For my own part I came thither thinking to have heard some Sober and Rational Arguings unto Edification and Clearing of the Truth , See 1 Tim. 1.5 , 6. & 2 Tim. 2.16 , 17 , 18. Shun prophane and vain Bablings , for they will increase unto more ungodliness , and their Word wil eat as doth a Canker , of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus , who concerning the Truth have Erred , saying , That the Resurrection is past already , and overthrow the Faith of some . but I profess I have oft heard more Reason and less Railing at Billings-gate : Is this think you for your praise , or the Commendation of your Way , to make your selves thus ridiculous ?

I would fain know of thee , if thou art not in some degree sensible of it , ashamed and sorry for it ? Doth thy Conscience tell thee it was like a Christian Meeting , or the Dispute carried on thy part in a Christian-like manner , when thou wast transported with so much passion , and the Discourses so confused and disorderly , thou many times speaking when thy Opponents were speaking ; sometimes thee and George Whitehead , and at other times thee and Mr. Keith speaking together , and then crying out to your Auditors , to Hear , Hear , when they could neither hear you , nor you all understand one the other ?

To what end did you appoint a Meeting , if when you c●me there you resolved not to argue nor answer in plainness ( except in your own Way and Will ) any Question that should be asked you concerning the Hope that was in you , with meekness and fear , according to the Apostles express Injunction ?

1 Pet. 3.15 . But sanctifie the Lord God in your hearts , and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a Reason of the hope that is in you , with meekness and fear [ reverence . ] If thou wast guided by the Spirit of God indeed , as thou pretendest , what needest thou to have shuffled and boggled so at one single Question ? And if thou wast indeed infallible , what needest thou to be afraid ( or evaded ) giving an answer to poor Men that are fallible ? And if thou art indeed a sober Christian , why didst thou not in plainness and singleness ( as your old Phrase sometimes was ) answer directly to the Question , which they cryed so often to thee to answer , and thou promisedst more than once thou wouldst ? Dost thou neither regard others Words , nor thy Own ?

Sir , I do declare to thee , That I was not interessed in the Dispute any otherwise than as an Auditor , and that I do not know whether I ever saw Thomas Hicks before that day , neither did I ever speak to him , nor any from him , and therefore do conceive my self to be the more impartial , having no undue Interest , Reason , or Occasion to make me partial , or byass me more one way than another , for favour or respect of Persons o●●arties ; Yet I must needs in love tell thee , that according to the best of my understanding , Thou and thy Friends did not there deal fairly , candidly , or Christianly in several particulars :

1. In that when T. Hicks had said , that most of the Particulars he would prove , thou took'st the words out of his Mouth before he had made an end of his Sentence , and cryedst out , oh then it seems he owns he cannot prove them all , or words to that effect ; whereas if thou hadst given him leave , as he told thee afterwards , Most of them he would prove from thy Principles , and the rest by Testimonies : and so here by thy haste , to express it in thy own Language , thou madest thy self the Author of a Lye , and deal'st not Christianly ; and therein thou shewedst thy self not only a Fool but Vnjust ; for thou oughtest to have heard the Matter out , before thou hadst passed Sentence : and thus all might see how Solomon's Proverb was true of thee ; He that answereth a Matter [ Hebr. returneth a word ] before he heareth it , it is folly and shame unto him , Prov. 18.13 .

2. In that thou trifledst away so much precious time , and caused your Auditors to lose theirs , to the grand disgust of many , if not most of them , before thou wouldst be brought to agree the Dispute of that Particular which was most important ; which to many was Argument enough that ye were loath and unwilling to come to it ; and thou hadst a shift for that too , saying , Thou wouldst go over the whole Book , &c. as if thou didst not well know , at least guess , That it was not likely then thou shouldst come to it at all that Meeting , and so hadst rather spin out thy Own and Auditors time about frivolous Things and petty Stories , and yet at last didst agree to it . What reason is there that all Men must dispute in thy Method , or according to thy Will ? Were not the Terms mutually agreed on before ? If not , it had been sober Wisdom to have done it , and in default to have condescended to the Judgment of the Auditors . Was it not a shameful thing , that all the sence of so many hours Dispute may be put into less than half a sheet of Paper , and that in a great measure through your Refractoriness or Impertinencies ?

3. In that there was three or four of you that spake , three of you very much by turns , and somtimes more than one of you together at a time ; and when thou sat down , George Whitehead stood up to assist thee , and then Keith , and so round and round again ; and yet if Jer. Ives or another did begin to speak , ye would cry out Hicks , Hicks , Hicks , it is him we will hear ; when as ( if I am not misinformed ) in the conditions of the Disputation , thou or thy Friends agreed Hicks might have two or three Persons of his own chusing , and you the like of your Election : If so , Then wast thou faithful and just to thy Agreement ? Or if not so , wast thou then reasonable in thy self , to oppose thy self with three men besides against one ? Or didst thou intend he might have them with him , but thou to command them silence , or at best not hear them or answer them ; take which way thou wilt , it was not fair : Besides , canst thou indeed judg that the Nature of all Men is of a-like strength , or that T. Hicks's Nature was so strong , as able to hold out speaking and reasoning against three or four ? If so , I think thy Conscience may be as large as a Fryars Sleeve : But it seems with you it is no matter what , how foul or unreasonable soever , so it may but make for the Quakers Victory or Advantage : This I think was not fair dealing .

