supposed that nighan hundred of the Anabaptists would clamor together and make a hideous Noise and Bawling to stop him that was about to speak and in such wise were we Beset Interrupted and Hector'd by their Companies in the Galleries and near us upon their Leaders Example insomuch that we must wait a considerable time ere we could be heard The Charge of Shuffling and Bogling at one single Question being afraid c. pag. 12. is unjust and scornfully aggravated for though there was some Intermission before an Answer was given it was not at all out of any Fear or to Shuffle about it but because 1 st It was not W. P's place then to Answer Interrogatories and unscriptural Questions when his Adversaries had given a Charge that we were no Christians and upon the Proof as they pretended instead whereof they fell to Catechising us 2 dly And if we had not at that Time answered one Word to the Question but held them to the Proof of their Charge judicious Auditors would have held us excusable To that of T. H's saying Most of the Particulars he would prove from our Principles and the rest by Testimonies p. 13. he said the rest by Consequence Though here T. H. made a Stop yet W. P. is charged with an Interruption a Lye a Fool and Vnjust when he did not insist on the Matter see their disingenuous Carping and Reviling Whereas many gross things were instanc'd and laid against him wherein he had most falsly and abusively personated us as so speaking and being our own Answers and VVords and our Method and Manner of Reasoning even in many Particulars which he had neither Testimony for nor are they deducible either from our Words or Principles However if he say He will prove them by Consequence this bewrayes his own Falseness in saying They were the Quakers Answers when they were but T. Hicks's Forgeries staâ—â—d in our Name and Person Sect. II. Of the Christ of God c. THat we have denyed Distinctions p. 15. is false for true and reasonable ones we deny not But if our Friends Words have not deceived this Man he saith we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ p. 16. Where proves he these Words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ Yet we must own that if he was the Son of God before he took Flesh he was Christ with respect to his Divine Nature as proceeding from the Father and that he was the Son of God before is not denyed that we know of in which Respect he was not seen with Carnal Eyes but with Respect to the Body which he took upon him in Time And as for two Natures viz. the Divine and Human united in one Person being the Christ p. 16. Then how consistent with this is it to say that the Human Nature or Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood is Christ p. 17 18. Which is all one as one while to say that Christ is made up of a Divine and Human Nature another while of a Human Nature or Body and yet that Body the Body of Christ. I must confess that if you impose upon us a Creed in such Impropriety of Speech and besides Scripture-Language and Phrase or otherwise unchristian us we must tell you that untill you bring us plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ which Phrase some do conscientiously Scruple at least as being too low to entitle to the Christ of God we must rather patiently bear your Censure or Damnation then deviate from Scripture-Language in our Creed which is that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh that he is God Man the Son of God yea and God manifest in Flesh that as Mediator betwixt God and Man he is THE MAN Christ Jesus that Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered was crucified dyed and rose again the Third Day is called The Body of Jesus this Temple and a Body hast thou prepared me was not this the Son speaking to the Father As for J. Ives's great Question so much insisted on Whether Christ's Human Nature was a Part of Christ p 17. As it was not a Question in Scripture Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded begged instead of proving the Charge of our being no Christians As also thus to divine Christ into Parts is a Contradiction to the Human Nature being Christ. Pray you Baptists before you conclude a final Sentence upon us agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by if you will impose upon us to believe as you believe in Matter and Form upon Pain of Excommunication as Ethnicks or Heathens and finally of Damnation and then we may answer you further as we see Occasion you having already attempted to excommunicate us from among all Christians chiefly about Words wherein as yet you have not stated a plain and congruous Form among your selves And we need not think our selves oblieged further to answer you or defend our selves from your bare Charge of being no Christians until you have given us such a formal Creed and withal explain prove and reconcile these your Terms which you impose question and strive about some of you have endeavourd to tye us up to answer Aye or No unto as about your Expressions viz. Two Natures in one Person the Christ. Christ's Human Nature Part of Christ. The Body that was seen with carnal Eyes the Christ. Christ's Body of Flesh Blood to be Christ or Christ's Person The true Christ a Person without us or a Personal Being without us But let it be further observed that your Brother H. Grigg confesseth of Jesus Christ the Son of God thus viz. That he