, but was pitifully foiled in his Undertaking: for it was shew'd him, that that Maxim would not hold true in all Cases; and himself soon after proved it false in this, when he acknowledged( p. 99.) that a dumb man may be a Christian( and consequently have the Evidence of it) yet not be able, because Dumb, to make that Evidence appear. If he say, that it being a Negative, there is no other way to prove it; I answer, he should have considered that before, and not have chosen such a medium, as he is not able to prove.  
But( Reader) that thou mayest be assured, that that which Jeremy Ives says is notoriously false, is indeed most certainly true, viz. That being unable to prove us No Christians, he did put us to prove ourselves Christians, and that too intentionally, take one Instance for all out of their own Relation, pag. 93. where George Keith having said, My Work at this present is not to prove ourselves to be Christians; Jer. Ives taking hold of those words, replies pertly upon him, Why, what have we been disputing all this while for? plainly implying, that that which he had been disputing all this while for, was, to make us prove ourselves Christians; and that if we did decline the proving ourselves Christians, we did therein decline that which he had been all this while disputing for. Reader, I solemnly declare, I would not, and indeed I think I have not strained his words beyond their natural and proper Force: But whether I have or no, I leave to thy judicious Censure.  
In his 11th and last Observation, he says, Whereas they in their 2d Account, pag. 9. bid their Reader Note, That T. Hicks had lodged himself safely in an Ale-house, and came not to them, but stayed there till the Confederates departing called him away, &c. This( says he) is Maliciously and falsely suggested, &c.  
Wherein doth it appear to be False or Malicious? Was Thomas Hicks in the Ale-house, or no? Yes, that he was: Jeremy grants it; but says, He was not Six Minutes there. I will not stand with Jeremy for a Minute or two; but I would have him take notice, that if Tho. Hicks had been but Three Minutes there, it had been enough to vindicate our Relation from falsehood: But how long or little soever he was there, this is certain, that there he was, and there he stayed, till some of them called him away: And how little it tends to his Reputation, to avoid the Meeting, and go to an Ale-house, I leave to the Reader's judgement. Yet in their Letter of Octob. 22. pag. 107. they would make the World believe, we seem to dread nothing more, then that T. Hicks should speak for himself, whenas he was not only particularly invited to the Meeting, but a Friend of ours going to the Meeting overtook T. H. in the way, and perceiving that he did not know either the Place or the Way to it, acquainted him that he was then going thither, and invited him to go along with him, telling him also, that probably he might be Wanted there: But T. Hicks, that he might not give a flat denial, urged an Occasion to call by the Way, and so declined the Offer. Judge now( Reader) whether their Suggestion be not false( not to say malicious) in saying, We seem to dread nothing more, then that T. H. should speak for himself, when a Meeting was appointed by us for that End, and so much Endeavour used, and Care taken to get him thither, and yet he would not be persuaded to come there, but choose rather to go to an Ale-house.  
In his last page. J. Ives gives his Reader a List of One and Twenty Persons, whom he is pleased to call Sober Ministers, all who in an Epistle of theirs, jump in, and concur with him and his Brethren the Baptists, in their Clamour against the Quakers: For Answer to their Epistle, I refer the Reader to a Book of William Penn's, entitled, A Just rebuk to One and Twenty Learned and Reverend Divines( so called) wherein I doubt not he will find their Strength sufficiently enervated. But I have not so done with Jeremy; I must take leave to expostulate the Case a little with him.  
