« ForrigeFortsæt »
thereof, according to the sense and understanding given me, and that before I have done with ny present opposers. As T. A. takes the liberty to be the Quakers' mouth, and to present them as speaking those impertinencies and falsehoods which are merely his own forgeries, and never believed nor intended by them; let the unprejudiced reader judge, whether he be not herein guilty of falsehood and deceit, as in divers things hath been signified in this discourse.
And as for his second accusation, admitting that I did not write down all his explications upon his positions, it is no proof that the relation of what I gave was false, as he accuses me; neither bath he proved that I have given a false relation of any one position of his.
Besides, in some of his positions the very substance of his reason or argument, is therewith inserted in my paper; others of his positions are so absurd and gross, that he could not make so much as the colour of a reasonable explication upon them. And therefore I did endeavour to induce him, apon more deliberate considerations, to produce what explanations he could for his doctrines; for which these were my words: “ If our opposer says we have not inserted his explications upon his assertions, our answer is, that is his work, he hath liberty to do it himself.”
Now if for this he must revile me in the open street, calling me kuave and shaking his stick at me: if the Baptists will prove men knaves at this rate about principles or opinions, they will make all knaves that oppose them, who do not relate all ciriumstances of words, as well as their assertions, how impertinent soever.
Though I am unwilling to reflect upon all of them for this outrageous and uncivil carriage, and defaming language of their brother Hicks; for his brother W. Kiffin did somewhat ingenuously show his dislike thereof openly; yet when he attempted to prove it, adding thereto against me such language as this, viz. impudent fellow,” • audacious fellow.” “ deceitful fellow,"&c. to excuse him herein, some of his companions sail, it was his zeal. But this cover was too narrow; such hypocritical and false excuses will not hold up the credit of T. Hicks, and those his adherents.
And be it reminded, that in divers things he hath both cur. tailed and wholly left out my explications, particularly of that passage cited by him in his 28th page, viz. • That which is spoken from the Spirit of truth in any, is of as great authority as the scriptures, and greater." Here he stops and leaves out, “ as received and proceeding immediately from that Spirit, and as Christ's words were of greater authority when he spoke, than the Pharisees' reading the letter,” as before hinted. See,
here he hath called me a knave for that which he is more mani. festly guilty of; and so is condemned out of his own mouth, in that which he himself allows.
And I desire that Thomas Hicks may look at home, and examine his own conscienee, whether he was not in bimself detected for his passion and fury towards me. I would not have him go on wronging his own conscience, nor withstand that light in him, wbich in secret would show him his infirmity and evil, in this matter of passion and calumnious railing, whereby he will never gain upon the spirits of any, who are tender and sincere to God.
Instead of repenting thereof, he brings the same language over again in his postscript, after he bas had both reproof and deliberation to have learned better. But it appears he is disturbed and chafed in his spirit, as a man guilty, and there. fore shuffles to ease himself, by telling us again thus, viz. “I told G. W. he was a knave, wbereof I did tben, and do still esteem him, &c. really false and dishonest.” p. 91.
To which G. W.'s reply is, the Lord forgive him. Howbeit I defy my adversary's implacable enmity, and do challenge bim and all the world, justly to detect me of dishonesty, or of acting against my conscience, or to the injury of any one living. Knowing my own peace in the testimony of a good conscience towards God and man, I do really defy the envy of the devil and all his agents.
And 'T. H. cannot bide his passion and railing, by his begging the question, viz. “ doth not that Quaker who wrote that book called the Lying Wonder, (p. 9.) endeavour to fasten these terms of fool and knave upon J. G.” Whereas his case was not the same with mine, nor is he positively so charged. For his brother J. G. attempted to attest the Anabaptist's Lying Wonder out of Lincolnshire, upon the mere credit of his brother Ralph James, (the fomenter,) as having been an elder of a congregation many years, from whose mouth J. G. had the relation of a great miracle done by the prayers of their church, though contrary to their faith, who affirm that miracles are ceas. ed long since. And yet in his letter to his elder R. J. to desire a reason why this great handiwork of God hath been so long concealed from publication, when he himself knew of it some months before, as also Ben. Morley, as J. G. affirms; to which the words are added by T. R. thus, viz. “ Whether J. G. be not as much fool as knave by his own handiwork, let his brethren judge." See here it is referred to his brethren to judge in this case, which was, 1. His deposing the Lying Wonder under his hand from the credit of the forger. 2. His pretending to desire a reason of its being so long concealed, when he himself knew of it some months before, though they have not judged
his folly, (at least,) in this. But T. H. hath positively called me a knave, a deceitful fellow, &c. 1. For not writing all his explications upon bis doctrines, (which are false,) 2. For rejecting his charge against the Quakers, (of denying the true Christ and the resurrection, &c.) as false and slanderous, seeing we own both according to the scriptures, judge, candid reader, this man's shuffling to cover his envy and malicious railing.
