the late Wars against the King whenas that very Book quoted by him entituled The West answering to the North printed 1657. doth in the whole Tenour of it severely reprehend those then in Power to wit Oliver and his Ministers for their Oppressions Cruelties and Arbitrary Tyrannical Proceedings which they pretended to condemnin those before them though there might be some Words too harsh in the said Book as reflecting backward but with an Intent to judge them then in Power yet it is to be considered as chiefly writ by two Officers or Captains of the old Army being Common Wealths Men as I understand who had not as then wholy got over the Warring Spirit however did sympathize with our Poor Innocent Friends when they beheld their deep Sufferings as in some Degree sharing with them though its probable some Remainder of their former Sharpness of Spirit was left wherein they had been animated by such Zealous Chaplains as Jeremy yet those Books quoted by him were extant long before the King's Pardon which he pretends so greatly to respect but we have not gone about to serve him and his Brethren thus as to rake up all the Baptists Books that concerned the former War and Matters of State before the Kings coming in or Act of Indemnity However this we find Cause to believe that whatever Respect J. Ives his Brethren may pretend either to the Kings Gracious Pardon or the Law of Charity they would shew little Mercy if they had Power to execute their Enmity as well as to render us obnoxious to the Government such as Jer. Ives and his Brother T. Hicks would in all Probability be as busie Agents for our Ruine as they are now to endeavour it by such an Indictment as this that is made up of their present Accusations against us viz. That you justifie the late Wars against the King that you are No Christians nor worthy of so venerable a Name that your Doctrines are Destructive both to Scripture and Christian Religion that your Confessions are gross Equivocations that your Opinions do make void all Rules of Christian Faith and Practice that your Friends of the Ministry are Impostors false Prophets and Men of Lying Spirits Thus far J. Ives And then T. Hicks in his Dialogues against the Quakers viz. That you are Destructive to all Human Society Inconsistent with Government that you are as vile Impostors as ever were that your Religion is a meer Cheat calculated to the Service of the Devil and your own Lusts horrid Blasphemies that your chief Motive and Inducement to suffer is the Satisfaction of your Wills and Lusts or the promoting of your Carnal Interests that you are the Spawn of the wicked Brood the Ranters and have likt up their Vomit Romish Emissaries Hereticks Mad Men Infatuated such as esteem the Holy Scriptures of no more Auâ—hority then Esop ' s Fables and the Blood of Christ no more then an Unholy Thing or the Blood of a Common Thief yea worse that you reprobate the Holy Scriptures and the Person of Christ that you deny any future distinct Beings Rewards or Eternal Advantages to Men after Death that your owning Christ and the Christ you own is a meer Mystical Romance and that your Meetings are to Inveigle and Trapan People As also he recriminates the Quakers in General with the Enormities of some Particulars These with many more such like most bitter false and absurd Invectives by Tho. Hicks the Baptist-Agent O Persecuting Baptists But God be thanked that these Mens Horns are shortned for if they were not it is not unlikely but they would push and persecute asc ruelly as their Invectives are Inveterate and tend thereto or as their New-England Brethren whose Persecuting Spirits would not be satisfied without Innocent Blood Again Jer. Ive goes about to impeach us with an Inconsistency and to exhibit a pregnant Proof by Retortion of our being No Christians In that the Quakers refuse the Oath of Allegiance because they are against all Swearing as being Inconsistent with Christianity or living in the Life and Power of Christ or under his Government and yet reckons that some among us swear and for Instance he puts this Question What think you of William Mead who with Others took an Oath And what think you of Gerrard Roberts who together with John Osgood who with others took their Oathes as appears by their Answer to a Bill in Chancery To all which I reply from what I think 1. I tell this Inquisitor that I think they are all honest Men fearing God and Men conscientious towards him according to their Principle and that they would not injure or defraud or wrong any in their Properties or Rights and for what they do they dare appear before and answer the great God in the great Day of Judgment However if they were Conscious they are resolved they would not make this Inquisitor their