How comest thou ( Jeremy) to make use of the Testimony of these men, and dignify them too with the Title of Sober Ministers? Hast thou forgot( or didst thou never know) that several of these thy Sober Ministers( particularly John Sheffeild, Thomas Gouge, William Jenkyn and Thomas Watson) were some of those Fifty Two London-Ministers, who in their Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and their Solemn League and Covenant, printed Anno 1648. Do testify not only their great Dislike of Prelacy, Erastianism, Brownism and INDEPENDENCY; but also their utter Abhorrency of Anti-scripturism, Popery, Arrianism, Socinianism, Arminianism, ANABAPTISM, Libertinism and Familism, with all such like, &c. and that they Detest the Toleration so much pursued and endeavoured in this Kingdom, accounting it Unlawful and Pernicious; yea, calling it not only detestable, but an hideous Monster, &c. p. 33, 34. Dost thou observe, Jeremy, with whom they link and couple thee and thy Brethren, viz. with antiscripturists, Papists, Arrians, Socinians, Libertines and Familists, and abhor you all alike? Were they Sober Ministers when they did this? Or are they grown more Sober since? And hast thou never heard that the Essex-Ministers, men of the same Circumstances with these, dancing after their Pipe, did, in the same year, publish their Testimony also under the same Title with the former; wherein they say, From our Souls we utterly Detest and Abhor, as all former Cursed Doctrines of Popery, Arminianism and Socinianism; so likewise all the Damnable Errors, Heresies and Blasphemies of these present Evil Times, whether of antiscripturists, Familists, Antinomians, Anti-Trinitarians, Arrians, ANABAPTISTS, or whatsoever is found contrary to sound Doctrine and the Power of Godliness. Seest thou here, Jeremy, how Thou and thy Brethren are ranked, and abhorred and detested by such as thou callest Sober Ministers, for your Damnable Errors, Heresies and Blasphemies, as being contrary to sound Doctrine and the Power of Godliness? Would any but an infatuated man, have given an Occasion to revive such Testimonies? Did ye fawn so on this sort of men then, and call them Sober Ministers? Or did ye repute them False Prophets, Seducers, Ministers of Antichrist,& c? But how then came ye now so well reconciled, that ye can rejoice so in their Testimony? Have ye since Retracted those Damnable Errors, Heresies and Blasphemies, which they charged upon you, and for which they abhorred and detested you, and submitted yourselves to their Correction, that ye might be received again into Favour? Or have thy Sober Ministers cried Peccavimus, asked you Forgiveness, and ●o ye have kist, and are Friends? I would fain know how ye came thus reconciled; for methinks ye are too much like Herod and Pilate, who can so readily lay aside your mutual Grudges and Animosities, to bandy together against the Innocent.  
Or have ye learnt this Device of your One and Twenty Sober Ministers themselves, who so many of them as subscribed the abovementioned Testimony, declaimed sharply against, and express their great Dislike of Independency as well as others; though now to wage War against an Innocent People, they not only fall in and embody with Independents, but have engaged as volunteers in Defence of John Faldo, a reputed Independent: By all which the Reader may observe how great a Confederacy and Combination is against us; and how they, who have formerly Anathematized each other, now hug and embrace, fawn upon and Cajol one another into a kind of Solemn League against us.  
Now to let Jeremy and his Brethren see, how little Cause they have to boast of the Testimony of their One and Twenty Sober Ministers, I will here subjoin the Names of those Fifty Two Priests, who testify their Abhorrence of the Anabaptists Errors, &c. and their Detestation of Toleration.  

Jo. Downame,  
Peter Witham,  
Fran. Roberts,  
Arth. Jackson,  
W. Wickins,  
Elidad Blackwel,  
Charles Offspring,  
* JO. SHEFFEILD,  
John walls,  
John Fathers,  
Ral. Robinson,  
Chris. Love,  
Tho. Cawton,  
Joh. Glascock,  
mat. Hariland,  
Nath. Stanyforth,  
Tho. Whately,  
* THO. WATSON,  
John After,  
Arth. Barham,  
Jam. Cranford,  
Andrew Janeway,  
William Harrison,  
* WILL. JENKYN,  
John Wall,  
Francis perk,  
Fulk Bellers.  
Hen. Robrough,  
* THO. GOUGE,  
Ro. Mercer,  
Samuel clerk,  
Will. tailor,  
Geo. Fawler,  
Ja. Nalton,  
Will. Blackmore,  
Geo. Walker,  
Dan. Cawdrey,  
Nich. Profett,  
Antho. Tuckney,  
Edm. Calamy,  
John Stern,  
Jos. Thomson,  
Step. Watkins,  
John Crodacott,  
Will Gouge,  
Tho. Gataker,  
Sim. ash,  
Tho. Case,  
La. Seaman,  
Stanley Gower,  
Hen. Wilkinson,  
Anth. Burgess.   
I could here name above as many more of the same Tribe out of Essex, who concurred with these in their Testimony against the Baptists; But I think these may be enough for one time.    

AN Expostulatory Postscript TO THE BAPTISTS.  
TO You the People called Anabaptists( of all Sorts) I direct the following Lines. How great a controversy hath of late depended( and yet doth) between us and some of the chief amongst you, I cannot suppose you altogether ignorant, inasmuch as it hath not been debated in a Corner, but as publicly transacted as we could procure it, and made yet more public by the Help of the Press: But whether ye have a right Understanding of the Nature and Subject of the controversy, is questionable; For your better and fuller Information therefore, I will briefly and summarily state it thus.  
T. Hicks, a Teacher among some of you, in several Books, which he hath printed and called Dialogues, hath most abusively and falsely represented our Principles and us to the World, perverted our Words and Meaning, published lies and Slanders against us, invented Answers in our Names, impertinent, ridiculous and impious, and so contrived the whole Matter, that he might make the World believe, that these were indeed our own Words, and Answers, and that they were really so spoken by some of us, some Quaker, accordingly as he had there related them: For this we charge him with Forgeries, Perversions, lies, Slanders, &c. His Answer is, You are no Christians; here he sticks and shelters himself, and is herein protected and defended by some of the leading Men amongst you.  