was of the same Essence or Substance with the Father the holy Spirit and that he had a PERSONAL EXISTENCE or Subsistence before he did assume our Nature c. See here they own a Personal Being of Christ before he assumed our Nature they should have agreed upon the Definition of Words Person and Personal Existence and Subsistence and clearly explain them to us in their Nature and Property as also the Nature and Extent of the Word Human both as they apply it to Body to Nature and as it relates to Man and not darkly and dubiously to impose them upon us in their â—uestions but rather be content with plain Scripture-Language and Words which the Holy Ghost hath taught which it seems these Men are not content with as also appears where W. Penn confest his Belief of Christ to be of the Seed of Abraham yet God over all blessed forever c. This was and is excepted against as not direct to the Question p. 18. Therefore upon their variable Terms about Christ I Propose these few plain Questions seriously
the Old Fancies of Sabellius revived and new vampt not heard of till long after Christ and then quickly exploded the Church about 1400. Years ago pag. 36. I must needs say that as this Accuser's smiting at us is in the dark herein for he does not lay down these old exploded Fancies of Sabellius or tell us particularly what they are but thus in dark general Terms is smiting and squibbing at us and abusing his Readers as if they were all bound to believe his Accusations on his bare Word But what were those Fancies or Opinions of Sabellius and such others that were exploded as Heterodox or Heretical It 's reported That their Books contain many Blasphemies against the Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and withal much Incredulity touching his only-begotten Son and First begotten of all Creatures and the word Incarnate and senseless Ignorance of the Holy Ghost Euseb. lib. 7. fol. 125. ch 5. As also those that denyed Christ to have been God from Everlasting and affirm'd that by Nature he was but only a bare Man as it is said the Followers of Paulus Samosatenus did Such disapprov'd the Essence and Divinity of Christ which hath been before all Worlds and such as confound the Father the Son and Holy Ghost imagining Three Names in One Thing and in One Person Soc. Schol. l. 2. ch 15. But we are sure that we are clear from all such Opinions as Denying the Deity or Divinity of the Son of God or his being that Word that became Flesh and so from affirming him to be butonly a bare Man As also we never went about to confound the Father and Son truly conâ—â—der'd according to Scripture-Testimony or to deny either the Property Relation Manifestation or Operation of Father or Son though the one Divine Being of Father Son and Holy Spirit from Everlasting we have and must confess Let it suffice that as we confess to the Father's bringing or sending forth the Son both from his own Being and Substance as also to his taking Flesh and the perfect Manhood upon him in due time and that we really believe his Sonship and all this according to Scripture so that he was and is the Christ of God the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore to compare us with Sabellius or such as before mention'd is very Envious and Unjust But that Baptists have done no less then denyed the Deity of the Son of God or Divinity of Christ appears in what follows John Newman's Argument If Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning then Christ was not the Word from â—he Beginning But Christ as Christ was not from the Beginning Therefore Christ was not the Word from the Beginning pag. 52. of his Book entitul'd The Light Within Mark here Though he grants Christ and the Word to be one and the same yet this Argument denyes him to be either Christ or the Word from the Beginning What was he then He tells us not Doth not this oppose the Divinity of Christ or Deity of the Son of God to affirm that He was neither as Christ nor the Word from the Beginning for The Word was with God and the Word was God And T. Hicks among much more of his idle Quibbling and Opposition thus queries viz. I ask thee if Christ signifie Anointed and God be Christ as thou Quaker affirmest Whether God himself e anointed Dial. 3. pag. 32. Mark here who is the Quibbler irreverently reflecting upon Scripture-Language But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God! is for ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows Hebr. 1.8 9. Psal. 45.6 7. But these Baptists are willing to throw off God being Christ with as thou affirmest which is not as they affirm them I ask then If they own that Christ is God Or that as the Son who is God he be anointed as he is the Son And If He was the Son of God and so Christ before his Incarnation or assuming Flesh However these men appear Socinianized now and boggle at this Pre-Existence of Christ and seem to define or limit him only as a Person without us in Flesh yet formerly some of their Brethren have confessed That Christ is God That Christ is call'd the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.17 yea that The Father hath put his Name upon him Exod. 23.21 And that it is the Christ that is there spoaken of is manifest That the Father hath put his Name upon him so far as He is call'd the Father Isa. 9.6 See their Book entitul'd A Way to Zion p. 102. I pass by several Falshoods traducing