Confessor for they neither expect Mercy nor Absolution from him 2. I also think and William Mead John Osgood Gerrard Roberts are satisfied that they are able to give an honest Account of their Conscientious Tenderness in this Case and that according to a good Conscience if in Love desired or out of an honest Intention or for a good End without any Design of Injury towards them or their Profession But they have no Cause to think that Ier. Ives doth enquire or accuse them to the World for any good End or out of any Friendship to them or Love to their Souls but rather from a Design of Mischief or Injury as the Tenour of his Discourse against them imports Therefore they are resolved rather to suffer his Revilings and endure his Clamours then gratifie a mischievous Spirit by giving him Account of their Affairs or Proceedings for their Properties Rights which only they seek for and not to injure their Neighbours or any Man else in their Names Persons or Estates 3. That if either Ieremy or any Baptists or others for him have made Search in Chancery or do enquire of any Officers belonging thereto whether any of the Quakers have given in their Answer upon Oath I think that he and such his Enquirers are Busibodies in other mens Matters while 't is not their own Concernments And whilst their Design and End therein is for Evil against our Friends it might be supected by those Officers in trust concerned as not to be for Good towards them or us in their Inquiry and that therefore such busie Inquisitors might justly have met with a Repulse and been rejected and not answer'd in their captious Attempts 4. To his falsly accusing the Quakers with daily impleading People at Law I say That though some of them have Occasion sometimes to make use of the Law they are necessitated thereto to maintain their just Rights Properties from such Unconscionable Men as would otherwise make a Prey upon them to Ruin them and theirs and not to injure others or defraud any of their Rights in
also thy Brother T. Hicks whose Quarrel thou hast espoused hath used such Language to some of us as Knave Impudent Fellow Audacius Fellow Coxcomb c. which is much like thy Pittyful Fool Knave Loggerhead c. See now Jeremy how thy own Observation and Charge is deservedly retorted upon thy self Art not thou found a Huffer yea and a Puffer too a Railer a Scorner and Disdainer and thinks it a great Disparagement to be accounted short of an Honest Heathen but I must tell thee that there are many Heathens that are a great deal more sober serious and fearing God then thou art as thy Lightness and frothy Deportment at the late Meetings did evince However thou braggest of thy being able by the Grace of God to approve thy self as Honest in all thy Correspondencies in the World as the best of them and challengest us to produce the Person or Persons that shall say otherwise of thee How thou art able to approve thy self and how thou hast approved thy self have a different Sense But however I must tell thee It had been more proper and more credible for others to have thus commended thy Honesty then to have done it so highly thy self but as for these Things it is not my present Business to seek or enquire out Occasions against thee in the Concerns of this World let those speak that are offended if they have Occasion given them or have complained of thee I have enough against thee of other Concerns Whereas Jer. Ives untruly chargeth our Friends Papers too abound with Untruths pretending himself so much oblieged by the Laws of Good Manners as that he will not call them Lyes and Forgeries of which he shall mention but Two which are 1. That he pretended to be delegated by T. Hicks but was not 2. That in the Dispute when he was to prove us No Christians instead thereof he put us to prove our selves Christians To prove the first an Untruth he sayes he was concern'd by their Consent else how came we to direct our Letters to him with Mr. Kiffin and others Jeremy thou art besides the Business here for thy pretending to be delegated was in T. Hicks's Cause at the Meeting near Wheeler Street and that he might be concluded by thee as personating him Did not this concern those Matters whereof we charg'd him for thou may'st remember this was urg'd at the Dispute The Letters to thee and the rest did not concern thee to personate T. H. in his Absence there but only as an Assister of him in his Presence amongst the rest but that thou wast not so delegated to personate Thomas Hicks nor that he gave up his Cause to be concluded in Jer. Ives seems evident 1. In that Jeremy and those then with him durst not enter upon the Particulars charg'd against T. Hicks as Forgeries nor would suffer them to be read 2. In that we have a Certificate to the contrary