I demand now of those of you, who are most conscientious and honest in your Way, do your Hearts justify him& them herein? Can you judge that he and they have dealt Righteously and Equally with us? Would you be content to be so dealt with yourselves? If I should writ a Book against you, and therein abuse you, and falsify your Principles, as he hath done us and ours, and should tell the World, that you yourselves said this or that, or answered so and so, whenas indeed, you not only never said or thought so, but even abhor so to speak, and then instead of confessing my Fault, and mamaking you Satisfaction for the Injury, should only tell you, that ye are no Christians, would ye not think yourselves highly wronged, and account me a very Wretch for doing it? Oh be just, be just, and suffer not so great a Blemish to lie upon your Profession.  
Consider seriously, I entreat you, if what they say of us were true ( then which nothing can be more false) that we were not Christians; would that extenuate his Crime, or any Way excuse him for having so grossly belied and abused us as he has? Does your Religion give you Liberty to invent and publish Forgeries, lies and Slanders against those that you account No Christians, and to pervert their Words and Meaning? How much better then is our Religion then yours, which will not suffer us to deal so with a Jew, a Turk, an Infidel, no, nor the worst of Men? Surely if this be the Latitude of your Religion, it is high Time for all the honest-hearted among you, to quit it, quit it, as fast as they can.  
We demand nothing of you but Justice against your unjust Member; and will ye by denying us that, involve yourselves in his Guilt, and entitle yourselves to his Crimes? O beware, beware; will ye shelter a Man under the Wing of your Profession, who stands charged with such foul and abominable Evils, and dares not adventure himself upon trial but studieth Shifts and Tricks to avoid it? Let him first, if he be able, acquit himself of the Forgeries, Perversions, lies and Slanders, which lie, as so many Indictments against him; and when that is done, let him and his Adherents put forth their utmost Strength and Ability, to prove, us No Christians; we are not fearful of a good Issue, but ready and willing, with an holy Confidence, to encounter them all, in Defence of our Christianity; nay, have we not twice already condescended( though beside the Business, and out of its proper Season) to hear them say the utmost they were able upon that Subject, until themselves were weary of it, and withdrew? And what Advantage they have gained thereby, we are well content the World should judge.  
But after all this, shall we have no Right done us? must we be continually calling upon you for Justice? It is now much about two Moneths Time, since I sent forth a single Sheet under the Title of a FRESH PURSUIT, &c. In which I gave a succinct Account of the Occasion, Rise and Progress of this controversy, briefly also touching( by the way) some of those Devices, Wiles and Artifices which our Adversaries have used to divert us from the Prosecution of our Charge, and turn the controversy into another Channel: Which having done, I re-inforced our Charge against T. Hicks and his Abettors, and took upon me to make it good against them before a public and free Auditory: But inasmuch as they have taken no Notice of it, I think fit to reprint that Paragraph wherein our Charge is re-inforced; The Words are these:  
In Pursuance of which Resolution, I, who am one of the People called Quakers, do hereby on the behalf of my Brethren and myself, publicly re-charge the said Thomas Hicks with many foul Forgeries, gross Perversions, notorious Falshoods, Slanders, and Defamatory Expressions, by him published against the Quakers in his fore-mentioned Books; which Charge I take upon me to make good against him, before a public and free Auditory. And I do hereby also charge all those his Brethren( whose Names are subscribed to a Book of theirs, called, The Quakers Appeal answered, together with their Champion J. Ives, with being accessary to the said Forgeries, Perversions, Slanders, &c. in favouring, countenancing, abetting or defending the said Tho. Hicks therein: And this Charge I fix and leave upon all their Heads, until Justice be publicly done us herein; which I do hereby solemnly demand of the whole Body of the Baptists throughout this Nation( many of whom, I am persuaded, own not such Injustice) as they will answer it before the just God, and in the Heart of every Upright Man.  
This Charge I now re-iterate, and the same Demand of Justice I now again solemnly make, an earnestly press it upon all such among you, as are any whit tender and conscientious in your Way, and at your Door I leave it. The Persons charged are some of your own Members: Do us Justice; do us Right; bring them to the Test; let them acquit themselves if they can; if not, let them sink under their own Burden; but do not you, by adhering to them, or endeavouring to protect them, draw their Iniquity upon your own Heads.  
T. E   

page. 11. Line 24. for must red mayst. p. 35. l. 3. f. Equum r. Aequum. p. 41. l. 12. deal the stop(,) after say. p. 46. l. 21. f. adventure r. add we were. p. 52. l. 5. of the Marginal Note, f. he r. we. p. 54. l. 16. f. Ran r. Van. p. 70 l. 23. f. or reject r. and reject.