and canting Language in the said Qu. Quibbles and grant that at length that the Author hath shewn himself more ingenious then in all the Book besides where he concludes thus viz. If I have mistaken thee or any of thy Friends it is not willingly and if thou shewst me honestly wherein I will beg thy Excuse I not pretending to Infallibility my Opinion being still so long as we are men in this Condition Humanum est errare But he should have consider'd this at the Beginning of his Book and have been more submissive and gentle in his Work beeing so subject to Mistake THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forgers Compurgators Are IMPEACHED In a strict Examination of divers Citations and Doctrinal Matters in their Book entituled The Quakers Appeal answered or a full Relation of the Occasion Progress and Issue of a Meeting held in Barbican the 28th of August last past as their Style is Which Meeting was held by the Baptists to clear T. Hicks to charge and insult over the Quakers in their Absence as the Mannagement and Issue thereof hath manifested This is published not only for want of Justice from them but because of the Injustice of those Baptists so deeply concerned for their Brother Tho. Hicks against the People of God called Quakers George Whitehead He looked for Iudgment but behold Oppression for Righteousness but behold a Cry Under Falshood have they hid themselves THE Second Treatise Wherein the Forger's Compurgators are Impeached A Brief Introduction THat these Men who have undertaken to answer our Appeal against Tho. Hicks have pretended very fair in Words is undeniable but how they have performed and answered is already manifest and will further appear in divers Particulars wherein I do complain against them both of their Injustice Partiality and false Testimony and affirm that they have neither approv'd themselves Just Judges nor faithful Witnesses in matters plain and obvious nor yet clear'd T. Hicks In their Title-Page they say Wherein the Allegations of William Penn in two Books lately published by him against T. Hicks were answer'd and disproved This is a manifest Vntruth as any Impartial Eye may see who is willing but to compare this their Barbican Relation styl'd The Quakers Appeal
asking them 1. If the Son of God was not in Being in the Beginning and from Everlasting 2. If he was not truly the Christ of God being the Son of God before he took Flesh upon him or was born of the Virgin Mary 3. If Carnal Eyes could see him simply as the Eternal Son of God or his Glory as of the only begotten of the Father 4. Where doth the Scripture say that the Human Nature is the Christ 5. Or that Christ is a Person or Personal Being consisting of Human Flesh and Blood without us 6. Or that his Glorious Body in Heaven is a human Body 7. Whether the Man Christ Jesus the Mediator be really separate and remote from his Church or Members so as not to be present in his Church here on Earth 8. If Christ be separate remote or divided from his Church how is he the Head thereof or his Church a living Body without or divided from the Head If you profess you know Christ do not impose your implicite Notions unscriptural and uncouth Terms about him but declare your Experience of him Farther as to what we hold concerning the Christ of God in Answer to his 20th Page 1. Christ who was the Word in the Beginning in due Time came in the Flesh. 2. That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the entire Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ. 3. That God was in Christ and the Father and Son are inseparable 4. That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only-begotten of the Father and also known as Co-Workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery 5. The Man 's accusing the Quakers with this Doctrine That the Father is the Son and the Son the Father and so God the Christ of himself and Christ the God of himself Somewhat like as Muggleton does in this Particular p. 20. Though these are none of our Words yet this favours of meer Ignorance and Envy we do not own any such Separation between God and Christ as these Words The Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like but that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the Son is the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace see how plain it is Isa. 9.6 6. That Christ is not a Person without us p. 21. is not our Doctrine or Phrase that I know of or remember only that the Title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many Men having Gross Apprehensions about the Phrase PERSON WITHOUT But Christ is confest by us both as without us and within us 7. We are charged that we must hold That Christ dyed not but only the Body that he assumed that was prepared for him p. 21. Now you Promoters of this Q. Quibbles for an Ingenuous Pamphlet I ask you if any more of Christ properly dyed then the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or his Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly if you do then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have blaâ—phemously said that Christ's Soul and Godhead-Life dyed When as Christ's dying and being buried 1 Cor. 15. was properly that the Body dyed and was buried to wit the Body of Jesus See Mat. 27.58 Mark 15.43 45. Luke 23.52 46. and 24.3 John 20.21 As to what we say about seeing the Son of God spiritually and not carnally Or between the seeing him savingly and not so seeing him c. The Man is hugely taken with J. Ives's Answer to our Distinction That he cannot but own it to be very good and pertinent Jeremy ' s Words were saith he That then I or any man might say by the same Reason that W. Penn or G. Whitehead was never seen with bodily or carnal Eyes because the Excellency better Part of them viz. their Souls was never seen though their Bodies be seen which is not the Man p. 23. To which I reply It 's not improbable that if we had made such a Comparison you Baptists would have cryed out O Blasphemy 1. To compare the Names W. Penn and G. Whitehead with the Name Christ. 