under Tho. Chamberlain's hand signifying that John Gladman told him that T. Hicks said That Jeremy Ives was not deputed by him And to the second I wonder that thou canst call this an Untruth that when thou hadst said Thou wouldst prove us no Christians instead thereof thou calld'st for an Evidence of our Christianity or put us to prove our selves Christians and W. Penn to produce Evidence to distinguish himself as a true Minister that hath Immediate Inspiration for his Rule from an Impostor See the Narrative of that Day 's Meeting from page 52 to page 56. in the taking of which Discourse we had both Careful and Ready Writers and I am sure that Jeremy's Attempts to prove us No Christians and W. Penn an Impostor did amount to that miserable Shift of calling for an Evidence on our parts as before and he now confesseth That he did require an Evidence for the Rule of our Faith and Practice by Inspiration pag. 6. And was not this then for an Evidence of our Christianity while we do not profess any real Christianity without Faith and Practice by Inspiration An Evidence of our being Divinely inspired must be an Evidence of our Christianity for none are true Christians who deny Divine and Immediate Inspiration And I do not understand what Jeremy Ives scoffs at us as Idle Enthusiasts for Enthusiastick Principles but for holding this of Immediate Inspiration nor do I see but that his Charge of Untruth in those two things before is justly to be turn'd upon himself as an Untruth against us He concludes That he might by all Laws of Dispute require Evidence of Inspiration being the Rule of Faith and Practice he would make the World believe that he is very expert in all the Rules of Dispute but I tell him It had been more proper and reasonable for him to have required Evidence of our being Divinely inspired as a Man in an enquiring unsatisfied Condition that wants Information then as one that had given and promised before to prove his positive Charge of the Quakers being no Christians It was his Part to prove this or else to have acknowledged his Confident Rashness Folly for could he with any Seriousness demand an Evidence of our being inspired of God when before he had concluded us no Christians and promised Proof thereof and saith At this turn we could do no more then Muggleton which is a Reviling Aspersion But we are sure it was a sorry Shift in him instead of proving the Quakers no Christians to put W. P. upon either proving himself a Minister of Christ or to produce an Evidence for the Rule of his Faith by Inspiration and what that Evidence was he would have besides the Spirit 's own self-Evidence concurring with a Holy Conversation he did not shew us but this is like the rest of his uncertain Work against us to make a Buz and a Noise in the World to render such Odious as are more Righteous then himself as in his Hypocritical Audacious Daring Challenge he most falsly accuseth us 1. Where he saith That W. Penn ' s Confession of his Faith though in Scripture-Expressions was but a meer Equivocation 2. That though our Discourses and Confessions of Faith be cloathed with Scripture-Language now more then formerly they are but gross Equivocations 3. That our former Opinions I suppose since we were a People were Vile Absurd and Nonsensical and that he proved to our Faces to make Void all Rules of Faith and Christian Practice 4. That by Force of Argument he drove us to that streight that we could make no Reply 5. He chargeth us with base and insolent Behaviour in hic Absence These are notorious Falshoods and to these two last many Hundreds that were present can testifie the contrary and that Jeremy Ives herein is a most false and ridiculous Boaster These Falshoods together with his daringly challenging grosly reviling us in his Paper are notwithstanding entituled by him A sober Request but now since we find upon the same Challenge another Title put before
Inspiration or Revelation from Heaven as our Friends profess for that 's inconsistent with his Religion Therefore his own presumptuous Will is his Rule and Law for his Challenge both as to the Matter and Manner of it as having no footing either in the Holy Scriptures or Power of God Whereas from his Daring us to appoint Time and Place to prove the Quakers No Christians it was told him that then it seems they are not yet proved No Christians upon which he demands Whether a Truth may not be oftner prov'd then once especially where some stop their Ears as the Deaf Adder Hereupon I ask him if he had before proved us No Christians or really judged he did so Was it proper for him to dare and beg for another Meeting meerly to prove us No Christians which is not again to prove us none or did he expect to open our Ears by going over his