TYRANNY AND HYPOCRISY Detected: OR, A further Discovery of the Tyrannical-Government, Popish-Principles, and vile Practices of the now-Leading Quakers.

BEING A Defence of the Letter, intituled, The Spirit of the Hat, against the Deceitful, Defective and Railing An­swer, called The Spirit of Alexander, &c.

With a Challenge, To refer the Iudgment of Matters of Fact to the Verdict of Twelve Impartial Iudges, equally chosen.

Also, Many of their Letters, Papers, and Trans­actions among themselves are made publick; wherein they contradict one another, and attri­bute Titles to GEORGE FOX, that are proper only to CHRIST.

But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be made manifest unto all men.

London, Printed for Fr. Smith, at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange, 1673.

Tyranny and Hypocrisie detected.

HOW dangerous a thing it is for a man to ingage himself publickly for any singular party upon the ac­count of Religion, is greatly ma­nifest in the leading Quakers, and especially in W. Pen, from whose Parts and Education one would expect more than ordinary Candor and Ingenuity: but having imbarked himself among those People, (who also by their Tenets are peculiarly disposed to have a high opinion of themselves, and to contemn all others) and having obtained a high repute among them, he betakes himself to such pitiful shifts, scur­rilities and bravings to uphold their detected Cause and tottering Kingdom, as one would think could not proceed from any man professing Christianity. He that would have this evidently proved, let him read his late controversal Writings, especially his Winding-sheet, and Spirit of Alexander.

After the Spirit of the now-Quakers or Foxonians, detected to be none of Christ's, by severall Pieces that have come forth of late; at length the Book in­tituled The Spirit of the Hatt made publick, disco­vers their principles and practices in their government amongst themselves, to be far different from what [Page 4] they profess openly when they invite people to be Quakers: and that they act upon the same princi­ples, and in the same Tyrannical manner (as far as their power reaches) as the Court at Rome: And this not only proved by instances of matters of fact, seen and heard for the most part by the Author himself; but also argued and compared with that principle which was held forth as the foundation of their way, and upon which he (certainly not one of the least ingenious among them) became a Quaker.

What was now to be expected from these men thus detected, may be seen in their Spirit of Alexander the Copper-Smith, or Answer to the Spirit of the Hatt; which I shall in short make some remarks upon.

And first we may observe, that (like contentious women) where the matter is most evident against them, there they make the gratest noise, and are most clamorous and furious; and make the greatest show of confidence and victory: when the design of their owne vain-glory and greatness is manifested not onely by those that have considered them in their publick appearance; but also by some within them­selves that are privy to their Cabals and private trans­actions, then the Divil must needs be hard beset, and his condition desperate; see Spt. of Alex. p. 1. because the foundations of their Kingdom shake, and their subjects discover it, and seek to withdraw themselves from their territories. Who could have made a more apt inference from such premises?

2. That though they call this Author's Relation, Lies, Forgery, Defamation, with abundance of terms of the like Foxonian leaven, yet when they come to particulars, they either, 1. confess what they deny [Page 5] with an idle distinction, (except some few things;) or, 2. Acknowledge them by saying nothing concer­ning them; or 3, use some deceit in their terms of denial, which every Reader cannot discover; or 4. take an occasion from some circumstances, perhaps not rightly set down, to deny the whole matter.

3. That W. P. doth in their names acknowledge that the substance of this Authors complaint is true, (H [...]i [...]es p. 14, 15. in his p. 8.) namely, that they [...] him to yeild [to their determination against [...]ience] because the Body would have it so, say­ [...] [...] [...]hat was yeilding to the Power. And he under­ [...] [...] opposition to the Author, That his not so [...] but persisting, is dissention; but their disown­ing [excommunicating and depriving of a liberty of marrying, burying &c.] any person for that cause, is no breach of the great Gospel Charter of Liberty.

This is that which W. P. labours to do, and for that purpose useth no other Arguments than the Pa­pists in the like case, who are the onely persons that I know of that challenge such a power; for the Prote­stants do not challenge it: the Church of England challenges onely a prudential power of determining some Ceremonies, as of the Surplice, Cross and Knee­ling, to be convenient at this time: but not by ver­tue of an infallible Spirit, or as of Divine Authority; which the Romanists do, and the Quakers. As for the Arguments that this Author urges against this usur­pation, W. P. passes them by, and gives, instead of answers, clamours and railings against him. As for the Arguments that W. P. useth, they being the same with those of the Papists against the Protestants, they may be found answered and refuted every where in Protestant writings.

[Page 6]4. But that which this Author doth chiefly insist on, and which indeed is most proper for him, and the choice and prosecution of it renders him Ingeni­ous, is, That in this Doctrine and Practice of theirs, they manifestly contradict the chief principle and main foundation they at first held forth, whereby they have commended themselves to the world, and have gained to be their Proselytes some honest hearted people, and among the rest this Author. For indeed the Quakers chief principle, namely, That every one ought diligently to take heed to, and walk according to the Light in himself, is of such evident truth in the plain sense of the terms, that there can scarce be found either Christian or Heathen, (that understands what he saith) that can deny it; for it is in substance this, That every man ought diligently to observe and do what God doth by any meanes convince him to be his Duty. Now considering that this was cryed up by the Qua­kers, as the old Truth brought to light by them, 'twas no wonder that their Doctrine was received by some wel-minded people, that were not so happy as to know themselves aforehand to be possessors of this common principle; and there's no question but all of them that do it honestly, do it upon the same ground: But herein lyes the mystery of their iniquity, (which this man has been so ingenious and happy as to discover,) namely, That he who shall receive the forementioned principle as evident in his own heart, shall afterward be induced to believe that whatever the cheif Quakers teach, is as evident, and that this evidence is from the immediate Revelation of God's infallible Spirit within himself. But if it happen that the leading men contradict one another (notwithstanding they pro­fess the infallible Light to be their guide) then he that [Page 7] has the strongest interest among the Elders shall judg the other party, and if he or they do not submit them­selves to this judgment, he shall be condemned in the name of the Lord, and deprived of all both Eccle­siastick and civil priviledges, which they can by any means hinder him of. And besides, if he make any publick complaint, and do not conform to their wills, they will then load him with all possible reproaches, and rather than fail, they'll say he is broken in his brain or distracted, as they did of John Pennyman; so if he be a man, who in respect of his Trade or Calling, doth depend upon them or those they have intrest in, he and his family shall be pitilessly ruined. This is the substance of what this Author has set forth, and which W. P. defends.

5. Now who this Author is I know not, and I do not perceive him concerning himself to make any re­ply to the Quakers railings; perhaps he thinks (as the truth is,) that his vindication is so evident to every one that will but impartially read his Letter, that there's no need of more. For who can otherwise than presume this man capable of giving a just and true ac­count of the Quakers chief principle upon which himself was owned, and receiv'd by them, and con­tinued with them some years? And 2. who can read and not clearly perceive that the practice he found among them doth absolutely subvert that principle? For if every man must upon pain of sin walk accord­ing to the Light in his own particular, then he cannot without sin walk according to the Light in G. Fox,See Cont. Dial. p. 63, 64, 65. or other Men, when that is contrary or diverse from his own.

6. As for my self and other Christians, this Letter [Page 8] serves us most effectually to prove, 1. That these Quakers their crying up the Light within, or the in­fallible rule and guidance of the Holy Spirit in every particular Conscience as the supream Judge, is but a shooing-horn to draw people in, and that when they are brought over to them by that means, then they must be ruled and guided by the judgment of G. Fox and the ruling Elders: So 'tis manifest, They preach that in their Doctrine, which they contradict in their practice. 2. That some Quakers (and it's more than probable that the most of them) believe and practise by tradition and imitation of their Leaders, perswading themselves in the mean time that they are taught by an infallible Light in themselves so to do. 3. That the Body of the Quakers consists of such a sor [...] of impli­cite Beleivers; for when this man and his Compani­ons gave themselves so much liberty as to examine things to find a particular conviction, they could find no such thing; and its easy to perceive by his reason­ing, that he is more able to examine things than one of a thousand of them. So that, 4. Quakerisme properly is not built upon that Principle rightly understood, viz. Every man ought to believe and practise according to the Light in himself; (for in that respect we and all honest men are Quakers,) but upon a false and mistaken notion and sense of it, viz. That what the leading men teach for the Light in eve­ry man, is indeed so. 5. This instance gives a full answer to that common evasion of the Quakers: when we plead that we also walk according to the Light of God in us, they presently reply, that we are of the world, and in the customs and reasonings of it; but if we would come out of the world, and be obedient as they are, we should experience the Truth, as they do: Well! we [Page 9] have here an experienced man (and he's not alone) that has given obedience (as they) to the Light in himself, which because it contradicts the will of G. Fox and the Ruling-Elders, he is disowned by them. Now then, 'tis evident they would not have us to follow the Light in our selves, but the Light in Geo. Fox, &c. and that the Assurance and Infallibility from Experience they talk of, is meerly a strong Confidence in G. Fox and his Companions.

7. But to come to the particulars of the Cause; We are bespatter'd (saith W. Pen, p. 4, 5.) because we abhor, renounce, and rebuke with severity that rude Imagi­nation of the G. F. did not so in the Book, entituled, True honour amongst the Jews, p. 7. And is not this Cap-honour from below, and worshiping the Beast and Dragon? And p. 9. For the bow­ing the Hat is a will-worship. Hat on in publick Prayer, which did we use, we should but be esteemed by you [Professors] the worse.

Answ. Very likely, Sir; But do you order your selves in the Worship of God by the reason of gaining our esteem? Why do you not answer your Friend's Argument drawn from your own Principles? You acknow­ledge a Respect and Reverence due unto Magistrates; but you deny them that of the Hat: why? Because it's low and perishing, and may be trampled on, there's no solidity in it; The Hat-honour, Hat-worship, Hat-humility is an honour below: but men that be in the Law of God, they mind not the Hat; G. F. And will you give that as a reverence to God, which you say is too low for men? Doth G. Fox say in Print to them that keep on their Hat at your Prayers, You give no more reverence unto God than unto a Horse; and yet keep it on before Princes and Governours, to [Page 10] whom he allows at least more reverence than to a Horse? But whence is the obligation of putting off the Hat at Prayer? The Quakers do not pretend the Authority of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 11.4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, dis­honoureth his head; And John Perrot has long ago urged that against them: For if it be unlawful to co­ver the head in Prayer, 'tis so also in Prophesying or Declaring, which notwithstanding they practise: if the one be lawful, the other cannot be unlawful. And why (saith our Author) should it be lawful to have the head covered when a Minister returns high praises to the Lord, and matter of Excommunication to do the same in time of his Prayer? p. 33. We say, There's no Divine Command for it; it becomes an outward token of reverence to God from the custom of the Country that useth it for such toward men. Therefore in the Eastern Countries where they use it not for a reverence to men, neither do they use it to­ward God, but have their heads covered at publick Prayer. G. F. p. 10. The Jews did not put off their Hats when they went into the Synagogues or Temples, &c. P. 11. The Priest was not to uncover his head in the Sanctuary (Lev. 21.10.) which is contrary to the Priests now in the Temples. P. 4. And the Turks count it an odious or hateful practice to put off the Hat: (yet they are to honour.) How come then the Qua­kers, who abhor the Customs of the World, to re­tain this in the Worship of God? Did G. F. in this matter forget himself? or, had he a special Revela­tion for it? A special Revelation without doubt, if it be true that he doth nothing without one; Well! that's enough to justifie him in so doing: But how comes he to require other men to practise it, when they [Page 11] are not convinced of it? O (saith Pen) I utterly re­nounce that, in our Friend's name, as an infamous slan­der: But (saith he) we will be well satisfied with any Members dispractice of an orderly performance, once cheerfully owned. p. 10. Is not this a deep-studyed Man think ye, that could find out such a learned distinction? Nay, but probably he will pretend he writes by Revelation: So then, they do not require Men to practise what they are not convinced of: but they require men not to dispractise what they are not convinced of. I had always thought that two Ne­gatives in English make an Affirmitive; and so, that not to dispractise is the same as to practise: Let the learn­ed world vail to W. Pen! But he means that they require men not to leave off to practise, what they have practised: (what! though they practised without consideration, or conviction? Yes:) That is (saith Pen) most reasonable and orderly, P. 10. If once you become a Quaker, and do, as they do, let the induce­ment be the Opinion you have of G. Fox or what it will, if ever you dissent from them in the least Ceremony, you are an Apostate, and shall be dealt with accordingly; as it seems our Author was.