2. To compare the seeing G.W. W.P. with the seeing the Christ of God 3. It implies the Name of Christ to be no more excellent then the Name George or William Oh Ignorance in the Abstract 4. Did not the Name of Christ as well concern the more excellent Part or Divine Nature as the Manhood and far Excell those fleshly or outward Names of Distinction given to us as meer Men and Creatures and that by Earthly Parents or Relations and not from a Spirit of Prophecy as to respect some divine Qualification or new Nature for that must have a new Name therefore I must look upon J. Ives's Answer and Similitude to be both impertinent and irrational Sect. III. Our Opposer self-condemned his irreverent Quibbling about Christ and their Ignorance of the Spirit 's Evidence who seek for Signs c. AS for your standing Gaping well nigh an Hour for an Answer p. 24. If many of you had not gaped and hidiously bawled often to hinder our Answers but had been civil you had been more answer'd then you were His Charge That we are fit for no man to dispute with except some of Mugleton's Disciples p. 25. is far enough from approving himself an indifferent Penn But will the Baptists own this that they are such as Muggleton's Disciples when they propose for or admit of Disputation with us As for W. Penn's using the Words Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger in his Books against Thomas Hicks this the Man accounts gros Language that will hardâ—y stand with good Manners nor suit with a civiliz'd man much less with a good Christian and to say it is a Lye is Billings-gate Rhetorick more fit for Scoulds that are duck'd c. p. 25. This is made a very capital Crime with this Author who bids us speak Evil of no man but be gentle shewing all Meekness c. And yet he himself calls W.P. the Author of a Lye a Fool unjust p. 13. and calls us Fools Obstinate c. and so hath condemned himself both as a partial and a self-contradictory Pen. But why is W.P. the Author of a Lye The Pretence is for taking the Words out of T.H. 's Mouth before he had made an End of his Sentence as when he said most of the Particulars he would prove W.P. then saying most of them then not all which was upon a Stop that T.H. made there as he and many others apprehended Howbeit when T.H. added The rest he would prove by Consequence W.P. insisted not on the first Words but refused to admit of his Consequences be having told the World in
as many did against Christ the Apostles and Primitive Church of old However it is very Uncharitable for them to conclude us No Christians Either because They will not see us to be such or because that at their faithless Demands We do not produce such mighty Signs as they call for in their own Wills and Times But a Foolish Adulterous Generation seeks a Sign being in the Unbelief not acknowledging the Sufficiency of the Spirit 's Teaching and Evidence in that they own not the SPIRIT to be their RULE Sect. IV. The Quakers clear from L. Muggleton's Principles and the Baptists Agent 's comparing them together proved Scandalous and Wicked c. TOuching the Comparison that is made between the Quakers and Muggletonians it 's both Idle Quibbling and Envious Canting to traduce and scandalize us what if W. P. does not pretend to more then Muggleton does nor to so much in some things does it therefore follow the Quakers are Impostors or like him who holds apparent Blasphemies in many Things wherein W. P. and others of us have given publick Testimonies against him The Baptists may be ashamed of such gross and abusive Insinuations as this comparing the Quakers and Muggletonians yea and that in some Things wherein the Baptists and Muggletonians might as well yea and more truly be compared As where it is said Muggleton sayes He is one of the two Witnesses spoaken of in Rev. 11. that God hath given Power to prophesie and the Quakers say they are the true VVitnesses to the Light and have received Power to preach the Everlasting Gospel c. And I may as well add do not the Baptists profess themselves both to be true Witnesses of the Christ of God and Preachers of him too Muggleton hath several Disciples and Followers that believe him and so have the Baptists Muggleton curses and damns the Quakers and what do Baptists less to Quakers and all others that will not be dipt by them or do oppose them But 1. Muggleton sayes He has received Commission from Heaven 2. That he had it by divine Revelation 3. That he is inspired by the Spirit of God 4. That he pretends to Infallibility And what if Quakers pretend to these as led by the Spirit of Truth The Apostles and true Church did not only pretend to but experience the same does it therefore follow that they must be compared