4. In that when thy Friends have so often disowned and denyed Distinctions , Thou and thy Friends should then answer by Distinction , and say , Our Friends Words are to be understood with this Distinction , of Christ in respect of his Godhead , or Christ in his Excellency , whereas there 's no such Distinction set down by your Friend , or in your Friends Book : And indeed if your Friends Words have not deceived me , you own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ ; and then , How could any such Distinction take place , if it had been there , so as to make your Friend mean ( directly contrary to his own words ) That Christ was seen with Carnal Eyes ? Is not this then one of your Quibbles ? For although thereby you make your Friend's words to be double , with two faces , to say one thing and mean another , Yet your own Principles concerning the Christ , obstructs you absolutely from clearing them , or proving Hicks a Forger in that Particular : Neither can that Distinction serve you , except you will alter your Principle , and hold that there are two Natures , which are both united in One Person , The Christ , which yet I do not understand you are free to do .

Might not Tho. Hicks then rather have said in thy own language , Thou art a Forger , and hast forged this Distinction , and such a silly one as is impossible to hold good , if thy Principle touching The Christ hold true ? Canst thou be ignorant that this was only an Evasion , or no better than a Quibble ? Consider with thy self , and Thou mayest see how easily it is seen through .

5. In that when upon the Real Occasion of this thy Distinction , the Question was askt thee , Whether Christ's Humane Nature was a part of Christ ? Or , Whether the Body that was seen with Carnal ( or Corporeal ) Eyes , and heard with Carnal ( or Corporeal ) Ears was the Christ ? Thou so long refusedst to answer ; when if only innocency had been in thee , plain-heartedness , and Christian simplicity , thou mightest have done it in one word or two ; but instead thereof , I believe thou madest above a thousand , and them to no purpose but to evade an Answer , ( contrary to your former Rule , Let your Yea , be yea , and your Nay , nay ; for whatsoever is more cometh of evil ) ; One while thou wouldst tell us that which was not askt nor desired of thee , That the Body in Scripture was somtimes called Christ , and yet all the endeavours could not bring thee to say ( that I could hear ) that , That Body was Christ ; Here 's another of thy Quibbles : Is it not a pritty one , that thou shouldst tell us , that sometimes the Scripture calls the Body ( or the Humane Nature ) Christ , and yet dost not believe that it is indeed what the Scripture calls it ? The Word Christ is somtimes applied in Scripture , to Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood , that was born of the Virgin Mary , and yet thou wilt not , or darest not own that Body to be Christ , or Christ that Body : Oh horrible Perversion ! Oh fine Quibbler ! Oh strange Christian !

But for all thou wouldst hide thy self by such subtile Expressions , thou art easily discerned by any that will be any thing considerate , and not captivate their understandings ; Another time thou wouldst tell us , That thou believest Christ to be God over all , Blessed for ever , of the Seed of Abraham , &c. But was this direct to the Question ?

1 C●r . 14. ● . So likewise you , exc●pt ye utter by the tongue words significant , or eas●e to be und●●stood , how shall it be k●●wn wh●t is 〈◊〉 ? for ye shall speak into the Air. Then thou wouldst ask them Questions , before thou hadst answered theirs which was first proposed , which me thinks was not fair . Then thou wouldst rise up and promise to give a direct Answer to the Question , and yet gave none that I could hear or understand to be plain ; and so thou didst two or three times , thy Passion , or the Interest of thy Party so far transporting thee , that thou didst not mind thy Word : Then the Auditors themselves requested thee over and over again to Answer . Dost thou think this was like a Christian to run out about a whole hour thus , not only wearying your Auditors , but frustrating their Expectations , and manifesting either your own weakness , folly , or obstinacy and unreasonableness , till many of them were constrained to cry out , Away , away Quakers , or Answer .

Pray Sir deal faithfully and plainly in the thing , Why didst thou not answer it ? Or couldst thou not answer it ? Doubtless thou couldst , if thou hadst not feared giving some advantage thereby to thy Opposites ; was not this the thing ? Or was it because thou wouldst keep any of thy own Friends still in the Dark concerning this ? Or wouldst thou have thy Doctrine in this Particular remain a deep Mystery and unintelligible still ? If so , why didst thou not deal honestly , and tell us so plainly ? Or are you not agreed amongst your selves about this ?

What makes thee go about to use Words so subtilly , that might seem to make us think , thou believest one thing , when indeed thou knowest , that you , or many of your Friends believe quite contrary ?

Is this fair or honest dealing for thee to endeavour to blind our Eyes , or deceive our Understanding , be we either Simple or Learned ?