8. But how will W. Pen's learned distinction serve the case of the Maid? who being required of John Bolton, by vertue of an Order from G. F. to few up the slit in her Waistcoat-skirt behind, answered that she saw no evil in it; and James Claypole thought it sutable to their principle, that she should first see the evil of it in her self, before she judged it, and not (saith he) because we say it: But the poor man (as saith our Author, p. 29.) was fain to acknowledge his error in it, though in private he confest it (to G. Welch, of which 'tis believed John Osgood is not ignorant) to be [Page 12] no error: But I know not how it comes to pass, but J. Claypole is as subtile in distinguishing here as W. Pen himself: The intent of my words (saith he) was, that every one should be left to God's Witness in their Consciences, to condemn what that condemns, and to justifie what that justifies, and not to condemn or justi­fie barely upon the motion or judgment of others. This he asserts: and the Slander he denies is this; That the Tyranny of their Elders is such, as to impose upon the weak and simple that which they cannot believe: And the misapprehension upon which he was called to judgment was, as if (saith he) my words had ex­tended so far, as that nothing was to be accounted an evil, unless the guilty party saw it to be so. The Que­stion is touching a thing not in its own nature evil, the meaning must be this; That the slit in the maid's waistcoat must be accounted an evil, because G. Fox had judg'd it to be so; and the made must few it up, (as many others had done upon the said Order) though she her self saw no evil in it. What now doth this come short of requiring to practise before conviction, or imposing upon the weak what they cannot believe, except they be resolved to believe as the Church be­lievs? Are these men fit to be talked to, that dare affront the world with such deceiful defences as these are? Is this your glorious liberty, ye members of the Quakers Body? That if ye submit not to the Law of G.F. or the ruling-Elders, ye shall be accounted Belialites and in the Spirit of Ranterism, ranting Spi­rits, and to be dealt with accordingly! The best words utter'd from Christ in the dayes of his flesh, (saith G. Keith) and yet recorded in Scripture, cannot reveal the Father: but it seems the words of G. F. or the Elders can reveal the Fathers will, even in things po­sitive, [Page 13] and so are of greater efficacy and authority than Christ's. He that can say any thing, can recon­cile these things with what W. P. sayth in his caveat against Popery, p. 8. who, speaking against the de­terminations of general Councills, as requisite to be in­dispensibly obey'd, inferr's, that so the morall or doctri­nall good or evil of an Act or principle (in and from a mans owne judgment) shall not be obliging; but he must be bound against his owne sense, reason and faith.

9. Now I think the liberty, or rather slavery, the Quakers are in one to another, is manifest; Let us next see what liberty they allow to the world; that is, to Christians who are not of their Body, par­ticularly to Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists; to them G. F. will not allow liberty, because they are not in the Power or Truth: But W. P. never wants a Salvo for George, let him say what he will: He meant it (saith he) not of outward but of inwardly Li­berty: And yet W. P. knew it was spoken to one, (at a meeting at Devonshire-house) who pleaded for Liberty of Conscience about his Hat, which is an outward exercise; But why we should imagin they would give Liberty, whose both Principles and and Practices are against it, I know not; of both which we have in these sheets a fair account. For, 1. They pretend to an infallible Judgment in all mat­ters of Religion, whereby the possibility of being in Truth to Persons differing from them, is quite taken away. 2. They account him a Ranting Spirit, who shall not account that evil, (even in matters of Cere­mony) which they account evil, after due admoni­tion, &c. And is it consistent with any Government in the World to tolerate Ranters? 3. They do fre­quently [Page 14] impute to men those crimes as manifest, that are justly punishable by the Magistrate; such as are, Malicious Acts, Slanders, Injurious Lying, Designs to Mischief, Injustice, a Murdering Mind, Sacri­ledge, Villany, &c. So that if W. Pen's reasoning against the Baptists in his Epistle before Plain Deal­ing, &c. be valid, then the Quakers will certainly persecute; for thus he saith, But this notably shews their spirit, who thus adventure to persecute [viz. by revilings] without power: Let who will believe they would not do it if they had power; for my own part (saith he) I declare my self none of that number. Now I appeal to the sober judgment of all men that are conversant in reading Books, whether they ever met with any writings so full of reviling and il-bread lan­guage upon such slight grounds as those of the Qua­kers. 4. It's so notoriously true what this Author saith, that he hath seen pulling down, haling out, and thrusting forth of their Meetings, and that they went as far as their Power, and consequently wanted not Will, but Power, to punish: Yea, it's so manifest to those that have used their Meetings, that W. P. in appeal­ing to God's holy Witness in all Consciences for their vindication, discovers himself a man greatly to be lamented as either blind or impudent. Let Fran­cis Chadwel tell of the usage he has found amongst them. Have they not added pushing, pinching, kicking, and hard-treading upon feet and toes to those other violences? But W. P. answers, that they ne­ver refused Conscientious Inquirers, and would be informed, if ever they so used any conscientious Inquirer or opposer. Let us name who we will, I dare warrant he'll never allow any of them to have been conscienti­ous. I have seen some Papers of one William King a [Page 15] Quaker, and who upon that account has exposed himself to imprisonment for speaking in the Quakers Meetings. But he complains of the same usage from the Quakers as from their persecutors; that he has been hal'd down out of their Gallery in Grace-church-street with such violence that he has scarce felt the stairs; that he has often felt their cruel hands; that G. Whitehead, being in a great rage and fury at Jer. Clerk's house, gave him a sore pinch in the arm; that they would not suffer him to be a prisoner (tho for the same cause) among them, but procur'd that he should be keept in the common-prison, with a great deal to the same purpose: Now because he doth in some things disagree with their judgment, they deal with him in this manner: Nay, moreover, he saith, G. Whitehead and others came to Henry Pawson and his wife, with whom he lodged, and charg'd them not to entertain him, thereby indeavouring what they could to force him out of the Land. Now perhaps they will say W. King is a mad man; if he be, they ought to show more compassion towards him and not to deal with him in that cruel manner they do; but for my part I see nothing in his Papers, which doth not become a Quaker, and is not sutable to their Principles. There are several other Instances of their using Violence in their Meetings, which may be urg'd as occasion shal serve; And their Paper against John Pennyman when he was in Prison, may show what spirit they are of. Nay, they would not spare that grave ancient Gentlewoman Anne Mudd, who being moved to speak a few words among them, before their Speakers began, Thomas Matthews, who guarded the stairs, pulled her away by violence. These are the People that in former dayes have vex'd [Page 16] and disquieted all sorts of Religious Assemblies with their Messages (as they said) from the Lord, and have clamour'd against those as Persecuters, that could not otherwise obtain their peace than by thrusting or carrying them out; and yet themselves do the same and worse, not only to those of a contrary mind and Judgment, but also to those of the same Mind and Principle, even when they profess (as themselves) to be moved thereto of the Lord. The Jews at Ve­nice permitted the Quakers to speak in their Syna­gogues, but that the Quakers will not allow others. They have professedly denied to permitt any of their Religion to marry a Christian, or one of the world, how honest and pious soever, if not in their way; Witness Oliver Holmes, W. Mucklow and many others: And W. Pen owns it as a peice of, not only just, but necessary punishment to be inflicted upon him that is not a Quaker, or him that is so in all things but the Ceremony of the Hat in Prayer, that if he could not get a wife save among the Quakers, he should never have one: See his p. 10. where he calls such an one's dissent, Imaginations and Whimseys. As for their denying such an one a burial, though they would deny it him alwayes as one of them, but especially their now usurping his property in a burial-place, is (he sayth) a down-right forgery. Kindness! They would not suffer such an one to stinck above ground, but he should be buryed, not among the Catholicks, but as Hereticks in Spain or Italy: But it is so notori­ous and common with them (as they that have been among them report) to deprive such disowned per­sons of their property in the burying-place, that I wonder with what face they can deny it, or what e­vasion they can have for it. Did they not Tho. Fi­sher, [Page 17] and did not J. Bolton deny it to W. Musklow &c. Did they not make void from the Hat-men (as they called them) the Notes they had for the use of the Burying-place presently after the Papers of Orders by the 11 Elders? and did not these men's money pay for it?

11. As for John Osgood's Cabbalistick Harangue, which is pretended to be for the clearing of God's Truth and People, in the matter of his concern, it's so far from that, that it confirms what is said by our Author against the Quakers, but shews that John Osgood is now, by joyning with them and be­coming a Preacher among them, become another man; so that instead of complaining against, (as for­merly) he seeks to cover, the iniquities of his Bre­thren: For whilst he doth in general terms deny all, he doth in particular deny nothing at all. Read p. 30, 31, 32. of the Spirit of the Hat, and he either sayes nothing to those things that are there related, or confesseth to that which he would seem to deny. He says p. 21. the opposition he had, related not to his Mar­riage, as a Marriage, or to hinder his proceed therein: but that the Meeting could not pass it, as their approve­ment, he being not in unity with the Meeting as to that matter aforesaid, viz. of giving testimony against the Spirit of the Hat, which he did already in his pra­ctice disapprove. And what doth our Author say more? and how could this acute man say, the Meet­ing would not hinder his Proceed in his Marriage, when they would not approve of his Marrying, without which Approvement he could not legally proceed? But the Mother of his Bride, Rebekah Trevers, being a great Mother and Governess among them, cryes out then in her own and Daughters concern, that their [Page 18] cruelty was worse than that of the Bishops; and so by her Authority, and J. Osgoods Interest, they proceed to Marriage without Licence; which was so offen­sive to John Bolton, that he publickly disowned Tho. Salthouse (one of their Ministers) for being a Wit­ness to it, and for his Moderation.

12. Let us now proceed to other Instances men­tioned in the Spirit of the Hat, whereby it will evi­dently appear, that the great zeal, labours and suffer­rings of the leading Quakers tend chiefly to their owne ambition, and to the obtaining of a Lordly po­wer & domination over the Persons and Conscience [...] of their Proselytes: and that they use most wicked wayes and means for accomplishing these ends. And that which first offers it self in this service, is that instance of G. Fox menioned p. 28. which the Qua­kers in their Spirit of Alexander &c. say nothing to▪ and therefore we may well conclude it for truth, and that they had nothing to say in excuse of it; for it i [...] a most considerable charge against the Man of thei [...] adoration, whom they can scarce mention without a [...] Epithet of praise, as, of, innocent, good, holy, uprigh [...] Man of God, Prophet indeed, and the like: Tha [...] saying of S. Eccles, cited by our Author, wherein that which is spoken of Jesus, or the True Light Job. 1.10. is applyed to G. F. who is also said to b [...] that true Prophet, whom John said he was not; wh [...] is no other but Christ; This Blasphemous Testimony was complained of by some of the Quakers them­selves, but they could not prevaile that it might b [...] recall'd, for G. Fox had approv'd it both before and after it was printed; but they got S. Eccles to writ [...] an explication of it, which made the matter so muc [...] the worse, that it was thought good to suppress tha [...] [Page 19] And notwithstanding, these complaints from several hands, yet I never could hear that G. Fox reprov'd him for it; but he made him one of his select Disciples to accompany him in his travels for the propagation of his Gospel in America. Where (as is related in the Account of his proceedings read in the Quakers Meet­ting here at London) he sent for at one time an Em­perour and two Kings to come and hear him, and they gave their attendance to the great Prophet G. Fox, at whose name (as was writ formerly by one of their Ministers) even the Heathen tremble. The said S. Eccles at a publick Meeting celebrated him in these words: Blessed be the man that came out of the North: Blessed be the womb that bare him, and the paps that gave him suck: And Josiah Coal an eminent Foxonian Minister writes thus to G. Fox from Barbado's.

Dear G. Fox, who art the Father of many nations, whose life hath reach'd through us thy children, even to the Isles afar off, to the begetting of many again unto a lively hope, for which Generations to come shall call thee Blessed; whose being and ha­bitation is in the power of the Highest, in which thou rules and governes in Righteousness, and thy Kingdom is establish'd in peace, and the increase thereof is without end.