Matter again But if he reckoned us such Deaf Adders that would not hear him before his Business had been rather to let the World know how rarely he had proved his Charge against us and not to trouble the World or alarm City and Country with his Cracking and Boasting what he would do in his daring Vaunts which favour of meer Pride Vanity and Impudence and not of any Seriousness or Good-will towards us nor as a man that would really seek our Conversion to Christianity supposing us none for did ever the Apostles or Ministers of Christ thus dare vilifie reproach or insult over the poor Ethnicks or moral Heathen as we are counted in the sight of their Enemies or open View of the World in order to their Conversion as Jer. Ives has dealt by the despised Quakers As touching the Question T. R. put to him Whether this be that Jeremy that was cast into New-gate upon a Religious Account and for his Testimony against Swearing in the year 1660. To this he answereth I am not that Jeremy that was committed to New-gate for a Religious Refusing the Oath of Allegiance c. On which I ask if it was not for some kind of refusing the Oath and whether if a Conscientious Refusing it was not Religious But that Jeremy got out of Prison by Swearing this he denyeth not for he saith I am that Jeremy that took the Oath of Allegiance and writ a Book to prove that some Oathes were Lawful though all were not Well I 'le not press him whether he did not once reckon the Oath of Allegiance Unlawful when he was committed to New-gate but tell him that methinks he doth a little like a Temporizer colour over and construe the Business of his Letter to his Brother Pittman and Brother Sewel 1. First in saying I am not that Jeremy that ever writ against the Oath of Allegiance either privately or publickly 2. In saying I am that Jeremy that did in a Letter blame a Friend for saying He had rather have given Fifty Pound then have took the Oath of Allegiance and yet swore he took it Freely and Willingly c. By which Jeremy thou seemest only to strike at thy Brother's Hesitation Scruple and Dissimulation about the taking the Oath and not at the meer taking it or Matter of Fact But methinks thy severe Letter to them sounds otherwise as that it was for taking the Oath as well as their Scruple or Dissatisfaction in doing it else what mean these Passages in thy Letter viz. I do well to be angry with you That you would be as easily perswaded to part with as unwilling to suffer for your spiritual Liberties How unlike the Christians in former Times are you whose Zeal was so hot for God that their Eyes prevented the Morning that thereby they might prevent the Rage of the Adversary I alwayes did conclude that those that would quit the Cause of Righteousness would quit the Wayes of Holiness as yesterday's sad Experience hath taught to the perpetual Joy of your Adversaries and the sadning the Hearts and adding Afflictions to the Bonds of the Prisoners of he Lord. Thus far Jeremy See here was it only the Scruple of these Men in taking the Oath that is opposed or reproved and not their taking it Or was it the Regret they had upon them in the taking it that would be such a perpetual Joy to the Adversaries or rather the Matter of Fact as it appeared to them namely the taking the Oath and therein acting contrary to the Testimony of others that suffered to the sadning their Hearts and adding to their Afflictions Besides saith Jeremy My Bonds are my Crown but your Cowardly Spirit is my great Cross But it seems he kept this Crown but a little while if he in a few Dayes after got himself out of Prison by Swearing And wherein did their Cowardly Spirit appear but in their Swearing contrary tâ— their Consciences as Jeremy in his chiding Letter saith Now God is proving to see if you will obey him or no and did not yesterday's Work witness that you are willing to prefer the Fear of a Man that must dye before the Fear of the great God and the Fear of them that can kill the Body before the Fear of the Lord that can cast both Body and Soul into Hell I have no more to say but this that your Cowardly Temporizing and Complying with the PRECEPTS OF MEN makes me jealous that your Fear towards the Lord is taught by the Precepts of Men. Thus far Jeremy again Now the Question is did J. I. in all these Words bear upon their Hesuaâ—â—on or Scruple in taking the Oath or only reprove their Swearing they took it freely when they could not really do it Methinks if this had been the Thing and that Jeremy had really allowed of the Matter of Fact it self as the taking the Oath he should have writ in another Strain then he did unto his Brethren for taking it he should not have charged them for quitting the Cause of Righteousness to the Perpetual Joy of the