The Baptist's abuse against G. W. about a meeting with them at
Devonshire house, the 18th of the 7th month, 1672, and T. H. taking part with a Socinian pamphlet.
He accuses me of so much « partiality as renders me guilty of very great imperfection," (p. 54.) about a relation of what happened betwixt him and me, at a meeting in Devonshire house, the 18th of the 7th month, 1672.
This is of little value to me, while I and many others know the contrary, and while he neither proyes his accusation, nor gives either a true or impartial narrative thereof himself.
But his chief pretended proof against me, is our saying the Baptists seemed more like beasts than men, several at once making a bawling and hideous noise, &c. Of the truth of this many were eye and ear witnesses; and he cannot clear them herein. But instead thereof, he falsely says, “the Quakers manifested as much rudeness, as the worst of men are want to do to their opposers."
But in this also, he hath very grossly belied the Quakers. And he may know in his own conscience, that he himself was a pattern of incivility towards us ; stirring up his proselytes into rudeness by his passion and ill language, as knave, deceitful fellow, audacious fellow, impudent fellow, &c. whereas he had no such language nor behaviour from me, or my friends.
Besides, there were many of his friends, and but very few of mine bad notice ; because some of the Baptists pretended before to me, that there should be but a few of their friends, and therefore I acquainted but very few of mine ; otherwise, I should have made it more public, if they had but dealt ingenuously by me, which I must say, they did not.
And for him thus to charge the Quakers with manifesting as much rudeness as the worst sort of men; he doth not so much as except common revilers, drunkards, or persecutors; so that his slander is the more gross and notorious.
He says that they called to speak directly to the question, viz. whether this body of Aesh and bones shall arise again? To which Whitehead answered, that this body of flesh and bones, shall not arise again."
Here again he hath wronged my answer; for it was not stated in these words, but in the very words of the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 35, 36, 37, 38, as in the narrative is fully related. For being aware of their carping, cavilling spirit, I kept close to the plain words of scripture in my positive answer.
Howbeit when W. Kittin said : “ That the seed, that is sown, is this same body of thesh and bones which shall arise, though otherwise qualified, viz. more glorious," &c. this being upon my question about the seed, to which God gives a body as it pleaseth bim : " I denied that the terrestrial body, or body of flesh, blood, and bones, as dead and buried, is the seed intended by the apostle, to which God gives a body, as it pleaseth him. And that the very same carnal body, should arise again : I say, it hath not yet been proved to me, nor am I satisfied therein, from any who have obtruded this question and controversy upon me." To which I now add, nor am I resolved by these men. But the question may be further examined hereafter.
Again : after I am accused for leaving out of the narrative the aforesaid answer, viz. about this body of flesh and bones, falsely obtruded upon me, the pretended omission is supposed to be either from a bad conscience, or a defective memory," (p 54.) wherein my own conscience doth clear me, and my innocency concerning the first, and experience of the latter, is better known and judged of in myself than by an envious and false accuser, that neither knows my conscience nor capacity.
And yet after thus doubtfully accusing me, either for an evil conscience or bad memory, he presently saith: “ Hence I conceive it to be more proper for him to be angry with himself, for being deceitful, than for another to tell him that he is so." p. 35. See here what a positive judge he makes himself over my conscience, when before he is so doubtful and wavering in his charge. For suppose any omission through defect of memory; is this sufficient ground to conclude a man deceitful ? Mark the inconsistency of this man's work of envy against me. And I do not only reflect his false and ill language upon him, but also testify against his malice, and his slandering me, (as he doth divers others,) and particularly his outrage against G. F. most maliciously and falsely reproaching bim as “ a blasphemer and deceiver;" and for instance tells us, " he has been publicly detected, as namely, by a book called, The Spirit of the Quakers tried.” p. 55.
Concerning which I would have the reader to take notice, that the book lie here cries up, is a Socinian book, wherein the divinity of Christ is denied ; and that G F. is chiefly opposed for asserting the divinity of Christ, and particularly for confessing that Christ was in being, and in glory with the Father, before the world began. Hence it is observable, this adver
sary of ours makes little conscience whom he takes part with, so that he finds them to be enemies to us.
He now questions “ whether to attain to perfection, be the privilege of any on this side of death." p. 55. When before he hath opposed its being attainable here, and put it off till he be in heaven. p. 50. But now he is uncertain whether perfection be attained by any on this side of death. He should have appeared thus ingenuous at first, and not have positively opposed that which afterwards he questions. But this is according to the tenor of his uncertain and confused work.