This great Prophet (I say) is charg'd by our Au­thor with opening Letters and altering the Contents, that he took a Letter of John Whiteheads (a most emi­ment Minister among the Quakers) which was writ by him (as he said) in the name of the Lord, and blotted out a line or more, and wrote, or caused to be [Page 20] writ, to a quite contrary sense, to wit, That he did judge those that kept the Hat on, and not those that kept it off, (or words to this effect) whereas John Whitehead did therein justify both those that kept it off or on, &c. This Letter was (as I am informed) sent into Holland to the Quakers there, which comming to the hands of Benj. Furly, he discovered the forgery, and it was sent back again; and being complained of at a private Meeting by John Osgood, William Penington and John Pennyman &c. and John Bolton putting on't to John Whitehead, whether he did not give G. Fox liberty to alter it, said, No, not any liber­ty to alter a substance, which he said that was, and at another time said he was abused therein, &c. Let the world see by this Instance from what Spirit it is these men speak and write in the name of the Lord, when they can so flatly contradict one another! (more of this afterwards.) Let the world see also the Quakers way of answering Books, when they can slip over such a charge as this against their chief Prophet, which containes in it, that which, for the nature and kind of it, is one of the greatest crimes that mortals can be guilty of. 'Tis the same with that of Ananias and Sapphira his wife, (Act. 5.) which the Apostle Peter animadverted upon them by a miraculous in­fliction of Death: for as he and his wife consented to bely the Holy Ghost, (as Erasmus allows, and o­ther learned men sense it) to wit, by pretending an inspiration and motion from the Spirit of God for the doing of that which they had no inspiration for, and knew they had none: So also G. Fox doth in this Letter make John Whitehead with the Holy Spirit to write that in the name of the Lord, which G. F. knew that neither he nor the Spirit did write any [Page 21] such thing, but the contrary. Thus he doth at once belie both John Whitehead and the Holy Spirit of God, and that knowingly. For I do not doubt but the Quakers do frequently write and speak that in the name of the Lord, and as from his infallible Spi­rit, which is false, but they perswade themselves, it is true; but here we have G. F. writing that for the words of the Lord, and the judgment of the infallible Spirit in John Whitehead, which he himself knew to be false. O Prodigious Impudence! He that counter­feits any mans name in a matter of any concernment deserves to be exposed on a Pillory, and to lose his ears: how much greater punishment doth he deserve that counterfeits both the name of God and man, in a matter of religious concern? Neither may they here­after pretend, in their excuse for this omission, that G. Fox, the man chiefly concern'd, was absent; for both John Bolton and Samuel Newton (two Zealots against the Hat-men) were both present at the said private Meeting, and stood in the justification of the alteration, and others that are here present know very well the circumstances of this business; and it's like some of them, as well as G. Whitehead, were privy to the aforesaid forgery, as Sapphira was to that of her husband Ananias. This is the course that G. F. took to make his injunctions be observed as well in Holland as in England.

13. The next instance shal be that of M. Bowman and Eliz. Baily, mentioned p. 33. Now you must know that G. F. and his Peers have, under pretence of good and comly Order, at length injoyned all Qua­kers that will marry, that they first come before the Meeting and refer the matter to them, and acquiesce in their determination, who will be sure not to pass [Page 22] it, if the party desiring Marriage, one or t'other, differ from them in the least Ceremony, as appears in that of J. Osgood, that of W. Mucklow, and in that of Oliver Holms andAn honest plain Couple came be­fore the Mens Meeting, desired to be married. Their Integrity was fully attested: yet, because the Man could not say (after Prayer and Fasting for resolution in the Que­stion) that he thought it an evil to go and be married with the Priests according to the Law, they would not pass it. Others they have re­fused for carrying great Guns in their Ships: and yet John Thomp­son a Quaker, Master of a Ship, owned by G. R. S. N. and other Quakers, not only carried Guns, but fought stoutly, and killed many of the Dutch before his being taken. others, also in this I am about; for it seems Eliz. Baily was a thorow Qua­ker, and M. Bowman differed very little from a Quaker, and had testimony given of him that he was a sober man, and no Hypocrite, but was not yet in the full practice of all their little Ceremonies, for he would sometimes put off his Hat in Salutation. These two came before the Mens Meeting and found so much favour among them that some of the Prea­chers declared positively, as from the Lord, that it was to pass: whereof one Tho. Briggs was transported with such an angry zeal, that he told the opposers, it was of the Lord, and they opposed the mind of the Lord. But the poor man was so far from knowing the mind of the Lord in that matter, that he did not know who the Persons were of whom he spake; others of the Elders opposed it, having on their side the authority of G. Fox's Order; the contest between them was high and long, and in this dissention they parted for that time. To this relation, as set down by our Author, the Answeres say nothing, and so we shall take the truth of it pro confesso, and [Page 23] make some improvement of it.

1st. We may see by this what the infallibility is which these Leading-men so highly glory in: It is onely a daring confidence whereby they assert things to be infallible and in the name of the Lord upon such weak grounds as other men cannot build a strong probability upon.

2dly. That they do even in their Meetings blas­pheme the Name of the Lord, a sin not less than Murder or Adultery, and which was (under the Law) to be punished with no less punishment, even Death: See Deut. 18.20. For whilst they contradict one another in the Name of the Lord, of necessity one of the Parties (what ever the other) doth blas­pheme God's Name.

3dly. That this Contradiction which they ascribe to the Name of the Lord, is a proper effect of their present principle, as understood by them: for whilst they assert that every Quaker is to follow the immediate teaching of the Light in himself as the infallible will of God, and have no way or means by their principle to discern one immediate teaching from another; and are manifestly, by reason of their Education, Passions and Interests, diversly inclined in judging; it is mo­rally impossible but that (especially in lesser matters) they should have contrary strong perswasions, which they must account the Teachings of the Lord, and assert in his name: and by this and other instances we see by experience it is so. And hence,

4thly, We see clearly what our Author asserts, That in the determinations in their Assemblies, when there are any hearty and conscientious dissenters, they apostatize from their principles, and betake themselves to the principles and practices of the Church of [Page 24] Rome, giving the final judgment of their faith and duty to that Party, man, or men among them, which shall have the greatest Interest in their esteem, or by advantage of his witt, confidence, zeal, arrogance, &c. can over-power and subdue the rest. Therefore we see here when the Elders were somewhat equally di­vided, they could not come to any determination; so in Perrot's case and his Party about the Hat, whilst Perrot's party was strong and numerous, and him­self in credit, they permitted them to use their liberty; then in Rich. Hubberthorne's answer to Jo. Parrot's Paper about the Hat, sent by G. Whitehead to I. P. at Isaac Penington's, and which was approved by G.F. &c. were these words, Then no such reasonings had we had, if so be the free Spirit of the Lord had been minded, which is not to be limitted neither to the keep­ing on the Hat, nor off the Hat in time of Prayer. And in the year 1661, there was a Meeting at W. T's House with G. Fox. F. H. G. W. R. H. and J. Perrot about the Hat, they supposing that Jo. Perrot had injoyned the keeping of it on in Prayer, which he denyed, and declared both by words and writing, that he did leave all to the free universal Spirit &c. and made not a Law for any man. So it was concluded upon by them all, that there was to be no imposition on either hand, but every one was to be left free there­in: Of this J. Osgood and many others are witnesses. But when Perrot began to decline and lose his credit, then G. Fox and his Party take the advantage, con­demn his principle and practice, require conformity of all that will be own'd for members of their Body, that is, that will not be excommunicated, & accounted Ranting Spirits, as G. F. J. B. &c. called them. The Papists place Infallibility in the determination of One [Page 25] Pope, or One Council, or One Pope and Council to­gether: But these Quakers place Infallibility in every particular Person, and consequently no other Person or Persons whatsoever have any power to determine against him, for so an equal should have power over an equal, an infallible over an infallible, which is ab­surd: For a Body consists of particular Persons, every of which is no more infallible one than another; and there being many together, adds nothing of infallibi­lity to them, because infallibility is the highest cer­tainty, and doth not admit of degrees. So that a single Person that is infallible is not more or less in­fallible, because many or none are of his mind: And if this particular Person may err, that also, and every one of that Body; consequently there can be no infal­lible decision of any controversy between them, but that which is made by number, interest, force, cun­ning or the like, none of which will any man in his witts say, is any ground of infallibility, except upon the Arguments of theW.P. saith, that God hath given greater judgment to his Church than to the individual members of it, is a true position, and the Church of Rome errs not in that, but in accounting them­selves a true Church. Church of Rome, which quite sub­vert the Quakers principle.

5thly. We see by their assuming to themselves the power of judging in such matters, & by their severity in enforcing those things that tend to their Being and Reputation, as a distinct & eminent Body, even against their primitive principles, that their design is not (as one would have thought at first) to engage people to a diligent observance of the Light in their own Consciences, but to make them acquiesce in those [Page 26] things, as the infallible Law of God, which they shall judge fit for the getting and maintaining of credit and glory in this world. What else can possibly provoke these men thus to oppose the Name of the Lord to the Name of the Lord? Suppose equity and Right on the one side, which made them assert it in the Name of the Lord; there must be some strong lust on the other side, or else they would never have dared to oppose the Name of the Lord, and pretend his name too for so doing: and what could that lust be, but that of dominion, arrogance and glory among men? The deciding of such a matter as this man's marriage upon the point controverted between them, could not I think have any other tendency.

14. I have been the longer upon these two instances because the matter of fact in them is not denyed: now we come to that which is, or rather seems to be denyed, or is deceitfully so. I mean that relation of a Paper sent to Hartford, mentioned p. 18. In answer to which three Quakers of Hartford, namely Henry Stout, Nicholas Lucas, Richard Martin testify that in God's fear they know of no such Paper, so signed, or sent, consequently there could be no such contents or dis­like: And they conclude that five great and manifest lyes meet in those few lines of our Author; 1. that there was such a Letter; 2. that it had that passage in it; 3. that twelve of the great Ones signed it; 4. that it was disliked; and lastly, that he remembers all this. We shall now shew the great disingenuity and deceitfulness of this answer. For

1st, Our Author doth not say that Twelve of the great Ones, &c. but about a dozen (for they were but eleven, as he saith page the 30.) And it's not unlikely, they represented it thus falsly, that they might with less prick of Conscience deny it.

[Page 27]2dly. It doth not follow, There were no such Paper, because these three men do not know of it. For, 1. it was seven years ago, and they might forget that which our Author remembred. 2. I am informed that Martyn did not at that time live at Hartford, and was not then so known in that place as he pretends to be now: and perhaps Lucas nei­ther, however his business abroad might well enough hinder him from seeing and knowing of that which others, that were more at home or in Prison, did both see and know: And the like may be said for Stout.

3dly. Why did not Rich. Thomas also testifie as much as these men? for he both lived at Hartford then, and at London now. And why did they not send to Hartford, and have the testimony of the most part of the known Quakers of that time? But these men must be chosen out, whose testimony be it true or false, doth not at all determine the matter in question.

4thly. That there was such a Paper, that such was the Contents of it; that it was signed by Eleven of the great Ones or Elders, is so far from being 3 great and manifest Lyes, that they are three great and ma­nifest Truths: For the Bookseller will produce it upon any just occasion. Neither is the 4th particular a lye, viz. that it was disliked: For G. Bishope then of Bri­stoll wrote a large Letter in dislike of it, which the Bookseller can also produce: and if those things were so, it's no great marvel if our Author remember them. So that if there was any mistake in his relating this matter; 'twas onely of Hartford for Bristoll; and this the Quakers at London; and particularly Alex. Parker, Geo. Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, &c. whose names are to the Paper, How could they possibly [Page 28] be ignorant of it? yet notwithstanding,What's become of John Osgood's integrity, that he should put his name among such men as these? they have the confidence to a­buse the world with a seeming denial of the whole matter. But yet there's no reason to imagin that the Author was mis­taken, either in that, for the title of the Letter is this: A Testimony from the Brethren, who were met together at London in the third month 1666. to be communica­ted to the faithful Friends and Elders in the Countries, by them to be read in their several meetings, and kept as a Testimony among them. Shall we think now that this Letter thus designed for the Countries and their several Meetings, thus authoriz'd by eleven great El­ders, and sent to Bristol 90 miles from London, shall we think (I say) that it was not sent to Hartford distant 20 miles? Believe it that will! Perhaps in­deed it might meet with opposition from the persons to whose hands it first came (and that there is some cause to believe) and so might not be communicated to the whole People. But perhaps they take occasion from some mistaken word in our Authors relation of the Contents, to vilifie and deny the whole. [And indeed I hear that even H. Stout being rebuk'd for denying, confest the Paper; but said, It was not to that intent as the Author relates] For our Author has told us (p. 22, 23.) and they deny it not, tha [...] to cover the whoredoms of the wanton Ministry &c. and unclean Strumpets, they did judg openly the mistake of a Person, when the actions were true, and in the same house. It seems the Relators did truly inform of the man and actions, but mistook the woman of the house for the servant, and therefore the testimony was [Page 29] made invalid, the criminals go free, and the poor witness condemn'd. O innocent, holy, and harm­less People!