with the Muggletonians and be deemed Impostors And the Baptists the true Ministry and Church and yet have no Commission from Heaven either to dip or damn People but deny divine Revelation immediate Inspiration and Infallibility Let them answer for themselves It 's said Muggleton denyes that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons And have not the Baptists done as much in these Words Jesus Christ God Man a Person without you See Dial. 1. p. 9. wherein they imply the Father and the Son or God and the Man Christ to be but one Person without us whereas we tell them 't is not a Scripture-Phrase But seeing Muggleton pretends some Things that both the Baptists and Quakers hold would the Baptists be therefore included in the Comparison with the Muggletonians Might they not at this rate as well make all Protestants to be Papists yea Jews Mahometans c. because all agree in some Truths But the Comparison-Maker was not so honest as to shew wherein the Quakers differ with and oppose Muggleton as a Blasphemer and Impostor As Muggleton holds these false and Blasphemous Doctrines which the Quakers utterly deny 1. That the Breath of Life God breathed into Adam which made his Soul to live is mortal and doth dye 2. That Adam ' s Soul did dye viz. with the Body 3. That the Soul of Man is mortal Do not some of the Baptists hold the same 4. That to say the Soul departs from or slips out of the Body when it dyes is an ignorant dark Opinion of most People contrary to Sense Reason or Faith 5. That Death took Christ's Soul into it 6. That Lazarus his Soul was dead in the Grave where his Body was those four Dayes 7. That not only Adam ' s Soul did dye but also that the Soul of Christ did dye 8. That all mens Souls ever since are dead being mortal Thus far all the Baptists who hold the Mortality of the Soul agree with Muggleton 9. That Solomon was ignorant in this Point in saying the Body to the Dust and the Spirit returns to God that gave it 10. That God was born of Mary 11. That God is not an Infinite Spirit filling all Places 12. That the Godhead Life dyed that when Christ dyed God dyed 13. That Christ being God embodyed with Flesh and Bone one Person without us cannot be in the Quakers 14. That there are many vast Places in the Earth where God is not at all 15. That God himself is a single Person in Form of a Man and no bigger in Compass and Bulk and was so from Eternity then a Man even of the same Stature as the first Adam was 16. That Reason is the Devil 17. That all Men have received the Seed or Spirit of Reason from the Devil or raprobate Angel 18. That the Devil became Flesh Blood and Bone 19. That Cain was none of Adam ' s Son or Begetting but the first Devil in Flesh. 20. That Eve was with Child of Cain by the Serpent-Angel before Adam knew her 21. That then the Condition of Eve was much like the Condition of Mary the Virgin being with Child by the Holy Ghost before Joseph knew her 22. That the Devil that tempted Christ was a Man Thus far of Muggleton in his Looking-Glass for G. Fox and other Books of his and John Reeve's are replenisht with such absurd and blasphemous Stuff which we never were guilty of but alwayes abhorred and often testified against as we have had Occasion therefore let the World judge how grosly and wickedly we are dealt with and scandalized in the Baptists or their Abettors comparing us with Muggleton between whom there is as much Distance and Opposition as betwixt Heaven and Hell Light and Darkness Sect. V. The Quakers furher unjustly compared and Baptists proved to Deny the Divinity of Christ. Pag. 36. BUt we are further catechised If our Ministers ought to be believed on easier Terms then Christ and â—is Ministers were that is on such Signs and Wonders and Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost as God did bear them witness with Acts 2.22 Heb. 2.3 4. And why must we be put upon this Proof or else be judg'd not only No Christians but Impostors but because we bring New Doctrines and New Revelations as we are accused But what these New ones are and wherein contrary to the ancient Christian Apostolical Doctrines we are not yet convinc'd by all the Oppositions we have met withal It is further added That some of which are not such New Discoveries from Heaven manifest by the Light within as pretended being in Truth but
be the Divine Essence the Light must be so also for such as the Cause is such the Effect must be Thus G. W. in a Manuscript Whereas it is not thus laid down either in this Method or Form of Argument in any Manuscript of mine that I know of or an remember or find out and yet I do own That the Life which is the Light of Men that true Light wherewith every maâ— is enlightened Joh. 1.4.9 in its own Being is God and Christ and not a meer Effect of Power as a made or created Thing but Divine and Increated It appears that these Witnesses have received divers Things on the Credit of their Brother T. Hicks who in like Manner layes down the Argument in his first Dialogue yet they have the Confidence to subscribe thereto though I confess I laid down my Reason to prove that Life which is the Light of and in Men Divine thus far viz. If that Life which is the Light of Men be of the divine Being then the Light must be so also Unto which I may now add the following Proposition But that Life is of the Divine Being or of a Divine Nature therefore the Light