Adversaries nor with adding Afflictions to the Bonds of the Lord's Prisoners nor with yesterday's Work witnessing their Willingness to prefer the Fear of a Man that must dye nor of Cowardly Temporizing and Complying with the PRECEPTS of Men for surely here is the Matter of Fact concerned but if he had approved of the Oath it self and only disapproved of their Weakness in scrupling and taking it in an unsatisfied Conscience or doubtful Mind he should then have endeavoured to have removed their Scruples and to have pacified their weak Consciences with urging the Lawfulness of what they did by demonstrating it to them but the Thing appears otherwise and that Jeremy did fall under the Judgment that he gave against his Brethren as namely that of Cowardly Temporizing and Complying with the Precepts of Men as may be suspected from his saying What if I had been once against the Oath afterward had took it must this needs make me an Impostor Surely this doth not clear him nor render
him a Stable Christian. His implying or insinuating Tho. Rudyard guilty of Forgery for putting Mens Names to own the Matter in a Book without their Consent or Privacy p. 7. 11. I suppose Tho. Rudyard hath answered for himself to this Matter elsewhere viz. to a Paper of T. Hicks that charged him with the same Fact And for my Part I do not understand that he his chargeable with Forgery herein though he had not their Consent or Privacy seeing their Names were sent up Inhabitants then present with divers others at the Examination of the Anabaptists Lying Wonder in Lincolnshire that Richard Anderson untruly insinuated to be a Quaker whose Child was falsly alledged to be cured of a Leprosie by Means of the Baptists Prayers and the Certificate being sent up to him with the Names of those then present and Ear-Witnesses of that Account and others that subscribed their Hands as further Witnesses thereto whether they consented to the publishing of their Names to the Man's Account or not was not material so long as they knew the Thing was true what Reason had T. R. or any others to think that they would scruple their Names being printed as Persons present at such Examination or Account when they were present Ear-Witnesses and then Assenters to the Credit thereof all this doth not render them No Witnesses much less T. R. a Forgâ—r for giving the World a true Account of the Matter as it was sent up to him and not contrived by him by publishing amongst other Testimonies that Certificate that detected the Baptists Forgery from the Hands of several Witnesses who really subscribed thereto who withall certified and sent the Names of those Inhabitants present The Baptists Boasts about the said Lying Wonder are sufficiently detected in our Friends Answers thereto But Jeremy thinks he payes us off in several Passages we are now coming to as in asking Whether it be not very Uncharitable for W. P. to Violate the Laws of God and the Laws of the King in remembring any thing against those whom the King had graciously pardoned else that he would not have told Mr. Faldo in his Rejoynder pag. 406. of the Nonconformists preaching up Blood and Treason and Garments rol'd in the Blood of Kings c I must tell Jeremy That he hath herein dealt unfairly by W. P. and aggravated his Words by adding BLOOD and TREASON Whenas his Words are They are true Gospel-Ministers and their Feet truly Beautiful whose Gospel is Peace on Earth and Good-will towards Men and not Garments rol'd in the Blood of Kings and Princes Rulers and People No Worldly Armies Battels Spoils Sequestrations c. Though its true that John Faldo and his Brethren are retorted upon by W. P. for their Preaching up the former War but this was not to violate the King's Favour in pardoning them but to give them a Check for their being so busie against us in a Persecuting Spirit and particularly for Iohn Faldo's Abuse of William Penn and medling with his deceased Father about which I refer the Reader to W. P's own Answer to speak for himself in his Rejoynder to Iohn Faldo pag 405 406. And so W. P's Design might be rather to Humble them and to reclaim them from that old bitter Spirit wherein they were formerly Incendiaries and yet bring forth their Invectives tending to stir up Persecution against the People of the Lord And have not both the Holy Prophets and Christ also reminded such a persecuting Generation both of their own and their Fathers former Iniquities seeing them continuing therein in the same Spirit of Envy But I doubt not but W. P. desires their Repentance that they may be converted from their Persecuting Spirit that they may receive Pardon from God as well as from the King But Ieremy thou that wouldst seem so Zealous against Uncharitableness and Violating the Laws of