So I could tell you the eminent Quakers name, who to a scrupulous man did seem to justify one of his Brethren in denying to know what he very well knew (when questioned by a Magistrate,) by this; he could not tell, because he would not tell; and he said it was usual for friends so to do: but who would be­lieve it, that even the Body of the Quakers in the Paper called, A Declaration from the People of God cal­led Quakers (relating to the Act against Conventicles) have these words? And as for the word, [disloyal to the King] we have always paid our Taxes, and Assessments, and other dues and duties, more than any people, accord­ing to our abilities; when their Neighbours all over England know there are (at least) some Taxes or Assessments, which they have peremptorily refused; which thing being objected to G. Fox, (who with G. Whitehead (they say) was the Author of that Decla­ration,) he answer'd, We pay Our Taxes &c. inti­mating that the term Our was not to be extended to the Taxes &c. requir'd, but to those paid. O wonder­ful equivocation! But when a honest-harted woman told him, she paid no Taxes &c. he reply'd, Thy salt, and oyl, and vineger in the shop do all pay taxes; or to that purpose. Behold here the Doctrine and practice of this true Prophet whom John said he was not! Behold the Anointed, whose Kingdom is establi­shed in peace! has come up to the Jesuits already, and how far he will excell them, we know not. But let's return to our Author. The substance of that Letter, whereof I have given you the title, is this; These Eleven Brethren and Elders, viz. Rich. Farnsworth, [Page 30] Alex. Parker, George Whitehead, Josiah Coale, John Whitehead, Thomas Loc, Stephen Crisp, Tho. Green, John Moon, Tho. Briggs, James Parks, do by the operation of the Spirit of Truth consider that their Society and Government cannot be kept inviolable a­gainst their covert enemies [by whom they mean the Hat-men] who are not afraid to speak evil of Dig­nityes [G. Fox and his Adherents] and despise Government; they therefore do unanimously and with the Lords presence (as they say) testifie (1) that such as exalt themselves above the Body of good and ancient Friends [G. Fox &c.] ought not to have any dominion, office or rule in the Church of Christ.

2. That such as are not in unity with the Ministry and Body have no Gospel-Authority to be Judges in the Church, and their judgment ought not to be re­garded: that it is abominable pride when any parti­cular will not admit of the judgment of the witness of God in Friends [G. Fox's and their opinion] to take place against him; for he, that is not justified by that, is condemned in himself and harden'd, [a noto­rious Heretick.]

3. They testifie in the name of the Lord, that the Church has power (without the assent of dissenters) to determine Controversies, and that such Persons as will not submit to their judgment consistent with the Doctrine of antient Friends [that is, of G. Fox and his Party] but oppose it as the judgment of man, ought to be rejected, together with those that counte­nance and encourage them. They are joyned in one with Heathens and Infidels.

4. That such disapproved Ministers ought (what e­ver have been their gifts) to leave off ministring till they are reconciled to the Church: and if approved [Page 31] persons degenerate to division, and countenance fa­ction [that is, the Hat-men] the Church has autho­rity to deal with them in the same manner; to which if they submit not, warning ought to be given in Ge­neral-Meetings to beware of them, and to have no fellowship with them.

5. They warn and charge all Friends, that they have no hand in publishing the Books or Writings of such as are not of unity with the Body; —and we farther desire that from time to time faithfull and sound Friends and Brethren [G. Fox and his Party] may have the view of such things as are printed upon Truths account (as formerly it hath used to be) before they go to the Press.

6. They advise that such as are made Overseers of the slock of God by the Holy-Spirit —admit not the weak to that trust; and that none be admitted to order publick business, but those that seek the good of all [that is, submit to the great Body of G. Fox and his party]. They conclude thus: So, dear Friends, believing that you will be one with us —against those who would limit the Lord to speak without Instruments [that is, will obey the Light in them­selves, and not be subject to the dictates of G. Fox and his party] — and reject the counsel of the wise men, and the te­stimony of theFor they perceived many of their hearers, wearied and of­fended with their long preach­ings &c. would have had them to return home to their Im­ployments and Callings; but the proud way of living they had betaken themselves to, they were not willing to leave, and therfore strengthen them­selves in it by severe Injun­ctions. Prophets which gethered you, and would not allow him liberty in and by his Servants to appoint time and place wherein to meet — and call this [Page 32] Formal, and the Meetings of Man, &c.

15. Now let all considering men judg, whether ever such an arrogant, imperious and audacious Pa­per was given out by such a number of Mortals! The Pope hath never (I think) taken so much power to him­self as to determin matters of this nature and in this manner, but in a General Council, and with their concurrence: but herein these men transcend him, and all that ever went before them: That they did owne those men to whom they wrote, to be led and guided, and that they ought in all such matters to be led and guided immediately by the infallible Spirit of God; and they did owne that those against whom they wrote had been led and guided by the same infallible Spirit, and gave at this time no other evidence of their not being now led by it, but only their dissent from these men in the matters mentioned: the cheif whereof in particular was, The not putting off the Hat to their prayers; which things considered, their giving Charges and Laws in the Name of the Lord to the persons aforesaid, is nothing less than arrogating a Spiritual and Divine Power over that which they teach, ought to be heark­ned to as the Infallible and Divine Spirit, and that in those matters which some of themselves have ac­knowledged might be otherwise ordered by the Ho­ly-Spirit of God. As John Whitehead (who is one of them) in the matter of the Hat, in the Paper fore­mentioned; and Geo. Whitehead in that other Paper sent to J. Perrot: And did they not own John Per­rot for a true Friend? and that he was sent of God according to their Principles to preach at Rome? and did they not own his Sufferings there to be for the Truth? and Perrot sayes in his Paper, I have received by express commandment from the Lord God of Heaven [Page 33] in the day of my Captivity in Rome, viz. to bear a sure Testimony against the Custom and Traditions of the taking off of the Hat by men, when they go to pray to God, the which they never had by Commandment from God: To this agrees what G. Fox saith in the Book of True-honour &c. aforementioned, where he calls Worship with the Hat voluntary Humility and not of command by Christ and his Apostles. And must now this Revelation to this eminent Prophet and Sufferer given him in his Captivity be despised and condem­ned for a delusion, because it is not approv'd by George Fox? must the apprehension of Scandal bear sway against such a Revelation, amongst those People, whose practice is full of Scandals, and liked the better by them on the account of distinguishing them from others? Is it not evident enough that the true reason of their not receiving his testimony was, its contradiction to the practice of G. Fox? had it been reveal'd to him first, it had been receiv'd readily; but now it must be rejected. Here we may perceive clearly, what it is that influences these men in the owning or disowning of Divine Revelations: however there's no gainsaying, but that notwith­standing all the advantages that any Ruling Quaker has, he may be grossly deluded, and take that for an infallible Revelation from God, which proceeds indeed from the spirit of deceit. For thus Fox and his party say, Perrot and his party did; and the like might Perrot say of Fox: And Fox or his party cannot give any the least solid ground, whereby to decide the Controversie between them. Therefore we con­clude justly that these men, as Rulers and Prophets, are led by a Self-contradicting, Proud, Blasphe­mous and Tyrannical Spirit. For they equally [Page 34] pretend Revelation, and if there be any advantage in this matter, it is on Perrot's side and not on Fox's; so that if Perrot be condemned, Fox cannot stand. That he doth stand among the greater number of Quakers, proceeds meerly from his Interest, Cunning, &c. And as the whole party of the Hat-men is to be opposed to the whole party of Foxonians; so in particular George Bishop of Bristol is to be opposed to every one of those eleven Ministers; for he was so far from attesting to their Testimony (as every Qua­ker, had it been true, ought to have done) that he contradicted it, and wrote a large Letter in oppo­sition to it; The substance of which is this, viz.

‘Having considered their Paper in the Spirit of Truth, he is moved of the Lord to let them know, 1. That it is much, that they so few, so young, and so very little in comparison of the Body, or those whom they count Elders, should take up­on them to determine in things of so high a na­ture, &c. which if they are to be done, ought to be done by the full consent of those who are in Authority in the Church (if so be there be such an Authority so to determine) and not by a few, and those not at all deputed in the thing. If you say (saith he) you have not determined so as to im­pose upon the Body of Friends, but only given your own judgment in the thing: I answer, you are very positive and plain in the determination.’ [And so repeating their Preface, he collects]—‘which is in the nature of a Civil Commandment.’ [Then he recites their first particular, and sayes]—‘which is as much as an Institution.’ [Then of the se­cond Particular he saith]—‘which is an Inhibiti­on.’ [Of the third Particular he saith]—‘which [Page 35] is Doctrine.’ [Of the fourth he saith]—‘which is Correction.’ [Of the fifth]—‘which is Admoniti­on.’ [Of the sixth]—‘which is Exhortation.’ [Of the Conclusion he saith] —‘this is Instruction.’ Next he saith, ‘The Spirit of the Lord in this day, and in the days of the Apostles bears not the same proportion: then were Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, &c. but in this day the Spirit it self is Pastor, Teacher, Elder, &c. so that if the Spirit move any to declare or speak, that is the Apostle, Teacher, Elder, &c. So that we have not now things in the disposition of Persons, but according to the Po­wer which moves in everyone, so there is not that Hazard, as to Apostacy, as was in that day — so I know no Pastor, Teacher, Elder, &c. but as I find moving in any to any of these things; and that, which would be otherwise than this, leaps into Apostacy, and will seek to bring in dark night a­gaine, and will be secluding the thing to the per­son, and not the person to the thing: and as for my part, if that day should prevaile, or these things which your Paper semes to hold forth and inforce, I have no other expectation, but that the same ex­ercise we shall receive at your hands — as we together received from the hands of those who would have held us in Captivity. 3. The Seed is come in which the Ministry is to end. Now for you, because you Ministred, to think to settle your selves in the place of the Heir, and to inforce your station,—is not to allow that the Seed is come; and whether your Paper doth not so speak, view it over again, and let that which should, judge in the matter. — Friends and Brethren, take heed how you set up your Laws and Constitutions [Page 36] over his dominion — many have attempted it, and have been broken to pieces; and if you do the same, the same will be your portion from the hand of the Lord. In the Power you are safe, but when once you go to outward things to pre­serve your station, and keep you up, as Papers, strivings, &c. you err so much from the Power, and this will work you down also, if you oppose your selves against his Kingdom. Bristol the 3d of the 11 month, 1666.’

Here we have the infallible Spirit of the Quakers in G. Bi hop giving judgment against the eleven El­ders, that they had gone from their Principle into the way of Apostacy, and prophesying their down­fal. And he that knew George Bishop, or has read his writings, will (I think) find reason enough to take his judgment concerning their principles, as soon as any or all of the eleven Elders. So that they have not only offer'd this affront to mankind, viz. That they profess in Principles and Practices necessary to man's happiness, to distinguish themselves from all other men, and for the truth and certainty of those prin­ciples and practices, they bring no evidence, but the inward Testimony of the Light in every man, and yet condemn all men as unfaithful to that Light, (how innocent soever in their own Consciences) that are contrary to them, or agree not with them: which is in effect, to give the lie to every man besides them­selves, and to say, that all the World, except Quakers, are lyers; And the thing is true in respect of primi­tive Christianity, (which they pretend to) that it brought such evidence with it to them, to whom it was fully preach'd, that no considerate man would [Page 37] disbelieve it, but he must be a lyer, and wilfully blind. But these men do not only thus affront all mankind that consent not to them, but also they conclude, even all Quakers, (that agree with them in all their Principles and Practices wherein they differ from others) to be self-condemn'd, if they subject not themselves to their Judgment in so small a matter as is the covering or uncovering the Head when others pray, and things of that kind. For I never heard that any Hat-man kept on his Hat when himself prayed, except Perrot. And so they contradict in the Name of the Lord, that very voice in men, which they have taught them to give heed to as the voice of the Lord. So when J. Pennyman carrying all his Books to a Friend of his near the Exchange, was mov'd to burn some waste papers there in his passage, pouring out some Quakers Books, which (he having a little before born Testi­mony to G. Fox and Whithead's face, against their deceitful Declaration, and another Scurrilous Paper) they were so offended at him for, that G. Whitehead next day in a Letter to J. P. calls this his under­taking to burn their Books [not a word of the Scrip­tures, as is in their printed Paper, to take with the People] a mad and wicked action, to which the Devil instigated and led him. Which Letter he order'd G. L. to get from him; afterward when J. P. com­plain'd of the wrong he had in having the Letter ta­ken away from him surreptitiously; G. Whithead re­ply'd, that he was moved of the Lord to send it, and understanding that it was not receiv'd in the same love in which it was sent, he was also moved of the Lord to send for it again: to which J. Penny­man reply'd, that he had neither opened nor read [Page 38] that Letter nor knew from whom it came, till the said G. L. came and asked him concerning it. Thus we see that G. Whitehead could pretend a motion from the Lord, not only to condemn with detestation what his Friend was mov'd to, but also to send one to get away that which was become another mans proprie­ty, and that upon a false suggestion. Moreover, G. W. said, he would not return it, except the Lord re­quir'd him: What strange Doctrine is this (replied J. P.) that thou wilt not return me that which was stolen from me, except the Lord require thee?