of Men spoaken of Joh. 1.4 9. must be so also I also grant that the Cause and Effect were spoaken of upon T. H. his esteeming the Light within but an Effect c. to explain my Sense of the Cause and Effect though not laid down in such an inconsistent Argument is placed upon me It was only admitted aâ— between that Divine Life and its immediate Illumination or Lightning in Man which naturally flows or proceeds from the Life So that if I should go meerly in the Form of Argument there being different Causes and Effects I should first distinguish between them As there are Causes and Effects or Products of one Kind or Nature so there are of different Kinds As the Sun and the Shining or Beams thereof are of one Kind and the Fountain and Streams thereof are of one Kind or Nature but so are not the Carpenter and the House that he makes c. as I plainly signified my Intention and Sense about that Immediate Light in Man being Divine Supernatural by a Reason of the contrary As the Light or Immediate Shining of the Sun in the Firmament is Natural because the Sun it self is a Natural Light so the Immediate Illumination or Shining of God in Man's Heart or Conscience must needs be Divine and Supernatural because he himself is so who is the Fountain of Light That Eternal Life which was with the Father 1 Joh. 1.2 is Divine and that Life was and is the Light of Men Joh. 1.4 And so 't is God who hath shined in our Hearts to give the Light of the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 4.6 And his shining we hope will not now be denyed to be Divine being immediately of and from himself and he so shined in their Hearts before they were come to the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Christ Jesus in Order to give them that Knowledge And I further add let it therefore suffice that it is my Principle That the Life which is the Light of Men mentioned Joh. 1.4.9 is Divine Supernatural and so Increaâ—â—d and it was never my Judgment or Words that it was but a mere Effect as a Thing made but that in its own Being 't is no other then the Life of God and so himself and that every Measure or Degree of his Immediate Light Inshining or Illumination in Man is Divine and Spiritual and able to direct the Soul to God Christ from whence it cometh knowing also that God's Love and Grace in Christ is universal and free to all Mankind And why we should be Vnchristian'd for confessing Christ to be that Light which enlightneth every Man that comes into the World or for saying that the Light in Men is Divine I do not understand since T.H. himself hath confessed That Christ is the Life and Light of men Dial. 1. p. 22. Though this he hath often contradicted and since made it an Article against us to prove us No Christians that we hold That the Light wherewith every Man is enlightned is God when he himself hath confessed that it is Christ as namely That Christ is the Life and Light of Men. Sect. V. A slanderous Accusation of T. Hicks's against the Quakers removed AS to Matter of Fact Whereas we are charg'd to say That it concerns us to render our Adversaries as ridiculous as we can and to make our Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themselves and if this fail that we will insinuate by way of Question something that may be a Slander to them Dial. 1. pag. 72. and Qu. Ap. answ pag. 22. To prove this Charge T. Hicks saith that G. W. in his Answer to Mr Danson insinuates a Slander upon him by way of Question by saying That he styleth himself Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich but is not rather that Report of him true That he is given to Gaming and Bowls c And again T. H. addeth This Question was put meerly to slander him A notorious Untruth It was not put with any such Intent as meerly to slander him for it is true that such a Report was given to me of him and seem'd not improbable or then incredible to me such Recreations so call'd being common to men of his Coat It is true that by the Question before I did oppose a Gamster or Player at Bowls to a Minister of the Gospel but that I neither made the Report nor design'd to slander T.D. by way of Question or otherwise as I am slanderously accused see the following Certificate As concerning the Report that hath been made Question of touching T. Danson ' s exercising himself at Bowls c. when Minister at Sandwich I can certifie that I had this Report from an Independent who was an Inhabitant at Sandwich and who if Occasion require I question not but will evidence it and accordingly I made mention of this Report to George Whitehead witness my Hand Isaac Chatwode Now judge serious Reader how unjustly T.H. hath represented me as putting the Question meerly to slander T. D. whether he be concern'd or not I determine not which thing hath been perversly hinted in several Pamphlets against us And whether or no the said Question doth prove it our Answer Words or Principle to say That it concerns us to render our Adversaries as ridiculous as we can or that we will insinuate by way of Question something that may be a Slander to them as T.H. hath Dialogued the Matter in our Name after a most abusive sort beyond all Bounds of Honesty or Civility who farther attempts to prove that my Question before was put meerlâ— to slander him from what W. P. alledges in this very thing which is Who knows not that the Priests give themselves a Liberty in more