God and the King hast thou dealt charitably by E. Burroughs in saying He dâ—th justifie the late Wars against the King and not only so but thou art pleased to tell the World twice or thrice over that we justifie the late Wars against the King How now Ieremy Is this thy Charity and Respect to the Laws of God and the King Hast thou not herein shewn a persecuting Spirit to render us obnoxious And why so Because E. B. in severely Warning the late Powers of their Down-fall did by way of Reproof tell Oliver what God had done for him even in the same Letter to him wherein he plainly also telleth him of the Great Oppressions which the People of God suffered under him both in their Persons and Estates Saying also to Oliver If I perish I must speak the Truth most of the Prisons this day in all thy Iurisdictions do testifie the Unjust Judgments and Great Oppressions and Cruelties yea and further conditionally threatens Oliver That God would confound and him see E. B's Works from pag. 551. to pag. 583. how plainly and faithfully he did warn Oliver and those men then in Power of their Overthrow To be sure E. B. was no Temporizer neither have we forborn in dealing plainly with those in Power when we have had Cause as the Lord hath moved and authorized us And further to clear E. B. and the Reprinter or Publisher of his Books as to their Freeness from being either a Factions Party or Seditious to the Government that now is and to manifest what a True Prophet he was and that never man dealt more plainly against the former Power and Government particularly in his Message to the then Rulers of England fol. 594. viz. If you of the Army be alwayes Treacherous and Disobedient towards the Lord and abuse your Power and trifle away your Hour about Places of Honour and such Self-seeking Matters and the Cause of God be neglected by you and his People continued Oppressed Sufferers under you as they have long been even then shall you be cast aside with shameful Disgrace and the Heavy Hand of the Lord shall be upon you in Judgment and you shall be smitten more then any before you your Estates shall not be spared from the Spoiler nor your Souls from the Pit nor your Persons from the Violence of Men no nor your Neeks from the Ax for if you be Unfaithful and continually Treacherous to the Cause of God then shall you be left to the Will of your Enemies and they shall charge Treachery and Treason upon you c. But our Opposer who under the Pretence of Christianity and Charitableness shews himself void of both tells us of a Quakers Book entituled The West answering to the North hath much to this Purpose which saith he I am not willing to write out because I am not willing to expose you I cannot but observe the Man's Dissimulation and base Insinuation in this implicite Kind of accusing us hereby to render us more suspicious and obnoxious then if he had dealt plainly especially whilst he accuseth us over and over with justifying
such Cases the Law is used Lawfully being for Justice and Right It s probable that if the Quakers could neither make use of the Law nor have their Answers accepted for what 's their own proper Rights but be devoured by Unreasonable or Wicked Men our Opposer would not be so offended nor inquisitive as he is into our Friends Affairs but he would think it ill to be so dealt by If his Brethren should be asked What think you of Jeremy Ives who boasts that he is able to approve himself as Honest in all his Correspondencies in the World as the best of the Quakers But hath he done so hath he performed Promise and Covenant with all and satisfied all his Creditors have none of them had cause to complain of him in those Matters It s not unlike but he would be very short at this and give such an Answer as this What 's that to you meddle with your own Business I will not make you my Confessor or I have done what I can to satisfie all or so far as I was able And so our Friends can easily answer What 's their Concerns to Ier. Ives What has he to do to question or accuse them therein They have endeavoured to keep their Consciences in-offensive towards God and Men as those that must give an Account to God and not unto their Adversaries who havâ— no Jurisdiction over them or their Consciences 5. I must take Leave further to enquire seeing that Jer. Ives and Henry Don with divers others have thus defined an Oath viz. to say God is my Witness God is my Record I speak the Truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit c. that these Expressions with many more of the like Nature are equivalent to an Oath and these to evince That the Apostle Paul himself sware and that not only Christ but the Apostle did both practise enjoyn and exact Swearing upon others and to prove that he charged others to swear J. I. cites 2 Tim. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 27. Also J. Tombs in his Supplement about Swearing saith That the using these Speeches I affirm before God or this we say in the Presence of him that shall judge the Quick and the Dead c. is plain Swearing Concerning which Definition and Plea for Swearing under the Gospel these men are answered by that faithful Servant of the Lord and Sufferer for the Cause of Christ Samuel â—â—sher in his Antidote against Swearing and his Supplementum Sublatum Now suppose that any of our Friends find Freedom to use some such Expressions in their Testimonies before Authority as God is my Witness I speak the Truth in the Presence of God or I speak in the Fear of God or God knows I lye not and this without Regret or Scruple of Conscience and suppose what they say be believed and accepted of as equivalent to an Oath and that those Magistrates or Ministers in Trust are satisfied therewith and do not think it prejudicial to their Consciences to accept thereof what Instruction has Jeremy to give in such Cases What has he to do to shew himself a Busie Body in other Men's Matters And why should he rake into his Neighbours Affairs either to find out Occasion against them or to prejudice them in their Properties Should not Jeremy's Business rather be to convince the Quakers of the real Definition of an Oath that they may not interfer with their Principle rather then to seek to make them odious to the World as Men perfidious therein For this is not the Way to perswade them to Jeremy's Christianity they would not willingly or wittingly profess one Thing and practise another Thus far I have signified what I really think in Answer to Jeremy's Question As for his high Charge viz. 1. How Impious then are the Quakers who some of them swear themselves and most of them take Pleasure in them that do so 2. Can Quakers be Men of Conscience and Integrity that while they judge Swearing will procure Men to swear Both which are manifestly false for they neither take Pleasure therein nor procure Men to swear if any of them have Occasion for Witnesses that do not scruple an Oath it is the Magistrates not the Quakers that put them upon or tender them an Oath for if their Testimony without an Oath might be accepted the Quakers would be better satisfied Let the Magistrates enjoyn them to speak Truth upon what Penalty they shall see meet we have proposed this for our selves as well as others Whereas Ieremy takes the Grant that W. P. gave to his Request for a Meeting to be upon Dishonourable or Impossible Conditions and so worse then a Down-right Denyal of which he first mentioâ—â—th that If Mr. Kiffin Mr. Plant Mr. Dike and Mr. Hicks will give it under their Hands that they will be bound to stand to what Jeremy shall Answer Propose Affirm or Deny W. P's first Proposal runs thus viz. 1st Let Jeremy Ives make it appear to us that he is deputed to this Work for it is beneath US to engage against a single Person as well as beside our Business as the Case lieth to think our selves concerned in his Rodemontado's and vapouring Challenges He is Privateer but for himself and stands upon no Body's Legs but his own and some think not alwayes well on them neither And why is this Impossible I suppose he doth not count it Dishonourable to be Deputed But if them Impossible it argues they have not so much Confidence in Ieremy as he has in himself and that they think not fit tâ— embarque their Cause in that Bottom And what Reason is there then for a whole Body of People to subject themselves to the imperious Daring and Examination of such a singular boasting Bravado if his own Brethren cannot confide in nor subject their Cause to him and then is it reasonable We should meet him alone without a Deputation from them to this Work Another Condition is That all we have against T. H. may be first debated and this is but reasonable and J. I. unreasonable in interposing to divert our Prosecution of this The Condition is thus laid down by W. P. 2. That he to wit Jeremy Ives peâ—â—sonate T. Hicks as to the Matter charged by us against him to wit of writing Forgeries Perversions and Slanders 3. That before he enters upon proving us No Christians he would tell us what a True Christian is or we go by no Standard 4. Prove to us that he is that Christian or else he is unfit to prove another No Christian. 5. That we are not such Christians but Hereticks and Impostors To our proposing that what we have against T. H. may be first debated Jer. tells us that we will not vindicate the Honour of our Profession till we have vindicated the Honour of our Personal Reputations as being more zealous thereof then of the Honour of God and Religion This is a gross and apparent