XVI. Moreover, let those that have been careful to compare the judgment of the Ruling Elders with the Truth, (in those things that might by future events be discerned) tel us whether particular persons or the Juncto has been more deceived. God in his Providence did (as has been commonly related) for ends best known to himself, raise up among the Quakers a man (by name Thomas Ebbit) who came out of Huntington-shire to London in great haste to Prophesie the burning of the City, and arrived here a day or two before that dreadful Fire began: This Man (as I am informed) the Elders, who so highly pretend to the discerning of Spirits, took unto them, and examin'd him concerning it, and instead of ap­proving his Prophesie, they did almost perswade the Man that it was a Delusion; and so in a matter that so highly concerned them as well as others, I never could hear that any of them gave credit to him, but were as far from discerning Truth in that Word which came to pass, as any of their Neighbors; and suffered equally with them in that general Ca­lamity. And so this Prophet, who, if they had gi­ven heed to him, might have been a great glory to [Page 39] their party, is the shame and reproach of them all to whom his Tidings came, but especially to the Judging Elders. Supposing now G. F. and his ad­herents to be the old Prophets (as they would be estemed) we see by this instance, they can contra­dict the Word of the Lord in the younger Prophets, as did the old Prophet, 1 Kings 13. But me-thinks the sad fate of that young Prophet, for giving heed to the old one, should sufficiently caution the young Quakers against believing the old ones contrary to the Light in their own particulars.

XVII. Having now seen G. Fox's forgery in the Name of the Lord, and the Elders contradicting the Elders in the same Meeting in the Name of the Lord, and the whole Body of Quakers divided in the Name of the Lord between the Foxonians and the Hat-men; and G. Bishop by the same Spirit opposing the Eleven Ministers; Let us now take a view of Jo. Swinton opposing himself in the Name of the Lord. And whereas he saith (p. 22.) in extenuation of his fault, in writing that Paper which he is charged with in the Spirit of the Hat p. 34. that soon after he was convinc't [to be a Quaker] he was shut up in a close prison, and continued a prisoner for divers years, and being at a distance and much alone — was betrayed to the writing of that Paper mentioned, and when he came to see what he had done by it, he came forth in absolute judgment against that Paper, and the Spirit in which it was writ, and this judgment was not in an hour of Temptation, &c. So he acknowledges the Truth of what our Author has told concerning him, but he deny's the inference, namely that his Recantation was rather in an hour of Temptation.

If it be true (as true it is) that this recanted Paper [Page 40] was wrote in Newgate 1664; then we may justly complain that this man (who has sometimes born a great place and title) comes far short of that ingenui­ty that might be expected from him; for Newgate was far enough from being a close prison, there being very many of the Quakers prisoners with him at the same time; also I find him come to that proficiency in Quakerism in the year 1660, that he undertakes to write a Paper directed To all the Friends to Truth in the Nations: and he begins thus, Dear Friends, I am commanded of the Lord God, &c and in the pro­cess, I speak what in the Infallible I see and know. This (they say) was written from the Gatehouse-Prison: here he tels them, the enemy hath entred, and I say (in the dread & Authority and Power of the Living God) hath leavened many and the Seed hath been and is bur­thened in many particulars, and in one another; The world hath entred, Self hath entred, the high mind hath entred, &c. In the year 1664, I find another Paper of his, written at Franly in Cheshire the 27th of the 6th month: And the Recanted Paper called aTherein he writes thus; For Friends in the Name and Authority of the Living and Eternal God — I have seen the An­ger, and Fury, the Indignation of the Almighty God ready to break forth into a mighty flame, — yea, and the Leaders, many of them not standing clear herein: [speaking of outward things] Is this all? Nay, nay! Israel's wound lies deeper, is more Spiritual and inward, and there­fore the more incurable: Pride, Conceited­ness, High-mindedness, love of Dominion, Selfishness, an Exalted spirit, an Itching mind, to declare words in and above the Seed of the Kingdom, hath deeply entred Israel, yea the Leaders, the Leaders, &c. Lamentati­on, &c. bears date the third of the ninth Month, which was about ten weeks after: Let the Reader judg, whether his being a close Prisoner, [Page 41] and much alone, and at distance, be a righteous ex­cuse: it's observable that in this time of Temptation (as he now calls it) he wrote that which is as likely to have been prophetical as any thing he ever wrote; for in the beginning of the great Sickness, which we know was followed by the Fire, he saith thus: O London, London! thy Tryals are but beginning; These are but the beginnings of the evils that are to overtake thee; Desolation, Desolation shall enter into thy Bo­wels, yea even into thy very bowels! 29th of the month called July, 1665. Afterward in the year 1668. I find a Paper of his dated 26th of the 6th month, directed to the Mens Meeting, wherein he tells of his coming to London the Winter foregoing, and of the constructions put upon his 64th Pa­per, which (saith he) was writ in the express mo­tion of God, and in his manifest leadings out of and be­yond all thoughts and reasonings, &c. and that upon every recourse to God, the searcher of his heart in that matter, he had always renewed justification and accep­tation; Then he gives an account of what passed between him and them at a Meeting with the El­ders, how they judged his Paper in the Name of the Lord, and would have him to aquiesce in their judgment; that being in his own hired House, it rose in him to visit Friends in London again; that the Lord was with him as he passed in Northumber­land, Bishoprick, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex. And he concludes thus: which Pa­per I am again to acquaint you stands justified in every tittle of it, and I am plainly to acquaint you, that I cannot retract it, nor the least syllable of it; God doth justifie me in it, and I should be Rebellious and Treache­rous to my Light and Life, if I should retract it or [Page 42] any syllable of it, or deny the Spirit in which it was writ, &c.

Now after all this he retracts it, and denyes the Spirit in which it was writ; whereupon I would ask him; What greater evidence has he of the Spirit of the Lord in his Retractation, than he had in his As­sertion? However doth he not herein plainly acknow­ledge that the Spirit of Truth and Light, by which he did profess to be led and guided for four or five years together, was the spirit of Error and Darkness? and that the Quakers (notwithstanding their pre­tence to Infallibility) are upon their present princi­ples incident to Blasphemy, and that for a long time together? And whether this kind of Blasphemy be not a deadly sin? or whether a man may live in it a long time and be in the Favour of God all the while? If John Swinton can satisfie himself in his Retractation, let him not be so vain to imagine that he can satisfie others that require a reason of what they hold. It he would take as much pains with him­self now as he pretends to have done heretofore, I am perswaded he might see, that the worldly glory of the Quakers, and consequently of himself, is the great Argument that sways with him in his Recantation, for the Child must not be divided, nor the Seemless Garment rent. How great is the modesty of our Au­thor, that only appeals to the impartial in this case, whether this Recantation was not done rather in an hour of Temptation; and doth not assert it absolute­ly, having such strong Arguments for so doing? But how great the immodesty of W. Pen, to charge that for a Lye, of which himself can have but a con­jectural knowledge. But what wonder? since he seems by his late Pamphlets to have abandon'd him­self, [Page 43] to be G. Fox's and the Quakers Hector. There was a complaint against him of divers Lies, Calum­nies, and other abuses committed by him in his Book intituled, The Spirit of Truth, &c. carried to the Bull and Mouth to be exhibited to the Body of the Quakers, or Mens Meeting, then sitting there, by about half a score Citizens and others; but they were not admitted — G. Whitehead told them, he would shew it to W. Pen, if they would set their hands to it. It seems he that comes to King G. Fox's Court must observe the formalities of that Court, and though this complaint has been long in Stephen Crisp's hands signed according to order, yet no an­swer is return'd, but that he had shew'd it to W. Pen, and W. P. had answer'd it in Print; indeed W. P. in his Winding-sheet, saith, The Anabaptists came to the Bull and Mouth to demand judgment against W. P. about All, for Many, were they not well imploy'd? What Pen! is this the custom of G. Fox's Court to jeer the poor Petitioners? to reject their complaint with Scorn, and belie them to boot? For the complaint consisted of at least sixteen particulars, whereof All for Many was but one. The Truth is, I do not see how W. P. can vindicate himself from the Nature and Dignity of a Knight of the Post, and consequently the Title will be his due. Provided always that it be taken for the proper character of a Knight of the Post, that he is one that frequently and publickly asserts by Oath, that which he either knows to be false, or doth not know to be true: And that G. P's word publickly given, may (according to the Quakers Principle) be taken to have the force (and the falsity in that case to deserve the punish­ment) of an Oath. Besides that his frequent appeals [Page 44] to God and calling him to witness and judge, have the true nature of Oaths, and are so esteem'd by all sober and intelligent men. Wherefore since W. Pen loves not that we should call him bare William, as the Quakers do, but doth almost beg his due title of J. Morse (see Plain dealing, p. 7.) I think it but equal that we call him Mr. P n.

XVIII In the next place let us look upon William Gosnell's Testimony, which in two pages contains so much virulent and opprobious language, that I con­clude it could not proceed from such a Novice-writer as W. G. It looks more like the work of an older proficient in that manner of speaking, and may a­gree better to G. W. than to W. G. and that which further induces me to think so, is, that the man inten­ded by the Spirit of the Hat his name (as I am inform­ed) is not written Gosnel as in the Spirit of Alex. but Gosnold; but whether that be so or no, it's not un­usuall with the Quakers to give as much credit to one another as is the setting their Names to things they know not. Thus William Sparrow desired Wil­liam Trevers and John Pennyman to sign a certificate (of the contents whereof they knew not the truth or falsity) because it was drawn up and approved by G. Fox, Rich. Hubberthorn, &c. which J. P. refus­ing, Sparrow was offended at him; and he received a check from G. Fox, for advising him to caution Friends not to subscribe any thing they were igno­rant of, through the esteem and great confidence they had of his mind to have it so, for (said J. P.) if they think i [...] to be thy mind to have it done, they will do it, tho' they be ignorant of it themselves; to which Reb. Trevers (a great Prophetess among them) agreed, saying moreover, that if she had a motion from [Page 45] the Lord as she believed, yet if he (G. Fox) did not owne it so to be, she should deny it. She further ad­ded, that her Maid should say, Jo. Pennyman was a wise man, and would not subscribe that Paper, else she believed her Master would have done it. This refusall was so much resented by another of their then chief Ministers, that he told J. P. that if he had sub­scribed the said Certificate, he would have stood betwixt God and him in so doing, alleaging that it was their practice in such cases; yea his and their en­mity against J. Pennyman, J. Osgood and others (in these days, being about 11 or 12 years since) that oppos'd the irregularities of the 2d dayes Meeting, was so great, he called them a company of base fel­low's. These things considered, no marvel if W. G. might not give G. W. leave to write what he would, and set his name to't

But 3dly, when I first saw Gosnel's name in the Spirit of Alexander, I expected nothing less than a denyal of what is related to have been said by G. F. (Spirit of the Hat, p. 27.) viz. Friends, al [...]ho I have not told it you, I do now declare it, I have Power to bind and to loose whom I please: but it seems it was true, and how can it be otherwise, that so great a King and Prophet as G. Fox should not have such a Power? However this Gosnel confesses to have spoken unad­visedly, when he reflected upon the zeal of that man of God, though he had said (as I have heard) when he was desired to go to G. F. to be reconciled, &c. I abhor to prostrate my Reputation at the Feet of any Mortal: yet before his last g [...]ng beyond sea, did comply with him, and is now become a Preacher a­mong them.

But let us see what it was that provoked King [Page 46] George's zeal to such a height, which occasion'd W.G. to think he would have struck S. Newton! I under­stand there was of late a Meeting set up by G. F. up­on the Account of the Quakers sufferings, whence as occasion served they had recourse to the Lawyers for their advise to elude the proceedings of their Proce­cutors. At one of these Meetings S. N. produced G. Fox's Book to the Judges and Lawyers against their proceedings, by which he told them they made void the blood of all those that have suffered for con­science sake in those matters; and also disliked their making use of a Quaker as their Solicitor, who was under an ill fame, (see Spirit of Hat p. 42.) but fa­vour'd by G. Fox: these things so transported their chief Prophet, that W. G. thought by his postures and carriage, he would have struck S. N. who more­over produced a Letter from Rob. Duncomb and John Jennocks, relating the Death of one Rich. White, who for following their Solicitors advise in these matters (considering the Doctrine and Practice of G. Fox himself and the Quakers) had upon his death-bed been much wounded in Spirit, and desired R. D. to warn Friends how they went down to Egypt for help, or went from the Light in themselves to follow the advice of men. Had not G. F. the man of God think ye, reason enough to be in a fury at such a bold man as this S. Newton, who durst thus shew him his palpable contradiction to himself, and the sad consequence thereof?

Well, But Gosnel (what ever becomes of himself) will needs have our Author (among many other great wickednesses) to have brought forth a Mon­strous work, to be irreligious and void both of Consci­ence and Spirit: Why so I pray. Why? because [Page 47] in one place he pleads Conscience and Gospel-Liberty, [that is, He will not count himself oblig'd to keep off his Hat by vertue of George's Law, finding no in­ward obligation of conscience so to do:] but in ano­ther place he sayth, He keeps it neither off nor on upon a Religious Account, tho' the Foxonians keep it off upon such an account. This is the monstrous con­tradiction found out by this accurate Distinguisher, who if he cannot find a knot in the Bulrush will be sure to make one. Why doth he not also charge the Apostle Paul with the like contradiction, for bid­ding the Christians, stand fast in the Liberty of Christ, and yet saying that he that regards not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it? see Rom. 14. Gal. 4.1. 1 Cor. 8.9. and some made Conscience of eating, &c. and others eat, asking no question for Conscience sake. Can a man stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, and not upon a Religi­ous account? or cat, or keep a day in assertion of that Liberty, and yet not upon a conscientious ac­count of Christ's Liberty? And yet make no consci­ence of eating or not eating, but use his liberty there­in as others did not who abstained for Conscience-sake? I knew a Religious man who always put off his Gloves when he went to Prayer, and no doubt but he did it out of Conscience, but who of a thousand did so besides himself? And who would have sub­mitted to it, had he imposed that observance? but enough to this impertinent man.

XIX. We come in the last place to consider their vindication of their Ministry from being Vicious and Wanton; and that Strumpets are amongst them. This W. P. doth in the Name of the holy God deny, p. 15. and defies any man on Earth to prove any part of this [Page 48] ungodly charge — to so much as belongs to any one per­son by us (saith he) accounted of it. And John Boulton and Samuel Newton declare in the uprightness of their hearts that they know of no such, nor can acknow­ledge any such to be either of their Ministry or their Body.

A Man would think now that these Men would not dare thus to appeal to God (which is the highest Testimony that Men can give) but that they know their Testimony to be very true, even infallible; and that our Author is a very wicked man in writ­ing such a charge against them. But have patience Reader, and hear what I say on the Authors be­half.

Forasmuch as W. P. exclaims upon us for proof, and promiseth that an hearing shall not be refused, we chalenge them to make choice of six disinterest­ed, judicious, and honest persons, such as we may have no just and reasonable exception against; and we on our part will make choice of the same number, and so qualified, against whom they shall have no just and reasonable exception; to which twelve per­sons so agreed upon, we will referr the Judgment of this matter of Fact, and all other matters of Fact, wherein you have in your late Pamphlets so horrib­ly cryed out of being belyed and slandered, and of the complaint afore-mentioned: and if in the Judgment of these twelve men we shall be found to have said that in detraction from you, of which we cannot give a sufficient reason, we will then give you such satisfaction as these men shall agree upon; Provided that you also ingage your selves to be sub­ject to the like sentence, if the falure be found in you. And lest it should fall our that we may not agree [Page 49] in the choice of such a number of Persons, we are willing in case of difference about them, to refer the Umpirage to the Lord Mayor of London, or any Alderman on the Bench, or any one of Twen­ty Common-Council-men. If you accept these terms, signifie your mind in writing, and leave it with Francis Smith the Bookseller, and you shall find Persons ready to comply with you. If you do not accept them, I hope no considerate man will henceforth ever believe either your word or oath; for so I call your appeals to God, your imprecations and cursings.

But that the Reader may not too much wonder at this strange Confidence on both sides, let him con­sider, that their loud denial doth but seem to con­tradict our Author's charge; for he speaks of the time past, and they of the time present when they wrote; whereby they exclude from being accounted of their Ministry, 1. Those that have been found guilty and are disowned, such as J. C. D. B. W. W. T. T. T. M. and others. 2. Those that have been guilty, but are deceased. 3. Those that are dis­owned by these Persons that write, tho' perhaps they may be owned by other Persons or Meetings in the Country: For I suppose that John Bolton his keeping on his Hat when Tho. Salthouse pray'd in the Meet­ing, (after he had committed the offence of being a Witness at John Osgood's Wedding) was such a dis­owning him that J. Bolton would in presence of God have deny'd him to be of their Ministry; and yet at the same time he was owned by the multitude. 4. I doubt they exclude also those that have sinned and have been judged by G. F. or some few, and have own'd their condemnation, and so have been par­don'd. [Page 50] For I hear there is one W. C. in New-England who was long ago accused here in London, but either denyed the charge, or through favour or otherwise avoided sentence: but now G. Fox writes from New-England that W. C. ownes condemnation. 5. If any error has been found in the evidence, as in the case of Tho. Mur. who under pretence of Physick or Chi­rurgery, made it his common practice to commit Un­cleanness, and was employed by G. Fox to judg Persons and Meetings, &c. (See Spirit of Hat, p. 31.) Here the mistake of the Mistress for the Maid (though the man was guilty) got him rather justification, and the reporters condemnation as abovesaid. Now I sup­pose that in such a case as this, such a Minister will be deny'd by them to be guilty till further evidence appear; and when such evidence that cannot be eva­ded doth appear, then he shall perhaps be judged and disown'd privately, and so not of their Ministry. 6. The scandalous familiarity of the Prophets and Prophetesses, or Mistresses before marriage, must go for nothing, that is, must have no force to prove mat­ter of viciousness in their Ministry: Now this is the case of a great Man among them and his Lady, con­cerning whom M. Y. informs that M. Bt. said she was grieved and burthen'd at her heart, by reason that M. B. her Brother had reprov'd some secresies between those two, fearing lest they should become publick to the World to dishonour Truth.

These things considered, how wary are these men in their challenge? and how do they prevaricate with God and men in their appeal? Allow us the equity you desire, let the Quakers Informations by word or writing be taken as proof upon Oath; and let the solemn Testimony of others have the force of [Page 51] solid Evidence; let those that have declared and prayed amongst you with tokens of Approba­tion, be accounted to have been, or to be of your Ministry, and then let us go to tryal. In the mean time let me tell you, we have seen, and could make publick the information of M. Y. wherein many of your Friends, and four or five of your Mini­stry, were concern'd; and whereby their names would be sufficiently exposed; but it is so full of obsce­nity and abominable prophaneness, that love to the profession of Religion, and charity to the World, and Personal modesty forbid its Publication. And we have seen in Andrew Robeson's Answer to Jasper Bat and John Graves Letter, (to John Swinton) these words; What was it in that Paper chiefly hath given you offence? was it the intimation that many of the Leaders of Israel are so inclin'd, and had a tend ncy to draw back into the flesh-potts of Egypt again? which you call lyes and slanders: if such things be lyes, what meanes these frequent and abominable Whoredoms that some are run into, &c.— and in the close he writes particularly to J. Gr. saying, How contrary is this thy work to the private discourses betwixt thee and me, even now in London not a week before this, — were not thy very words, ALL OUR MINISTERS ARE WRONG, &c. 18th of the 5th Month, 1668. And notwithstanding John Bolton's seeming denyal, &c. yet he hath since acknowledged that he had by him the confession of the two women chiefly concern'd in the said information, whereof our Author has made mention p. 43. We could name several of your body, (notwithstanding your impudent denyal of it) some that have had Meetings frequently at their houses, and others, great sufferers for your cause, that have [Page 52] been detected of whoredom or uncleanness.

T. Rawl. for a long time G. Fox's companion, was at length detected of great wantonness toward the Maids. We may observe here that W. P. saith, an hearing against any of them shall never be refus'd: and that our Author doth wickedly distinguish, when he saith p. 29. If any of the Ministers commit a fault, their Peers or Equals are only to be their Judges, and not the Laity. And yet that is so far true, that those words, or to that effect, were spoken by famous S. Ec­cles upon occasion of W. Mucklow's offering to be at the Hearing of John Whitehead upon an information of wantonness committed by him, concerning which W. M. could say something, but was rejected for the reason aforesaid. And John Harwood (formerly one of their Ministers, and whilst such, found guilty of noto­rious uncleanness) falling our with G. Fox, accus'd him of divers matters; but could not obtain a Hear­ing; and thereupon publish'd his charge in print. And when W. M. accus'd G. Fox to be a respecter of Persons in judgment, tho' divers confess'd the charge was true, yet none had the courage at the Meeting to take his part: but woes and curses were pronounc'd against him by the Grandees, for accusing an Elder. So, when (at an extraordinary Meeting after the great plague) E. Barns, as the Ministers were exalting them­selves, cry'd out while R. Farnsworth was preach­ing, You have whored from the Lord. Farnsworth re­ply'd, Thou art a whore [or the whore]: whereupon M. Stanclift said softly, An unsavory word; Th [...] next second-day Meeting, M. St. being greived i [...] Spirit, complain'd of the carriage of the said Meeting where he expected humiliation rather than exaltation: but they (in stead of hearkening to him) having [Page 53] notice of that word unsavoury, judged him, and [...]ast him out for that, as they said in their Letter of Ex­communication (subscribed by A. Stodart, T. Covency, J. Elson, G. Laytee) he had called the Spirit of Truth an unsavoury Spirit. Thus was this man of known honesty cast out for appearing against the Ministry. But if you would have your Ministry fully vindica­ted as to this matter, provoke Mr. Hicks to give you the particulars of that general sugestion of your vici­ousness, mentioned in the end of his Continuation, &c. and then clear your selves of it if you can.

XX. Thus I have considered the Testimony which they severally give of their own Innocency and the Innocency of their Body, which I know not what People in the world would have had the face to call them by that title except the Foxonians. Now because I have in these Papers sometimes used that denomination to those people, and also called G. Fox by the title of King, tho the reason of these titles is evident enough to him that takes notice of J. Coals Letter, yet lest to the unwary Reader I may be thought to have done this slightly, I will consider his Testimony more fully. 1. The Letter comes from Josiah Coal, a mighty man in their esteem both in his Life and at his Death, for the Narrative of his Life and Death was Printed for his greater Glory. 2. This Letter was approved of, not only by G. Fox himself, but also by his Peers the Elders, among whom no doubt but it was read, and by their concurrence ordered to be Registred among things worthy to be Recorded, and there put in the very first place, tho' it hath not the oldest date, or else why should it be put there at all? It cannot be imagined that such a thing could be done without the [Page 54] Elders their either explicit or implicit concurrence. So then what is attributed to G. Fox by J. C. is ap­proved by George himself, and the select Elders at least.

As for the Contents of this Testimony. 1. He doth expresly ascribe to him a Kingdom,They are the same that are given to King Jesus our Savi­our, and agree to him onely. See Isa. 9.7. Of the encrease of his Government and Peace there shall be no end; upon the Throne of David and upon his Kingdom to order and to esta­blish it with judgment and with justice, from hence forth even for ever. Luk. 1.33. and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end, Isa. 9.6. Everlasting Father, or, the Father of the age to come, as the Septuagint and the old Latin have it. Heb. 2.13. Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Micah 5.4. And he shall stand and seed [or rule] in the strength of the Lord, &c. he shall be great to the ends of the earth. saying to him, THY KING­DOM, &c. and Thou rules and governs: now he that rules and go­verns in his own King­dom must of necessity be an actual King. 2. He describes to us the subjects of this Kingdom; who are nextly Jos. Coal, and the Elders or Peers, whom he calls [us thy children] & remotely those to whom the Life of G. F. hath reached through the Elders to the begetting of them again to a lively hope, and they are said to be MANY, by reason whereof he calls him the Father of many Nations. 3. He tells us what kind of power and authority it is, in which this King rules and governs, and that is, the Power of the Highest; a Spiritual and Divine po­wer, not like that of the Kingdoms of men. 4. We have here the stability of this Kingdom, Thy King­dom is establish'd in peace. 5. The extent of it, The encrease thereof is WITHOUT END: It's a bound­less Kingdom. And 6. The glory of this King is [Page 55] such, that not onely the present Age, but Generations to come shall call him Blessed.

XXI. Henceforth I see not with what face they can blame any man for calling G. Fox King of the Quakers, (and that in the same sense as Jesus (that was dead) is the King of Christians:) and the El­ders among them,By this we see that W. Pen did not speak unadvisedly, when he writes of his Mem­bership in the Quakers-body, that it is an honour more de­sirable than to be a compani­on of Kings. his Children or Princes, in the like spiritual sense; and so Peers of the King­dom: and all the other Quakers that adhere to them, Subjects of his Kingdom: for these denominations are most firmly built upon that Doctrine which themselves approve. And so it's no marvel that they proceed against those among themselves, that will not subject them­selves to his constitutions, as against Rebels and Apo­states. As for others that have not at all submitted to his Government, which they preach up under the terms of the Light, Christ in man, Christ the Light, The Seed, A measure of Christ, The Spirit, The Infallible Guide, &c. They account them disobedient persons, haters of the Light, Such as love darkness rather than Light, Of the World that lies in wicked­ness, Infidels, &c. As Muggleton accounts them un­believers and reprobate persons that do not be­lieve him to be the great Prophet; so do the Qua­kers those that submit not to G. Fox, but under the specious names aforesaid: but they give as much special evidence of their being sent of God one as another. They appeal to the Light in us; and when we condemn them upon most mature consideration, they rail against us as partial Judges; W. Pen doth [Page 56] professedly number all that oppose them among Infidels, or worse, and denyes them the Privi­ledges of Believers; Nay, for ought I see he counts all of us that are married, Rogues, our Wives Whores, and our Children Bastards; for he will not call John Pennymans Wife by his name, but by her Widow's name, consequently she is a Whore, and her Child a Bastard, for all honest Women among us are called by their Husbands names. If he say John Pennyman was not married according to the Law of the Land; that exception will be as strong against himself, who has had a Child by one, to whom he was never so married. Therefore the true reason of his abusing John Pennyman and his Wife must be, be­cause they were not married in the way of the Qua­kers; and the same reason is full as strong against all that are not subjects of G. Fox's Kingdom. Conse­quently he would call all our Wives by their former names, if he durst: And W. P. is not singular in this matter, for other Foxonians have done the like in their Writings: so that it is matter of Judgment, not only of special malice, though perhaps it may be imputed to that cause, that he so describes John Pennyman's Wife her inner apparel, as if he were as intimate with her as he is said to be with Gulielma Mar — But M. Pennyman is better known and reputed for an honest Woman than W. P. is for a Man.

But what occasion did our Author give why W. Pen should fall so foul upon John Pennyman, and especially upon his Wife? A Woman who hath deeply suffered for their sakes, and faithfully served them for many years in whatsoever her hand found to do, (as she saith of her self in her Printed Postscript, [Page 57] (a sad rebuke to W. Pen) the Author doth not men­tion her, nor is there any one passage (that I know of) that relates to her; and that which he doth say of her comes in by head and shoulders. The Qua­ker-Ministers have changed that mean and plain ha­bit in which they came forth at first, into rich and fine clothing, saith the Author: He cries out against our Ministers decent and clean apparel, (as if rich and fine, decent and clean were all one) saith Pen) which is but a better sort of cover for his own rusty Garb. Who ever thought to hear a Quaker blaming a Quaker for his mean Apparel? Then he suggests that against him, which I'm confident is the case of many among them, viz. That the Quakers mean Cloaths made up much of his convincement at first: but then immedi­ately and on the contrary derides John Pennyman and Mary his Wife for her Farrendine Gown and Sattin Bodice. Thus he lays about him like a mad­man; The Author has vext him, and he wrecks his fury upon M. Pennyman: We may see what a kind of Gentleman he is: a true Knight would have spa­red a Woman that gave him no offence, and not have stript her to her Bodice, and exposed her in the open streets with her Name and Crime in her fore­head: but all this is sutable to a Peer of G. Fox's Kingdom.

XXII. But as for J. Pennyman, he is one who for many years has had his Soul vext by seeing and hear­ing the things complained of by our Author, and such like, insomuch that he has often bore Testimony against them; and therefore they conclude him of the same spirit with the Author, which was suffici­ent to entitle him to all the reproach they could cast upon him, which dealing of theirs with their shame­ful [Page 58] covering or denying the matters objected, and bold challenge to make them good, fell out to the ad­vantage of our Authors Letter, for thereupon May 30 1673, J. Pennyman went to the Quakers Meeting in Grace-Church-street, and there openly declares ‘that though he was wholly ignorant of either the writ­ing or printing of the Spirit of the Hat, yet know­ing many of the matters therein inserted to be true, he was willing to give John Osgood (who knew them as well as himself) and others a private meet­ing to manifest the same, and also many other matters of as high concern and of as great wicked­ness, which (saith he) for about these thirteen years my self with several others in those dayes bore a faithful Testimony against:’ The next day W. Pen, J. Osgood, J. Claypool, and W. Brend came to his house and demanded of him to give them a particular charge,They would not grant John Whitehouse a coppy of his charge, which John Boulton and others had drawn up against him. which he soon drew up and sent to W. Pen, containing twenty four particulars, many of which are in­timated in these Papers. (The 23d against George Fox discovers his hypocrisie and dawbing, which we publish not, as W. P. doth any base Insinuation, that may make his adversary obnoxious to the Government) To which W. Pen, according to his wonted modesty, replyes, that they wondred to see so empty an Account, after so great a charge publickly exhibited; that they had agreed among themselves, that before they proceeded to a meeting, be should let them know, if this were all be intended to insist upon, and if the issue of that Tryal should be the decision of the [Page 59] controversy between them, they would not have their charge piece-meal with more to that purpose. To which J. P. returns, that he had done enough at present. Thus these great Champions evade the answering of this fair Challenge. And now, though our Author's name doth not appear, yet we have that which gives more vallidity to his Work, the publick attestation of a credible person personally given: For names to Books have been not sel­dom forged; and who knows whether W. Pen will publickly attest to all those Pamphlets, and things in them, that are printed with his name? If he will, then let him hear what a judicious Country-Gentle­man writes to his Friend upon the reading of The Spirit of Alexander, and the Winding-sheet. W. P's words of J. P. are more scornful, than can be seem any pretender to sobriety: His stomack is neither nice nor squeamish: He can (I see) talk at the rate of a Coffee-house Pamphleteer, and account it a piece of high self-denial to set his name to his jerking answers. This man is more mild than that learned and con­scientious man who upon the reading of his Winding-sheet, gives him in his Letter the title of Buffoon, and much more of that import, which I do not re­member.

VV. P. His treating of J. P. and his Wife in this manner puts me in mind of his calling it a hor­rid lye, that they with the Papists prefer a loose person before a Non-conformist: p. 15. for what are J. P. and his Wife, our Author and the other ingenious Quakers (whom they call Hat-men) any other but Nonconformists? whom yet he treats as Apostates, the worst of men: so that his answer to that charge which he calls a horrid lie, proves it a clear truth, [Page 60] if there were nothing else (as there wants not enough) to bear evidence.

XXIII. Now for conclusion to this very unplea­sent work, (which the benefit I hope many will reap from it, has put me upon) I shall further alledg several testimonyes, both out of G. Fox, VV. Pen himself, and divers other of their approved men, against the honour and reverence of the Hat, which now they impose, upon peril of all sacred and civil privileges that are in their power to deprive their people of.

King G. Fox. True Honour among the Jews.

P. 8. The Honour and Worship with the Hat, and that humility (so called) is voluntary, and voluntary humility, and not of command by Christ and his Apo­stles, &c.

P. 11. For the Hat is an earthly thing, and a thing below; and they that trouble, fine, imprison about it, cannot chuse but mind earthly things, and mind things below, and circumstances, and customs, and fashions of the world, and feigned humility in which there is no substance, which is below the Royal Seed, and the no­bility and dignity of a man, and the honour above, and the Worship of God, and the true humility which goes before true honour that is above.

P. 13. Now is not Christians worse then these—who make such a work and adoe about putting off their Hats, which are for the covering their nakedness? But the true Jews would not put off their Hats in the Synagogue, nor in the Temple, &c.

[Page 61]1653. G. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorus Reply to the Northern Ministers, in a Book called Truths Defence, &c.

P. 22. And when you read them [the Psalms] Hats you keep on, and when you sing them Hats you put off, and here you worship the works of your own hands, &c.

1653. G. Fox in a Book called Several Papers, &c.

P. 5. And when they read the Psalms, they keep on their Hats; and when they sing them, they keep off their Hats; here they worship the work of their own hands: all such practices we deny.

About 1659, G. Fox To the Judges and Lawyers.

P. 10. Now the Hat-Worship, that Honour, that Idol is set up by transgressors, but men that be in the Law of God which is over transgression — they mind not the Hat.

P. 25 Now puting off the Hat is but a custom got up among the Christians since the Apostles in the Apo­stacy, a vain custom set up by traditions, which is a worship of Men and of the Beast, and honour below, and an Idol set up by Transgressors.

P. 27. O what a covering of darkness is got over you! [speaking of the then Ministry, &c.] and of pre­judice and hardness of heart and wickedness, that now in the Ancient of dayes, a Hat makes such work with you?

[Page 62] W. Pen. No Cross no Crown, P. 7, 8.

Sixteen Reasons why Cap-honour and titular re­spects are neither honour nor respects.

Reas. 1. Because— if true honour consists in Hats, Bows, or Titles, then are the most prophane and deboist the most civil, since most expert in those vain Ceremo­mies, which is impossible. Psal. 50.23. Isa. 33.15.

Reas. 2. Because real Honour is a substantial thing manifested by obedience, which therefore cannot stand in invented gestures — which it must necessarily do in case the ceremony of the Hat be an honour or re­spect.

Reas. 4. Because honour properly ascends, not de­scends, yet the Hat is near as frequently off to equals and inferiors, as to superiors.

Reas. 5. If pulling off a Hat, or Title, were to pay honour, who so vile — that could not honour? but this is to make Honour (as superstitious men do Reli­gion) to consist in some external appearances, &c.

Read more in his Book, which for brevity sake I may not transcribe.

J. Naylor, concerning Worship, Printed about 1656. God is a Spirit, and in Spirit is he worshiped, not with Mens hands, not with bodily exercise, farther then by the eternal Spirit the body is exercised: so the imaginations, thinkings, and conceivings are shut out; all mans ways, mans times and forms, mans decency and orders are all shut out, and condemned with the Spirit in which God alone is worshiped.

Now I shall produce the Judgment of eminent men among the Quakers concerning the very contro­versy about the Hat, after it was commenc't among them.

[Page 63] Isaac Pennington. Some Queries in the power and drawings of the Spirit of the Lord, &c.

Quer. 1. Whether this present ministration of life doth not point men to an inward principle there to wait for the Teachings of Gods Spirit within, and not to go forth into reasonings about things (either from Scriptures or otherwise) after the manner of men?

Quer. 2. Whether those whom the Lord made use of to direct to this principle, did then tell us that when we were turned thereto, we must observe what comely or­ders were prescribed by the Apostles in the Churches, and that they prescribed them by the Spirit of God; and that if we were not found in the same comely orders, we were not led by the Spirit of God; or did they not rather tell us, that the Epistles of the Apostles were writ to the then present state of the Churches, and that we were not to take up the same practices unless we were led there­unto by the same Spirit?

Quer. 3.To this 3d Query G. White­head answers—the 5th of the 4th month 1663. This is an unreasonable and impertinent Query, especially as it is to in who are in the Ministry, for we never went about to limit the Spirit of the Lord, in put­ting off or keeping on the Hat in Prayer, &c. Will he now dare to disown and punish men for that practice, which he acknowledges they may be moved to by the Spirit of the Lord? O strange! Is the put­ting off or keeping on the Hat in Prayer a thing of such a nature, for the Spi­rit of the Lord so to be li­mitted about, as that he shall not, &c. — may not the Spirit of the Lord in some of his chosen vessels testify against it? Oh let God alone reign in Isra­el!

Quer. 4. If this be [Page 64] brought in as a comly order, is there not equal ground for bringing in all other things which the Apostles pre­scribed in those days to the Churches, as comly orders also, and so setting up the outward Court again, which the Spirit of the Lord left out in the measuring of his Temple, and withdrew from?

Qu. 5. Is not this the direct way to draw the mind into reasonings about Scriptures, and from a simple waiting on the principle of Life, where the true peace and unity alone is preserved, and so necessarily a beget­ting into separation and division? for it is not at this day different practices that divide, but a departing from the principle, and a propagating of unity by rea­sonings and considerations about things, where it is easy to err and run into uncertainties, and miss of the prin­ciple of life and its leadings, which (if the Lord suf­fer it to prevail) will bring that desolation and re­proach upon Israel, which the enemy otherwise never could.

Thus far Isaac P. who surely is a man as able to give an account of the Quakers principle as W. Pen the Novice in that way. If it be said that Isaac P. is of another mind now; that makes for us and not against us: for if he was for many years before a true Quaker and a great and approv'd Writer for that way of infallibility, and then for some years after profess'd that, as their principle and doctrine, which he afterward recants; doth he not evidently give the lye to himself and doctrine? Can the Spirit of God reach a man for seven years together that he ought to keep off his Hat at Prayer, and then for the next seven years teach him that he may keep it on some­times, and testify against the constant keeping it off, and after that testify against that Testimony? what [Page 65] blasphemy would it be to assert this? And yet this is Isaac P's case. Would to God he, and they that are concerned with him, would seriously consider what firmer grounds he has in such matters to believe him­self infallible at one time more than at another? If it must be resolved by the judgment of the Body, then for ever give over the Doctrine of Infallible Teach­ings in particular persons; and betake your selves to the Church of Rome, whose Characteristick Doctrin that is. But if every particular person is fallible, whereon shall the Infallibility of the Body be ground­ed? but to proceed to some other of these infallible Teachers.

John Crook the 22d of the 12th Mon. 1662. About Meats, and Drinks, Gestures, and Po­stures, Habits, Times, and Places.

DEarly Beloved Friends — Meats are for the belly and the belly for Meats: the head is for the hat, and the hat for the head, but God will destroy and lay all these in the dust. Know your liberty therefore as to these things in the Lord, as thing [...] below the life into which you are called; onely use it not for a Cloak, for envy or discord: for as we read of Cain and Abel, two men performing the same action, attended with the same circumstances of occurrences and formalities, and yet the one accepted and the other rejected; In like manner may two persons be found in contrary actions, postures or gestures, and yet both accepted of God. — For if I should lay a bond upon my self therein, I transgress the liberty of the Spirit, either as to time, constanoy or place: or if another should lay a bond upon me, or put a [Page 66] yoak about the neck of the disciples, this is no more justi­fiable than the former, &c.

We find John Crook and Edward Burrough also (a man great without controul) joyning in a Letter with John Perrot (the Head of the Hat-men) and pro­fessing their unity with him long after he had decla­red himself in the matter of the Hat.

Thus they write: We are here [Newgate prison] kept close prisoners, but the blessed presence of the Lord is with us, and we are all in dear love and perfect uni­ty, and our souls do rejoice in the fellowship with God, and one with another, in his love and life: and the Lord hath knit our hearts together in the happy unity, and the contrary is judged, and life and power reigns over all, Blessed for ever.

  • Edward Burrough.
  • John Crook.
  • John Perrot.

XXIV. In the last place I shall alledge the Testi­mony of Benj. Furly (a man of parts) concerning this controversy of the Hat, as I find it given in a shorter abstract of a large Paper wrote by him in behalf of himself and the Quakers in Holland, Dated from Rotterdam about the year 1663, and addrest to George Whitehead: which tho' it is larger than might fit this Discourse, yet I hope will recompence the Reader by a clearer state of the controversy among them.

[Page 67]It runs thus:

George Whitehead,

THy Paper, &c. I receiv'd, and indeed cannot but admire at thy proceeding therein and dealing with me in that politick manner; but simplicity and innocency had better become thee and the profession of the Ministry of Christ, and will alwayes be found the best Weapons and Armor; but those that have neither Truth nor Right with them in their plea, must needs use such weapons as are most suitable to their evil cause, and by which Truth hath alwaies been opposed, and the professors thereof persecuted: for verily, to my grief, I find thee in this thing walk­ing in the too too plain footsteps of all the false pro­phets that ever got up into a carnal Authority, viz. to cloath the innocent and harmless sheep in the skin of a wolfe, or some other ravenous beast, and then all will be out of love with them at first sight; the sheep will shun and avoid them, and the dogs run upon and tear and worry them. Thus thou hast done whether simply or subtily, the Lord will judge; but thou hast put me on the Garments of opposition, imposition, &c. yea of opposition against such as in the freedom or motion of the Spirit of Life do put off their Hats in Paryer; which thing is far from mee, and that which I shall, as the Lord gives me opportunity and freedom, bear my testimony against in any person whatsoever.— And the Paper which I wrote speaks no such thing as thou wouldest impute to it, it speaks not in the least against any thing which any man is moved to from the Lord, nor a­gainst any man for doing as he is moved; nay, though he should but so think and be mistaken in his thoughts, I would not have him leave it till he sees better. But I do only caution such as do pra­ctise [Page 68] it without any other ground in themselves, as to the thing it self, as to that groundless one of doing it because others do it, and because it hath been our cu­istom and order so many years, &c. — And see­ng such a Paper come forth from G. F. so harshly and perversly judging all about it as being entred into the Ranters principle (though we hate it as much as he can) and calling it a comely order, &c. to be out of which was a token of being out of the Spirit in which the Apostle did worship God. And knowing further that G. F. did as much break one part of that order (so called) in prophesying covered, and others with praying with Caps on their heads, for the Apostle saith every man that prayeth or prophesyeth (and G. F. in his Paper to the Dutchmen addeth, or speak­eth) having any thing upon his head, dishonour­eth his head. I say, knowing and seeing this, I could not but lay these things before Friends, that they might not be deceived, by the example or au­thority of any man. — But if any list to be con­tentious about it, and tells it is a comely order, and I must put off my Hat, or by him be judged to be out of the Spirit of God, &c. I shall rather chuse to undergo his false judgment then defile my consci­ence by any piece of will-worship which the Lord requires not of me—and tell him or them that the Church of God hath no such custom as to contend or impose in such maters, but hath in this taught us, and that truly, that every member is to be guided by the measure of Life—in which alone the true unity and good order is.

And I am fully perswaded of this, that if ever any separation be, it will be through thy and some others Lording, rigid driving Spirits, — yet I cannot [Page 69] but caution thee and all Friends, to keep to the motion of the Spirit of God in all things, and to act nothing by custom, upon the account of being his People or the true Church, &c. For who or what made us to differ? and if we go without that, wherein do we again differ from others? and he can soon call them his people, and make them a people that are no people.

For it is not lawful for any man, or company of men, because he or they are in the Spirit of God, and of the true Church, to do, or agree to do what they please, nor to make, appoint, prescribe rules and orders for themselves and all other the members of the same body, how or in what manner they shall worship God, and then walk in those rules, whether the Lord leads them into them or no:— But if he or they shall go and do that which the Spirit and Life doth not re­quire of him, it shall be said unto him or them, who hath required this thing at your hands: And therefore very unreasonable & contrary to the known grounds and principles of truth is thy Query to us,—viz. Wherefore we do not go into the world and shew our testi­mony and sign against them in their Steeple-Houses. For we can as little go into any of the Steeple-Houses to be a sign against them, as we can be conformable to any practice which some Friends may use — unless it be required of us. No manner of worship being true or performed aright further then it is performed in the guidings, leadings and motions of the Spirit both as to matter, manner, form and order.

And for thy saying, what do I know but the Lord may require the putting off the Ha [...] now as he did Mo­ses to put off his shoe? I say, I limit not the Lord, nor diswade any from obeying him, nor yet to leave this thing, that do but think it is required of them, but [Page 70] what is this to them that know the Lord doth not re­quire it of them? And tho' thou shouldest this day feel the Lord certainly leading thee to it, what's that to thee to morrow, unless thou hast the same motion then also? yea if a man should have found the Lord leading him ninety and nine times to a thing, if he should do it once more in his own will, that once will be found to be will-worship and voluntary hu­mility, &c. — for he is as much an Idolator that goes before the power, as he that draws back or stayes behind is disobedient. Therefore beware what thou dost thy self, and how thou leadest others to act blindly without their owne guide. Thou sayest I accuse G. F. for being of another mind than he was six or seven years ago; but thou dost abuse me in so saying: for I neither say nor can believe that he is really of another mind, but that he is to this day, and thou also of the mind (tho' ye unrighteously detain or conceal the Truth) that it is neither sin against nor dishonour to God for a man publickly to Pray with his Hat on, which both his and thy practice so long since (and still in prophesying so) doth evidently shew. But when a man gives himself to partiality, to justify an unrighteous & condemn a righteous thing, what confusion is he not subject to utter, and what pi­tiful stuff wil he not bring forth, as is this thy fond ar­gument, viz. that the outward head must be uncover'd, because all things are naked and bare before the Lord; and thy silly (or worse) comparing the Elders casting down their Crowns before the Throne of God to worship, with mens doffing their Hats to Pray; but surely thou art not so weak as thou seemest, nor dost in thy con­science believe, that they did then doff their Hats, nor yet that those Crowns were any visible Materi­alls: [Page 71] and yet very frivolously sayst, this was no Romish Tradition. O George! why doest thou thus dally in these matters? may not doffing the Hat as a peece of reverence and worship of God, be a Romish Traditi­on, though that was none? May not a man doff his Hat to Pray, and yet keep his Crown and not cast it down before the throne of God? and may he not wear his Hat in Prayer, and yet cast down his Crown as the Elders did? &c. I fear this strife is more for Mastery and the Crown than for the thing it self; and in Christ and his Worship no bodily service of any member availeth any thing, but a new creature; nei­ther any covering is to be heeded, but that of the new man.

But if thou judgest us in this thing as weak chil­dren, bear with us as such, and abuse us not, neither insult over us, as being gotten up above us into the state of Christ who never fell, and beyond the state of Adam before he fell; and withal beware of thinking so of thy self, — for this work of thine apparently comes from self, and exalted above judgment, which God will bring down.

Thy true Friend Benjamin Furly.

Now I heartily beg it of the Quakers that they would seri­ously lay it to heart, How they can be assured of any motion or immediate revelation from God, concerning any matter of be­lief or practice, (not determinable without such revelation,) so as to judge another person thereabout? Since they find such palpable and acknowledg'd contradictions in those things, both to one another and to themselves, in the very chief men of their party. And I am perswaded that all that know them will acknowledg that the Hat-men, and those that con­sented with them, were far more considerable for abilities and endowments of every kind, than any the like number of Foxo­nians. For my part I wonder much what account those that are fallen from their Principles among these, can give of their [Page 72] so doing either to God or men. Indeed it's matter of won­der that any conscientious and sober man or woman should yet adhere to a Body of People, whose Leaders are detected of such gross Contradictions and Enormities as these we have been treating of.


Here follows a Copy of George Fox's ORDER touching the Slit in the Waistcoat, &c. mentioned pag. 11.

ALL Friends every where on your Signs set not up the image and likeness of any Creature in Heaven or in Earth, but by the power of the Lord keep down all the makers of such things; for the ground of them is from the Heathen: But set up a Bed-staff, Fire-shovel, Saw, Fork, Compasses, Andirons, Harrow, Plow, or any such thing. And all Friends every where admonish one another, young and old, that ye do not run after the Worlds fashions, which are in­vented and set up by the vain and light mind; which if you do, How can ye judge the World for such things? Away with your Skimmingdish-Hats, and your unnecessary Buttons on your Cloaks and Coats, and on the tops of your shoulders behind, and on your sleeves: Away with your long Slit-Peaks behind on the skirts of your Waistcoats, and short Sleeves, punishing your shoulders so as you cannot have the use of your arms. Away with your short black Aprons, and some having none; Away with your Vizzards, whereby you are not distinguished from bad Women, and your bare-Necks, and your great needless flying Scarfs like Colours on your backs. And so set not up nor put on that which you did once with the Light condemn; but in all things be plain, that you may adorn the truth of the Gospel of Christ and judge the World, and keep in that which is comly and decent.

George Fox.

Published with the consent of divers credible Persons, who will be ready upon any just occasion to give in their Testi­monies concerning the matters of Fact herein contained, and at the instance of many,

By Francis Smith.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.